&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Child-Specific
Exposure Factors
Handbook (External
Review Draft)
September 2006
External Review Draft
EPA/600/R/06/096A
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document is a draft edition that has not been fully reviewed by EPA. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2 PURPOSE 1-4
1.3 INTENDED AUDIENCE 1-5
1.4 SELECTION OF STUDIES FOR THE HANDBOOK 1-5
1.5 APPROACH USED TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPOSURE
FACTORS 1-8
1.6 CHARACTERIZING VARIABILITY 1-11
1.7 USING THE HANDBOOK IN AN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 1-12
1.8 THE USE OF AGE GROUPINGS WHEN ASSESSING EXPOSURE 1-14
1.9 CONSIDERING LIFESTAGE WHEN CALCULATING EXPOSURE AND RISK
1-16
1.10 GENERAL EQUATIONS FOR CALCULATING DOSE 1-17
1.11 CUMULATIVE RISK 1-22
1.12 RESEARCHNEEDS 1-22
1.13 ORGANIZATION 1-23
1.14 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1 1-25
2. BREAST MILK INTAKE 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.2 STUDIES ON BREAST MILK INTAKE 2-2
2.2.1 Pao et al., 1980 2-2
2.2.2 Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983 2-2
2.2.3. Butte et al., 1984 2-3
2.2.4. Neville et al., 1988 2-4
2.2.5. Dewey et al., 1991a, b 2-4
2.3 STUDIES ON LIPID CONTENT AND FAT INTAKE FROM BREAST MILK
2-5
2.4 OTHER FACTORS 2-7
2.4.1. Population of Nursing Infants 2-7
2.4.2. Intake Rates Based on Nutritional Status 2-8
2.5 RECOMMENDATIONS 2-9
2.5.1 Breast Milk Intake 2-9
2.5.2 Lipid Content and Lipid Intake 2-10
2.6 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 2-11
3. FOOD INTAKE 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.2 INTAKE RATE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR VARIOUS FOOD TYPES 3-4
3.2.1 USDA, 1999 3-4
3.2.2 U.S. EPA, 2003 3-6
ii
-------
3.3 FISH INTAKE RATES 3-9
3.3.1 General Population Studies 3-9
3.3.1.1. U.S. EPA, 2002 3-9
3.3.1.2. Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 3-10
3.3.2 Freshwater Recreational Study 3-11
3.3.3 Native American Subsistence Studies 3-13
3.3.3.1 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), 1994
3-13
3.3.3.2. Toy et al., 1996 3-15
3.3.3.3. The Suquamish Tribe, 2000 3-16
3.3.4 Multi-State Study 3-17
3.4 FAT INTAKE 3-18
3.4.1. Bogalusa Heart Study 3-18
3.4.2. U.S. EPA 2006 3-19
3.5 TOTAL DIETARY INTAKE AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO DIETARY INTAKE
3-19
3.6 INTAKE OF HOME-PRODUCED FOODS 3-22
3.7 SERVING SIZE STUDY BASED ON THE USDA NFCS 3-27
3.8 CONVERSION BETWEEN "AS CONSUMED" AND DRY WEIGHT INTAKE
RATES 3-28
3.9 FAT CONTENT OF MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTS 3-29
3.10 RECOMMENDATIONS 3-30
3.11 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3 3-32
APPENDIX 3 A Calculations Used in the 1994-96 CSFII Analysis to Correct for Mixtures
APPENDIX 3B Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA
CSFII Data
APPENDIX 3C Sample Calculation of Mean Daily Fat Intake Based On CDC (1994) Data
APPENDIX 3D Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA
NFCS Data
APPENDIX 3E Statistical Notes
4. DRINKING WATER INGESTION 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1
4.2 DRINKING WATER INGESTION STUDIES 4-2
4.2.1 U.S. EPA, 2004 4-2
4.2.2. EPA Analysis of CSFII (USDA, 1998) 4-3
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 4-4
4.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 4-6
5. SOIL INGESTION AND PICA 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1
5.2 SOIL INTAKE STUDIES 5-3
5.2.1 Key Studies of Primary Analysis 5-3
iii
-------
5.2.1.1 Davis etal., 1990 5-3
5.2.1.2 Calabrese era/., 1997a 5-5
5.2.1.3 Davis andMirick, 2006 5-7
5.2.2 Relevant Studies of Primary Analysis 5-8
5.2.2.1 Binder etal., 1986 5-8
5.2.2.2 Clausing etal., 1987 5-10
5.2.2.3 Calabrese et al., 1989 5-11
5.2.2.4 VanWijnenera/., 1990 5-13
5.2.2.5 Calabrese etal., 1996 5-14
5.2.2.6 Calabrese etal., 1999 5-15
5.2.2.7 Stanek and Calabrese, 2000 5-15
5.2.2.8 Stanek etal., 2001b 5-15
5.2.3 Key Studies of Secondary Analysis 5-16
5.2.3.1 Stanek and Calabrese, 1995a 5-16
5.2.3.2 Stanek and Calabrese, 1995b 5-18
5.2.4 Relevant Studies of Secondary Analysis 5-19
5.2.4.1 Thompson and Burmaster, 1991 5-19
5.2.4.2 Calabrese and Stanek, 1992a 5-20
5.2.4.3 Sedman and Mahmood , 1994 5-21
5.2.4.4 Calabrese and Stanek, 1995 5-22
5.2.4.5 Stanek etal., 2001a 5-23
5.2.4.6 Zartarian etal, 2005 5-24
5.3 PICA 5-25
5.3.1 Prevalence 5-25
5.3.1.1 General Pica 5-25
5.3.1.2 Soil Pica 5-25
5.3.2 Soil Pica Among Children 5-26
5.3.2.1 Calabrese etal, 1991 5-26
5.3.2.2 Calabrese and Stanek, 1992b 5-27
5.3.2.3 Calabrese and Stanek, 1993 5-27
5.3.2.4 Zartarian etal, 2005 5-29
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 5-29
5.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 5-33
6. OTHER NON-DIETARY INGESTION FACTORS 6-1
6.1 INTRODUCTION 6-1
6.2 STUDIES RELATED TO NON-DIETARY INGESTION 6-2
6.2.1 Davis, 1995 6-2
6.2.2 Groot et al., 1998 6-5
6.2.3 Reed et al., 1999 6-6
6.2.4 Zartarian et al., 1997 and 1998 6-7
6.2.5 Stanek et al., 1998 6-8
6.2.6 Freeman et al., 2001 6-10
6.2.7 Juberg et al., 2001 6-11
iv
-------
6.2.8 Greene, 2002 6-12
6.2.9 Tulve et al., 2002 6-13
6.2.10 Smith andNorris, 2003 6-14
6.2.11 AuYeung et al., 2004 6-15
6.2.12 Black et al., 2005 6-16
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 6-17
6.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 6-19
7. INHALATION ROUTE 7-1
7.1 INTRODUCTION 7-1
7.2 INHALATION RATE STUDIES 7-1
7.2.1 Linn et al., 1992 7-1
7.2.2 Spier et al., 1992 7-2
7.2.3 Adams, 1993 7-4
7.2.4 Layton, 1993 7-5
7.2.5 Rusconi et al., 1994 7-7
7.2.6 Lordo et al., 2006 7-9
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 7-11
7.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 7-12
APPENDIX 7A: VENTILATION DATA 7-38
8. DERMAL ROUTE 8-1
8.1 INTRODUCTION 8-1
8.2 SURFACE AREA 8-2
8.2.1. Background 8-2
8.2.2. Measurement Techniques 8-2
8.2.3. Body Surface Area Studies 8-3
8.2.3.1. Costeff, 1966 8-3
8.2.3.2. U.S. EPA, 1985 8-4
8.2.3.3. Phillips et al., 1993 8-5
8.2.3.4. Wong et al. (2000) 8-6
8.2.3.5. U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES III Data 8-6
8.2.4. Application of Body Surface Area Data 8-7
8.3 ADHERENCE OF SOLIDS TO SKIN 8-8
8.3.1. Background 8-8
8.3.2. Adherence of Solids to Skin Studies 8-8
8.3.2.1. Kissel etal., 1996a 8-8
8.3.2.2. Kissel et al., 1996b 8-8
8.3.2.3. Holmes et al., 1999 8-9
8.3.2.4. Kissel et al., 1998 8-10
8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 8-12
8.4.1. Body Surface Area 8-12
8.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8 8-15
-------
APPENDIX 8A - Formulas for Total Body Surface Area 8A-1
9. ACTIVITY FACTORS 9-1
9.1 INTRODUCTION 9-1
9.2 ACTIVITY PATTERNS 9-1
9.2.1 Timmer et al., 1985 9-2
9.2.2 Robinson and Thomas, 1991 9-3
9.2.3 Wiley et al., 1991 9-4
9.2.4 U.S. EPA, 1992 and U.S. EPA, 2004 9-5
9.2.5 Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 9-5
9.2.6 Funk et al., 1998 9-9
9.2.7 Hubal et al., 2000 9-10
9.2.8 Wong et al., 2000 9-11
9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 9-13
9-13
10. CONSUMER PRODUCTS 10-1
10.1 BACKGROUND 10-1
10.2 CONSUMER PRODUCTS USE STUDIES 10-1
10.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 10-2
10.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10 10-3
11. BODY WEIGHT STUDIES 11-1
11.1 INTRODUCTION 11-1
11.2 BODY WEIGHT STUDIES 11-1
11.2.1 Hamilletal., 1979 11-1
11.2.2. National Center for Health Statistics, 1987 11-1
11.2.3. Burmaster and Crouch, 1997 11-2
11.2.4 U.S. EPA, 2000 11-3
11.2.5 Ogden et al., 2004 11-3
11.2.6 EPA Analysis of NHANES III Data 11-4
11.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 11-5
11.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 11 11-5
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Considerations Used to Rate Confidence in Recommended Values 1-21
Table 1-2. Summary of Exposure Factor References and Confidence Ratings 1-29
Table 1-3. Characterization of Variability in Exposure Factors 1-30
Table 1-4. Integrating EPA's Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing
Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants with EPA's Supplemental
Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens For
Those Contaminants Which Act Via a Mutagenic Mode of Action 1-31
Table 2-1. Daily Intakes of Breast Milk 2-12
Table 2-2. Breast Milk 2-12
Table 2-3. Breast Milk Intake among Exclusively Breast-fed Infants During the First 4 Months
of Life 2-13
Table 2-4. Breast Milk Intake During a 24-hour Period 2-14
Table 2-5. Breast Milk Intake Estimated by the DARLING Study 2-15
Table 2-6. Lipid Content of Human Milk and Estimated Lipid Intake among Exclusively Breast-
fed Infants 2-15
Table 2-7. 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 2-16
Table 2-8. Confidence in Breast Milk Intake Recommendations 2-17
Table 2-9. Breast Milk Intake Rates Derived from Key Studies 2-18
Table 2-10. Lipid Intake Rates Derived from Key Studies 2-19
Table 2-11. Summary of Recommended Breast Milk And Lipid Intake Rates 2-20
Table 3-1. Grain Products: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita .... 3-35
Table 3-2. Grain Products: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age 3-36
Table 3-3. Vegetables: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita 3-37
Table 3-4. Vegetables: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age 3-38
Table 3-5. Fruits: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age 3-39
Table 3-6. Fruits: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age 3-40
Table 3-7. Milk and Milk Products: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita
3-41
Table 3-8. Milk and Milk Products: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age . . 3-42
Table 3-9. Meat, Poultry, and Fish: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age 3-43
Table 3-10. Meat, Poultry, and Fish: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age . 3-44
Table 3-11. Eggs, Legumes, Nuts and Seeds, Fats and Oils, Sugars and Sweets: Mean Quantities
consumed daily by sex and age 3-45
Table 3-12. Eggs, Legumes, Nuts and Seeds, Fats and Oils, Sugars and Sweets: Percentage of
individuals consuming, by sex and age 3-46
Table 3-13. Beverages: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age 3-47
Table 3-14. Beverages: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age 3-48
Table 3-15. Unweighted Number of Observations, 1994/96 CSFII Analysis 3-49
Table 3-16. Per Capita Intake of the Major Food Groups (g/kg-day as consumed) 3-50
vii
-------
Table 3-17. Per Capita Intake of Individual Foods (g/kg-day as consumed) 3-52
Table 3-18. Per Capita Intake of USD A Categories of Vegetables and Fruits (g/kg-day as
consumed) 3-56
Table 3-19. Per Capita Intake of Exposed/Protected Fruit and Vegetable Categories (g/kg-day as
consumed) 3-58
Table 3-20. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake by Age and Gender -
As Consumed 3-60
Table 3-21. Consumers Only Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake by Age and
Gender - As Consumed 3-61
Table 3-22. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake by Age and Gender -
Uncooked Fish Weight 3-62
Table 3-23. Consumers Only Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake by Age and
Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight 3-63
Table 3-24. Number of Respondents Reporting Consumption of a Specified Number of Servings
of Seafood in 1 Month and Source of Seafood Eaten 3-64
Table 3-25. Mean Fish Intake Among Individuals Who Eat Fish and Reside in Households With
Recreational Fish Consumption 3-65
Table 3-26. Fish Consumption Rates among Native American Children (age 5 years and under)
3-66
Table 3-27. Mean, 50th, and 90th Percentiles of Consumption Rates for Native American
Children Age Birth to Five Years (g/kg/day) 3-67
Table 3-28. Native American Children's Consumption Rate (g/kg/day): Individual Finfish and
Shellfish and Fish Groups 3-68
Table 3-29. Native American Children's Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) for Consumers Only:
Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups 3-69
Table 3-30. Mean Fish Consumption, per capita, g/day and g/kg/day As Consumed, in Four
States 3-70
Table 3-31. Mean Fish Consumption, Consumers Only, g/day and g/kg/day As Consumed, in
Four States 3-71
Table 3-32. Mean Fish Consumption, Consumers Only, g/day and g/kg/day As Consumed, by
Caught or Bought Status 3-72
Table 3-33. Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Heart Study, 1973-
1982 (g/day) 3-73
Table 3-34. Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Heart Study, 1973-
1982 (g/kg/day) 3-74
Table 3-35. Mean Total Daily Dietary Fat Intake (g/day) Grouped by Age and Gender .... 3-75
Table 3-36. Total Fat Intake for the Whole Population and for the Top 10% of Animal Fat Consumers
by Consumers Only (g/kg-day) 3-76
Table 3-37. Per Capita Total Dietary Intake 3-77
Table 3-38. Per Capita Intake of Major Food Groups (g/day, as consumed) 3-78
Table 3-39. Per Capita Intake of Major Food Groups (g/kg/day, as consumed) 3-82
Table 3-40. 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 IntaBeSS
Vlll
-------
Table 3-41. 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 IntaBeSS
Table 3-42. 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 3-91
Table 3-43. 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 IntakS-94
Table 3-44. 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 3-97
Table 3-45. 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 Int&kldDO
Table 3-46. Weighted and Unweighted Number of Observations (Individuals) for NFCS Data
Used in Analysis ofFood Intake 3-103
Table 3-47. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Foods (g/kg-day)a - All Regions Combined
3-104
Table 3-48. Percent Weight Losses from Food Preparation 3-105
Table 3-49. Quantity (as consumed) of Food Groups Consumed Per Eating Occasion and the
Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods Over a Three-Day Period in a 1977-1978
Survey 3-106
Table 3-50. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Food Groups Expressed as Percentages of
Edible Portions 3-108
Table 3-51. Percent Moisture Content for Selected Fish Species3 3-113
Table 3-52. Percentage Lipid Content (Expressed as Percentages of 100 Grams of Edible
Portions) of Selected Meat, Dairy, and Fish Products" 3-116
Table 3-53. Fat Content of Meat Products 3-120
Table 3-54. Summary of Recommended Values for Per Capita Intake of Foods, As Consumed
3-121
Table 3-55. Confidence Intake Recommendations for Various Foods, Including Fish (General
Population) 3-123
Table 3-56. Confidence Intake Recommendations for Fish Consumption - Recreational
Freshwater Angler Population 3-124
Table 3-57. Summary of Fish Intake Rates Among Native American Children (Consumers Only)
3-125
Table 3-58. Confidence Intake Recommendations for Fish Consumption - Native American
Subsistence Population 3-126
Table 3 A-l. Fraction of Grain and Meat Mixture Intake Represented by Various Food
Items/groups 3A-2
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data
3B-1
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data
3D-1
Table 4-1. Estimated Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion for Selected Age Categories Derived
from CSFII Data 4-7
IX
-------
Table 4-2. Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion By Source for Entire U.S.
Population (All Ages)3 4-8
Table 4-3. Estimated Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion, All Sources By Age Category for U.S.
Children 4-9
Table 4-4. Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion By Age Category for U.S.
Children 4-10
Table 4-5. Estimated Direct and Indirect Bottled Water Ingestion By Age Category for U.S.
Children 4-11
Table 4-6 Estimated Direct and Indirect Other Water Ingestion By Age Category for U.S.
Children 4-12
Table 4-7. Summary of Recommended Community Drinking Water Ingestion Rates 4-13
Table 4-8. Confidence in Water Ingestion Recommendations 4-14
Table 5-1. Average Daily Soil Ingestion Values Based on Aluminum, Silicon, and Titanium as
Tracer Elements 5-37
Table 5-2. Soil Ingestion Estimates for the Median of Best Four Trace Elements Based on
Food/Soil Ratios for 64 Anaconda Children (mg/day) Using Al, Si, Ti, Y, and Zr . . 5-37
Table 5-3. Dust Ingestion Estimates for the Median of Best Four Trace Elements Based on
Food/Dust Ratios for 64 Anaconda Children (mg/day) Using Al, Si, Ti, Y, and Zr . . 5-38
Table 5-4. Mean and Median Soil Ingestion (mg/day) by Family Member 5-38
Table 5-5. Estimated Daily Soil Ingestion Based on Aluminum, Silicon, and Titanium
Concentrations 5-39
Table 5-6. Calculated Soil Ingestion by Nursery School Children 5-40
Table 5-7. Calculated Soil Ingestion by Hospitalized, Bedridden Children 5-41
Table 5-8. Mean and Standard Deviation Percentage Recovery of Eight Tracer Elements . . 5-41
Table 5-9. Soil and Dust Ingestion Estimates for Children Ages 1-4 Years 5-42
Table 5-10. Geometric Mean (GM) and Standard Deviation (GSD) LTM Values for Children at
Daycare Centers and Campgrounds 5-43
Table 5-11. Estimated Geometric Mean Ltm Values of Children Attending Daycare Centers
According to Age, Weather Category, and Sampling Period 5-44
Table 5-12. Distribution of Average (Mean) Daily Soil Ingestion Estimates per Child for 64
Children (mg/day) 5-45
Table 5-13. Estimated Distribution of Individual Mean Daily Soil Ingestion Based on Data for
64 Subjects Projected over 365 Days 5-45
Table 5-14. Summary Statistics and Parameters for Distributions of Estimated Soil Ingestion by
Tracer Element" 5-46
Table 5-15. Positive/negative Error (Bias) in Soil Ingestion Estimates in the Calabrese et al.
(1989) Mass-balance Study: Effect on Mean Soil Ingestion Estimate (mg/day) .... 5-47
Table 5-16. Daily Soil Ingestion Estimation in a Soil-Pica Child by Tracer and by Week
(mg/day) 5-48
Table 5-17. Ratios of Soil, Dust, and Residual Fecal Samples in the Soil Pica Child 5-49
Table 5-18. Daily Variation of Soil Ingestion by Children Displaying Soil Pica in Wong (1988)
5-50
Table 5-19 Key Studies Used to Derive Recommendations 5-51
-------
Table 5- 20 . Summary of Estimates of Incidental Soil and Dust Ingestion by Children (1-7
years old) from Key Studies (mg/day) 5-52
Table 5-21. Summary of Recommended Values for Soil Ingestion 5-53
Table 5-22. Confidence in Soil Intake Recommendation 5-54
Table 6-1. Extrapolated Total Mouthing Times Minutes per Day (time awake) 6-21
Table 6-2. Frequency of Contact (Contacts per Hour) 6-22
Table 6-3. Prevalence of Non-Food Ingestion/Mouthing Behaviors by Child's Age: Percent of
Children Whose Parents Reports the Behavior in the Past Month 6-23
Table 6-4 Percent of Children with Reported Behaviors From the Telephone Survey Conducted
in the MNCPES (n = 168) 6-26
Table 6-5. Median (Mean) Observed Activity Rate (Hand Contacts Per Hour) Based on 4 Hours
of Observation Per Person 6-26
Table 6-6. Comparison of Observed Activities for Boys and Girls (Mean) 6-27
Table 6-7. Mouthing times for Pacifiers and Other Objects, by Age Category 6-27
Table 6-8 . Average Mouthing Time by Object Category and Age (min/hr) 6-28
Table 6-9. Mouthing Time Statistics for Various Objects (min/hr) 6-29
Table 6-10. Estimated Daily Mouthing Times for Various Objects (min/day) 6-31
Table 6-11. Variability in Objects Mouthed for Different Age Groups 6-32
Table 6-12. Mouthing Duration by Age Group for Pacifiers, Fingers, Toys, and
Other Objects 6-33
Table 6-13. Indoor Mouthing Frequency (Contacts/Hour) 6-34
Table 6-14. Outdoor Mouthing Frequency (Contacts/Hour) 6-35
Table 6-15. Indoor Mouthing Contact Duration (Minutes/Hour) 6-36
Table 6-16. Outdoor Mouthing Contact Duration (Minutes/Hour) 6-37
Table 6-17. Videotaped Mouthing and Food-handling Activity as Median Hourly Frequency
(Contacts/Hour) and Median Duration (% of Tape Time) (Mean ± SD) 6-38
Table 6-18. Summary of Studies on Mouthing Behavior 6-39
Table 6-19. Summary of Mouthing Frequency Data 6-40
Table 6-20. Summary of Recommended Values for Total Mouthing Time
(minutes per day) 6-42
Table 6-21. Summary of Recommended Values for Mouthing Frequency
(contacts per hour) 6-43
Table 6-22. Confidence in Mouthing Behavior Recommendations 6-44
Table 7-1. Calibration And Field Protocols For Self-monitoring of Activities Grouped by
Subject Panels 7-13
Table 7-2. Subject Panel Inhalation Rates by Mean VR, Upper Percentiles, And Self-estimated
Breathing Rates 7-13
Table 7-3. Distribution of Predicted Intake Rates by Location And Activity Levels For
Elementary And High School Students 7-14
Table 7-4. Average Hours Spent Per Day in a Given Location and Activity Level For
Elementary and High School Students 7-14
Table 7-5. Distribution Patterns of Daily Inhalation Rates For Elementary (EL) And High
School (HS) Students Grouped by Activity Level 7-15
XI
-------
Table 7-6. Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hr) by Age Group And Activity Levels for
Laboratory Protocols 7-16
Table 7-7. Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hr) by Age Group And Activity Levels in
Field Protocols 7-17
Table 7-8. Comparisons of Estimated Basal Metabolic Rates (BMR) With Average Food-energy
Intakes (EFD) For Individuals Sampled in The 1977-78 NFCS 7-18
Table 7-9. Daily Inhalation Rates Calculated From Food-energy Intakes 7-19
Table 7-10. Daily Inhalation Rates Obtained From The Ratios Of Total Energy Expenditure to
Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) 7-20
Table 7-11. Inhalation Rates For Short-term Exposures 7-21
Table 7-12. Mean, Median, and SD of Respiratory Rate According to Waking or Sleeping in
618 Infants and Children Grouped in Classes of Age 7-22
Table 7-13. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Ventilation Rate (L/min) in Males, by Age
Category 7-24
Table 7-14. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Ventilation Rate (L/min) in Females, by
Age Category 7-25
Table 7-15. Average Time Spent Per Day Performing Activities Within Specified Intensity
Categories, and Average Ventilation Rates Associated With These Activity Categories,
for Males According to Age Category 7-26
Table 7-16. Average Time Spent Per Day Performing Activities Within Specified Intensity
Categories, and Average Ventilation Rates Associated With These Activity Categories,
for Females According to Age Category 7-29
Table 7-17. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Ventilation Rate (m3/day) in Males, by Age
Category 7-32
Table 7-18. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Ventilation Rate (m3/day) in Females, by
Age Category 7-33
Table 7-19. Descriptive Statistics for Duration of Time (hr/day) Spent Performing Activities
Within the Specified Activity Category, by Age and Gender Categories
7-34
Table 7-20. Confidence in Inhalation Rate Recommendations 7-36
Table 7-21. Summary of Recommended Values For Inhalation 7-37
Table 8-1. Total Body Surface Area of Male Children in Square Meters3 8-17
Table 8-2. Total Body Surface Area of Female Children in Square Meters" 8-18
Table 8-3. Percentage of Total Body Surface Area by Body Part For Children 8-19
Table 8-4. Descriptive Statistics For Surface Area/body Weight (SA/BW) Ratios (m2/kg) . 8-20
Table 8-6. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from EPA Analysis of
NHANES III (All Children) 8-21
Table 8-7. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from EPA Analysis of
NHANES III (Male Children) 8-22
Table 8-8. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from EPA Analysis of
NHANES III (Female Children) 8-23
Table 8-9. Summary of Field Studies 8-24
Table 8-10. Geometric Mean and Geometric Standard Deviations of Solids Adherence by
Activity and Body Region 8-25
xii
-------
Table 8-11. Summary of Groups Assayed in Round 2 of Field Measurements 8-26
Table 8-12. Attire for Individuals within Children's Groups Studied 8-27
Table 8-13. Geometric Means (Geometric Standard Deviations) of Round 2 Post-activity
Loadings 8-28
Table 8-14. Summary of Controlled Green House Trials - Children Playing 8-29
Table 8-15. Preactivity Loadings Recovered from Greenhouse Trial Children Volunteers . 8-30
Table 8-19. Confidence in Solids Adherence to Skin Recommendations 8-32
Table 8A-1. Estimated Parameter Values for Different Age Intervals 8A-4
Table 8A-2. Summary of Surface Area Parameter Values for the Dubois and Dubois Model
8A-5
Table 9-1. Mean Time Spent (minutes) Performing Major Activities Grouped by Age, Sex and
Type of Day 9-16
Table 9-2. Mean Time Spent (minutes) in Major Activities Grouped by Type of Day for Five
Different Age Groups 9-17
Table 9-3. Mean Time Spent Indoors and Outdoors Grouped by Age and Day of the Week
9-18
Table 9-4. Mean Time Spent at Three Locations for both CARB and National Studies (ages 12
years and older) 9-19
Table 9-5. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments Grouped by Total
Population and Gender (12 years and over) in the National and CARB Data 9-20
Table 9-6. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Type of Day for
the California and National Surveys 9-21
Table 9-7. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Age Groups for
the National and California Surveys 9-22
Table 9-8. Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Ages 12 Years and Under Spent in Ten Major
Activity Categories for All Respondents 9-23
Table 9-9. Mean Time Children Spent in Ten Major Activity Categories by Age a 9-24
Table 9-10. Mean Time Children Ages 12 Years and Under Spent in Ten Major Activity
Categories Grouped by Seasons and Regions 9-25
Table 9-11. Mean Time Children Ages 12 Years and Under Spent in Six Major Location
Categories for All Respondents (minutes/day) 9-26
Table 9-12. Mean Time Children Spent in Six Location Categories Grouped by Age and Gender
9-27
Table 9-14. Mean Time Children Spent in Proximity to Two Potential Exposures Grouped by
All Respondents, Age, and Gender 9-29
Table 9-15. Mean Time Spent Indoors and Outdoors Grouped by Age 9-30
Table 9-16. Water and Soil Contact Exposure Factors 9-31
Table 9-17. Number of Showers Taken Per Day 9-31
Table 9-18. Time (minutes) Spent Taking a Shower and Spent in the Shower Room After
Taking a Shower by the Number of Respondents 9-32
Table 9-19. Time Spent Taking a Shower and Spent in the Shower Room Immediately After
Showering 9-32
Table 9-20. Time spent bathing, showering, and in bathroom after bathing and showering
(distribution) 9-33
xiii
-------
Table 9-21.Time spent bathing, showering, and in bathroom after bathing and showering
(percentiles) 9-34
Table 9-22. Range of Number of Times Washing the Hands at Specified Daily Frequencies by
the Number of Respondents 9-35
Table 9-23. Number of Minutes Spent Working or Being Near Excessive Dust in the Air
(minutes/day) 9-35
Table 9-24. Range of Number of Times per Day a Motor Vehicle was Started in a Garage or
Carport and Started with the Garage Door Closed 9-36
Table 9-25. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Dirt, Grass 9-37
Table 9-26. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Dirt, Sand/Gravel, or Grass (minutes/day)
9-38
Table 9-27. Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the
Number of Respondents 9-39
Table 9-28. Number of Minutes Spent Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool
(minutes/month) 9-39
Table 9-29. Time Spent Sleeping/Napping: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-40
Table 9-30. Time Spent Attending School Full-Time: Whole Population and Doers Only:
Percentile Values 9-40
Table 9-31. Time Spent in Active Sports: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-41
Table 9-32. Time Spent on Exercise: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-41
Table 9-33. Time Spent on Outdoor Recreation: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-42
Table 9-34. Time Spent on Walking: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-42
Table 9-35. Time Spent Bathing: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values . . . 9-43
Table 9-36. Time Spent Eating: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values .... 9-43
Table 9-37. Time Spent at Restaurants: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-44
Table 9-38. Time Spent Indoors at School: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-44
Table 9-39. Time Spent on School Grounds/Playgrounds: Whole Population and Doers Only:
Percentile Values 9-45
Table 9-40. Time Spent at Home in Kitchen: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-46
Table 9-41. Time Spent at Home in Living Room/Family Room/Den: Whole Population and
Doers Only: Percentile Values 9-46
Table 9-42. Time Spent at Home in Dining Room: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-47
Table 9-43. Time Spent at Home in Bathroom: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-47
xiv
-------
Table 9-44. Time Spent at Home in Bedroom: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-48
Table 9-45. Time Spent at Home in Study/Office: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-48
Table 9-46. Time Spent at Home in Garage: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-49
Table 9-47. Time Spent at Home: All Rooms Combined: Whole Population and Doers Only:
Percentile Values 9-49
Table 9-48. Time Spent in an Car: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values . . 9-50
Table 9-49. Time Spent in a Truck (Pickup or Van): Whole Population and Doers Only:
Percentile Values 9-50
Table 9-50. Time Spent in a Truck (Not Pickup or Van): Whole Population and Doers Only:
Percentile Values 9-51
Table 9-51. Time Spent on a Bus: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values ... 9-51
Table 9-52. Time Spent on a Train: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values . 9-52
Table 9-53. Time Spent on an Airplane: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-52
Table 9-54. Time Spent on a Boat: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values . . 9-53
Table 9-55. Total Time Spent Inside Vehicles: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-53
Table 9-56. Time Spent Inside Grocery/Convenience Stores, Other Stores, and Malls: Whole
Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values 9-54
Table 9-57. Average Time Spent Inside and Outside, By Age Category 9-54
Table 9-58. Statistics for 24-hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent with Smokers Present
9-55
Table 9-59. Gender and Age Groups 9-56
Table 9-60. Assignment of At-Home Activities to Ventilation Levels for Children 9-57
Table 9-61. Aggregate Time Spent (minutes/day) At-Home in Activity Groups by Adolescents
and Children3 9-58
Table 9-62. Comparison of Mean Time (minutes/day) Spent At-Home by Gendera (Adolescents)
9-58
Table 9-63. Comparison of Mean Time (minutes/day) Spent At-Home by Gender and Age for
Children3 9-58
Table 9-64. Number of Person-Days/Individuals3 for Children in CHAD3 Database 9-59
Table 9-65. Number of Hours Per Day Children Spend in Various Microenvironments by Age
9-60
Table 9-66. Average Number of Hours Per Day Children Spend Doing Various Macroactivities
While Indoors at Home 9-61
Table 9-67. Number of Hours Per Day Children Spend in Various Microenvironments by Age -
Recast Into New Standard Age Categories 9-62
Table 9-68. Number of Hours Per Day Children Spend in Various Macroactivities While
Indoors at Home - Recast Into New Standard Age Categories 9-63
Table 9-69. Number and percentage of respondents with children and those reporting outdoor
play3 activities in both warm and cold weather 9-64
xv
-------
Table 9-70. Play frequency and duration for all child players (from SCS-II data) 9-64
Table 9-71. Hand washing and bathing frequency for all child players (from SCS-II data) . 9-65
Table 9-72 NHAPS and SCS-II play duration3 comparison 9-65
Table 9-73. NHAPS and SCS-II hand wash frequency comparison 9-66
Table 9-77. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations 9-70
Table 10-1. Consumer Products Commonly Found in Some U.S. Households3 10-4
Table 10-2. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Household Cleaning
Agents Such as Scouring Powders or Ammonia (minutes/day) 10-7
Table 10-3. Number of Minutes Spent Using Any Microwave Oven (minutes/day) 10-7
Table 10-4. Number of Respondents Using a Humidifier at Home 10-8
Table 10-5. Number of Respondents Indicating that Pesticides Were Applied by a Professional
at Home to Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies .... 10-9
Table 10-6. Number of Respondents Reporting Pesticides Applied by the Consumer at Home To
Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies 10-9
Table 11-1. Smoothed Percentiles of Weight (In Kg) by Sex And Age: Statistics From NCHS
And Data From Fels Research Institute, Birth to 36 Months 11-7
Table 11-2. Weight in Kilograms For Males 2 Months-19 Years of Age- Number Examined,
Mean, and Selected Percentiles, by Age Category: United States, 1976-19803 11-8
Table 11-3. Weight in Kilograms For Females 6 Months-19 Years of Age- Number Examined,
Mean, and Selected Percentiles, by Age Category: United States, 1976-19803 11-9
Table 11-4. Statistics for Probability Plot Regression Analyses: Natural Log of Body Weights 6
Months to 20 Years of Age 11-10
Table 11-5. Body Weight Estimates (in kilograms) by Age and Gender, U.S. Population 1988-94
11-11
Table 11-6. Body Weight Estimates (in kilograms) by Age, U.S. Population 1988-94 11-12
Table 11-7. Mean Body Weight (kilograms) by Age and Gender Across Multiple Surveys
11-13
Table 11-8. Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kg) Derived from NHANES III (All Children)
11-14
Table 11-9 Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kg) Derived from NHANES III (Male Children)
11-14
Table 11-10. Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kg) Derived from NHANES III (Female
Children) 11-15
Table 11-11. Summary of Recommended Values for Body Weight 11-15
Table 11-12. Confidence in Body Weight Recommendations 11-16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Schematic of Dose and Exposure: Oral Route 1-17
Figure 7-1. 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th Smoothed Centiles by Age in Awake
Subjects 7-23
Figure 7-2. 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th Smoothed Centiles by Age in Asleep
Subjects 7-23
Figure 8-1. Schematic of Dose and Exposure: Dermal Route 8-2
xvi
-------
Figure 8-2. Skin Coverage as Determined by Fluorescence vs. Body Part for Adults
Transplanting Plants and for Children Playing in Wet Soils 8-33
Figure 8-3. Gravimetric Loading vs. Body Part for Adult Transplanting Plants in Wet Soil
and for Children Playing in Wet and Dry Soils 8-33
Figure 11-1. Weight by Age percentiles for Girls Aged Birth-36 Months 11-17
Figure 11-2. Weight by Age Percentiles for Boys Aged Birth-36 Months 11-18
Figure 11-3. Mean Body Weight Estimates, U.S. Population, 1988-94 11-19
Figure 11-4. Median Body Weights Estimates, U.S. Population, 1988-94 11-20
xvn
-------
PREFACE
The Exposure Factors Program of the of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Office of Research and Development (ORD) has three main goals: (1) provide updates
to the Exposure Factors Handbook and the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook; (2)
identify exposure factors data gaps and needs in consultation with clients; and (3) develop
companion documents to assist clients in the use of exposure factors data. The activities under
each goal are supported by and respond to the needs of the various program offices.
The National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) of EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD) has prepared this handbook to address factors commonly
used in exposure assessments for children. Children may be more heavily exposed to
environmental toxicants than adults. They consume more of certain foods and water and have
higher inhalation rates per pound of body weight than adults. Young children play close to the
ground and come into contact with contaminated soil outdoors and with contaminated dust on
surfaces and carpets indoors. As another example, exposure to chemicals in breast milk affects
infants and young children.
The National Center for Environmental Assessment has published the Exposure Factors
Handbook in 1997. This document includes exposure factors and related data on children, as
well as adults. However, the EPA Program Offices identified the need to prepare a document
specifically for children's exposure factors. The goal of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors
Handbook is to fulfill this need.
This Handbook was first offered to the public in 2002. Since that time, EPA has
developed a standardized set of age categories to be used for children's exposure assessment.
The use of a standard set of age categories is intended to permit easier comparison of data among
multiple sources and to allow consistency between different types of exposure factors.
xvin
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
3
4 This Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook has been prepared to focus on various
5 factors used in assessing exposure, specifically for children ages 0-21 years old. This handbook
6 provides nonchemical-specific data on exposure factors for the EPA recommended set of
7 childhood age groups in the following areas:
8
9 breast milk ingestion (chapter 2);
10 food ingestion, including homegrown foods and other dietary-related data
11 (chapter 3);
12 drinking water ingestion (chapter 4);
13 soil ingestion (chapter 5);
14 hand-to-mouth and object-to-mouth activity (chapter 6);
15 dermal exposure factors such as surface areas and soil adherence (chapter 7);
16 inhalation rates (chapter 8);
17 duration and frequency in different locations and various microenvironments
18 (chapter 9);
19 duration and frequency of consumer product use (chapter 10); and
20 body weight data (chapter 11)
21
22 The handbook was first published in 2002. Subsequently, recognizing that exposures
23 among infants, toddlers, adolescents, and teenagers can vary significantly, the U.S.
24 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its "Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for
25 Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA.
26 2005a)." To the extent possible, source data for the independent studies cited in the earlier
27 version of this Handbook were obtained and re-analyzed to conform to the standard age
28 categories. This update and revision of the 2002 interim final Child-specific Exposure Factors
29 Handbook is designed specifically to complement EPA's recommended set of childhood age
30 groups:
31
32 > Less than 12 months old: birth to <1 month, 1 to <3 months, 3 to <6 months, and 6 to <12
33 months.
34 > Greater than 12 months old: 1 to <2 years, 2 to <3 years, 3 to <6 years, 6 to <11 years, 11
35 to <16 years, and 16 to <21 years.
36
37 The data presented in this handbook have been compiled from various sources, which
38 include EPA's Exposure Factor Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997b), government reports, and
39 information presented in the scientific literature. The data presented are the result of analyses by
40 the individual study authors. However, in some cases EPA has conducted analysis of published
41 primary data to present results for the recommended age groups. Studies presented in this
42 handbook were chosen because they were seen as useful and appropriate for estimating exposure
43 factors based on the following considerations: level of peer review, accessibility, reproducibility,
44 focus on exposure factor of interest, pertinence of data to the U.S., primary data, currency of
xix
-------
1 information, adequacy of data collection period, validity of approach, representativeness of the
2 population, variability in the population, minimal (or defined) bias in study design, and minimal
3 (or defined) uncertainty in the data. Overall confidence ratings of high, medium, or low were
4 derived for the various exposure factors based on the evaluation of the elements described above.
5
6 Many scientific studies were reviewed for possible inclusion in this handbook. The
7 handbook contains summaries of selected studies published through June 2006. Generally,
8 studies were designated as "key" or "relevant" studies. Key studies were considered the most
9 useful for deriving recommendations; while relevant studies provided applicable or pertinent
10 data, but not necessarily the most important for a variety of reasons (e.g., data were outdated,
11 limitations in study design). The recommended values for exposure factors are based on the
12 results of key studies. EPA's procedure for developing recommendations was as follows:
13
14 1. Key studies were evaluated in terms of both quality and relevance to specific populations
15 (general U. S. population, age groups, gender, etc.). The criteria for assessing the quality
16 of studies are described in Section 1.4.
17
18 2. If only one study was classified as key for a particular factor, the mean value from that
19 study was selected as the recommended central tendency value for that population. If
20 multiple key studies with reasonably equal quality, relevance, and study design
21 information were available, a weighted mean (if appropriate, considering sample size and
22 other statistical factors) of the studies was chosen as the recommended mean value. If
23 the key studies were judged to be unequal in quality, relevance, or study design, the range
24 of means is presented and the user of this handbook should employ judgment in selecting
25 the most appropriate value for the lifestage or local population of interest.
26
27 3. The variability of the factor across the lifestage was discussed. This document attempts
28 to characterize the variability of each of the factors. Variability refers to true
29 heterogeneity or diversity in a population. Differences among individuals in a population
30 are referred to as inter-individual variability, differences for one individual over time is
31 referred to as intra-individual variability. Since most of the studies used to derive
32 exposure factors data are short term in nature, they present the variability in short term
33 exposures across a population sample and often do not allow analysis of either inter-
34 temporal variability within individuals nor inter-individual variability of long term
35 average exposures. Inter-individual variability in this handbook is characterized in one
36 or more of the following ways: (1) as a table with various percentiles or ranges of values;
37 (2) as analytical distributions with specified parameters; and/or (3) as a qualitative
38 discussion.
39
40 4. Uncertainties were discussed in terms of data limitations, the range of circumstances over
41 which the estimates were (or were not) applicable, possible biases in the values
42 themselves, a statement about parameter uncertainties (measurement error, sampling
43 error) and model or scenario uncertainties if models or scenarios were used to derive the
44 recommended value.
xx
-------
1 5. Finally, EPA assigned a confidence rating of low, medium or high to each recommended
2 value. This rating is not intended to represent an uncertainty analysis; rather, it
3 represents EPA's judgment on the quality of the underlying data used to derive the
4 recommendation.
5 Most of the data presented in this handbook are derived from studies that target (1) the
6 general population (e.g., USDA food consumption surveys) or (2) a sample population from a
7 specific area or group (e.g., Davis et al. (1990) soil ingestion study using children from the three-
8 city area in southeastern Washington State). The decision as to whether to use site-specific or
9 national values for an assessment may depend on the quality of the competing data sets as well
10 as on the purpose of the specific assessment.
11
12 It is important to note that the recommended values were derived solely from EPA's
13 interpretation of the available data. Different values may be appropriate for the user in
14 consideration of policy, precedent, strategy, or other factors (e.g., more up-to-date data of better
15 quality and more representative of the population of concern).
16
17
xxi
-------
1 AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS
2
3 The National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and
4 Development was responsible for the preparation of this handbook. The 2001 edition was
5 prepared by the Exposure Assessment Division of Versar Inc. in Springfield, Virginia, under
6 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-041. The 2005 revision was produced by the same group under EPA
7 Contract No. EP-W-04-035 Jacqueline Moya served as Work Assignment Manager for both the
8 original and the revision, providing overall direction, technical assistance, and serving as
9 contributing author.
10
11 AUTHORS WORD PROCESSING
12 Versar. Inc. Versar. Inc.
13 Christopher Greene Susan Perry
14 Linda Phillips Valerie Schwartz
15 Patricia Wood
16 Kathleen Saunders-Coon
17 Marit Espevik
18 Todd Ferryman
19 Clarkson Meredith
20 Diane Sinkowski
21 Nica Mostaghim
22
23 U.S. EPA
24 Jacqueline Moya
25 Laurie Schuda
26 John Schaum
27
28 The following EPA individuals reviewed an earlier draft of this document and provided
29 valuable comments:
30
31 Marcia Bailey, U.S. EPA, Region X
32 Gary Bangs, U.S. EPA, Risk Assessment Forum, Office of Research and Development
33 Denis R. Borum, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division
34 Dave Crawford, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste
35 Becky Cuthbertson, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste
36 Michael Dellarco, U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental Assessment
37 Lynn Delpire, U.S. EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
38 Jeff Evans, U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
39 Cathy Fehrenbacher, U.S. EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
40 Michael Firestone, U.S. EPA, Office of Children's Health Protection
41 Brenda Foos, U.S. EPA, Office of Children's Health Protection
xxn
-------
1 Henry Kahn, U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental Assessment
2 YoungmooKim, U.S. EPA, Region VI
3 Steve Kroner, U. S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste
4 Tom McCurdy, U.S. EPA, National Exposure Research Laboratory
5 David Miller, U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs
6 Deirdre Murphy, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
7 Steve Nako, U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
8 Marian Olsen, U.S. EPA, Region II
9 Glenn Rice, U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental Assessment
10 Harvey Richmond, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
11 David Riley, U.S. EPA Region VI
12 Marybeth Smuts, U.S. EPA, Region I
13 Marc Stifelman, U. S. EPA, Region X
14 Valerie Zartarian, U.S. EPA, National Exposure Research Laboratory
15
16 In addition, the National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) of the Office of Research and
17 Development made an important contribution to this handbook by conducting additional
18 analyses of mouthing behavior data from the Davis 1995 study. Data analyses were conducted
19 by Ni col e Tulve.
20
21
22 This document was reviewed by an external panel of experts. The panel was composed of the
23 following individuals:
24
25 [to be added upon review]
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
xxin
-------
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
3
4 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
5 1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1
6 1.2 PURPOSE 1-4
7 1.3 INTENDED AUDIENCE 1-5
8 1.4 SELECTION OF STUDIES FOR THE HANDBOOK 1-5
9 1.5 APPROACH USED TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPOSURE
10 FACTORS 1-8
11 1.6 CHARACTERIZING VARIABILITY 1-11
12 1.7 USING THE HANDBOOK IN AN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 1-12
13 1.8 THE USE OF AGE GROUPINGS WHEN ASSESSING EXPOSURE 1-14
14 1.9 CONSIDERING LIFESTAGE WHEN CALCULATING EXPOSURE AND RISK
15 1-16
16 1.10 GENERAL EQUATIONS FOR CALCULATING DOSE 1-17
17 1.11 CUMULATIVE RISK 1-21
18 1.12 RESEARCHNEEDS 1-22
19 1.13 ORGANIZATION 1-23
20 1.14 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1 1-25
21
-------
1 LIST OF TABLES
2
3 Table 1-1. Considerations Used to Rate Confidence in Recommended Values 1-28
4 Table 1-2. Summary of Exposure Factor References and Confidence Ratings 1-30
5 Table 1-3. Characterization of Variability in Exposure Factors 1-31
6 Table 1-4. Integrating EPA's Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring andAssessing
1 Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants with EPA's Supplemental Guidance for
8 Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens For Those Contaminants
9 Which Act Via a Mutagenic Mode of Action 1-32
10
11
12
13 LIST OF FIGURES
14
15 Figure 1-1. Schematic of Dose and Exposure: Oral Route 1-33
16
-------
1 1. INTRODUCTION
2
3 1.1 BACKGROUND
4 In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released Pesticides in the Diets of
5 Infants and Children (NAS, 1993), which highlighted that important differences can exist
6 between children and adults with respect to risks posed by pesticides. Because of physiological
7 and behavioral differences, exposures among children are expected to be significantly different
8 than exposures among adults. Children may be more exposed to some environmental toxicants
9 because they consume more food and water per unit of body weight and have a higher ratio of
10 surface area to volume than adults. Equally important, rapid changes in behavior and physiology
11 during childhood may lead to differences in exposure during childhood as a child grows up. In
12 1995, EPA established a policy "to consider the risks to infants and children consistently and
13 explicitly as a part of risk assessments generated during its decision making process, including
14 the setting of standards to protect public health and the environment"(U.S. EPA 1995) .
15 Recognizing that exposures among infants, toddlers, adolescents, and teenagers can vary
16 significantly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently published '^'Guidance
17 on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to Environmental
18 Contaminants (U.S. EPA. 2005a)." This update and revision of the 2002 interim final
19 Child-specific Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 2002) is designed specifically to
20 complement EPA's recommended set of childhood age groups:
21 * Less than 12 months old: birth to <1 month, 1 to <3 months, 3 to <6 months, and 6 to <12
22 months.
23 > Greater than 12 months old: 1 to <2 years, 2 to <3 years, 3 to <6 years, 6 to <11 years, 11
24 to <16 years, and 16 to <21 years.
25
26 Many studies have shown that young children can be exposed to various contaminants,
27 including pesticides, during normal oral exploration of their environment (i.e., hand-to-mouth
28 behavior) by touching floors, surfaces, and objects such as toys (Eskenazi et al., 1999,
29 Gurunathan et al., 1998, Lewis et al., 1999, Nishioka et al., 1999). Dust and tracked-in soil
30 accumulates most effectively in carpets, where young children spend significant amount of time
31 (Lewis et al., 1999). Children living in agricultural areas may experience higher exposures to
1-1
-------
1 pesticides than do other children. Pesticides may be tracked into their homes by family members.
2 In addition, children living in agricultural areas may also play in nearby fields or be exposed via
3 consumption of contaminated breast milk from their farmworker mother (Eskenazi et al., 1999).
4 In terms of risk, children may also differ from adults in their vulnerability to
5 environmental pollutants because of toxicodynamic differences (for example, when exposures
6 occur during periods of enhanced periods of susceptibility) and/or toxicokinetic differences (i.e.,
7 differences in absorption, excretion, and metabolism) (U.S. EPA, 2000c). Toxic contaminants in
8 the environment can cause neurodevelopmental disabilities. The developing brain and nervous
9 system can be particularly sensitive to environmental contaminants. For example, elevated blood
10 lead levels and prenatal exposures to even relatively low levels of lead result in behavior
11 disorders and reductions of intellectual function. Exposure to high levels of methylmercury can
12 result in developmental disabilities (Myers and Davidson, 2000). Other authors have described
13 the importance of exposure timing (i.e., preconceptional, prenatal, and postnatal) and how it
14 affects the outcomes observed (Selevan et al., 2000). With respect to contaminants which are
15 carcinogenic via a mutagenic mode of action, EPA has found that childhood is a particularly
16 sensitive period of development in which cancer potencies per year of exposure can be an order
17 of magnitude higher than during adulthood (U.S. EPA, 2005c).
18 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
19 Safety Risks, signed in 1997, requires all federal agencies to address health and safety risks to
20 children, to coordinate research priorities on children's health, and to ensure that their standards
21 take into account special risks to children (EO, 1997). To help implement the Order, EPA
22 established the Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP) [renamed the Office of Children's
23 Health Protection and Environmental Education (OCHPEE) in 2005], whose job it is to work
24 with Program and Regional offices within EPA to promote a safe and healthy environment for
25 children by ensuring that all regulations, standards, policies, and risk assessments take into
26 account risks to children. Legislation, such as the Food Quality Protection Act and the Safe
27 Drinking Water Act amendments, have made coverage of children's health issues more explicit,
28 and research on children's health issues is continually expanding. As a result of the emphasis on
29 children's risk, ORD developed a Strategy for Research on Environmental Risks to Children
30 (EPA, 2000c). The goal of this research strategy was to improve the quality of risk assessments
1-2
-------
1 for children. This Child-specific Exposure Factors Handbook is further intended to support
2 EPA's efforts to improve exposure and risk assessments for children (U.S. EPA 2002).
3 In 1997, EPA/ORD/NCEA published the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997a).
4 The handbook includes exposure factors and related data on both adults and children. OCHP's
5 child-related risk assessment policy and methodology guidance document survey (U.S. EPA,
6 1999a) highlighted the Exposure Factors Handbook as a source of information on exposure
7 factors for children. EPA's Children's Environmental Health Yearbook (U.S. EPA, 1998) also
8 lists the Exposure Factors Handbook as a source of exposure information for children. However,
9 the EPA Program Offices identified the need to consolidate all children's exposure data into a
10 single document. The goal of this Child-specific Exposure Factors Handbook is to fulfill this
11 need. This Handbook provides non-chemical-specific data on exposure factors that can be used to
12 assess doses from dietary and non-dietary ingestion exposure, dermal exposure, and inhalation
13 exposure among children.
14 This handbook provides generic exposure factors data for the EPA recommended set of
15 childhood age groups in the following areas:
16 breast milk ingestion;
17 food ingestion, including homegrown foods and other dietary-related data;
18 drinking water ingestion;
19 soil ingestion;
20 hand-to-mouth and object-to-mouth activity;
21 dermal exposure factors such as surface areas and soil adherence;
22 inhalation rates;
23 activity duration and frequency in different locations and various
24 microenvironments;
25 duration and frequency of consumer product use;
26 body weight data; and
27 duration of lifetime.
28 It is a compilation of available data from a variety of sources. Most of these data have
29 been described in detail in EP A's Exposure Factors Handbook (1997a), but data published after
30 the release of the Exposure Factors Handbook are also included here. This latest handbook
31 updates the 2002 interim final Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (U. S. EPA, 2002).
1-2
-------
1 With very few exceptions, the data presented here derive from the analyses of the individual
2 study authors. Because the studies included here vary in terms of their objectives, design, scope,
3 presentation of results, etc., the level of detail, statistics, and terminology may vary from study to
4 study and from factor to factor. For example, some authors used geometric means to present
5 their results, while others used arithmetic means or distributions. EPA made every attempt to
6 clearly label the statistics presented. Authors have sometimes used different age ranges to
7 describe data for children; in most cases, the original data are unavailable and the study results
8 cannot be reallocated into the age groups used in this handbook. Every effort has been made to
9 reallocate source data into the age groups recommended by the EPA in the report entitled
10 Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to
11 Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005a), when sufficiently detailed data are available.
12 Within the constraint of presenting the original material as accurately as possible, EPA has made
13 an effort to present discussions and results in a consistent manner. The strengths and limitations
14 of each study are discussed to provide the reader with a better understanding of the uncertainties
15 associated with the values derived from the study.
16 Because of the large number of tables in this handbook, tables are presented at the end of
17 each chapter, before the appendices, if any. In conjunction with the Guidance on Selecting Age
18 Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants,
19 this handbook is adopting the age group notation "X to < Y" (e.g., the age group 3 to < 6 years is
20 meant to span a 3-year time interval from a child's 3rd birthday up until the day before his or her
21 6th birthday).
22
23 1.2 PURPOSE
24 The purpose of this update and revision of the Child-specific Exposure Factors
25 Handbook is to (1) most importantly, complement EPA's new set of recommended childhood age
26 groups, as noted above, including a standardized way to define specific age groups (X to < Y);
27 (2) to highlight changes in risk assessment practice first presented in the EPA's Cancer
28 Guidelines regarding the need to consider children as lifestages rather than as subpopulations
29 (U.S. EPA, 2005b); (3) emphasize a major recommendation in EPA's Supplemental Guidance
30 for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens (U.S. EPA, 2005c) to sum
31 exposures and risks across lifestages rather than relying on the use of a lifetime average adult
1-4
-------
1 exposure to calculate risk; and lastly, (4) to incorporate any new exposure factors data/research
2 that have become available since the early 2000's.
3 As with the earlier version of the handbook, this new version will summarize key data on
4 human behaviors and characteristics which affect children's exposure to environmental
5 contaminants, and provide recommended values to use for these factors. These
6 recommendations are not legally binding on any EPA program and should be interpreted as
7 suggestions that Program Offices or individual exposure assessors can consider and modify as
8 needed. The decision as to whether to use site-specific or national values for an assessment may
9 depend on the quality of the competing data sets as well as on the purpose of the specific
10 assessment. The handbook has strived to include discussions of the issues which assessors
11 should consider in assessing exposure among children of different ages, and may be used in
12 conjunction with the EPA document entitled Socio-demographic Data Used for Identifying
13 Potentially Highly Exposed Populations (U.S. EPA, 1999b).
14 This handbook is intended to be a continuously evolving document. Updates will be
15 posted in the NCEA home page as new data become available.
16
17 1.3 INTENDED AUDIENCE
18 The Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook may be used by exposure and risk
19 assessors, economists, and other interested parties as a source for data and/or EPA
20 recommendations on numeric estimates for behavioral and physiological characteristics needed
21 to estimate childhood exposure to toxic contaminants.
22
23 1.4 SELECTION OF STUDIES FOR THE HANDBOOK
24 The data presented in this handbook have been compiled from various sources, which
25 include EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997a), government reports, and
26 information presented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Studies were chosen that were
27 seen as useful and appropriate for estimating exposure factors. The handbook contains
28 summaries of selected studies published through June 2006.
29
1-5
-------
1 General Considerations
2 Many scientific studies were reviewed for possible inclusion in this handbook. Generally,
3 studies identified in the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997a) as key studies were also
4 included, as are new studies that became available after publication of the 2002 Child-Specific
5 Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 2002). Key studies from the Exposure Factors
6 Handbook were generally defined as the most useful for deriving exposure factors. The
7 recommended values for most exposure factors are based on the results of these studies. As in
8 the Exposure Factors Handbook, the key studies were selected based on the following
9 considerations:
10 Level of peer review: Studies were selected predominantly from the peer-
11 reviewed literature and final government reports. Internal or interim reports were
12 therefore avoided.
13
14 Accessibility: Studies were preferred that the user could access in their entirety if
15 needed.
16
17 Reproducibility: Studies were sought that contained sufficient information so that
18 methods could be reproduced, or at least so the details of the author's work could
19 be accessed and evaluated.
20
21 Focus on exposure factor of interest: Studies were chosen that directly address
22 the exposure factor of interest or address related factors that have significance for
23 the factor under consideration. As an example of the latter case, one selected
24 study contains useful ancillary information concerning fat content in fish,
25 although it does not directly address fish consumption.
26
27 Pertinence of data to the U.S.: Studies were selected that addressed the U.S.
28 population. Data from populations outside the U.S. were sometimes included if
29 U.S. data were limited for a specific exposure factor. Studies similar in
30 methodology are also used to support or enhance the U.S. data.
31
1-6
-------
1 Primary data: Studies were deemed preferable if based on primary data, but
2 studies based on secondary sources were also included when they offered an
3 original analysis. For example, the handbook cites studies of food consumption
4 based on original data collected by the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
5 National Food Consumption Survey.
6
7 Currency of information: Studies were chosen only if they were sufficiently
8 recent to represent current exposure conditions. This is an important
9 consideration for those factors that change with time. In some instances, recent
10 data were very limited. Therefore, the data provided in these instances were the
11 only available data. Limitations as to the age of the data were noted.
12
13 Adequacy of data collection period: Because most users of the handbook are
14 primarily addressing chronic exposures, studies were sought that utilized the most
15 appropriate data collection techniques for the characterization of long-term
16 behavior.
17
18 Validity of approach: Studies that used experimental procedures or approaches
19 that more likely or closely capture the desired measurement were selected. In
20 general, direct exposure data collection techniques, such as direct observation,
21 personal monitoring devices, or other known methods were preferred where
22 available. If studies utilizing direct measurement were not available, studies were
23 selected that rely on validated indirect measurement methods such as surrogate
24 measures (e.g., heart rate for inhalation rate) and questionnaires. If questionnaires
25 or surveys were used, proper design and procedures include an adequate sample
26 size for the population under consideration, a response rate large enough to avoid
27 biases, and avoidance of bias in the design of the instrument and interpretation of
28 the results.
29
30 Representativeness of the population: Studies seeking to characterize the national
31 population, a particular region, or sub-population were selected if they were
1-7
-------
1 appropriately representative of that population. Studies with limitations in areas
2 where little data exist were included and are noted as such.
3
4 Variability in the population: Studies were sought that characterized any
5 variability within populations (e.g., variability due to age, gender, ethnicity).
6
7 Minimal (or defined) bias in study design: Studies were sought that were
8 designed with minimal bias, or if biases were suspected to be present, the
9 direction of the bias (i.e., an overestimate or underestimate of the parameter) is
10 either stated or apparent from the study design.
11
12 Minimal (or defined) uncertainty in the data: Studies were sought that have
13 minimal uncertainty in the data, which was judged by evaluating all the
14 considerations listed above. Studies that identify uncertainties, such as those due
15 to inherent variability in environmental and exposure-related parameters or
16 possible measurement error, were preferred. Studies that document quality
17 assurance/quality control measures were also preferred.
18
19
20 1.5 APPROACH USED TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
21 EXPOSURE FACTORS
22 As discussed above, EPA first reviewed all literature pertaining to a factor and
23 determined key studies. These key studies were used to derive recommendations for the values
24 of each factor for each of the childhood age groups discussed earlier. The recommended values
25 were derived solely from EPA's interpretation of the available data. Different values may be
26 appropriate for the user in consideration of policy, precedent, strategy, or other factors such as
27 site-specific information. EPA's procedure for developing recommendations was as follows:
28
29 1. Key studies were evaluated in terms of both quality and relevance to specific populations
30 (general U. S. population, age groups, gender, etc.). The criteria for assessing the quality
31 of studies are described in Section 1.4.
32
-------
1 2. If only one study was classified as key for a particular factor, the mean value from that
2 study was selected as the recommended central tendency value for that population. If
3 multiple key studies with reasonably equal quality, relevance, and study design
4 information were available, a weighted mean (if appropriate, considering sample size and
5 other statistical factors) of the studies was chosen as the recommended mean value. If
6 the key studies were judged to be unequal in quality, relevance, or study design, the range
7 of means is presented and the user of this handbook must employ judgment in selecting
8 the most appropriate value for the lifestage or local population of interest.
9
10 3. The variability of the factor across the lifestage was discussed. This document attempts
11 to characterize the variability of each of the factors. Variability refers to true
12 heterogeneity or diversity in a population. Differences among individuals in a population
13 are referred to as inter-individual variability, differences for one individual over time is
14 referred to as intra-individual variability. Since most of the studies used to derive
15 exposure factors data are short term in nature, they present the variability in short term
16 exposures across a population sample and often do not allow analysis of either inter-
17 temporal variability within individuals nor inter-individual variability of long term
18 average exposures. Inter-individual variability in this handbook is characterized in one
19 or more of the following ways: (1) as a table with various percentiles or ranges of values;
20 (2) as analytical distributions with specified parameters; and/or (3) as a qualitative
21 discussion.
22
23 4. Uncertainties were discussed in terms of data limitations, the range of circumstances
24 over which the estimates were (or were not) applicable, possible biases in the values
25 themselves, a statement about parameter uncertainties (measurement error, sampling
26 error) and model or scenario uncertainties if models or scenarios were used to derive the
27 recommended value.
28
29 5. Finally, EPA assigned a confidence rating of low, medium or high to each recommended
30 value. This rating is not intended to represent an uncertainty analysis; rather, it represents
31 EPA's judgment on the quality of the underlying data used to derive the recommendation.
1-9
-------
1 This judgment was made using the guidelines shown in Table 1-1. Table 1-1 is an
2 adaptation of the General Considerations discussed in Section 1.4. Clearly this is a
3 continuum from low to high, and judgment was used to determine these ratings.
4 Recommendations given in this handbook are accompanied by a discussion of the
5 rationale for their qualitative rating.
6
7 Table 1-2 summarizes the principal exposure factors addressed in this Handbook and identifies
8 the key tables that the reader may refer to when searching for a specific exposure factor.
9 It is important to note that the study elements listed in Table 1-1 do not have the same
10 weight when arriving at the overall confidence rating for the various exposure factors. The
11 relative weight of each of these elements depend on the exposure factor of interest. Also, the
12 relative weights given to the elements for the various factors were subjective and based on the
13 professional judgement of the authors of this handbook. In general, most studies would rank
14 high with regard to "level of peer review," "accessibility," "focus on the factor of interest," and
15 "data pertinent to the U.S."
16 These elements are important considerations for inclusion of a study in this handbook.
17 However, a high score of these elements does not necessarily translate into a high overall score.
18 Other elements in Table 1-1 were also examined to determine the overall score. For example, the
19 adequacy of the data collection period may be more important when determining usual intake of
20 foods in a population; on the other hand, it is not as important for factors where long-term
21 variability may be small, such as tapwater intake. In the case of tapwater intake, the currency of
22 the data was a critical element in determining the final rating. In addition, some exposure factors
23 are more easily measured than others. For example, soil ingestion by children is estimated by
24 measuring, in the feces of children, the levels of certain elements found in soil. Body weight,
25 however, can be measured directly, and it is therefore a more reliable measurement. The fact
26 that soil ingestion is more difficult to measure than body weight is reflected in the confidence
27 rating given to both of these factors. In general, the better the methodology used to measure the
28 exposure factor, the higher the confidence in the value.
29
30
1-10
-------
1 1.6 CHARACTERIZING VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY
2 It is critical to note the distinction between uncertainty and variability. Uncertainty
3 reflects our inability to be sure about the true value of a factor. Variability refers to the fact that
4 children are not exactly alike - thus, for any given age, they may be different in terms of their
5 weight, their behavior, what they like to eat and how much they eat, etc. These differences are
6 important for exposure and risk assessors, as well as risk managers, to take into account if the
7 range of exposures and risks faced by children are to be understood. For example, if one were to
8 consider acute risks to US children under the age of 18 (about 73 million in 2005 - U.S. Census
9 Bureau, the upper 99th percentile, while at the upper reaches of the range of variability, still
10 accounts for 730,000 children on any given day - this may be important information for an
11 exposure assessor to share with a risk manager. This document characterizes variability of each
12 of the factors. Variability is characterized in one or more of the following ways: (1) as a table
13 with various percentiles or ranges of values; (2) as analytical distributions with specified
14 parameters; and/or (3) as a qualitative discussion. Analyses to fit standard or parametric
15 distributions (e.g., normal, lognormal) to the exposure data have not been performed by the
16 authors of this handbook, but have been reproduced as they were found in the literature.
17 Recommendations on the use of these distributions are made where appropriate based on the
18 adequacy of the supporting data. The list of exposure factors and the way in which variability
19 has been characterized throughout this handbook (i.e., average, median, upper percentiles,
20 multiple percentiles, fitted distribution) are presented in Table 1-3. The term "upper percentile"
21 is used throughout this handbook, and it is intended to represent values in the upper tail (i.e.,
22 between 90th and 99.9th percentile) of the distribution of values for a particular exposure factor.
23 A detailed presentation on variability and uncertainty for exposure factors and algorithms used in
24 estimating exposure is presented in EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997a).
25 In the recommendations, an attempt was made to present percentile values that are
26 consistent with the exposure estimators defined in Guidelines for Exposure Assessment (U.S.
27 EPA, 1992a) (i.e., mean, 50th, 90th, 95th, 98th, and 99.9th percentile). However, this was not
28 always possible, because the data available were limited for some factors, or the authors of the
29 study did not provide such information It is important to note, however, that these percentiles
30 were discussed in the guidelines within the context of risk descriptors and not individual
31 exposure factors. For example, the guidelines state that the assessor may derive a high-end
1-11
-------
1 estimate of exposure by using maximum or near maximum values for one or more sensitive
2 exposure factors, leaving others at their mean value.
3 The use of probabilistic analysis such as Monte Carlo requires a selection of distributions
4 or histograms for the input parameters. This handbook is not intended to provide complete
5 guidance on the use of probabilistic analyses. There are efforts in the Agency and elsewhere
6 aimed at providing guidance on the use of these techniques.
7
8 1.7 USING THE HANDBOOK IN AN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
9 Some of the steps for performing an exposure assessment are (1) determining the
10 pathways of exposure; (2) identifying the environmental media which transports the
11 contaminant; (3) determining the contaminant concentration; (4) determining the exposure time,
12 frequency, and duration; and (5) identifying the exposed populations and lifestages. Many of the
13 issues related to characterizing exposure from selected exposure pathways have been addressed
14 in a number of existing EPA guidance documents. These include, but are not limited to the
15 following:
16 Guidelines for Exposure Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992a);
17 Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications (U.S. EPA, 1992b);
18 Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to
19 Combustor Emissions (U.S. EPA, 1990);
20 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Part A (U.S. EPA, 1989);
21 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Part E (U. S. EPA, 2004);
22 Estimating Exposures to Dioxin-Like Compounds (U.S. EPA, 1994a);
23 Selection Criteria for Mathematical Models Used in Exposure Assessments:
24 Groundwater Models (U.S. EPA, 1988a);
25 Selection Criteria for Mathematical Models Used in Exposure Assessments:
26 Surface Water Models (U. S. EPA, 1987);
27 Standard Scenarios for Estimating Exposure to Chemical Substances During Use
28 of Consumer Products (U.S. EPA, 1986a);
29 Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivisions K (U. S. EPA, 1984) and U, (U. S.
30 EPA, 1986b);
1-12
-------
1 Methods for Assessing Exposure to Chemical Substances, Volumes 1-13 (U.S.
2 EPA, 1983-1989);
3 Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis (U.S. EPA, 1997b);
4 Policy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessment at the U.S.
5 Environmental Protection Agency, May 15, 1997 ;
6 Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Assessments (EPA/600/R-97/001)
7 (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/monteabs.htm)
8 Options for Developing Parametric Probability Distributions for Exposure
9 Factors (EPA/600/R-00/058) July 2000 (U. S. EPA, 2000a)
10 Sociodemographic Data for Identifying Potentially Highly Exposed Populations
11 (U.S. EPA, 1999)
12 Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2003a)
13 Example Exposure Scenarios (U.S. EPA 2003b)
14 Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood
15 Exposures to Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2005a)
16 Cancer Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2005b) and
17 Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to
18 Carcinogens (U. S. EPA, 2005c)
19
20 These documents may serve as valuable information resources to assist in the assessment of
21 exposure. The reader is encouraged to refer to them for more detailed discussion.
22 Most of the data presented in this handbook are derived from studies that target (1) the
23 general population (e.g., USDA food consumption surveys) or (2) a sample population from a
24 specific area or group (e.g., Calabrese's et al. (1989) soil ingestion study using children from the
25 Amherst, MA area). It is necessary for risk or exposure assessors characterizing a diverse
26 population to identify and enumerate certain groups within the general population who are at risk
27 for greater contaminant exposures or who exhibit a heightened sensitivity to particular
28 contaminants. For further guidance on addressing susceptible populations, the reader is referred
29 to Socio-demographic Data Used for Identifying Potentially Highly Exposed Subpopulations
30 (U.S. EPA, 2001)
31
1-13
-------
1 1.8 THE USE OF AGE GROUPINGS WHEN ASSESSING EXPOSURE
2 When this handbook was first published in 2002, no specific guidance existed with regard
3 to which age groupings should be used when assessing children's exposure. Age groupings
4 varied from case to case and among Program and Regional offices within the EPA. They
5 depended on availability of data and were often based on professional judgement or historical
6 use.
7 The development of standardized age bins was the subject of discussion in a 2000 EPA
8 workshop titled "Issues Associated with Considering Developmental Changes in Behavior and
9 Anatomy When Assessing Exposure to Children" (U.S. EPA, 2000b). The purpose of this
10 workshop was to gain insight and input into factors that need to be considered when developing
11 standardized age bins and to identify future research necessary to accomplish these goals.
12 Panelists were divided into two groups. One group focused their discussions on defining and
13 characterizing the important facets of behavioral development during childhood while the other
14 group focused on defining and characterizing the physiological development during childhood.
15 During the workshop, it was recognized that the ultimate goal of exposure assessment is to
16 develop a day-to-day model of human life that can predict the contaminant exposures an
17 individual is likely to face at any point in life. However, this is not likely to be accomplished in
18 the near future and assessors often need to classify individuals into age bins in order to simplify
19 the exposure model. The recommendations listed below are those of the panel members and
20 were considered by EPA in the development of age groupings:
21
22 Panelists agreed that child development is a series of discrete events, but these
23 events occur along a contiuum.
24 Age grouping/bins are a useful guide to fulfill the Agency's immediate need, but
25 are only a crude approximation of an underlying distribution. Ultimately,
26 sufficient data should be gathered to develop a continuous multivariate model that
27 can replace bins.
28 Adequacy of existing exposure data is highly variable.
29 A considerable amount of additional information already exists, but it is dispersed
30 in the literature. It was recommended that EPA consults with experts in
1-14
-------
1 developmental biology, physiology, pharmacology, and toxicology and conducts
2 an in-depth review of the literature.
3 Long term research should include the development of integrated data sets that
4 combines information about the exposure factors with biomarkers of exposure
5 and effects.
6 The definition of age groups/bins for childhood exposure assessment are
7 inextricably linked to toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic issues.
8 The two break out groups (i.e., behavioral and physiological) offered the
9 following preliminary ideas for age groupings:
10
11 Age grouping based on behavioral characteristics
12 0-2 months
13 2 - 6 months
14 6-12 months
15 1-2 years
16 2-6 years
17 6-11 years
18 11-16 years
19 16-21 years
20 Age grouping based on physiological characteristics
21 0-1 month
22 1-6 months
23 6-12 months
24 1-3 years
25 3-9 years
26 9-21 years
27 One can observe that there was fairly good agreement among the two groups with regard
28 to the age groupings that are important for infants and toddlers. However, there was some
29 disagreement with regard to the older children. Appropriate consideration of age groupings
30 depend not only on behavioral and physiological characteristics, but also on the specific scenario
31 being studied and contaminant of concern.
1-15
-------
1 Based upon consideration of the findings of the technical workshop, as well as analysis of
2 available data, EPA developed guidance which established a set of recommended age groups for
3 development of exposure factors for children entitled "Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for
4 Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants'" (U.S. EPA,
5 2005a). This revision of the Handbook was developed specifically to present exposure factors
6 data in a manner consistent with EPA's recommended set of childhood age groupings.
7 The recommenced age groups are as follows: Birth to <1 month; 1 to < 3 months; 3 to < 6
8 months; 6 to < 12 months; 1 to < 2 years; 2 to < 3 years; 3 to < 6 years; 6 to < 11 years; 11 to <
9 16 years; and 16 to < 21 years (U.S. EPA, 2005a).
10
11 1.9 CONSIDERING LIFESTAGE WHEN CALCULATING EXPOSURE AND RISK
12 A key component of EPA's Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and
13 Assessing Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants (U.S. EPA 2005a) involves the
14 need to sum age-specific differences in exposure across time when assessing long-term exposure,
15 as well as integrating these age-specific exposures with age-specific differences in toxic potency
16 in those cases where information exists to describe such differences: an example is carcinogens
17 that act via a mutagenic mode of action (Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility
18 from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens - U.S. EPA, 2005c). When assessing chronic risks,
19 rather than assuming a constant level of exposure for 70 years (usually consistent with an adult
20 level of exposure), the Agency is now recommending that assessors should calculate chronic
21 exposures by summing time-weighted exposures that occur at each lifestage; this handbook
22 provides data arrayed by childhood age in order to support this new guidance. This approach is
23 expected to increase the accuracy of risk assessments because it will take into account lifestage
24 differences in exposure. Depending on whether body-weight-adjusted childhood exposures are
25 either smaller or larger as compared with those for adults, calculated risks could either decrease
26 or increase as compared with the historical approach of assuming a lifetime of a constant adult
27 level of exposure.
28 The Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to
29 Carcinogens also recommended that in those cases where age-related differences in toxicity were
30 also found to occur, differences in both toxicity and exposure would need to be integrated across
31 all relevant age intervals. This guidance describes such a case for carcinogens that act via a
1-16
-------
1 mutagenic mode of action, where age dependent potency adjustments factors (ADAFs) of lOx
2 and 3x are recommended for children ages birth < 2 years, and 2 < 16 years, respectively when
3 there is exposure during those years.
4 Table 1-4, along with Chapter 6 of the "Supplemental Guidance" have been developed to
5 help the reader understand how to use the new sets of exposure and potency age groupings when
6 calculating risk through the integration of lifestage specific changes in exposure and potency.
7 Thus, Lifetime Cancer Risk (for a population with average life expectancy of 70 years) =
8 Z (Exposure x Duration x Potency x ADAF) summed across all the age groups presented in
9 Table 1-4. This is a departure from the way cancer risks have historically been calculated based
10 upon the premise that risk is proportional to the daily average of long term adult dose.
11
12 1.10 GENERAL EQUATIONS FOR CALCULATING DOSE
13 The definition of exposure as used in the Exposure Guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1992a) is the
14 "contact of a chemical, physical, or biological agent with the outer boundary of an organism."
15 This means contact with the visible exterior of a person such as the skin, and openings such as
16 the mouth, nostrils, and lesions. The process of a contaminant entering the body can be
17 described in two steps: contact (exposure) followed by entry (crossing the boundary). The dose
18 is the amount of agent available at human exchange boundaries (skin, lungs, gut) where
19 absorption takes place during some specified time. An example of exposure and dose for the oral
20 route as presented in the EPA Exposure Guidelines is shown in Figure 1-1. Starting with a
21 general integral equation for exposure (U.S. EPA, 1992a), several dose equations can be derived
22 depending upon boundary assumptions.
23
24 Average Daily Dose (ADD) has been used when assessing risks for many noncancer effects -
25 this metric averages doses over the periodof time over which exposure occurred. The ADDcan be
26 calculated by averaging the potential dose (Dpot) over body weight and an averaging time.
27
28 ADDpot = [C x IR x ED] / [BW x AT] (1-1)
29
30 Where:
31 C = Contaminant Concentration
1-17
-------
1 IR = Intake Rate
2 ED = Exposure Duration
3 BW = Body Weight
4 AT = Averaging Time
5
6 Note that the advent of childhood age groupings means that separate ADD's should be calculated
7 for each age group considered. Chronic exposures can then be calculated by summing across
8 each lifestage specific ADD.
9 Cancer risks have traditionally been calculated in those cases where a linear non-
10 threshold model is assumed, in terms of lifetime probabilities by utilizing dose values presented
11 in terms of lifetime ADDs (LADDs). The LADD takes the form of the Equation 1-1, with
12 lifetime replacing averaging time. While the use of LADD may be appropriate when developing
13 screening level estimates of cancer risk, as discussed in Section 1.9 above, EPA is now
14 recommending that risks should be calculated by integrating exposures or risks throughout all
15 lifestages.
16 Contaminant concentration is the concentration of the contaminant in the medium (air,
17 food, soil, etc.) contacting the body and has units of mass/volume or mass/mass.
18 The intake rate refers to the rates of inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact, depending
19 on the route of exposure. For ingestion, the intake rate is simply the amount of food containing
20 the contaminant of interest that an individual ingests during some specific time period (units of
21 mass/time). Much of this handbook is devoted to rates of ingestion for some broad classes of
22 food. For inhalation, the intake rate is the rate at which contaminated air is inhaled. Factors that
23 affect dermal exposure are the amount of material that comes into contact with the skin and the
24 rate at which the contaminant is absorbed.
25 The exposure duration is the period of time over which exposure occurs. The length of
26 time a person lives in an area, frequency of bathing, time spent indoors versus outdoors, etc., all
27 affect the exposure duration. Chapter 9, Activity Factors, gives some examples of population
28 behavior/activity patterns that may be useful for estimating exposure durations.
29 When the above parameter values intake rate (IR) and exposure duration (ED) remain
30 constant over time, they are substituted directly into the exposure equation. When they change
31 with time, a summation approach is needed to calculate exposure. In either case, the exposure
1-18
-------
1 duration is the length of time exposure occurs at the concentration and the intake rate specified
2 by the other parameters in the equation.
3 Dose can be expressed as a total amount (with units of mass, e.g., mg) or as a dose rate in
4 terms of mass/time (e.g., mg/day), or as a rate normalized to body mass (e.g., with units of mg of
5 contaminant per kg of body weight per day (mg/kg-day)). The dose is usually expressed in terms
6 of mg/kg-day or other mass/mass-time units.
7 In most cases (inhalation and ingestion exposure), the dose-response parameters for
8 carcinogen risks have been adjusted for the difference in absorption across body barriers between
9 humans and the experimental animals used to derive such parameters. Therefore, the exposure
10 assessment in these cases is based on the potential dose, with no explicit correction for the
11 fraction absorbed. However, the exposure assessor needs to make such an adjustment when
12 calculating dermal exposure and in other specific cases when current information indicates that
13 the human absorption factor used in the derivation of the dose-response factor is inappropriate.
14 For carcinogens, the duration of a lifetime has traditionally been assigned the nominal
15 value of 70 years as a reasonable approximation. For exposure estimates to be used for
16 assessments other than carcinogenic risk, various averaging periods have been used. For acute
17 exposures, the doses are usually averaged over a day or a single event. For nonchronic noncancer
18 effects, the time period used is the actual period of exposure (exposure duration). The objective
19 in selecting the exposure averaging time is to express the exposure in a way which can be
20 combined with the dose-response relationship to calculate risk.
21 The body weight to be used in the exposure Equation 1-1 depends on the units of the
22 exposure data presented in this handbook. For the food ingestion and water intake data presented
23 in chapters 3 and 4 respectively, the body weights of the surveyed populations were known in the
24 USDA surveys and they were explicitly factored into the food intake data in order to calculate
25 the intake as g/d/kg body weight. In this case, the body weight has already been included in the
26 "intake rate" term in Equation 1-2 and the exposure assessor does not need to explicitly include
27 body weight. Body weight data presented in chapter 11 may be used in other instances when the
28 intake rate has not been normalized by body weight.
29 The units of intake in this handbook for some of the exposure factors (e.g., breast milk
30 intake) are not normalized to body weight. In this case, the exposure assessor needs to use
31 (in Equation 1-1) the average weight of the exposed population during the time when the
1-19
-------
1 exposure actually occurs. If the body weight of the individuals in the population whose risk is
2 being evaluated is non-standard in some way (e.g., children may be smaller than the national
3 population) and if reasonable values are not available in the literature, then a model of intake as a
4 function of body weight must be used. One such model is discussed in Appendix 1A of the
5 Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997'a). Some of the parameters (primarily
6 concentrations) used in estimating exposure are exclusively site specific, and therefore default
7 recommendations could not be used. It should be noted that body weight is correlated with food
8 consumption rates and inhalation rates.
9 The link between the intake rate value and the exposure duration value is a common
10 source of confusion in defining exposure scenarios. It is important to define the duration
11 estimate so that it is consistent with the intake rate:
12 The intake rate can be based on an individual event (e.g., serving size per event).
13 The duration should be based on the number of events or, in this case, meals.
14 The intake rate also can be based on a long-term average, such as 10 g/day. In
15 this case the duration should be based on the total time interval over which the
16 exposure occurs.
17 The objective is to define the terms so that, when multiplied, they give the appropriate
18 estimate of mass of contaminant contacted. This can be accomplished by basing the intake rate
19 on either a long-term average (chronic exposure) or an event (acute exposure) basis, as long as
20 the duration value is selected appropriately.
21 Inhalation dosimetry is employed to derive the human equivalent exposure concentrations
22 (HEC) on which inhalation unit risks, and reference concentrations, are based (U.S. EPA,
23 1994b). EPA has traditionally approximated children's respiratory exposure by using adult
24 values, although a recent review (Ginsberg, et al., 2005) concluded that there may be some cases
25 where young children's greater ventilation rate per body weight or pulmonary surface area as
26 compared to adults can result in greater exposures than adults. The implications of this
27 difference for inhalation dosimetry and children's risk assessment were recently discussed at a
28 peer involvement workshop hosted by EPA in 2006 (workshop results and references to be
29 published in 2007).
30 Consideration of lifestage-particular physiological characteristics in the dosimetry
31 analysis may result in a refinement to the human equivalent concentration (HEC) to insure
1-20
-------
1 relevance in risk assessment across lifestages, or might conceivably conclude with multiple
2 HECs, and corresponding inhalation unit risk values (e.g., separate for childhood and adulthood)
3 (U.S. EPA, 2005b, c). The RfC methodology, which is described mMethodsfor Derivation of
4 Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation Dosimetry (U.S. EPA,
5 1994b), allows the user to incorporate population/lifestage-specific assumptions in to the models.
6 There are no specific exposure factor assumptions in the derivation of RfDs. The
7 assessment of the potential for adverse health effects in infants and children is part of the overall
8 hazard and dose-response assessment for a contaminant. Available data pertinent to children's
9 health risks are evaluated along with data on adults and the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
10 (NOAEL) or benchmark dose (BMD) for the most sensitive critical effect(s), based on
11 consideration of all health effects. By doing this, protection of the health of children will be
12 considered along with that of other sensitive populations. In some cases, it is appropriate to
13 evaluate the potential hazard to children separately from the assessment for the general
14 population or other population subgroups. However, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of
15 1996 states that for threshold effects,
16 "an additional tenfold margin of safety for the chemical residue and other sources of
17 exposure shall be applied for infants and children to take into account potential pre- andpost-
18 natal toxicity and completeness of data with respect to exposure and toxicity to infants and
19 children. Notwithstanding such requirement for an additional margin of safety, the
20 Administrator may use a different margin of safety for the pesticide chemical residue only if, on
21 the basis of reliable data, such margin of safety will be safe for infants and children."
22
23 In addition, FQPA lists several factors that must be considered when assessing risks to
24 children, such as available information concerning the special susceptibility of children to
25 pesticide chemical residues, neurological differences between children and adults, and effects of
26 in utero exposure.
27
28 1.11 CUMULATIVE RISK
29 EPA recognizes that children may be exposed to mixtures of contaminants both indoors
30 and outdoors. Exposure may also occur through more than one pathway. New directions in risk
31 assessments in EPA put more emphasis on total exposures via multiple pathways (U.S. EPA,
32 2003a). Over the last several years, EPA has developed a methodology for assessing risk from
1-21
-------
1 multiple contaminants. For more information, the reader is referred to EPA's Frameworkfor
2 Cumulative Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2003 a).
3
4 1.12 RESEARCH NEEDS
5 The data for several exposure factors for children are limited. The following list is a
6 compilation of areas for future research related to childhood exposure factors:
7
8 More recent information is needed on breastmilk consumption and the incidence
9 and duration of breastfeeding.
10
11 Information on children's food handling practices that might exacerbate exposure
12 is needed to better characterize exposures among children.
13
14 Further research on fish intake among children, particularly recreational and
15 subsistence populations, is needed.
16
17 Further research is needed on consumption of ethnic foods by children.
18
19 Research is needed to better estimate soil intake rates, particularly on how to
20 extrapolate short-term data to chronic exposures. Research is also needed to
21 refine the methods to calculate soil intake rates (i.e., inconsistencies among tracers
22 and input/output misalignment errors indicate a fundamental problem with the
23 methods). In addition, there are no data for children <1 year or >7 years of age.
24 Additional information on soil ingestion among children that provides better
25 estimates of upper percentile rates is needed, in particular. Research is also
26 needed to better understand the relative contribution of soil vs. dust ingestion.
27
28 Further research is needed on dermal and non-dietary ingestion exposure factors,
29 including the microenvironments in which children spend time and the types of
30 materials that they contact, as well as information on the rate at which they
1-22
-------
1 contact contaminated surfaces, the fraction of the contaminants that are transferred
2 to skin and object surfaces, and the amount of the object/skin entering the mouth.
3
4 Further research is needed to obtain better soil adherence rates for additional
5 activities involving children.
6
7 Further data is needed on the frequency and duration of use and kinds of consumer
8 products used by children.
9
10 Additional data on inhalation dosimetry and modeling, including inhalation rates
11 that are specific to children's activities.
12
13 Research is needed to derive a methodology to extrapolate from short-term data to
14 long-term or chronic exposures.
15
16 1.13 ORGANIZATION
17
18 The handbook is organized as follows:
19
20 Chapter 1 Provides the overall introduction to the handbook.
21
22 Chapter 2 Provides factors for estimating exposure through ingestion of
23 breast milk.
24
25 Chapter 3 Provides factors for estimating human exposure through ingestion
26 foods, including fish.
27
28 Chapter 4 Provides factors for estimating exposure through ingestion of
29 drinking water.
30
31 Chapter 5 Provides factors for estimating exposure as a result of ingestion of
32 soil.
1-23
-------
1 Chapter 6 Presents factors for estimating exposure to environmental
2 contaminants from other non-dietary ingestion such as hand-to-
3 mouth and object-to-mouth activity.
4
5 Chapter 7 Provides factors for estimating exposure as a result of inhalation of
6 vapors and particulates.
7
8 Chapter 8 Provides factors for estimating dermal exposure to environmental
9 contaminants that come in contact with the skin.
10
11 Chapter 9 Presents data on activity factors (activity patterns, population
12 mobility, and occupational mobility).
13
14 Chapter 10 Presents data on consumer product use.
15
16 Chapter 11 Presents data on body weight.
17
18
19
20
1-24
-------
1 1.14 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1
2
3 Calabrese, E.J.; Pastides, H.; Barnes, R.; Edwards, C.; Kostecki, P.T.; etal. (1989) How much soil do young
4 children ingest: an epidemiologic study. In: Petroleum Contaminated Soils, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
5 pp. 363-397.
6 EO (1997). Executive Order 13045. Protection of Children for Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.
7 Available on line at http://vosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/whatwe executiv.htm.
8 Eskenazi, B.; Bradman, A.; Castriona, R. (1999) Exposure of children to organophosphate pesticides and their
9 potential adverse health effects. Environmental Health Perspectives, 107(83): 409-19.
10 Gilbert, R.O. (1987) Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. New York: VanNostrand
11 Reinhold.
12 Ginsberg G.; Foos B.; Firestone M. (2005) Review and analysis of inhalation dosimetry methods for application to
13 children's risk assessment. J Toxicol. Environ. Health A. 68(8):573-615.
14 Gurunathan, S.; Robson, M.; Freeman N.; Buckley, B.; Roy, A.; Meyer, R.; Bukowski, J.; Lioy, P.J. (1998)
15 Accumulation of chloropyrifos on residential surfaces and toys accessible to children. Environmental Health
16 Perspectives, 106(1):9-16.
17 Lewis, R. G.; Fortune C.; Willis, R. D.; Camann, D. E.; Antley, J. T. (1999) Distribution of pesticides and
18 poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in house dust as a function of particle size. Environmental Health
19 Perspectives, 107(9).
20 Myers, G.J.; Davidson, P.W. (2000) Does methylmercury have a role in causing developmental disabilities in
21 children? Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(S3):413-420.
22 Nishioka, M.G.; Burkholder, H.M.; and Brinkman, M.C.; Lewis, R.G. (1999) Distribution of
23 2,4-dihlorophenoxyacetic acid in floor dust throughout homes following homeowner and commercial lawn
24 application: quantitative effects of children, pets, and shoes. Environ. Sci. Technol., 33:1359-1365.
25 Selevan, S.G.; Kimmel, C.A.; Mendola, P. (2000) Identifying critical windows of exposure for children's health-
26 monograph based on papers developed from the Workshop: Identifying Critical Windows of Exposure for
27 Children's Health held September 14-15, 1999 in Richmond, VA. Environmental Health Perspectives,
28 108(S3):451-5.
29 U.S. Census ((2006). State Population Estimates - Characteristics. Table 1: Estimates of the population by selected
30 age groups in the United States, States, and Puerto Rico. Available on line at:
31 http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/tables/SC-EST2005-01Res.xls.
32 U.S. EPA. (1983-1989) Methods for assessing exposure to chemical substances. Volumes 1 13. Washington, DC:
3 3 Office of Toxic Substances, Exposure Evaluation Division.
34 U.S. EPA. (1984) Pesticide assessment guidelines subdivision K, exposure: reentry protection. Office of Pesticide
35 Programs, Washington, DC. EPA/540/9-48/001. Available fromNTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-85-120962.
36 U.S. EPA. (1986a) Standard scenarios for estimating exposure to chemical substances during use of consumer
37 products. Volumes I and II. Washington, DC: Office of Toxic Substance, Exposure Evaluation Division.
38 U.S. EPA. (1986b) Pesticide assessment guidelines subdivision U, applicator exposure monitoring. Office of
39 Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. EPA/540/9-87/127. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB 85
40 133286.
1-25
-------
1 U.S. EPA. (1987) Selection criteria for mathematical models used in exposure assessments: surface water models.
2 Exposure Assessment Group, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. WPA/600/8
3 87/042. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-88-139928/AS.
4 U.S. EPA. (1988a) Selection criteria for mathematical models used in exposure assessments: groundwater models.
5 Exposure Assessment Group, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/8
6 88/075. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-88-248752/AS.
7 U.S. EPA. (1989) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund. Human health evaluation manual: part A. Office of
8 Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB
9 90-155581.http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsa/index.htm
10 U.S. EPA. (1990) Methodology for assessing health risks associated with indirect exposure to combustor emissions.
11 EPA 600/6-90/003. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-90-187055/AS.
12 U.S. EPA. (1992a) Guidelines for exposure assessment. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development,
13 Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EP A/600/Z-92/001.
14 U.S. EPA. (1992b) Dermal exposure assessment: principles and applications. Washington, DC: Office of Health and
15 Environmental Assessments. EPA/600/8-9/01 IF.
16 U.S. EPA. (1994a) Estimating exposures to dioxin-like compounds. (Draft Report). Office of Research and
17 Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/6-88/005Cb.
18 U.S. EPA. (1994b) Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation
19 Dosimetry. EPA/600/8-90/066F. October, 1994.
20 U.S. EPA. (1995). Policy on evaluating health risks to children. Science Policy Council. October 20, 1995.
21 Available on line at http://www.epa.gov/OSA/spc/2poleval.htm.
22 U.S. EPA. (1997a) Exposure factors handbook. Washington, DC: National Center for Environmental Assessment,
23 Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa,b,c.
24 U.S. EPA. (1997b) Guiding principles for Monte Carlo analysis. Washington, DC: Office of Research and
25 Development, Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/600/R-97/001.
26 U.S. EPA. (1998) The EPA children's environmental health yearbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
27 Protection Agency.
28 U.S. EPA. (1999a) Child-related risk assessment policy and methodology guidance document survey, draft report.
29 Washington, DC: Office of Children's Health Protection.
30 U.S. EPA. (1999b) Sociodemographic Data Used for Identifying Potentially Highly Exposed Populations. U.S.
31 Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-99/060. Available on line at:
32 (http ://cfpub. epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav .cfm?deid=22562.
33 U.S. EPA. (2000a) Options for developing parametric probability distributions for exposure factors. Washington,
34 DC: National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development.
35 EPA/600/R-00/058). (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/paramprob4ef.htm).
36 U.S. EPA. (2000b) Summary Report of the Technical Workshop on Issues Associated with Considering
37 Developmental Changes in Behavior and Anatomy When Assessing Exposure to Children. Draft report.
38 Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development, Risk Assessment Forum, September, 2000.
39 U.S. EPA. (2000c) Office of Research and Development. Strategy for research on environmental risks to children.
40 Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-00/068.
1-26
-------
1 U.S. EPA. (2001) Identifying Potentially Highly Exposed Children's Populations. Draft Report. Washington, DC:
2 National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development.
3 U.S. EPA. (2002) Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (Interim Final). Washington, D.C., National Center
4 for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development. EPA-600-P-00-002B.
5 U. S. EPA. (2003a) Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
6 Agency, Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/P-02/00IF. Available on line at:
7 http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/recordisplav.cfm?deid=54944.
8 U.S. EPA. (2003b) Example Exposure Scenarios. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC;
9 EPA/600/R03/036. Available on line at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid=85843.
10 U.S. EPA. (2004) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund. Human health evaluation manual: part E. Supplemental
11 Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
12 EPA/540/R/99/005. http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragse/index.htm
13 U.S. EPA. (2005a) Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to
14 Environmental Contaminants (2005). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/630/P-
15 03/003F. Available on line at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/xmlreport.displav?deid=146583&z chk=33084.
16 U.S. EPA. (2005b) Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
17 EPA/630/P-03/001F.
18 U.S. EPA. (2005c) Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens.
19 Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-03/003F. Available on line at:
20 http://cfpub.epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav. cfm?deid= 116283.
21
22
1-27
-------
Table 1-1. Considerations Used to Rate Confidence in Recommended Values
CONSIDERATIONS
HIGH CONFIDENCE
LOW CONFIDENCE
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of
interest
Data pertinent to U.S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data
collection period
Validity of approach
The studies received high
level of peer review (e.g., they
appear in peer review
journals).
The studies are widely
available to the public.
The results can be reproduced
or methodology can be
followed and evaluated.
The studies focused on the
exposure factor of interest.
The studies focused on the
U.S. population.
The studies analyzed primary
data.
The data were published after
1990.
The study design captures the
measurement of interest (e.g.,
usual consumption patterns of
a population).
The studies used the best
methodology available to
capture the measurement of
interest.
The studies received limited
peer review.
The studies are difficult to
obtain (e.g., draft reports,
unpublished data).
The results cannot be
reproduced, the methodology is
hard to follow, and the
author(s) cannot be located.
The purpose of the studies was
to characterize a related factor.
The studies focused on
populations outside the U.S.
The studies are based on
secondary sources.
The data were published before
1990.
The study design does not very
accurately capture the
measurement of interest.
There are serious limitations
with the approach used.
1-28
-------
Study sizes
Representativeness of
the population
Variability in the
population
Lack of bias in study
design(a high
rating is
desirable)
Response rates
In-person interviews
Telephone interviews
Mail surveys
Measurement error
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between
researchers
The sample size is greater
than
100 samples.
The sample size depends on
how the target population is
defined. As the size of a
sample relative to the total
size of the target population
increases, estimates are made
with greater statistical
assurance that the sample
results reflect actual
characteristics of the target
population.
The study population is the
same as population of interest.
The studies characterized
variability in the population
studied.
Potential bias in the studies
are stated or can be
determined from the study
design.
The response rate is greater
than 80%.
The response rate is greater
than 80%.
The response rate is greater
than 70%.
The study design minimizes
measurement errors.
The number of studies is
greater than 3 .
The results of studies from
different researchers are in
agreement.
The sample size is less than
20 samples.
The study population is very
different from the population
of interest. a
The characterization of
variability is limited.
The study design introduces
biases in the results.
The response rate is less than
40%.
The response rate is less than
40%.
The response rate is less than
40%.
Uncertainties with the data
exist due to measurement error.
The number of studies is 1 .
The results of studies from
different researchers are in
disagreement.
a Differences include age, sex, race, income, or other demographic parameters.
1-29
-------
Table 1-2. Summary of Exposure Factor References and Confidence Ratings
EXPOSURE
FACTOR
Breast milk intake rate
Drinking water intake rate
Food Intake- General
Population
(fruit, vegetables, meats,
dairy
products, grains, fats,
fish)
Fish intake - Recreational
Fish Intake - Native
American
Subsistence
Population
Home produced food
intake
Soil ingestion rate
Mouthing behavior
Inhalation rate
Dermal Factors
Body Weight
Activities
(Showering, Swimming,
Time
Indoors/Outdoors, etc.)
REFERENCE
Table 2- 11
Table 4-7
Table 3 -50
Table 3-50
Table 3-50
Table 3-50
Table 5-21
Table 6-21 (mouthing time)
Table 6-22 (mouthing frequency)
Table 7-21
Surface Area
Whole Body: Tables 8-6, 8-7, 8-8
Body Parts: Table 8-3
Solid Adherence
Tables 8-9, 8-10, 8-16
Age 0 to <2 months: Table 11-1
Older Infants and Children: Tables 11-
9, 11-10, 11-11
Tables 9-75 and 9-76
CONFIDENCE
RATING
(mean/upper
percentile)
Medium/Medium
High/High
High/Low
Low/Low
Low/Low
Low/Low
Medium/Low
Low/Low
Medium/Medium
Medium/Medium
High/High
Medium/Medium
1-30
-------
Table 1-3. Characterization of Variability in Exposure Factors
Exposure Factors
ireast milk intake rate
Total intake rate for major
bod groups
ndividual food intake rate
)rinking water intake rate
Tish intake rate for general
)opulation, recreational
narine, recreational
freshwater, and Native
American
Serving size for foods
-tome produced food intake
ates
Soil intake rate
Vlouthing Behavior
nhalation rate
Surface area
Soil adherence
iody weight
Time indoors
Time outdoors
Showering time
Average
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Median
/
/
/
/
/
/
Upper
percentile
/
/
Qualitative
discussion for
long-term
/
/
/
/
«^ Qualitative
discussion for
long-term
/
/
/
/
Multiple
Percentiles
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Fitted
Distributions
/
1-31
-------
Table 1-4. Integrating EPA's Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing
Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants with EPA's Supplemental Guidance for
Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens For Those Contaminants
Which Act Via a Mutagenic Mode of Action
Exposure Age Group
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 < 1 1 years
11 to < 16 years
16 to < 21 years
>21 years (21 to < 70 yr)
Exposure Duration (yr)
0.083
0.167
0.25
0.5
1
1
3
5
5
5
49
ADAF (Age-Dependent
Potency Adjustment
Factor)
lOx
lOx
lOx
lOx
lOx
3x
3x
3x
3x
Ix
Ix
Note: Age groups for cancer potency adjustment (birth to < 2 years; 2 to < 16 years; and 16
years and above) are represented by the three colored bands of exposure age groups.
1-32
-------
Exposure
Chem ical
Mouth
Intake
G.I. Tract
Uptake
Figure 1-1. Schematic of Dose and Exposure: Oral Route
Source: U.S. EPA, 1992a
B iologically
Effective
Dose
N^
Potential Applied
Dose Dose
S ^
Internal i
Dose
^ I
M etabolism
Effect
1-33
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2. BREAST MILK INTAKE 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.2 STUDIES ON BREAST MILK INTAKE 2-2
2.2.1 Pao et al., 1980 2-2
2.2.2 Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983 2-2
2.2.3. Butte et al., 1984 2-3
2.2.4. Neville et al., 1988 2-4
2.2.5. Dewey et al., 1991a, b 2-4
2.3 STUDIES ON LIPID CONTENT AND FAT INTAKE FROM BREAST MILK
2-5
2.4 OTHER FACTORS 2-7
2.4.1. Population of Nursing Infants 2-7
2.4.2. Intake Rates Based on Nutritional Status 2-8
2.5 RECOMMENDATIONS 2-9
2.5.1 Breast Milk Intake 2-9
2.5.2 Lipid Content and Lipid Intake 2-10
2.6 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2 2-11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Daily Intakes of Breast Milk 2-12
Table 2-2. Breast Milk 2-12
Table 2-3. Breast Milk Intake among Exclusively Breast-fed Infants During the First 4 Months
of Life 2-13
Table 2-4. Breast Milk Intake During a 24-hour Period 2-14
Table 2-5. Breast Milk Intake Estimated by the DARLING Study 2-15
Table 2-6. Lipid Content of Human Milk and Estimated Lipid Intake among Exclusively Breast-
fed Infants 2-15
Table 2-7. 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 2-16
Table 2-8. Confidence in Breast Milk Intake Recommendations 2-17
Table 2-9. Breast Milk Intake Rates Derived from Key Studies 2-18
Table 2-10. Lipid Intake Rates Derived from Key Studies 2-19
Table 2-11. Summary of Recommended Breast Milk And Lipid Intake Rates 2-20
-------
1 2. BREAST MILK INTAKE
2
3 2.1 INTRODUCTION
4 Breast feeding is known to impart a wide range of benefits to nursing infants, including
5 protection against infection, increases in cognitive development, and avoidance of allergies due
6 to intolerance to cow's milk. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends exclusive
7 breast feeding for approximately the first six months and supports the continuation of breast
8 feeding for the first year and beyond if desired by the mother and child (APP, 2005). However,
9 contaminants may find their way into breast milk of lactating mothers. Lipid soluble chemical
10 compounds accumulate in body fat and may be transferred to breast-fed infants in the lipid
11 portion of breast milk. Water soluble chemicals may also partition into the aqueous phase and be
12 excreted via breast milk. Because nursing infants obtain most (if not all) of their dietary intake
13 from breast milk, they are especially vulnerable to exposures to these compounds. Estimating the
14 magnitude of the potential dose to infants from breast milk requires information on the milk
15 intake rate (quantity of breast milk consumed per day) and the duration (months) over which
16 breast-feeding occurs. Information on the fat content of breast milk is also needed for estimating
17 dose from breast milk residue concentrations that have been indexed to lipid content.
18 Several studies have generated data on breast milk intake. Typically, breast milk intake
19 has been measured over a 24-hour period by weighing the infant before and after each feeding
20 without changing its clothing (test weighing). The sum of the difference between the measured
21 weights over the 24-hour period is assumed to be equivalent to the amount of breast milk
22 consumed daily. Intakes measured using this procedure are often corrected for evaporative water
23 losses (insensible water losses) between infant weighings (NAS, 1991). Neville et al. (1988)
24 evaluated the validity of the test weight approach among bottle-fed infants by comparing the
25 weights of milk taken from bottles with the differences between the infants' weights before and
26 after feeding. When test weight data were corrected for insensible weight loss, they were not
27 significantly different from bottle weights. Conversions between weight and volume of breast
28 milk consumed are made using the density of human milk (approximately 1.03 g/mL) (NAS,
29 1991). Recently, techniques for measuring breast milk intake using stable isotopes have been
30 developed. However, few data based on this new technique have been published (NAS, 1991).
2-1
-------
1 Studies among nursing mothers in industrialized countries have shown that intakes
2 among infants average approximately 750 to 800 g/day (728 to 777 mL/day) during the first 4 to
3 5 months of life with a range of 450 to 1,200 g/day (437 to 1,165 mL/day) (NAS, 1991). Similar
4 intakes have also been reported for developing countries (NAS, 1991). Infant birth weight has
5 been shown to influence the rate of intake (NAS, 1991). Infants who are larger at birth and/or
6 nurse more frequently have been shown to have higher intake rates.
7 Key studies on breast milk intake are summarized in the following sections.
8 Recommended intake rates are based on the results of these key studies, as described in the
9 Exposure Factors Handbook. Relevant data on lipid content and fat intake, breast-feeding
10 duration, and the estimated percentage of the U.S. population that breast-feeds are also presented.
11
12 2.2 STUDIES ON BREAST MILK INTAKE
13 2.2.1 Pao et al., 1980
14 Pao et al. (1980) conducted a study of 22 healthy breast-fed infants to estimate breast
15 milk intake rates. Infants were categorized as completely breast-fed or partially breast-fed.
16 Breast feeding mothers were recruited through LaLeche League groups. Except for one black
17 infant, all other infants were from white middle-class families in southwestern Ohio. The goal of
18 the study was to enroll infants as close to one month of age as possible and to obtain records near
19 one, three, six, and nine months of age (Pao et al., 1980). However, not all mother/infant pairs
20 participated at each time interval. Data were collected for these 22 infants using the test
21 weighing method. Records were collected for three consecutive 24-hour periods at each test
22 interval. The weight of breast milk was converted to volume by assuming a density of 1.03
23 g/mL. Daily intake rates were calculated for each infant based on the mean of the three 24-hour
24 periods. Mean daily breast milk intake rates for the infants surveyed at each time interval are
25 presented in Table 2-1. These data (Table 2-1) are presented as they are in the report of Pao
26 (1980). For completely breast-fed infants, the mean intake rates were 600 mL/day at 1 month of
27 age, 833 mL/day at 3 months of age, and 682 mL/day at 6 months of age. Partially breast-fed
28 infants had mean intake rates of 485 mL/day, 467 mL/day, 395 mL/day, and <554 mL/day at 1, 3,
29 6, and 9 months of age, respectively. Pao et al. (1980) also noted that intake rates for boys in
30 both groups were slightly higher than for girls.
2-2
-------
1 The advantage of this study is that data for both exclusively and partially breast-fed
2 infants were collected for multiple time periods. Also, data for individual infants were collected
3 over 3 consecutive days which would account for some individual variability. However, the
4 number of infants in the study was relatively small. In addition, this study did not account for
5 insensible weight loss which may underestimate the amount of breast milk ingested.
6
7 2.2.2 Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
8 Dewey and Lonnerdal (1983) monitored the dietary intake of 20 breast-fed infants
9 between the ages of 1 and 6 months. Most of the infants in the study were exclusively breast-fed
10 (five were given some formula, and several were given small amounts of solid foods after
11 3 months of age). According to Dewey and Lonnerdal (1983), the mothers were all well
12 educated and recruited through Lamaze childbirth classes in the Davis area of California. Breast
13 milk intake volume was estimated based on two 24-hour test weighings per month. Breast milk
14 intake rates for the various age groups are presented in Table 2-2. Breast milk intake averaged
15 673, 782, and 896 mL/day at 1, 3, and 6 months of age, respectively.
16 The advantage of this study is that it evaluated breast-fed infants for a period of 6 months
17 based on two 24-hour observations per infant per month. However, corrections for insensible
18 weight loss apparently were not made. Also, the number of infants in the study was relatively
19 small and the study participants were not representative of the general population.
20
21 2.2.3. Butte et al., 1984
22 Breast milk intake was studied in exclusively breast-fed infants during the first 4 months
23 of life (Butte et al., 1984). Breastfeeding mothers were recruited through the Baylor Milk Bank
24 Program in Texas. Forty-five mother/infant pairs participated in the study. However, data for
25 some time periods (i.e., 1, 2, 3, or 4 months) were missing for some mothers as a result of illness
26 or other factors. The mothers were from the middle- to upper-socioeconomic stratum and had a
27 mean age of 28.0 ±3.1 years. A total of 41 mothers were white, 2 were Hispanic, 1 was Asian,
28 and 1 was West Indian. Infant growth progressed satisfactorily over the course of the study.
29 The amount of milk ingested over a 24-hour period was determined by weighing the
30 infant before and after feeding. To estimate insensible weight loss, the change in weight of a
31 bottle-fed infant during feeding was compared to the change in weight of the bottle. Based on
2-3
-------
1 nine successive feedings, insensible weight loss in this infant was estimated to be 3.2 ± 3.1 g.
2 Test weighing occurred over a 24-hour period for most study participants, but intake among
3 several infants was studied over longer periods (48 to 96 hours) to assess individual variation in
4 intake. Mean breast milk intake ranged from 723 g/day (702 mL/day) at 3 months to 751 g/day
5 (729 mL/day) at 1 month, with an overall mean of 733 g/day (712 mL/day) for the entire study
6 period (Table 2-3). Intakes were also calculated on the basis of body weight (Table 2-3). Based
7 on the results of test weighings conducted over 48 to 96 hours, the overall mean variation in
8 individual daily intake was estimated to be 7.9 ± 3.6%.
9 The advantage of this study is that data for a larger number of exclusively breast-fed
10 infants were collected than were collected by Pao et al. (1980). However, data were collected
11 over a shorter time period (i.e., 4 months compared to 6 months) and day-to-day variability was
12 not characterized for all infants.
13
14 2.2.4. Neville et al., 1988
15 Neville et al. (1988) studied breast milk intake among 13 infants during the first year of
16 life. The mothers were all multiparous, nonsmoking, Caucasian women of middle- to
17 upper-socioeconomic status living in Denver, CO. All women in the study practiced exclusive
18 breast-feeding for at least 5 months. Solid foods were introduced at mean age of 7 months.
19 Daily milk intake was estimated by the test weighing method with corrections for insensible
20 weight loss. Data were collected daily from birth to 14 days, weekly from weeks 3 through 8,
21 and monthly until the study period ended at 1 year after inception. The estimated breast milk
22 intakes for this study are listed in Table 2-4. Mean breast milk intakes were 770 g/day (748
23 mL/day), 734 g/day (713 mL/day), 766 g/day (744 mL/day), and 403 g/day (391 mL/day) at 1, 3,
24 6, and 12 months of age, respectively.
25 In comparison to the previously described studies, Neville et al. (1988) collected data on
26 numerous days over a relatively long time period (12 months) and they were corrected for
27 insensible weight loss. However, the intake rates presented in Table 2-4 are estimated based on
28 intake during only a 24-hour period. Consequently, these intake rates are based on short-term
29 data that do not account for day-to-day variability among individual infants. Also, a smaller
30 number of subjects was included than in the previous studies.
31
2-4
-------
1 2.2.5. Dewey et al., 1991a, b
2 The Davis Area Research on Lactation, Infant Nutrition and Growth (DARLING) study
3 was conducted in 1986 to evaluate growth patterns, nutrient intake, morbidity, and activity levels
4 in infants who were breast-fed for at least the first 12 months of life (Dewey et al., 1991a, b).
5 Seventy-three infants aged 3 months were included in the study. At subsequent time intervals, the
6 number of infants included in the study at was somewhat lower as a result of attrition. All
7 infants in the study were healthy and of normal gestational age and weight at birth, and did not
8 consume solid foods until after the first 4 months of age. The mothers were highly educated and
9 of "relatively high socioeconomic status."
10 Breast milk intake was estimated by weighing the infants before and after each feeding
11 and correcting for insensible water loss. Test weighings were conducted over a 4-day period
12 every 3 months. This decline is associated with the intake of solid food. The results of the study
13 indicate that breast milk intake declines over the first 12 months of life. Mean breast milk intake
14 was estimated to be 812 g/day (788 mL/day) at 3 months and 448 g/day (435 mL/day) at 12
15 months (Table 2-5). Based on the estimated intakes at 3 months of age, variability between
16 individuals (coefficient of variation ([CV]) = 16.3%) was higher than the average day-to-day
17 variability ([CV] = 8.9 ± 5.4%) for the infants in the study (Dewey et al., 1991a).
18 The advantages of this study are that data were collected over a relatively long-time
19 (4 days) period at each test interval which would account for some day-to-day infant variability,
20 and corrections for insensible water loss were made.
21
22 2.3 STUDIES ON LIPID CONTENT AND FAT INTAKE FROM BREAST MILK
23 Human milk contains over 200 constituents including lipids, various proteins,
24 carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, and trace elements as well as enzymes and hormones. The
25 lipid content of breast milk varies according to the length of time that an infant nurses, and
26 increases from the beginning to the end of a single nursing session (NAS, 1991). The lipid
27 portion accounts for approximately 4% of human breast milk (39± 4.0 g/L) (NAS, 1991). This
28 value is supported by various studies that evaluated lipid content from human breast milk.
29 Several studies also estimated the quantity of lipid consumed by breast-feeding infants. These
30 values are appropriate for performing exposure assessments for nursing infants when the
2-5
-------
1 contaminant(s) have residue concentrations that are indexed to the fat portion of human breast
2 milk.
3
4 2.3.1 Butte et al., 1984
5 Butte et al. (1984) analyzed the lipid content of breast milk samples taken from women
6 who participated in a study of breast milk intake among exclusively breast-fed infants. The study
7 was conducted with over 40 women during a 4-month period. The mean lipid content of breast
8 milk at various infants' ages is presented in Table 2-6. The overall lipid content for the 4-month
9 study period was 34.3 ± 6.9 mg/g (3.4%). Butte et al. (1984) also calculated lipid intakes from
10 24-hour breast milk intakes and the lipid content of the human milk samples. Lipid intake was
11 estimated to range from 23.6 g/day (3.8 g/kg-day) to 28.0 g/day (5.9 g/kg-day).
12 The number of women included in this study was small, and these women were selected
13 primarily from middle to upper socioeconomic classes. Thus, data on breast milk lipid content
14 from this study may not be entirely representative of breast milk lipid content among the U.S.
15 population. Also, these estimates are based on short-term data, and day-to-day variability was
16 not characterized.
17
18 2.3.1 Maxwell and Burmaster, 1993
19 Maxwell and Burmaster (1993) used a hypothetical population of 5000 infants between
20 birth and 1 year of age to simulate a distribution of daily lipid intake from breast milk. The
21 hypothetical population represented both bottle-fed and breast-fed infants aged 1 to 365 days. A
22 distribution of daily lipid intake was developed, based on data in Dewey et al. (1991b) on breast
23 milk intake for infants at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and breast milk lipid content, and survey data in
24 Ryan et al. (1991) on the percentage of breast-fed infants under the age of 12 months (i.e.,
25 approximately 22%). A model was used to simulate intake among 1113 of the 5000 infants that
26 were expected to be breast-fed. The results of the model indicated that lipid intake among
27 nursing infants under 12 months of age can be characterized by a normal distribution with a mean
28 of 26.8 g/day and a standard deviation of 7.4 g/day (Table 2-7). The model assumes that nursing
29 infants are completely breast-fed and does not account for infants who are breast-fed longer than
30 1 year. Based on data collected by Dewey et al. (1991b), Maxwell and Burmaster (1993)
31 estimated the lipid content of breast milk to be 36.7 g/L at 3 months (35.6 mg/g or 3.6%), 39.2
2-6
-------
1 g/L at 6 months (38.1 mg/g or 3.8%), 41.6 g/L at 9 months (40.4 mg/g or 4.0%), and 40.2 g/L at
2 12 months (39.0 mg/g or 3.9%).
3 The advantage of this study is that it provides a "snapshot" of daily lipid intake from
4 breast milk for breast-fed infants. These results are, however, based on a simulation model and
5 there are uncertainties associated with the assumptions made. The estimated mean lipid intake
6 rate represents the average daily intake for nursing infants under 12 months of age. These data
7 are useful for performing exposure assessments when the age of the infant cannot be specified
8 (i.e., 3 months or 6 months). Also, because intake rates are indexed to the lipid portion of the
9 breast milk, they may be used in conjunction with residue concentrations indexed to fat content.
10 However, the study did not generate "new" data. A reanalysis of previously reported data on
11 breast milk intake and breast milk lipid intake were provided.
12
13 2.4 OTHER FACTORS
14 Other factors associated with breast milk intake include: the frequency of breast-feeding
15 sessions per day, the duration of breast-feeding per event, the duration of breast-feeding during
16 childhood, and the magnitude and nature of the population that breast-feeds (i.e., socioeconomic
17 factors, ethnicity, etc.).
18
19 2.4.1. Population of Nursing Infants
20 According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the percentage of breast-feeding
21 women has changed dramatically over the years (NAS, 1991). The Ross Products Division of
22 Abbott Laboratories conducted a large national mail survey in 1995 to determine patterns of
23 breast feeding during the first 6 months of life. The Ross Laboratory Mothers's Survey was first
24 developed in 1955 and has been expanded to include many more infants. Before 1991, the
25 survey was conducted on a quarterly basis, and approximately 40,000 to 50,000 questionnaires
26 were mailed each quarter (Ryan, 1997). Beginning in 1991, the survey was conducted monthly;
27 35,000 were mailed each month. Over time, the response rate has been consistently in the range
28 of 50 ± 5%. In 1989 and 1995, 196,000 and 720,000 questionnaires were mailed, respectively.
29 Ryan (1997) reported rates of breast-feeding through 1995 and compared them with those in
30 1989.
2-7
-------
1 The survey demonstrates recent increases in both the initiation of breast-feeding and
2 continued breast-feeding at 6 months of age. Table 2-7 presents the percent of breast-feeding in
3 hospitals and at 6 months of age by selected demographic characteristics. In 1995, the incidence
4 of breast-feeding at birth and at 6 months for all infants was approximately 60% and 22 %,
5 respectively. The largest increases in the initiation of breast-feeding between 1989 and 1995
6 occurred among women who (1) were Black, were less than 25 years of age, earned less than
7 $10,000 per year, had no more than grade school education, and were living in the South Atlantic
8 region of the U.S.; (2) had infants of low birth weight; (3) were employed full time outside the
9 home at the time they received the survey; and (4) participated in the Women, Infants, and
10 Children program (WIC). In 1995, as in 1989, the initiation of breast-feeding was highest among
11 women who were greater than 35 years of age, earned more than $25,000 per year, and were
12 college educated; women who did not participate in the WIC program; and women who were
13 living in the Mountain and Pacific regions of the U.S.
14 Data on the actual length of time that infants continue to breast-feed beyond 5 or 6
15 months are limited (NAS, 1991). However, Maxwell and Burmaster (1993) estimated that
16 approximately 22 percent of infants under 1 year of age are breast-fed. This estimate is based on
17 a reanalysis of survey data in Ryan et al. (1991) collected by Ross Laboratories (Maxwell and
18 Burmaster, 1993).
19
20 2.4.2. Intake Rates Based on Nutritional Status
21 Information on differences in the quality and quantity of breast milk on the basis of ethnic
22 or socioeconomic characteristics of the population is limited. Lonnerdal et al. (1976) studied
23 breast milk volume and composition (nitrogen, lactose, proteins) among underprivileged and
24 privileged Ethiopian mothers. No significant differences were observed between the data for
25 these two groups. Similar data were observed for well-nourished Swedish mothers. Lonnerdal et
26 al. (1976) stated that these results indicate that breast milk quality and quantity are not affected
27 by maternal malnutrition. However, Brown et al. (1986a, b) noted that the lactational capacity
28 and energy concentration of marginally-nourished women in Bangladesh were "modestly less
29 than in better nourished mothers." Breast milk intake rates for infants of marginally-nourished
30 women in this study were 690 ± 122 g/day at 3 months, 722 ± 105 g/day at 6 months, and 719 ±
31 119 g/day at 9 months of age (Brown et al., 1986a). Brown et al. (1986a) observed that breast
2-8
-------
1 milk from women with larger measurements of arm circumference and triceps skinfold thickness
2 had higher concentrations of fat and energy than mothers with less body fat. Positive correlations
3 between maternal weight and milk fat concentrations were also observed. These results suggest
4 that milk composition may be affected by maternal nutritional status.
5
6 2.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
7 The studies described in this section were used in selecting recommended values for
8 breast milk intake, fat content and fat intake, and other related factors. Although different survey
9 designs, testing periods, and populations were utilized by the studies to estimate intake, the mean
10 and standard deviation estimates reported in these studies are relatively consistent. There are,
11 however, limitations with the data. With the exception of Butte (1984), data were not presented
12 on a body weight basis. This is particularly important since intake rates may be higher on a body
13 weight basis for younger infants. Also, the data used to derive the recommendations are over 15
14 years old and the sample size of the studies was small. Other subpopulations of concern such as
15 mothers highly committed to breast feeding sometimes for periods longer than 1 year may
16 not be captured by the studies presented in this chapter. Further research is needed to identify
17 these subgroups and to get better estimates of breast milk intake rates. Table 2-8 presents the
18 confidence rating for breast milk intake recommendations.
19
20 2.5.1 Breast Milk Intake
21 The breast milk intake rates for nursing infants that have been reported in the studies
22 described in this section are summarized in Table 2-9. It should be noted that the decrease in
23 breast milk intake with age is likely a result of complementary foods being introduced as the
24 child grows and not necessarily a decrease in total energy intake. In order to conform to the new
25 standardized age groupings used in this Handbook (see Chapter 1), data from Pao et a. (1980),
26 Dewey and Lonnerdal (1983), Butte et al. (1984), Neville et al. (1988), Dewey et al. (1991a), and
27 Dewey et al. (1991b) were compiled for each month of the first year of life. For some months
28 multiple studies were available; for others only one study was available. Weighted means were
29 calculated for each age in months. Upper percentiles were calculated as the midpoint of the range
30 of upper percentiles of the studies available for each age in months. These month-by-month
31 intakes were composited to yield intakes for the standardized age groups by taking an
2-9
-------
1 unweighted average, assuming that in the general population, each age (e.g., 3, 4, and 5 months)
2 is equally represented.
3
4 2.5.2 Lipid Content and Lipid Intake
5 Recommended lipid intake rates are presented in Table 2-10. The table parallels the
6 breast milk intake table (Table 2-9). Figures were calculated assuming a lipid content of 4%
7 (Butte et al.,1984; NAS, 1991; Maxwell and Burmaster, 1993). An exception to this method was
8 employed in the case of the Butte et al. (1984) study, where lipid intakes were provided in the
9 study. The values from the study were used in place of the estimated lipid intakes.
10
11
2-10
-------
2.6 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2
3 APP (2005) Breast feeding and the use of human milk. Policy Statement. Pediatrics Vol. 115 No. 2 February 2005,
4 pp. 496-506 available on line at http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;! 1 5/2/496
5
6 Brown, K.H.; Akhtar, N.A.; Robertson, A.D.; Ahmed, M.G. (1986a) Lactational capacity of marginally nourished
7 mothers: relationships between maternal nutritional status and quantity and proximate composition of milk.
8 Pediatrics. 78: 909-919.
9
10 Brown, K.H.; Robertson, A. D.; Akhtar, N.A. (1986b) Lactational capacity of marginally nourished mothers: infants'
1 1 milk nutrient consumption and patterns of growth. Pediatrics. 78: 920-927.
12
13 Butte, N.F.; Garza, C.; Smith, E.O.; Nichols, B.L. (1984) Human milk intake and growth in exclusively breast-fed
14 infants. Journal of Pediatrics. 104:187-195.
15
16 Dewey, K.G.; Lonnerdal, B. (1983) Milk and nutrient intake of breast-fed infants from 1 to 6 months:relation to
17 growth and fatness. Journal of Pediatric Gastroentero logy and Nutrition. 2:497-506.
18
19 Dewey, K.G.; Heinig, J.; Nommsen, L.A.; Lonnerdal, B. (1991a) Maternal versus infant factors related to breast
20 milk intake and residual volume: the DARLING study. Pediatrics. 87:829-837.
21
22 Dewey, K.G.; Heinig, J.; Nommsen, L.; Lonnerdal, B. (1991b) Adequacy of energy intake among breast-fed infants
23 in the DARLING study: relationships to growth, velocity, morbidity, and activity levels. The Journal of
24 Pediatrics. 119:538-547.
25
26 Lonnerdal, B.; Forsum, E.; Gebre-Medhim, M.; Hombraes, L. (1976) Breast milk composition in Ethiopian and
27 Swedish mothers: lactose, nitrogen, and protein contents. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 29:11 34-
28 1141.
29
30 Maxwell, N.I.; Burmaster, D.E. (1993) A simulation model to estimate a distribution of lipid intake from breast
3 1 milk during the first year of life. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 3:383-406.
32
33 National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1991) Nutrition during lactation. Washington, DC. National Academy
34 Press.
35
36 Neville, M.C.; Keller, R.; Seacat, J.; Lutes, V.; Neifert, M.; et al. (1988) Studies in human lactation: milk volumes
37 in lactating women during the onset of lactation and full lactation. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
38 48:1375-1386.
39
40 Pao, E.M.; Hines, J.M.; Roche, A.F. (1980) Milk intakes and feeding patterns of breast-fed infants. Journal of the
41 American Dietetic Association. 77:540-545.
42
43 Ryan, A.S.; Rush, D.; Krieger, F.W.; Lewandowski, G.E. (1991) Recent declines in breastfeeding in the United
44 States, 1984-1989. Pediatrics. 88:719-727.
45
46 Ryan, A. S. (1997) The resurgence of breastfeeding in the United States. Pediatrics. 99(4):el2.
47 http://www.pediatrics.Org/cqi/content/full/99/4/el2.
48
49
50
51
52
2-11
-------
Table 2-1. Daily Intakes of Breast Milk
Age
Completely Breast-fed
1 month
3 months
6 months
Partially Breast-fed
1 month
3 months
6 months
9 months
Number of Infants
11
2
1
4
11
6
3
Intake
Mean ± SD
(mL/day) a
600 ±159
833
682
485 ± 79
467 ±100
395 ±175
<554
Intake Range
(mL/day)
426 - 989
645 - 1,000
616-786
398-655
242 - 698
147 - 684
451-732
"Data expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Source: Paoetal, 1980.
Table 2-2. Breast Milk Intakes for infants aged 1 to 6 months
Age
(months)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Number of Infants
16
19
16
13
11
11
Intake
Mean ± SD
(mL/day)
673 ±192
756 ±170
782 ±172
810 ±142
805 ±117
896 ± 122
Intake Range
(mL/day)
341-1003
449-1055
492-1053
593-1045
554-1045
675-1096
Source: Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
2-12
-------
Table 2-3. Breast Milk Intake among Exclusively Breast-fed Infants During the First 4 Months of Life
Age
(months)
1
2
3
4
Number of Infants
37
40
37
41
Intake (g/day)
Mean ± SD
751.0 ±130.0
725.0 ±131.0
723.0 ±114.0
740.0 ± 128.0
Intake (g/kg-day)
Mean ± SD
159.0 ±24.0
129.0 ±19.0
117.0 ±20.0
111.0±17.0
Body Weight"
(kg)
4.7
5.6
6.2
6.7
"Calculated by dividing breast milk intake (g/day) by breast milk intake (g/kg-day).
Source: Butte et al, 1984
2-13
-------
Table 2-4. Breast Milk Intake During a 24-hour Period
Age
(days)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
21
28
35
42
49
56
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
Number of Infants
6
9
10
10
11
9
7
8
9
9
8
9
10
13
12
12
10
12
10
12
12
13
12
9
12
11
8
8
Intake ( g/day)
Mean ± SD
44 ±71
182 ±86
371 ±153
451 ±176
498 ±129
508 ±167
573 ± 167
581 ±159
580 ± 76
589 ±132
615 ±168
653 ±154
651 ±84
770 ± 179
668 ±117
711±111
709 ±115
694 ± 98
734 ±114
711 ±100
838 ±134
766 ± 121
721 ± 154
622 ±210
618 ±220
551 ±234
554 ± 240
403 ±250
Range
-31-149 a
44-355
209-688
164-694
323-736
315-861
406-842
410-923
470-720
366-866
398-934
416-922
554-786
495-1144
465-930
554-896
559-922
556-859
613-942
570-847
688-1173
508-936
486-963
288-1002
223-871
129-894
120-860
65-770
Intake by age category
(g/d)b
526 ± 227
699 ±108
734 ±114
711 ±100
838 ±134
766 ± 121
721 ± 154
622 ±210
618 ±220
551 ±234
554 ± 240
403 ±250
"Negative value due to insensible weight loss correction.
'Multiple data sets were combined by producing simulated data sets fitting the known mean and SD for each age,
compositing the data sets to correspond to age groups of 0 to <1 month and 1 to <2 months, and calculating new means and
SD's on the composited data.
SD = standard deviation.
Source: Neville etal, 1988
2-14
-------
Table 2-5. Breast Milk Intake Estimated by the DARLING Study
Age
(months)
3
6
9
12
Number of Infants
73
60
50
42
Intake (g/day)
Mean ± SD
812 ±133
769 ±171
646 ±217
448 ±251
Source: Dewey et al., 1991b
Table 2-6. Lipid Content of Human Milk and Estimated Lipid Intake among Exclusively Breast-fed Infants
Age
(months)
1
2
3
4
Number
of
Observations
37
40
37
41
Lipid Content
(mg/g)
Mean ± SD
36.2 ±7.5
34.4 ±6. 8
32.2 ±7.8
34. 8 ±10. 8
Lipid
Content % a
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.5
Lipid
Intake
(g/day)
Mean ± SD
28.0 ±8. 5
25.2 ±7.1
23. 6 ±7.2
25. 6 ±8. 6
Lipid
Intake
(g/kg-day)
Mean ± SD
5. 9 ±1.7
4.4 ±1.2
3. 8 ±1.2
3. 8 ±1.3
Tercents calculated from lipid content reported in mg/g.
Source: Butte, et al., 1984
2-15
-------
Table 2-7. 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
Characteristic
All Infants
White
Black
Hispanic
Maternal Age (years)
<20
20-24
25-29
30-34
35+
Total Family Income
<$ 10,000
$10,000 -$14,999
$15,000 -$24,999
>25,000
Maternal Education
Grade School
High School
College
Maternal Employment
Employed Full Time
Employed Part Time
Not Employed
Birth Weight
Low(<2,500g)
Normal
Parity
Primiparous
Multiparous
WIC Participation'
Participant
Nonparticipant
U.S. Census Region
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Percentage of Mothers Breast-Feeding
In Hospital
1989
52.2
58.5
23.0
48.4
30.2
4.2
58.8
65.5
66.5
31.8
47.1
54.7
66.3
31.7
42.5
70.7
50.8
59.4
51.0
36.2
53.5
52.6
51.7
34.2
62.9
52.2
47.4
47.6
55.9
43.8
37.9
46.0
70.2
70.3
1995
59.7
64.3
37.0
61.0
42.8
52.6
63.1
68.1
70.0
41.8
51.7
58.8
70.7
43.8
49.7
74.4
60.7
63.5
58.0
47.7
60.5
61.6
57.8
46.6
71.0
61.2
53.8
54.6
61.9
54.8
44.1
54.4
75.1
75.1
Change8
14.4
9.9
60.9
26.0
41.7
16.4
7.3
4.0
5.3
31.4
9.8
7.5
6.6
38.2
16.9
5.2
19.5
6.9
13.7
31.8
13.1
17.1
11.8
36.3
12.9
17.2
13.5
14.7
10.7
25.1
16.4
18.3
7.0
6.8
At 6 Months
1989
18.1
21.0
6.4
13.9
5.6
11.5
21.1
29.3
34.0
8.2
13.9
18.9
25.5
11.5
12.4
28.8
8.9
21.1
21.6
9.8
18.8
15.1
21.1
8.4
23.8
18.6
16.8
16.7
18.4
13.7
11.5
13.6
28.3
26.6
1995
21.6
24.1
11.2
19.6
9.1
14.6
22.9
29.0
33.8
11.4
15.4
19.8
28.5
17.1
15.0
31.2
14.3
23.4
25.0
12.6
22.3
19.5
23.6
12.7
29.2
22.2
19.6
18.9
21.4
18.6
13.0
17.0
30.3
30.9
Change"
19.3
14.8
75.0
41.0
62.5
27.0
8.5
(1.0?
(0.6)b
39.0
10.8
4.8
11.8
48.7
21.0
8.3
60.7
10.9
15.7
28.6
18.6
29.1
11.8
51.2
22.7
19.4
16.7
13.2
16.3
35.8
13.0
25.0
7.1
16.2
a The percent change was calculated using the following formula: % breastfed in 1984 - % breastfed in 1989 / % breastfed in
1984.
b Figures in parentheses indicate a decrease in the rate of breastfeeding from 1989 to 1995.
c WIC indicates Women, Infants, and Children supplemental food program.
Source: Ryan, 1997
2-16
-------
Table 2-8. Confidence in Breast Milk Intake Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to U.S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection
period
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of variability
Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
Measurement error
All key studies are from peer reviewed literature.
Papers are widely available from peer reviewed journals.
Methodology used was clearly presented.
The focus of the studies was on estimating breast milk intake.
Subpopulations of the U.S. were the focus of all the key studies.
All the studies were based on primary data.
Studies were conducted between 1980-1997.
Infants were not studied long enough to fully characterize day to day
variability. With the exception of Neville et al. (1988), the
measurements were made in frequency (e.g., once a month) and the
data may not represent the potential first year of lactation (both for
less than 1 month of age and for longitudinal measurements of more
than 6 months).
Methodology uses changes in body weight as a surrogate for total
ingestion. This is the best methodology there is to estimate breast
milk ingestion; however, because there are limitations to this
approach, the confidence rating was judged to be low. Mothers were
instructed in the use of infant scales to minimize measurement errors.
Three out of the 5 studies corrected data for insensible water loss.
The sample sizes used in the key studies were fairly small (range 13-
73).
Population are representative of the general mother-infant pair
population.
Not very well characterized. Infants under 1 month not captured,
mothers committed to breast feeding over 1 year not captured.
Bias in the studies was not characterized. Two out of 5 studies
corrected for insensible water loss.
All mothers were well educated and trained in the use of the scale
which helped minimize measurement error. Not correcting for
insensible water loss may underestimate intake. Mothers selected for
the studies were volunteers; therefore response rate does not apply.
Population studied may introduce some bias in the results (see
above).
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium-
High
Medium
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
Medium
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
There are 5 key studies.
There is good agreement among researchers.
Studies were well designed. Results were consistent. Sample size
was fairly low. Variability cannot be characterized due to limitations
in data collection period.
Medium
High
Medium
2-17
-------
Table 2-9. Breast Milk Intake Rates Derived from Key Studies
Age
(months)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Number
of
Children
128
11
37
13
16
10
19
40
2
37
12
16
73
12
13
41
13
11
1
12
11
60
9
12
11
50
8
8
42
Mean
Intake
(mL/day)
511
600
729
679
673
713
756
704
833
702
690
782
788
814
810
718
744
805
682
700
896
747
604
600
535
627
538
391
435
Upper
Percentile
Consumption
(mL/day)"
952
918
982
888
1057
934
1096
958
923
884
1126
1047
1074
1094
967
979
1039
999
1140
1079
1012
1027
989
1049
1004
877
922
Reference
Neville et al., 1988
Pao et al., 1980
Butte et al., 1984
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
Butte et al., 1984
Pao et al., 1980
Butte et al., 1984
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
Dewey et al., 1991b
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
Butte et al., 1984
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
Pao et al., 1980
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
Dewey et al., 1991b
Neville et al., 1988
Neville et al., 1988
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey et al., 1991b
Neville et al., 1988
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey et al., 1991a; 1991b
Weighted Mean Intake
and Upper Percentile Consumption"
(across all Key Studies)
(mL/day)
individual age
Mean
511
687
720
757
754
772
759
604
600
610
538
391
435
Upper
952
973
1015
1005
1031
1009
1070
1012
1027
1019
1004
877
922
composite ages
Mean"
511
703
761
584
435
Upper
952
992
1005
1009
922
Upper percentile is reported (mean plus 2 standard deviations), except as noted.
Middle of the range.
Standard deviations and upper percentiles not calculated for small sample sizes.
Calculated as an unweighted mean, assuming that in the general population, each
age (e.g., 3,4, and 5 months) is equally represented.
2-18
-------
Table 2-10. Lipid Intake Rates Derived from Key Studies
Age
(months)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Number
of
Children
128
11
37
13
16
10
19
40
2
37
12
16
73
12
13
41
13
11
1
12
11
60
9
12
11
50
8
8
42
Mean
Intake
(mL/day)
20.4
24.0
27.2
27.2
26.9
28.5
30.2
24.5
33.3
22.9
27.6
31.3
31.5
32.6
32.4
24.9
29.8
32.2
27.3
28.0
35.8
29.9
24.2
24.0
21.4
25.1
21.5
15.6
17.4
Upper Percentile
Consumption
(mL/day)"
38.1
36.7
43.7
35.5
42.3
37.4
43.8
38.3
36.9
35.4
45.0
41.9
43.0
43.8
41.6
39.2
41.6
40.0
45.6
43.2
40.5
41.1
39.6
42.0
40.2
35.1
36.9
Reference
Neville et al, 1988
Pao et al., 1980
Butte et al., 1984
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
Butte et al., 1984
Pao et al., 1980
Butte et al., 1984
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
Dewey et al., 1991b
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
Butte et al., 1984
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
Pao et al., 1980
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey and Lonnerdal, 1983
Dewey et al., 1991b
Neville et al., 1988
Neville et al., 1988
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey et al., 1991b
Neville et al., 1988
Neville et al., 1988
Dewey etal., 1991a; 1991b
Weighted Mean Intake
and Upper Percentile Consumption"
(across all Key Studies)
(mL/day)
individual age
Mean
20
27
27
29
28
31
30
24
24
24
22
16
17
Upper
38
40
41
40
43
40
43
40
41
41
40
35
37
composite ages
Mean"
20
27
29
23
17
Upper
38
40
40
40
37
Upper percentile is reported (mean plus 2 standard deviations), except as noted.
Middle of the range.
Standard deviations and upper percentiles not calculated for small sample sizes.
Calculated as an unweighted mean, assuming that in the general population, each age
(e.g., 3,4, and 5 months) is equally represented.
Calculated from breast milk intake assuming a lipid content of 4% (NAS, 1991; Butte et
al., 1984, and Maxwell and Burmaster, 1993). EXCEPT data from Butte et al. (1984),
where lipid data were provided.
2-19
-------
Table 2-11. Summary of Recommended Breast Milk And Lipid Intake Rates
Age
birth to < 1 month
1 to < 3 months
3 to < 6 months
6 to < 12 months
birth to 1 year
Breast Milk Intake, mL/day
Mean
511
703
761
584
642
Upper Percentile
952
992
1005
1009
973
Lipid Intake3, mL/day
Mean
20
27
29
23
25
Upper Percentile
30
40
40
40
39
aThe recommended value for the lipid content of breast milk is 4.0 percent. See Section 2.5.2.
bMiddle of the range of upper percentile values.
2-20
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3. FOOD INTAKE 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.2 INTAKE RATE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR VARIOUS FOOD TYPES 3-4
3.2.1 USDA, 1999 3-4
3.2.2 U.S. EPA, 2003 3-6
3.3 FISH INTAKE RATES 3-9
3.3.1 General Population Studies 3-9
3.3.1.1. U.S. EPA, 2002 3-9
3.3.1.2. Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 3-10
3.3.2 Freshwater Recreational Study 3-11
3.3.3 Native American Subsistence Studies 3-13
3.3.3.1 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), 1994
3-13
3.3.3.2. Toy et al., 1996 3-15
3.3.3.3. The Suquamish Tribe, 2000 3-16
3.3.4 Multi-State Study 3-17
3.4 FAT INTAKE 3-18
3.4.1. Bogalusa Heart Study 3-18
3.4.2. U.S. EPA 2006 3-19
3.5 TOTAL DIETARY INTAKE AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO DIETARY INTAKE
3-19
3.6 INTAKE OF HOME-PRODUCED FOODS 3-22
3.7 SERVING SIZE STUDY BASED ON THE USDA NFCS 3-27
3.8 CONVERSION BETWEEN "AS CONSUMED" AND DRY WEIGHT INTAKE
RATES 3-28
3.9 FAT CONTENT OF MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTS 3-29
3.10 RECOMMENDATIONS 3-30
3.11 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3 3-32
APPENDIX 3 A Calculations Used in the 1994-96 CSFII Analysis to Correct for Mixtures
APPENDIX 3B Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA
CSFII Data
APPENDIX 3C Sample Calculation of Mean Daily Fat Intake Based On CDC (1994) Data
APPENDIX 3D Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA
NFCS Data
APPENDIX 3E Statistical Notes
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Grain Products: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita .... 3-35
Table 3-2. Grain Products: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age 3-36
Table 3-3. Vegetables: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita 3-37
Table 3-4. Vegetables: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age 3-38
Table 3-5. Fruits: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age 3-39
Table 3-6. Fruits: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age 3-40
Table 3-7. Milk and Milk Products: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita
3-41
Table 3-8. Milk and Milk Products: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age . . 3-42
Table 3-9. Meat, Poultry, and Fish: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age 3-43
Table 3-10. Meat, Poultry, and Fish: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age . 3-44
Table 3-11. Eggs, Legumes, Nuts and Seeds, Fats and Oils, Sugars and Sweets: Mean Quantities
consumed daily by sex and age 3-45
Table 3-12. Eggs, Legumes, Nuts and Seeds, Fats and Oils, Sugars and Sweets: Percentage of
individuals consuming, by sex and age 3-46
Table 3-13. Beverages: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age 3-47
Table 3-14. Beverages: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age 3-48
Table 3-15. Unweighted Number of Observations, 1994/96 CSFII Analysis 3-49
Table 3-16. Per Capita Intake of the Major Food Groups (g/kg-day as consumed) 3-50
Table 3-17. Per Capita Intake of Individual Foods (g/kg-day as consumed) 3-52
Table 3-18. Per Capita Intake of USD A Categories of Vegetables and Fruits (g/kg-day as
consumed) 3-56
Table 3-19. Per Capita Intake of Exposed/Protected Fruit and Vegetable Categories (g/kg-day as
consumed) 3-58
Table 3-20. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake by Age and Gender -
As Consumed 3-60
Table 3-21. Consumers Only Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake by Age and
Gender - As Consumed 3-61
Table 3-22. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake by Age and Gender -
Uncooked Fish Weight 3-62
Table 3-23. Consumers Only Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake by Age and
Gender - Uncooked Fish Weight 3-63
Table 3-24. Number of Respondents Reporting Consumption of a Specified Number of Servings
of Seafood in 1 Month and Source of Seafood Eaten 3-64
Table 3-25. Mean Fish Intake Among Individuals Who Eat Fish and Reside in Households With
Recreational Fish Consumption 3-65
Table 3-26. Fish Consumption Rates among Native American Children (age 5 years and under)
3-66
Table 3-27. Mean, 50th, and 90th Percentiles of Consumption Rates for Native American
Children Age Birth to Five Years (g/kg/day) 3-67
Table 3-28. Native American Children's Consumption Rate (g/kg/day): Individual Finfish and
Shellfish and Fish Groups 3-68
-------
Table 3-29. Native American Children's Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) for Consumers Only:
Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups 3-69
Table 3-30. Mean Fish Consumption, per capita, g/day and g/kg/day As Consumed, in Four
States 3-70
Table 3-31. Mean Fish Consumption, Consumers Only, g/day and g/kg/day As Consumed, in
Four States 3-71
Table 3-32. Mean Fish Consumption, Consumers Only, g/day and g/kg/day As Consumed, by
Caught or Bought Status 3-72
Table 3-33. Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Heart Study, 1973-
1982 (g/day) 3-73
Table 3-34. Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Heart Study, 1973-
1982 (g/kg/day) 3-74
Table 3-35. Mean Total Daily Dietary Fat Intake (g/day) Grouped by Age and Gender .... 3-75
Table 3-36. Total Fat Intake for the Whole Population and for the Top 10% of Animal Fat Consumers
by Consumers Only (g/kg-day) 3-76
Table 3-37. Per Capita Total Dietary Intake 3-77
Table 3-38. Per Capita Intake of Major Food Groups (g/day, as consumed) 3-78
Table 3-39. Per Capita Intake of Major Food Groups (g/kg/day, as consumed) 3-82
Table 3-40. 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 IntaBeSS
Table 3-41. 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 IntaBeSS
Table 3-42. 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 3-91
Table 3-43. 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 IntakS-94
Table 3-44. 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 3-97
Table 3-45. 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 Int&kleOO
Table 3-46. Weighted and Unweighted Number of Observations (Individuals) for NFCS Data
Used in Analysis ofFood Intake 3-103
Table 3-47. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Foods (g/kg-day)a - All Regions Combined
3-104
Table 3-48. Percent Weight Losses from Food Preparation 3-105
Table 3-49. Quantity (as consumed) of Food Groups Consumed Per Eating Occasion and the
Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods Over a Three-Day Period in a 1977-1978
Survey 3-106
Table 3-50. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Food Groups Expressed as Percentages of
Edible Portions 3-108
Table 3-51. Percent Moisture Content for Selected Fish Species" 3-113
Table 3-52. Percentage Lipid Content (Expressed as Percentages of 100 Grams of Edible
Portions) of Selected Meat, Dairy, and Fish Products" 3-116
Table 3-53. Fat Content of Meat Products 3-120
-------
Table 3-54. Summary of Recommended Values for Per Capita Intake of Foods, As Consumed
3-121
Table 3-55. Confidence Intake Recommendations for Various Foods, Including Fish (General
Population) 3-123
Table 3-56. Confidence Intake Recommendations for Fish Consumption - Recreational
Freshwater Angler Population 3-124
Table 3-57. Summary of Fish Intake Rates Among Native American Children (Consumers Only)
3-125
Table 3-58. Confidence Intake Recommendations for Fish Consumption - Native American
Subsistence Population 3-126
Table 3 A-l. Fraction of Grain and Meat Mixture Intake Represented by Various Food
Items/groups 3A-2
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data
3B-1
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USDA NFCS Data
3D-1
-------
1 3. FOOD INTAKE
2
3 3.1 INTRODUCTION
4 The American food supply is generally considered to be one of the safest in the world.
5 The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been protecting the Nation's food supply for over a
6 century through a number of food safety programs that monitor chemical and biological
7 contaminants and rank the nutritional quality of various food items.. However, contamination of
8 foods may occur through environmental pollution of air, water, and soil or through intentional
9 use of chemicals such as pesticides or other agrochemical products. To assess exposure through
10 this pathway, information on food ingestion rates are needed.
11 Children's exposure from contaminated foods may differ from that of adults because of
12 differences in the type and amounts of food eaten. Also, for many foods, the intake per unit
13 body weight is greater for children than for adults. Common foods eaten by children include
14 nonfat milk solids, apple juice, fresh apples, orange juice, fresh pears, milk fat and solids, fresh
15 peaches, carrots, lean beef, milk sugar (lactose), fresh bananas, milled rice, succulent garden
16 peas, succulent garden beans, oats, soybean oil, coconut oil, and wheat flour (Goldman, 1995).
17 The primary sources of recent information on consumption rates of foods among children
18 are USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) and the USD A Continuing Survey
19 of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). Data from the 1989-1991 and 1994-96 CSFII and the
20 1998 Children's supplement to the 1994-96 CSFII have been used in various studies to generate
21 children's per capita intake rates for both individual foods and the major food groups. Earlier
22 studies have used USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) from 1977/1978 or
23 1987/88. Because data from the 1989-91 and 1994-96 CSFIIs and the 1998 Children's
24 supplement to the 1994-96 CSFII are available, data from the older surveys are not reported
25 here, except in the case of data on homegrown foods, which are based on the 1987/88 NFCS, and
26 serving size information, which is based on the 1977/1978 NFCS. Older USDA data analyses
27 can be found in Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997).
28 A variety of terms may be used to define intake (e.g., consumer-only intake, per capita
29 intake, as consumed intake, dry weight intake.) These terms are defined below to assist the
5-1
-------
1 reader in interpreting and using the intake rates that are appropriate for the exposure scenario
2 being assessed.
3 Consumer-only intake is defined as the quantity of foods consumed by children during
4 the survey period averaged across only the children in the survey who consumed that food
5 during the survey period. Per capita intake rates are generated by averaging consumer-only
6 intakes over the entire population of children. In general, per capita intake rates are appropriate
7 for use in exposure assessment for which average dose estimates for children are of interest
8 because they represent both children who ate the foods during the survey period and children
9 who may eat the food items at some time, but did not consume them during the survey period.
10 Per capita intake, therefore, represents an average across the entire population of interest but
11 does so at the expense of underestimating consumption for the subset of the population that
12 consume the food in question. Intake rates for the major food categories include all forms of that
13 food type. For example, total fruit intake refers to the sum of all fruits consumed in a day
14 including canned, dried, frozen, and fresh fruits. Likewise, total vegetable intake refers to the
15 sum of all vegetables consumed in a day including canned, dried, frozen, and fresh vegetables.
16 Intake rates may be presented on an "as consumed" (e.g., cooked) basis or on the basis of
17 an uncooked weight. "As consumed" intake rates (g/day) are based on the weight of the food in
18 the form that it is consumed and should be used in assessments where the basis for the
19 contaminant concentrations in foods is whole weight. When data are based on "as consumed"
20 form, corrections to account for changes in portion sizes from cooking losses are generally not
21 required. When dry weight contaminant concentrations in foods are available, dry-weight intake
22 rates are recommended. Dry-weight intake rates are based on the weight of the food consumed
23 after the moisture content has been removed.
24 Many of the food ingestion rate values provided in this handbook are expressed as "as
25 consumed" because this is the fashion in which data are reported by survey respondents. This is
26 of importance because concentration data to be used in the dose equation are generally measured
27 in uncooked food samples. In such cases, the as-consumed ingestion rate and the uncooked
28 concentration are used. However, it should be recognized that cooking can increase food weight
29 (e.g. boiling pasta or rice) or decrease food weight (e.g. baking vegetables or meat). Similarly,
5-2
-------
1 cooking can increase the mass of contaminant in food (due to formation reactions, or absorption
2 from cooking oils or water) or decrease the mass of contaminant in food (due to vaporization, fat
3 loss or leaching). The combined effects of changes in weight and changes in contaminant mass
4 can result in either an increase or decrease in contaminant concentration in cooked food.
5 Therefore, if the as-consumed ingestion rate and the uncooked concentration are used in the dose
6 equation, dose may be underestimated or over estimated. Ideally, after cooking food
7 concentration should be combined with the as-consumed intake rates. In the absence of data, it
8 is reasonable to assume that no change in contaminant concentration occurs after cooking.
9 Uncooked intake data for general population fish consumption and home produced foods were
10 available for presentation in this handbook. Data on the general population fish consumption
11 have been presented in this handbook on both an as-consumed and an uncooked basis. For most
12 other foods, "as consumed" intakes are presented. It is important for the assessor to be aware of
13 these issues and choose intake rate data that best match the concentration data that are being
14 used. It should also be recognized that contaminant concentrations can vary with fish species
15 and that ideally exposure assessors should use species-specific fish concentrations and species-
16 specific fish consumption rates. Such data were not presented here, but may be available in
17 some locations and should be considered.
18 Estimating source-specific exposures to toxic chemicals in fruits and vegetables may also
19 require information on the amount of fruits and vegetables that are exposed to or protected from
20 contamination as a result of cultivation practices or the physical nature of the food product itself
21 (i.e., those having protective coverings that are removed before eating would be considered
22 protected), or the amount grown beneath the soil (i.e., most root crops such as carrots). The
23 percentages of foods grown above and below ground will be useful when the concentrations of
24 contaminants in foods are estimated from concentrations in soil, water, and air. For example,
25 vegetables grown below ground may be more likely to be contaminated by soil pollutants, but
26 leafy above ground vegetables may be more likely to be contaminated by deposition of air
27 pollutants on plant surfaces.
28 The purpose of this section is to provide: (1) intake data for individual foods, the major
29 food groups, and total foods among children, including homegrown foods; (2) guidance for
-------
1 converting between as-consumed and dry weight intake rates; and (3) intake data for exposed
2 and protected fruits and vegetables and those grown below ground. Recommendations are based
3 on and upper-percentile intake among the general population of the U.S.
4
5 3.2 INTAKE RATE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR VARIOUS FOOD TYPES
6 3.2.1 USDA, 1999
7 The Supplemental Children's Survey to the 1994-96 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes
8 by Individuals (CSFII 1998) was conducted in response to the Food Quality Protection Act of
9 1996, which required the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide data from a larger sample of
10 children for use by the Environmental Protection Agency in estimating exposure to pesticide
11 residues in the diets of children. The 1998 survey adds intake data from 5,559 children birth
12 through 9 years of age to the intake data collected from 4,253 children of the same age who
13 participated in the CSFII 1994-96. The 1994-96 survey included the collection of data from
14 persons of all ages. Both are nationally representative samples of persons living U.S.
15 households.
16 The CSFII 1998 was designed to be combined with the CSFII 1994-96, thus the
17 approaches to sample selection, data collection, data file preparation, and weighting were
18 consistent. The design, methodology, and operation of the CSFII 1994-96 are detailed in a
19 separate report (Tippett and Cypel, 1997). The CSFII 1998 was conducted between December
20 1997 and December 1998 by USDA's Agricultural Research Service.
21 The results presented in Tables 3-1 through 3-14 include national probability estimates
22 based on all 4 years of the CSFII (1994-96 and 1998) for children age 9 years and under and on
23 CSFII 1994-96 only for individuals age 10 years and over. The results are weighted to adjust for
24 differential rates of sample selection and nonresponse and to calibrate the sample to match
25 population characteristics that are correlated with eating behavior, and to equalize intakes over
26 the 4 quarters of the year and the 7 days of the week. Users should note that some weights
27 calculated for the purpose of combining data from 1994-96 with those from 1998 yield estimates
28 for individuals 12 through 19 years of age that may be slightly different from estimates issued
29 earlier from the CSFII 1994-96.
30 The sample sizes on which estimates are based are provided in the tables; readers using
3-4
-------
1 data for young children should note that 503 breast-fed children were excluded from the
2 estimates. Pasters (individuals reporting no food or beverage consumed for the day) were
3 included in the calculations. In general, the sample sizes for each sex-age group provide a
4 sufficient level of precision to ensure statistical reliability of the estimates. For CSFII 1998, the
5 overall response rate on the first day of the survey was 85.6 percent and the overall 2-day
6 response rate was 81.7 percent. The CSFII 1994-96 day 1 response rate was 80.0 percent and the
7 2-day response rate was 76.1 percent.
8 Tables that present data on mean intakes or mean percentages are based on respondents'
9 day 1 intakes so that readers can track trends over time from surveys with different numbers of
10 days of dietary information. Tables that present percentages of individuals meeting
11 recommendations are based on respondents' 2-day average intakes. The data for food intakes
12 from this analysis are presented in Tables 3-1 through 3-14. Data are presented for mean
13 quantities in grams of food products/groups consumed per individual for 1 day and the percent
14 consuming. The foods presented include grain products; vegetables; fruits; milk and milk
15 products; meat, poultry, and fish; and beverages. Data are also provided for eggs, legumes, nuts
16 and seeds, fats and oils, and sugars and sweets.
17 The advantages of USD A 1999 study is that it uses the 1994-96, 98 CSFII data set, which
18 includes four years of intake data combined including the supplemental data on children. These
19 data are expected to be generally representative of the U.S. population and they include data on a
20 wide variety of food types. The data set is one of a series of publicly available USDA data sets,
21 and should reflect recent eating patterns in the United States. One limitation of this data set is
22 that it is based on a two-day survey period. Short-term dietary data may not accurately reflect
23 long-term eating patterns. This is particularly true for the tails (extremes) of the distribution of
24 food intake. Other limitations of this study are that it only provides mean values of food intake
25 rates, consumption is not normalized by body weight, and presentation of results is not consistent
26 with EPA's recommended age groups.
27
28
5-5
-------
1 3.2.2 U.S. EPA, 2003
2 EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) analyzed three years of
3 data from USDA's CSFII to generate distributions of intake rates for various food items/groups.
4 The food groups selected for this analysis include the major food groups: total fruits, total
5 vegetables, total grains, total meats, and total dairy. Individual foods include fruit and vegetable
6 items such as: apples, bananas, peaches, pears, strawberries, and other berries; individual
7 vegetables such as: asparagus, beets, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, corn, cucumbers, lettuce, lima
8 beans, okra, onions, peas, peppers, pumpkin, snap beans, tomatoes, and white potatoes; fruits and
9 vegetables categorized as exposed, protected and roots; and various USDA categories (i.e., citrus
10 and other fruits, and dark green, deep yellow, and other vegetables). Individual meats include
11 beef, eggs, game, pork, and poultry; and individual grain items include breads, breadfast foods,
12 cereals, pasta, rice, snacks, and sweets. Intake rates of total vegetables, tomatoes, and white
13 potatoes, total meats, fish, beef, pork, poultry, dairy, eggs, and total grains were adjusted to
14 account for the amount of these food items eaten as meat and grain mixtures as described in
15 Appendix 3 A. Food items/groups were identified in the CSFII data base according to USDA-
16 defined food codes. Appendix 3B presents the codes and definitions used to determine the
17 various food groups used in the analysis. Intake rates for these food items/groups represent
18 intake of all forms of the product (i.e., home produced and commercially produced).
19 Individual identifiers in the database were used throughout the analysis to categorize
20 populations according to demographics. These identifiers included identification number, age,
21 body weight, two-day statistical sample weight, and number of days that data were reported.
22 Distributions of intake were determined for children who provided data for two days of the
23 survey. Individuals who did not provide information on body weight or for whom identifying
24 information was unavailable were excluded from the analysis. Two-day average intake rates
25 were calculated for all individuals in the database for each of the food items/groups. These
26 average daily intake rates were divided by each individual's reported body weight to generate
27 intake rates in units of grams per kilogram of body weight per day (g/kg-day). In calculating
28 summary statistics, the data were weighted according to the two-day sample weights provided in
29 the 1994-96 CSFII. USDA sample weights are calculated to account for inherent biases in the
5-6
-------
1 sample selection process, and to adjust the sample population to reflect the national population.
2 Summary statistics for individual intake rates were generated on a per capita basis. That
3 is, both users and non-users of the food item were included in the analysis. Mean consumer only
4 intake rates may be calculated by dividing the mean per capita intake rate by the percent of the
5 population consuming the food item of interest. Intake data from the CSFII are based on "as
6 consumed" (i.e., cooked or prepared) forms of the food items/groups. Thus, corrections to
7 account for changes in portion sizes from cooking losses are not generally required. Summary
8 statistics included are: number of weighted and unweighted observations, percentage of the
9 population using the food item/group being analyzed, mean intake rate, standard error, and
10 percentiles of the intake rate distribution (i.e., 0, 1st, 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, 95th, 99th,
11 and 100th percentile or maximum observed in the survey). Data were provided for the total
12 population using the food item being evaluated and for several age groups of children, including
13 <1, 1-2, 3-5, 6-11, and 12-19 years. The total numbers of individuals in the data set, by age
14 group are presented in Table 3-15.
15 The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3-16 for total fruits, total vegetables,
16 total grains, total meats, total fish, and total dairy products. Table 3-17 provides data for
17 individual foods, and Table 3-18 for the various USD A categories. The data for exposed,
18 protected and root food items are presented in Table 3-19. Because the results are presented in
19 units of g/kg-day, use of these data in calculating potential dose does not require the body weight
20 factor to be included in the denominator of the average daily dose (ADD) equation. Converting
21 these intake rates into units of g/day by multiplying by a single average body weight is
22 inappropriate, because individual intake rates were indexed to the reported body weights of the
23 survey respondents. However, if there is a need to compare the intake data presented here to
24 intake data in units of g/day, a body weight for the age group of interest, as presented in Chapter
25 10 of this Handbook, should be used.
26 The distribution of average daily intake rates generated using short-term data (e.g., 2-
27 day) do not necessarily reflect the long-term distribution of average daily intake rates. The
28 distributions generated from short-term and long-term data will differ to the extent that each
29 individual's intake varies from day to day; the distributions will be similar to the extent that
5-7
-------
1 individuals' intakes are constant from day to day.
2 Day-to-day variation in intake among individuals will be high for foods that are highly
3 seasonal and for foods that are eaten year-round but that are not typically eaten every day. For
4 these foods, the intake distribution generated from short-term data will not be a good reflection
5 of the long-term distribution. On the other hand, for broad categories of foods (e.g., vegetables)
6 which are eaten on a daily basis throughout the year with minimal seasonality, the short-term
7 distribution may be a reasonable approximation of the true long-term distribution, although it
8 will show somewhat more variability. Distributions are shown only for the major food groups
9 and broad categories of foods. For individual foods, only the mean, standard deviation and
10 percent consuming are provided. Because of the increased variability of the short-term
11 distribution, the short-term upper percentiles shown here will tend to overestimate somewhat the
12 corresponding percentiles of the long-term distribution.
13 The strengths of EPA's analysis are that it provides distributions of intake rates for
14 children for the EPA recommended age groups and consumption has been normalized by body
15 weight. The study uses the 1994-96 CSFII data set which is expected to be generally
16 representative of the U.S. population and it includes data on a wide variety of food types. One
17 limitation of EPA's analysis is that the data from the 1998 Supplemental Children's Survey were
18 not available at the time that EPA conducted this analysis. The data set includes three years of
19 intake data combined and is based on a two-day survey period. Short-term dietary data may not
20 accurately reflect long-term eating patterns. This is particularly true for the tails (extremes) of
21 the distribution of food intake. In addition, the adjustment for including mixtures adds
22 uncertainty to the intake rate distributions. The calculation for including mixtures assumes that
23 intake of any mixture includes all of the foods identified in Appendix Table 3A-1 in the
24 proportions specified in that table. This may under- or over-estimate intake of certain foods
25 among some individuals.
26
-------
1 3.3 FISH INTAKE RATES
2 3.3.1 General Population Studies
3 3.3.1.1. U.S. EPA, 2002
4 EPA's Office of Water used data from the 1994-96 CSFII and its 1998 Children's
5 Supplement (referred to collectively as CSFII 1994-96, 1998) to generate fish intake estimates.
6 Participants in the CSFII 1994-96, 98 provided two nonconsecutive days of dietary data.
7 Respondents estimated the weight of each food that they consumed. Consumption of food was
8 classified into 11,345 different food codes and stored in a database as grams consumed per day.
9 A total of 831 of these food codes relate to fish or shellfish; survey respondents reported
10 consumption across 665 of these codes. The fish component (by weight) of these foods was
11 calculated using data from the recipe file for release 7 of the USDA's Nutrient Data Base for
12 Individual Food Intake Surveys. The amount offish consumed by each individual was then
13 calculated by summing, over all fish containing foods, the product of the weight of food
14 consumed and the fish component (i.e., the percentage fish by weight) of the food.
15 The recipe file also contains cooking loss factors associated with each food. These were
16 used to convert, for each fish-containing food, the as-eaten fish weight consumed into an
17 uncooked equivalent weight offish. Analyses offish intake were performed on both an as-eaten
18 and uncooked basis.
19 Each fish-related food code was assigned by EPA a habitat type of either freshwater/
20 estuarine or marine. Food codes were also designated as fmfish or shellfish. Average daily
21 individual consumption (g/day) for a given fish type-by-habitat category (e.g., marine fmfish)
22 was calculated by summing the amount of fish consumed by the individual across the two
23 reporting days for all fish-related food codes in the given fish-by-habitat category and then
24 dividing by 2. Individual daily fish consumption (g/day) was calculated similarly except that
25 total fish consumption was divided by the specific number of survey days the individual reported
26 consuming fish; this was calculated for fish consumers only (i.e., those consuming fish on at
27 least one of the three survey days). The reported body weight of the individual was used to
28 convert consumption in g/day to consumption in g/kg-day.
29 There were a total of 20,607 respondents in the combined data set who had two-day
5-9
-------
1 dietary intake data. Survey weights were assigned to this data set to make it representative of the
2 U.S. population with respect to various demographic characteristics related to food intake.
3 U.S. EPA (2002) reported means, medians, upper percentiles, and 90-percent interval
4 estimates for the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles. Table 3-20 presents these statistics for daily
5 average per capita fish consumption by age and gender in g/day and in mg/kg/day, as consumed.
6 Table 3-21 provides consumer-only data in units of g/day and mg/kg/day, as consumed. Tables
7 3-22 and 3-23 provide similar data on an uncooked basis. These data are presented by selected
8 age groupings (14 and under and 15-44) and gender.
9 The advantages of this study are its large size and its representativeness. In addition,
10 through use of the USDA recipe files, the analysis identified all fish-related food codes and
11 estimated the percent fish content of each of these codes. By contrast, some analyses of the
12 USDA National Food Consumption Surveys (NFCSs) which reported per capita fish intake rates
13 ( e.g., Pao et al., 1982; USDA, 1992), excluded certain fish containing foods (e.g., fish mixtures,
14 frozen plate meals) from their calculations.
15
16 3.3.1.2. Tsang and Klepeis, 1996
17 The U.S. EPA collected information for the general population on the duration and
18 frequency of time spent in selected activities and time spent in selected microenvironments via
19 24-hour diaries. Over 9,000 individuals from 48 contiguous states participated in NHAPS.
20 Approximately 4,700 participants also provided information on seafood consumption. Over 900
21 of these participants were children between the ages of 1 and 17 years. The survey was
22 conducted between October 1992 and September 1994. Data were collected on the (1) number
23 of people that ate seafood in the last month, (2) the number of servings of seafood consumed,
24 and (3) whether the seafood consumed was caught or purchased. The participant responses were
25 weighted according to selected demographics such as age, gender, and race to ensure that results
26 were representative of the U.S. population. In order to conform to the standardized age
27 categories used in this Handbook, EPA obtained the source data for the NHAPS survey and
28 recalculated the relevant statistics using the new age categories. The results of EPA's analysis
29 are shown in Table 3-24.
3-10
-------
1 Intake data were not provided in the survey. However, intake offish can be estimated
2 using the information on the number of servings offish eaten from this study and serving size
3 data for each age group from other studies (e.g., Pao et al., 1982) (see Section 3.7). Using this
4 mean value for serving size and a number of servings per month (Table 3-24), the age-specific
5 amount of seafood eaten per month can be estimated.
6 The advantages of NHAPS is that the data were collected for a large number of
7 individuals and are representative of the U.S. general population. However, evaluation of
8 seafood intake was not the primary purpose of the study and the data do not reflect the actual
9 amount of seafood that was eaten. However, using the assumption described above, the
10 estimated seafood intake from this study are comparable to those observed in the EPA CSFII
11 analysis, but an all inclusive description for seafood was not presented in Tsang and Klepeis
12 (1996) or in the NHAPS data. It is not known if processed or canned seafood and seafood
13 mixtures are included in the seafood category.
14
15 3.3.2 Freshwater Recreational Study
16 The Michigan Sport Anglers Fish Consumption Survey (West et al., 1989) surveyed a
17 stratified random sample of Michigan residents with fishing licences. The sample was divided
18 into 18 cohorts, with one cohort receiving a mail questionnaire each week between January and
19 May 1989. The survey included both a short term recall component recording respondents' fish
20 intake over a seven day period and a usual frequency component. For the short-term component,
21 respondents were asked to identify all household members and list all fish meals consumed by
22 each household member during the past seven days. The source of the fish for each meal was
23 requested (self-caught, gift, market, or restaurant). Respondents were asked to categorize
24 serving size by comparison with pictures of 8 oz. fish portions; serving sizes could be designated
25 as either "about the same size", "less", or "more" than the size pictured. Data on fish species,
26 locations of self-caught fish and methods of preparation and cooking were also obtained.
27 The usual frequency component of the survey asked about the frequency offish meals
28 during each of the four seasons and requested respondents to give the overall percentage of
29 household fish meals that come from recreational sources. A sample of 2,600 individuals were
3-11
-------
1 selected from state records to receive survey questionnaires. A total of 2,334 survey
2 questionnaires were deliverable and 1,104 were completed and returned, giving a response rate
3 of 47.3%.
4 In the analysis of the survey data by West et. al. (1989), the authors did not attempt to
5 generate the distribution of recreationally caught fish intake in the survey population. EPA
6 obtained the raw data of this survey for the purpose of generating fish intake distributions and
7 other specialized analyses.
8 EPA first analyzed the short term data with the intent of estimating mean fish intake
9 rates. In order to compare these results with those based on usual intake, only respondents with
10 information on both short term and usual intake were included in this analysis. For the analysis
11 of the short term data, EPA modified the serving size weights used by West et al. (1989), which
12 were 5, 8 and 10 oz., respectively, for portions that were less, about the same, and more than the
13 8 oz. picture. EPA examined the percentiles of the distribution offish meal sizes reported in Pao
14 et al. (1982) derived from the 1977-1978 USDA National Food Consumption Survey and
15 observed that a lognormal distribution provided a good visual fit to the percentile data. Using
16 this lognormal distribution, the mean values for serving sizes greater than 8 oz. and for serving
17 sizes at least 10 percent greater than 8 oz. were determined. In both cases a serving size of 12
18 oz. was consistent with the Pao et al. (1982) distribution. The weights used in the EPA analysis
19 then were 5, 8, and 12 oz. for fish meals described as less, about the same, and more than the 8
20 oz. picture, respectively. It should be noted that the mean serving size from Pao et al. (1982)
21 was about 5 oz., well below the value of 8 oz. most commonly reported by respondents in the
22 West et al. (1989) survey.
23 Table 3-25 displays the mean number of total and recreational fish meals for each
24 household member between age 1 and 20 years based on the seven day recall data. Also shown
25 are mean fish intake rates derived by applying the weights described above to each fish meal.
26 Intake was calculated on both a grams/day and grams/kg body weight/day basis. This analysis
27 was restricted to individuals who eat fish and who reside in households reporting some
28 recreational fish consumption during the previous year. About 75 percent of survey respondents
29 (i.e., licensed anglers) and about 84 percent of respondents who fished in the prior year reported
3-12
-------
1 some household recreational fish consumption.
2 The advantages of this data set and analysis are that the survey was relatively large and
3 contained both short-term and usual intake data. The response rate of this survey, 47 percent,
4 was relatively low. This study was conducted in the winter and spring months of 1989. This
5 period does not include the summer months when peak fishing activity can be anticipated,
6 leading to the possibility that intake results based on the 7 day recall data may understate
7 individuals' usual (annual average) fish consumption.
8
9 3.3.3 Native American Subsistence Studies
10 3.3.3.1 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), 1994
11 CRITFC (1994) conducted a fish consumption survey among four Columbia River Basin
12 Native American tribes during the fall and winter of 1991-1992. The target population included
13 all adult tribal members who lived on or near the Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla or Nez Perce
14 reservations. The survey was based on a stratified random sampling design where respondents
15 were selected from patient registration files at the Indian Health Service. Interviews were
16 performed in person at a central location on the member's reservation. Information for 204
17 children 5 years old and less was provided by the participating adult respondent. The overall
18 response rate was 69%.
19 Information requested included annual and seasonal numbers offish meals, average
20 serving size per fish meal, species and part(s) offish consumed, and preparation methods based
21 on 24-hour dietary recall. Foam sponge food models approximating 4, 8, and 12-oz. fish fillets
22 were provided to help respondents estimate average fish meal size. Fish intake rates were
23 calculated by multiplying the annual frequency offish meals by the average serving size per fish
24 meal.
25 The study was designed to give essentially equal sample sizes for each tribe. However,
26 because the population sizes of the tribes were highly unequal, it was necessary to weight the
27 data (in proportion to tribal population size) so that the survey results were representative of the
28 overall population of the four tribes. Such weights were applied to the analysis of adults;
29 however, because the sample size for children was considered small, only an unweighted
3-13
-------
1 analysis was performed for this population.
2 A total of 49 percent of respondents of the total survey population reported that they
3 caught fish from the Columbia River basin and its tributaries for personal use or for tribal
4 ceremonies and distributions to other tribe members and 88 percent reported that they obtained
5 fish from either self-harvesting, family or friends, at tribal ceremonies or from tribal
6 distributions. Of all fish consumed, 41 percent came from self or family harvesting, 11 percent
7 from the harvest of friends, 35 percent from tribal ceremonies or distribution, 9 percent from
8 stores and 4 percent from other sources.
9 The analysis of seasonal intake showed that May and June tended to be high-
10 consumption months and December and January low consumption months. Table 3-26 gives the
11 fish intake distribution for children under 5 years of age. The mean intake rate was 19.6 g/day
12 and the 95th percentile was approximately 70 g/d, which includes consumers and nonconsumers.
13 The authors noted that some non-response bias may have occurred in the survey since
14 respondents were more likely to live near the reservation and were more likely to be female than
15 non-respondents. In addition, they hypothesized that non fish consumers may have been more
16 likely to be non-respondents than fish consumers since non consumers may have thought their
17 contribution to the survey would be meaningless; if such were the case, this study would
18 overestimate the mean intake rate. It was also noted that the timing of the survey, which was
19 conducted during low fish consumption months, may have led to underestimation of actual fish
20 consumption; the authors conjectured that an individual may report higher annual consumption if
21 interviewed during a relatively high consumption month and lower annual consumption if
22 interviewed during a relatively low consumption month. Finally, with respect to children's
23 intake, it was observed that some of the respondents provided the same information for their
24 children as for themselves, thereby the reliability of some of these data is questioned.
25 This study does present information on fish consumption patterns and habits for a Native
26 American subpopulation. It should be noted that the number of surveys that address subsistence
27 subpopulations is very limited.
28
29
3-14
-------
1 3.3.3.2. Toy et al., 1996
2 Toy et al. (1996) conducted a study to determine fish and shellfish consumption rates of
3 the Tulalip and Squaxin Island tribes living in the Puget Sound. These two Indian tribes were
4 selected nonrandomly to represent the expected range of fishing and fish consumption activities
5 of tribes in the Puget Sound Region.
6 A survey was conducted to describe fish consumption for Puget Sound tribal members
7 over the age of 18 and their dependents ages five and under in terms of their consumption rate of
8 anadromous, pelagic, bottom fish, and shellfish in g/kg-day. Data were also collected on fish
9 parts consumed, preparation methods, patterns of acquisition for all fish and shellfish
10 consumption, and children's consumption rates. Interviews were conducted between February
11 25 and May 15, 1994. A total of 190 tribal members, ages 18 years old and older, and 69
12 children between ages birth and 5 years old, were surveyed on consumption of 52 fish species.
13 The response rate was 77% for the Squaxin Island Tribe and 76% for the Tulalip Tribes.
14 The mean and median consumption rate for children 5 years and younger was 0.53 and
15 0.17 g/kg-day, respectively, which was significantly lower than that of adults, even when the
16 consumption rate was adjusted for body weight (Table 3-27). Squaxin island children tend to
17 consume more fish (mean 0.825 g/kg/day vs. 0.239 g/kg/day). The data were insifficient to allow
18 re-analysis to fit the data to the standard EPA age categories used elsewhere in this Handbook.
19 The advantage of this study is that the data can be used to improve the manner in which
20 exposure assessments are conducted for high-consumer populations and to identify cultural
21 characteristics that place tribal members at disproportionate risk to chemical contamination. The
22 survey of Tulalip and Squaxin Island Tribes showed considerably higher consumption rates for
23 both adults and children than the 0.09 g/kg/day reported for the general population by SRI
24 international (Toy et al., 1996).
25 One limitation associated with this study is that although data from the Tulalip and
26 Squaxin Island tribes may be representative of consumption rates of these specific tribes, fish
27 consumption rates, habits, and patterns can vary among tribes and other sub-populations. The
28 authors noted that the total fish consumption rates were similar for both tribes; however,
29 consumption pattern by fish species and other factors differ. In some instances, these differences
3-15
-------
1 were statistically significant. Another limitation is that the distribution presented in this study is
2 skewed toward higher rates, and it might be more appropriate to use the 90th or 95th percentiles
3 rather than means or medians for analysis of risk. There might also be a possible bias due to the
4 time the survey was conducted; many species in the survey are seasonal. For example, because
5 of the timing of the survey, respondents may have overestimated the annual consumption of
6 shellfish.
7
8 3.3.3.3. The Suquamish Tribe, 2000
9 The Suquamish Tribal Council conducted a study of the Suquamish tribal members living
10 on and near the Port Madison Indian Reservation in the Puget Sound region. The study was
11 funded by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) through a grant to
12 the Washington State Department of Health. The purpose of the study was to determine seafood
13 consumption rates, patterns, and habits of the members of the Suquamish Tribe. The second
14 objective was to identify cultural practices and attributes which affect consumption rates,
15 patterns and habits of members of the Suquamish Tribe.
16 A systematic random sample of adults age 16 and older were selected from a sorted tribal
17 enrollment roster. The study had a participation rate of 64.8%, which was calculated on the
18 basis of 92 respondents out of a total of 142 potentially eligible adults on the list of those
19 selected into the sample. Consumption data for children under six years of age were gathered
20 through adult respondents who had children under six years of age living in the household at the
21 time of the survey since birth or for at least one year.
22 A survey questionnaire was administered by personal interview. The survey included
23 four parts: (1) a 24-hour dietary recall; (2) identification, portions, frequency of consumption,
24 preparation, harvest location offish; (3) shellfish consumption, preparation, harvest location; and
25 (4) changes in consumption over time, cultural information, physical information, and
26 socioeconomic information.
27 A display booklet was developed to assist respondents in providing consumption data and
28 identifying harvest locations of seafood consumed. Physical models of fmfish and shellfish were
29 constructed to assist respondents in determining typical food portions. Finfish and shellfish were
3-16
-------
1 grouped into categories based on similarities in life history as well as practices of tribal members
2 who fish for subsistence, ceremonial, and commercial purposes.
3 Interviewers collected data from 92 adults and for 31 children under six years of age.
4 Table 3-28 provides the consumption rate for children in terms of g/kg-day. Table 3-29 provides
5 consumption rates for consumers only. Because all the children involved in the study consumed
6 some form offish, the consumption distribution of all fish is the same in both tables. The mean,
7 median, and 95th percentile consumption of all fish were 1.5 g/kg-day, 0.72 g/kg-day, and 7.3
8 g/kg-day, respectively.
9 A limitation of this study is that the sample size for children was fairly small (31
10 children). An important attribute of this survey is that it provides consumption rates by
11 individual type offish and shellfish. It is important to note that the report indicates that
12 increased levels of development as well as pollutants from residential, industrial, and
13 commercial uses have resulted in degraded habitats and harvesting restrictions. There were 11
14 Superfund sites within the immediate area of the Port Madison Indian Reservation at the time the
15 fish consumption survey was conducted. Despite degraded water quality and habitat, tribal
16 members continue to rely on fish and shellfish as a significant part of their diet.
17
18 3.3.4 Multi-State Study
19 EPA/ORD has collected data from many fish consumption surveys performed throughout
20 the United States. Some of these studies were selected for further analysis based on the
21 following criteria: large sample size and availability of data. Raw data were obtained for three
22 of the studies, covering four states: Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, and North Dakota (Westat,
23 2006). The fish consumption data from the three studies were extracted and the common data
24 variables were combined into one file for subsequent analysis. The study presents fish and
25 shellfish consumption data, enumerated by demographic group and by type offish and/or
26 shellfish consumed.
27 The primary difference in survey procedures among the three studies was the manner in
28 which the fish consumption data were collected. In Connecticut, the survey requested
29 information on how often each type of seafood was eaten, without a recall period specified. In
3-17
-------
1 Minnesota and North Dakota, the survey requested information on the rate offish or shellfish
2 consumption during the previous 12 months. In Florida, the survey requested information on
3 fish consumption during the last 7 days prior to the telephone interview. In addition, for the
4 Florida survey, away-from-home fish consumption was collected from a randomly selected adult
5 from each participating household. Because this information was not collected from all
6 household members, the study may tend to underestimate away-from home consumption. The
7 study notes that estimates offish consumption using a shorter recall period will decrease the
8 proportion of respondents that report eating fish or shellfish. This trend was observed in the
9 Florida study (in which approximately half of respondents reported eating fish/shellfish),
10 compared with Connecticut, Minnesota and North Dakota (in which approximately 90% of
11 respondents reported eating fish or shellfish).
12 Tables 3-30 through 3-32 present key findings of the Westat (2006) consumption study.
13 Tables 3-30 and 3-31 present per capita and consumer only consumption, respectively, for the 1
14 to <6 years, 6 to <11 years, 11 to <16 years, and 16 to <30 year age groups. The 16 to <30 year
15 age group is divided in to male and female cohorts. Table 3-32 classifies the sample populations
16 of the four studies based on their source offish (caught, bought, or a combination of both.); this
17 table presents data for consumers only.
18
19 3.4 FAT INTAKE
20 3.4.1. Bogalusa Heart Study
21 Cresenta et al. (1988), Nicklas (1993), and Frank et al. (1986) analyzed dietary fat intake data as
22 part of the Bogalusa heart study. The Bogalusa study, an epidemiologic investigation of
23 cardiovascular risk-factor variables and environmental determinants, has collected dietary data
24 on subjects residing in Bogalusa, LA, since 1973. Among other research, the study collected fat
25 intake data for children, adolescents, and young adults. Researchers have examined various
26 cohorts of subjects, including (1) six cohorts of 10-year olds, (2) two cohorts of 13-year olds, (3)
27 one cohort of subjects from 6 months to 4 years of age, and (4) one cohort of subjects from 10 to
28 17 years of age (Nicklas, 1995). To collect the data, interviewers used the 24-hour dietary recall
29 method. According to Nicklas (1995), "the diets of children in the Bogalusa study are similar to
3-18
-------
1 those reported in national studies of children." Thus, these data are useful in evaluating the
2 variability of fat intake among the general population for the purposes of evaluating variability in
3 exposure for dioxin-like or other lipophilic compounds among this group. Data for 6-month old
4 to 17-year old individuals collected during 1973 to 1982 are presented in Tables 3-33 and 3-34
5 (Frank et al., 1986). Data are presented for total fats, animal fats, vegetable fats, and fish fats in
6 units of g/day (Table 3-33) and g/kg/day (Table 3-34).
7 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1994) used data from NHANES
8 III to calculate daily total food energy intake (TFEI), total dietary fat intake, and saturated fat
9 intake for the U.S. population during 1988 to 1991. The sample population comprised 20,277
10 individuals ages 2 months and above, of which 14,001 respondents (73 percent response rate)
11 provided dietary information based on a 24-hour recall. TFEI was defined as "all nutrients (i.e.,
12 protein, fat, carbohydrate, and alcohol) derived from consumption of foods and beverages
13 (excluding plain drinking water) measured in kilocalories (kcal)." Total dietary fat intake was
14 defined as "all fat (i.e., saturated and unsaturated) derived from consumption of foods and
15 beverages measured in grams" (CDC, 1994).
16 The authors estimated and provided data on the mean daily TFEI and the mean
17 percentages of TFEI from total dietary fat grouped by age and gender. The overall mean daily
18 TFEI for the total population was 2095 kcal, of which 34 percent (or 82 g) was from total dietary
19 fat. Based on this information, the mean daily fat intake was calculated for the various age
20 groups and genders (see Appendix 3C for detailed calculation). Table 3-35 presents the grams of
21 fat per day obtained from the daily consumption of foods and beverages grouped by age and
22 gender for the U.S. population, based on this calculation.
23 The advantage of this study is that it collected longitudinal data on children's diet from
24 more than 20 years. One limitation of this data set is that it may not be representative of other
25 areas of the U.S. since it was not a national survey. In addition, the data are about 20 years old
26 and consumption patterns may have shifted.
27
28 3.4.2. U.S. EPA 2006
29 The U. S. EPA has conducted a study to characterize consumption of fat by individuals in
3-19
-------
1 the United States. The study was conducted using the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) 1994, 96, 1998 databases, and the U.S.
3 EPA Food Commodity Intake Database (FCID). The fat contents of foods in the EPA's
4 commodity code list were determined using the USDA Nutrient Database for Standard
5 Reference, Release 13 (USDA, 1999). The analyses included the quantification of the
6 consumption of fat from various sources, e.g., beef, oils, poultry, etc., within various
7 demographic groups. Percentiles of consumption of fat were calculated on the basis of total
8 mass and also on a unit of body weight basis for 12 different food categories and 98
9 demographic cohorts. Fat intake percentiles were also calculated for a subset of the sample
10 population whose consumption of animal fats exceeded the 90th percentile within their age group.
11
12 The advantage of this study is that it uses the latest information on consumption rate from
13 the USDA data. One disadvantage is that the analysis was conducted before EPA published the
14 recommended age groups for children. Therefore, the age groups presented in Tables 3-36 may
15 not be entirely consistent with the recommended age groups.
16
17 3.5 TOTAL DIETARY INTAKE AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO DIETARY INTAKE
18 Using data from the 1994-1996 CSFII, total dietary intake was also evaluated. Total
19 dietary intake was defined as intake of the sum of all foods in the following major food groups:
20 dairy, eggs, meats, fish, fats, grains, vegetables, and fruits, using the same foods codes as those
21 described in Appendix 3B, and the same method for allocation of mixtures as described in
22 Appendix 3 A. Beverages; sugar, candy, and sweets, and nuts and nut products were not
23 included because they could not be categorized into the major food groups. Distributions of total
24 dietary intake were generated, as described previously, for various age groups. Means, standard
25 errors, and percentiles of total dietary intake were estimated in units of g/kg/day, as well as
26 g/day.
27 To evaluate variability in the contributions of the major food groups to total dietary
28 intake, individuals were ranked from lowest to highest, based on total dietary intake. Three
29 subsets of individuals were defined, as follows: a group at the low end of the distribution of total
3-20
-------
1 intake (i.e., below the 10th percentile of total intake), a central group (i.e., the 45th to 55th
2 percentile of total intake), and a group at the high end of the distribution of total intake (i.e.,
3 above the 90th percentile of total intake). Mean total dietary intake (in grams/day and
4 grams/kg/day), mean intake of each of the major food groups (in grams/day and grams/kg/day),
5 and the percent of total dietary intake that each of these food groups represents was calculated
6 for each of the three populations (i.e., individuals with low-end, central, and high-end total
7 dietary intake). A similar analysis was conducted to estimate the contribution of the major food
8 groups to total dietary intake for individuals at the low-end, central, and high-end of the
9 distribution of total meat intake, total dairy intake, total meat and dairy intake, total fish intake,
10 and fruit and vegetable intake. For example, to evaluate the variability in the diets of individuals
11 at the low-end, central range, and high-end of the distribution of total meat intake, survey
12 individuals were ranked according to their reported total meat intake. Three subsets of
13 individuals were formed as described above. Mean total dietary intake, intake of the major food
14 groups, and the percent of total dietary intake represented by each of the major food groups were
15 tabulated. This analysis was conducted for the following age groups of the population: <1 year,
16 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-11 years, and 12-19 years. The data were tabulated in units of g/kg/day
17 and g/day.
18 Distributions of total dietary intake are presented in Table 3-36 in units of g/day and
19 g/kg/day. Tables 3-37 and 3-38 compare total dietary intake to intake of the various major food
20 groups for the various age groups in units of g/day and g/kg/day. Tables 3-39 through 3-44
21 present the contributions of the major food groups to total dietary intake for individuals (in the
22 various age groups) at the low-end, central, and high-end of the distribution of total dietary
23 intake, total meat intake, total meat and dairy intake, total fish intake, total fruit and vegetable
24 intake, and total dairy intake in units of g/day and g/kg/day. Each of these tables concerns three
25 classes of consumers (low-end, mid-range, and high-end) of one class of food (all foods, meat,
26 meat and dairy, fish, fruit and vegetable, and dairy). For each of the three classes of consumers,
27 consumption of nine different food categories is presented. For example, in Table 3-40 one will
28 find the mean consumption of eggs, vegetables, etc. for individuals with an unusually high (or
29 low) consumption of meat.
3-21
-------
1 In order to conform to the standard age categories used in this Handbook, each of the
2 tables from U.S. EPA (2000) has been modified by re-analyzing the source data and applying the
3 new age categories.
4
5 3.6 INTAKE OF HOME-PRODUCED FOODS
6 NFCS data were used to generate intake rates for home produced foods (U.S. EPA,
7 1997). USDA conducts the NFCS every 10 years to analyze the food consumption behavior and
8 dietary status of Americans (USDA, 1992). The most recent NFCS was conducted in 1987-88
9 (USDA, 1987-88) and has since been replaced with the CSFII. The survey used a statistical
10 sampling technique designed to ensure that all seasons, geographic regions of the 48
11 conterminous states in the U.S., and socioeconomic and demographic groups were represented
12 (USDA, 1994). There were two components of the NFCS. The household component collected
13 information over a seven-day period on the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of
14 households, and the types, amount, value, and sources of foods consumed by the household
15 (USDA, 1994). The individual intake component collected information on food intakes of
16 individuals within each household over a three-day period (USDA, 1993). The sample size for
17 the 1987-1988 survey was approximately 4,300 households (over 10,000 individuals). This is a
18 decrease over the previous survey conducted in 1977-1978 which sampled approximately 15,000
19 households (over 36,000 individuals) (USDA, 1994). The sample size was lower in the 1987-
20 1988 survey as a result of budgetary constraints and low response rate (38% for the household
21 survey and 31% for the individual survey) (USDA, 1993). However, NFCS data from 1987-
22 1988 were used to generate homegrown intake rates because they were the most recent data
23 available and were believed to be more reflective of current eating patterns among the U. S.
24 population.
25 The USDA data were adjusted by applying the sample weights calculated by USDA to
26 the data set prior to analysis. The USDA sample weights were designed to "adjust for survey
27 non-response and other vagaries of the sample selection process" (USDA, 1987-88). Also, the
28 USDA weights are calculated "so that the weighted sample total equals the known population
29 total, in thousands, for several characteristics thought to be correlated with eating behavior"
3-22
-------
1 (USD A, 1987-88).
2 For the purposes of this study, home produced foods were defined as homegrown fruits
3 and vegetables, meat and dairy products derived from consumer-raised livestock or game meat,
4 and home caught fish. The food items/groups selected for analysis included major food groups
5 such as total fruits, total vegetables, total meats, total dairy, total fish and shellfish. Individual
6 food items for which >30 households reported eating the home produced form of the item, fruits
7 and vegetables categorized as exposed, protected, and roots, and various USDA fruit and
8 vegetable subcategories (i.e., dark green vegetables, citrus fruits, etc.) were also evaluated for the
9 general population (U.S. EPA, 1997). However, age-specific data for children are not presented
10 here because of the small numbers of observations for children eating individual homegrown
11 foods in the data set. Food items/groups were identified in the NFCS data base according to
12 NFCS-defined food codes. Appendix 3D presents the codes and definitions used to determine
13 the various food groups.
14 Although the individual intake component of the NFCS gives the best measure of the
15 amount of each food group eaten by each individual in the household, it could not be used
16 directly to measure consumption of home produced food because the individual component does
17 not identify the source of the food item (i.e., as home produced or not). Therefore, an analytical
18 method which incorporated data from both the household and individual survey components was
19 developed to estimate individual home produced food intake. The USDA household data were
20 used to determine (1) the amount of each home produced food item used during a week by
21 household members and (2) the number of meals eaten in the household by each household
22 member during a week. Note that the household survey reports the total amount of each food
23 item used in the household (whether by guests or household members); the amount used by
24 household members was derived by multiplying the total amount used in the household by the
25 proportion of all meals served in the household (during the survey week) that were consumed by
26 household members.
27 The individual survey data were used to generate average sex- and age-specific serving
28 sizes for each food item. The age categories used in the analysis were as follows: 1 to 2 years;
29 3 to 5 years; 6 to 11 years; 12 to 19 years (intake rates were not calculated for children under 1;
3-23
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
the rationale for this is discussed below). These serving sizes were used during subsequent
analyses to generate homegrown food intake rates for individual household members. Assuming
that the proportion of the household quantity of each homegrown food item/group was a function
of the number of meals and the mean sex- and age-specific serving size for each family member,
individual intakes of home produced food were calculated for all members of the survey
population using SAS programming in which the following general equation was used:
Wi = Wf
mtqt
n
X mtq
7=1
(Eqn. 3-1)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
where:
W: =
Wf =
m; =
Homegrown amount of food item/group attributed to member /' during the week
(g/week);
Total quantity of homegrown food item/group used by the family members
(g/week);
Number of meals of household food consumed by member /' during the week
(meals/week); and
Serving size for an individual within the age and sex category of the member
(g/meal).
Daily intake of a homegrown food item/group was determined by dividing the weekly value (w;)
by seven. Intake rates were indexed to the self-reported body weight of the survey respondent
and reported in units of g/kg-day. Intake rates were not calculated for children under one year of
age because their diet differs markedly from that of other household members, and thus the
assumption that all household members share all foods would be invalid for this age group.
3-24
-------
1 For the major food groups (fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy, and fish) consumed by at least
2 30 households, distributions of home produced intake among consumers were generated by age
3 group. Consumers were defined as members of survey households who reported consumption of
4 the food item/group of interest during the one week survey period. Finally, the percentages of
5 total intake of the food items/groups consumed within survey households that can be attributed to
6 home production were tabulated. The percentage of intake that was homegrown was calculated
7 as the ratio of total intake of the homegrown food item/group by the survey population to the total
8 intake of all forms of the food by the survey population. As discussed previously, percentiles of
9 average daily intake derived from short time intervals (e.g., 7 days) will not, in general, be
10 reflective of long term patterns.
11 The intake data presented here for consumers of home produced foods and the total
12 number of individuals surveyed may be used to calculate the mean and the percentiles of the
13 distribution of home produced food consumption in the overall population (consumers and non-
14 consumers) as follows:
15 Assuming that IRp is the homegrown intake rate of food item/group at the pth percentile
16 and Nc is the weighted number of individuals consuming the homegrown food item, and NT is the
17 weighted total number of individuals surveyed, then NT - Nc is the weighted number of
18 individuals who reported zero consumption of the food item. In addition, there are (p/100 x Nc)
19 individuals below the pth percentile. Therefore, the percentile that corresponds to a particular
20 intake rate (IRp) for the overall distribution of homegrown food consumption (including
21 consumers and nonconsumers) can be obtained by:
22
(NT-NC)
th V100 " v 1 *i) (Eqn. 3-2)
24
25 Table 3-45 displays the weighted numbers NT, as well as the unweighted total survey
26 sample sizes, for each subcategory and overall. It should be noted that the total unweighted
3-25
-------
1 number of observations in Table 3-45 (9,852) is somewhat lower than the number of observations
2 reported by USDA because this study only used observations for family members for which age
3 and body weight were specified.
4 Table 3-46 presents homegrown intake rates for fruits, vegetables, meats, and fish,
5 respectively. As mentioned above, the intake rates derived in this section are based on the
6 amount of household food consumption. As measured by the NFCS, the amount of food
7 "consumed" by the household is a measure of consumption in an economic sense, i.e., a measure
8 of the weight of food brought into the household that has been consumed (used up) in some
9 manner. In addition to food being consumed by persons, food may be used up by spoiling, by
10 being discarded (e.g., inedible parts), through cooking processes, etc.
11 USDA estimated preparation losses for various foods (USDA, 1975). For meats, a net
12 cooking loss, which includes dripping and volatile losses, and a net post cooking loss, which
13 involves losses from cutting, bones, excess fat, scraps and juices, were derived for a variety of
14 cuts and cooking methods. For each meat type (e.g., beef) EPA has averaged these losses across
15 all cuts and cooking methods to obtain a mean net cooking loss and a mean net post cooking loss.
16 Mean values for all meats and fish are provided in Table 3-47. For individual fruits and
17 vegetables, USDA (1975) also gave cooking and post-cooking losses. These data, averaged
18 across all types of fruits and vegetables to give mean net cooking and post cooking losses are also
19 provided in Table 3-47.
20 The following formula can be used to convert the homegrown intake rates tabulated here
21 to rates reflecting actual consumption:
22
23 IA = Ix (l-Lj)x (l-L2) (Eqn. 3-3)
24
25 where:
26
27 IA = the adjusted intake rate;
28 I = the tabulated intake rate;
29 Lj = the cooking or preparation loss; and
3-26
-------
1 L2 = the post-cooking loss.
2
3 For fruits, corrections based on post-cooking losses only apply to fruits that are eaten in cooked
4 forms. For raw forms of the fruits, paring or preparation loss data should be used to correct for
5 losses from removal of skin, peel, core, caps, pits, stems, and defects, or draining of liquids from
6 canned or frozen forms.
7 In calculating ingestion exposure, assessors should use consistent forms in combining
8 intake rates with contaminant concentrations, as previously discussed.
9
10 3.7 SERVING SIZE STUDY BASED ON THE USDA NFCS
11 Using data gathered in the 1977-1978 USDA NFCS, Pao et al. (1982) calculated
12 distributions for the quantities of individual fruit and vegetables consumed per eating occasion by
13 members of the U.S. population (i.e., serving sizes), over a 3-day period. The data were collected
14 during NFCS home interviews of 37,874 respondents, who were asked to recall food intake for
15 the day preceding the interview, and record food intake the day of the interview and the day after
16 the interview.
17 Serving size data are presented on an as consumed (g/eating occasion) basis in Table 3-48
18 for various age groups of the population. Only the mean and standard deviation serving size data
19 and percent of the population consuming the food during the 3-day survey period are presented in
20 this handbook. Percentiles of serving sizes of the foods consumed by these age groups of the U.S.
21 population can be found in Pao et al. (1982).
22 The advantages of using these data are that they were derived from the USDA NFCS and
23 are representative of the U.S. population. This data set provides serving sizes for a number of
24 commonly eaten foods, but the list of foods is limited and does not account for fruits and
25 vegetables included in complex food dishes. Also, these data represent the quantity of foods
26 consumed per eating occasion. Although these estimates are based on USDA NFCS 1977-1978
27 data, serving size data have been collected but not published for the more recent USDA surveys.
28 These estimates may be useful for assessing acute exposures to contaminants in specific foods, or
29 other assessments where the amount consumed per eating occasion is necessary. However, it
3-27
-------
1 should be noted that serving sizes may have changed since the data were collected in 1977-1978.
2 Serving sizes can also be calculated directly from the USDA CSFII datasets that are
3 available on CD-ROM from NTIS. Default serving sizes that the USDA assumed when the
4 respondents did not know how much they ate are also on the CD-ROM.
5
6 3.8 CONVERSION BETWEEN "AS CONSUMED" AND DRY WEIGHT
7 INTAKE RATES
8 As noted previously, intake rates may be reported in terms of units as consumed or units
9 of dry weight. It is essential that exposure assessors be aware of this difference so that they may
10 ensure consistency between the units used for intake rates and those used for concentration data
11 (i.e., if the unit of food consumption is grams dry weight/day, then the unit for the amount of
12 pollutant in the food should be grams dry weight).
13 If necessary, as consumed intake rates may be converted to dry weight intake rates using
14 the moisture content percentages presented in Table 3-49 and Table 3-50 and the following
15 equation:
16
"100-W~
17
, =
dw ac
100
(Eqn. 3-4)
18
19 "Dry weight" intake rates may be converted to "as consumed" rates by using:
20
IR,
TT3 - dw
21 ac = (lOO-W\ (Eqn' 3'5)
I 100 /
22 where:
23 IR-dw = dry weight intake rate;
24 IRac = as consumed intake rate; and
25 W = percent water content.
3-28
-------
1
2 3.9 FAT CONTENT OF MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTS
3 In some cases, the residue levels of contaminants in meat and dairy products are reported
4 as the concentration of contaminant per gram of fat. This may be particularly true for lipophilic
5 compounds. When using these residue levels, the assessor should ensure consistency in the
6 exposure assessment calculations by using consumption rates that are based on the amount of fat
7 consumed for the meat or dairy product of interest. Alternately, residue levels for the "as
8 consumed" portions of these products may be estimated by multiplying the levels based on fat by
9 the fraction of fat per product as follows:
10
residue level residue level g-fat
11 = x (Eqn. 3-6)
g-product g-fat g-product
12
13 The resulting residue levels may then be used in conjunction with "as consumed" consumption
14 rates. The percentages of lipid fat in meat and dairy products have been reported in various
15 publications. USDA's Agricultural Handbook Number 8 (USDA, 1979-1986) provides
16 composition data for agricultural products. It includes a listing of the total saturated,
17 monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats for various meat and dairy items. Table 3-51 presents
18 the total fat content for selected meat and dairy products taken from Handbook Number 8. The
19 total percent fat content is based on the sum of saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated
20 fats.
21 The National Livestock and Meat Board (NLMB) (1993) used data from Agricultural
22 Handbook Number 8 to estimate total fat content in grams, based on a 3-ounce (85.05 g) cooked
23 serving size, and the corresponding percent fat content values for several categories of meats
24 (Table 3-52). NLMB (1993) also reported that 0.17 grams of fat are consumed per gram of meat
25 (i.e., beef, pork, lamb, veal, game, processed meats, and variety meats) (17 percent) and 0.08
26 grams of fat are consumed per gram of poultry (8 percent).
27
28
3-29
-------
1 3.10 RECOMMENDATIONS
2 The 1994-96 CSFII data described in this section were used in selecting recommended
3 intake rates for most food groups for general population children. For fish intake among general
4 population children, the 1994-96 and 1998 CSFII analyses were used to recommend intake rates.
5 For recreational fish intake, the data for children are limited. Table 3-54 presents a summary of
6 the recommended values for food intake and Table 3-55 presents the confidence ratings for the
7 food intake (including fish) recommendations for general population children. Table 3-56 present
8 the confidence ratings for fish intake recommendations for the freshwater recreational population.
9 Fish consumption data for Native American children are limited. Three Native American
10 fish consumption studies were identified: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
11 (CRITIFC, 1994), A Fish Consumption Survey of the Tulalip and Squaxin Island Tribes of the
12 Puget Sound Region (Toy et al., 1996), and Fish Consumption Survey of the Sequamish Indian
13 Tribe of the Port Madison Indian Reservation, Puget Sound Region (The Suquamish Tribe, 2000).
14 The means of these studies ranged from 11 to 25 g/day. The consumers only weighted mean
15 based on those three studies is 21 g/day for children <6 years of age. CRITFC (1994) and Toy et
16 al. (1996) did not present the distributions for consumers only. EPA calculated the consumers
17 only distributions based on the total number of the population surveyed and the reported
18 percentage of nonconsumers. Toy et al. (1996), however, only presented the mean, 50th, 75th,
19 and 90th percentile values of intake rates for the population of consumers and nonconsumers.
20 When those percentiles are converted to consumers only, these result in the 32nd, 66th, and 86th
21 percentiles, respectively. Therefore, the 95th percentile cannot be estimated without the raw data.
22 Based on CRITFC (1994) and the Suquamish Tribe (2000), the weighted 90th and 95th
23 percentiles for children <6 years of age are 60 g/day and 78 g/day, respectively. Table 3-57
24 presents the summary of intake rates for Native American children and Table 3-58 provides the
25 confidence ratings.
26 Per capita intake rates for specific food items, on a g/kg-day basis, may be obtained from
27 Tables 3-16 - 3-19. It is important to note that these distributions are based on data collected
28 over a 2-day period and may not necessarily reflect the long-term distribution of average daily
29 intake rates. However, for these broad categories of food, because they are eaten on a daily basis
3-30
-------
1 throughout the year with minimal seasonally, the short term distribution may be a reasonable
2 approximation of the long-term distribution, although it will display somewhat increased
3 variability. This implies that the upper percentiles shown here will tend to overestimate the
4 corresponding percentiles of the true long-term distribution. These tables also do not include the
5 data from the 1998 Children's supplement to the 1994-96 CSFII.
3-31
-------
1 3.11 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3
2
3 CDC. (1994) Dietary fat and total food-energy intake. Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
4 Phase 1, 1988-1991. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, February 25, 1994: 43(7)118-125.
5
6 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). (1994) A fish consumption survey of the Umatilla, Nez
7 Perce, Yakama and Warm Springs tribes of the Columbia River Basin. Technical Report 94-3. Portland, OR:
8 CRIFTC.
9
10 Cresanta, J.L.; Farris, R.P.; Croft, J.B.; Frank, G.C.; Berenson, G.S. (1988) Trends in fatty acid intakes of 10-year-
11 old children, 1973-1982. Journal of American Dietetic Association. 88:178-184.
12
13 Frank, G.C.; Webber, L.S.; Farris, R.P.; Berenson, G.S. (1986) Dietary databook: quantifying dietary intakes of
14 infants, children, and adolescents, the Bogalusa heart study, 1973-1983. National Research and Demonstration
15 Center - Arteriosclerosis, Louisiana State University Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
16
17 Goldman, L. (1995) Children-unique and vulnerable. Environmental risks facing children and recommendations for
18 response. Environmental Health Perspectives. 103(6): 13-17.
19
20 National Livestock and Meat Board (NLMB). (1993) Eating in America today: A dietary pattern and intake report.
21 National Livestock and Meat Board. Chicago, IL.
22
23 Nicklas, T.A. (1995) Dietary studies of children: The Bogalusa Heart Study experience. Journal of the American
24 Dietetic Association. 95:1127-1133.
25
26 Nicklas, T.A.; Webber, L.S.; Srinivasan, S.R.; Berenson, G.S. (1993) Secular trends in dietary intakes and
27 cardiovascular risk factors in 10-y-old children: the Bogalusa heart study (1973-1988). American Journal of
28 Clinical Nutrition. 57:930-937.
29
30 Pao, E.M.; Fleming, K.H.; Guenther, P.M.; Mickle, S.J. (1982) Foods commonly eaten by individuals: amount per
31 day and per eating occasion. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Home Economics Report No. 44.
32
33 SAS Institute, Inc. (1990) SAS Procedures Guide, Version 6, Third Edition, Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc., 1990,
34 705 pp.
35
3 6 The Suquamish Tribe. (2000) Fish consumption survey of the Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Indian
37 Reservation, Puget Sound Region. Suquamish, WA: The Suquamish Tribe.
38
39 Tippett, K.S.; Cypel, Y.S. (eds). (1997) Design and operation: the continuing survey of food intakes by individuals
40 and the diet and health knowledge survey, 1994-96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
41 Service, Nationwide Food Surveys Report No. 96-1, 197 pp.
42
43 Toy, K.A.; Polissar, N.L.; Liao, S.; Mittelstaedt, G.D. (2000) A fish consumption survey of the Tulalip and Squaxin
44 Island Tribes of the Puget Sound Region. Margsville, WA: Tulalip Tribes, Department of Environment.
45
46 Tsang, A.M.; Klepeis, N.E. (1996) Results tables from a detailed analysis of the National Human Activity Pattern
47 Survey (NHAPS) response. Draft Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Lockheed
48 Martin, Contract No. 68-W6-001, Delivery Order No. 13.
3-32
-------
1 USD A. (1975) Food yields summarized by different stages of preparation. Agricultural Handbook No. 102.
2 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service.
3
4 USD A. (1979-1986) Agricultural Handbook No. 8. United States Department of Agriculture.
5
6 USD A. (1987-88) Dataset: Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987/88 Household Food Use. U.S. Department
7 of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. 1987/88 NFCS Database.
8
9 USD A. (1992) Changes in food consumption and expenditures in American households during the 1980's. U.S.
10 Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. Statistical Bulletin No. 849.
11
12 USD A. (1993) Food and nutrient intakes by individuals in the United States, 1 Day, 1987-88. Nationwide Food
13 Consumption Survey 1987-88, NFCS Report No. 87-1-1.
14
15 USDA. (1994) Food consumption and dietary levels of households in the United States, 1987-88. U.S. Department
16 of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Report No. 87-H-l.
17
18 USDA. (1995) Food and nutrient intakes by individuals in the United States, 1 day, 1989-91. U.S. Department of
19 Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. NFS Report No. 91-2.
20
21 USDA. (1998) 1994-96 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) and 1994-96 Diet and Health
22 Knowledge Survey (DKHS). CD-ROM. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
23 Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
24
25 USDA. (1999) Food and nutrient intakes by children 1994-96, 1998: Table Set 17. Beltsville, MD: Food Surveys
26 Research Group, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department
27 of Agriculture.
28
29 U.S. EPA. (1996) Daily average per capita fish consumption estimates based on the combined USDA 1989, 1990 and
30 1991 continuing survey of food intakes by individuals (CSFII) 1989-91 data. Volumes I and II. Preliminary
31 Draft Report. Washington, DC: Office of Water.
32
33 U.S. EPA. (1997) Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/P-
34 95/002F.
35
36 U.S. EPA. (2003) CSFII Analysis of Food Intake Distributions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
3 7 Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington,
38 DC, EPA/600/R-03/029, 2003.
39
40 U.S. EPA. (2006) Analysis of Fat Intake Based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 1994-96, 1998 Continuing
41 Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII).Office of Research and Development, National Center for
42 Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-05/02 IF
43
44
3-33
-------
1 West, P.C.; Fly, M.J.; Marans, R.; Larkin, F. (1989) Michigan sport anglers fish consumption survey. A report to the
2 Michigan Toxic Substance Control Commission. Michigan Department of Management and Budget Contract
3 No. 87-20141.
4
3-34
-------
Table 3-1. Grain Products: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Consumption, grams per day"
Total
56
192
219
206
242
264
284
264
219
310
318
406
284
280
306
250
298
Yeast,
breads,
and rolls
2
16
26
21
30
36
41
36
27
45
46
54
43
43
40
34
40
Cereals and Pasta
Total
2
16
26
21
30
36
41
36
27
77
80
82
61
62
67
64
69
Ready-to-
eat cereals
1
11
16
13
19
22
24
22
16
28
31
29
21
20
17
20
22
Rice
2
9
15
12
13
15
17
15
13
18
16
27
12
14
19
14
17
Pasta
lb
9
12
11
12
11
11
11
10
15
18
17
15
15
22
12
15
Quick
breads,
pancakes,
French
toast
1
9
12
11
16
17
15
16
12
23
23
26
18
19
15
16
18
Cakes,
cookies,
pastries,
pies
3
16
22
19
23
30
33
29
22
39
40
49
42
42
37
30
36
Crackers,
popcorn,
pretzels,
corn chips
1
7
9
8
11
13
13
12
9
16
15
19
13
14
15
12
14
Mixtures,
mainly grain
20
87
87
87
98
102
107
102
87
109
115
175
107
101
132
96
120
Note: consumption amounts shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
a Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-35
-------
Table 3-2. Grain Products: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Percent consuming1*
Total
70.6
98.2b
99.0b
98.7
99.4b
99.5b
99.9b
99.6b
95.8
98.9b
99.0b
98.2b
99.7b
99.3b
97.6b
97.2
97.6
Yeast,
breads,
and rolls
10.9
48.4
58.7
53.7
64.1
67.0
69.2
66.8
55.5
69.8
69.1
62.7
71.5
71.0
60.9
61.6
62.4
Cereals and Pasta
Total
62.8
70.6
71.1
70.9
69.7
69.1
70.4
69.7
69.3
62.6
64.0
44.6
61.2
59.3
45.9
66.4
57.6
Ready-to-
eat cereals
9.1
45.3
51.9
48.7
53.3
54.8
54.9
54.3
46.9
50.8
52.4
33.2
47.6
45.6
30.3
47.9
41.7
Rice
3.4
11.3
14.4
12.9
11.1
11.4
11.4
11.3
10.9
10.5
9.7
10.0
9.0
9.4
8.6
10.5
9.9
Pasta
2.1
9.4
9.4
9.4
8.6
7.1
6.8
7.5
7.5
7.4
8.1
5.9
7.9
7.1
9.3
7.6
7.6
Quick
breads,
pancakes,
French
toast
4.4
23.0
27.5
25.3
28.8
28.6
25.2
27.5
24.0
28.1
27.1
24.4
26.3
27.1
19.8
25.3
24.2
Cakes,
cookies,
pastries,
pies
16.5
47.0
46.6
46.8
46.1
52.3
52.4
50.3
45.0
52.5
52.3
41.3
57.1
55.0
40.6
48.9
46.1
Crackers,
popcorn,
pretzels,
corn chips
10.3
39.0
37.9
38.4
38.5
39.4
32.1
36.7
34.1
36.0
33.8
27.2
38.3
37.1
30.9
35.3
32.5
Mixtures,
mainly grain
15.0
47.8
45.3
46.5
49.0
46.2
47.4
47.5
43.3
44.5
45.3
46.2
48.0
45.7
46.1
44.4
45.1
Note: percentages shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
* Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-36
-------
Table 3-3. Vegetables: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Consumption, grams per day"
Total
57
79
87
83
91
97
103
97
88
110
115
176
110
116
145
97
125
White Potatoes
Total
9
26
32
29
34
37
44
38
31
47
50
85
42
46
61
37
53
Fried
1
11
17
14
17
19
22
20
16
26
27
44
22
25
31
19
27
Dark Green
Vegetables
2
5
4
5
5
6
4
5
4
4
5
6
5
5
9
4
6
Deep
Yellow
Vegetables
19
9
5
7
5
5
6
5
7
5
5
6
4
4
4
6
6
Tomatoes
lb
7
11
9
13
11
12
12
10
16
16
28
14
15
18
12
17
Lettuce,
lettuce-
based
salads
*b
1
2
1
2
3
3
3
2
5
5
12
6
7
12
3
7
Green
beans
6
8
7
7
5
5
6
5
6
5
5
3
5
5
4
6
5
Corn, green
peas, lima
beans
5
9
10
9
11
12
12
11
10
11
11
10
13
12
8
11
10
Other
vegetables
16
16
17
17
16
18
17
17
17
16
18
25
21
22
28
18
22
Note: consumption amounts shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
a Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
* value less than 0.5, but greater than 0.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-37
-------
Table 3-4. Vegetables: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Percent Consuming"
Total
47.2
3.3
78.4
75.9
80.5
80.7
83.0
81.4
75.4
78.8
79.3
78.2
80.5
81.7
79.5
77.1
78.3
White Potatoes
Total
12.3
40.4
46.7
43.6
46.7
47.3
50.7
48.2
42.3
47.9
48.7
49.5
48.2
50.8
46.4
44.6
46.8
Fried
4.3
25.2
34.5
29.9
34.7
34.8
38.3
35.9
30.1
38.0
38.4
38.6
36.3
38.9
34.6
32.9
35.3
Dark Green
Vegetables
2.3
6.4
7.6
7.0
7.0
7.2
4.6
6.3
6.1
6.3
6.1
3.6
5.9
5.4
7.0
6.1
5.6
Deep
Yellow
Vegetables
20.5
13.3
10.5
11.8
10.7
12.0
13.3
12.0
13.0
12.5
12.4
8.0
11.9
11.4
10.6
12.7
11.2
Tomatoes
1.8
18.0
30.8
24.6
34.1
33.0
36.5
34.5
27.2
38.2
38.7
43.0
33.8
33.5
35.3
30.7
34.6
Lettuce,
lettuce-
based
salads
0.2b
3.9
7.5
5.7
8.3
10.0
13.4
10.6
7.6
13.1
13.9
23.8
15.8
17.1
25.1
10.3
16.6
Green
beans
7.8
13.7
11.5
12.6
10.1
9.0
10.4
9.9
10.5
7.8
6.7
3.5
8.4
7.8
4.4
9.6
7.0
Corn, green
peas, lima
beans
8.5
17.6
15.0
16.2
14.6
16.4
16.1
15.7
15.0
15.0
13.8
7.4
15.9
15.1
7.4
15.2
11.9
Other
vegetables
14.8
19.4
22.3
20.9
24.7
26.5
28.8
26.7
23.3
29.7
30.8
33.2
26.6
29.2
34.5
25.2
29.4
Note: percentages shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
* Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-38
-------
Table 3-5. Fruits: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Consumption, grams per day"
Total
131
267
276
271
256
243
218
239
237
194
183
174
180
169
157
217
191
Citrus Fruits and Juices
Total
4
47
65
56
61
62
55
59
52
58
67
102
63
64
72
55
70
Juices
4
42
56
49
51
52
44
49
44
51
60
94
54
54
67
47
62
Dried
fruits
*b
2
2
2
1
1
*b
1
1
*b
*b
1"
1"
*b
*b
1
1
Other fruits, mixtures, and juices
Total
126
216
207
212
191
177
160
176
182
133
113
70
113
103
83
159
118
Apples
14
22
27
24
27
31
31
30
26
32
28
13
23
21
13
27
21
Bananas
10
23
20
22
18
17
14
16
17
11
11
8
10
8
5
15
11
Melons
and
berries
lb
8
10
9
13
14
13
13
10
21
16
11"
10
8
15
12
12
Other fruits
and mixtures
(mainly fruit)
39
29
20
24
24
22
24
23
26
20
19
10
25
23
14
24
19
Non-citrus
juices and
nectars
61
134
130
132
110
92
78
93
103
50
40
29
46
42
35
81
56
Note: consumption amounts shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
* Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
* value less than 0.5, but greater than 0.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-39
-------
Table 3-6. Fruits: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Percent Consuming"
Total
59.7
81.0
76.6
78.8
74.5
72.6
67.6
71.6
72.6
59.0
56.5
44.5
64.9
62.1
45.6
68.3
57.8
Citrus Fruits and Juices
Total
3.6
23.6
30.6
27.2
27.9
28.0
26.9
27.6
24.6
24.8
25.2
24.7
27.9
27.7
22.4
25.2
24.8
Juices
2.7
19.0
23.4
21.3
21.4
21.8
19.5
20.9
18.8
20.5
21.6
21.7
22.3
21.5
18.1
19.8
20.1
Dried
fruits
0.4b
5.9
5.3
5.6
4.1
3.0
1.3"
2.8
3.5
0.8b
1.1"
1.0b
1.5"
1.1"
1.1"
2.5
1.8
Other fruits, mixtures, and juices
Total
59.0
73.0
64.7
68.8
64.2
62.1
56.9
61.0
63.5
49.1
44.2
27.1
50.4
47.2
30.2
58.0
44.4
Apples
15.7
23.4
24.0
23.7
22.4
23.7
21.9
22.7
22.2
20.3
18.2
8.2
17.3
16.2
8.2
20.9
15.2
Bananas
13.3
25.1
20.2
22.6
17.5
15.7
12.6
15.3
17.6
8.7
8.0
6.0
8.8
7.3
4.4
14.0
9.7
Melons
and berries
1.8
6.9
8.5
7.7
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.6
6.9
7.3
6.6
4.1
7.4
7.4
6.0
7.1
6.2
Other fruits
and mixtures
(mainly fruit)
29.9
26.5
19.4
22.9
20.1
20.0
19.0
19.7
22.0
16.8
15.4
7.1
20.4
19.0
11.3
20.6
15.5
Non-citrus
juices and
nectars
33.0
43.2
37.0
40.0
33.3
30.8
24.5
29.5
33.5
15.5
12.7
8.2
17.3
14.9
9.7
26.7
17.9
Note: percentages shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
a Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-40
-------
Table 3-7. Milk and Milk Products: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Consumption, grams per day"
Total
762
546
405
474
419
407
417
414
477
450
450
409
380
382
269
453
405
Milk, milk drinks, yogurt
Total
757
526
377
450
384
369
376
376
447
405
402
358
337
336
220
417
362
Fluid Milk
Total
61
475
344
408
347
328
330
335
327
343
335
303
288
283
190
323
291
Whole
49
347
181
262
166
147
137
150
177
127
121
99
105
108
66
153
121
Lowfat
11
115
141
128
150
149
159
153
127
176
172
158
146
136
92
141
135
Skim
*b
5"
17
11
26
27
25
26
18
29
33
40
26
29
30
22
29
Yogurt
4
14
10
12
10
10
9
10
10
6
6
3b
4
4
4b
8
6
Milk
desserts
3
11
16
14
22
23
25
23
18
31
35
29
29
30
29
23
27
Cheese
1
9
11
10
12
14
14
13
11
13
12
19
13
14
14
12
14
Note: consumption amounts shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
a Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
* value less than 0.5, but greater than 0.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-41
-------
Table 3-8. Milk and Milk Products: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Percent Consuming"
Total
85.4
95.3
91.6
93.4
94.3
93.2
93.1
93.5
92.5
93.2
92.3
81.3
90.2
90.2
75.4
92.2
86.7
Milk, milk drinks, yogurt
Total
84.6
92.7
87.3
90.0
88.3
87.8
86.4
87.5
88.0
85.5
84.6
65.8
82.5
81.5
54.0
86.4
75.6
Fluid Milk
Total
11.1
87.7
84.3
86.0
84.6
85.0
81.2
83.6
75.7
80.7
79.0
59.6
77.5
76.0
49.7
77.1
68.1
Whole
8.3
61.7
44.8
53.0
42.5
41.3
38.1
40.6
41.0
32.4
30.8
22.6
31.5
33.2
17.5
37.4
30.1
Lowfat
2.4
26.5
36.3
31.5
39.5
40.4
41.7
40.6
32.9
44.3
43.1
30.7
40.8
37.8
23.9
36.8
33.1
Skim
0.2
1.5
5.2
3.4
6.8
7.7
6.5
7.0
4.9
8.6
9.5
7.0
8.1
8.4
9.5
6.3
7.5
Yogurt
3.1
10.0
6.8
8.4
7.3
5.8
5.5
6.2
6.6
3.8
3.7
1.7
2.9
3.0
2.2
5.3
3.8
Milk
desserts
4.5
13.9
17.5
15.8
21.4
21.7
21.4
21.5
17.5
24.0
25.0
13.6
24.1
22.4
17.1
20.1
18.6
Cheese
6.0
29.7
32.6
31.2
37.0
36.9
34.9
36.3
30.9
34.6
32.3
37.1
30.9
31.9
36.1
31.7
33.5
Note: percentages shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
a Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-42
-------
Table 3-9. Meat, Poultry, and Fish: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Consumption, grams per day"
Total
24
80
94
87
101
115
121
112
93
151
154
250
121
130
158
110
152
Beef
lb
5
7
6
8
10
14
11
8
18
19
30
17
18
21
12
18
Pork
*b
2
6
4
6
6
6
6
5
7
7
12
4
5
5
5
7
Lamb,
veal,
game
*b
*b
*b
*b
*b
*b
*b
*
*
*b
*b
1"
*b
*b
*b
*
*b
Organ
meats
*b
*b
*b
*b
*b
*b
*b
*b
*b
*b
*b
0
*b
*b
*b
*b
*b
Frankfurters,
sausages,
luncheon
meats
2
13
18
15
19
22
22
21
17
24
24
28
18
19
15
19
20
Poultry
Total
3
12
17
15
19
20
22
21
16
23
22
31
19
20
21
18
22
Chicken
2
12
16
14
18
19
19
19
15
21
20
26
16
17
19
17
19
Fish and
shellfish
*b
3
4
3
4
5
5
5
4
7
6
8
5
5
6
5
6
Mixtures,
mainly meat/
poultry/
fish
16
43
41
42
43
49
51
47
42
71
72
134
55
60
85
50
76
Note: consumption amounts shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
a Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
* value less than 0.5, but greater than 0.
Source: USDA, 1999
> A O
5-43
-------
Table 3-10. Meat, Poultry, and Fish: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Percent Consuming"
Total
26.0
77.4
85.2
81.4
86.2
86.2
87.1
86.5
77.5
87.4
87.8
86.8
84.6
86.5
80.1
80.9
82.8
Beef
2.1
11.9
16.2
14.1
13.8
16.1
18.2
16.0
13.7
20.1
22.0
24.2
19.4
20.2
22.0
16.1
19.6
Pork
1.1"
7.3
14.9
11.2
13.3
13.8
13.2
13.4
11.2
11.9
12.2
15.8
9.2
10.0
11.2
10.9
12.1
Lamb, veal,
game
0.2 b
0.8 b
0.8 b
0.8 b
0.5 b
0.5 b
0.6 b
0.5
0.6
0.4 b
0.4 b
0.6 b
0.4 b
0.4 b
0.1 b
0.5
0.4
Organ
meats
0.2 b
0.2 b
0.2 b
0.2 b
*b
0.2 b
0.2 b
0.2 b
0.2 b
O.lb
0.2 b
0.0
0.2 b
0.1 b
O.lb
0.2 b
0.1 b
Frankfurter
s, sausages,
luncheon
meats
6.1
26.3
33.2
29.9
36.4
37.0
35.1
36.1
30.4
37.4
36.2
31.8
33.5
33.1
24.6
24.3
22.7
Poultry
Total
6.3
24.0
27.6
25.8
28.3
27.4
27.7
27.8
24.5
24.8
22.9
20.6
23.1
22.9
21.6
24.3
22.7
Chicken
5.0
23.1
25.6
24.4
26.0
25.1
24.8
25.3
22.6
22.3
20.5
17.6
20.2
19.8
18.9
22.0
20.1
Fish and
shellfish
1.0
5.4
6.1
5.8
6.4
6.4
6.2
6.3
5.5
5.1
5.4
5.0
6.4
6.1
5.8
5.6
5.5
Mixtures,
mainly
meat/
poultry/
fish
13.7
32.2
31.4
31.8
29.2
30.5
30.8
30.2
28.8
36.2
35.7
38.3
32.4
32.8
34.0
31.0
33.3
Note: percentages shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
a Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-44
-------
Table 3-11. Eggs, Legumes, Nuts and Seeds, Fats and Oils, Sugars and Sweets: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Consumption, grams per day"
Eggs
3
13
18
16
13
13
13
13
13
11
12
22
10
11
13
12
14
Legumes
151
26
12
19
13
15
12
13
32
11
13
17
14
12
14
24
20
Nuts
and
seeds
*b
2
4
3
5
5
6
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
Fats and oils
Total
*
2
3
3
4
5
5
5
4
8
7
12
7
7
10
5
8
Table fats
*
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Salad
dressings
*b
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
4
4
9
3
4
7
3
5
Sugars and sweets
Total
2
13
22
18
31
33
33
32
23
46
42
35
41
41
31
32
33
Sugars
*
*
*
*
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
Candy
*b
3
5
4
7
8
9
8
6
13
12
13
11
12
12
8
10
Note: consumption amounts shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
a Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
* value less than 0.5, but greater than 0.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-45
-------
Table 3-12. Eggs, Legumes, Nuts and Seeds, Fats and Oils, Sugars and Sweets: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age
Sex and Age
("years')
\__y ^tujy
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Percent Consuming"
Eggs
6.7
22.8
27.3
25.1
19.8
16.9
16.4
17.7
18.9
15.1
15.6
17.0
13.4
13.3
15.0
17.1
16.4
Legumes
18.7
12.7
10.9
11.8
11.1
12.5
11.2
11.6
12.5
9.3
9.8
10.9
12.7
11.0
10.7
11.9
11.2
Nuts
and
seeds
1.1"
12.4
16.8
14.7
20.5
20.4
21.1
20.7
16.3
17.0
15.7
8.7
18.7
17.2
7.8
16.9
13.2
Fats and oils
Total
6.0
31.5
41.1
36.4
42.1
44.3
44.7
43.7
36.6
48.1
46.9
43.1
52.3
49.3
45.6
42.0
43.2
Table fats
5.3
25.6
30.9
28.3
30.2
30.3
29.0
29.8
26.4
30.8
29.0
20.8
33.3
31.0
23.9
28.6
25.9
Salad
dressings
0.7 b
7.5
14.0
10.8
15.6
18.1
20.1
17.9
13.4
24.0
24.6
27.7
23.0
23.4
28.6
17.5
22.4
Sugars and sweets
Total
6.9
39.3
50.2
44.9
57.5
58.4
57.3
57.7
47.2
61.3
59.6
46.7
61.0
60.3
46.3
52.8
50.8
Sugars
1.9
7.9
8.2
8.1
10.4
11.3
11.7
11.1
9.0
11.9
12.2
13.3
12.2
12.9
11.9
10.2
11.5
Candy
0.5
12.1
21.0
16.7
24.1
24.6
25.7
24.8
19.1
31.2
29.3
21.0
28.5
28.9
23.9
23.4
23.5
Note: percentages shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
* Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
* value less than 0.5, but greater than 0.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-46
-------
Table 3-13. Beverages: Mean Quantities consumed daily by sex and age, per capita
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Consumption, grams per day"
Total
19
120
196
159
240
268
299
269
201
385
413
995
322
370
645
263
502
Alcoholic
Total
0
0
0
0
*b
*b
0
*b
*b
*b
*b
44 b
*b
*b
8"
*b
10
Wine
0
0
0
0
0
*b
0
*b
*b
0
0
lb
0
0
lb
*b
*b
Beer
and
ale
0
0
0
0
*b
0
0
*b
*b
0
0
40 b
0
0
6b
*b
9b
Non-alcoholic
Total
19
120
196
159
240
268
299
269
201
385
413
951
322
370
637
263
492
Coffee
0
*b
*b
*b
lb
*b
1
1
1
2b
2b
21
lb
2b
14 b
1
8
Tea
2b
15
21
18
18
20
28
22
18
39
39
114
32
34
93
25
57
Fruit drinks and ades
Total
15
79
113
96
137
141
149
143
111
163
155
205
135
134
134
127
144
Regular
7
69
100
85
126
130
140
132
101
145
137
158
126
125
113
115
124
Low
calorie
3b
7
llb
9
8
8
6b
8
8
17
17
44
7
8
20
9
19
Carbonated soft drinks
Total
lb
25
62
44
84
106
121
104
71
181
217
609
154
200
395
110
282
Regular
lb
24
56
40
77
95
112
95
65
159
194
584
143
181
349
99
260
Low
calorie
*b
lb
5
3
7
11
7
8
6
21
23
25
11
19
43
10
21
Note: consumption amounts shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
a Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
* value less than 0.5, but greater than 0.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-47
-------
Table 3-14. Beverages: Percentage of individuals consuming, by sex and age
Sex and Age
(years)
Males and Females:
Under 1
1
2
Ito2
3
4
5
3 to 5
5 and under
Males:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
Females:
6 to 9
6 to 11
12 to 19
All individuals:
9 and under
19 and under
Sample
Size
1126
1016
1102
2118
1831
1859
884
4574
7818
787
1031
737
704
969
732
9309
11287
Percent Consuming"
Total
8.4
40.8
57.1
49.1
61.6
67.8
70.9
66.8
53.7
73.2
74.2
87.4
69.4
72.8
87.0
60.7
72.8
Alcoholic
Total
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1 b
*b
0.0
*b
*b
0.3 b
0.2 b
2.9
0.2 b
0.1 b
1.8b
0.1
1.0
Wine
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*b
0.0
*b
*b
0.0
0.0
0.3 b
0.0
0.0
0.4 b
*b
0.1 b
Beer
and
ale
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1 b
0.0
0.0
*b
*b
0.0
0.0
2.3 b
0.0
0.0
0.9 b
*b
0.6
Non-alcoholic
Total
8.4
40.8
57.1
49.1
61.6
67.8
70.9
66.8
53.7
73.2
74.2
86.9
69.4
72.8
86.7
60.7
72.7
Coffee
0.0
0.1 b
0.3 b
0.2 b
0.7 b
0.6 b
0.8 b
0.7
0.5
0.9 b
1.2 b
6.1
0.7 b
0.8 b
3.7
0.6
2.4
Tea
1.4b
5.9
7.4
6.6
6.5
7.4
9.1
7.7
6.6
8.8
8.9
16.2
10.4
10.7
19.2
7.8
11.9
Fruit drinks and ades
Total
6.5
27.7
34.0
30.9
38.9
41.2
38.8
39.6
32.6
41.6
39.0
28.4
37.9
36.2
27.2
35.5
32.3
Regular
3.8
24.6
31.2
28.0
36.6
38.4
37.3
37.4
30.1
38.1
35.4
23.7
35.6
33.9
23.9
32.8
29.1
Low
calorie
1.2 b
2.7
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.2
2.4
2.4
5.3
4.8
5.6
1.9 b
2.1
4.0
2.9
3.7
Carbonated soft drinks
Total
1.2 b
14.2
27.5
21.0
31.7
36.9
39.0
35.9
26.6
43.1
47.1
69.2
39.1
44.8
62.2
32.4
47.8
Regular
1.1"
13.6
24.7
19.3
29.1
32.8
36.1
32.7
24.3
38.8
43.2
66.2
36.4
40.9
56.1
29.6
44.1
Low
calorie
0.2 b
0.8 b
3.0
1.9
2.9
4.5
2.9
3.4
2.5
5.4
5.5
5.2
3.7
5.8
8.5
3.3
5.2
Note: percentages shown are representative of the first day of each participant's survey response.
a Estimates are based on combined data from 1994-96 and 1998.
b See "Statistical Notes," Appendix 3E.
Source: USDA, 1999
5-48
-------
Table 3-15. Unweighted Number of Observations, 1994/96 CSFII Analysis
Age Group
jirthto <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
3 to <6 mo.
6 to <12 mo.
1 to <2 yr.
I to <3 yr.
? to <6 yr.
5to
-------
Table 3-16. Per Capita Intake of the Major Food Groups (g/kg-day as consumed)
Age Group
PC
MEAN
SE
PI
P5
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
P99
P100
N
consuming
N
total
Dairy
>irth to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
i to <6 mo.
6to<12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
I to <3 yr.
i to <6 yr.
> to <11 yr.
11 to<16yr.
16to<21 yr.
60.0%
69.2%
84.0%
91.3%
96.3%
95.0%
92.9%
92.8%
96.1%
97.9%
*
1.6e+02
l.le+02
8.3e+01
3.8E+01
3.6E+01
2.1e+01
1.5e+01
7.7e+00
5.6E+00
*
1.4e+01
7.4e+00
3.7e+00
9.0E-01
8.4E-01
4.0e-01
3.2e-01
2.1e-01
2.4E-01
*
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
*
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
4.9e-02
3.3E-01
4.0E-01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
1.8e-01
2.6E-01
*
O.Oe+00
5.6e-01
l.Oe+01
6.0E+00
5.8E+00
3.5e+00
2.2e+00
6.1e-01
3.9E-01
*
1.5e+02
6.2e+01
5.9e+01
1.8E+01
2.0E+01
l.Oe+01
7.2e+00
2.9e+00
2.0E+00
*
1.8e+02
1.3e+02
8.3e+01
3.3E+01
3.6E+01
1.9e+01
1.3e+01
6.4e+00
5.0E+00
*
2.2e+02
1.7e+02
l.le+02
5.0E+01
5.6E+01
2.9e+01
2.1e+01
l.le+01
7.1E+00
*
2.4e+02
2.0e+02
1.3e+02
7.7E+01
7.3E+01
4.1e+01
2.9e+01
1.6e+01
1.3E+01
*
2.7e+02
2.3e+02
1.7e+02
9.1E+01
9.7E+01
4.9e+01
3.5e+01
2.0e+01
1.6E+01
*
3.1e+02
2.8e+02
1.9e+02
1.3E+02
1.5E+02
6.6e+01
4.5e+01
3.2e+01
2.1E+01
*
3.3e+02
2.8e+02
2.4e+02
1.8E+02
1.7E+02
9.0e+01
8.1e+01
3.8e+01
3.6E+01
9
45
100
146
638
610
1333
1103
966
729
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
745
Meat
birth to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
3 to <6 mo.
6to<12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
2 to <3 yr.
3 to <6 yr.
6to
-------
Table 3-16. Per Capita Intake of the Major Food Groups (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Age Group
birth to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
3 to <6 mo.
6 to <12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
2 to <3 yr.
3 to <6 yr.
6 to <1 1 yr.
11 to<16yr.
16to<21 yr.
PC
6.7%
13.8%
64.7%
91.3%
96.3%
94.9%
93.1%
92.9%
97.0%
97.9%
MEAN
2.1e-01
1.6e+00
7.7e+00
9.0E+00
1.3E+01
l.Oe+01
7.5e+00
5.0e+00
5.6E+00
SE
2.8e-01
3.2e-01
6.2e-01
3.2E-01
2.8E-01
2.0e-01
1.4e-01
9.7e-02
9.0E-02
PI
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
2.2E-01
P5
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
2.3e-02
1 .4E+00
1.7E+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
1.3e+00
1.3E+00
P10
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
l.Oe+00
2.8E+00
4.0E+00
3.7e+00
2.5e+00
1.9e+00
1.8E+00
P25
Grain
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
2.4e+00
6.2E+00
6.8E+00
6.3e+00
4.5e+00
2.9e+00
2.6E+00
P50
O.Oe+00
7.4e-01
5.2e+00
l.OE+01
1.1E+01
9.2e+00
7.0e+00
4.4e+00
3.9E+00
P75
O.Oe+00
2.4e+00
l.Oe+01
1.5E+01
1.5E+01
1.3e+01
9.7e+00
6.5e+00
5.1E+00
P90
6.1e-01
4.4e+00
2.1e+01
2.1E+01
2.2E+01
1.8e+01
1.3e+01
8.8e+00
6.6E+00
P95
1.6e+00
5.9e+00
2.4e+01
2.4E+01
2.5E+01
2.1e+01
1.6e+01
l.le+01
8.9E+00
P99
2.8e+00
l.le+01
3.3e+01
3.8E+01
3.8E+01
3.4e+01
2.0e+01
1.5e+01
1.6E+01
PI 00
9.0e+00
2.7e+01
4.0e+01
4.8E+01
3.9E+01
1.2e+02
3.6e+01
2.1e+01
2.6E+01
N
consuming
1
9
77
146
638
609
1336
1104
975
729
N
total
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
745
Vegetable
birth to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
3 to <6 mo.
6 to <12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
2 to <3 yr.
3 to <6 yr.
6 to <1 1 yr.
11 to <16yr.
16to<21 yr.
0.0%
1.5%
34.5%
86.3%
95.2%
95.5%
92.7%
92.7%
96.8%
97.9%
-
4.1e+00
1.2e+01
9.6E+00
9.4E+00
7.3e+00
5.5e+00
4.2e+00
3.6E+00
-
l.le+00
9.1e-01
2.9E-01
3.3E-01
1.6e-01
1.3e-01
9.9e-02
8.0E-02
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
4.0E-01
5.0E-01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
5.8e-01
1.5E-01
-
O.Oe+00
8.0e-01
1.1E+00
1.2E+00
1.3e+00
l.Oe+00
1.2e+00
4.0E-01
-
O.Oe+00
5.9e+00
2.5E+00
4.0E+00
3.4e+00
2.5e+00
2.3e+00
8.9E-01
-
O.Oe+00
l.le+01
5.8E+00
6.0E+00
6.2e+00
4.5e+00
3.6e+00
2.5E+00
-
6.7e+00
1.5e+01
9.0E+00
1.5E+01
9.7e+00
7.3e+00
5.5e+00
5.1E+00
-
1.7e+01
2.4e+01
1.2E+01
1.9E+01
1.4e+01
l.le+01
7.9e+00
6.6E+00
-
1.9e+01
2.9e+01
2.1E+01
2.6E+01
1.8e+01
1.4e+01
9.8e+00
1.2E+01
-
3.0e+01
4.9e+01
4.1E+01
5.6E+01
2.9e+01
2.1e+01
1.5e+01
1.6E+01
-
3.1e+01
l.Oe+02
7.6E+01
8.3E+01
4.6e+01
5.2e+01
3.6e+01
2.5E+01
0
1
41
138
631
613
1330
1102
973
729
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
745
Fruit
birth to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
3 to <6 mo.
6 to <1 2 mo.
1 to <2 yr.
2 to <3 yr.
3 to <6 yr.
6 to <1 1 yr.
11 to <16yr.
1 f. t^ ^-0 1 *,r
0.0%
7.7%
54.6%
83.8%
85.2%
85.8%
79.0%
70.6%
67.8%
S~! 00/..
1.3e+01
2.0e+01
2.0E+01
1.8E+01
l.le+01
5.7e+00
3.4e+00
^ ^T7^nn
2.2e+00
1.2e+00
5.9E-01
6.9E-01
3.4e-01
2.3e-01
1.6e-01
o nc m
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
n nc^nn
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
n riT7^nn
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
n nT7^nn
O.Oe+00
8.6e+00
4.0E+00
5.4E+00
2.3e+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
n nT7^nn
5.1e+00
1.9e+01
1.1E+01
8.7E+00
8.1e+00
3.6e+00
2.0e+00
0 1T7 m
2.1e+01
2.6e+01
2.5E+01
1.9E+01
1.6e+01
8.6e+00
5.3e+00
V OT7 m
4.0e+01
3.7e+01
6.0E+01
4.8E+01
2.6e+01
1.4e+01
9.3e+00
<; oc^nn
4.3e+01
4.4e+01
6.9E+01
5.9E+01
3.3e+01
1.9e+01
1.3e+01
c ^T7^nn
6.3e+01
6.7e+01
8.1E+01
8.8E+01
5.3e+01
2.9e+01
1.8e+01
i 7T7^m
l.le+02
7.1e+01
1.3E+02
1.2E+02
l.le+02
4.5e+01
3.2e+01
0 OT7^m
0
5
65
134
564
551
1134
840
681
-700
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
~1A^
N = sample size; PC = percent consuming; SE = standard error; P1...P100 = percentiles.
5-51
-------
Table 3-17. Per Capita Intake of Individual Foods (g/kg-day as consumed)
\geGroup MEAN SE PC
Apples
)irthtoirthto
-------
Table 3-17. Per Capita Intake of Individual Foods (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Age Group MEAN SE PC
Pears
Mrthto
-------
Table 3-17. Per Capita Intake of Individual Foods (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Age Group MEAN SE PC
Snacks (Grains)
nrth to <1 mo. O.Oe+00 O.Oe+00 0.0%
1 to <3 mo. O.Oe+00 O.Oe+00 0.0%
?to<6mo. 2.9e-02 1.5e-01 3.4%
6to<12mo. 2.7e-01 8.4e-02 28.8%
lto<2yr. 7.1e-01 5.6e-02 53.3%
>to<3yr. 7.7e-01 4.1e-02 61.8%
!to<6yr. 7.0e-01 4.2e-02 54.5%
>toirth to <1 mo. O.Oe+00 O.Oe+00 0.0%
1 to <3 mo. O.Oe+00 O.Oe+00 0.0%
?to<6mo. l.le-02 1.4e-02 8.4%
6to<12mo. 9.2e-02 3.0e-02 29.0%
lto<2yr. 3.6e-01 3.2e-02 84.4%
>to<3yr. 4.4e-01 3.4e-02 89.1%
!to<6yr. 3.8e-01 2.4e-02 84.5%
>to
-------
Age Group MEAN SE PC
Mayonnaise
nrth to <1 mo. O.Oe+00 O.Oe+00 0.0%
1 to <3 mo. O.Oe+00 O.Oe+00 0.0%
? to <6 mo. O.Oe+00 O.Oe+00 0.0%
6to<12mo. l.Oe-03 7.0e-03 1.3%
lto<2yr. 2.4e-02 1.3e-02 7.8%
!to<3yr. 2.4e-02 1.3e-02 7.8%
?to<6yr. 3.7e-02 8.0e-03 15.0%
>to
-------
Table 3-18. Per Capita Intake of USD A Categories of Vegetables and Fruits (g/kg-day as consumed)
Age Grourj
PC
MEAN
SE
PI
P5
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
P99
P100
N
cons.
N
total
Dark Green Vegetables
birth to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
3 to <6 mo.
6to<12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
2 to <3 yr.
3 to <6 yr.
6toirm to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
) to <6 mo.
6to<12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
2 to <3 yr.
i to <6 yr.
5 to <11 yr.
11 to<16yr.
16to<21 yr.
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
8.8%
15.4%
15.0%
16.9%
20.3%
14.6%
11.1%
-
-
-
-
2.1E-01
3.5E-01
2.4e-01
1.8e-01
9.5e-02
4.8E-02
-
-
-
-
9.4E-02
l.OE-01
5.1e-02
3.5e-02
3.5e-02
2.8E-02
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
jetables
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
7.1E-01
8.7E-01
2.2e-01
l.le-01
3.2e-01
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
7.4E-01
6.7E-01
7.2e-01
6.7e-01
2.2e-01
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
2.1E+00
2.5E+00
1.5e+00
9.9e-01
1.1 e+00
5.6E-01
-
-
-
-
2.2E+00
2.5E+00
1.7e+00
1.2e+00
6.8e-01
3.1E-01
-
-
-
-
5.4E+00
6.3E+00
4.1 e+00
3.7e+00
2.7e+00
2.8E+00
-
-
-
-
4.6E+00
5.1 E+00
4.3e+00
2.4e+00
1.8e+00
1.1 E+00
-
-
-
-
1.8E+02
2.1E+01
1.3e+01
6.8e+00
6.2e+00
5.2E+00
-
-
-
-
l.OE+01
1.2E+01
8.3e+00
5.4e+00
l.le+01
2.1E+00
0
0
0
6
83
80
157
112
106
83
0
0
2
14
102
96
242
241
147
82
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
745
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
745
Other Vegetables
>irth to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
) to <6 mo.
6to<12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
1 to <3 yr.
i to <6 yr.
5 to <11 yr.
11 to<16yr.
0.0%
0.0%
4.2%
21.3%
63.3%
61.5%
64.5%
66.3%
69.4%
-
-
-
8.7e-01
1.9E+00
2.5E+00
1.7e+00
1.4e+00
9.0e-01
-
-
-
4.2e-01
1.7E-01
1.7E-01
9.1e-02
7.8e-02
5.1e-02
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
7.0E-01
7.9E-01
7.1e-01
6.3e-01
4.5e-01
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
2.3E+00
2.9E+00
2.2e+00
1.9e+00
1.3e+00
-
-
-
2.7e+00
7.0E+00
6.6E+00
4.7e+00
3.7e+00
2.4e+00
-
-
-
5.1e+00
9.4E+00
1.1E+01
7.2e+00
5.2e+00
3.5e+00
-
-
-
l.le+01
1.3E+01
1.7E+01
1.3e+01
l.Oe+01
5.8e+00
-
-
-
1.5e+01
5.4E+01
5.0E+01
2.2e+01
2.9e+01
1.2e+01
0
0
5
34
419
395
926
788
697
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
5-56
-------
Age Group
16to<21 yr.
PC
66.0%
MEAN
6.9E-01
SE
6.2E-02
PI
O.OE+00
P5
O.OE+00
P10
O.OE+00
P25
O.OE+00
P50
2.3E-01
P75
1.1E+00
P90
1.7E+00
P95
3.1E+00
P99
6.6E+00
P100
7.5E+00
N
cons.
491
N
total
745
Citrus Fruits
>irth to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
) to <6 mo.
6 to <12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
1 to <3 yr.
) to <6 yr.
> to <11 yr.
11 to<16yr.
16to<21 yr.
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
8.8%
37.3%
38.0%
38.9%
33.9%
40.7%
31.9%
-
-
-
-
3.3E+00
4.7E+00
2.9e+00
1.9e+00
1.7e+00
5.6E+00
-
-
-
-
3.5E-01
5.5E-01
2.2e-01
1.9e-01
1.5e-01
2.1E-01
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
-
5.5E+00
5.9E+00
4.7e+00
2.8e+00
2.6e+00
1.1E+00
-
-
-
-
1.2E+01
1.3E+01
9.3e+00
6.4e+00
5.5e+00
3.6E+00
-
-
-
-
1.8E+01
2.2E+01
1.3e+01
9.8e+00
8.4e+00
7.3E+00
-
-
-
-
3.0E+01
3.9E+01
2.1e+01
1.7e+01
1.4e+01
1.3E+01
-
-
-
-
8.6E+01
1.1E+02
6.7e+01
2.8e+01
2.1e+01
1.4E+01
0
0
2
14
247
244
558
403
409
238
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
745
Other Fruits
>irth to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
i to <6 mo.
6to<12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
1 to <3 yr.
i to <6 yr.
5 to <11 yr.
11 to<16yr.
1 f, tr, <9 1 vr
0.0%
7.7%
53.8%
81.3%
78.7%
80.5%
71.4%
62.3%
49.8%
49 1%
-
-
1.3e+01
1.9e+01
1.3E+01
1.7E+01
8.1e+00
3.7e+00
1.7e+00
i w+nn
-
-
2.2e+00
1.2e+00
7.3E-01
5.1E-01
3.1e-01
1.9e-01
1.3e-01
i QF.m
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
n riF+nn
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
n riF+nn
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
n riF+nn
-
-
O.Oe+00
7.8e+00
2.4E+00
3.2E+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
n riF+nn
-
-
5.1e+00
1.8e+01
1.1E+01
1.2E+01
4.9e+00
2.1e+00
3.9e-01
n riF+nn
-
-
2.1e+01
2.6e+01
2.3E+01
2.6E+01
1.2e+01
5.4e+00
2.4e+00
i 7F+nn
-
-
4.0e+01
3.7e+01
3.8E+01
4.3E+01
2.1e+01
9.8e+00
5.3e+00
4 4F+nn
-
-
4.3e+01
4.3e+01
4.2E+01
4.8E+01
2.7e+01
1.4e+01
7.7e+00
s 7F+nn
-
-
6.3e+01
6.4e+01
6.7E+01
7.3E+01
4.4e+01
2.2e+01
1.3e+01
i riF+m
-
-
l.le+02
7.0e+01
8.1E+01
1.1E+02
8.5e+01
3.8e+01
3.2e+01
9 5F+m
0
5
64
130
521
517
1024
741
500
*n
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
745
N = sample size; PC = percent consuming; SE = standard error; P1...P100 = percentiles.
5-57
-------
Table 3-19. Per Capita Intake of Exposed/Protected Fruit and Vegetable Categories (g/kg-day as consumed)
Age Group
PC
MEAN
SE
PI
P5
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
P99
P100
N
cons.
N
total
Exposed Fruits
>irm to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
i to <6 mo.
6to<12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
I to <3 yr.
i to <6 yr.
> to <11 yr.
11 to<16yr.
16to<21 yr.
0.0%
6.2%
46.2%
75.0%
68.0%
69.3%
60.7%
49.9%
37.2%
32.2%
-
-
l.le+01
1.4e+01
9.0E+00
1.3E+01
5.6e+00
2.4e+00
l.le+00
8.2E-01
-
-
2.0e+00
1.2e+00
6.6E-01
6.2E-01
2.8e-01
1.6e-01
l.le-01
1.5E-01
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
O.Oe+00
4.4e+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
2.4e+00
1.2e+01
5.6E+00
5.9E+00
2.7e+00
7.9e-02
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
2.0e+01
1.9e+01
1.5E+01
1.5E+01
8.1e+00
3.4e+00
1.5e+00
l.OE+00
-
-
3.8e+01
3.3e+01
2.2E+01
3.5E+01
1.6e+01
6.7e+00
3.6e+00
3.1E+00
-
-
4.1e+01
3.7e+01
4.1E+01
3.6E+01
2.2e+01
9.3e+00
5.9e+00
4.3E+00
-
-
6.3e+01
6.4e+01
6.2E+01
7.3E+01
3.5e+01
1.8e+01
9.7e+00
6.9E+00
-
-
6.3e+01
7.0e+01
6.9E+01
l.OE+02
7.7e+01
3.2e+01
1.4e+01
1.6E+01
0
4
55
120
450
445
871
593
374
240
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
745
Protected Fruits
>irm to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
i to <6 mo.
6to<12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
1 to <3 yr.
i to <6 yr.
5 to <11 yr.
11 to<16yr.
16to<21 yr.
0.0%
1.5%
19.3%
45.6%
60.8%
63.4%
54.5%
48.6%
50.9%
11.1%
-
-
8.5e-01
3.1e+00
6.1E+00
6.7E+00
4.4e+00
2.8e+00
2.1e+00
4.8E-02
-
-
4.5e-01
5.8e-01
3.4E-01
3.5E-01
2.2e-01
1.9e-01
1.5e-01
2.2E-01
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
3.6E+00
3.7E+00
2.1e+00
1.5e-01
7.2e-01
O.OE+00
-
-
O.Oe+00
4.4e+00
8.7E+00
9.9E+00
6.7e+00
4.1e+00
3.1e+00
2.2E+00
-
-
4.2e+00
8.3e+00
1.4E+01
2.0E+01
1.2e+01
8.6e+00
6.4e+00
3.9E+00
-
-
6.1e+00
l.le+01
2.3E+01
2.4E+01
1.7e+01
1.2e+01
9.5e+00
9.5E+00
-
-
l.Oe+01
2.7e+01
3.9E+01
4.8E+01
2.8e+01
2.0e+01
1.5e+01
1.4E+01
-
-
1.2e+01
3.0e+01
l.OE+02
1.1E+02
6.7e+01
3.2e+01
2.7e+01
2.8E+01
0
1
23
73
403
407
782
578
512
82
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
745
Exposed Vegetables
>irm to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
i to <6 mo.
6to<12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
1 to <3 yr.
i to <6 yr.
5 to <11 yr.
0.0%
1.5%
8.4%
33.8%
63.3%
63.6%
68.2%
70.2%
-
-
-
2.0e+00
2.0E+00
2.0E+00
1.6e+00
1.2e+00
-
-
-
4.9e-01
1.3E-01
1.3E-01
8.3e-02
6.4e-02
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
4.8E-01
5.7E-01
6.7e-01
6.0e-01
-
-
-
3.1e+00
2.5E+00
2.7E+00
2.2e+00
1.6e+00
-
-
-
5.8e+00
5.7E+00
7.1E+00
4.4e+00
3.4e+00
-
-
-
l.Oe+01
6.9E+00
8.7E+00
6.4e+00
4.8e+00
-
-
-
1.5e+01
1.4E+01
1.5E+01
1.3e+01
8.5e+00
-
-
-
1.9e+01
4.0E+01
4.5E+01
2.5e+01
2.0e+01
0
1
10
54
419
408
978
835
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
5-58
-------
Table 3-19. Per Capita Intake of Exposed/Protected Fruit and Vegetable Categories (g/kg-day as consumed) (continued)
Age Group
11 to<16yr.
16to<21 yr.
PC
74.9%
66.0%
MEAN
l.Oe+00
6.9E-01
SE
5.4e-02
7.1E-02
PI
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
P5
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
P10
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
P25
3.7e-02
5.1E-02
P50
5.4e-01
4.6E-01
P75
1.4e+00
1.3E+00
P90
2.7e+00
2.3E+00
P95
3.7e+00
4.5E+00
P99
6.9e+00
6.6E+00
P100
1.3e+01
1.1E+01
N
cons.
753
491
N
total
1005
745
Protected Vegetables
>irth to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
i to <6 mo.
6to<12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
1 to <3 yr.
) to <6 yr.
> to <11 yr.
11 to<16yr.
16to<21 yr.
0.0%
0.0%
16.0%
30.6%
40.2%
42.7%
38.8%
39.4%
35.5%
26.8%
-
-
-
2.2e+00
1.2E+00
1.8E+00
l.le+00
7.8e-01
5.8e-01
1.1E+00
-
-
-
5.5e-01
1.4E-01
1.6E-01
9.0e-02
7.0e-02
7.0e-02
5.7E-02
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
-
-
-
4.3e+00
1.8E+00
2.1E+00
1.4e+00
l.le+00
7.5e-01
2.3E-02
-
-
-
7.3e+00
4.4E+00
4.6E+00
3.5e+00
2.6e+00
1.8e+00
1.2E+00
-
-
-
9.6e+00
5.6E+00
8.3E+00
5.4e+00
3.9e+00
2.9e+00
1.9E+00
-
-
-
2.0e+01
1.4E+01
1.6E+01
l.Oe+01
7.0e+00
6.3e+00
3.3E+00
-
-
-
2.3e+01
2.8E+01
2.7E+01
1.8e+01
2.7e+01
2.2e+01
6.7E+00
0
0
19
49
266
274
557
468
357
200
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
745
Root Vegetables
>irth to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
i to <6 mo.
6to<12mo.
1 to <2 yr.
1 to <3 yr.
) to <6 yr.
5 to <11 yr.
11 to<16yr.
1 f. in <-9 1 i;r
0.0%
1.5%
19.3%
53. 1%
68.6%
67.9%
71.1%
72.7%
77.5%
7S ]<>/
-
-
1.7e+00
2.8e+00
2.5E+00
2.7E+00
2.2e+00
1.7e+00
1.3e+00
i w+nn
-
-
7.9e-01
4.5e-01
1.8E-01
1.4E-01
9.1e-02
7.1e-02
5.6e-02
1 1T7-m
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
n m?+nn
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
n nF+nn
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
n nF+nn
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
1.7e-01
n nF+nn
-
-
O.Oe+00
8.0e-01
1.3E+00
1.5E+00
1.4e+00
l.Oe+00
9.1e-01
Q QF.ni
-
-
O.Oe+00
4.6e+00
2.9E+00
4.1E+00
3.2e+00
2.4e+00
1.8e+00
1 7F+nn
-
-
8.2e+00
8.0e+00
5.6E+00
6.8E+00
5.5e+00
4.3e+00
3.3e+00
3 /LF+nn
-
-
9.6e+00
l.Oe+01
8.0E+00
8.0E+00
7.1e+00
5.6e+00
4.3e+00
A SF+nn
-
-
2.1e+01
1.7e+01
1.7E+01
2.0E+01
1.4e+01
9.5e+00
6.4e+00
i nF+ni
-
-
2.2e+01
3.3e+01
7.0E+01
8.3E+01
3.2e+01
2.1e+01
1.8e+01
i fiF+ni
0
1
23
85
454
436
1020
864
779
Sfin
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
7AS
N = sample size; PC = percent consuming; SE = standard error; P1...P100 = percentiles.
5-59
-------
Table 3-20. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake by Age and Gender - As Consumed
Age (years)
Sample
Size
Mean
(g/day)
90th %
(g/day)
95th %
(g/day)
99th %
(g/day)
Sample
Size
Mean
(mg/kg-
day)
90th %
(mg/kg-
day)
95th %
(mg/kg-
day)
99th %
(mg/kg-
day)
Freshwater and Estuarine
Females
14 or under
15-44
Males
14 or under
15-44
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
5182
2332
5277
2382
10459
4714
1.56
4.28
2.09
5.67
1.83
4.97
0.00
5.05
0.00
10.38
0.00
8.58
5.83
23.93
6.55
38.56
6.04
31.67
40.03
82.86
60.75
112.70
51.67
98.87
4879
2275
4994
2369
9873
4644
55.95
66.86
65.04
71.82
60.59
69.35
0.00
74.47
0.00
130.79
0.00
104.26
207.69
380.13
279.17
480.81
230.11
431.37
1515.50
1329.44
1767.05
1350.22
1689.38
1335.45
Marine
Females
14 or under
15-44
Males
14 or under
15-44
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
5182
3332
5277
2382
10459
4714
3.60
7.03
4.34
9.41
3.98
8.22
10.75
27.90
11.81
36.62
10.78
28.15
28.12
48.06
29.08
72.81
28.16
56.58
61.31
96.97
84.35
127.44
78.95
115.67
4879
2275
4994
2369
9873
4644
146.57
113.78
154.18
118.18
150.45
116.02
380.98
423.46
425.66
443.64
413.20
440.37
1027.57
768.09
1081.22
879.88
1037.35
829.65
2818.50
1648.49
2678.35
1642.99
2691.79
1651.83
All Fish
Females
14 or under
15-44
Males
14 or under
15-44
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
5182
3332
5277
2382
10459
4714
5.15
11.31
6.43
15.08
5.80
13.20
18.90
41.23
21.05
58.44
19.41
49.98
37.46
66.33
42.19
89.07
38.21
82.87
80.21
143.38
114.26
177.18
96.52
162.57
4879
2275
4994
2369
9873
4644
202.52
180.63
219.22
190.00
211.04
185.37
692.68
640.94
744.58
756.08
713.36
714.19
1344.33
1040.45
1469.91
1164.80
1428.56
1138.91
3297.06
2291.55
3391.54
2237.99
3354.29
2289.93
Notes:
Sample size varies between (g/day) and (g/kg/day) results because 757 individuals did not report body weight.
Estimates are based on 2-day averages.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2002
3-60
-------
Table 3-21. Consumers Only Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake by Age and Gender - As Consumed
<\ge (years)
Sample
Size
Mean
(g/day)
90th %
(g/day)
95th %
(g/day)
99th %
(g/day)
Sample
Size
Mean
(mg/kg-
day)
90th %
(mg/kg-
day)
95th %
(mg/kg-
day)
99th %
(mg/kg-
day)
Freshwater and Estuarine
Females
14 or under
15-44
Males
14 or under
15-44
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
445
325
442
361
887
686
31.68
55.37
41.67
66.63
36.80
61.28
79.88
125.85
121.53
165.04
103.07
157.82
110.96
189.40
161.92
226.29
146.79
217.05
185.36
341.36
260.79
336.88
260.02
342.58
410
315
419
358
829
673
1198.44
872.32
1299.30
840.99
1251.41
855.40
3166.98
2107.98
3556.09
2182.03
3456.18
2136.28
4928.91
3152.59
4494.57
2819.26
4680.61
3071.35
9105.83
5738.45
8713.70
4379.23
8792.31
5794.98
Marine
Females
14 or under
15-44
Males
14 or under
15-44
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
670
412
677
412
1347
824
48.72
70.97
59.48
99.08
54.14
84.95
98.09
158.48
144.55
186.07
119.13
172.00
135.87
181.47
168.78
232.50
162.27
213.65
196.22
286.72
265.11
403. .84
238.23
343.65
629
403
643
409
1272
812
1987.63
1147.44
2084.20
1241.82
2037.18
1194.89
4377.73
2403.82
4734.23
2448.26
4646.42
2441.99
5766.68
3150.91
5490.19
2985.42
5664.47
3045.63
8184.79
4773.68
9003.82
4674.21
8610.50
4816.60
All Fish
Females
14 or under
15-44
Males
14 or under
15-44
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
836
554
836
565
1672
1119
54.15
82.50
69.09
111.90
61.70
97.24
112.47
170.78
156.98
210.56
138.41
195.07
155.41
221.67
227.46
296.12
168.65
255.98
237.49
336.48
275.95
427.92
271.43
404.02
779
541
788
561
1567
1102
2182.90
1317.33
2354.71
1408.52
2271.12
1363.41
4786.46
2635.97
5096.68
2769.98
4958.73
2727.87
6217.80
3610.69
6711.74
3489.58
6530.88
3583.16
10394.59
5712.40
9181.61
5611.79
10389.18
5693.65
Notes:
Sample size varies between (g/day) and (g/kg/day) results because 757 individuals did not report body weight.
Estimates are based on 2-day averages.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2002
3-61
-------
Table 3-22. Per Capita Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish
Weight
<\ge (years)
Sample
Size
Mean
(g/day)
90th %
(g/day)
95th %
(g/day)
99th %
(g/day)
Sample
Size
Mean
(mg/kg-
day)
90th %
(mg/kg-
day)
95th %
(mg/kg-
day)
99th %
(mg/kg-
day)
Freshwater and Estuarine
Females
14 or under
15-44
Males
14 or under
15-44
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
5182
2332
5277
2382
10459
4714
2.29
5.78
2.99
7.86
2.64
6.82
0.00
6.31
0.00
15.63
0.00
13.04
13.08
32.37
13.48
49.65
13.10
43.58
58.83
109.79
79.03
151.19
73.70
135.88
4879
2275
4994
2369
9873
4644
82.71
90.60
94.66
99.29
88.57
94.97
0.00
107.16
0.00
201.26
0.00
149.92
443.06
481.55
534.35
622.93
485.27
558.30
2179.30
1818.06
2350.62
1910.17
2246.02
1893.18
Marine
Females
14 or under
15-44
Males
14 or under
15-44
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
5182
2332
5277
2382
10459
4714
5.21
8.95
5.95
12.00
5.59
10.48
18.84
37.51
16.98
41.71
18.66
37.85
40.12
61.69
39.66
90.15
40.20
75.25
81.31
120.58
113.31
151.51
103.42
137.12
4879
2275
4994
2369
9873
4644
212.38
145.95
213.80
149.62
213.34
147.83
591.82
556.98
608.64
576.30
605.96
568.19
1531.85
994.57
1541.64
1113.00
1543.24
1051.60
3707.87
2055.92
3602.96
1990.35
3693.50
2023.01
All Fish
Females
14 or under
15-44
Males
14 or under
15-44
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
5182
2332
5277
2382
10459
4714
7.50
14.73
8.95
19.86
8.23
17.30
28.50
53.62
31.46
76.98
29.04
64.57
55.23
85.18
56.45
118.58
56.29
107.74
103.90
189.90
165.24
242.66
127.15
211.26
4879
2275
4994
2369
9873
4644
295.09
236.56
308.46
248.90
301.91
242.80
1045.62
834.58
1121.95
982.03
1072.09
938.01
2037.62
1361.81
2135.68
1532.92
2089.18
1451.26
4548.26
3112.74
4518.43
3010.93
4538.78
3094.21
Notes:
Sample size varies between (g/day) and (g/kg/day) results because 757 individuals did not report body weight.
Estimates are based on 2-day averages.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2002
3-62
-------
Table 3 -23. Consumers Only Distribution of Fish (Finfish and Shellfish) Intake by Age and Gender - Uncooked Fish
Weight
<\ge (years)
Sample
Size
Mean
(g/day)
90th %
(g/day)
95th %
(g/day)
99th %
(g/day)
Sample
Size
Mean
(mg/kg-
day)
90th %
(mg/kg-
day)
95th %
(mg/kg-
day)
99th %
(mg/kg-
day)
Freshwater and Estuarine
Females
14 or under
15-44
Males
14 or under
15-44
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
445
325
442
361
887
686
46.59
75.01
60.04
92.59
53.37
84.22
117.47
172.90
158.10
235.64
144.29
205.48
172.05
273.59
199.26
305.44
195.72
295.34
242.69
502.92
381.31
495.00
380.99
504.38
410
315
419
358
829
673
1775.84
1184.72
1894.98
1166.53
1833.54
1174.70
4396.58
2921.90
4706.50
2998.34
4512.39
2977.52
6855.37
4260.21
5905.22
4014.59
5985.99
4125.11
11544.27
8154.42
12628.17
6534.31
12389.21
8580.49
Marine
Females
14 or under
15-44
Males
14 or under
15-44
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
670
412
677
412
1347
824
70.80
90.76
81.36
126.79
76.20
108.69
134.27
188.19
197.63
240.29
160.62
224.79
183.24
240.72
230.55
279.08
219.95
269.82
239.96
376.46
353.11
568.12
334.78
483.48
629
403
643
409
1272
812
2893.06
1474.84
2885.20
1579.39
2892.24
1527.49
6279.04
3101.95
6243.86
3063.48
6290.16
3092.59
7898.74
3926.90
8067.74
3736.28
8046.90
3871.96
10514.45
6491.00
11870.51
7102.85
11507.42
6897.59
All Fish
Females
14 or under
15-44
Males
14 or under
15-44
Both Sexes
14 or under
15-44
836
554
836
565
1672
1119
79.05
107.86
96.24
147.65
87.74
127.81
158.21
220.54
224.70
271.88
191.38
254.73
204.64
315.06
335.51
381.38
248.87
357.58
371.82
494.94
390.29
635.79
380.95
608.62
779
541
788
561
1567
1102
3201.90
1728.30
3314.34
1850.62
3259.63
1790.11
6835.88
3436.71
7401.75
3599.47
7119.82
3548.94
8808.04
5044.65
8720.25
4461.34
8758.28
4805.84
13906.69
8011.49
13024.79
7621.43
13954.57
7838.99
Notes:
Sample size varies between (g/day) and (g/kg/day) results because 757 individuals did not report body weight.
Estimates are based on 2-day averages.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2002
3-63
-------
Table 3-24. Number of Respondents Reporting Consumption of a Specified Number of Servings of Seafood in 1
Month and Source of Seafood Eaten
0 to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to
-------
Table 3-25. Mean Fish Intake Among Individuals Who Eat Fish and Reside in Households With Recreational Fish
Consumption
Age Group
(years)
Ito5
6 to 10
11 to 20
meals per week
(All Fish)
0.463
0.49
0.407
meals per week
(Recreational Fish )
0.223
0.278
0.229
N
121
151
349
Total Fish
grams/day
11.4
13.6
12.3
Recreational
Fish
grams/day
5.63
7.94
7.27
Total Fish
grams/
kg/day
0.737
0.481
0.219
Recreational
Fish grams/
kg/day
0.369
0.276
0.123
N = sample size.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis using data from West et al, 1989.
3-65
-------
Table 3-26. Fish Consumption Rates among Native American Children (age 5 years and under)
Number of 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
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%
sample size N = 194
Unweighted Mean = 19.6 grams/day
Unweighted Standard Error =1.94
Data are compiled from the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs tribes of the Columbia River Basin.
Source: CRITFC, 1994.
3-66
-------
Table 3-27. Mean, 50th, and 90th Percentiles of Consumption Rates for Native American Children Age Birth to
Five Years (g/kg/day)
Fish Category
Mean (S.E.)
95% CI
50th percentile
90th percentile
Tulalip Tribes (n = 21)
Shellfish
Total fmfish
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 fmfish
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 fmfish
Total, all fish
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
SE = standard error; 95%CI = 95% confidence interval; n = sample size.
Source: Toy etal., 1996.
3-67
-------
Table 3-28. Native American Children's Consumption Rate (g/kg/day): Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups
Species/Group
Group E
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
Group Ac
Group Bd
Group Ce
Group Df
Group Fg
All Finfish
All Shellfish
All Seafood
n
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
Mean
0.095
0.022
0.021
0.112
0.117
0.019
0.001
0.000
0.093
0.300
0.007
0.011
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.271
0.004
0.131
0.030
0.240
0.677
0.801
1.477
SE
0.051
0.013
0.014
0.041
0.079
0.012
0.001
0.038
0.126
0.003
0.006
0.002
0.117
0.002
0.040
0.011
0.075
0.168
0.274
0.346
All Children (including non-consumers)
95%
LCL
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.033
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.019
0.053
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.052
0.008
0.094
0.346
0.265
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
Max
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
Consumers Only
n
23
12
6
22
10
10
1
0
17
21
5
8
2
0
0
28
5
25
17
24
31
28
31
%
74
39
19
71
32
32
3
0
55
68
16
26
6
0
0
90
16
81
55
77
100
90
100
GM1
0.050
0.015
0.041
0.054
0.123
0.020
0.026
0.050
0.116
0.040
0.026
0.032
0.100
0.014
0.069
0.033
0.140
0.312
0.314
0.729
MSEb
1.278
1.587
1.844
1.480
1.545
1.606
1.000
1.527
1.442
1.308
1.410
1.265
1.312
1.618
1.309
1.262
1.315
1.273
1.360
1.268
a GM = Geometric Mean
b MSE = Multiplicative Standard Error
c Group A is salmon, including king, sockeye, coho, chum, pink, and steelhead
d Group B is finiish, including smelt and herring
e Group C is finiish, including cod, perch, pollock, sturgeon, sablefish, spiny dogfish and greenling
f Group D is liniish, including halibut, sole, flounder and rockfish
g Group F includes tuna, other finfish, and all others not included in Groups A, B, C, and D.
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 finiish" and "all seafood." The minimum rate for "all finiish" was 0.023, and for "all
seafood" was 0.035.
Source: The Suquamish Tribe, 2000.
5-68
-------
Table 3-29. Native American Children's Consumption Rate (g/kg/day) for Consumers Only: Individual Finfish and Shellfish and Fish Groups
Group
Group E
Species
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
Group Aa
Group Bb
Group Cc
Group Dd
Group Fe (tuna/other finfish)
All finfish
All shellfish
All seafood
Consumers Only
n
23
12
6
22
10
10
1
0
17
21
5
8
2
0
0
28
5
25
17
24
31
28
31
Mean
0.128
0.058
0.106
0.158
0.361
0.060
0.026
0.170
0.443
0.046
0.042
0.033
0.300
0.023
0.163
0.055
0.311
0.677
0.886
1.477
SE
0.068
0.032
0.066
0.054
0.233
0.035
0.064
0.179
0.011
0.019
0.008
0.128
0.012
0.048
0.019
0.092
0.168
0.299
0.346
Median
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
P75
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
P90
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
n = sample size; SE = standard error; P75 and P90 = percentile values.
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.
Source: The Suquamish Tribe, 2000.
5-69
-------
Table 3-30. Mean Fish Consumption, per capita, g/day and g/kg/day As Consumed, in Four States
Age/Gender
Category
Mean consumption, grams per day, as consumed (per capita;
N
Weighted N
(thousands)
Mean
Mean consumption, grams per Kg per day, as consumed (consumers
only)
N
g/day
Weighted N
(thousands)
Mean
g/kg/day
Connecticut
1 to<6
6to
-------
Table 3-31. Mean Fish Consumption, Consumers Only, g/day and g/kg/day As Consumed, in Four States
Age/Gender
Category
Mean consumption, grams per day, as consumed (consumers only;
N
Weighted N
(thousands)
Mean
g/day
Mean consumption, grams per Kg per day, as consumed (consumers
only)
N
Weighted N
(thousands)
Mean
g/kg/day
Connecticut
1 to<6
6to
28
43
56
39
37
28
41
53
40
39
11.9
16.0
20.3
12.1
16.4
28
41
53
38
36
28
39
50
39
38
0.71
0.56
0.41
0.20
0.22
Sample sizes (N) for g/day and g/kg day may differ because not all participants reported body weight.
Source: Westat, 2006.
5-71
-------
Table 3-32. Mean Fish Consumption, Consumers Only, g/day and g/kg/day As Consumed, by Caught or Bought Status
Age/Gender
Category
Mean consumption, grams per day, as consumed (consumers
only)
N
Weighted N
(thousands)
Mean
g/day
Mean consumption, grams per Kg per day, as consumed
(consumers only)
N
Weighted N
(thousands)
Mean
g/kg/day
Connecticut
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught and Bought
Eats Bought Only
1
74
294
9
559
2286
0.99
38.5
29.8
1
70
291
9
530
2265
0.02
0.49
0.48
*ioriaa
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught and Bought
Eats Bought Only
600
802
7164
493
667
6752
45.6
112
49.6
511
701
6545
454
636
6400
0.76
1.81
0.85
Minnesota
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught and Bought
Eats Bought Only
38
556
202
221
2747
1655
6.80
24.3
12.2
38
555
200
221
2746
1653
0.16
0.40
0.23
iNortn Dakota
Eats Caught Only
Eats Caught and Bought
Eats Bouaht Onlv
33
376
161
36
403
167
13.3
23.3
13.5
30
359
157
32
384
164
0.21
0.39
0.25
Sample sizes (N) for g/day and g/kg day may differ because not all participants reported body weight.
Source: Westat, 2006.
5-72
-------
Table 3-33. Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Heart Study, 1973-1982 (g/day)
Age
(years)
N
Mean
Std.
Dev.
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
Minimum
Maximum
Total Fat Intake
6 Mo.
1
2
3
4
10
13
15
17
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 Mo.
1
2
3
4
10
13
15
17
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 Mo.
1
2
3
4
10
13
15
17
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
Total Fish Fat Intake
6 Mo.
1
2
3
4
10
13
15
17
125
99
135
106
219
871
148
108
159
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.10
2.3
0.29
0.27
0.43
0.47
0.13
0.23
0.23
0.59
31.05
1.45
2.15
1.47
2.01
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
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
0.0
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
N = sample size; P10...P90 = percentile values. Source: Frank et al., 1986.
3-73
-------
Table 3-34. Fat Intake Among Children Based on Data from the Bogalusa Heart Study, 1973-1982 (g/kg/day)
Age
(years)
N
Mean
Std.
Dev.
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
Minimum
Maximum
Total Fat Intake
6 Mo.
1
2
3
4
10
13
15
17
125
99
132
106
218
861
147
105
149
4.94
6.12
6.98
6.40
6.05
2.70
2.28
1.73
1.77
2.32
2.75
3.34
2.67
3.66
1.52
1.30
0.84
1.02
2.41
3.03
3.37
3.61
2.88
1.23
1.03
0.84
0.69
3.28
4.11
4.45
4.56
3.96
1.68
1.47
1.18
0.92
4.67
5.66
6.15
5.50
5.24
2.35
1.99
1.54
1.62
6.19
7.47
8.56
8.16
6.97
3.32
2.80
2.14
2.24
7.97
9.53
11.94
9.93
9.98
4.54
3.81
3.13
3.10
0.39
2.27
2.14
2.18
2.03
0.33
0.21
0.15
0.16
13.16
16.38
18.69
16.73
38.21
13.86
10.19
4.73
6.23
Total Animal Fat
6 Mo.
1
2
3
4
10
13
15
17
125
99
132
106
218
861
147
105
149
2.43
3.78
3.99
3.50
3.12
1.56
1.19
0.95
1.04
2.13
2.12
2.31
2.01
2.05
1.16
0.86
0.62
0.77
0.08
1.70
1.73
1.56
1.26
0.55
0.40
0.32
0.26
0.60
2.37
2.29
2.07
1.73
0.84
0.59
0.54
0.51
2.03
3.39
3.36
3.13
2.64
1.28
0.94
0.81
0.83
3.74
4.90
5.22
4.18
4.04
1.92
1.59
1.25
1.38
5.47
6.48
6.69
6.05
5.38
2.83
2.28
1.90
1.97
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.90
0.39
0.00
0.08
0.01
0.05
8.99
13.64
13.40
13.14
15.43
10.79
5.19
3.07
4.15
Total Vegetable Fat Intake
6 Mo.
1
2
3
4
10
13
15
17
125
99
132
106
218
861
147
105
149
1.237
1.594
1.561
1.474
1.492
0.685
0.748
0.490
0.439
1.794
1.550
1.381
1.066
1.153
0.638
0.790
0.397
0.359
0.079
0.401
0.299
0.277
0.356
0.127
0.161
0.086
0.071
0.160
0.630
0.647
0.603
0.617
0.257
0.381
0.225
0.175
0.354
1.169
1.134
1.359
1.208
0.516
0.606
0.436
0.353
1.558
1.868
2.037
1.963
2.059
0.863
0.931
0.653
0.597
4.076
3.784
3.504
2.958
2.827
1.440
1.248
0.904
0.908
0.000
0.022
0.057
0.077
0.061
0.019
0.000
0.010
0.000
8.199
7.610
8.474
5.047
7.315
4.244
8.603
2.226
2.128
Total Fish Fat Intake
6 Mo.
1
2
3
4
10
13
15
17
125
99
132
106
218
861
147
105
149
0.006
0.005
0.003
0.007
0.148
0.009
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.018
0.026
0.018
0.042
2.034
0.047
0.036
0.028
0.033
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
0.000
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
0.021
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
0.127
0.219
0.160
0.341
30.03
0.625
0.405
0.189
0.234
N = sample size; P10...P90 = percentile values. Source: Frank et al., 1986.
3-74
-------
Table 3-35. Mean Total Daily Dietary Fat Intake (g/day) Grouped by Age and Gendef
Age
(yrs)
2-11 (months)
1-2
3-5
6-11
12-16
16-19
Total
N
871
1,231
1,647
1,745
711
785
Mean Fat Intake
(g/day)
37.52
49.96
60.39
74.17
85.19
100.50
Males
N
439
601
744
868
338
308
Mean Fat Intake
(g/day)
38.31
51.74
70.27
79.45
101.94
123.23
Females
N
432
630
803
877
373
397
Mean Fat Intake
(g/day)
36.95
48.33
61.51
68.95
71.23
77.46
a Total dietary fat intake includes all fat (i.e., saturated and unsaturated) derived from consumption of foods and beverages
(excluding plain drinking water).
N = sample size.
Source: Adapted from CDC, 1994.
3-75
-------
Table 3-36. Total Fat Intake for the Whole Population and for the Top 10% of Animal Fat Consumers by Consumers
Only (g/kg-day)
Aae
(yrs)
<1
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-15
16-17
18-20
Aae
(yrs)
-------
Table 3-37. Per Capita Total Dietary Intake
Age Group
PC
MEAN
SE
PI
P5
P10 P25 P50
P75
P90
P95
P99
P100
N
cons.
N
total
Total Dietary Intake (g/day, as consumed)
>irth to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
) to <6 mo.
> to <12 mo.
1 to <2 yr.
2 to <3 yr.
i to <6 yr.
> to <11 yr.
11 to<16yr.
1 f. tr, <"? 1 i;r
66.7%
76.9%
94.1%
99.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q7 qo/n
-
8.6e+02
9.4e+02
1.2e+03
9.6E+02
1.2E+03
l.Oe+03
l.le+03
1.2e+03
s fiF+nn
-
6.4e+01
4.7e+01
3.4e+01
1.9E+01
2.1E+01
9.9e+00
1.2e+01
1.7e+01
9 qF+ni
-
3.0e+01
5.6e+00
1.2e+02
8.0E+01
3.7E+02
3.4e+02
3.9e+02
3.2e+02
T, 7F+n9
-
3.1e+01
3.6e+01
2.1e+02
2.1E+02
5.4E+02
5.0e+02
5.5e+02
5.4e+02
A i F+n9
.
l.le+02 7.9e+02 9.2e+02
1.6e+02 7.5e+02 9.7e+02
6.4e+02 9.8e+02 1.2e+03
4.4E+02 6.4E+02 9.1E+02
6.3E+02 9.0E+02 1.5E+03
5.8e+02 7.6e+02 l.Oe+03
6.5e+02 8.3e+02 l.le+03
6.2e+02 8.3e+02 l.le+03
S 4F+n9 7 SF+n9 1 IF+m
-
l.Oe+03
1.2e+03
1.4e+03
1.1E+03
1.5E+03
1.2e+03
1.3e+03
1.5e+03
i 7F+m
-
1.2e+03
1.5e+03
1.6e+03
1.5E+03
1.7E+03
1.5e+03
1.7e+03
1.8e+03
9 IF+m
-
1.3e+03
1.7e+03
1.8e+03
1.7E+03
2.0E+03
1.7e+03
1.9e+03
2.2e+03
9 SF+m
-
2.0e+03
2.1e+03
2.3e+03
2.0E+03
2.1E+03
2.1e+03
2.3e+03
2.9e+03
^ W+n'!
-
2.4e+03
2.1e+03
2.5e+03
2.1E+03
2.8E+03
2.6e+03
3.6e+03
4.8e+03
A fiF+m
10
50
112
159
663
642
1435
1189
1005
79 Q
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
7 A S
Age Group
>irm to <1 mo.
1 to <3 mo.
i to <6 mo.
> to <12 mo.
1 to <2 yr.
1 to <3 yr.
i to <6 yr.
5 to <11 yr.
11 to<16yr.
1 f, tn <9 1 vr
PC
60.0%
70.8%
91.6%
95.0%
96.2%
95.8%
93.2%
92.9%
97.0%
qq 1%
MEAN
-
1.6e+02
1.3e+02
1.3e+02
7.9E+01
8.9E+01
5.5e+01
3.8e+01
2.3e+01
i XF+m
SE
-
1.4e+01
7.3e+00
4.3e+00
8.0E-01
6.0E-01
7.3e-01
5.8e-01
3.9e-01
4nF.ni
PI
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
4 qF+nn
P5 P10 P25
Total Dietary Intake (g/kj
.
O.Oe+00 6.9e+00 1.5e+02
1.2e+00 1.8e+01 9.3e+01
2.3e+01 5.4e+01 l.Oe+02
2.1E+01 3.0E+01 3.9E+01
2.9E+01 4.1E+01 6.3E+01
O.Oe+00 2.6e+01 3.8e+01
O.Oe+00 1.5e+01 2.6e+01
7.3e+00 9.8e+00 1.5e+01
7nF+nn 7 SF+nn i fiF+ni
P50
P75
P90
P95
P99
P100
N
cons.
N
total
;/day, as consumed)
-
1.8e+02
1.4e+02
1.2e+02
5.9E+01
8.8E+01
5.4e+01
3.6e+01
2.2e+01
9 nF+ni
-
2.2e+02
1.8e+02
1.6e+02
9.3E+01
1.1E+02
7.0e+01
4.8e+01
3.0e+01
9 SF+ni
-
2.4e+02
2.3e+02
1.9e+02
1.2E+02
1.5E+02
8.9e+01
6.1e+01
3.9e+01
i. -^F+ni
-
2.7e+02
2.4e+02
2.0e+02
1.4E+02
1.8E+02
l.Oe+02
7.2e+01
4.6e+01
i. fiF+ni
-
3.1e+02
2.9e+02
2.5e+02
1.9E+02
2.2E+02
1.3e+02
9.1e+01
6.0e+01
f. nF+ni
-
3.3e+02
2.9e+02
3.1e+02
2.1E+02
2.6E+02
1.9e+02
1.2e+02
8.1e+01
f. 4F+ni
9
46
109
152
637
615
1337
1105
975
7T.S
15
65
119
160
663
642
1435
1189
1005
74 S
N = sample size; PC = percent consuming; SE = standard error; P1...P100 = percentiles.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96 CSFII.
5-77
-------
Table 3-38. Per Capita Intake of Major Food Groups (g/day, as consumed)
"ood Group
PC
MEAN
SE
PI
P5
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
P99
P100
N
cons.
N
total
Age 0 to <1 month
Total Dietary 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 Dietary 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
66.7%
66.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
76.9%
75.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.4%
3.1%
9.2%
0.0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.6e+02
8.5e+02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.4e+01
6.3e+01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.0e+01
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.1e+01
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Age
l.le+02
l.le+02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
10
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
. to <3 months
7.9e+02
7.9e+02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.2e+02
9.2e+02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
l.Oe+03
l.Oe+03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.2e+03
1.2e+03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3e+03
1.3e+03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.0e+03
2.0e+03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.4e+03
2.0e+03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50
49
0
0
0
10
2
6
0
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
Age 3 to <6 months
Total Dietary 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
94.1%
86.6%
10.1%
9.2%
8.4%
66.4%
35.3%
54.6%
9.2%
9.4e+02
7.9e+02
-
-
-
l.le+01
3.0e+01
9.3e+01
-
4.7e+01
4.8e+01
-
-
-
2.3e+00
7.8e+00
1.6e+01
-
5.6e+00
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
3.6e+01
3.1e+00
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
1.6e+02
2.3e+01
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
7.5e+02
5.7e+02
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
9.7e+02
8.5e+02
-
-
-
5.0e+00
O.Oe+00
3.1e+01
-
1.2e+03
l.le+03
-
-
-
1.7e+01
5.6e+01
1.6e+02
-
1.5e+03
1.3e+03
-
-
-
2.8e+01
l.le+02
2.9e+02
-
1.7e+03
1.5e+03
-
-
-
4.0e+01
1.4e+02
3.2e+02
-
2.1e+03
2.0e+03
-
-
-
9.9e+01
2.0e+02
5.5e+02
-
2.1e+03
2.1e+03
-
-
-
1.8e+02
2.8e+02
7.5e+02
-
112
103
12
11
10
79
42
65
11
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
Age 6 to <12 months
Total Dietary 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
99.4%
95.6%
67.5%
60.6%
40.6%
95.0%
90.0%
87.5%
60.6%
1.2e+03
7.7e+02
2.1e+01
8.1e+00
1.9e+00
7.0e+01
l.le+02
1.8e+02
1.5e+00
3.4e+01
3.1e+01
2.4e+00
1.9e+00
6.3e-01
5.4e+00
6.8e+00
l.le+01
2.0e-01
1.2e+02
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
2.1e+02
8.1e+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
5.0e+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
6.4e+02
2.1e+02
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
l.Oe+01
1.4e+01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
9.8e+02
6.1e+02
l.le+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
2.3e+01
5.7e+01
8.6e+01
O.Oe+00
1.2e+03
7.5e+02
1.3e+01
6.3e-01
O.Oe+00
4.7e+01
l.le+02
1.7e+02
1.3e+00
1.4e+03
9.6e+02
3.2e+01
1.6e+00
2.5e+00
9.3e+01
1.4e+02
2.3e+02
2.5e+00
1.6e+03
1.3e+03
5.7e+01
3.9e+01
5.0e+00
1.8e+02
1.9e+02
3.4e+02
3.6e+00
1.8e+03
1.5e+03
7.4e+01
5.8e+01
7.5e+00
1.9e+02
2.3e+02
4.2e+02
4.5e+00
2.3e+03
1.9e+03
1.2e+02
7.9e+01
4.2e+01
2.7e+02
4.9e+02
5.7e+02
l.le+01
2.5e+03
2.0e+03
1.2e+02
8.9e+01
4.2e+01
3.6e+02
7.0e+02
6.1e+02
l.le+01
159
153
108
97
65
152
144
140
97
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
5-78
-------
Table 3-38. Per Capita Intake of Major Food Groups (g/day, as consumed) (continued)
"ood Group
Total Dietary 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
PC
100.0%
99.4%
96.8%
90. 1%
56.6%
99.6%
98.4%
86.6%
91.2%
MEAN
9.6E+02
4.5E+02
5.3E+01
1.2E+01
3.0E+00
1.4E+02
1.2E+02
2.1E+02
3.4E+00
SE
1.9E+01
1.1E+01
1.9E+00
9.9E-01
6.6E-01
2.9E+00
3.3E+00
8.0E+00
2.3E-01
PI
8.0E+01
3.0E+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.1E+01
8.0E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
P5
2.1E+02
5.1E+01
9.0E+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.0E+01
1.1E+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
P10
Age
4.4E+02
8.8E+01
1.2E+01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
5.1E+01
2.1E+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
P99
P100
N
cons.
N
total
1 to <2 years
6.4E+02
1.3E+02
2.0E+01
6.8E-01
O.OE+00
8.8E+01
3.3E+00
2.3E+01
1.1E+00
9.1E+02
3.5E+02
4.4E+01
2.8E+00
O.OE+00
1.3E+02
2.9E+01
1.6E+02
4.2E+00
1.1E+03
5.8E+01
5.9E+01
1.4E+01
4.4E+00
1.8E+02
8.9E+01
2.3E+02
7.0E+00
1.5E+03
8.3E+02
9.0E+01
3.9E+01
9.4E+00
2.4E+02
1.7E+02
4.9E+02
1.1E+01
1.7E+03
9.0E+02
1.3E+02
5.8E+01
2.1E+01
3.0E+02
3.0E+02
7.0E+02
1.5E+01
2.0E+03
9.7E+02
1.7E+02
8.1E+01
4.4E+01
4.2E+02
3.6E+02
8.9E+02
2.2E+01
2.1E+03
1.7E+03
2.1E+02
l.OE+02
1.1E+02
4.3E+02
5.4E+02
1.7E+03
2.9E+01
663
659
641
597
375
660
652
574
604
663
663
663
663
663
663
663
663
663
Age 2 to <3 years
Total Dietary 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
100.0%
100.0%
98.9%
95.0%
65.0%
99.5%
100.2%
91.4%
96.7%
1.2E+03
5.2E+02
6.5E+01
2.0E+01
6.6E+00
1.6E+02
1.5E+02
2.9E+02
7.5E+00
2.1E+01
l.OE+01
2.0E+00
1.1E+00
5.3E-01
2.4E+00
2.8E+00
7.1E+00
2.2E-01
3.7E+02
1.8E+01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.6E+01
4.3E+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
5.4E+02
7.7E+01
3.8E+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
4.4E+00
2.2E+01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6.3E+02
1.7E+02
9.0E+00
2.0E-01
O.OE+00
6.0E+00
3.8E+01
O.OE+00
4.4E-01
9.0E+02
3.0E+02
2.7E+01
1.1E+00
O.OE+00
9.3E+00
7.1E+01
1.2E+02
2.2E+00
1.5E+03
5.6E+02
5.3E+01
3.8E+00
9.0E-01
1.3E+02
1.2E+02
2.0E+02
4. 1E+00
1.5E+03
7.1E+02
9.0E+01
4.8E+00
3.0E+00
2.1E+02
1.8E+02
3.7E+02
7.5E+00
1.7E+03
l.OE+03
1.4E+02
5.5E+00
1.6E+01
2.7E+02
3.0E+02
6.0E+02
1.3E+01
2.0E+03
1.2E+03
1.7E+02
8.9E+00
2.9E+01
3.3E+02
3.7E+02
7.8E+02
1.7E+01
2.1E+03
1.9E+03
2.2E+02
1.4E+01
7.0E+01
5.6E+02
6.1E+02
1.1E+03
2.8E+01
2.8E+03
2.0E+03
3.2E+02
1.9E+02
1.7E+02
6.5E+02
7.1E+02
2.1E+03
5.0E+01
642
642
635
610
417
639
643
587
621
642
642
642
642
642
642
642
642
642
Age 3 to <6 years
Total Dietary 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
100.0%
99.6%
99.0%
90.8%
61.0%
99.8%
99.4%
84.4%
95.6%
l.Oe+03
3.9e+02
7.9e+01
1.3e+01
6.1e+00
1.9e+02
1.4e+02
2.1e+02
7.8e+00
9.9e+00
6.3e+00
1.3e+00
7.0e-01
5.4e-01
2.8e+00
2.5e+00
5.5e+00
2.0e-01
3.4e+02
7.8e+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
4.7e+01
3.4e+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
5.0e+02
7.4e+01
1.6e+01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
7.0e+01
2.4e+01
O.Oe+00
1.7e-01
5.8e+02
1.2e+02
2.4e+01
8.3e-02
O.Oe+00
8.8e+01
4.0e+01
O.Oe+00
l.Oe+00
7.6e+02
2.2e+02
4.4e+01
7.3e-01
O.Oe+00
1.2e+02
7.4e+01
6.2e+01
2.7e+00
l.Oe+03
3.6e+02
7.2e+01
1.8e+00
1.7e+00
1.7e+02
1.2e+02
1.6e+02
5.6e+00
1.2e+03
5.1e+02
l.Oe+02
2.0e+01
5.0e+00
2.4e+02
1.8e+02
3.1e+02
l.le+01
1.5e+03
7.2e+02
1.4e+02
4.3e+01
1.4e+01
3.1e+02
2.6e+02
4.7e+02
1.8e+01
1.7e+03
8.3e+02
1.7e+02
6.3e+01
3.4e+01
3.6e+02
3.2e+02
5.6e+02
2.2e+01
2.1e+03
1.2e+03
2.4e+02
l.le+02
8.0e+01
5.3e+02
4.8e+02
8.4e+02
3.7e+01
2.6e+03
1.7e+03
3.8e+02
2.5e+02
2.0e+02
1.6e+03
7.6e+02
1.9e+03
6.3e+01
1435
1429
1420
1303
875
1432
1427
1211
1372
1435
1435
1435
1435
1435
1435
1435
1435
1435
Age 6 to <11 years
Total Dietary Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
100.0%
99.7%
98.7%
91.5%
62.6%
99.9%
99.7%
76.8%
l.le+03
4.4e+02
9.2e+01
1.3e+01
8.9e+00
2.2e+02
1.7e+02
1.7e+02
1.2e+01
7.5e+00
1.7e+00
7.9e-01
8.8e-01
3.1e+00
3.3e+00
6.2e+00
3.9e+02
l.le+01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
4.4e+01
9.7e+00
O.Oe+00
5.5e+02
7.6e+01
1.7e+01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
8.5e+01
3.5e+01
O.Oe+00
6.5e+02
1.3e+02
2.6e+01
2.4e-01
O.Oe+00
l.le+02
5.4e+01
O.Oe+00
8.3e+02
2.6e+02
4.9e+01
9.0e-01
O.Oe+00
1.5e+02
8.7e+01
3.1e+01
l.le+03
4.0e+02
8.3e+01
2.1e+00
2.3e+00
2.1e+02
1.4e+02
1.2e+02
1.3e+03
5.9e+02
1.2e+02
6.3e+00
5.7e+00
2.7e+02
2.1e+02
2.6e+02
1.7e+03
7.8e+02
1.6e+02
4.5e+01
1.7e+01
3.6e+02
3.0e+02
4.3e+02
1.9e+03
8.8e+02
2.0e+02
6.8e+01
4.4e+01
4.1e+02
3.7e+02
5.2e+02
2.3e+03
1.2e+03
3.0e+02
1.3e+02
1.4e+02
6.0e+02
5.8e+02
8.7e+02
3.6e+03
2.7e+03
4.1e+02
2.2e+02
2.1e+02
7.8e+02
9.5e+02
1.2e+03
1189
1185
1174
1088
744
1188
1185
913
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
5-79
-------
Table 3-38. Per Capita Intake of Major Food Groups (g/day, as consumed) (continued)
'ood Group | PC | MEAN | SE | PI | P5 | P10 | P25 | P50 | P75 | P90 | P95 | P99 | P100 | cons. | total
otal Fat Intake 96.7% l.le+01 3.0e-01 O.Oe+00 7.3e-01 1.5e+00 3.7e+00 7.7e+00 1.4e+01 2.4e+01 3.0e+01 5.2e+01 8.2e+01 1150 1189
5-80
-------
Table 3-38. Per Capita Intake of Major Food Groups (g/day, as consumed) (continued)
"ood Group
PC
MEAN
SE
PI
P5
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
P99
P100
N
cons.
N
total
Age 1 1 to <16 years
Total Dietary 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
100.0%
99.1%
99.5%
92.4%
63.3%
100.0%
99.7%
70.0%
96.1%
1.2e+03
3.9e+02
1.2e+02
1.6e+01
1.2e+01
2.6e+02
2.2e+02
1.7e+02
1.4e+01
1.7e+01
9.8e+00
2.5e+00
l.Oe+00
l.le+00
4.2e+00
4.6e+00
7.7e+00
4.8e-01
3.2e+02
1.8e+00
5.0e+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
5.3e+01
1.6e+01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
5.4e+02
2.3e+01
2.2e+01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
8.4e+01
4.8e+01
O.Oe+00
7.9e-01
6.2e+02
5.0e+01
3.6e+01
3.2e-01
O.Oe+00
l.le+02
7.4e+01
O.Oe+00
2.0e+00
8.3e+02
1.6e+02
6.7e+01
1.4e+00
O.Oe+00
1.7e+02
1.2e+02
O.Oe+00
4.8e+00
l.le+03
3.3e+02
l.le+02
3.0e+00
2.9e+00
2.3e+02
1.9e+02
1.2e+02
9.7e+00
1.5e+03
5.3e+02
1.6e+02
1.5e+01
9.5e+00
3.2e+02
2.9e+02
2.5e+02
1.8e+01
1.8e+03
7.9e+02
2.2e+02
5.6e+01
2.6e+01
4.4e+02
4.1e+02
4.4e+02
3.3e+01
2.2e+03
9.7e+02
2.7e+02
8.2e+01
5.7e+01
5.0e+02
4.8e+02
6.0e+02
4.1e+01
2.9e+03
1.5e+03
3.7e+02
1.5e+02
1.4e+02
6.6e+02
7.1e+02
8.9e+02
7.4e+01
4.8e+03
2.0e+03
6.0e+02
3.1e+02
2.8e+02
l.Oe+03
1.5e+03
1.5e+03
1.3e+02
1005
996
1000
929
636
1005
1002
704
966
1005
1005
1005
1005
1005
1005
1005
1005
1005
Age 16 to <21 years
Total Dietary Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
rrrtnl Fat Tntal-p
97.9%
99.3%
99.5%
93.3%
66.0%
97.9%
97.9%
97.9%
QS Q0/n
5.6E+00
3.6E+02
1.4E+02
2.6E-01
1.9E-01
5.6E+00
3.6E+00
5.6E+00
9 IF+m
2.9E+01
9.0E+00
3.0E+00
1.4E+00
1.1E+00
5.4E+00
8.0E+00
9.5E+00
S SF.m
3.7E+02
4.0E+00
4.8E+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.1E+01
8.0E+00
O.OE+00
n rtF+nn
4.1E+02
1.8E+01
2.2E+01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
8.7E+01
2.1E+01
O.OE+00
s riF.m
5.4E+02
3.9E+01
3.6E+01
1.1E+00
O.OE+00
l.OE+02
5.5E+01
O.OE+00
9 fiF+nn
7.8E+02
2.3E+02
7.0E+01
2.1E+00
O.OE+00
1.6E+02
l.OE+02
O.OE+00
s SF+nn
1.1E+03
2.9E+02
l.OE+02
3.8E+00
9.0E+00
2.1E+02
2.0E+02
6.6E+01
i iF+m
1.7E+03
5.5E+02
1.8E+02
5.8E+00
1.6E+01
3.4E+02
3.4E+02
3.0E+02
i QF+m
2.1E+03
8.0E+02
2.7E+02
2.2E+01
2.4E+01
4.2E+02
5.1E+02
4.7E+02
3 QF+fll
2.8E+03
l.OE+03
3.0E+02
7.0E+01
5.5E+01
5.3E+02
6.1E+02
7.0E+02
A SF+m
3.3E+03
1.4E+03
3.8E+02
1.6E+02
1.7E+02
9.4E+02
1.2E+03
9.2E+02
i iF+m
4.6E+03
1.6E+03
4.8E+02
1.9E+02
3.7E+02
1.4E+03
1.4E+03
1.8E+03
i iF+m
729
739
741
695
491
729
729
729
-n.f.
745
74!
74!
74!
74!
74!
74!
74?
7 A '
N = sample size; PC = percent consuming; SE = standard error; P1...P100 = percentiles.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96 CSFII.
5-81
-------
Table 3-39. Per Capita Intake of Major Food Groups (g/kg/day, as consumed)
Food Group
PC
MEAN
SE
PI
P5
P10
P25
P50
P75
P90
P95
P99
P100
N
cons.
N
total
Age 0 to <1 month
Total Dietary 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
60.0%
60.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Age 1 to <3 months
Total Dietary 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
70.8%
69.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
13.8%
1.5%
7.7%
0.0%
1.6e+02
1.6e+02
-
-
-
-
-
1.4e+01
1.4e+01
-
-
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
-
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
-
-
6.9e+00
O.Oe+00
-
-
-
-
-
1.5e+02
1.5e+02
-
-
-
-
-
1.8e+02
1.8e+02
-
-
-
-
-
2.2e+02
2.2e+02
-
-
-
-
-
2.4e+02
2.4e+02
-
-
-
-
-
2.7e+02
2.7e+02
-
-
-
-
-
3.1e+02
3.1e+02
-
-
-
-
-
3.3e+02
3.3e+02
-
-
-
-
-
46
45
0
0
0
9
1
5
0
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
Age 3 to <6 months
Total Dietary 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
91.6%
84.0%
10.1%
9.2%
8.4%
64.7%
34.5%
54.6%
9.2%
1.3e+02
l.le+02
-
1.6e+00
4.1e+00
1.3e+01
-
7.3e+00
7.4e+00
-
3.2e-01
l.le+00
2.2e+00
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
1.2e+00
O.Oe+00
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
1.8e+01
5.6e-01
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
9.3e+01
6.2e+01
-
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
-
1.4e+02
1.3e+02
-
7.4e-01
O.Oe+00
5.1e+00
-
1.8e+02
1.7e+02
-
2.4e+00
6.7e+00
2.1e+01
-
2.3e+02
2.0e+02
-
4.4e+00
1.7e+01
4.0e+01
-
2.4e+02
2.3e+02
-
5.9e+00
1.9e+01
4.3e+01
-
2.9e+02
2.8e+02
-
l.le+01
3.0e+01
6.3e+01
-
2.9e+02
2.8e+02
-
2.7e+01
3.1e+01
l.le+02
-
109
100
12
11
10
77
41
65
11
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
Age 6 to <12 months
Total Dietary 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
95.0%
91.3%
65.0%
58.1%
40.6%
91.3%
86.3%
83.8%
58.8%
1.3e+02
8.3e+01
2.3e+00
8.4e-01
2.2e-01
7.7e+00
1.2e+01
2.0e+01
1.7e-01
4.3e+00
3.7e+00
2.6e-01
2.1e-01
7.0e-02
6.2e-01
9.1e-01
1.2e+00
2.3e-02
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
2.3e+01
4.9e-02
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
2.3e-02
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
5.4e+01
l.Oe+01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
l.Oe+00
8.0e-01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
l.Oe+02
5.9e+01
5.3e-02
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
2.4e+00
5.9e+00
8.6e+00
O.Oe+00
1.2e+02
8.3e+01
1.4e+00
7.0e-02
O.Oe+00
5.2e+00
l.le+01
1.9e+01
1.4e-01
1.6e+02
l.le+02
3.4e+00
1.9e-01
2.6e-01
l.Oe+01
1.5e+01
2.6e+01
2.5e-01
1.9e+02
1.3e+02
6.0e+00
3.3e+00
5.3e-01
2.1e+01
2.4e+01
3.7e+01
4.0e-01
2.0e+02
1.7e+02
8.6e+00
5.8e+00
8.7e-01
2.4e+01
2.9e+01
4.4e+01
4.9e-01
2.5e+02
1.9e+02
1.2e+01
8.3e+00
4.7e+00
3.3e+01
4.9e+01
6.7e+01
1.2e+00
3.1e+02
2.4e+02
1.2e+01
l.le+01
4.7e+00
4.0e+01
l.Oe+02
7.1e+01
1.7e+00
152
146
104
93
65
146
138
134
94
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
5-82
-------
Table 3-39. Per Capita Intake of Major Food Groups (g/kg/day, as consumed) (continued)
Food Group
Total Dietary 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
PC
96.2%
96.3%
94.4%
86.9%
56.6%
96.3%
95.2%
85.2%
91.1%
MEAN
7.9E+01
3.8E+01
4.2E+00
1.3E+00
3.5E-01
9.0E+00
9.6E+00
2.0E+01
3.3E-01
SE
8.0E-01
9.0E-01
1.4E-01
6.9E-02
5.5E-02
3.2E-01
2.9E-01
5.9E-01
3.3E-02
PI
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
P5
2.1E+01
3.3E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.4E+00
4.0E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
P10
Agel
3.0E+01
6.0E+00
6.6E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.8E+00
1.1E+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
P25
to <2 years
3.9E+01
1.8E+01
1.8E+00
4.4E-02
O.OE+00
6.2E+00
2.5E+00
4.0E+00
2.0E-02
P50
5.9E+01
3.3E+01
4.0E+00
1.1E-01
9.0E-02
l.OE+01
5.8E+00
1.1E+01
1.1E-01
P75
9.3E+01
5.0E+01
6.2E+00
9.0E-01
4.0E-01
1.5E+01
9.0E+00
2.5E+01
3.3E-01
P90
1.2E+02
7.7E+01
9.1E+00
1.9E+00
9.0E-01
2.1E+01
1.2E+01
6.0E+01
7.9E-01
P95
1.4E+02
9.1E+01
l.OE+01
3.3E+00
2.0E+00
2.4E+01
2.1E+01
6.9E+01
l.OE+00
P99
1.9E+02
1.3E+02
1.6E+01
5.9E+00
7.0E+00
3.8E+01
4.1E+01
8.1E+01
1.9E+00
P100
2.1E+02
1.8E+02
2.2E+02
1.1E+01
1.3E+01
4.8E+01
7.6E+01
1.3E+02
2.2E+00
N
cons.
637
638
625
576
375
638
631
564
603
N
total
663
663
663
663
663
663
663
663
663
Age 2 to <3 years
Total Dietary 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
95.8%
95.0%
93.6%
90.7%
59.8%
94.9%
95.5%
85.8%
89.1%
8.9E+01
3.6E+01
4.6E+00
1.1E+00
3.9E-01
1.3E+01
9.4E+00
1.8E+01
5.1E-01
6.0E-01
8.4E-01
1.1E-01
7.8E-02
5.6E-02
2.8E-01
3.3E-01
6.9E-01
2.9E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.9E+01
4.0E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.7E+00
5.0E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
4.1E+01
5.8E+00
7.9E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
4.0E+00
1.2E+00
O.OE+00
8.0E-03
6.3E+01
2.0E+01
2.0E+00
1.8E-01
O.OE+00
6.8E+00
4.0E+00
5.4E+00
1.6E-01
8.8E+01
3.6E+01
4.1E+00
2.2E-01
4.0E-02
1.1E+01
6.0E+00
8.7E+00
4.4E-01
1.1E+02
5.6E+01
5.5E+00
1.9E+00
3.0E-01
1.5E+01
1.5E+01
1.9E+01
5.9E-01
1.5E+02
7.3E+01
9.0E+00
4.2E+00
8.2E-01
2.2E+01
1.9E+01
4.8E+01
1.2E+00
1.8E+02
9.7E+01
1.1E+01
6.6E+00
1.6E+00
2.5E+01
2.6E+01
5.9E+01
1.5E+00
2.2E+02
1.5E+02
1.6E+01
1.1E+01
6.3E+00
3.8E+01
5.6E+01
8.8E+01
2.4E+00
2.6E+02
1.7E+02
2.4E+02
1.4E+01
1.4E+01
3.9E+01
8.3E+01
1.2E+02
3.3E+00
615
610
601
582
384
609
613
551
572
642
642
642
642
642
642
642
642
642
Age 3 to <6 years
Total Dietary 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
93.2%
92.9%
92.2%
84.5%
56.4%
93.1%
92.7%
79.0%
89.2%
5.5e+01
2.1e+01
4.1e+00
6.5e-01
3.2e-01
l.Oe+01
7.3e+00
l.le+01
4.2e-01
7.3e-01
4.0e-01
8.0e-02
3.7e-02
3.0e-02
2.0e-01
1.6e-01
3.4e-01
1.2e-02
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
2.6e+01
3.5e+00
7.7e-01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
3.7e+00
1.3e+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
3.8e+01
l.Oe+01
2.1e+00
3.0e-02
O.Oe+00
6.3e+00
3.4e+00
2.3e+00
1.3e-01
5.4e+01
1.9e+01
3.8e+00
8.8e-02
6.9e-02
9.2e+00
6.2e+00
8.1e+00
3.0e-01
7.0e+01
2.9e+01
5.6e+00
4.6e-01
2.4e-01
1.3e+01
9.7e+00
1.6e+01
5.9e-01
8.9e+01
4.1e+01
7.8e+00
2.1e+00
6.6e-01
1.8e+01
1.4e+01
2.6e+01
9.5e-01
l.Oe+02
4.9e+01
9.4e+00
3.4e+00
1.7e+00
2.1e+01
1.8e+01
3.3e+01
1.3e+00
1.3e+02
6.6e+01
1.3e+01
6.1e+00
4.6e+00
3.4e+01
2.9e+01
5.3e+01
1.8e+00
1.9e+02
9.0e+01
2.1e+01
1.3e+01
9.6e+00
1.2e+02
4.6e+01
l.le+02
3.1e+00
1337
1333
1323
1212
810
1336
1330
1134
1280
1435
1435
1435
1435
1435
1435
1435
1435
1435
Age 6 to <11 years
Total Dietary Intake
Total Dairy Intake
Total Meat Intake
Total Egg Intake
Total Fish Intake
Total Grain Intake
92.9%
92.8%
91.7%
84.8%
57.4%
92.9%
3.8e+01
1.5e+01
3.0e+00
4.2e-01
2.7e-01
7.5e+00
5.8e-01
3.2e-01
6.9e-02
2.8e-02
2.8e-02
1.4e-01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
1.5e+01
2.2e+00
4.1e-01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
2.5e+00
2.6e+01
7.2e+00
1.4e+00
2.3e-02
O.Oe+00
4.5e+00
3.6e+01
1.3e+01
2.6e+00
6.4e-02
5.9e-02
7.0e+00
4.8e+01
2.1e+01
4.1e+00
1.9e-01
1.8e-01
9.7e+00
6.1e+01
2.9e+01
5.7e+00
1.4e+00
4.8e-01
1.3e+01
7.2e+01
3.5e+01
7.1e+00
2.3e+00
1.6e+00
1.6e+01
9.1e+01
4.5e+01
l.Oe+01
4.4e+00
4.2e+00
2.0e+01
1.2e+02
8.1e+01
1.8e+01
9.3e+00
6.7e+00
3.6e+01
1105
1103
1090
1008
682
1104
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
5-83
-------
Table 3-39. Per Capita Intake of Major Food Groups (g/kg/day, as consumed) (continued)
Food Group
Total Vegetable Intake
Total Fruit Intake
Total Fat Intake
Total Dietary 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
PC
92.7%
70.6%
89.9%
97.0%
96. 1%
96.5%
89.6%
60.9%
97.0%
96.8%
67.8%
93.2%
MEAN
5.5e+00
5.7e+00
3.5e-01
2.3e+01
7.7e+00
2.3e+00
3.0e-01
2.2e-01
5.0e+00
4.2e+00
3.4e+00
2.7e-01
SE
1.3e-01
2.3e-01
l.le-02
3.9e-01
2.1e-01
5.0e-02
2.0e-02
2.2e-02
9.7e-02
9.9e-02
1.6e-01
9.0e-03
PI
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
P5
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
7.3e+00
1.8e-01
2.4e-01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
1.3e+00
5.8e-01
O.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
P10
l.Oe+00
O.Oe+00
1.8e-02
Age 11
9.8e+00
6.1e-01
5.5e-01
3.0e-03
O.Oe+00
1.9e+00
1.2e+00
O.Oe+00
2.8e-02
P25
2.5e+00
O.Oe+00
l.Oe-01
P50
4.5e+00
3.6e+00
2.4e-01
P75
7.3e+00
8.6e+00
4.7e-01
P90
l.le+01
1.4e+01
8.3e-01
P95
1.4e+01
1.9e+01
l.le+00
P99
2.1e+01
2.9e+01
1.6e+00
P100
5.2e+01
4.5e+01
3.1e+00
N
cons.
1102
840
1069
N
total
1189
1189
1189
to <16 years
1.5e+01
2.9e+00
1.2e+00
2.2e-02
O.Oe+00
2.9e+00
2.3e+00
O.Oe+00
8.5e-02
2.2e+01
6.4e+00
2.0e+00
5.6e-02
5.4e-02
4.4e+00
3.6e+00
2.0e+00
1.8e-01
3.0e+01
l.le+01
3.0e+00
1.9e-01
1.8e-01
6.5e+00
5.5e+00
5.3e+00
3.4e-01
3.9e+01
1.6e+01
4.2e+00
l.le+00
4.7e-01
8.8e+00
7.9e+00
9.3e+00
6.2e-01
4.6e+01
2.0e+01
5.2e+00
1.4e+00
1.2e+00
l.le+01
9.8e+00
1.3e+01
8.2e-01
6.0e+01
3.2e+01
7.8e+00
3.0e+00
3.1e+00
1.5e+01
1.5e+01
1.8e+01
1.4e+00
8.1e+01
3.8e+01
l.le+01
7.3e+00
5.9e+00
2.1e+01
3.6e+01
3.2e+01
1.8e+00
975
966
970
900
612
975
973
681
937
1005
1005
1005
1005
1005
1005
1005
1005
1005
Age 16 to <21 years
Total Dietary 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
99.1%
97.9%
98.5%
93.3%
66.0%
97.9%
97.9%
97.9%
97.9%
1.8E+01
5.6E+00
2.1E+00
2.6E-01
1.9E-01
5.6E+00
3.6E+00
5.6E+00
2.9E-01
4.0E-01
2.4E-01
5.3E-02
2.2E-02
2.9E-02
9.0E-02
8.0E-02
2.0E-01
8.0E-03
4.9E+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.2E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
7.0E+00
2.6E-01
2.6E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.3E+00
1.5E-01
O.OE+00
2.9E-02
7.8E+00
3.9E-01
5.0E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.8E+00
4.0E-01
O.OE+00
5.5E-02
1.6E+01
2.0E+00
1.5E+00
6.6E-02
O.OE+00
2.6E+00
8.9E-01
O.OE+00
8.0E-02
2.0E+01
5.0E+00
1.8E+00
1.1E-01
5.5E-01
3.9E+00
2.5E+00
2.1E-01
1.8E-01
2.8E+01
7.1E+00
2.9E+00
2.3E-01
2.2E-01
5.1E+00
5.1E+00
8.9E-01
4.2E-01
3.3E+01
1.3E+01
4.1E+00
9.8E-01
4.0E-01
6.6E+00
6.6E+00
5.9E+00
6.6E-01
3.6E+01
1.6E+01
4.4E+00
1.6E+00
7.0E-01
8.9E+00
1.2E+01
8.6E+00
l.OE+00
6.0E+01
2.1E+01
5.6E+00
2.9E+00
3.1E+00
1.6E+01
1.6E+01
1.3E+01
1.5E+00
6.4E+01
3.6E+01
8.1E+00
3.0E+00
4.9E+00
2.6E+01
2.5E+01
2.9E+01
2.0E+00
738
729
733
695
491
729
729
729
729
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
N = sample size; PC = percent consuming; SE = standard error; P1...P100 = percentiles.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96 CSFII.
5-84
-------
Table 3-40 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
Food
Group
Low-end consumers
Intake 1 Percent
Mid-range consumers
Intake 1 Percent
High-end consumers
Intake 1 Percent
Food
Group
Age 0 to
-------
Table 3-40. 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)
rooa
Group
Total Fats a
Low-ena consumers
Intake 1 Percent
2.7E-01 0.1%
iviia-range consumers
Intake 1 Percent
1.5E+00 0.1%
nign-ena consumers
Intake 1 Percent
8.5E-01 0.0%
rooa
Group
Total Fats a
Age 1 to <2 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
3.9E+02 100.0%
1.2E+02 31.3%
3.4E+01 8.6%
1.9E+00 0.5%
1.1E+01 2.8%
9.0E+01 23.2%
5.9E+01 15.1%
6.9E+01 17.7%
3.1E+00 0.8%
9.0E+02 100.0%
4.0E+02 44.4%
5.4E+01 6.0%
4.9E+00 0.5%
1.2E+01 1.3%
1.3E+02 14.5%
1.1E+02 12.2%
1.8E+02 20.6%
4.5E+00 0.5%
1.6E+03 100.0%
8.0E+02 51.5%
6.3E+01 4.1%
5.9E+00 0.4%
2.0E+01 1.3%
1.5E+02 9.4%
1.6E+02 10.0%
3.6E+02 23.0%
5.2E+00 0.3%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
Age 2 to <3 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
5.6E+02 100.0%
1.2E+02 30.7%
3.5E+01 9.0%
1.5E+00 0.4%
1.2E+01 3.0%
9.6E+01 24.8%
6.0E+01 15.6%
6.1E+01 15.7%
3.3E+00 0.8%
1.2E+03 100.0%
4.5E+02 49.6%
4.9E+01 5.5%
4.4E+00 0.5%
1.2E+01 1.3%
1.2E+02 13.2%
9.7E+01 10.7%
1.7E+02 18.6%
4.4E+00 0.5%
2.2E+03 100.0%
8.5E+02 54.5%
6.1E+01 4.0%
5.3E+00 0.3%
1.8E+01 1.1%
1.6E+02 10.0%
1.4E+02 8.7%
3.3E+02 21.0%
5.3E+00 0.3%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
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 Fats a
4.7E+02 100.0%
1.5E+02 31.0%
6.1E+01 12.9%
4.1E+00 0.9%
l.OE+01 2.1%
1.1E+02 24.0%
8.1E+01 17.0%
5.3E+01 11.1%
4.7E+00 1.0%
l.OE+03 100.0%
4.0E+02 40.0%
7.8E+01 7.9%
6.5E+00 0.7%
1.1E+01 1.1%
1.9E+02 18.6%
1.3E+02 13.2%
1.8E+02 17.9%
7.0E+00 0.7%
1.8E+03 100.0%
7.2E+02 39.9%
l.OE+02 5.8%
l.OE+01 0.6%
2.5E+01 1.4%
2.8E+02 15.5%
2.1E+02 11.9%
4.4E+02 24.4%
1.2E+01 0.7%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
Age 6 to <1 1 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
5.3E+02 100.0%
1.6E+02 29.9%
7.5E+01 14.2%
8.9E+00 1.7%
7.8E+00 1.5%
1.1E+03 100.0%
3.9E+02 37.2%
9.7E+01 9.2%
7.6E+00 0.7%
1.3E+01 1.2%
2.0E+03 100.0%
7.9E+02 40.6%
1.2E+02 6.1%
1.2E+01 0.6%
2.2E+01 1.1%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
i^ow-ena consumers
Intake 1 Percent
2.5E-03 0.0%
Age 1 to <
1.5E+01 100.0%
4.4E+00 29.6%
1.5E+00 9.9%
7.3E-02 0.5%
5.6E-01 3.7%
3.5E+00 23.2%
2.6E+00 17.1%
2.3E+00 15.3%
1.1E-01 0.7%
Age 2 to <
2.2E+01 100.0%
5.3E+00 35.4%
1.4E+00 9.1%
7.9E-02 0.5%
6.1E-01 4.1%
2.9E+00 19.6%
2.4E+00 15.7%
2.2E+00 14.8%
1.2E-01 0.8%
iviia-range consumers
Intake 1 Percent
1.5E-01 0.1%
nign-ena consumers
Intake 1 Percent
1.7E-01 0.1%
2 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
7.3E+01 100.0%
3.3E+01 44.9%
3.9E+00 5.4%
4.4E-01 0.6%
1.2E+00 1.7%
9.6E+00 13.1%
8.8E+00 12.1%
1.6E+01 21.8%
3.1E-01 0.4%
1.4E+02 100.0%
7.3E+01 53.2%
5.0E+00 3.6%
3.5E-01 0.3%
1.3E+00 1.0%
1.4E+01 10.2%
1.2E+01 8.6%
3.1E+01 22.8%
5.1E-01 0.4%
;3 years(g/kg/day, as consumed)
9.2E+01 100.0%
3.0E+01 41.6%
4.3E+00 5.8%
4.0E-01 0.5%
1.2E+00 1.7%
9.9E+00 13.5%
8.9E+00 12.2%
1.8E+01 24.1%
3.1E-01 0.4%
1.8E+02 100.0%
7.4E+01 53.9%
5.5E+00 4.0%
3.6E-01 0.3%
1.4E+00 1.0%
1.5E+01 10.7%
1.2E+01 8.6%
2.9E+01 21.2%
5.2E-01 0.4%
Age 3 to <6 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
6.8E+00 100.0%
1.8E+00 27.1%
9.5E-01 14.0%
4.1E-02 0.6%
2.0E-01 2.9%
1.8E+00 27.0%
1.2E+00 17.2%
6.9E-01 10.1%
8.3E-02 1.2%
Age 6 to <
3.3E+00 100.0%
7.7E-01 23.7%
5.1E-01 15.7%
3.9E-02 1.2%
9.2E-02 2.8%
5.4E+01 100.0%
2.2E+01 40.6%
4.5E+00 8.3%
3.1E-01 0.6%
6.4E-01 1.2%
l.OE+01 18.6%
7.1E+00 13.1%
9.1E+00 16.9%
4.5E-01 0.8%
1.1E+02 100.0%
4.1E+01 37.9%
6.3E+00 5.9%
4.6E-01 0.4%
1.1E+00 1.0%
1.8E+01 16.9%
1.3E+01 12.0%
2.7E+01 25.2%
6.5E-01 0.6%
1 1 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
3.6E+01 100.0%
1.5E+01 43.0%
3. 1E+00 8.7%
2.4E-01 0.7%
3.6E-01 1.0%
7.4E+01 100.0%
3.1E+01 41.6%
4.9E+00 6.6%
4.0E-01 0.5%
9.0E-01 1.2%
5-86
-------
Table 3-40. 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)
rooa
Group
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Low-ena consumers
Intake 1 Percent
1.4E+02 26.1%
9.2E+01 17.5%
4.2E+01 8.0%
6.0E+00 1.1%
iviia-range consumers
Intake 1 Percent
2.1E+02 19.9%
1.7E+02 16.1%
1.6E+02 14.8%
9.9E+00 0.9%
nign-ena consumers
Intake 1 Percent
3.3E+02 17.1%
2.7E+02 13.8%
3.9E+02 19.8%
1.4E+01 0.7%
rooa
Group
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Age 1 1 to <16 years (g/day, as consumed)
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 "
4.8E+02 100.0%
8.2E+01 17.1%
7.7E+01 16.1%
5.3E+00 1.1%
9.2E+00 1.9%
1.4E+02 29.3%
1.2E+02 25.3%
3.6E+01 7.5%
8.0E+00 1.7%
Age 16to<21
4.1E+02 100.0%
7.2E+01 17.4%
6.9E+01 16.7%
5.7E+00 1.4%
8.3E+00 2.0%
1.2E+02 28.3%
1.1E+02 26.2%
2.5E+01 6.1%
8.0E+00 1.9%
1.1E+03 100.0%
3.5E+02 32.0%
1.2E+02 10.6%
5.6E+00 0.5%
1.5E+01 1.4%
2.4E+02 22. 1%
2.0E+02 18.6%
1.5E+02 13.7%
1.1E+01 1.0%
years (g/day, as consumed)
1.1E+03 100.0%
3.5E+02 30.8%
1.3E+02 11.4%
1.5E+01 1.3%
2.1E+01 1.8%
2.3E+02 20.4%
2.3E+02 20.4%
1.4E+02 12.3%
1.8E+01 1.6%
2.3E+03 100.0%
8.3E+02 36.6%
1.8E+02 7.8%
1.9E+01 0.8%
2.1E+01 0.9%
4.0E+02 17.5%
4.0E+02 17.5%
4.0E+02 17.7%
2.3E+01 1.0%
2.4E+03 100.0%
l.OE+03 41.1%
1.9E+02 7.9%
1.8E+01 0.8%
1.6E+01 0.7%
4.1E+02 16.8%
3.8E+02 15.8%
3.9E+02 15.9%
2.8E+01 1.2%
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 "
Low-ena consumers
Intake 1 Percent
9.8E-01 29.9%
6.6E-01 20.3%
1.5E-01 4.6%
5.5E-02 1.7%
Age 1 1 to <
4.9E+00 100.0%
7.3E-01 14.7%
8.6E-01 17.3%
6.5E-02 1.3%
9.4E-02 1.9%
1.5E+00 30.3%
1.3E+00 27.1%
2.7E-01 5.4%
9.7E-02 2.0%
Age 16 to <
5.6E+00 100.0%
1.5E+00 27.4%
l.OE+00 18.1%
1.5E-01 2.7%
1.3E-01 2.3%
1.3E+00 23.8%
l.OE+00 18.4%
3.4E-01 6.0%
7.2E-02 1.3%
iviia-range consumers
Intake 1 Percent
7.4E+00 20.9%
4.7E+00 13.1%
4.1E+00 11.6%
3.6E-01 1.0%
nign-ena consumers
Intake 1 Percent
1.3E+01 17.9%
l.OE+01 13.6%
1.3E+01 17.8%
5.9E-01 0.8%
16 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
2.1E+01 100.0%
6.5E+00 30.7%
2.6E+00 12.5%
1.5E-01 0.7%
3.3E-01 1.6%
4.8E+00 22.5%
3.9E+00 18.2%
2.7E+00 12.8%
2.2E-01 1.0%
4.8E+01 100.0%
1.8E+01 37.4%
3.5E+00 7.2%
4.7E-01 1.0%
4.4E-01 0.9%
9.0E+00 18.8%
8.1E+00 17.0%
8.1E+00 16.8%
4.3E-01 0.9%
2 1 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
1.7E+01 100.0%
3.4E+00 20.2%
2.2E+00 12.8%
6.9E-02 0.4%
2.4E-01 1.4%
4.5E+00 26.6%
4.2E+00 24.6%
2.1E+00 12.4%
2.6E-01 1.5%
3.8E+01 100.0%
1.4E+01 37.8%
2.7E+00 7.1%
4.2E-01 1.1%
3.6E-01 1.0%
7.8E+00 20.5%
6.3E+00 16.5%
5.7E+00 15.0%
3.8E-01 1.0%
"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.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96 CSFII.
5-87
-------
Table 3-41. 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
-------
Table 3-41. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Maj or Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end
Total Meat Intake (continued)
-------
Table 3-41. Per Capita Intake of Total Foods and Maj or Food Groups, and Percent of Total Food Intake for Individuals with Low-end, Mid-range, and High-end
Total Meat Intake (continued)
-------
Table 3-42. 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
?ood
jroup
Low-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
Mid-range Consumers
Intake | Percent
High-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
Food
Group
Age 0 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 "
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 a
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
Age 1 to
5.2E+00 100.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
5.2E+00 100.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
Age 3 to
3.7E+00 100.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
1.7E+00 46.1%
1.3E+00 34.3%
7.2E-01 19.6%
O.OE+00 0.0%
Age 6 to
2.8E+02 100.0%
2.1E+01 7.5%
6.9E+00 2.5%
1.5E+00 0.5%
3.9E+00 1.4%
4.3E+01 15.6%
6.9E+01 24.9%
4.8E+02 100.0%
4.8E+02 100.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
1.5E+03 100.0%
1.5E+03 100.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
<3 months (g/day, as consumed)
8.2E+02 100.0%
8.2E+02 99.7%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
7.1E-01 0.1%
O.OE+00 0.0%
1.7E+00 0.2%
O.OE+00 0.0%
1.6E+03 100.0%
1.5E+03 95.8%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
4.0E+00 0.3%
4.6E+01 2.9%
1.7E+01 1.1%
O.OE+00 0.0%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
<6 months (g/day, as consumed)
9.3E+02 100.0%
8.1E+02 86.7%
1.5E+00 0.2%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
8.6E+00 0.9%
2.2E+01 2.3%
9.2E+01 9.9%
O.OE+00 0.0%
1.7E+03 100.0%
1.6E+03 94.8%
1.1E+00 0.1%
1.6E-01 0.0%
4.1E-02 0.0%
1.3E+01 0.8%
4.0E+01 2.4%
3.3E+01 2.0%
1.8E-01 0.0%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
<12 months (g/day, as consumed)
1.2E+03 100.0%
7.7E+02 66.4%
2.0E+01 1.7%
1.7E+00 0.1%
1.3E+01 1.1%
8.7E+01 7.5%
1.1E+02 9.9%
1.8E+03 100.0%
1.4E+03 80.8%
1.8E+01 1.0%
6.6E-01 0.0%
2.3E+00 0.1%
6.7E+01 3.8%
9.0E+01 5.1%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Low-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
Mid-range Consumers
Intake | Percent
High-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
Age 0 to <1 month (g/kg/day, as consumed)
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
Age 1 to
1.1E+00 100.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
1.1E+00 100.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
Age 3 to
3.7E-01 100.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
1.8E-01 49.3%
1.9E-01 50.7%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
Age 6 to
1.4E+01 100.0%
2.7E-02 0.2%
1.7E-02 0.1%
2.4E-03 0.0%
6.1E-04 0.0%
1.6E+00 11.5%
4. 1E+00 29.7%
1.4E+02 100.0%
1.4E+02 100.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
4.5E+02 100.0%
4.5E+02 100.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
<3 months (g/kg/day, as consumed)
1.6E+02 100.0%
1.6E+02 98.9%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
1.8E+00 1.1%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
2.8E+02 100.0%
2.8E+02 99.1%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
2.5E-01 0.1%
2.4E+00 0.9%
O.OE+00 0.0%
O.OE+00 0.0%
<6 months (g/kg/day, as consumed)
1.3E+02 100.0%
1.1E+02 88.8%
5.4E-01 0.4%
7.7E-02 0.1%
1.9E-02 0.0%
9.1E-01 0.7%
1.4E+00 1.1%
1.2E+01 8.9%
3.8E-02 0.0%
<12 months (g/kg/day, as
1.3E+02 100.0%
8.1E+01 62.1%
2.9E+00 2.2%
1.1E-01 0.1%
1.9E+00 1.4%
9.4E+00 7.2%
1.6E+01 12.5%
2.3E+02 100.0%
2.2E+02 96.7%
9.0E-02 0.0%
1.3E-02 0.0%
3.2E-03 0.0%
1.8E+00 0.8%
4.1E+00 1.8%
1.6E+00 0.7%
2.0E-02 0.0%
consumed)
2.0E+02 100.0%
1.6E+02 81.1%
2.5E+00 1.3%
2.0E-01 0.1%
5.9E-01 0.3%
8.5E+00 4.2%
9.6E+00 4.8%
5-91
-------
Table 3-42. 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)
?ood
jroup
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Low-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
1.3E+02 47.4%
4.4E-01 0.2%
Mid-range Consumers
Intake | Percent
1.5E+02 13.2%
2.0E+00 0.2%
High-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
1.6E+02 9.1%
9.4E-01 0.1%
Food
Group
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Age 1 to <2 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
7.1E+02 100.0%
l.OE+02 14.3%
4.4E+01 6.2%
3.5E+00 0.5%
1.8E+01 2.5%
1.4E+02 19.3%
1.1E+02 16.1%
2.9E+02 40.5%
4.3E+00 0.6%
9.5E+02 100.0%
3.8E+02 40.0%
5.3E+01 5.6%
4.8E+00 0.5%
1.3E+01 1.3%
1.5E+02 16.0%
l.OE+02 10.8%
2.4E+02 25.3%
5.0E+00 0.5%
1.2E+03 100.0%
8.1E+02 67.1%
4.5E+01 3.8%
3.5E+00 0.3%
l.OE+01 0.8%
9.7E+01 8.0%
9.3E+01 7.7%
1.5E+02 12.1%
3.6E+00 0.3%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
Age 2 to <3 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
7.3E+02 100.0%
1.2E+02 16.3%
4.8E+01 6.8%
3. 1E+00 0.4%
1.6E+01 2.2%
1.2E+02 16.6%
1.2E+02 17.4%
2.8E+02 39.7%
3.7E+00 0.5%
1.3E+03 100.0%
4.0E+02 41.9%
5.4E+01 5.6%
4.1E+00 0.4%
1.3E+01 1.4%
1.5E+02 15.7%
9.1E+01 9.6%
2.4E+02 24.9%
4.5E+00 0.5%
2.1E+03 100.0%
8.1E+02 66.5%
4.8E+01 4.0%
3.8E+00 0.3%
l.OE+01 0.8%
9.7E+01 8.0%
9.6E+01 7.9%
1.5E+02 12.2%
3.1E+00 0.3%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
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 Fats "
7.0E+02 100.0%
7.8E+01 11.2%
5.9E+01 8.4%
5.9E+00 0.8%
1.4E+01 2.0%
1.8E+02 26.1%
1.3E+02 17.9%
2.3E+02 32.6%
6.6E+00 0.9%
9.8E+02 100.0%
3.6E+02 37.1%
7.5E+01 7.6%
7.5E+00 0.8%
1.5E+01 1.5%
1.8E+02 18.4%
1.3E+02 13.3%
2.0E+02 20.5%
7.5E+00 0.8%
1.6E+03 100.0%
8.9E+02 55.4%
8.7E+01 5.4%
6.7E+00 0.4%
1.7E+01 1.1%
2.2E+02 13.5%
1.5E+02 9.4%
2.3E+02 14.2%
8.9E+00 0.6%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Age 6 to <1 1 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
6.9E+02 100.0%
8.3E+01 12.0%
7.2E+01 10.3%
1.1E+01 1.6%
1.2E+01 1.8%
1.1E+03 100.0%
3.9E+02 37.4%
9.3E+01 8.9%
7.8E+00 0.7%
1.4E+01 1.3%
1.8E+03 100.0%
9.2E+02 51.7%
1.2E+02 6.8%
8.3E+00 0.5%
1.4E+01 0.8%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Low-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
8.1E+00 58.4%
1.2E-03 0.0%
Mid-range Consumers
Intake | Percent
1.9E+01 14.4%
1.5E-01 0.1%
High-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
1.6E+01 8.1%
2.4E-01 0.1%
Age 1 to <2 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
3.0E+01 100.0%
4.3E+00 14.4%
2.0E+00 6.7%
5.9E-02 0.2%
8.6E-01 2.9%
6.5E+00 21.5%
5.3E+00 17.8%
1.1E+01 35.9%
1.9E-01 0.6%
6.9E+01 100.0%
2.5E+01 36.8%
4.4E+00 6.4%
2.4E-01 0.3%
1.2E+00 1.8%
8.9E+00 12.9%
8.8E+00 12.7%
2.0E+01 28.6%
3.5E-01 0.5%
1.1E+02 100.0%
7.4E+01 66.3%
3.8E+00 3.4%
3.3E-01 0.3%
9.8E-01 0.9%
8.5E+00 7.6%
9.4E+00 8.5%
1.4E+01 12.8%
3.0E-01 0.3%
Age 2 to <3 years(g/kg/day, as consumed)
3.4E+01 100.0%
4.3E+00 14.4%
1.7E+00 5.6%
5.4E-02 0.2%
8.1E-01 2.7%
6.1E+00 20.3%
5.5E+00 18.2%
1.1E+01 38.0%
2.0E-01 0.7%
9.9E+01 100.0%
3.0E+01 43.7%
3.8E+00 5.5%
2.1E-01 0.3%
1.1E+00 1.6%
8.4E+00 12.2%
7.5E+00 10.9%
1.8E+01 25.4%
3.5E-01 0.5%
1.9E+02 100.0%
7.7E+01 69.1%
3.7E+00 3.3%
2.8E-01 0.3%
8.5E-01 0.8%
9.1E+00 8.2%
8.0E+00 7.2%
1.2E+01 11.0%
2.5E-01 0.2%
Age 3 to <6 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
1.3E+01 100.0%
7.9E-01 6.2%
8.4E-01 6.6%
6.8E-02 0.5%
2.9E-01 2.3%
3.2E+00 25.7%
2.4E+00 18.9%
4.9E+00 38.6%
1.5E-01 1.1%
5.5E+01 100.0%
1.9E+01 34.3%
4.6E+00 8.4%
3.5E-01 0.6%
7.6E-01 1.4%
1.1E+01 19.4%
7.8E+00 14.3%
1.1E+01 20.9%
4.1E-01 0.8%
9.5E+01 100.0%
5.2E+01 54.9%
5.5E+00 5.9%
3.2E-01 0.3%
8.3E-01 0.9%
1.3E+01 14.1%
9.2E+00 9.8%
1.3E+01 13.7%
4.5E-01 0.5%
Age 6 to <11 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
5.0E+00 100.0%
3.5E-01 7.1%
5.1E-01 10.1%
3.7E-02 0.7%
1.3E-01 2.5%
3.8E+01 100.0%
1.3E+01 33.7%
3.6E+00 9.5%
2.7E-01 0.7%
4.8E-01 1.2%
6.9E+01 100.0%
3.6E+01 51.6%
4.7E+00 6.7%
2.9E-01 0.4%
6.3E-01 0.9%
5-92
-------
Table 3-42. 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)
?ood
jroup
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
Low-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
1.8E+02 26.2%
1.5E+02 22.2%
1.7E+02 24.5%
9.5E+00 1.4%
Mid-range Consumers
Intake | Percent
2.2E+02 21.1%
1.6E+02 15.4%
1.5E+02 14.3%
9.2E+00 0.9%
High-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
2.8E+02 16.0%
2.0E+02 11.2%
2.2E+02 12.2%
1.3E+01 0.8%
Food
Group
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
Age 11 to <16 years (g/day, as consumed)
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 "
6.8E+02 100.0%
3.6E+01 5.3%
6.7E+01 9.8%
8.4E+00 1.2%
1.9E+01 2.7%
2.0E+02 29.3%
1.9E+02 27.3%
1.6E+02 22.8%
l.OE+01 1.5%
Age 16to<21
6.1E+02 100.0%
8.5E+01 14.1%
5.3E+01 8.8%
1.6E+01 2.7%
1.5E+01 2.5%
1.7E+02 27.2%
1.4E+02 23.2%
1.2E+02 19.7%
l.OE+01 1.7%
1.1E+03 100.0%
3.3E+02 30.5%
1.2E+02 11.4%
1.1E+01 1.0%
1.3E+01 1.2%
2.4E+02 22.6%
2.1E+02 19.7%
1.4E+02 12.5%
1.2E+01 1.1%
years (g/day, as consumed)
1.1E+03 100.0%
3.0E+02 28.8%
1.7E+02 15.7%
1.4E+01 1.3%
1.4E+01 1.3%
2.6E+02 25.0%
2.3E+02 21.3%
5.8E+01 5.5%
1.2E+01 1.1%
2.0E+03 100.0%
l.OE+03 50.2%
1.7E+02 8.2%
1.2E+01 0.6%
1.9E+01 0.9%
3.3E+02 16.2%
2.9E+02 14.1%
1.8E+02 8.8%
1.9E+01 1.0%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Low-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
1.4E+00 27.7%
1.3E+00 26.1%
1.2E+00 24.0%
8.0E-02 1.6%
Mid-range Consumers
Intake | Percent
7.8E+00 20.5%
5.6E+00 14.7%
7.2E+00 18.8%
3.5E-01 0.9%
High-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
1.2E+01 16.7%
8.4E+00 12.1%
7.5E+00 10.9%
5.1E-01 0.7%
Age 1 1 to <16 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
7.7E+00 100.0%
3.4E-01 4.4%
6.6E-01 8.5%
8.4E-02 1.1%
2.2E-01 2.9%
2.4E+00 31.2%
2.1E+00 27.8%
1.7E+00 22.3%
1.3E-01 1.7%
2.2E+01 100.0%
6.2E+00 28.5%
2.6E+00 11.8%
2.1E-01 1.0%
3.4E-01 1.5%
4.9E+00 22.8%
4.1E+00 18.8%
3.1E+00 14.3%
2.8E-01 1.3%
4.4E+01 100.0%
2.1E+01 48.8%
3.3E+00 7.5%
3.4E-01 0.8%
3.6E-01 0.8%
7.4E+00 16.9%
6.2E+00 14.2%
4.4E+00 10.1%
4.1E-01 0.9%
Age 16 to <21 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
2.2E+03 100.0%
1.1E+03 49.2%
1.5E+02 6.9%
7.5E+00 0.3%
2.1E+01 0.9%
4.1E+02 18.6%
3.3E+02 14.7%
1.8E+02 8.1%
2.6E+01 1.2%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
9.0E+00 100.0%
9.7E-01 10.7%
7.0E-01 7.8%
1.9E-01 2.2%
2.4E-01 2.7%
2.4E+00 27.2%
2.3E+00 25.5%
2.0E+00 22.6%
1.3E-01 1.4%
1.7E+01 100.0%
4.8E+00 28.1%
2.3E+00 13.6%
1.2E-01 0.7%
2.4E-01 1.4%
3.8E+00 22.4%
3.4E+00 19.7%
2.2E+00 13.0%
1.8E-01 1.1%
3.2E+01 100.0%
1.5E+01 48.4%
2.7E+00 8.3%
1.3E-01 0.4%
2.3E-01 0.7%
6.1E+00 19.2%
4.4E+00 13.6%
2.7E+00 8.3%
3.4E-01 1.1%
"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.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96 CSFII.
J-i
-------
Table 3-43.
Fish Intake
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
ood
jroup
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 a
Low-end Consumers
Intake
7.3E+02
7.3E+02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
8.1E+02
8.0E+02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.2E+00
O.OE+00
l.OE+01
O.OE+00
Percent
Age 0 to
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Age 1 to <
100.0%
98.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
Mid-range Consumers
Intake
-------
Table 3-43. 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)
*ood
jroup
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 a
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Low-end Consumers
Intake
8.4E+02
3.6E+02
4.5E+01
O.OE+00
1.1E+01
1.1E+02
7.7E+01
2.4E+02
4.7E+00
1.4E+03
4.0E+02
4.6E+01
O.OE+00
l.OE+01
l.OE+02
7.2E+01
2.0E+02
4.9E+00
1.1E+03
4.1E+02
6.5E+01
O.OE+00
l.OE+01
2.2E+02
1.3E+02
2.3E+02
7.1E+00
1.1E+03
4.6E+02
8.8E+01
O.OE+00
l.OE+01
2.1E+02
1.2E+02
2.1E+02
9.8E+00
Percent
Age 1 to
100.0%
42.2%
5.3%
0.0%
1.4%
12.8%
9.1%
28.7%
0.6%
Age 2 to
100.0%
48.0%
5.4%
0.0%
1.2%
12.3%
8.5%
24.0%
0.6%
Age 3 to
100.0%
38.7%
6.1%
0.0%
1.0%
20.6%
11.7%
21.2%
0.7%
Age 6 to
100.0%
41.4%
8.0%
0.0%
0.9%
18.9%
11.1%
18.7%
0.9%
Mid-range Consumers
Intake Percent
High-end Consumers
Intake
Percent
Food
Group
Low-end Consumers
Intake
<2 years (g/day, as consumed)
9.4E+02 100.0%
4.6E+02 49.0%
4.2E+01 4.5%
9.8E-01 0.1%
1.2E+01 1.3%
1.4E+02 14.4%
1.2E+02 12.5%
1.7E+02 17.8%
4.2E+00 0.4%
l.OE+03
4.5E+02
6.3E+01
2.9E+01
1.5E+01
1.5E+02
1.2E+02
2.1E+02
6.1E+00
100.0%
42.7%
6.0%
2.8%
1.4%
14.4%
11.6%
20.6%
0.6%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
6.8E+01
3.0E+01
3.1E+00
O.OE+00
6.9E-01
8.6E+00
5.7E+00
2.0E+01
3.4E-01
<3 years (g/day, as consumed)
9.6E+02 100.0%
4.7E+02 49.6%
4.5E+01 4.8%
l.OE+00 0.1%
1.1E+01 1.2%
1.4E+02 15.3%
1.2E+02 13.0%
1.5E+02 15.7%
4.0E+00 0.4%
1.4E+03
4.7E+02
7.0E+01
2.5E+01
1.3E+01
1.5E+02
1.2E+02
1.9E+02
5.4E+00
100.0%
45.1%
6.7%
2.4%
1.2%
14.8%
11.3%
18.0%
0.5%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
l.OE+02
2.9E+01
2.7E+00
O.OE+00
7.6E-01
9.3E+00
5.8E+00
2.0E+01
3.6E-01
<6 years (g/day, as consumed)
9.4E+02 100.0%
3.5E+02 37.7%
7.4E+01 7.9%
1.6E+00 0.2%
1.2E+01 1.3%
1.7E+02 18.4%
1.3E+02 14.3%
1.8E+02 19.5%
6.9E+00 0.7%
1.1E+03
4.0E+02
8.4E+01
4.2E+01
1.4E+01
2.0E+02
1.6E+02
2.2E+02
9.9E+00
100.0%
35.7%
7.4%
3.7%
1.3%
17.6%
14.4%
19.2%
0.9%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
5.9E+01
2.2E+01
3.5E+00
O.OE+00
5.6E-01
1.2E+01
6.9E+00
1.2E+01
3.9E-01
<1 1 years (g/day, as consumed)
1.1E+03 100.0%
4.4E+02 41.4%
8.1E+01 7.7%
2.2E+00 0.2%
1.2E+01 1.2%
2.1E+02 20.1%
1.5E+02 14.6%
1.5E+02 14.0%
8.5E+00 0.8%
1.2E+03
4.3E+02
l.OE+02
5.8E+01
1.6E+01
2.3E+02
1.7E+02
2.1E+02
l.OE+01
100.0%
35.4%
8.5%
4.7%
1.3%
18.4%
13.9%
16.8%
0.8%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
3.9E+01
1.6E+01
3.0E+00
O.OE+00
3.8E-01
7.2E+00
4.2E+00
7.4E+00
3.4E-01
Percent
Age 1 to
100.0%
44.1%
4.5%
0.0%
1.0%
12.6%
8.4%
28.8%
0.5%
Age 2 to
100.0%
42.1%
4.0%
0.0%
1.1%
13.7%
8.5%
30.1%
0.5%
Age 3 to
100.0%
38.2%
6.0%
0.0%
1.0%
21.3%
11.8%
21.0%
0.7%
Age 6 to
100.0%
41.3%
7.9%
0.0%
1.0%
18.8%
11.0%
19.2%
0.9%
Mid-range Consumers
Intake Percent
High-end Consumers
Intake
Percent
<2 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
7.3E+01 100.0%
4.0E+01 55.2%
3.2E+00 4.4%
6.6E-02 0.1%
8.2E-01 1.1%
8.5E+00 11.6%
7.1E+00 9.7%
1.3E+01 17.5%
3.1E-01 0.4%
8.6E+01
3.5E+01
5.0E+00
2.6E+00
1.1E+00
1.2E+01
9.6E+00
2.0E+01
4.6E-01
100.0%
41.0%
5.8%
3.0%
1.2%
13.5%
11.1%
23.7%
0.5%
<3 years(g/kg/day, as consumed)
8.2E+01 100.0%
4.3E+01 59.2%
3.4E+00 4.7%
7.3E-02 0.1%
7.4E-01 1.0%
7.7E+00 10.6%
6.7E+00 9.2%
1.1E+01 14.8%
3.0E-01 0.4%
l.OE+02
3.8E+01
4.6E+00
2.9E+00
1.2E+00
1.3E+01
8.7E+00
1.7E+01
4.2E-01
100.0%
44.4%
5.3%
3.4%
1.3%
14.9%
10.1%
20.0%
0.5%
<6 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
5.5E+01 100.0%
2.1E+01 38.2%
4.3E+00 7.8%
6.2E-02 0.1%
5.5E-01 1.0%
l.OE+01 18.6%
6.9E+00 12.6%
1.1E+01 20.9%
3.8E-01 0.7%
6.4E+01
2.4E+01
4.6E+00
2.2E+00
7.7E-01
1.1E+01
9.3E+00
1.2E+01
5.5E-01
100.0%
36.6%
7.2%
3.5%
1.2%
17.3%
14.5%
18.9%
0.9%
<1 1 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
3.3E+01 100.0%
1.3E+01 38.3%
2.7E+00 8.0%
5.6E-02 0.2%
3.8E-01 1.1%
7.2E+00 21.4%
5.5E+00 16.5%
4.6E+00 13.6%
2.8E-01 0.8%
4.6E+01
1.7E+01
4.0E+00
1.8E+00
5.5E-01
8.4E+00
6.7E+00
7.3E+00
4.0E-01
100.0%
36.8%
8.8%
3.8%
1.2%
18.2%
14.5%
15.9%
0.9%
5-95
-------
Table 3-43. 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)
*ood
jroup
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 "
Low-end Consumers
Intake
1.2E+03
4.7E+02
l.OE+02
O.OE+00
1.2E+01
2.4E+02
1.8E+02
1.5E+02
1.2E+01
1.2E+03
4.1E+02
1.1E+02
O.OE+00
2.1E+01
2.4E+02
2.6E+02
1.7E+02
1.8E+01
Percent
Age 11
100.0%
40.2%
8.8%
0.0%
1.1%
20.3%
15.8%
12.8%
1.0%
Age 16to<21
100.0%
33.3%
8.9%
0.0%
1.7%
19.7%
20.9%
14.1%
1.5%
Mid-rang
Intake
e Consumers
Percent
High-end Consumers t ood
Intake
Percent Group
Low-end Consumers
Intake
to <16 years (g/day, as consumed)
1.2E+03
3.7E+02
l.OE+02
2.8E+00
1.3E+01
2.6E+02
2.1E+02
1.9E+02
1.2E+01
years (g/day
9.9E+02
4.1E+02
1.1E+02
2.7E+00
9.1E+00
1.6E+02
2.1E+02
7.8E+01
1.1E+01
100.0%
32.0%
8.8%
0.2%
1.2%
22.6%
17.9%
16.2%
1.0%
as consumed)
100.0%
41.3%
11.3%
0.3%
0.9%
16.1%
21.0%
7.9%
1.1%
1.4E+03
3.7E+02
1.5E+02
6.7E+01
2.0E+01
2.8E+02
2.7E+02
2.0E+02
2.0E+01
1.4E+03
4.4E+02
1.5E+02
9.7E+01
2.3E+01
2.2E+02
2.9E+02
1.8E+02
1.8E+01
100.0% Total Foods
26.4% Total Dairy
11.1% Total Meats
4.8% Total Fish
1.4% Total Eggs
20.5% Total Grains
19.8% Total Vegetables
14.5% Total Fruits
1.4% Total Fats'
100.0% Total Foods
31.0% Total Dairy
10.5% Total Meats
6.9% Total Fish
1.6% Total Eggs
15.3% Total Grains
20.5% Total Vegetables
13.0% Total Fruits
1.3% Total Fats'
2.4E+01
9.6E+00
2.1E+00
O.OE+00
2.5E-01
4.8E+00
3.7E+00
3.0E+00
2.4E-01
1.9E+01
6.2E+00
1.7E+00
O.OE+00
3.0E-01
4.0E+00
4.0E+00
2.5E+00
2.9E-01
Percent
Age 1 1 to
100.0%
40.5%
8.9%
0.0%
1.1%
20.2%
15.5%
12.9%
1.0%
Age 16 to
100.0%
32.9%
8.7%
0.0%
1.6%
21.3%
21.1%
12.9%
1.5%
Mid-range Consumers High-end Consumers
Intake
Percent Intake
Percent
<16 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
2.2E+01
7.3E+00
2.0E+00
4.7E-02
2.7E-01
4.8E+00
4.0E+00
3.6E+00
2.5E-01
100.0% 2.8E+01
32.9% 8.2E+00
8.9% 2.9E+00
0.2% 1.3E+00
1.2% 4.0E-01
21.6% 5.9E+00
18.0% 5.1E+00
16.0% 4.0E+00
1.1% 3.8E-01
100.0%
29.0%
10.2%
4.6%
1.4%
20.8%
18.2%
14.3%
1.4%
<21 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
1.8E+01
7.6E+00
1.6E+00
4.7E-02
1.5E-01
3.4E+00
3.6E+00
1.3E+00
2.4E-01
100.0% 2.1E+01
42.1% 4.7E+00
8.9% 2.2E+00
0.3% 1.1E+00
0.8% 2.7E-01
19.0% 4.7E+00
20.1% 4.6E+00
7.5% 3.4E+00
1.3% 2.3E-01
100.0%
22.2%
10.3%
5. 1%
1.3%
22.2%
21.8%
16.0%
1.1%
'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.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96 CSFII.
5-96
-------
Table 3-44. 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 1 Percent
Mid-range Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
High-end Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
Food
Group
Age U to
-------
Table 3-44. 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 I Fercent
Mid-range Consumers
Intake I Fercent
High-end Consumers
Intake I Fercent
Food
Group
Age 1 to <2 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
7.4E+02 100.0%
4.8E+02 65.3%
5.9E+01 8.0%
3.3E+00 0.5%
1.4E+01 1.9%
l.OE+02 14.1%
5.7E+01 7.8%
1.5E+01 2.0%
3.9E+00 0.5%
9.4E+02 100.0%
4.6E+02 49.1%
5.2E+01 5.5%
6.2E+00 0.7%
l.OE+01 1.1%
1.2E+02 12.6%
1.1E+02 11.4%
1.8E+02 19.2%
4.6E+00 0.5%
1.6E+03 100.0%
4.0E+02 25.7%
6.6E+01 4.2%
7.1E+00 0.5%
1.8E+01 1.1%
1.3E+02 8.0%
2.0E+02 12.8%
7.4E+02 47.4%
5.3E+00 0.3%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Age 2 to <3 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
7.6E+02 100.0%
5.0E+02 67.7%
5.5E+01 7.5%
3.4E+00 0.5%
1.2E+01 1.7%
8.8E+01 11.9%
6.1E+01 8.3%
1.5E+01 2.0%
3.3E+00 0.5%
l.OE+03 100.0%
4.7E+02 49.7%
4.6E+01 4.9%
5.6E+00 0.6%
1.1E+01 1.1%
1.2E+02 12.6%
1.2E+02 12.5%
1.7E+02 18.2%
4.3E+00 0.5%
1.6E+03 100.0%
3.7E+02 23.6%
5.6E+01 3.6%
6.9E+00 0.4%
1.7E+01 1.1%
1.1E+02 7.2%
2.2E+02 14.2%
7.8E+02 49.6%
4.5E+00 0.3%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
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 Fats "
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
7.0E+02 100.0%
3.9E+02 56.3%
6.5E+01 9.3%
5.2E+00 0.7%
1.1E+01 1.5%
1.5E+02 22.1%
5.4E+01 7.8%
l.OE+01 1.5%
4.9E+00 0.7%
Age 6 to
7.3E+02 100.0%
3.7E+02 51.5%
7.3E+01 10.1%
l.OE+01 1.4%
1.1E+01 1.5%
1.8E+02 25.3%
6.0E+01 8.3%
8.4E+00 1.2%
5.2E+00 0.7%
l.OE+03 100.0%
3.9E+02 39.4%
8.2E+01 8.3%
7.5E+00 0.8%
1.2E+01 1.2%
1.9E+02 19.4%
1.5E+02 14.7%
1.5E+02 15.5%
8.1E+00 0.8%
1.6E+03 100.0%
4.1E+02 26.2%
8.4E+01 5.4%
8.7E+00 0.6%
2.3E+01 1.4%
2.1E+02 13.4%
2.2E+02 14.3%
6.0E+02 38.0%
1.1E+01 0.7%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
<1 1 years (g/day, as consumed)
1.1E+03 100.0%
4.5E+02 40.6%
l.OE+02 9.1%
8.5E+00 0.8%
1.2E+01 1.0%
2.4E+02 21.3%
1.7E+02 15.2%
1.2E+02 11.1%
1.1E+01 0.9%
1.7E+03
4.6E+02
l.OE+02
1.2E+01
1.9E+01
2.4E+02
2.8E+02
5.4E+02
1.3E+01
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Low-end Consumers
Intake I Fercent
Mid-range Consumers
Intake I Fercent
High-end Consumers
Intake I Fercent
Age 1 to <2 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
3.2E+01 100.0%
2.2E+01 68.7%
2.2E+00 6.8%
1.1E-01 0.3%
7.0E-01 2.2%
4.6E+00 14.3%
1.9E+00 6.1%
3.9E-01 1.2%
1.3E-01 0.4%
7.9E+01 100.0%
3.3E+01 42.4%
5.0E+00 6.3%
5.4E-01 0.7%
1.1E+00 1.4%
1.1E+01 14.5%
l.OE+01 12.6%
1.7E+01 21.6%
3.8E-01 0.5%
1.2E+02 100.0%
3.7E+01 31.3%
5.0E+00 4.2%
3.8E-01 0.3%
1.6E+00 1.3%
1.3E+01 11.0%
1.3E+01 11.0%
4.8E+01 40.6%
3.9E-01 0.3%
Age 2 to <3 years(g/kg/day, as consumed)
3.7E+01 100.0%
2.3E+01 72.4%
2.0E+00 6.3%
9.9E-02 0.3%
7.1E-01 2.2%
3.9E+00 12.1%
1.7E+00 5.2%
3.4E-01 1.1%
1.3E-01 0.4%
8.8E+01 100.0%
3.5E+01 44.5%
4.2E+00 5.3%
6.0E-01 0.8%
1.2E+00 1.5%
1.2E+01 15.4%
8.3E+00 10.5%
1.7E+01 21.6%
4.2E-01 0.5%
1.4E+02 100.0%
3.6E+01 30.8%
4.3E+00 3.7%
4.2E-01 0.4%
1.7E+00 1.4%
1.4E+01 11.9%
1.4E+01 12.1%
4.6E+01 39.3%
4.2E-01 0.4%
Age 3 to <6 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
1.2E+01 100.0%
7.1E+00 57.5%
1.1E+00 9.2%
9.6E-02 0.8%
1.9E-01 1.5%
3.1E+00 25.1%
6.0E-01 4.9%
3.0E-02 0.2%
8.2E-02 0.7%
Age 6 to
5.9E+00 100.0%
2.9E+00 50.1%
6.0E-01 10.2%
1.9E-02 0.3%
1.4E-01 2.4%
1.8E+00 30.5%
3.3E-01 5.6%
2.5E-02 0.4%
3.8E-02 0.6%
5.4E+01 100.0%
2.2E+01 40.9%
4.7E+00 8.7%
3.5E-01 0.6%
5.0E-01 0.9%
l.OE+01 19.0%
7.1E+00 13.1%
8.6E+00 15.9%
4.5E-01 0.8%
9.6E+01 100.0%
2.6E+01 26.9%
5.0E+00 5.3%
4.8E-01 0.5%
1.1E+00 1.2%
1.3E+01 13.9%
1.3E+01 14.0%
3.6E+01 37.7%
6.0E-01 0.6%
<11 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
3.7E+01 100.0%
1.6E+01 43.1%
3.4E+00 9.4%
2.2E-01 0.6%
3.0E-01 0.8%
7.6E+00 20.7%
5.0E+00 13.7%
4.0E+00 10.9%
3.2E-01 0.9%
6.4E+01 100.0%
1.9E+01 29.7%
3.7E+00 5.8%
3.9E-01 0.6%
7.3E-01 1.1%
9.7E+00 15.3%
1.1E+01 16.9%
1.9E+01 29.7%
4.8E-01 0.8%
5-98
-------
Table 3-44. 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 I Fercent
Mid-range Consumers
Intake I Fercent
High-end Consumers
Intake I Fercent
Food
Group
Age 11 to <16 years (g/day, as consumed)
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 "
7.7E+02 100.0%
3.6E+02 46.3%
l.OE+02 13.1%
4.3E+00 0.6%
9.9E+00 1.3%
2.1E+02 27.9%
7.3E+01 9.5%
4.3E+00 0.6%
6.7E+00 0.9%
Age 16to<21
6.3E+02 100.0%
2.6E+02 41.6%
8.8E+01 13.9%
5.5E+00 0.9%
1.3E+01 2.1%
2.1E+02 32.9%
4.3E+01 6.8%
1.3E+00 0.2%
l.OE+01 1.6%
1.1E+03 100.0%
3.9E+02 34.3%
1.2E+02 10.5%
1.4E+01 1.2%
1.4E+01 1.3%
2.6E+02 23.2%
2.1E+02 18.4%
1.1E+02 10.0%
1.2E+01 1.1%
years (g/day, as consumed^
l.OE+03 100.0%
3.2E+02 31.2%
9.4E+01 9.2%
4.6E+00 0.5%
1.3E+01 1.3%
2.6E+02 25.2%
2.5E+02 24.4%
7.2E+01 7.0%
1.3E+01 1.2%
2.0E+03 100.0%
5.0E+02 24.7%
1.6E+02 8.1%
2.0E+01 1.0%
2.1E+01 1.1%
3.3E+02 16.3%
4.1E+02 20.5%
5.5E+02 27.2%
2.3E+01 1.1%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Low-end Consumers
Intake I Fercent
Mid-range Consumers
Intake I Fercent
High-end Consumers
Intake I Fercent
Age 1 1 to <16 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
8.3E+00 100.0%
3.4E+00 41.4%
1.2E+00 14.7%
5.5E-02 0.7%
1.4E-01 1.7%
2.6E+00 31.1%
7.4E-01 8.9%
5.5E-02 0.7%
7.4E-02 0.9%
2.2E+01 100.0%
8.4E+00 37.5%
2.2E+00 9.9%
1.6E-01 0.7%
3.4E-01 1.5%
5.2E+00 23.0%
3.9E+00 17.6%
2.0E+00 8.7%
2.6E-01 1.1%
4.2E+01 100.0%
1.1E+01 25.2%
3.1E+00 7.3%
3.9E-01 0.9%
5.1E-01 1.2%
7.3E+00 17.2%
8.3E+00 19.7%
1.2E+01 27.4%
4.4E-01 1.0%
Age 16 to <21 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
2.2E+03 100.0%
5.1E+02 22.9%
1.6E+02 7.2%
1.7E+01 0.8%
l.OE+01 0.5%
4.0E+02 18.1%
4.4E+02 20.2%
6.4E+02 29.2%
2.6E+01 1.2%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
8.5E+00 100.0%
3.5E+00 41.0%
1.3E+00 15.6%
8.3E-02 1.0%
1.7E-01 2.0%
2.7E+00 32.2%
5.9E-01 6.9%
1.5E-02 0.2%
1.1E-01 1.3%
1.7E+01 100.0%
5.8E+00 34.4%
2.2E+00 12.9%
1.7E-01 1.0%
2.4E-01 1.4%
3.5E+00 20.5%
4.1E+00 24.1%
7.7E-01 4.5%
2.1E-01 1.2%
3.3E+01 100.0%
8.3E+00 25.1%
2.4E+00 7.2%
2.5E-01 0.8%
1.7E-01 0.5%
6.0E+00 18.1%
7.5E+00 22.9%
8.1E+00 24.5%
3.2E-01 1.0%
"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.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96 CSFII.
5-99
-------
Table 3-45. 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
Food
Group
Low-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
Mid-range Consumers
Intake | Percent
High-end Consumers
Intake | Percent
Food
Group
Age U to
-------
Table 3-45. 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
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Low-end Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
Age 1
7.4E+02 100.0%
l.OE+02 14.2%
6.7E+01 9.1%
3.8E+00 0.5%
2.3E+01 3.2%
1.5E+02 20.7%
1.3E+02 18.0%
2.5E+02 33.6%
5.5E+00 0.8%
Mid-range Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
High-end Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
Food
Group
to <2 years (g/day, as consumed)
l.OE+03 100.0%
4.5E+02 43.6%
6.3E+01 6.2%
5.3E+00 0.5%
1.4E+01 1.4%
1.4E+02 13.5%
1.1E+02 10.9%
2.4E+02 23.4%
4.6E+00 0.4%
1.5E+03 100.0%
l.OE+03 66.9%
4.5E+01 2.9%
4.8E+00 0.3%
1.3E+01 0.8%
1.3E+02 8.2%
l.OE+02 6.7%
2.2E+02 14.0%
4.7E+00 0.3%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Age 2 to <3 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
7.5E+02 100.0%
1.1E+02 14.6%
6.2E+01 8.4%
3.3E+00 0.5%
2.3E+01 3.1%
1.5E+02 19.7%
1.4E+02 19.0%
2.5E+02 33.9%
6.1E+00 0.8%
1.1E+03 100.0%
4.9E+02 47.5%
6.7E+01 6.5%
5.2E+00 0.5%
1.6E+01 1.5%
1.2E+02 11.5%
1.2E+02 12.1%
2.0E+02 19.9%
4.5E+00 0.4%
1.6E+03 100.0%
l.OE+03 65.9%
3.7E+01 2.4%
4.8E+00 0.3%
1.2E+01 0.8%
1.3E+02 8.4%
1.1E+02 7.1%
2.3E+02 14.9%
4.0E+00 0.3%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
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 Fats a
7.0E+02 100.0%
6.6E+01 9.4%
8.3E+01 11.9%
5.3E+00 0.8%
1.6E+01 2.2%
1.8E+02 25.8%
1.3E+02 18.4%
2.2E+02 30.7%
6.7E+00 1.0%
9.8E+02 100.0%
3.6E+02 36.7%
8.6E+01 8.8%
5.9E+00 0.6%
9.5E+00 1.0%
1.8E+02 18.8%
1.4E+02 14.7%
1.8E+02 18.7%
7.1E+00 0.7%
1.6E+03 100.0%
9.0E+02 56.8%
7.5E+01 4.7%
6.2E+00 0.4%
1.6E+01 1.0%
2.1E+02 13.2%
1.5E+02 9.2%
2.2E+02 14.1%
8.5E+00 0.5%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats a
Age 6 to <1 1 years (g/day, as consumed)
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
7.2E+02 100.0%
7.1E+01 9.8%
l.OE+02 14.2%
1.1E+01 1.5%
1.4E+01 2.0%
1.9E+02 26.1%
1.6E+02 21.9%
1.6E+02 22.9%
1.1E+01 1.5%
9.9E+02 100.0%
3.9E+02 39.6%
8.2E+01 8.3%
7.0E+00 0.7%
1.1E+01 1.2%
2.0E+02 20.3%
1.4E+02 14.2%
1.4E+02 14.6%
1.1E+01 1.1%
1.8E+03 100.0%
9.3E+02 52.5%
l.OE+02 5.6%
7.4E+00 0.4%
1.4E+01 0.8%
2.9E+02 16.1%
2.0E+02 11.1%
2.3E+02 12.8%
1.2E+01 0.7%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Low-end Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
Mid-range Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
High-end Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
Age 1 to <2 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
3.2E+01 100.0%
4.7E+00 14.7%
2.5E+00 7.9%
5.8E-02 0.2%
1.1E+00 3.3%
6.7E+00 20.9%
5.5E+00 17.2%
1.1E+01 35.1%
2.3E-01 0.7%
8.1E+01 100.0%
3.2E+01 39.3%
4.9E+00 6.1%
5.2E-01 0.6%
1.2E+00 1.4%
1.2E+01 14.8%
9.3E+00 11.5%
2.1E+01 25.8%
3.5E-01 0.4%
1.4E+02 100.0%
9.2E+01 65.9%
4. 1E+00 2.9%
2.8E-01 0.2%
1.1E+00 0.8%
1.1E+01 7.9%
1.2E+01 8.5%
1.9E+01 13.6%
3.8E-01 0.3%
Age 2 to <3 years(g/kg/day, as consumed)
3.5E+01 100.0%
5.0E+00 15.6%
2.6E+00 8.0%
5.5E-02 0.2%
l.OE+00 3.3%
6.6E+00 20.6%
5.9E+00 18.5%
1.1E+01 33.2%
2.3E-01 0.7%
8.2E+01 100.0%
3.2E+01 39.2%
5.4E+00 6.6%
5.3E-01 0.7%
9.8E-01 1.2%
1.2E+01 14.3%
9.6E+00 11.8%
2.1E+01 25.9%
3.0E-01 0.4%
1.4E+02 100.0%
9.7E+01 69.3%
4.3E+00 3.1%
3.1E-01 0.2%
8.9E-01 0.6%
l.OE+01 7.4%
l.OE+01 7.3%
1.7E+01 11.8%
3.9E-01 0.3%
Age 3 to <6 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
1.3E+01 100.0%
4.8E-01 3.7%
1.6E+00 12.1%
l.OE-01 0.8%
3.3E-01 2.5%
3.4E+00 25.5%
2.6E+00 19.9%
4.5E+00 34.4%
1.6E-01 1.2%
5.3E+01 100.0%
1.9E+01 35.5%
4.1E+00 7.8%
2.9E-01 0.5%
5.9E-01 1.1%
9.5E+00 17.9%
7.8E+00 14.7%
1.1E+01 21.6%
4.1E-01 0.8%
9.4E+01 100.0%
5.2E+01 55.4%
4.7E+00 5.0%
3.4E-01 0.4%
8.9E-01 0.9%
1.3E+01 13.9%
9.3E+00 9.9%
1.3E+01 13.9%
4.5E-01 0.5%
Age 6 to <1 1 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
6.4E+00 100.0%
1.7E-01 2.7%
l.OE+00 16.4%
3.8E-02 0.6%
7.7E-02 1.2%
1.8E+00 27.5%
1.6E+00 24.9%
1.6E+00 25.1%
9.9E-02 1.6%
3.7E+01 100.0%
1.3E+01 35.4%
3.1E+00 8.4%
2.7E-01 0.7%
4.9E-01 1.3%
7.7E+00 20.8%
5.6E+00 15.2%
6.4E+00 17.2%
3.5E-01 1.0%
6.8E+01 100.0%
3.6E+01 52.8%
3.8E+00 5.6%
2.9E-01 0.4%
6.0E-01 0.9%
1.1E+01 16.3%
8.3E+00 12.1%
7.7E+00 11.2%
4.7E-01 0.7%
3-101
-------
Table 3-45. 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
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 *
Low-end Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
Age 11
7.4E+02 100.0%
2.1E+01 2.8%
1.1E+02 15.0%
9.6E+00 1.3%
2.0E+01 2.7%
2.1E+02 29.0%
1.9E+02 25.9%
1.6E+02 21.7%
1.2E+01 1.6%
Age 16to<21
6.2E+02 100.0%
5.4E+01 8.7%
l.OE+02 16.9%
2.1E+01 3.4%
1.2E+01 1.9%
1.6E+02 25.5%
1.4E+02 23.2%
1.2E+02 19.0%
7 5F+00 1 7%
Mid-range Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
High-end Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
Food
Group
to <16 years (g/day, as consumed)
1.1E+03 100.0%
3.3E+02 31.3%
1.1E+02 10.5%
8.7E+00 0.8%
1.5E+01 1.4%
2.4E+02 22.9%
2.0E+02 18.8%
1.4E+02 13.1%
1.2E+01 1.1%
years (g/day, as consumed)
l.OE+03 100.0%
2.7E+02 26.4%
1.5E+02 15.2%
7.3E+00 0.7%
1.9E+01 1.9%
2.5E+02 24.9%
1.8E+02 18.0%
1.2E+02 11.5%
1 4F+01 1 4%
2.0E+03 100.0%
l.OE+03 52.3%
1.4E+02 6.8%
1.1E+01 0.6%
1.9E+01 0.9%
3.2E+02 16.3%
2.7E+02 13.5%
1.8E+02 8.8%
1.8E+01 0.9%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats "
Low-end Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
Mid-range Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
High-end Consumers
Intake 1 Percent
Age 1 1 to <16 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
8.7E+00 100.0%
1.6E-01 1.9%
1.4E+00 15.6%
8.2E-02 0.9%
2.2E-01 2.5%
2.7E+00 30.4%
2.3E+00 26.5%
1.8E+00 20.9%
1.1E-01 1.3%
2.2E+01 100.0%
6.3E+00 28.6%
2.3E+00 10.3%
2.7E-01 1.2%
3.2E-01 1.5%
4.9E+00 22.2%
4.2E+00 18.8%
3.6E+00 16.3%
2.3E-01 1.1%
4.3E+01 100.0%
2.2E+01 51.1%
2.6E+00 6.0%
3.3E-01 0.8%
3.8E-01 0.9%
7.0E+00 16.5%
5.5E+00 12.9%
4.7E+00 10.9%
3.5E-01 0.8%
Age 16 to <21 years (g/kg/day, as consumed)
2.2E+03 100.0%
1.1E+03 48.2%
1.5E+02 6.8%
l.OE+01 0.5%
1.7E+01 0.8%
4.4E+02 20.0%
2.9E+02 13.2%
2.1E+02 9.6%
7 1F+01 1 0%
Total Foods
Total Dairy
Total Meats
Total Fish
Total Eggs
Total Grains
Total Vegetables
Total Fruits
Total Fats *
8.5E+00 100.0%
5.4E-01 6.4%
1.6E+00 18.7%
3.1E-01 3.7%
1.9E-01 2.3%
2.0E+00 23.0%
1.9E+00 22.5%
1.9E+00 22.3%
9 6F-07 1 1 %
1.6E+00 100.0%
4.3E-01 26.7%
2.5E-01 15.6%
1.2E-02 0.8%
2.7E-02 1.7%
3.6E-01 22.7%
3.1E-01 19.4%
1.9E-01 11.7%
7 5F-07 1 5%
3.0E+00 100.0%
1.5E+00 50.8%
1.9E-01 6.3%
1.3E-02 0.4%
2.3E-02 0.8%
5.9E-01 19.6%
3.5E-01 11.8%
2.8E-01 9.4%
7 7F-07 0 9%
'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.
Source: Based on U.S. EPA analysis of 1994-96 CSFII.
3-102
-------
Table 3-46. Weighted and Unweighted Number of Observations (Individuals) for NFCS Data Used in Analysis
ofFood Intake
Age (years)
-------
Table 3-47. Consumer Only Intake of Homegrown Foods (g/kg-day)a - All Regions Combined
A
-------
Table 3-48. Percent Weight Losses from Food Preparation
Food Type Mean Net Cooking Loss (%) Mean Net Post Cooking, Paring, or Preparation Loss (%)
Meat
Fish
Fruits
Vegetables
30
32
31
12
30
11
25
22a
* Based on potatoes only.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1997. (Derived from USDA, 1975.)
3-105
-------
Table 3-49. Quantity (as consumed) of Food Groups Consumed Per Eating Occasion and the Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods Over a Three-Day Period in a 1977-1978
Survey
Quantity consumed per eating occasion (g)
Food category
Raw vegetables
White potatoes
Cabbage and coleslaw
Carrots
Cucumbers
Lettuce and tossed salad
Mature onions
Tomatoes
Cooked vegetables
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Corn, whole kernel
Lima beans
Mixed vegetables
Cowpeas, field peas,
black-eyed peas
Green peas
Spinach
String beans
Summer squash
Sweet potatoes
Tomato juice
Cucumber pickles
Fruits
Grapefruit
Grapefruit juice
Oranges
Orange juice
Apples
Applesauce, cooked
apples
Apple juice
Cantaloupe
Raw peaches
Raw pears
Raw strawberries
Under 1 year old
Male and Female
PCa Ave. SD
18.1 72 58
000
0.8 37 12
0.6 63 63
000
000
0.3 21 7
1.0 42 27
0.4 77 52
21.7 71 41
3.2 22 17
1.0 71 67
11.4 81 47
0.5 127 64
16.0 61 45
0.9 26 19
19.7 69 47
0.7 26 19
10.8 82 47
000
0.2 6 0
000
0.6 143 44
0.9 87 34
20.9 122 51
1.7 94 51
35.6 71 49
19.2 125 56
0.2 136 0
1.2 118 39
1.2 56 40
0.2 120 30
1 -2 years old
Male and Female
PC Ave. SD
74.5 70 56
3.4 33 22
3.4 28 25
1.6 40 36
16.6 30 29
1.4 22 18
10.6 46 32
5.7 55 33
3.2 57 48
11.7 54 38
25.8 56 40
2.4 54 38
3.7 89 78
2.1 63 50
21.8 53 36
2.8 58 48
25.1 48 33
1.3 96 63
3.8 97 70
0.8 147 73
4.6 32 26
1.1 145 57
1.0 156 66
8.1 117 45
40.9 153 70
23.6 105 44
13.6 104 65
13.1 148 64
1.1 68 35
3.5 129 48
2.3 131 43
1.5 87 41
3-5 years old
Male and Female
PC Ave. SD
76.3 86 62
4.9 41 31
5.4 38 33
3.5 58 50
30.4 34 26
3.1 19 30
15.7 52 44
3.8 65 43
3.3 77 51
8.0 49 31
30.1 68 45
1.9 49 31
3.1 69 40
2.5 84 60
20.9 61 42
3.2 73 53
25.4 51 46
1.4 97 91
3.1 96 50
0.9 156 61
6.2 38 36
1.0 149 56
1.2 174 47
10.0 134 44
41.7 167 73
23.8 124 39
10.4 126 61
8.5 170 65
1.5 125 73
3.8 128 36
2.9 150 57
1.2 69 34
6-8 years old
Male and Female
PC Ave. SD
Fruits and Vegetab!
80.7 100 69
8.5 51 31
9.8 38 41
4.1 68 73
42.8 43 33
3.9 20 19
18.3 55 33
5.6 83 50
3.8 92 54
8.7 59 33
34.6 78 41
1.9 79 47
4.0 82 44
2.7 97 57
22.1 72 46
5.1 93 56
31.6 64 38
1.1 136 121
3.2 99 62
0.9 133 48
8.1 45 46
1.5 158 64
1.6 184 52
12.6 134 46
43.7 178 68
25.8 132 41
14.1 132 76
5.5 193 87
2.2 135 76
4.5 145 68
4.0 163 42
1.6 87 44
9-14 years old
Male
PC Ave. SD
es
81.8 124 87
9.6 60 34
8.6 39 36
3.2 75 58
45.8 54 47
6.0 27 20
20.1 74 58
4.6 96 72
3.9 117 79
8.5 79 48
32.0 95 62
1.8 114 133
3.7 116 75
2.7 109 60
20.9 86 52
5.2 105 59
31.1 75 54
1.2 103 50
3.4 144 79
1.2 159 63
8.6 47 50
1.6 160 56
1.3 194 73
10.7 150 51
39.4 195 80
22.0 146 55
13.6 151 107
3.0 190 69
2.2 165 85
3.5 170 77
2.7 163 46
1.2 95 53
Female
PC Ave. SD
77.0 112 80
9.3 61 40
6.5 33 31
4.6 72 82
47.5 51 43
5.3 26 27
21.0 71 49
5.1 88 55
4.5 121 91
8.8 75 46
31.0 83 47
2.3 86 45
3.4 101 50
2.3 96 67
19.4 83 46
3.6 102 62
29.4 74 55
1.7 102 56
2.1 134 92
1.0 183 95
9.1 50 59
2.4 153 50
1.5 173 72
11.2 137 49
41.0 188 77
24.5 140 41
11.1 134 82
4.0 204 74
2.5 152 77
4.9 153 68
3.3 161 42
2.2 91 50
15-18 years ols
Male
PC Ave. SD
81.2 149 112
9.8 77 51
4.5 42 39
3.9 76 64
47.7 61 56
9.9 29 29
24.4 75 56
4.3 100 48
4.5 129 65
8.5 86 48
28.8 116 70
2.6 141 94
2.7 107 60
3.2 151 63
18.1 112 73
4.5 127 80
29.5 93 58
2.1 155 76
3.2 150 75
2.1 191 94
9.9 45 46
2.2 150 68
1.7 248 202
8.9 158 84
37.3 228 116
16.7 151 48
10.2 171 125
2.7 259 180
2.0 209 111
4.0 205 111
3.2 195 219
1.6 121 63
Female
PC Ave. SD
77.2 116 86
9.5 66 41
5.5 39 35
6.3 62 64
49.0 57 49
7.9 25 26
24.3 66 44
4.1 106 55
4.3 119 81
7.0 71 46
24.5 94 59
1.8 91 78
1.8 124 80
2.4 163 100
16.9 96 62
3.0 108 64
24.8 83 51
1.2 121 78
3.3 166 84
2.2 194 84
8.5 58 71
2.3 159 57
2.2 210 66
9.4 142 51
36.6 208 81
19.1 142 46
7.7 146 73
3.1 236 139
2.5 189 113
3.3 142 66
1.4 167 57
1.9 82 45
5-106
-------
Table 3-49. Quantity (as consumed) of Food Groups Consumed Per Eating Occasion and the Percentage of Individuals Using These Foods in Three Days (continued)
Quantity consumed per eating occasion (g)
Under 1 year old l-2yearsold 3-5 years old 6-8yearsold 9-14yearsold 15-18 years ols
Male and Female Male and Female Male and Female Male and Female Male j Female Male j Female
Food category PC" Ave. SD PC Ave. SD PC Ave. SD PC Ave. SD PC Ave. SD j PC Ave. SD PC Ave. SD j PC Ave. SD
Grain Products
Yeast Breads
Pancakes
Waffles
Tortillas
Cakes and Cupcakes
Cookies
Pies
Doughnuts
Crackers
Popcorn
Pretzels
Corn-based Salty Snacks
Pasta
Rice
Cooked Cereals
Ready -to-Eat Cereals
Meat8
Beef
Pork
Lamb
Veal
Poultry
Chicken
Turkey
Dairy Products
Eggs
Butter
Margarine
Milk0
Cheese"1
17.6 20 11
3.0 39 27
0.6 30 13
0.8 16 7
1.6 53 37
11.9 15 13
0.5 53 30
0.8 36 22
13.8 10 9
0.1 72 0
0.7 4 4
0.6 8 2
3.4 58 42
4.3 53 42
16.3 116 82
68.7 13 11
23.2 58 42
15.6 56 41
10.1 66 44
2.6 52 29
3.2 54 37
18.2 60 38
15.6 62 39
5.1 53 34
17.7 49 30
5.2 6 4
8.5 5 4
89.0 170 71
6.1 25 21
88.0 28 16
12.2 59 50
3.4 56 45
3.9 26 11
17.4 51 38
46.3 21 15
4.7 88 50
6.6 47 26
38.1 14 14
5.7 9 12
3.2 18 18
6.6 24 20
14.1 82 59
20.9 81 50
33.1 149 87
68.0 23 14
78.2 53 40
60.1 64 38
44.2 37 36
1.4 72 46
1.2 80 28
42.2 73 44
38.8 73 43
4.4 73 59
61.3 59 27
29.2 7 6
43.8 6 6
96.9 179 80
35.9 31 19
95.1 36 17
12.7 76 52
5.7 69 41
5.1 36 16
25.3 61 45
48.1 25 22
7.1 106 48
8.6 54 28
32.8 18 20
8.5 12 11
3.1 21 20
8.6 27 22
14.7 99 58
22.2 95 58
26.0 177 97
75.8 29 17
82.8 66 46
65.5 79 43
46.0 47 44
0.6 90 59
1.6 75 33
42.6 90 50
39.3 92 50
4.5 74 39
55.2 66 34
28.7 9 10
46.1 8 8
97.0 198 83
37.0 31 17
97.2 40 19
11.9 96 59
5.9 69 45
4.7 55 29
34.4 66 42
53.2 28 21
8.1 116 58
10.9 60 30
26.2 20 19
9.5 14 9
3.3 25 21
10.3 29 26
14.5 116 74
23.4 120 77
21.3 198 104
76.8 33 19
Meat, Poultry, and Dairy
84.6 82 55
67.2 97 52
46.7 57 49
0.5 139 86
2.0 115 72
45.1 103 56
41.4 106 55
5.7 74 44
48.5 70 37
31.7 10 11
42.9 9 8
98.5 227 89
35.3 35 23
96.9 49 28
13.5 118 72
5.2 87 62
4.0 74 31
36.4 80 56
44.4 36 36
10.2 133 55
12.0 67 39
22.1 24 24
9.6 18 17
4.1 29 25
9.9 33 29
14.0 162 102
18.9 149 86
19.5 223 126
69.8 41 28
3roducts
87.1 103 71
69.0 124 66
48.8 68 65
0.9 171 80
1.5 124 75
44.3 131 75
39.8 136 77
6.5 103 56
49.1 85 47
32.4 12 15
44.8 12 12
97.4 265 125
31.2 39 22
96.4 44 23
10.7 101 89
4.1 80 68
4.3 66 33
35.2 77 55
43.1 32 29
10.6 129 62
12.9 62 36
22.1 20 16
9.1 17 15
3.5 30 26
11.3 32 30
14.5 145 89
22.4 138 77
17.3 212 107
64.0 36 21
84.2 94 69
68.2 111 70
47.0 64 57
0.7 127 68
1.5 96 46
44.0 112 58
39.6 115 57
6.2 90 54
44.3 75 40
30.9 10 9
40.7 11 12
95.1 242 103
34.9 35 23
96.2 59 35
9.8 161 110
3.5 125 70
3.4 100 48
31.0 93 71
37.9 45 50
13.6 144 66
13.2 91 74
18.0 32 29
6.1 20 20
2.9 52 50
8.3 46 44
11.2 198 133
20.9 195 117
14.3 259 132
50.4 49 31
87.9 123 90
70.3 152 87
56.1 79 75
0.5 156 81
1.5 170 87
43.8 153 85
38.9 160 87
7.5 120 68
52.3 101 49
32.4 14 12
41.4 16 14
93.2 314 164
39.0 46 30
93.7 44 21
9.8 121 93
2.4 79 55
4.0 69 33
26.5 80 59
34.9 31 26
9.2 126 47
12.9 63 34
19.6 23 21
7.8 18 20
3.1 25 16
10.7 34 22
10.8 158 99
19.0 160 89
12.1 229 106
43.7 37 22
82.6 102 73
65.9 123 73
46.2 68 60
1.0 112 43
2.1 131 62
43.7 123 68
39.5 128 70
6.2 89 47
44.4 79 41
32.0 13 14
38.6 11 9
88.0 244 113
39.8 37 23
NOTE: Data are presented as in the original document.
a PC = percentage consuming; Ave. = average consumed; SD = standard deviation.
b Meat - beef, pork, lamb, and veal.
" Milk - fluid milk, milk beverages, and milk-based infant formulas.
Cheese - natural and processed cheese.
Source: Pao et al., 1982 (based on 1977-1978 NFCS data).
5-107
-------
Table 3-50. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Food Groups Expressed as Percentages of Edible Portions
Food
(Fruits)
Moisture Content
Raw
Cooked
Comments
\pples - dried
31.76
sulfured; "without added sugar
Vpples
83.93*
84.46*
"with skin; "without skin
\pples -juice
87.93
canned or bottled
Applesauce
88.35*
* unsweetened
Apricots
* canned juice pack with skin
Vpncots - dried
31.09
85.56*
sullured; *without added sugar
Jananas
74.26
blackberries
85.64
blueberries
84.61
86.59*
*frozen unsweetened
Joysenberries
85.90
frozen unsweetened
Cantaloupes - unspecified
89.78
^asabas
91.00
"hemes - sweet
80.76
84.95*
* canned, juice pack
^rabapples
78.94
Cranberries
86.54
'ranbernes - juice cocktail
85.00
bottled
Currants fred and white ^
83.95
erberries
79.80
jrapelruit
90.89
jrapelruit - juice
90.00
90.10*
*canned unsweetened
jrapefruit - unspecified
90.89
pink, red, white
jrapes - fresh
81.30
American type (slip skin)
jrapes -juice
84.12
canned or bottled
jrapes - raisins
15.42
seedless
loneydew melons
89.66
.iwi fruit
83.05
.umquats
81.70
,emons - juice
90.73
92.46*
* canned or bottled
,emons - peel
81.60
,emons - pulp
88.98
,imes - juice
90.21
92.52*
*canned or bottled
,imes - unspecified
88.26
,oganberries
84.61
Mulberries
87.68
Jectarmes
86.28
Granges - unspecified
86.75
all varieties
Jeaches
87.66
87.49*
* canned juice pack
ears - dried
26.69
64.44* sullured; *without added sugar
ears - Iresh
83.81
86.47*
* canned juice pack
Jmeapple
86.50
83.51*
* canned juice pack
'meapple -juice
85.53
canned
Jlums
85.20
Quinces
Raspberries
86.57
itrawberries
91.57
89.97*
*frozen unsweetened
I angerme - juice
88.90
87.00*
canned sweetened
I angermes
87.60
89.51*
* canned juice pack
3-108
-------
Table 3-50. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Food Groups Expressed as Percentages of Edible Portions
(continued)
Food
(Vegetables)
Moisture Content
law Cooked
Comments
Utalia sprouts 91.14
Artichokes - globe & French 84.38 86.50
boiled, drained
\rtichokes-Jerusalem 78.01
\sparagus 92.25 92.04
Jamboo shoots 91.00 95.92
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
Jeans - dry
Jeans - dry - blackeye peas 66.80 71.80
cowpeas)
Jeans - dry - hyacinth 87.87 86.90
mature seeds)
Jeans - dry - navy (pea) 79.15 76.02
Jeans - dry - pinto 81.30 93.39
Jeans -lima 70.24 67.17
Jeans - snap - Italian - green 90.27 89.22
vellow
Jeets 87.32 90.90
Jeets - tops (greens) 92.15 89.13
Jroccoh 90.69 90.20
Jrussel sprouts 86.00 87.32
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
"abbage - Chinese/celery,
including bok choy 95.32 95.55
Cabbage -red 91.55 93.60
:abbage - savoy 91.00 92.00
Carrots 87.79 87.38
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
"assava (yucca blanca) 68.51
:auhtlower 92.26 92.50
:elenac 88.00 92.30
:elery 94.70 95.00
Mi peppers 87.74 92.50*
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
"canned solids & liquid
Chives 92.00
:oleslaw 81.50
bollards 93.90 95.72
:orn - sweet 75.96 69.57
:ress - garden - held 89.40 92.50
:ress - garden 89.40 92.50
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
"ucumbers 96.05
)andehon - greens 85.60 89.80
Eggplant 91.93 91.77
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
indive 93.79
jarhc 58.58
Cale 84.46 91.20
Cohlrabi 91.00 90.30
.ambsquarter 84.30 88.90
.eeks 83.00 90.80
.entils - whole 67.34 68.70
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
stir-tried
jettuce - iceberg 95.89
3-109
-------
Table 3-50. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Food Groups Expressed as Percentages of Edible Portions
(continued)
i-ood
(Vegetables)
Moisture Content
law Cooked
Comments
jettuce - romame 94.91
vlung beans (sprouts) 90.40 93.39
vlushrooms 91.81 91.08
bustard greens 90.80 94.46
Jkra 89.58 89.91
Unions 90.82 92.24
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
Unions - dehydrated or dried 3.93
'arsley 88.31
'arsley roots 88.31
'arsmps 79.53 77.72
'eas (garden) - mature seeds 88.89 88.91
drv
'eppers - sweet - garden 92.77 94.7
'otatoes (white) - peeled 78.96 75.42
'otatoes (white) - whole 83.29 71.2
'umpkin 91.6 93.69
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
baked
baked
boiled, drained
Radishes - roots 94.84
thubarb 93.61 67.79
Rutabagas - unspecified 89.66 90.1
Salsity (oyster plant)
Shallots
77 81
79.8
Soybeans - sprouted seeds 69.05 79.45
Spinach 91.58 91.21
Squash - summer 93.68 93.7
Squash - winter 88.71 89.01
Sweetpotatoes (including 72.84 71.85
'amsl
Swiss chard 92.66 92.65
1 apioca - pearl 10.99
I'aro - greens 85.66 92.15
frozen, cooked with added sugar
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
steamed
boiled, drained
all varieties; boiled, drained
all varieties; baked
baked in skin
boiled, drained
dry
steamed
laro-root 70.64 63.8
Tomatoes - juice
Tomatoes - paste
1 omatoes - puree
93.9
74.06
87.26
canned
canned
canned
Tomatoes - raw 93.95
Tomatoes - whole 93.95 92.4
Towelgourd 93.85 84.29
Turnips - roots 91.87 93.6
Turnips -tops 91.07 93.2
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
boiled, drained
Vater chestnuts 73.46
fambean - tuber 89.15 87.93
boiled, drained
3-110
-------
Table 3-50. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Food Groups Expressed as Percentages of Edible Portions
(continued)
Food
(Grains)
Moisture Content
Raw
Cooked
Comments
Jarley - pearled
10.09
68.80
'orn - gram - endosperm
10.37
- gram - bran
lillet
3.71
71.41
Jats
8.22
iice - rough - white
11.62
68.72
iye - rough
10.95
iye - Hour - medium
9.85
orghum (including milo)
9.20
Vheat - rough - hard white
9.57
Vheat - germ
11.12
crude
Vheat - bran
9.89
crude
t . tin
Moisture
Food
(Meats) Raw
Jeet 71.60
Content
Comments
Cooked
composite, trimmed, retail cuts
Jeef liver 68.99
thicken (light meat) 74.86
thicken (dark meat) 75.99
without skin
without skin
Xick - domestic 73.77
Xick-wild 75.51
joose - domestic 68.30
lam - cured 66.92
lorse 72.63
.amb 73.42
63.98 roasted
composite, trimmed, retail cuts
.ard 0.00
'ork 70.00
iabbit - domestic 72.81
I urkey
roasted
69.11 roasted
74.16 roasted
3-111
-------
Table 3-50. Mean Moisture Content of Selected Food Groups Expressed as Percentages of Edible Portions
(continued)
Food
(Dairy Products)
Moisture Content
Raw
Cooked
Comments
74.57
Jutter
15.87
Cheese
American pasteurized
39.16
regular
Cheddar
36.75
Swiss
37.21
Parmesan, hard
29.16
Parmesan, grated
17.66
Cream, whipping, heavy
57.71
Cottage, lowlat
79.31
Colby
38.20
Blue
42.41
Cream
53.75
ogurt
Flam, lowlat
85.07
Flam, with fat
87.90
made from whole milk
iuman milk - estimated from USD A Survey
Human
Skim
Lowlat
87.50
90.80
90.80
whole, mature, lluid
3-112
-------
Table 3-51. Percent Moisture Content for Selected Fish Species8
Species
ivioisture
Content
(%)
Comments
Finfish
\ncnovy, European
lass
lass, striped
riluetisn
rmttertisn
;arp
Jamsn
Jod, Atlantic
;od, Facmc
JroaKer, Atlantic
Joipnmtisn, ivianimani
Jrum, f resnwater
lattisn, f lounaer ana sole
jrouper
lactctocK
laliout, Atlantic
-------
Species
Jcean Fercn, Atlantic
'ercn, Mixed species
'iKe, iNortnern
'iKe, walleye
'ollocK, AlasKa«K walleye
'ollocK, Atlantic
<.ocKtisn, Facmc, mixea species
<.ougny, urange
ialmon, Atlantic
ialmon, uninooK
ialmon, unum
ialmon, uono
ialmon, FinK
ialmon, Kea ea Bass, mixea species
ieatrout, mixea species
inaa, American
inarK, mixea species
inapper, mixea species
iole, spot
rturgeon, mixea species
iucKer, wmte
iuntisn, FumpKinseea
iworatisn
1 rout, mixea species
irout, KamBow
1 una, lignt meat
Ivloisiure
Content
(%)
/s./
/^.oy
/y.ij*
/J./3
/s.y/
//.y/
/y.ji
S1.3b
/4.Ub
/S.1S
/y./b
/J.41
/D.y
bS.3
/J.I /
I'i
/3.JS
/U. / /
//.bJ
&3.J3
/b.JD
bS.Sl
/U./4
bS. I'i
bl.S4
3y.bl
bS.J
/S.//
//. 14
/s.uy
bs. iy
/J.DS
bu.uy
/b.S/
/U.J3
/3.yD
/b.D3
&y.y4
b/.3
/y./i
/y.3
/3.b/
bS. /D
/1.4/
/1.4S
bJ.4J
3y.SJ
/4.D1
Comments
Kaw
^ooKea, ary neat
Kaw
uooKea, ary neat
Kaw
uooKea, ary neat
Kaw
Kaw
uooKea, ary neat
Kaw
Kaw (Mixea species)
uooKea, ary neat (mixea species)
Kaw
Kaw
Kaw
smoKea
Kaw
uannea, aramea sonas witn Bone
Kaw
uooKea, moist neat
Kaw
uannea, sonas witn Bone ana nquia
Kaw
uannea, aramea sonas witn Bone
uooKea, ary neat
uannea in on, aramea sonas witn Bone
uannea in tomato sauce, aramea sonas
with bone
uooKea, ary neat
Kaw
Kaw
Kaw
Kaw
uooKea, Batter-aippea ana tnea
Kaw
uooKea, ary neat
Kaw
Kaw
uooKea, ary neat
smoKea
Kaw
Kaw
Kaw
uooKea, ary neat
Kaw
Kaw
uooKea, ary neat
uannea in on, aramea sonas
uannea in water, aramea sonas
3-114
-------
Species
l una, wnite meat
i una, Biuetisn, iresn
l uroot, European
iVnitetisn, mixea species
uniting, mixea species
K ellowtail, mixea species
Ivloisiure
Content
(%)
t>4.U/
oy.4s
bs.uy
Dy.uy
/b.y:>
1 L.I 1
/U.SJ
su.//
/4. /I
/4.3Z
Comments
uannea in oil
^annea in water, aramea sonas
Kaw
uooKea, ary neat
Kaw
Kaw
smoKea
Kaw
uooKea, ary neat
Kaw
Shellfish
;rat>, AlasKa King
;rat>, Blue
;raB, uungeness
JraB, yueen
Jraytisn, mixea species
jOBster, iNortnern
innmp, mixea species
ipmy LoBster, mixea species
;iam, mixea species
Vlussel, Blue
Jctopus, common
Jyster, eastern
Jyster, Facinc
icallop, mixea species
iquia
/y.3/
//.33
/y.uz
/y. ib
//.4J
/I
/y.is
SU.3S
su./y
/3.J/
/b./b
/b.UJ
/3.Sb
//.3b
3/.Sb
//./S
/4.U/
&!.&/
bJ.b4
y/./
bl.33
bJ.b4
SU.3S
bl.13
SU./3
S3. 14
S3. 14
b4. //
/U./S
S/.Ub
/S.D/
3S.44
/i.SZ
/S.D3
b4.34
Kaw
L;ooKea, moist neat
Kaw
uannea (ary pacK or aramea sonas ot
wet pack)
uookea, moist neat
uraB caKes
Kaw
Kaw
Kaw
uooKea, moist neat
Kaw
uooKea, moist neat
Kaw
uannea (ary pacK or aramea sonas ot
wet pack)
uookea, Breaaea ana tnea
uooKea, moist neat
imitation maae trom sunmi, raw
Kaw
uannea, aramea sonas
uannea, nquia
uooKea, Breaaea ana tnea
uooKea, moist neat
Kaw
uooKea, moist neat
Kaw
Kaw
uannea (sonas ana nauia Baseaj raw
uooKea, Breaaea ana inea
uooKea, moist neat
Kaw
Kaw
uooKea, Breaaea ana tnea
imitation, maae trom surimi
Kaw
uooKea, tnea
Source: USDA, 1979-1986
3-115
-------
Table 3-52. Percentage Lipid Content (Expressed as Percentages of 100 Grams of Edible Portions) of Selected
Meat, Dairy, and FisnProductsa
Product
Meats
Beef
Lean only
Lean and fat, 1/4 in. fat trim
Brisket (point half)
Lean and fat
Brisket (flat half)
Lean and fat
Lean only
Pork
Lean only
Lean and fat
Cured shoulder, blade roll, lean and fat
Cured ham, lean and fat
Cured ham, lean only
Sausage
Ham
Ham
Lamb
Lean
Lean and fat
Veal
Lean
Lean and fat
Rabbit
Composite of cuts
Chicken
Meat only
Meat and skin
Turkey
Meat only
Meat and skin
Ground
Dairy
Milk
Whole
Human
Lowfat(l%)
Lowfat (2%)
Skim
Cream
Half and half
Medium
Heavy-whipping
Sour
Butter
Fat Percentage
6.16
9.91
19.24
21.54
22.40
4.03
5.88
9.66
14.95
17.18
20.02
12.07
7.57
38.24
4.55
9.55
5.25
9.52
21.59
20.94
2.87
6.58
6.77
11.39
5.55
8.05
3.08
7.41
15.06
13.60
2.86
4.97
8.02
9.73
6.66
3.16
4.17
0.83
1.83
0.17
18.32
23.71
35.09
19.88
76.93
Comment
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Raw
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Unheated
Center slice
Raw, center, country style
Raw, fresh
Cooked, extra lean (5% fat)
Cooked, (11% fat)
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
Cooked
Raw
3.3% fat, raw or pasteurized
Whole, mature, fluid
Fluid
Fluid
Fluid
Table or coffee, fluid
25% fat, fluid
Fluid
Cultured
Regular
3-116
-------
Table 3-52. Percentage Lipid Content (Expressed as Percentages of 100 Grams of Edible Portions) of Selected
Meat, Dairy, and Fish Products* (continued)
Product
Cheese
American
Cheddar
Swiss
Cream
Parmesan
Cottage
Colby
Blue
Provolone
Mozzarella
Yogurt
Eggs
Fat Percentage
29.63
31.42
26.02
33.07
24.50; 28.46
1.83
30.45
27.26
25.24
20.48
1.47
8.35
Comment
Pasteurized
Hard; grated
Lowfat, 2% fat
Plain, lowfat
Chicken, whole raw, fresh or frozen
FINFISH
Anchovy, European
Bass
Bass, Striped
Bluefish
Butterfish
Carp
Catfish
Cod, Atlantic
Cod, Pacific
Croaker, Atlantic
Dolphinfish, Mahimahi
Drum, Freshwater
Flatfish, Flounder and Sole
Grouper
Haddock
Halibut, Atlantic & Pacific
Halibut, Greenland
Herring, Atlantic & Turbot, domestic species
4.101
8.535
3.273
1.951
3.768
NA
4.842
6.208
3.597
12.224
0.456
0.582
0.584
1.608
0.407
2.701
11.713
0.474
4.463
0.845
1.084
0.756
0.970
0.489
0.627
0.651
1.812
2.324
12.164
7.909
10.140
10.822
16.007
Raw
Canned in oil, drained solids
Freshwater, mixed species, raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Channel, raw
Channel, cooked, breaded and fried
Atlantic, raw
Canned, solids and liquids
Cooked, dry heat
Dried and salted
Raw
Raw
Cooked, breaded and fried
Raw
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw, mixed species
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Smoked
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Kippered
Pickled
3-117
-------
Table 3-52. Percentage Lipid Content (Expressed as Percentages of 100 Grams of Edible Portions) of Selected
Meat, Dairy, and Fish Products* (continued)
Product
Herring, Pacific
Mackerel, Atlantic
Mackerel, Jack
Mackerel, King
Mackerel, Pacific & Jack
Mackerel, Spanish
Monkfish
Mullet, Striped
Ocean Perch, Atlantic
Perch, Mixed species
Pike, Northern
Pike, Walleye
Pollock, Alaska & Walleye
Pollock, Atlantic
Rockfish, Pacific, mixed species
Roughy, Orange
Salmon, Atlantic
Salmon, Chinook
Salmon, Chum
Salmon, Coho
Salmon, Pink
Salmon, Red & Sockeye
Sardine, Atlantic
Sardine, Pacific
Sea Bass, mixed species
Seatrout, mixed species
Shad, American
Shark, mixed species
Snapper, mixed species
Sole, Spot
Sturgeon, mixed species
Sucker, white
Sunfish, Pumpkinseed
Swordfish
Trout, mixed species
Trout, Rainbow
Tuna, light meat
Tuna, white meat
Tuna, Bluefish, fresh
Turbot, European
Whitefish, mixed species
Whiting, mixed species
Yellowtail, mixed species
Fat Percentage
12.552
9.076
15.482
4.587
1.587
6.816
5.097
5.745
NA
2.909
3.730
1.296
1.661
0.705
0.904
0.477
0.611
0.990
0.701
0.929
0.730
1.182
1.515
3.630
5.625
9.061
3.947
3.279
4.922
4.908
6.213
2.845
5.391
4.560
6.697
9.616
10.545
11.054
1.678
2.152
2.618
NA
3.941
12.841
0.995
1.275
3.870
3.544
4.544
3.829
1.965
0.502
3.564
4.569
5.901
2.883
3.696
7.368
0.730
NA
2.220
4.296
5.509
NA
5.051
0.799
0.948
1.216
NA
Comment
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Canned, drained solids
Raw
Canned, drained solids
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw (Mixed species)
Cooked, dry heat (mixed species)
Raw
Raw
Raw
Smoked
Raw
Canned, drained solids with bone
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Canned, solids with bone and liquid
Raw
Canned, drained solids with bone
Cooked, dry heat
Canned in oil, drained solids with bone
Canned in tomato sauce, drained solids with bone
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Cooked, batter-dipped and fried
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Smoked
Raw
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Canned in oil, drained solids
Canned in water, drained solids
Canned in oil
Canned in water, drained solids
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
Raw
Smoked
Raw
Cooked, dry heat
Raw
3-118
-------
Table 3-52. Percentage Lipid Content (Expressed as Percentages of 100 Grams of Edible Portions) of Selected
Meat, Dairy, and Fish Products* (continued)
Product
Fat Percentage
Comment
SHELLFISH
Crab, Alaska King
Crab, Blue
Crab, Dungeness
Crab, Queen
Crayfish, mixed species
Lobster, Northern
Shrimp, mixed species
Spiny Lobster, mixed species
Clam, mixed species
Mussel, Blue
Octopus, common
Oyster, Eastern
Oyster, Pacific
Scallop, mixed species
Squid
NA
0.854
0.801
0.910
1.188
6.571
0.616
0.821
0.732
0.939
NA
0.358
1.250
1.421
10.984
0.926
1.102
0.456
0.912
NA
10.098
0.912
1.538
3.076
0.628
1.620
1.620
11.212
3.240
1.752
0.377
10.023
NA
0.989
6.763
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Imitation, made from surimi
Raw
Canned (dry pack or drained solids of wet pack)
Cooked, moist heat
Crab cakes
Raw
Raw
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Canned (dry pack or drained solids of wet pack)
Cooked, breaded and fried
Cooked, moist heat
Imitation made from surimi, raw
Raw
Canned, drained solids
Canned, liquid
Cooked, breaded and fried
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Raw
Canned (solids and liquid based) raw
Cooked, breaded and fried
Cooked, moist heat
Raw
Raw
Cooked, breaded and fried
Imitation, made from Surimi
Raw
Cooked, fried
NA = Not available
a Based on the lipid content in 100 grams, edible portion. Total Fat Content - saturated, monosaturated and polyunsaturated. For additional
information, consult the USDA nutrient database.
Source: USDA, 1979-1984.
3-119
-------
Table 3-53. Fat Content of Meat Products
Meat Product
3-oz cooked serving (85.05 g)
Beef, retail composite, lean only
Pork retail composite, lean only
Lamb, retail composite lean only
Veal retail composite, lean only
Broiler chicken, flesh only
Turkey, flesh only
Total Fat
(g)
8.4
8.0
8.1
5.6
6.3
4.2
Percent Fat
Content (%)
9.9
9.4
9.5
6.6
7.4
4.9
Source: National Livestock and Meat Board, 1993
3-120
-------
Table 3-54. Summary of Recommended Values for Per Capita Intake of Foods, As Consumed
Age
Total Fruit Intake
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
Total Vegetable Intake
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
Mean
.
-
1.3e+01
2.0e+01
2.0e+01
1.8e+01
l.le+01
5.7e+00
3.4e+00
5.6e+00
_
-
4.1e+00
1.2e+01
9.6e+00
9.4e+00
7.3e+00
5.5e+00
4.2e+00
3.6e+00
95th Percentile
.
-
4.3e+01
4.4e+01
6.9e+01
5.9e+01
3.3e+01
1.9e+01
1.3e+01
8.9e+00
_
-
1.9e+01
2.9e+01
2.1e+01
2.6e+01
1.8e+01
1.4e+01
9.8e+00
1.2e+01
Multiple Percentiles
see Table 3-16
see Table 3-16
Study
EPA Analysis of CSFII
1994-96 Data
EPA Analysis of CSFII
1994-96 Data
Total Grain Intake
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
_
-
1.6e+00
7.7e+00
9.0e+00
1.3e+01
l.Oe+01
7.5e+00
5.0e+00
5.6e+00
_
-
5.9e+00
2.4e+01
2.4e+01
2.5e+01
2.1e+01
1.6e+01
l.le+01
8.9e+00
see Table 3-16
EPA Analysis of CSFII
1994-96 Data
Total Meat Intake
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
_
-
-
2.3e+00
4.2e+00
4.6e+00
4.1e+00
3.0e+00
2.3e+00
2.1e+00
_
-
-
8.6e+00
l.Oe+01
l.le+01
9.4e+00
4.1e+00
5.2e+00
4.4e+00
see Table 3-16
EPA Analysis of CSFII
1994-96 Data
Total Dairy Intake
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
1.6e+02
l.le+02
8.3e+01
3.8e+01
3.6e+01
2.1e+01
1.5e+01
7.7e+00
5.6e+00
2.7e+02
2.3e+02
1.7e+02
9.1e+01
9.7e+01
4.9e+01
3.5e+01
2.0e+01
1.6e+01
see Table 3-16
EPA Analysis of CSFII
1994-96 Data
Total Fish Intake
3-121
-------
Table 3-54. Summary of Recommended Values for Per Capita Intake of Foods, As Consumed (continued)
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 <21 years
Individual Foods Intake
Mean
2.2e-01
3.5e-01
3.9e-01
3.2e-01
2.7e-01
2.2e-01
1.9e-01
95th Percentile
8.7e-01
2.0e+00
1.6e+00
1.7e+00
1.6e+00
1.2e+00
7.0e-01
Multiple Percentiles
see Table 3-16
see Table 3- 17
Study
EPA Analysis of CSFII
1994-96 Data
EPA Analysis of CSFII
1994-96 Data
Freshwater and Estuarine Total Fish Intake (General Population) (consumers only- as consumed)
14 years and under
1,251 mg/kg-
day
4,680 mg/kg-
day
See Table 3-21
EPA Analysis of
CSFII 1994-96, 98
Data
Marine Fish Intake (General Population) (consumers only- as consumed)
14 years and under
2,037 mg/kg-
day
5,664 mg/kg-
day
See Table 3-21
EPA Analysis of
CSFII 1994-96, 98
Data
Recreational Fish Intake - Freshwater
1-5 years
6-10 years
370 mg/kg-day
280 mg/kg-day
See Table 3-25
EPA Analysis of West
etal. 1989 Data
Native American Subsistence Fish Intake
< 6 years
21 g/day
78 g/day
Weigthed means and
95th percentiles from
CRITFC, 1994, Toy et
al. 1996, and The
Suquamish Tribe
2000
Total Fat Intake
all ages
See Table 3-36
U.S. EPA 2006
Homeproduced Food Intake
all ages
See Table 3-47
EPA Analysis of
1 987/88 NFCS
3-122
-------
Table 3-55. Confidence Intake Recommendations for Various Foods, Including Fish (General Population)
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to U. S .
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection
period
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of variability
Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
Measurement error
USDA CSFII survey receives high level of peer
review. EPA analysis of these data using the new
age categories has not been peer reviewed outside
the Agency.
CSFII data are publicly available.
Javitz (1980) is a contractor report to EPA (CSFII)
Enough information is included to reproduce
results.
Analysis is specifically designed to address food
intake.
Data focuses on the U.S. population.
This is new analysis of primary data.
Were the most current data publicly available at
the time the analysis was conducted for the
Handbook.
Survey is designed to collect short-term data.
Survey methodology was adequate.
Study size was very large and therefore adequate.
The population studied was the U.S. population.
Survey was not designed to capture long term day-
to-day variability. Short term distributions are
provided.
Response rate was good.
No measurements were taken. The study relied on
survey data.
Low
High
Medium (Javitz)
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium confidence for average values;
Low confidence for long term
percentile distribution
High
High
High
Medium
High
N/A
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
1 for most foods, 2 for fish; CSFII was the most
recent data set publicly available at the time the
analysis was conducted for the Handbook.
Although the CSFII was the only study classified
as key study for most foods, the results are in
good agreement with earlier data.
The survey is representative of U.S. population.
Although there was only one study considered
key, these data are the most recent and are in
agreement with earlier data. The approach used to
analyzed the data was adequate. However, due to
the limitations of the survey design estimation of
long-term percentile values (especially the upper
percentiles) is uncertain.
Low
High
High confidence in the average;
Low confidence in the long-term upper
percentiles
3-123
-------
Table 3-56. Confidence Intake Recommendations for Fish Consumption - Recreational Freshwater Angler
Population
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to U.S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection
period
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of variability
Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
Measurement error
Study is in a technical report and has been
reviewed by the EPA.
The original study analyses are reported in a
technical report. Subsequent EPA analyses are
detailed in this Handbook.
Enough information is available to reproduce
results.
Study focused on ingestion offish by the
recreational freshwater angler and family.
The study was conducted in the U.S.
Data are from a primary reference.
The study was conducted between January and
May 1989.
Data were collected for 1 week.
Data presented are from a one week recall offish
consumption study. Weight of fish consumed was
estimated using approximate weight of fish catch
and edible fraction or approximate weight of fish
meal.
Study population was 62 1 children.
The study was localized to a single state.
Distributions were not generated.
Response rate was 47 percent.
Weight of fish portions were estimated in one
study, fish weight was estimated from reported
fish length in another study.
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Medium
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
There is 1 study.
There is only 1 study. EPA performed an analyses
using these data.
The study is not nationally representative and not
representative of long-term consumption.
Low
Low
Low
3-124
-------
Table 3-57. Summary of Fish Intake Rates Among Native American Children (Consumers Only)
Age (years)
<5 (n=153)
<5(n=51)
<6(n=31)
Mean
25 g/day
0.72 g/kg-day
11 g/day*
1.5 g/kg-day
21 g/dayb
Upper Percentile
63 g/day (90th percentile)
73 g/day (95th percentile)
1.4 g/kg-day (86th percentile)
21 g/day (86th percentile)
3.4 g/kg-day (90th percentile)
7.3 g/kg-day (95th percentile)
48 g/day (90th percentile)b
103 g/day (95th percentile)b
Reference
CRITFC, 1994
Toy et al., 1996
The Suquamish Tribe, 2000
Intake rate calculated using the average body weight of 15.2 kg reported in Toy et al. (1996).
Intake rate calculated using the average body weight for children <6 years of age (14.1 kg) based on NHANES III (see Table 11-6).
3-125
-------
Table 3-58. Confidence Intake Recommendations for Fish Consumption - Native American Subsistence Population
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to U. S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection
period
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of variability
Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
Measurement error
Studies are in technical reports.
Studies are technical reports, that are publicly
available
The studies were adequately detailed and enough
information is available to reproduce results.
Studies focused on fish ingestion among Native
American Tribes.
The studies were specific in the U.S.
The studies used primary data.
Data were from 1991-2000.
Data were collected for 3 studies.
Individual intake measured directly, but some
respondents provided in same information for the
children as themselves.
The sample population was 204 children < 5 years
old for CRIFTC, birth to 5 years for Toy et al.,
and <6 years for the Suquamish Indian Tribe.
Only two states were represented.
Individual variations were not described.
The response rate was 69 percent, 64 percent, and
77 percent for CRIFTC, Suquamish Indian Tribe,
and Toy et al., respectively.
The weight of the fish was estimated for 1 study,
measured for the other study.
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low confidence for long term
percentile distribution
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
There are three studies.
Studies are tribal-specific.
Low - Medium
Medium
Low
3-126
-------
APPENDIX 3A
CALCULATIONS USED IN THE 1994-96 CSFII ANALYSIS TO
CORRECT FOR MIXTURES
-------
APPENDIX 3A
Calculations Used in the 1994-96 CSFII Analysis to Correct for Mixtures
Distributions of intake for various food groups were generated for the food/items groups
using the USDA 1994-96 CSFII data set as described in Sections 9.2.2. and 11.1.2 of the
Exposure Factors Handbook. However, several of the food categories used did not include
meats, dairy products, and vegetables that were eaten as mixtures with other foods. Thus,
adjusted intake rates were calculated for food items that were identified by USDA (1995) as
comprising a significant portion of grain and meat mixtures. To account for the amount of these
foods consumed as mixtures, the mean fractions of total meat or grain mixtures represented by
these food items were calculated (Table 3A-1) using Appendix C of USDA (1995). Mean values
for all individuals were used to calculate these fractions. These fractions were multiplied by
each individual's intake rate for total meat mixtures or grain mixtures to calculate the amount of
the individual's food mixture intake that can be categorized into one of the selected food groups.
These amounts were then added to the total intakes rates for meats, grains, total vegetables,
tomatoes, and white potatoes to calculate an individual's total intake of these food groups, as
shown in the
example for / \ / \
7R = I 7R y J7r \ 4- I fR y ~Pr 14- fR
meats -"-meat- adjusted ~ \ gr mixtures r Ameat/gr J """ \J ^Siit mixtures ^'meat/ml) """ J/Veat
below.
where:
-^n
Fr,
eat-adjusted
mixtures
mixtures
meat/gr
meat/mt
adjusted individual intake rate for total meat;
individual intake rate for grain mixtures;
individual intake rate for meat mixtures;
individual intake rate for meats;
fraction of grain mixture that is meat; and
fraction of meat mixture that is meat.
Population distributions for mixture-adjusted intakes were based on adjusted intake rates for the
population of interest.
J-A1
-------
Table 3A-1. Fraction of Grain and Meat Mixture Intake Represented by Various Food Items/groups
Grain Mixtures
total vegetables
tomatoes
white potatoes
total meats
beef
pork
poultry
dairy
total grains
fish
eggs
fat
Meat Mixtures
total vegetables
tomatoes
white potatoes
total meats
beef
pork
poultry
dairy
total grains
fish
eggs
fats
0.2584
0.1685
0.0000
0.0787
0.0449
0.0112
0.0112
0.1348
0.3146
0.0000
0.0112
0.0225
0.3000
0.1111
0.0333
0.3111
0.2000
0.0222
0.0778
0.0556
0.1333
0.0444
0.0111
0.0222
5-A2
-------
APPENDIX 3B
FOOD CODES AND DEFINITIONS USED IN
ANALYSIS OF THE 1994-96 USDA CSFII DATA
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data
Food Product
Food Codes
MAJOR FOOD GROUPS
Total Dairy 1-
Total Meats 20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
Total Fish 26.
Eggs 3-
Total Grains 50-
51-
52-
53-
54-
55-
561-
562-
57-
Total Fruits 6-
Total Vegetables 7-
411-
412-
413-
414-
415-
416-
418-
419-
Milk and Milk Products
milk and milk drinks
cream and cream substitutes
milk desserts, sauces, and gravies
cheeses
Meat, type not specified
Beef
Pork
Lamb, veal, game, carcass meat
Poultry
Organ meats, sausages, lunchmeats, meat spreads
Fish, all types
Eggs
eggs
egg mixtures
egg substitutes
eggs baby food
froz. meals with egg as main ingred.
flour
breads
tortillas
sweets
snacks
breakfast foods
pasta
cooked cereals and rice
ready-to-eat and baby cereals
Fruits
citrus fruits and juices
dried fruits
other fruits
fruits/juices & nectar
fruit/juices baby food
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
Beans/legumes
Beans/legumes
Beans/legumes
Soybeans
Bean dinners and soups
Bean dinners and soups
Meatless items
Soyburgers
Includes regular fluid milk, human milk, imitation milk
products, yogurt, milk-based meal replacements, and infant
formulas. Also includes the average portion of grain
mixtures (i.e., 13.48 percent) and the average portion of
meat mixtures (i.e., 5.56 percent) made up by dairy.
Also includes the average portion of grain mixtures (i.e.,
7.87 percent) and the average portion of meat mixtures (i.e.,
31.11 percent) made up by meats .
Also includes the average portion of meat mixtures (i.e.,
4.44 percent) made up by fish.
Includes baby foods. Also includes the average portion of
grain mixtures (i.e., 1.12 percent) and the average portion
of meat mixtures (i.e., 1.11 percent) made up by eggs.
Also includes the average portion of grain mixtures (i.e.,
3 1 .46 percent) and the average portion of meat mixtures
(i.e., 13.33 percent) made up by grain.
Includes baby foods.
Includes baby foods; mixtures, mostly vegetables; does not
include nuts and seeds. Also includes the average portion
of grain mixtures (i.e., 25.84 percent) and the average
portion of meat mixtures (i.e., 30.00 percent) made up by
vegetables.
3B-1
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Total Fats
Food Codes
8- Fats (all forms)
Includes butter, margarine, animal fat, sauces, vegetable
oils, dressings, and mayonnaise. Also includes the average
portion of grain mixtures (i.e., 2.25 percent) and the
average portion of meat mixtures (i.e., 2.22 percent) made
up by meats.
3B-2
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Food Codes
INDIVIDUAL MEATS
Beef 21-
Pork 22-
Game 233-
Poultry 24-
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
Pork
pork, nfs; ground dehydrated
chops
steaks, cutlets
ham
roasts
Canadian bacon
bacon, salt pork
other pork items
pork baby food
Game
Poultry
chicken
turkey
duck
other poultry
poultry baby food
Also includes the average portion of grain mixtures (i.e.,
4.49 percent) and the average portion of meat mixtures (i.e.,
20.0 percent) made up by beef.
Also includes the average portion of grain mixtures (i.e.,
1. 12 percent) and the average portion of meat mixtures (i.e.,
2.22 percent) made up by pork.
Also includes the average portion of grain mixtures (i.e.,
1. 12 percent) and the average portion of meat mixtures (i.e.,
7.78 percent) made up by poultry.
INDIVIDUAL GRAINS
Breads 51-
52-
Sweets 53-
Snacks 54-
Breakfast Foods 55-
Pasta 561-
breads, rolls, muffins, bagel, biscuits, corn bread
tortillas
cakes, cookies, pies, pastries, doughnuts,
breakfast bars, coffee cakes
crackers, salty snacks, popcorn, pretzels
pancakes, waffles, french toast
macaroni, noodles, spaghetti
Cooked Cereals 56200-
56201-
56202-
56203-
56206-
56207-
56208-
56209-
56210-
Rice 56204-
56205-
Ready-to-eat Cereals 570-
571-
572-
573-
574-
576-
Includes grits, oatmeal, cornmeal mush, millet, etc.
Includes all varieties of rice.
Includes all varieties of ready-to-eat cereals.
3B-2
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
IFood Product
Baby Cereals
Food Codes |
578- baby cereals
1
3B-4
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Food Codes
FRUIT CATEGORIES
Citrus Fruits
Other Fruits
Apples
Bananas
Peaches
Pears
61- Citrus Fruits and Juices
6720500 Orange Juice, baby food
6723050 Orange/carrot baby juice
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
6210110 Apples, dried, uncooked
6210115 Apples, dried, uncooked, low sodium
6210120 Apples, dried, cooked, NS as to sweetener
6210122 Apples, dried, cooked, unsweetened
6210123 Apples, dried, cooked, with sugar
6210130 Apple chips
6310100 Apples, raw
6310111 Applesauce, NS as to sweetener
63 10 1 12 Applesauce, unsweetened
63 10 1 13 Applesauce with sugar
63 10 1 14 Applesauce with low calorie sweetener
6310115 Applesauce/other fruits
6310121 Apples, cooked or canned with syrup
63 10 13 1 Apple, baked NS as to sweetener
63 10 132 Apple, baked, unsweetened
63 10 133 Apple, baked with sugar
6310141 Apple rings, fried
6310142 Apple, pickled
6310150 Apple, fried
6340 10 Apple/other fruit salad
6340106 Apple, candied
6410101 Apple cider
6410401 Apple juice
6410405 Apple juice with vitamin C
64 10409 Apple juice with calcium
6410415 Apple-cherry juice
6410420 Apple-pear juice
6210710 Banana flakes, dehydrated
6210720 Banana chips
63 107- Bananas, various
6340199 Banana, chocolate covered
6340201 Banawhip
6420150 Banana nectar
6710503 Banana, baby
6711500 Banana, baby
62116- Dried Peaches
63135- Peaches
6412203 Peach Juice
6420501 Peach Nectar
62119- Dried Pears
63137- Pears
6341201 Pear salad
6421501 Pear Nectar
67109- Pears, baby
63403150 Lime souffle
6721 100 Orange- Apple-Banana Juice, baby food
Includes some citrus mixtures.
67213- Baby Juices
672300 Apple sweet potato juice
6725- Baby Juice
673- Baby Fruits
674- Baby Fruits
675- Apples with meat
Includes some mixtures (i.e., salads, baby foods).
6410445 Apple-raspberry juice
6410450 Apple-grape juice
6710030 Applesauce, baby toddler
6710100 Apple-raspberry, baby, ns as to strained or
junior
6710101 Apple-raspberry, baby, strained
6710102 Apple-raspberry, baby, junior
6710200 Applesauce baby fd., NS as to str. or jr.
67 1020 1 Applesauce baby food, strained
67 10202 Applesauce baby food, junior
67104- Applesauce & other fruit, baby
67113- Apples & pears, baby
6720200 Apple juice, baby food
6720300 Apple w/other fruit juice, baby
6720320 Apple-banana juice, baby
6720340 Apple-cherry juice, baby
6720345 Apple-cranberry juice, baby
6720350 Apple-grape juice, baby
6720360 Apple-peach juice, baby
6720370 Apple-prune juice, baby
6723000 Apple-sweet potato juice, baby food
6725005 Apple juice w/lowfat yogurt, baby food
67301- Apples & cranberries w/tapioca, baby
6740407 Apple yogurt dessert, baby, strained
67412- Dutch apple dessert, baby
675- Apples & meat, baby
Includes some mixtures.
6725010 Banana juice with yogurt, baby
67308- Banana, baby
67309- Banana, baby
674041 1 Banana apple dessert, baby
6740420 Banana pineapple dessert, baby
67408- Banana, baby
674041- Banana, baby
67108- Peaches ,baby
6711450 Peaches, dry, baby
67405- Peach cobbler, baby
67413700 Peach yogurt dessert, baby
6711455 Pears, dry, baby
6721200 Pear juice, baby
6412300 Pear/white grape/passion fruit juice
67114- Pear/pineapple, baby
6725020 Pear/peach juice with yogurt, baby
3B-5
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Strawberries
Other Berries
Food Codes
6322-
6413250
6210910
6320-
6321-
6322400
6341101
Strawberries
Strawberry Juice
Cranberries, dried
Other Berries
Other Berries
Youngberries, raw
Cranberry salad
6410460
64105-
6740430
Blackberry Juice
Cranberry Juice
Blueberry yogurt dessert,
baby
3B-6
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Exposed Fruits
Food Codes
621011- Apple, dried
621012- Apple, dried
6210130 Apple chips
62104- Apricot, dried
62108- Currants, dried
6210910 Cranberries, dried
62110- Date, dried
62116- Peaches, dried
62119- Pears, dried
62121- Plum, dried
62122- Prune, dried
62125- Raisins
63101- Apples/applesauce
63102- Wi-apple
63103- Apricots
63 1 1 1- Cherries, maraschino
63112- Acerola
63113- Cherries, sour
63115- Cherries, sweet
63117- Currants, raw
63123- Grapes
6312601 Juneberry
63131- Nectarine
63135- Peach
63137- Pear
63139- Persimmons
63143- Plum
63 146- Quince
63147- Rhubarb/Sapodillo
632- Berries
6340 10 1 Apple salad w/dressing (include Waldorf salad)
6340102 Apple & cabbage salad w/dressing
6340 103 Apple & fruit salad w/dressing
6340 106 Apple, candied (include caramel apples)
6340203 Prune whip
6341 10 1 Cranberry salad, congealed
6341201 Pear salad w/dressing
6341500 Soup, sour cherry
64101- Apple Cider
64104- Apple Juice
64 10409 Apple juice with calcium
64105- Cranberry Juice
64116- Grape Juice
64122- Peach Juice
6412300 Pear -white-grape-passion fruit juice, w/added Vit.
C
64132- Prune/Strawberry Juice
6420 10 1 Apricot Nectar
64205- Peach Nectar
64215- Pear Nectar
6710030 Applesauce, baby toddler
6710100 Apple-raspberry, baby, ns as to strained or junior
6710101 Apple-raspberry, baby, strained
6710102
67102-
6710400
6710401
6710402
6710407
6710408
6710409
67108-
67109-
6711000
6711300
6711301
6711302
6711450
6711455
67202-
6720340
6720345
6720350
6720360
6720370
6720380
67212-
6723000
6725005
6725020
6730100
6730101
6730102
6730400
6730401
6730402
6730403
6730450
6730501
6730600
6730700
6730701
6730702
6740407
6740430
6740455
6740500
6740501
6740502
6741000
6741200
6741201
6741202
6741370
675-
Apple-raspberry, baby, junior
Applesauce, baby
Applesauce & apricots, baby, ns as to str or jr
Applesauce & apricots, baby, strained
Applesauce & apricots, baby, junior
Applesauce w/cherries, baby, strained
Applesauce w/cherries, baby, junior
Applesauce w/cherries, baby, ns str/jr
Peaches, baby
Pears, baby
Prunes, baby
Apples & pears, baby, ns as to str or jr
Apples & pears, baby, strained
Apples & pears, baby, junior
Peaches, baby, dry
Pears, baby, dry
Apple Juice, baby
Apple-cherry juice, baby
Apple-cranberry juice, baby
Apple-grape juice, baby
Apple-peach juice, baby
Apple-prune juice, baby
White Grape Juice, baby
Pear Juice, baby
Apple-sweet potato juice, baby food
Apple juice w/lowfat yogurt, baby food
Pear-peach juice w/lowfat yogurt, baby food
Apples & cranberries w/tapioca, baby, ns str/jr
Apples & cranberries w/tapioca, baby, strained
Apples & cranberries w/tapioca, baby, junior
Plums w/tapioca, baby, ns as to str/jr
Plums w/tapioca, baby, strained
Plums w/tapioca, baby, junior
Plums, bananas & rice, baby, strained
Prunes w/oatmeal, baby, strained
Prunes w/tapioca, baby, strained
Ciruelas w/tapioca, baby
Apricots w/tapioca, baby, ns as to str/jr
Apricots w/tapioca, baby, strained
Apricots w/tapioca, baby, junior
Apple yogurt dessert, baby, strained
Blueberry yogurt dessert, baby, strained
Cherry cobbler, baby, junior
Peach cobbler, baby, ns as to str/jr
Peach cobbler, baby, strained
Peach cobbler, baby, junior
Cherry vanilla pudding, baby
Dutch apple dessert, baby, ns as to str/jr
Dutch apple dessert, baby, strained
Dutch apple dessert, baby, junior
Peach yogurt dessert, baby, strained
Apples & meat
3B-7
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Protected Fruits
Food Codes
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
63 109- Cantaloupe, Carambola
63110- Cassaba Melon
63119- Figs
63121- Genip
63125- Guava/Jackfruit, raw
6312650 Kiwi
63 1265 1 Lychee, raw
6312660 Lychee, cooked
6312665 Loquats,raw
63127- Honeydew
63129- Mango
63133- Papaya
63134- Passion Fruit
63141- Pineapple
63145- Pomegranate
63148- Sweetsop, Soursop, Tamarind
63 149- Watermelon
6340199 Banana, chocolate-covered, w/nuts
6340201 Banana whip
6340205 Fried dwarf banana w/cheese, puerto rican style
63403 15 Lime souffle (include other citrus fruits)
6340801 Guacamole w/tomatoes
6340820 Guacamole w/tomatoes & chile peppers
63490901 Guacamole, nfs
64120- Papaya Juice
64121- Passion Fruit Juice
64124- Pineapple Juice
64125- Pineapple juice
64133- Watermelon Juice
6420150 Banana Nectar
64202- Cantaloupe Nectar
64203- Guava Nectar
64204- Mango Nectar
64210- Papaya Nectar
64213- Passion Fruit Nectar
64221- Soursop Nectar
6710503 Bananas, baby
6711500 Bananas, baby, dry
6720500 Orange Juice, baby
6721300 Pineapple Juice, baby
6723050 Orange-carrot juice, baby food
6725010 Banana juice w/lowfat yogurt, baby food
6730800 Bananas w/tapioca, baby, ns as to str/jr
6730801 Bananas w/tapioca, baby, strained
6730802 Bananas w/tapioca, baby, junior
6730900 Bananas & pineapple w/tapioca, baby, ns as to
str/jr
673090 1 Bananas & pineapple w/tapioca, baby, strained
6730902 Bananas & pineapple w/tapioca, baby, junior
674041 1 Banana apple dessert, baby food, strained
6740420 Banana pineapple dessert, w/tapioca, baby
674080 1 Banana pudding, baby, strained
6740850 Banana yogurt dessert, baby, strained
6741400 Pineapple dessert, baby, ns as to str/jr
6741401 Pineapple dessert, baby, strained
6741402 Pineapple dessert, baby, junior
6741410 Mango dessert w/tapioca, baby
VEGETABLE CATEGORIES
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
7510080 Asparagus, raw
75202- Asparagus, cooked
7540 10 1 Asparagus, creamed or with cheese
72101- Beet greens
7510250 Beets, raw
752080- Beets, cooked
752081- Beets, canned
7540501 Beets, Harvard
722- Broccoli (all forms)
7230200 Broccoli soup (include cream of broccoli soup)
7230210 Broccoli cheese soup, prep w/milk
7230200 Broccoli soup (include cream of broccoli soup)
7510300 Cabbage, raw
75 10400 Cabbage, Chinese, raw
75 10500 Cabbage, red, raw
7514100 Cabbage salad or coleslaw
75 141 10 Cabbage salad or coleslaw, w/apples, raisins,
dress
75 14120 Cabbage salad or coleslaw, w/pineapple, dressing
7514130 Cabbage, Chinese, salad
75210- Chinese Cabbage, cooked
756010 Asparagus soup
Does not include vegetables with meat mixtures.
7550021 Beets, pickled
7560110 Beet soup
76403- Beets, baby
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
75 14050 Broccoli salad w/cauliflower, cheese, bacon, &
dressing
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
75211- Green Cabbage, cooked
75212- Red Cabbage, cooked
752130- Savoy Cabbage, cooked
75230- Sauerkraut, cooked
7540701 Cabbage, creamed
755025- Cabbage, pickled or in relish
7560120 Cabbage soup
7560121 Cabbage w/meat soup
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
3B-8
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Carrots
Corn
Cucumbers
Lettuce
Lima Beans
Okra
Onions
Food Codes
73 10- Carrots (all forms)
73 1 1 140 Carrots in Sauce
7311200 Carrot Chips
735- Carrot soup
75 10960 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
75216 1 1 Corn, cooked, yellow/fat not added
75216 12 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
75216 19 Corn, yellow, cream style, fat added
7521620 Corn, cooked, white/NS as to fat added
7521621 Corn, cooked, white/fat not added
75 1 1 100 Cucumbers, raw
75142- Cucumber salads
752167- Cucumbers, cooked
7550301 Cucumber pickles, dill
7550302 Cucumber pickles, relish
7550303 Cucumber pickles, sour
7550304 Cucumber pickles, sweet
75113- Lettuce, raw
75143- Lettuce salad with other veg.
75 14410 Lettuce, wilted, with bacon dressing
7522005 Lettuce, cooked
41 10300 Lima beans, dry, cooked, ns as to added fat
4110301 Lima beans, dry, cooked, fat added
41 10302 Lime beans, dry, cooked, no fat added
4121011 Stewed dry lima beans, p. r.
4130104 Lima bean soup
4160104 Lima bean soup
7522000 Okra, cooked, NS as to fat
7522001 Okra, cooked, fat not added
7522002 Okra, cooked, fat added
75220 10 Lufta, cooked (Chinese Okra)
7510950 Chives, raw
7511150 Garlic, raw
7511250 Leek, raw
75 1 170 1 Onions, young green, raw
7511702 Onions, mature
7521550 Chives, dried
7521740 Garlic, cooked
7521840 Leek, cooked
7522100 Onions, mature cooked, NS as to fat added
7522101 Onions, mature cooked, fat not added
7522102 Onions, mature cooked, fat added
76201- Carrots, baby
7620200 Carrots & peas, baby
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
7521622 Corn, cooked, white/fat added
7521625 Corn, white, cream style
7521630 Corn, yellow, canned, low sodium, NS fat
752163 1 Corn, yell., canned, low sod., fat not add
7521632 Corn, yell., canned, low sod., fat added
7521749 Hominy, cooked
752175- Hominy, cooked
7530301 Corn w/peppers, red or green, cooked, no fat
added
7541 10 1 Corn scalloped or pudding
7541102 Corn fritter
7541 103 Corn with cream sauce
7550101 Corn relish
756040- Corn soup
76405- Corn, baby
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
7550305 Cucumber pickles, fresh
7550307 Cucumber, Kim Chee
75503 1 1 Cucumber pickles, dill, reduced salt
75503 14 Cucumber pickles, sweet, reduced salt
756045 1 Cucumber soup, cream of, w/milk
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
7510200 Lima beans, raw
752040- Lima beans, cooked
752041- Lima beans, canned
75301- Beans, lima & corn (succotash)
75402- Lima beans with sauce
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
7541450 Okra, fried
7550700 Okra, pickled
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
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
75605- Leek soup
75608- Onion soup
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
3B-9
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Peas 413010-
413020-
41303-
413035-
4130403
4130413
4131010
4131015
4131016
4131020
4131021
4131022
4131031
4160201
4160202
4160203
4160204
4160205
4160206
4160207
Peppers 7512140
7512100
7512150
7512200
7512210
7512220
7512400
7522600
7522601
7522602
7522604
7522605
Pumpkin 732-
733-
76205-
Snap Beans 7510180
7520498
7520499
7520500
7520501
7520502
7520503
7520511
7520512
7520513
7520600
7520601
7520602
7530201
7530202
7530203
7530204
Food Codes
Cowpeas, dry, cooked
Chickpeas, dry, cooked
Split peas, dry, cooked
Stewed green peas
Peas, dry, cooked w/pork
Cowpeas, dry, cooked w/pork
Stewed pigeon peas, p.r.
Stewed chickpeas, p.r.
Stewed chickpeas, w/potatoes, p.r.
Chickpeas, w/pig's feet, p.r.
Chickpeas, w/spanish sausage, p.r.
Fried chickpeas, p.r.
Stewed cowpeas, p.r.
Chunky pea & ham soup
Garbanzo or chickpea soup
Split pea & ham soup
Pea soup, instant type
Split pea soup
Pigeon pea asopao
Split pea soup, can, reduced sodium, w/water/rts
Pepper, poblano, raw
Pepper, hot chili, raw
Pepper, Serrano, raw
Pepper, raw
Pepper, sweet green, raw
Pepper, sweet red, raw
Pepper, banana, raw
Pepper, green, cooked, NS as to fat added
Pepper, green, cooked, fat not added
Pepper, green, cooked, fat added
Pepper, red, cooked, NS as to fat added
Pepper, red, cooked, fat not added
Pumpkin (all forms)
Winter squash (all forms)
Squash, baby
Beans, string, green, raw
Beans, string, cooked, NS color/fat added
Beans, string, cooked, NS color/no fat
Beans, string, cooked, NS color & fat
Beans, string, cooked, green/NS fat
Beans, string, cooked, green/no fat
Beans, string, cooked, green/fat
Beans, str., canned, low sod., green/NS fat
Beans, str., canned, low sod., green/no fat
Beans, str., canned, low sod., green/fat
Beans, string, cooked, yellow/NS fat
Beans, string, cooked, yellow/no fat
Beans, string, cooked, yellow/fat
Beans, green string w/tomatoes (assume w/o fat)
Beans, green string w/onions, cooked, no fat
added
Beans, green string w/chickpeas, cooked, no fat
added
Beans, green string w/almonds, cooked, no fat
added
4160209 Split pea & ham soup, can, reduced sodium,
w/water/rts
731110- &
73 1 1 12- Peas & carrots
75 12000 Peas, green, raw
75 12775 Snowpeas, raw
75223- Peas, cowpeas, field or blackeye, cooked
75224- Peas, green, cooked
75225- Peas, pigeon, cooked
75231- Snowpeas, cooked
75315- Peas & corn onions, mushrooms, beans, or
potatoes
7541650 Pea salad
7541660 Pea salad with cheese
75417- Peas, with sauce or creamed
75609- Pea soup
76409- Peas, baby
76411- Peas, creamed, baby
7650200 Peas & brown rice, baby
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
7522606 Pepper, red, cooked, fat added
7522609 Pepper, hot, cooked, NS as to fat added
75226 10 Pepper, hot, cooked, fat not added
75226 1 1 Pepper, hot, cooked, fat added
7530700 Green peppers & onions, cooked, fat added in
cooking
7551101 Peppers, hot, sauce
7551102 Peppers, pickled
7551104 Pepper, hot pickled
7551105 Peppers, hot pickled
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
7530205 Beans, green & potatoes, cooked, no fat added
7530206 Beans, green w/pinto beans, cooked, no fat
added
7530207 Beans, green w/spaetzel, cooked, no fat added
7530208 Bean salad, yellow &/or green string beans
7530220 Beans, green string w/onions, ns as to added
fat
7530221 Beans, green string w/onions, fat added
7530250 Beans, green & potatoes, ns as to added fat
753025 1 Beans, green & potatoes, fat added
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.
7640 102 Beans, green, string, baby, junior
7640103 Beans, green, string, baby, creamed
7640106 Beans, green string, baby
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
3B-10
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Tomatoes
White Potatoes
Dark Green
Vegetables
Deep Yellow
Vegetables
Other Vegetables
Food Codes
74- Tomatoes and Tomato Mixtures
raw, cooked, juices, sauces, mixtures, soups,
sandwiches
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
72- Dark Green Vegetables
all forms
leafy, nonleafy, dk. gr. veg. soups
73- Deep Yellow Vegetables
all forms
carrots, pumpkin, squash, sweet potatoes, dp. yell.
veg. soups
75- Other Vegetables
all forms
Also includes the average portion of grain mixtures (i.e.,
16.85 percent) and the average portion of meat mixtures
(i.e., 11.11 percent) made up by tomatoes.
76420000 Potatoes, baby
Also includes the average portion of meat mixtures (i.e.,
3.33 percent) made up by meats.
3B-11
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Exposed Vegetables
Food Codes
721-
722-
7230200
7230210
7230500
7230600
7230700
7230800
7230850
74-
7510050
7510075
7510080
75101-
7510260
7510275
7510280
7510300
7510400
7510500
7510700
7510900
7510950
7510955
7511100
7511120
7511200
75113-
7511500
7511900
7512100
75122-
7512400
7512750
7512775
75128-
7513210
7514050
7514100
7514110
7514120
7514130
7514150
75142-
75143-
7514410
7514500
7514600
7514700
Dark Green Leafy Veg.
Dark Green Nonleafy Veg.
Broccoli soup (include cream of broccoli soup)
Broccoli cheese soup, prep w/milk
Escarole soup
Watercress broth w/shrimp
Spinach soup
Dark-green leafy vegetable soup w/meat, oriental
Dark-green leafy vegetable soup, meatless,
oriental
Tomatoes and Tomato Mixtures
Alfalfa Sprouts
Artichoke, Jerusalem, raw
Asparagus, raw
Beans, sprouts and green, raw
Broccoflower, raw
Brussel Sprouts, raw
Buckwheat Sprouts, raw
Cabbage, raw
Cabbage, Chinese, raw
Cabbage, Red, raw
Cauliflower, raw
Celery, raw
Chives, raw
Cilantro, raw
Cucumber, raw
Eggplant, raw
Kohlrabi, raw
Lettuce, raw
Mushrooms, raw
Parsley
Pepper, hot chili
Peppers, raw
Pepper, banana, raw
Seaweed, raw
Snowpeas, raw
Summer Squash, raw
Celery Juice
Broccoli salad w/cauliflower, cheese, bacon,
dressing
Cabbage or cole slaw
Cabbage salad or coleslaw w/apples/raisins,
dressing
Cabbage salad or coleslaw w/pineapple, dressing
Chinese Cabbage Salad
Celery with cheese
Cucumber salads
Lettuce salads
Lettuce, wilted with bacon dressing
Seven-layer salad (lettuce, mayo, cheese, egg,
peas)
Greek salad
Spinach salad
7514800
7520060
75201-
75202-
75203-
752049-
75205-
75206-
75207-
752085-
752087-
752090-
75210-
75211-
75212-
752130-
75214-
75215-
752167-
752170-
752171-
752172-
752173-
7521801
75219-
75220-
7522116
7522121
75226-
75230-
75231-
75232-
75233-
7530201
7530202
7530203
7530204
7530205
7530206
7530207
7530208
7530220
7530221
7530250
7530251
7530601
7530700
Cob salad w/dressing
Algae, dried
Artichoke, cooked
Asparagus, cooked
Bamboo shoots, cooked
Beans, string, cooked
Beans, green, cooked/canned
Beans, yellow, cooked/canned
Bean Sprouts, cooked
Breadfruit
Broccoflower, cooked
Brussel Sprouts, cooked
Cabbage, Chinese, cooked
Cabbage, green, cooked
Cabbage, red, cooked
Cabbage, savoy, cooked
Cauliflower
Celery, Chives, Christophine (chayote)
Cucumber, cooked
Eggplant, cooked
Fern shoots
Fern shoots
Flowers of sesbania, squash or lily
Kohlrabi, cooked
Mushrooms, cooked
Okra/lettuce, cooked
Palm Hearts, cooked
Parsley, cooked
Peppers, pimento, cooked
Sauerkraut, cooked/canned
Snowpeas, cooked
Seaweed
Summer Squash
Beans, green string w/tomatoes (assume w/o
fat)
Beans, green string w/onions, no fat added
Beans, green string w/chickpeas, cooked, no
fat added
Beans, green string w/almonds, cooked, no fat
added
Beans, green & potatoes, cooked, no fat added
Beans, green w/pinto beans, cooked, no fat
added
Beans, green w/spaetzel, cooked, no fat added
Bean salad, yellow &/or green string beans
Beans, green string w/onions, ns as to added
fat
Beans, green string w/onions, fat added
Beans, green & potatoes, ns as to added fat
Beans, green & potatoes, fat added
Eggplant in torn sauce, cooked, no fat added
Green peppers & onions, cooked, fat added in
cooking
3B-12
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Exposed Vegetables
(continued)
Protected Veg.
Food Codes
7531600
7531601
7531602
7540050
7540101
75403-
75404-
7540601
7540701
75409-
75410-
75412-
75413-
75414-
754180-
7541822
7550011
7550051
7550201
755025-
7550301
7550302
7550303
7550304
7550305
7550307
7550308
7550311
411-, 412-,
413-
414-
415-, 416-
7185-,
7190-
732-
733-
7510200
7510550
7510960
7512000
7520070
752040-
752041-
7520829
752083-
7520950
752131-
752160-
752161-
752162-
752163-
7521749
752175-
75223-
75224-
75225-
75301-
7531500
7531501
Squash, summer & onions, cooked, no fat added
Zucchini w/tom sauce, cooked, no fat added in
cooking
Squash, summer & onions, cooked, fat added
Artichokes, stuffed
Asparagus, creamed or with cheese
Beans, green with sauce
Beans, yellow with sauce
Brussel Sprouts, creamed
Cabbage, creamed
Cauliflower, creamed
Celery/Chiles, creamed
Eggplant, fried, with sauce, etc.
Kohlrabi, creamed
Mushrooms, Okra, fried, stuffed, creamed
Squash, baked, fried, creamed, etc.
Christophine, creamed
Beans, pickled
Celery, pickled
Cauliflower, pickled
Cabbage, pickled
Cucumber pickles, dill
Cucumber pickles, relish
Cucumber pickles, sour
Cucumber pickles, sweet
Cucumber pickles, fresh
Cucumber, Kim Chee
Eggplant, pickled
Cucumber pickles, dill, reduced salt
Beans and lentils
Soy products
Bean meals
Plantains soups etc.
Pumpkin
Winter Squash
Lima Beans, raw
Cactus, raw
Corn, raw
Peas, raw
Aloe vera juice
Lima Beans, cooked
Lima Beans, canned
Bitter Melon
Bitter Melon, cooked
Burdock
Cactus
Corn, cooked
Corn, yellow, cooked
Corn, white, cooked
Corn, canned
Hominy
Hominy
Peas, cowpeas, field or blackeye, cooked
Peas, green, cooked
Peas, pigeon, cooked
Succotash
Peas & corn, cooked, ns as to added fat
Peas & corn, cooked, no fat added
7550314
7550500
7550700
75510-
7551101
7551102
7551104
7551301
7553500
756010-
756012-
756020-
756030-
7560451
756046-
75607-
7561201
7564700
76102-
76401-
7660400
7661150
7731601
7731651
7731660
7756301
Cucumber pickles, sweet, reduced salt
Mushrooms, pickled
Okra, pickled
Olives
Peppers, hot
Peppers, pickled
Peppers, hot pickled
Seaweed, pickled
Zucchini, pickled
Asparagus soup
Cabbage soup
Cauliflower soup, cream of, w/milk
Celery soup
Cucumber soup, cream of, w/milk
Gazpacho
Mushroom soup
Zucchini soup, cream of, prep w/milk
Seaweed soup
Dark Green Veg., baby
Beans, baby (excl. most soups & mixtures)
Broccoli & chicken, baby, strained
Green beans & turkey, baby, strained
Stuffed cabbage w/meat, p.r. (repollo relleno
con carne)
Stuffed cabbage w/meat & rice, Syrian dish,
puerto rican style
Eggplant and meat casserole
Puerto rican stew (sancocho)
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
7531502
7531510
7531511
7531512
7531521
7531525
7531530
75402-
75411-
7541650
7541660
75417-
7550101
7560401
7560402
7560900
7560901
7560802
7560905
7560906
76205-
76405-
76409-
76411-
7650200
7720121
7720511
7720561
Peas & corn, cooked, fat added
Peas & onions, cooked, ns as to added fat
Peas & onions, cooked, fat not added
Peas & onions, cooked, fat added
Peas w/mushrooms, cooked, no fat added
Cowpeas w/snap beans, cooked, no fat added
in cooking
Peas & potatoes, cooked, no fat added in
cooking
Lima Beans with sauce
Corn, scalloped, fritter, with cream
Pea salad
Pea salad with cheese
Peas, with sauce or creamed
Corn relish
Corn soup, cream of, w/milk
Corn soup, cream of, prepared w/water
Pea soup, nfs
Pea soup, prep w/milk
Pea soup, prepared w/water
Pea soup, prepared w/water, low sodium
Pea soup, prepared w/lowfat milk
Squash, yellow, baby
Corn, baby
Peas, baby
Peas, creamed, baby
Peas and brown rice, baby
Green plantain w/cracklings, p.r. (Mofongo)
Ripe plantain fritters, p.r. (Pionono)
Ripe plantainmeat pie, p.r. (Pinon)
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
3B-13
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Root Vegetables
Food Codes
710-, 71 1-, 712-, 713-, 714-, 715-, 716-, 717-,
7180-, 1793-, 7194-, 7195-, 7196-,
7198-
7310-
7311140
7311200
734-
7510250
7511150
7511180
7511250
75117-
7512500
7512700
7512900
752080-
752081-
7521362
7521740
7521771
7521840
7521850
752210-
7522110
752220-
75227-
75228-
75229-
75234-
75235-
White Potatoes and Puerto Rican St. Veg.
Carrots
Carrots in sauce
Carrot chips
Sweet potatoes
Beets, raw
Garlic, raw
Jicama (yambean), raw
Leeks, raw
Onions, raw
Radish, raw
Rutabaga, raw
Turnip, raw
Beets, cooked
Beets, canned
Cassava
Garlic, cooked
Horseradish
Leek, cooked
Lotus root
Onions, cooked
Onions, dehydrated
Parsnips, cooked
Radishes, cooked
Rutabaga, cooked
Salsify, cooked
Turnip, cooked
Water Chestnut
7540501
75415-
7541601
7541810
7550021
7550309
7551201
7553403
7560110
7560501
7560503
7560801
7560803
7560810
7560820
7560830
76201-
76209-
76403-
7642000
7660200
7712101
7712111
7714101
7723021
7723051
7725011
7725071
Beets, harvard
Onions, creamed, fried
Parsnips, creamed
Turnips, creamed
Beets, pickled
Horseradish
Radishes, pickled
Turnip, pickled
Beet soup (borscht)
Leek soup, cream of, prep w/milk
Leek soup, made from dry mix
Onion soup, cream of, prep w/milk
Onion soup, cream of, canned, undiluted
Onion soup, french
Onion soup, made from dry mix
Onion soup, dry mix, not reconstituted
Carrots, baby
Sweet potatoes, baby
Beets, baby
Potatoes, baby
Carrots & beef, baby, strained
Fried stuffed potatoes, p.r. (Rellenos de papas)
Potato & ham fritters, p.r. (frituras de papa y
jamon)
Potato chicken pie, p.r. (Pastelon de polio)
Cassava pasteles, p.r. (Pasteles de yuca)
Cassava pie stuffed w/crab meat, p.r.
Stuffed tannier fritters, p.r. (Alcapurrias)
Tannier fritters, p.r. (Frituras de yautia)
Does not include vegetable with meat mixtures.
FAT CATEGORIES
Animal Fat
Butter
Dressing
Margarine
Mayonnaise
81201-
81202-
812032-
8133011
811005-
81101-
81105-
81204-
8132200
83100-
83101-
83102-
83103-
83104-
83105-
83106-
8311-
83200-
83201-
81102-
81103-
81104-
81106-
83204-
83107-
83108-
Bacon grease
Lard
Shortening, animal
Lard
Butter
Butter
Butter
Clarified butter
Honey butter
83202-
83203-
83205-
83206-
83207-
83208-
83209-
83210-
83220-
3B-14
-------
Table 3B-1 Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1994-96 USDA CSFII Data (Continued)
Food Product
Sauce
Vegetable Oil
Food Codes
81301-
81302-
81312-
812031-
81324-
8133021
82101-
82102-
82103-
Lemon butter sauce
Sauces, various
Tartar sauce
Shortening, vegetable
Lechithin
Adobo fresco
Vegetable oil
Corn oil
Cottonseed & flax seed oil
82104-
82105-
82106-
82107-
82108-
82109-
Olive oil
Peanut, rapeseed, 6
Safflower oil
£ canola oil
Sesame oil
Soy and sunflower oil
Wheat germ oil
3B-15
-------
APPENDIX 3C
SAMPLE CALCULATION OF MEAN DAILY FAT INTAKE BASED
ON CDC (1994) DATA
3B-16
-------
Sample Calculation of Mean Daily Fat Intake Based on CDC (1994) Data
CDC (1994) provided data on the mean daily total food energy intake (TFEI) and the mean percentages of TFEI from total dietary fat grouped
by age and gender. The overall mean daily TFEI was 2,095 kcal for the total population and 34 percent (or 82 g) of their TFEI was from total dietary
fat (CDC, 1994). Based on this information, the amount of fat per kcal was calculated as shown in the following example.
kcal g - fat g - fat
0.34 x 2,095 x X =82
day day day
g-fat
X = 0.12
kcal
where 0.34 is the fraction of fat intake, 2,095 is the total food intake, and X is the conversion factor from kcal/day to g-fat/day.
Using the conversion factor shown above (i.e., 0.12 g-fat/kcal) and the information on the mean daily TFEI and percentage of TFEI for the
various age/gender groups, the daily fat intake was calculated for these groups. An example of obtaining the grams of fat from the daily TFEI
(1,591 kcal/day) for children ages 3-5 and their percent TFEI from total dietary fat (33 percent) is as follows:
kcal g-fat g-fat
1,591- x 0.33 x 0.12-^ = 63 ^
day kcal day
3C-1
-------
APPENDIX 3D
FOOD CODES AND DEFINITIONS USED IN ANALYSIS
OF THE 1987-88 USDA NFCS DATA
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
MAJOR FOOD GROUPS
Total Fruits
50- Fresh Fruits
citrus
other vitamin-C rich
other fruits
512- Commercially Canned Fruits
522- Commercially Frozen Fruits
533- Canned Fruit Juice
534- Frozen Fruit Juice
535- Aseptically Packed Fruit Juice
536- Fresh Fruit Juice
542- Dried Fruits
(includes baby foods)
6- Fruits
citrus fruits and juices
dried fruits
other fruits
fruits/juices & nectar
fruit/juices baby food
(includes baby foods)
Total
Vegetables
48- Potatoes, Sweetpotatoes
49- Fresh Vegetables
dark green
deep yellow
tomatoes
light green
other
511- Commercially Canned Vegetables
521- Commercially Frozen Vegetables
531- Canned Vegetable Juice
532- Frozen Vegetable Juice
537- Fresh Vegetable Juice
538- Aseptically Packed Vegetable Juice
541- Dried Vegetables
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures/dinners)
7- Vegetables (all forms)
white potatoes & PR starchy
dark green vegetables
deep yellow vegetables
tomatoes and torn, mixtures
other vegetables
veg. and mixtures/baby food
veg. with meat mixtures
(includes baby foods; mixtures, mostly vegetables)
Total Meats
44- Meat
beef
pork
veal
lamb
mutton
goat
game
lunch meat
mixtures
451-Poultry
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
20- Meat, type not specified
21- Beef
22- Pork
23- Lamb, veal, game, carcass meat
24- Poultry
25- Organ meats, sausages, lunchmeats, meat spreads
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry
and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby
foods)
Total Dairy
40- Milk Equivalent
fresh fluid milk
processed milk
cream and cream substitutes
frozen desserts with milk
cheese
dairy-based dips
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and 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)
3D-1
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Total Fish
452- Fish, Shellfish
various species
fresh, frozen, commercial, dried
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners)
26- Fish, Shellfish
various species and forms
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry
and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks')
INDIVIDUAL FOODS
White
Potatoes
White Potatoes, fresh
White Potatoes, commercially canned
White Potatoes, commercially frozen
White Potatoes, dehydrated
White Potatoes, chips, sticks, salad
4811-
4821-
4831-
4841-
4851-
(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
3D-2
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Corn
Corn (cont.)
Apples
Household Code/Definition
4956- Corn, fresh
511 460 1 Yellow Corn, commercially canned
5 1 14602 White Corn, commercially canned
5114603 Yellow Creamed Corn, commercially canned
5 1 14604 White Creamed Corn, commercially canned
5 1 14605 Corn on Cob, commercially canned
5 1 1 4607 Hominy, canned
5 1 1 5306 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)
5031- Apples, fresh
5122101 Applesauce with sugar, commercially canned
5122102 Applesauce without sugar, comm. canned
5122103 Apple Pie Filling, commercially canned
5122104 Apples, Applesauce, baby/jr., comm. canned
5122106 Apple Pie Filling, Low Cal., comm. canned
5223101 Apple Slices, commercially frozen
5332101 Apple Juice, canned
5332102 Apple Juice, baby, Comm. canned
5342201 Apple Juice, comm. frozen
5342202 Apple Juice, home frozen
5352101 Apple Juice, aseptically packed
5362101 Apple Juice, fresh
5423101 Apples, dried
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
Individual Code
7510960 Corn, raw
7521600 Corn, cooked, NS as to color/fat added
7521601 Corn, cooked, NS as to color/fat not added
7521602 Corn, cooked, NS as to color/fat added
7521605 Corn, cooked, NS as to color/cream style
7521607 Corn, cooked, dried
7521610 Corn, cooked, yellow/NS as to fat added
752161 1 Corn, cooked, yellow/fat not added
7521612 Corn, cooked, yellow/fat added
7521615 Corn, yellow, cream style
7521616 Corn, cooked, yell. & wh./NS as to fat
7521617 Corn, cooked, yell. & wh./fat not added
7521618 Corn, cooked, yell. & wh./fat added
7521619 Corn, yellow, cream style, fat added
7521620 Corn, cooked, white/NS as to fat added
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
7541 101 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)
62101 10 Apples, dried, uncooked
62101 15 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
63 10 1 1 1 Applesauce, NS as to sweetener
6310112 Applesauce, unsweetened
63 10 1 13 Applesauce with sugar
63 10 1 14 Applesauce with low calorie sweetener
6310121 Apples, cooked or canned with syrup
6310131 Apple, baked NS as to sweetener
6310132 Apple, baked, unsweetened
6310133 Apple, baked with sugar
6310141 Apple rings, fried
6310142 Apple, pickled
6310150 Apple, fried
6340101 Apple, salad
6340106 Apple, candied
6410101 Apple cider
6410401 Apple juice
6410405 Apple juice with vitamin C
6710200 Applesauce baby fd., NS as to str. or jr.
6710201 Applesauce baby food, strained
6710202 Applesauce baby food, junior
6720200 Apple juice, baby food
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Tomatoes
4931- Tomatoes, fresh
5113- Tomatoes, commercially canned
5115201 Tomatoes, low sodium, commercially canned
5115202 Tomato Sauce, low sodium, comm. canned
5115203 Tomato Paste, low sodium, comm. canned
5115204 Tomato Puree, low sodium, comm. canned
5311- Canned Tomato Juice and Tomato Mixtures
5321- Frozen Tomato Juice
5371- Fresh Tomato Juice
5381102 Tomato Juice, aseptically packed
5413115 Tomatoes, dry
5614- Tomato Soup
5624- Condensed Tomato Soup
5654- Dry Tomato Soup
(does not include mixtures, and ready-to-eat dinners)
74- Tomatoes and Tomato Mixtures
raw, cooked, juices, sauces, mixtures, soups,
sandwiches
Snap Beans
4943- Snap or Wax Beans, fresh
5114401 Green or Snap Beans, commercially canned
5114402 Wax or Yellow Beans, commercially canned
5114403 Beans, baby/jr., commercially canned
5115302 Green Beans, low sodium, comm. canned
5115303 Yell, or Wax Beans, low sod., comm. canned
5213301 Snap or Green Beans, comm. frozen
5213302 Snap or Green w/sauce, comm. frozen
5213303 Snap or Green Beans w/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)
3D-4
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Pork
442- Pork
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
22- Pork
pork, nfs; ground dehydrated
chops
steaks, cutlets
ham
roasts
Canadian bacon
bacon, salt pork
other pork items
pork baby food
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry
and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby
food)
Game
445- Variety Meat, Game
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
233- Game
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry
and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks)
Poultry
451-Poultry
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
24- Poultry
chicken
turkey
duck
other poultry
poultry baby food
(excludes meat, poultry, and fish with non-meat items;
frozen plate meals; soups and gravies with meat, poultry
and fish base; and gelatin-based drinks; includes baby
food)
46- Eggs (fresh equivalent)
fresh
processed eggs, substitutes
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
3-
Eggs
eggs
egg mixtures
egg substitutes
eggs baby food
froz. meals with egg as main ingred.
(includes baby foods)
Broccoli
4912- Fresh Broccoli (and home canned/froz.)
5111203 Broccoli, comm. canned
52112- Comm. Frozen Broccoli
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
722- Broccoli (all forms)
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
Carrots
4921- Fresh Carrots (and home canned/froz.)
51121 - Comm. Canned Carrots
5115101 Carrots, Low Sodium, Comm. Canned
52121- Comm. Frozen Carrots
5312103 Comm. Canned Carrot Juice
5372102 Carrot Juice Fresh
5413502 Carrots, Dried Baby Food
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
7310- Carrots (all forms)
7311140 Carrots in S auce
7311200 Carrot Chips
76201- Carrots, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
3D-5
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
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)
Asparagus
4941- Fresh Asparagus (and home canned/froz.)
5114101 Comm. Canned Asparagus
5115301 Asparagus, Low Sodium, Comm. Canned
52131- Comm. Frozen Asparagus
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
7510080 Asparagus, raw
75202- Asparagus, cooked
7540101 Asparagus, creamed or with cheese
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetables mixtures, or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
Lima Beans
4942-
5114204
5114301
5115304
52132-
54111-
5411306
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures; does not
include succotash)
Fresh Lima and Fava Beans (and home
canned/froz.)
Comm. Canned Mature Lima Beans
Comm. Canned Green Lima Beans
Comm. Canned Low Sodium Lima Beans
Comm. Frozen Lima Beans
Dried Lima Beans
Dried Fava Beans
7510200 Lima Beans, raw
752040- Lima Beans, cooked
752041- ima Beans, canned
75402- Lima Beans with sauce
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; does not include succotash)
Cabbage
4944- Fresh Cabbage (and home canned/froz.)
4958601 Sauerkraut, home canned or pkgd
5114801 Sauerkraut, comm. canned
5114904 Comm. Canned Cabbage
5114905 Comm. Canned Cabbage (no sauce; incl. baby)
5115501 Sauerkraut, low sodium., comm. canned
5312102 Sauerkraut Juice, comm. canned
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
7510300 Cabbage, raw
7510400 Cabbage, Chinese, raw
7510500 Cabbage, red, raw
7514100 Cabbage salad or coleslaw
7514130 Cabbage, Chinese, salad
75210- Chinese Cabbage, cooked
75211- Green Cabbage, cooked
75212- Red Cabbage, cooked
752130- Savoy Cabbage, cooked
75230- Sauerkraut, cooked
7540701 Cabbage, creamed
755025- Cabbage, pickled or in relish
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
Lettuce
4945- Fresh Lettuce, French Endive (and home
canned/froz.)
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
75113- Lettuce, raw
75143- Lettuce salad with other veg.
7514410 Lettuce, wilted, with bacon dressing
7522005 Lettuce, cooked
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
Okra
4946- Fresh Okra (and home canned/froz.)
5114914 Comm. Canned Okra
5213720 Comm. Frozen Okra
5213721 Comm. Frozen Okra with Oth. Veg. & Sauce
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
7522000 Okra, cooked, NS as to fat
7522001 Okra, cooked, fat not added
7522002 Okra, cooked, fat added
7522010 Lufta, cooked (Chinese Okra)
7541450 Okra, fried
7550700 Okra, pickled
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
3D-6
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Peas
4947- Fresh Peas (and home canned/froz.)
51147- Comm Canned Peas (incl. baby)
5115310 Low Sodium Green or English Peas (canned)
5115314 Low Sod. Blackeye, Gr. or Imm. Peas (canned)
5114205 Blackeyed Peas, comm. canned
52134- Comm. Frozen Peas
5412- Dried Peas and Lentils
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
7512000 Peas, green, raw
7512775 Snowpeas, raw
75223- Peas, cowpeas, field or blackeye, cooked
75224- Peas, green, cooked
75225- Peas, pigeon, cooked
75231- Snowpeas, cooked
7541650 Pea salad
7541660 Pea salad with cheese
75417- Peas, with sauce or creamed
76409- Peas, baby
76411- Peas, creamed, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
Cucumbers
4952- Fresh Cucumbers (and home canned/froz.)
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
7511100 Cucumbers, raw
75142- Cucumber salads
752167- Cucumbers, cooked
7550301 Cucumber pickles, dill
7550302 Cucumber pickles, relish
7550303 Cucumber pickles, sour
7550304 Cucumber pickles, sweet
7550305 Cucumber pickles, fresh
7550307 Cucumber, Kim Chee
7550311 Cucumber pickles, dill, reduced salt
7550314 Cucumber pickles, sweet, reduced salt
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
Beets
4954- Fresh Beets (and home canned/froz.)
51145- Comm. Canned Beets (incl. baby)
5115305 Low Sodium Beets (canned)
5213714 Comm. Frozen Beets
5312104 Beet Juice
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
7510250 Beets, raw
752080- Beets, cooked
752081- Beets, canned
7540501 Beets, harvard
7550021 Beets, pickled
76403- Beets, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures; includes baby foods except
mixtures)
Strawberries
5022- Fresh Strawberries
5122801 Comm. Canned Strawberries with sugar
5122802 Comm. Canned Strawberries without sugar
5122803 Canned Strawberry Pie Filling
5222- Comm. Frozen Strawberries
(does not include ready-to-eat dinners; includes baby foods
except mixtures)
6322- Strawberries
6413250 Strawberry Juice
(includes baby food; except mixtures)
3D-7
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (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
5 122808 Canned Blueberry Pie Filling
5122809 Comm. Canned Gooseberries with sugar
5122810 Comm. Canned Gooseberries without sugar
5 1228 1 1 Comm. Canned Raspberries with sugar
5122812 Comm. Canned Raspberries without sugar
5 1228 13 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
5423 105 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)
EXPOSED/PROTECTED FRUITS/VEGETABLES, ROOT VEGETABLES
Exposed
Fruits
5022- Strawberries, fresh
5023101 Acerola, fresh
5023401 Currants, fresh
5031- Apples/Applesauce, fresh
5033- Berries other than Strawberries, fresh
5034- Cherries, fresh
5036- Peaches, fresh
62101- Apple, dried
62104- Apricot, dried
62108- Currants, dried
62110- Date, dried
62116- Peaches, dried
62119- Pears, dried
62121- Plum, dried
3D-8
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Exposed
Fruits
(cont.)
Household Code/Definition
5037- Pears, fresh
50381- Apricots, Nectarines, Loquats, fresh
5038305 Dates, fresh
50384- Grapes, fresh
50386- Plums, fresh
50387- Rhubarb, fresh
5038805 Persimmons, fresh
5038901 Sapote, fresh
51221- Apples/Applesauce, canned
51222- Apricots, canned
51223- Cherries, canned
51224- Peaches, canned
51225- Pears, canned
51228- Berries, canned
5122903 Grapes with sugar, canned
5 122904 Grapes without sugar, canned
5 122905 Plums with sugar, canned
5122906 Plums without sugar, canned
5 122907 Plums, canned, baby
5122911 Prunes, canned, baby
5122912 Prunes, with sugar, canned
5122913 Prunes, without sugar, canned
5122914 Raisin Pie Filling
5222- Frozen Strawberries
52231- Apples Slices, frozen
52233- Berries, frozen
52234- Cherries, frozen
52236- Peaches, frozen
52239- Rhubarb, frozen
53321- Canned Apple Juice
53322- Canned Grape Juice
5332402 Canned Prune Juice
5332403 Canned Pear Juice
5332404 Canned Blackberry Juice
5332405 Canned Peach Juice
53421- Frozen Grape Juice
5342201 Frozen Apple Juice, comm. fr.
5342202 Frozen Apple Juice, home fr.
5352101 Apple Juice, asep. packed
5352201 Grape Juice, asep. packed
5362101 Apple Juice, fresh
5362202 Apricot Juice, fresh
5362203 Grape Juice, fresh
5362204 Pear Juice, fresh
5362205 Prune Juice, fresh
5421- Dried Prunes
5422- Raisins, Currants, dried
5423101 Dry Apples
5423102 Dry Apricots
5423 103 Dates without pits
5423104 Dates with pits
5423 105 Peaches, dry, baby
5423106 Peaches, dry
5423107 Pears, dry
5423114 Berries, dry
5423115 Cherries, dry
(includes baby foods)
Individual Code
62122- Prune, dried
62125- Raisins
63101- Apples/applesauce
63102- Wi-apple
63103- Apricots
63 1 1 1 - Cherries, maraschino
63112- Acerola
63113- Cherries, sour
63115- Cherries, sweet
63117- Currants, raw
63123- Grapes
6312601 Juneberry
63131- Nectarine
63135- Peach
63137- Pear
63139- Persimmons
63143- Plum
63146- Quince
63147- Rhubarb/Sapodillo
632- Berries
64101- Apple Cider
64104- Apple Juice
64105- Cranberry Juice
64116- Grape Juice
64122- Peach Juice
64132- Prune/Strawberry Juice
6420101 Apricot Nectar
64205- Peach Nectar
64215- Pear Nectar
67102- Applesauce, baby
67108- Peaches, baby
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)
3D-9
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Protected
Fruits
Household Code/Definition
501- Citrus Fruits, fresh
5021- Cantaloupe, fresh
5023201 Mangoes, fresh
5023301 Guava, fresh
Individual Code
61- Citrus Fr., Juices (incl. cit. juice mixtures)
62107- Bananas, dried
62113- Figs, dried
62114- Lychees/Papayas, dried
3D-10
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Protected
Fruits
(cont.)
5023601 Kiwi, fresh
5023701 Papayas, fresh
5023801 Passion Fruit, fresh
5032- Bananas, Plantains, fresh
5035- Melons other than Cantaloupe, fresh
50382- Avocados, fresh
5038301 Figs, fresh
5038302 Figs, cooked
5038303 Figs, home canned
5038304 Figs, home frozen
50385- Pineapple, fresh
5038801 Pomegranates, fresh
5038902 Cherimoya, fresh
5038903 Jackfruit, fresh
5038904 Breadfruit, fresh
5038905 Tamarind, fresh
5038906 Carambola, fresh
5038907 Longan, fresh
5121- Citrus, canned
51226- Pineapple, canned
5122901 Figs with sugar, canned
5122902 Figs without sugar, canned
5122909 Bananas, canned, baby
5122910 Bananas and Pineapple, canned, baby
5122915 Litchis, canned
5122916 Mangos with sugar, canned
5122917 Mangos without sugar, canned
5122918 Mangos, canned, baby
5122920 Guava with sugar, canned
5122921 Guava without sugar, canned
5122923 Papaya with sugar, canned
5122924 Papaya without sugar, canned
52232- Bananas, frozen
52235- Melon, frozen
52237- Pineapple, frozen
5331- Canned Citrus Juices
53323- Canned Pineapple Juice
5332408 Canned Papaya Juice
5332410 Canned Mango Juice
5332501 Canned Papaya Concentrate
5341- Frozen Citrus Juice
5342203 Frozen Pineapple Juice
5351- Citrus and Citrus Blend Juices, asep. packed
5352302 Pineapple Juice, asep. packed
5361- Fresh Citrus and Citrus Blend Juices
5362206 Papaya Juice, fresh
5362207 Pineapple-Coconut Juice, fresh
5362208 Mango Juice, fresh
5362209 Pineapple Juice, fresh
5423108 Pineapple, dry
5423109 Papaya, dry
5423110 Bananas, dry
5423111 Mangos, dry
5423117 Litchis, dry
5423118 Tamarind, dry
5423119 Plantain, dry
(includes baby foods)
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
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)
3D-11
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Exposed
Vegetable
Household Code/Definition
491- Fresh Dark Green Vegetables
493- Fresh Tomatoes
4941- Fresh Asparagus
4943- Fresh Beans, Snap or Wax
Individual Code
721- Dark Green Leafy Veg.
722- Dark Green Nonleafy Veg.
74- Tomatoes and Tomato Mixtures
7510050 Alfalfa Sprouts
3D-12
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Exposed
Vegetable
(cont.)
Household Code/Definition
4944- Fresh Cabbage
4945- Fresh Lettuce
4946- Fresh Okra
49481- Fresh Artichokes
49483- Fresh Brassel Sprouts
4951- Fresh Celery
4952- Fresh Cucumbers
4955- Fresh Cauliflower
4958103 Fresh Kohlrabi
4958111 Fresh Jerusalem Artichokes
49581 12 Fresh Mushrooms
49581 13 Mushrooms, home canned
49581 14 Mushrooms, home frozen
495 8 1 1 8 Fresh Eggplant
4958119 Eggplant, cooked
4958120 Eggplant, home frozen
4958200 Fresh Summer Squash
4958201 Summer Squash, cooked
4958202 Summer Squash, home canned
4958203 Summer Squash, home frozen
4958402 Fresh Bean Sprouts
4958403 Fresh Alfalfa Sprouts
4958504 Bamboo Shoots
4958506 Seaweed
4958508 Tree Fern, fresh
4958601 Sauerkraut
5111- Dark Green Vegetables (all are exposed)
5113- Tomatoes
5114101 Asparagus, comm. canned
51144- Beans, green, snap, yellow, comm. canned
5114704 Snow Peas, comm. canned
5114801 Sauerkraut, comm. canned
5114901 Artichokes, comm. canned
5114902 Bamboo Shoots, comm. canned
5114903 Bean Sprouts, comm. canned
5114904 Cabbage, comm. canned
5114905 Cabbage, comm. canned, no sauce
5114906 Cauliflower, comm. canned, no sauce
5114907 Eggplant, comm. canned, no sauce
5114913 Mushrooms, comm. canned
5114914 Okra, comm. canned
5114918 Seaweeds, comm. canned
5114920 Summer Squash, comm. canned
5 1 14923 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
Individual Code
7510075 Artichoke, Jerusalem, raw
7510080 Asparagus, raw
75101- Beans, sprouts and green, raw
7510275 Brussel Sprouts, raw
75 10280 Buckwheat Sprouts, raw
7510300 Cabbage, raw
75 10400 Cabbage, Chinese, raw
75 10500 Cabbage, Red, raw
7510700 Cauliflower, raw
7510900 Celery, raw
7510950 Chives, raw
7511100 Cucumber, raw
7511120 Eggplant, raw
7511200 Kohlrabi, raw
75113- Lettuce, raw
7511500 Mushrooms, raw
7511900 Parsley
7512100 Pepper, hot chili
75122- Peppers, raw
7512750 Seaweed, raw
7512775 Snowpeas, raw
75128- Summer Squash, raw
7513210 Celery Juice
7514100 Cabbage or cole slaw
7514130 Chinese Cabbage Salad
7514150 Celery with cheese
75 142- Cucumber salads
75143- Lettuce salads
75 14410 Lettuce, wilted with bacon dressing
7514600 Greek salad
7514700 Spinach salad
7520600 Algae, dried
75201- Artichoke, cooked
75202- Asparagus, cooked
75203- Bamboo shoots, cooked
752049- Beans, string, cooked
75205- Beans, green, cooked/canned
75206- Beans, yellow, cooked/canned
75207- Bean Sprouts, cooked
752085- Breadfruit
752090- Brussel Sprouts, cooked
75210- Cabbage, Chinese, cooked
75211- Cabbage, green, cooked
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
7522 1 16 Palm Hearts, cooked
7522121 Parsley, cooked
75226- Peppers, pimento, cooked
75230- Sauerkraut, cooked/canned
3D-13
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Household Code/Definition
Individual Code
Exposed
Vegetable
(cont.)
Cauliflower, comm. froz. with sauce
Cauliflower, comm. froz. with other veg.
Caul., comm. froz. with other veg. & sauce
Summer Squash, comm. froz.
Summer Squash, comm. froz. with other veg.
Eggplant, comm. froz.
Mushrooms with sauce, comm. froz.
Mushrooms, comm. froz.
Okra, comm. froz.
Okra, comm. froz., with sauce
Canned Tomato Juice and Tomato Mixtures
Canned Sauerkraut Juice
Frozen Tomato Juice
Fresh Tomato Juice
Aseptically Packed Tomato Juice
Dry Algae
Dry Celery
Dry Chives
Dry Mushrooms
Dry Parsley
Dry Green Peppers
Dry Red Peppers
Dry Seaweed
Dry Tomatoes
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)
3D-14
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Protected
Vegetable
Protected
Vegetable
(cont.)
Household Code/Definition
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
495 840 1 Fresh Cactus (prickly pear)
4958503 Burdock
4958505 Bitter Melon
4958507 Horseradish Tree Pods
5 1 122- Comm. Canned Pumpkin and Squash (baby)
51142- Beans, comm. canned
5 1 143- Beans, lima and soy, comm. canned
51146- Corn, comm. canned
5114701 Peas, green, comm. canned
5114702 Peas, baby, comm. canned
5114703 Peas, blackeye, comm. canned
5114705 Pigeon Peas, comm. canned
5114919 Succotash, comm. canned
5115304 Lima Beans, canned, low sod.
5115306 Corn, canned, low sod.
5115307 Creamed Corn, canned, low sod.
511531- Peas and Beans, canned, low sod.
52122- Winter Squash, comm. froz.
52132- Lima Beans, comm. froz.
5213401 Peas, gr., comm. froz.
5213402 Peas, gr., with sauce, comm. froz.
5213403 Peas, gr., with other veg., comm. froz.
5213404 Peas, gr., with other veg., comm. froz.
5213405 Peas, blackeye, comm froz.
5213406 Peas, blackeye, with sauce, comm froz.
52135- Corn, comm. froz.
5213712 Artichoke Hearts, comm. froz.
5213713 Baked Beans, comm. froz.
5213717 Kidney Beans, comm. froz.
5213724 Succotash, comm. froz.
5411- Dried Beans
5412- Dried Peas and Lentils
5413104 Dry Corn
5413106 Dry Hominy
5413504 Dry Squash, baby
5413603 Dry Creamed Corn, baby
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures)
Individual Code
732- Pumpkin
733- Winter Squash
75 10200 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
7541 1- Corn, scalloped, fritter, with cream
7541650 Pea salad
7541660 Pea salad with cheese
75417- Peas, with sauce or creamed
7550101 Corn relish
76205- Squash, yellow, baby
76405- Corn, baby
76409- Peas, baby
76411- Peas, creamed, baby
(does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or
vegetable with meat mixtures)
3D-15
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (continued)
Food
Product
Rooted
Vegetable
Root
Vegetables
(cont.)
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
495 8 1 09 Fresh Rutabagas
49581 10 Rutabagas, home frozen
4958115 Fresh Parsnips
4958116 Parsnips, home canned
49581 17 Parsnips, home frozen
4958502 Fresh Lotus Root
4958509 Ginger Root
4958510 Jicama, including yambean
51121- Carrots, comm. canned
51145- Beets, comm. canned
5 1 14908 Garlic Pulp, comm. canned
5114910 Horseradish, comm. prep.
5114915 Onions, comm. canned
5114916 Rutabagas, comm. canned
5114917 Salsify, comm. canned
5114921 Turnips, comm. canned
5 1 1 4922 Water Chestnuts, comm. canned
5 1 1 5 1 - 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
5372 102 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
75 1 1 1 80 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
491- Fresh Dark Green Vegetables
5111- Comm. Canned Dark Green Veg.
51154- Low Sodium Dark Green Veg.
5211- Comm. Frozen Dark Green Veg.
5413111 Dry Parsley
5413112 Dry Green Peppers
5413113 Dry Red Peppers
(does not include soups, sauces, gravies, mixtures, and ready-
to-eat dinners; includes baby foods except mixtures/dinners;
excludes vegetable juices and dried vegetables)
72- Dark Green Vegetables
all forms
leafy, nonleafy, dk. gr. veg. soups
3D-16
-------
Table 3D-1. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1987-88 USD A NFCS Data (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- Dried 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)
Citrus Fruits and Juices
Orange Juice, baby food
Orange-Apricot Juice, baby food
Orange-Pineapple Juice, baby food
Orange-Apple-Banana Juice, baby food
61-
6720500
6720600
6720700
672110
(excludes dried fruits)
Other
Fruits
62- Fresh Other Vitamin C-Rich Fruits
503- Fresh Other Fruits
5122- Comm. Canned Fruits Other than Citrus
5222- Frozen Strawberries
5332- Frozen Other than Citr. or Vitamin C-Rich Fr.
5333- Canned Fruit Juice Other than Citrus
5352- Frozen Juices Other than Citrus
5353- 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
Other Fruits
(cont.)
5362- Aseptically Packed Fruit Juice Other than Citr.
542- Fresh Fruit Juice Other than Citrus Dry Fruits
(includes baby foods; excludes dried fruits)
67212 Baby Juices
67213 Baby Juices
673 Baby Fruits
674 Baby Fruits
3D-17
-------
APPENDIX 3E
STATISTICAL NOTES
-------
1 Appendix 3E. Statistical Notes
2
3
4 Estimates based on small cell sizes may tend to be less statistically reliable than estimates
5 based on larger cell sizes. Cell size refers to the unweighted number of individuals in a given
6 sex- age group or demographic group. The guidelines (listed below) for determining when a cell
7 size is small take into account the average design effect for the survey. The design effect results
8 from the complex sample design and from the procedures used to weight the data. When the
9 design effect is 1.00, its effect on accuracy is negligible; a larger design effect implies a greater
10 effect on variance. The guidelines derive from a policy statement (FASEB/ LSRO 1995) that
11 specifies the use of a broadly calculated design effect. In that role a variance inflation factor is
12 being used. Variance inflation factors used to generate the estimates in this table set were
13 calculated on individuals 19 years of age and under; they are as follows:
14
15 Day- 1, CSFII 1994- 96, 1998 - 2.24
16 2- day, CSFII 1994- 96, 1998 - 2.50
17
18 Footnotes are used in the tables to flag estimates that may tend to be less statistically
19 reliable than those that are not flagged. The rules used for flagging estimates are listed below,
20 and tables to which each rule applies are identified.
21
22 1. An estimated mean is flagged when it is based on a cell size of less than 30 times the
23 average design effect or when its coefficient of variation (CV) is equal to or greater than
24 30 percent. The CV is the ratio of the estimated standard error of the mean to the estimated
25 mean, expressed as a percentage.
26
27 Rule 1 has been applied to data in Tables 3-1 through 3-14 to flag estimates that should be
28 used with caution. It applies to mean nutrient intakes, mean food intakes, and means
29 expressed as percentages, such as mean intakes of nutrients expressed as percentages of
30 Recommended Dietary Allowances and percentages of nutrients from foods eaten as
31 snacks.
32
33 2. An estimated proportion (percent) that falls above 25 percent and below 75 percent is
34 flagged when it is based on a cell size of less than 30 times the average design effect or
35 when the CV is equal to or greater than 30 percent.
36
37 3. An estimated proportion of 25 percent or lower or 75 percent or higher is flagged when the
38 smaller of np and n( 1- p) is less than 8 times the average design effect, where "n" is the
39 cell size on which the estimate is based and "p" is the proportion expressed as a fraction.
40
41
42
3E-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4. DRINKING WATER INGESTION 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1
4.2 DRINKING WATER INGESTION STUDIES 4-2
4.2.1 U.S. EPA, 2004 4-2
4.2.2. EPA Analysis of CSFII (USDA, 1998) 4-3
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 4-4
4.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 4-6
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1. Estimated Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion for Selected Age Categories Derived
from CSFH Data 4-7
Table 4-2. Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion By Source for Entire U.S.
Population (All Ages)3 4-8
Table 4-3. Estimated Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion, All Sources By Age Category for U.S.
Children 4-9
Table 4-4. Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion By Age Category for U.S.
Children 4-10
Table 4-5. Estimated Direct and Indirect Bottled Water Ingestion By Age Category for U.S.
Children 4-11
Table 4-6 Estimated Direct and Indirect Other Water Ingestion By Age Category for U.S.
Children 4-12
Table 4-7. Summary of Recommended Community Drinking Water Ingestion Rates 4-13
Table 4-8. Confidence in Water Ingestion Recommendations 4-14
-------
1 4. DRINKING WATER INGESTION
2
3 4.1 INTRODUCTION
4 Drinking water is a potential source of human exposure to toxic substances among
5 children. Contamination of drinking water may occur at the water supply source (ground water
6 or surface water); during treatment ( for example toxic by-products may be formed during
7 chlorination); or post-treatment (such as leaching of lead or other materials from plumbing
8 systems). Estimating the magnitude of the potential dose of toxics from drinking water requires
9 information on the quantity of water consumed. The purpose of this section is to describe key
10 published studies that provide information on drinking water ingestion among children (Section
11 4.2) and to provide recommendations of ingestion rate values that should be used in exposure
12 assessments (Section 4.3).
13 Currently, the U.S. EPA uses the quantity 1 L per day for infants (individuals of 10 kg
14 body mass or less) and children as a default drinking water ingestion rate (U.S. EPA, 1980;
15 1991). This rate includes drinking water consumed in the form of juices reconstituted in the
16 home and other beverages containing tapwater. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1977)
17 estimated that daily consumption of water may vary with levels of physical activity and
18 fluctuations in temperature and humidity. It is reasonable to assume that children engaging in
19 physically-demanding activities or living in warmer regions may have higher levels of water
20 ingestion.
21 Two studies cited in this chapter (US EPA, 2004 and EPA Analysis of CSFII) have
22 generated data on drinking water ingestion rates. In general, these sources support EPA's use of
23 1 L/day as an upper-percentile tapwater ingestion rate for children under 10 years of age. The
24 respondents recorded the source and type of water ingested at home and away from home. The
25 respondents had several choices for the source of water ingested at home. These included
26 community water supply, household well or rain cistern, household or public spring, bottled
27 water and other. Similarly, the respondents had several choices for the source of water ingested
28 away from home. The choices included tap/fountain, bottled, other, don't know, and not
29 ascertain. Values associated with "don't know" and "not ascertain" were referred to as "missing"
30 in Table 4-2. U.S. EPA 2004 and the subsequent analysis by EPA of the CSFH data classified
31 water ingestion rates as direct and indirect. Direct ingestion is defined as direct consumption of
4-1
-------
1 plain water as a beverage at home and away from home from all sources including tap/fountain
2 water from community water supply, household well or rain cistern, household or public spring,
3 and bottled. It does not include water used for preparing beverages such as coffee or tea.
4 Indirect ingestion includes water added during food preparation, but not water intrinsic to
5 purchased foods. Indirect water includes for example, water used to prepare baby formulas, cake
6 mix, and concentrated orange juice. In addition to presenting data on direct and indirect water
7 ingestion, data for consumption of water from various sources (i.e., the community water supply,
8 bottled water, and other sources) are also presented. For the purposes of exposure assessments
9 involving site-specific contaminated drinking water, ingestion rates based on the community
10 supply are most appropriate. Given the assumption that bottled water, and other purchased foods
11 and beverages are widely distributed and less likely to contain source-specific water, the use of
12 total water ingestion rates may overestimate the potential exposure to toxic substances present
13 only in local water supplies; therefore, tapwater ingestion of community water, rather than total
14 water ingestion, is emphasized in this section.
15 The studies on drinking water ingestion that are currently available are based on short-
16 term survey data (two days). Although short-term data may be suitable for obtaining mean or
17 median ingestion values that are representative of both short- and long-term ingestion
18 distributions , upper and lower -percentile values may be different for short-term and long-term
19 data. It should also be noted that most drinking water surveys currently available are based on
20 recall. This may be a source of uncertainty in the estimated ingestion rates because of the
21 subjective nature of this type of survey technique.
22 The actual percentile distributions for water ingestion are presented in this handbook,
23 where sufficient data are available. To facilitate comparisons between studies, the mean and the
24 90th percentiles are given for all studies.
25 Other drinking water studies based on older data were presented in the Exposure Factors
26 Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997a).
27
28 4.2 DRINKING WATER INGESTION STUDIES
29 4.2.1 U.S. EPA, 2004
30 The U.S. EPA analyzed the combined 1994-96 and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food
31 Intake by Individuals (CSFII) data sets to examine the ingestion of water by various segments of
4-2
-------
1 the U.S. population. The CSFn is a continuing survey of food consumption habits in the U.S. In
2 the initial 1994-96 survey, over 15,000 respondents provided data on what they ate and drank
3 over two non-consecutive days; a 1998 supplement using the same methodology added several
4 thousand children to the database. The 1994-96 survey and 1998 supplement are referred to
5 collectively as CSFn 1994-96, 1998. Each individual in the survey was assigned a sample weight
6 based on his or her demographic data; these weights were taken into account when calculating
7 mean and percentile water ingestion from various sources. The U.S. EPA used the drinking water
8 ingestion data in the CSFn 1994-96, 1998 to derive estimates of consumption rates by age
9 groups. The ingestion rates are expressed in both milliliters per day (mL/day) and milliliters per
10 kilogram body weight per day (mL/kg/day). Table 4-1 presents the estimated mean, 90th, and 95th
11 percentile ingestion of water, including both direct and indirect sources.
12 The principal advantages of this study are (1) that the survey was designed to obtain a
13 statistically valid sample of the entire United States population that included children and low
14 income groups ; (2) sample weights were provided that facilitated proper analysis of the data and
15 accounted for non-response; and (3) that the sample size (more than 20,000 persons) is sufficient
16 to allow categorization within narrowly defined age categories. However, the design of the
17 survey has some weaknesses, including the practice of surveying each participant on only two
18 days; this reduces the precision of the measurement for each individual and may tend to
19 exaggerate the effects of persons on both extremes of the distribution of ingestion, although the
20 degree to which this may happen is unknown. Also, the design of the study, while being well-
21 tailored for the overall population of the United States and conducted throughout the year to
22 account for seasonal variation, is of limited utility for assessing small and potentially at-risk
23 subpopulations based on ethnicity, medical status, geography, or other factors such as activity
24 level.
25
26 4.2.2. EPA Analysis of CSFII (USDA, 1998)
27 The water ingestion study described in the previous section yielded useful results for
28 direct and indirect water ingestion (Table 4-1). However, the age categories used by the
29 investigators were not compatible with the standardized age categories used in this Handbook.
30 Water ingestion for the target age groups of this Handbook were derived from the CSFII.
4-3
-------
1 In the analysis of the CSFII1994-96, 1998, data (US EPA, 2004) total water ingestion
2 was defined as consisting of community water supply, bottled water, other sources, and missing
3 sources. Missing sources represent water sources that the survey respondent was unable to
4 identify. In addition to these sources, the data also distinguish between direct and indirect water
5 consumption. Direct consumption is water consumed directly from the tap while indirect
6 consumption is water added during final food or beverage preparation in the home or food
7 establishment (e.g., restaurants, school cafeterias). In this Handbook, indirect and direct water
8 use were not distinguished. Table 4-2 provides the estimates for the mean direct and indirect
9 water consumption, broken down by water source, for the entire U.S. population, including both
10 children and adults. Also included are estimates of the 90th percentile and the 95th percentile
11 ingestion rates. Tables 4-3 through 4-6 show mean and percentile consumption, expressed as
12 mL/day and ml/kg/day, of all water, community water, bottled water, and other water,
13 respectively, for each of the target age categories.
14 The data show that the quantity of water ingested per unit mass of body weight is at a
15 maximum in the first month of life and decreases with increasing age (Table 4-3). The
16 significance of this finding is that the younger, vulnerable ages (i.e., infants) have higher dose
17 rates per unit of body weight. The pattern of higher dose rate per unit of body weight is similar
18 for individual sources of water (e.g., community water, bottled water, and other water (Tables, 4-
19 4, 4-5, and 4-6.)
20 The CSFII 1994-96, 1998 data have both strengths and limitations with regard to
21 estimating water ingestion. These are discussed in some detail in Chapter 8 of US EPA (2004).
22 The strengths lie in the design of the survey in that it was constructed to collect a statistically
23 representative sample of the U.S. population (i.e., obtain data from a sufficiently large and varied
24 sample set) and the survey was specific in detailing types and composition with respect to water
25 of food and drink. The large size of the sample population (> 20,000) total and over sampling of
26 children enhances the precision and accuracy of the estimates for the overall population and child
27 population subsets. Data were collected for only 2days and does not necessarily represent "usual
28 intake." "Usual dietary intake" refers to the long-run average of daily intakes by an individual.
29 Thus, upper percentile estimates may differ between short term and long-term data because short-
30 term food consumption data tend to be inherently more variable. However, that variability due to
31 short term duration of the survey does not result in bias of estimates of overall mean
4-4
-------
1 consumption levels (U.S. 2004). In addition, the survey was conducted on non-consecutive days,
2 which improves the variance over consecutive days of consumption. The survey was
3 administered such that an interviewer went through the data collection process for the initial day
4 to show the participants the proper response methodology. The second day of the survey was
5 reported by the participant. The two non-consecutive days of data collection, although an
6 advantage over two consecutive days, provides limited information on individual respondents.
7 The two-day mean for an individual can easily be skewed for numerous reasons. Estimation at
8 the individual respondent level was not, however, an objective of the survey. The large sample
9 does provide useful information on the overall distribution of ingestion by the population and
10 should reflect adequately the range among respondent variability. Another limitation of these
11 data is that the survey design does not support generating water consumption estimates for
12 certain populations of interest, including Native Americans with traditional lifestyles, people who
13 may consume large amounts live in hot climates, people who consume large amounts of water
14 because of physical activity, and people with medical conditions necessitating increased water
15 intake. While these individuals were participants in the survey, they are not present in sufficient
16 numbers to support separate water ingestion estimates.
17
18 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
19 The studies described in this section were used in selecting recommended drinking water
20 ingestion rates for children. A summary of the recommended values for drinking water ingestion
21 rates is presented in Table 4-7. The ingestion rates, as expressed as mL/kg/day, generally
22 decrease with age.
23 A characterization of the overall confidence in the accuracy and appropriateness of the
24 recommendations for drinking water is presented in Table 4-8. The Exposure Factors Handbook
25 (U.S. EPA, 1997a) gave this factor a medium confidence rating. However, the confidence score
26 of the overall recommendations has been increased to high for this report because of the addition
27 of newer data from the CSFH 1994-96, 1998.
4-5
-------
1 4.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4
2
3
4 National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1977) Drinking water and health. Vol.1. Washington, DC: National
5 Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.
6
7 USDA. (1998) Continuing survey of food intakes by individuals: 1994-96, 1998. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
8 Agricultural Research Service.
9
10 U.S. EPA. (1980) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water quality criteria documents; availability. Federal
11 Register, (November 28) 45(231 ):79318-79379.
12
13 U.S. EPA. (1991) National primary drinking water regulations; final rule. Federal Register. 56(20):3526-3597.
14 January 30, 1991.
15
16 U.S. EPA. (1997a) Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development,
17 (EPA/600/P-95/002F).
18
19 U.S. EPA. (2004) Estimated Per Capita Water Ingestion and Body Weight in the United States an Update: Based
20 on Data Collected by the United States Department of Agriculture's 1994-96 and 1998 Continuing Survey of
21 Food Intakes by Individuals. EPA Office of Water. EPA-822-R-00-001. October 2004.
22
23
4-6
-------
Table 4-1. Estimated Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion for Selected Age Categories Derived from CSFII Data
Age Category
less than 6 months
6 months to <1 year
birth to <2 years
1 to <4 years
4 to <7 years
birth to <6 years
7 to <11 years
11 to <15 years
15 to <20 years
20 years and older
Sample
Size
(N)
772
714
2526
3855
3202
7973
1100
816
825
9323
Mean
mlVday
448
530
420
424
545
470
607
811
991
1460
mlVkg/day
77
59
49
31
27
36
20
16
15
20
Percentile Ingestion
90*
mlVday
957
1029
900
823
1053
937
1129
1622
1894
2549
mlVkg/day
174
118
117
60
53
76
36
32
29
35
95lh
mL/day
1154
1278
1079
1029
1303
1132
1418
1961
2385
3194
mlVkg/day
216
148
150
75
68
104
45
40
38
44
Source: U.S. EPA, 2004
4-7
-------
Table 4-2. Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion By Source for Entire U.S. Population (All Ages)a
Water Source
Community Water Supply
Bottled Water
Other Sources
Missing Sources0
All Sources
Sample Size
20,607
20,607
20,607
20,607
20,607
Meanb
mL/day
927
163
128
16
1,233
mL/kg/day
15
3
2
0.3
20
90th Percentileb
mL/day
2,016
473
296
0
2,141
mL/kg/day
32
11
7
0
48
95th Percentileb
mL/day
2,545
911
947
0
2,707
mL/kg/day
42
22
18
0
65
"Estimates are based on 2-day averages for non-consecutive days.
b "All Sources" may not be exactly the sum of the other sources in the table due to weighting factors applied to each individual in the survey.
Missing sources are those sources of water that the survey respondent was unable to identify.
Source: U.S. EPA Analysis of CSFII 1994-96, 1998
4-8
-------
Table 4-3. Estimated Direct and Indirect Water Ingestion, All Sources By Age Category for U.S. Children
Age (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
Sample
Size
91
253
428
714
1040
1056
4391
1670
1005
752
Quantity, Percentiles (ml/person-day)
Mean
301
368
528
530
358
437
514
600
835
1027
Min
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1st
0
0
0
0
0
11
4
8
12
0
2""
0
0
0
0
0
20
22
35
65
6
5th
0
0
0
0
30
53
67
111
140
104
10th
0
0
0
37
68
104
126
170
225
207
25th
0
0
89
182
148
211
251
305
401
403
50th
163
268
550
506
286
372
439
503
667
770
75th
544
696
812
771
479
588
682
802
1100
1341
90th
855
891
1026
1032
735
828
980
1132
1649
2014
95th
974
1022
1303
1282
985
1008
1206
1409
1962
2599
98th
1076
1177
1458
1523
1188
1334
1535
1704
2561
3860
99th
1541
1276
1516
1695
1281
1681
1798
2171
3194
4943
Max
1541
1941
2686
2034
2008
2884
4081
4281
6105
13358
Quantity, Percentiles (ml/kg-day)
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
91
253
428
714
1040
1056
4391
1670
1005
752
88
75
72
56
30
30
27
20
16
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
4
4
3
3
4
3
0
0
7
15
12
13
12
9
7
6
19
42
70
50
24
25
23
17
13
12
171
134
117
84
39
40
37
26
20
20
236
172
149
117
62
59
54
38
31
32
269
247
187
145
84
72
68
48
39
43
332
298
214
171
105
94
85
63
52
75
485
375
224
195
121
129
101
75
61
0
485
534
288
254
201
173
213
110
96
161
Source of Data: USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), 1994-96, 1998
4-9
-------
Table 4-4. Estimated Direct and Indirect Community Water Ingestion By Age Category for U.S. Children
Age (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
Sample
Size
91
253
428
714
1040
1056
4391
1670
1005
752
Quantity, Percentiles (ml/person-day)
Mean8
297
359
464
436
303
351
409
475
656
819
Min
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1st
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2""
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5th
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10th
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
22
31
21
25th
0
0
0
17
60
79
98
133
182
219
50th
0
0
148
220
188
246
291
352
473
591
75th
353
459
696
628
404
480
548
649
829
1049
90th
709
815
930
886
632
684
834
980
1344
1716
95th
856
918
1056
1056
842
879
1078
1237
1619
2299
98th
859
1124
1351
1385
1076
1075
1387
1557
2104
3397
99th
957
1177
1443
1523
1216
1393
1682
1974
2589
3883
Max
957
1525
2104
2034
2008
2884
2963
2691
6105
13358
Quantity, Percentiles (ml/kg-day)
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
91
253
428
714
1040
1056
4391
1670
1005
752
86
74
67
49
26
25
24
18
13
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
4
4
4
3
3
0
0
12
19
16
16
15
11
9
9
101
86
95
68
34
32
30
21
16
16
198
150
134
101
52
48
46
33
25
25
234
205
159
125
70
59
60
43
33
33
269
289
203
170
96
82
79
58
42
45
269
316
216
185
107
111
93
71
54
63
269
375
288
254
177
162
213
110
96
161
Source of Data: USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), 1994-96, 1998
a The mean values are for consumers only; while the percentiles referred to the whole population.
4-10
-------
Table 4-5. Estimated Direct and Indirect Bottled Water Ingestion By Age Category for U.S. Children
Age (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
16to<21 years
Sample
Size
91
253
428
714
1040
1056
4391
1670
1005
752
Quantity, Percentiles (ml/person-day)
Mean8
278
331
415
355
246
319
361
425
542
650
Min
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1st
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2"d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5th
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10th
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25th
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
gQtOh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75th
30
0
0
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
90th
460
579
585
506
216
281
325
340
384
473
95th
576
790
774
762
355
495
532
532
710
946
98th
993
896
1164
1051
635
750
828
850
1183
1710
99th
1541
1070
1458
1338
810
1006
1045
1079
1431
2366
Max
1541
1941
1516
1736
1834
2737
2917
3808
3135
4880
Quantity, Percentiles (ml/kg-day)
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
91
253
428
714
1040
1056
4391
1670
1005
752
85
66
59
38
21
23
21
15
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
134
95
74
50
18
17
17
9
6
7
268
164
114
86
28
36
29
17
13
14
317
175
150
112
55
55
45
28
22
27
485
295
197
140
67
83
58
38
33
30
485
534
220
225
184
140
147
94
54
63
Source of Data: USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), 1994-96, 1998
a The mean values are for consumers only; while the percentiles referred to the whole population.
4-11
-------
Table 4-6 Estimated Direct and Indirect Other Water Ingestion By Age Category for U.S. Children
Age (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
Sample
Size
91
253
428
714
1040
1056
4391
1670
1005
752
Quantity, Percentiles (ml/person-day)
Mean8
166
276
431
342
253
342
396
440
640
598
Min
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1st
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2"d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5th
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10th
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25th
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50th
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75th
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90th
0
0
0
32
0
54
59
181
346
118
95th
0
397
386
411
118
347
345
470
794
446
98th
353
560
740
720
412
587
660
843
1183
857
99th
422
691
941
963
482
739
831
1049
1726
1658
Max
550
1183
2597
1478
1495
1652
4052
2015
3244
2729
Quantity, Percentiles (ml/kg-day)
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
91
253
428
714
1040
1056
4391
1670
1005
752
49
55
64
37
22
26
22
16
12
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
3
1
5
6
1
0
55
53
34
10
22
17
15
14
7
130
110
106
79
30
39
35
29
25
14
130
149
170
95
45
60
47
36
35
27
173
237
260
171
150
173
133
73
65
46
Source of Data: USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), 1994-96, 1998
a The mean values are for consumers only; while the percentiles referred to the whole population.
4-12
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Recommended Community Drinking Water Ingestion Rates '
Age Category
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 <1 1 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
Mean
mL/day
297
359
464
436
303
351
409
475
656
819
mL/kg-day
86
74
67
49
46
25
24
18
13
12
Percentilesb
50*
mL/day
0
0
148
220
188
246
291
352
473
591
mL/kg-day
0
0
12
19
16
16
15
11
9
9
90lh
mL/day
709
815
930
886
632
684
834
980
1344
1716
mL/kg-day
198
150
134
101
52
48
46
33
25
25
95*
mL/day
856
918
1056
1056
842
879
1078
1237
1619
2299
mL/kg-day
234
205
159
125
70
59
60
43
33
33
Reference
Table 4-4
Table 4-4
Table 4-4
Table 4-4
Table 4-4
Table 4-4
Table 4-4
Table 4-4
Table 4-4
Table 4-4
' Community water includes both direct and indirect water consumption (e.g., plain water, water used to prepare foods and beverages)
b Lower percentiles are shown in Table 4-4.
4-13
-------
Table 4-8. Confidence in Water Ingestion Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to U. S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection
period
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of
variability
Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
Measurement error
The CSFII 1994-96, 1998 had thorough SAB expert panel review. ,
The EPA analysis of the CSFII data used to estimate the
recommended values in this Handbook used the same methodology
as was reviewed and approved by the SAB, but the particular values
have not been peer reviewed.
The source data are available from the sponsoring agency.
Methods are well-described.
The studies are directly relevant to tapwater, and data of similar
quality were provided for other water sources
See "representativeness" below.
The CSFII 1994-96, 1998 contains primary data on recall of
ingestion.
Data were collected between 1994 and 1998.
These are two-day average ingestion data. However, long term
variability may be small. Their use as a chronic ingestion measure
can be assumed.
The approach was competently executed.
The CSFII 1994-96, 1998 had sufficient sample populations (i.e.,
11, 000) for the study.
The CSFII 1994-96, 1998 was validated as demographically
representative of the U.S. population, but may not be representative
of specific segments of the population that may be of interest.
The full distributions were given in the main study.
Bias was not apparent.
No physical measurements were taken. The method relied on recent
recall of standardized volumes of drinking water containers, and
was not validated.
Medium
High
High
High
NA
High
Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium
High
High
Medium
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between
researchers
Overall Rating
There was one key study for the recommendations.
N/A
The data are excellent and acceptably current. However, may not
be representative of specific segments of the population.
High
Low
High
4-14
-------
4-15
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5. SOIL INGESTION AND PICA 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1
5.2 SOIL INTAKE STUDIES 5-3
5.2.1 Key Studies of Primary Analysis 5-3
5.2.1.1 Davis etal, 1990 5-3
5.2.1.2 Calabrese era/., 1997a 5-5
5.2.1.3 Davis andMirick, 2006 5-7
5.2.2 Relevant Studies of Primary Analysis 5-8
5.2.2.1 Binder etal, 1986 5-8
5.2.2.2 Clausing etal, 1987 5-10
5.2.2.3 Calabrese et a/., 1989 5-11
5.2.2.4 VanWijnenefor/., 1990 5-13
5.2.2.5 Calabrese etal, 1996 5-14
5.2.2.6 Calabrese etal, 1999 5-15
5.2.2.7 Stanek and Calabrese, 2000 5-15
5.2.2.8 Stanek etal, 2001b 5-15
5.2.3 Key Studies of Secondary Analysis 5-16
5.2.3.1 Stanek and Calabrese, 1995a 5-16
5.2.3.2 Stanek and Calabrese, 1995b 5-18
5.2.4 Relevant Studies of Secondary Analysis 5-19
5.2.4.1 Thompson and Burmaster, 1991 5-19
5.2.4.2 Calabrese and Stanek, 1992a 5-20
5.2.4.3 Sedman and Mahmood , 1994 5-21
5.2.4.4 Calabrese and Stanek, 1995 5-22
5.2.4.5 Stanek etal., 2001a 5-23
5.2.4.6 Zartarian etal, 2005 5-24
5.3 PICA 5-25
5.3.1 Prevalence 5-25
5.3.1.1 General Pica 5-25
5.3.1.2 Soil Pica 5-25
5.3.2 Soil Pica Among Children 5-26
5.3.2.1 Calabrese etal, 1991 5-26
5.3.2.2 Calabrese and Stanek, 1992b 5-27
5.3.2.3 Calabrese and Stanek, 1993 5-27
5.3.2.4 Zartarian etal, 2005 5-29
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 5-29
5.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5 5-33
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5-1. Average Daily Soil Ingestion Values Based on Aluminum, Silicon, and Titanium as
Tracer Elements 5-37
Table 5-2. Soil Ingestion Estimates for the Median of Best Four Trace Elements Based on
Food/Soil Ratios for 64 Anaconda Children (mg/day) Using Al, Si, Ti, Y, and Zr . . 5-37
Table 5-3. Dust Ingestion Estimates for the Median of Best Four Trace Elements Based on
Food/Dust Ratios for 64 Anaconda Children (mg/day) Using Al, Si, Ti, Y, and Zr . . 5-38
Table 5-4. Mean and Median Soil Ingestion (mg/day) by Family Member 5-38
Table 5-5. Estimated Daily Soil Ingestion Based on Aluminum, Silicon, and Titanium
Concentrations 5-39
Table 5-6. Calculated Soil Ingestion by Nursery School Children 5-40
Table 5-7. Calculated Soil Ingestion by Hospitalized, Bedridden Children 5-41
Table 5-8. Mean and Standard Deviation Percentage Recovery of Eight Tracer Elements . . 5-41
Table 5-9. Soil and Dust Ingestion Estimates for Children Ages 1-4 Years 5-42
Table 5-10. Geometric Mean (GM) and Standard Deviation (GSD) LTM Values for Children at
Daycare Centers and Campgrounds 5-43
Table 5-11. Estimated Geometric Mean Ltm Values of Children Attending Daycare Centers
According to Age, Weather Category, and Sampling Period 5-44
Table 5-12. Distribution of Average (Mean) Daily Soil Ingestion Estimates per Child for 64
Children (mg/day) 5-45
Table 5-13. Estimated Distribution of Individual Mean Daily Soil Ingestion Based on Data for
64 Subjects Projected over 365 Days
5-45
Table 5-14. Summary Statistics and Parameters for Distributions of Estimated Soil Ingestion by
Tracer Element3 5-46
Table 5-15. Positive/negative Error (Bias) in Soil Ingestion Estimates in the Calabrese et al.
(1989) Mass-balance Study: Effect on Mean Soil Ingestion Estimate (Mg/day)a . . . 5-47
Table 5-16. Daily Soil Ingestion Estimation in a Soil-Pica Child by Tracer and by Week
(mg/day) 5-48
-------
Table 5-17. Ratios of Soil, Dust, and Residual Fecal Samples in the Soil Pica Child 5-49
Table 5-18. Daily Variation of Soil Ingestion by Children Displaying Soil Pica in Wong (1988)
5-50
Table 5-19 Key Studies Used to Derive Recommendations 5-51
Table 5- 20 . Summary of Estimates of Incidental Soil and Dust Ingestion by Children (1-7
years old) from Key Studies (mg/day) 5-52
Table 5-21. Summary of Recommended Values for Soil Ingestion 5-53
Table 5-22. Confidence in Soil Intake Recommendation 5-54
-------
1 5. SOIL INGESTION AND PICA
2
3 5.1 INTRODUCTION
4
5 The ingestion of soil is a potential source of human exposure to toxicants. Some people
6 are surprised to learn that soil ingestion occurs at all, and others are surprised to learn that some
7 people ingest soil intentionally, due to cravings or cultural practices. Children may ingest
8 significant quantities of soil, due to their tendency to play on floors and on the ground outdoors
9 and due to their mouthing behaviors.
10 At this point in time, knowledge of soil ingestion patterns within the United States is
11 somewhat limited. Only a few researchers in the U.S. have attempted to quantify soil ingestion
12 patterns in children, and these researchers have performed studies in only a few locales in the
13 northern parts of the United States. Based on the information that we do have, it appears that
14 children may ingest fairly substantial amounts of soil on a per-kilogram-body-weight basis, and
15 could receive a large proportion of their total exposure to certain toxicants via the soil ingestion
16 route. Thus, understanding soil ingestion patterns is an important part of understanding, and
17 estimating, children's overall exposures to environmental toxicants.
18 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Agency for Toxic Substances and
19 Disease Registry (ATSDR) held a workshop in June 2000 in which a panel of soil ingestion
20 experts developed definitions for soil ingestion, soil-pica, and geophagy, to distinguish aspects
21 of soil ingestion patterns that are important from a research perspective (ATSDR 2001):
22
23 Soil ingestion is the consumption of soil. This may be intentional or unintentional, resulting
24 from various behaviors including, but not limited to, mouthing, contacting dirty hands, eating
25 dropped food, or consuming soil directly.
26
27 Soil ingestion, as defined above, has been documented in U.S. children in several studies
28 that use a "tracer element" methodology. The tracer element methodology attempts to quantify
29 amounts of soil ingested by analyzing samples of soil from childrens' residences, and by
30 analyzing samples of the childrens' excreta (feces, and sometimes also urine). The soil, fecal,
31 and urine samples are analyzed for the presence and quantity of tracer elements - typically,
5-1
-------
1 aluminum, silicon, titanium, and yttrium, and other elements. Because these metals/metalloids
2 are not metabolized into other substances in the body, their presence in feces and urine can be
3 used to estimate the quantity of soil ingested by mouth. None of the studies attempt to quantify
4 amounts excreted in perspiration, tears, glandular secretions, hair or nails. Early versions of this
5 methodology usually did not account for the contribution of tracer elements from non-soil
6 substances (food, medications, and non-food sources such as toothpaste) that children might
7 swallow. Later studies generally account for tracer element contributions from these non-soil
8 sources.
9 Some study authors adjust their soil ingestion estimate results to account for the potential
10 contribution of tracer elements found in household dust as well as soil. Dust is the fine
11 particulate found indoors. It is composed of particles derived from outdoor sources such as soils,
12 smoke, pollen, etc. and indoor sources such as particles associated with construction activities,
13 wood burning, clothes drying, molds, etc. Dust ingestion can occur from inhalation, deposition
14 in the respiratory system and subsequent ingestion.
15
16 Soil-pica is a form of soil ingestion that is characterized by the recurrent ingestion of unusually
17 high amounts of soil (i.e., on the order of 1,000 - 5,000 milligrams per day). The soil ingestion
18 may be intentional or unintentional.
19
20 Soil-pica, as defined above, has been documented in U.S. children with the same tracer
21 element methodology, but to a more limited extent (Calabrese et al., 1991), and documented in
22 Jamaican children (Wong 1988 as reported in Calabrese and Stanek 1993). The existing U.S.
23 studies on soil ingestion, which appear to include some study subjects who exhibited soil-pica
24 behavior, were of short duration, and had relatively small numbers of study participants. These
25 factors combined may obscure the true incidence of soil-pica in the population of U.S. children.
26 Groups at risk of soil-pica behavior include children aged 6 years and younger and individuals
27 who are developmentally delayed. It should be noted that pica behavior is not always associated
28 with developmentally impaired children and that pica behavior is observed in 50% of children
29 between 1 and 3 years of age (Sayetta, 1986).
30
5-2
-------
1 Geophagy is a form of soil ingestion defined as the intentional ingestion of earths and is usually
2 associated with cultural practices.
3
4 Geophagy is practiced in various places in the United States by members of various
5 cultural groups. It often involves the intentional ingestion of clay materials from
6 uncontaminated sources that are not surface soils (ATSDR 2001, Vermeer and Frate, 1979).
7 However, because geophagy is defined above as the intentional ingestion of clay or earths, and
8 because determining whether a child's soil ingestion is intentional or not is difficult (ATSDR
9 2001), geophagy is not included as a separate concept in the rest of this chapter.
10 The available studies on soil intake are summarized in the following sections. Some of
11 the later studies are re-analyses of data previously published. For this reason, the sections that
12 follow are organized into studies of primary analysis and studies of secondary analysis. Within
13 those two categories, there are studies considered "key" because their experimental design is
14 superior, or they are the only studies with a particular attribute needed for the recommendations.
15 The studies not categorized as "key" are categorized as "relevant" either because they are based
16 on foreign data or because of limitations in the experimental design (e.g., not accounting for
17 tracers found in food and medicines). Recommended soil intake rates are based on the results of
18 key studies and are summarized in the last section, along with additional guidance to risk
19 assessors using soil intake estimates.
20
21 5.2 SOIL INTAKE STUDIES
22 5.2.1 Key Studies of Primary Analysis
23 5.2.1.1 Davis et a/., 1990
24 Davis et al. (1990) used a mass-balance/tracer technique to estimate soil ingestion among
25 children. In this study, 104 children between the ages of 2 and 7 years were randomly selected
26 from a three-city area in southeastern Washington State. The study was conducted over a seven
27 day period, primarily during the summer. Daily soil ingestion was evaluated by analyzing soil
28 and house dust, feces, urine, and duplicate food samples for aluminum, silicon, and titanium. In
29 addition, information on dietary habits and demographics was collected in an attempt to identify
30 behavioral and demographic characteristics that influence soil intake rates among children. The
31 amount of soil ingested on a daily basis was estimated using the following equation:
5O
-------
(((DWf H- DWP) x E) H- 2EJ - (D»^ x Efd)
-- -, - (5-2)
1 where:
2 S; e = soil ingested for child /' based on tracer e (g);
3 DWf = feces dry weight (g);
4 DW = feces dry weight on toilet paper (g);
5 Ef = tracer amount in feces (ng/g);
6 Eu = tracer amount in urine (ng/g);
7 DWfd = food dry weight (g);
8 Efd = tracer amount in food (|ig/g); and
9 Esoil = tracer concentration in soil (ng/g).
10
1 1 The soil intake rates were corrected by adding the amount of tracer in vitamins and medications
12 to the amount of tracer in food, and adjusting the food quantities, feces dry weights, and tracer
13 concentrations in urine to account for missing samples.
14 Soil ingestion rates were highly variable, especially those based on titanium. Mean daily
15 soil ingestion estimates were 38.9 mg/day for aluminum, 82.4 mg/day for silicon and
16 245.5 mg/day for titanium (Table 5-1). Median values were 25 mg/day for aluminum, 59
17 mg/day for silicon, and 81 mg/day for titanium. The investigators also evaluated the extent to
18 which differences in tracer concentrations in house dust and yard soil impacted estimated soil
19 ingestion rates. The value used in the denominator of the mass balance equation was
20 recalculated to represent a weighted average of the tracer concentration in yard soil and house
21 dust based on the proportion of time the child spent indoors and outdoors. The adjusted mean
22 soil/dust intake rates were 64.5 mg/day for aluminum, 160.0 mg/day for silicon, and 268.4
23 mg/day for titanium. Adjusted median soil/dust intake rates were: 51.8 mg/day for aluminum,
24 1 12.4 mg/day for silicon, and 1 16.6 mg/day for titanium. The investigators also observed that
25 the following demographic characteristics were associated with high soil intake rates: male sex,
26 racial groups other than white, low income, operator/laborer as the principal occupation of the
27 parent, and city of residence. However, none of these factors were predictive of soil intake rates
28 when tested using multiple linear regression.
5-4
-------
1 The advantages of this study are that soil intake rates were corrected based on the tracer
2 content of foods and medicines and that a relatively large number of children were sampled.
3 Also, demographic and behavioral information was collected for the survey group. However,
4 although a relatively large sample population was surveyed, these children were all from a single
5 area of the U.S. and may not be representative of the U.S. population as a whole. The study was
6 conducted over a one-week period during the summer and may not be representative of long-
7 term (i.e., annual) patterns of intake.
8
9 5.2.1.2 Calabrese et al 1997a
10 Calabrese et al. (1997a) estimated soil ingestion rates for children residing on a
11 Superfund site using a mass-balance methodology in which eight tracer elements (i.e.,
12 aluminum, barium, manganese, silicon, titanium, vanadium, yttrium, and zirconium) were
13 analyzed. The methodology used in this study is similar to that employed in Calabrese et al.
14 (1989). As in Calabrese et al. (1989), 64 children ages 1-3 years and predominantly from
15 two-parent households were selected for this study. This stratified simple random sample of
16 children was selected from the Anaconda, MT area. Thirty-six of the 64 children were male, and
17 the children ranged in age from 1 to 3 years with approximately an equal number of children in
18 each age group. The study was conducted for seven consecutive days during a two week period
19 in the month of September. Duplicate samples of meals, beverages, and over- the-counter
20 medicines and vitamins were collected over the seven day period, along with fecal samples. In
21 addition, soil and dust samples were collected from the children's home and play areas.
22 Toothpaste containing nondetectable levels of the tracer elements, with the exception of silica,
23 was provided to all of the children. Infants were provided with baby cornstarch, diaper rash
24 cream, and soap which were found to contain low levels of tracer elements.
25 As in Calabrese et al. (1989), an additional study was conducted in which the identical
26 mass-balance methodology used to estimate soil ingestion rates among children was used on
27 adults in order to validate that soil ingestion could be detected. Known amounts of soil were
28 administered to ten adults (5 males, 5 females) from Western Massachusetts over a period of 28
29 days. Each adult ingested for 7 consecutive days: 1) no soil during Week 1, 2) 20 mg of
30 sterilized soil during Week 2, 3) 100 mg of sterilized soil during Week 3, and 4) 500 mg of
31 sterilized soil during Week 4. Soil samples were previously characterized and were of sufficient
5-5
-------
1 concentration to be detected in the analysis of fecal samples. Duplicate food and fecal samples
2 were collected every day during each study week and analyzed for the eight tracer elements (Al,
3 Si, Ti, Ce, La, Nd, Y, and Zr). The authors determined that a soil ingestion of 200 to 500 mg/day
4 could be detected in a reliable manner.
5 Calabrese et al. (1997a) estimated soil ingestion by each tracer element using the Best
6 Tracer Method (BTM), which allows for the selection of the most recoverable tracer for a
7 particular group of subjects (Stanek and Calabrese, 1995b). In this case Ba, Mn, and V were
8 dropped as they were found to be poor performing tracers. The median soil ingestion estimates
9 for the four best trace elements based on food/soil ratios for the 64 children using Al, Si, Ti, Y,
10 and Zr were presented (Table 5-2). The best estimate was calculated by taking the median of the
11 best four trace elements. Based on the soil ingestion estimate for the best tracer, the mean soil
12 ingestion rate was 66 mg/day and the median was 20 mg/day. The 95th percentile value was
13 283 mg/day. Using the median of the 4 best tracers, the mean was 7 mg/day and the 95th
14 percentile was 160 mg/day. These results are lower than the soil ingestion estimates obtained by
15 Stanek and Calabrese (1995a). Calabrese et al. (1997a) believe this may be due to the fact that
16 the families of the children who participated in this study were aware that they lived on an EPA
17 Superfund site and this knowledge might have resulted in reduced exposure. There was no
18 statistically significant difference found in soil ingestion estimates by gender or age. There was
19 also no significant difference in soil ingestion by housing or yard characteristics (i.e., porch,
20 deck, door mat, etc.), or between children with or without pets.
21 The median dust ingestion estimates for the four best tracer elements using Al, Si, Ti, Y,
22 and Zr were also presented (Table 5-3). The estimate is based on food/dust ratios for the 64
23 Anaconda children. The mean dust ingestion rate based on the best tracer was 127 mg/day and
24 the 95th percentile rate was 614 mg/day.
25 The advantages of this study were the use of a longer 7 consecutive day study period
26 rather than two periods of 3 and 4 days (Stanek and Calabrese, 1995a), the use of the BTM, the
27 use of an expanded adult validation study which used 10 volunteers rather than 6 (Calabrese et
28 a/., 1989), and the use of a dietary education program to reduce food tracer input and variability.
29 However, the data presented in this study are from a single 7-day period during September which
30 may not reflect soil ingestion rates for other months or time-periods. In addition, the study
31 displayed a net residual negative error, which may have resulted in underestimated soil ingestion
5-6
-------
1 rates. The authors believe that this error is not likely to affect the median by more than 40
2 mg/day.
O
4 5.2.1.3 Davis and Mirick, 2006
5 Davis and Mirick (2006) calculated soil ingestion for children and adults in the same
6 family using a mass balance approach. The families in this study were a subset of the 104
7 families who participated in the soil ingestion study by Davis et al. (1990), and the data were
8 collected in 1988, one year prior to the Davis et al. study. Nineteen families were selected for
9 the analyses in this study, and each consisted of a child participant between the age of 3 and 7, a
10 female, and a male parent or guardian living in the same house. Samples were collected for 11
11 consecutive days of all food items consumed, all feces excreted, twice-daily urine, and soil/house
12 dust. Tracer elements for this study included aluminum, silicon and titanium. In addition,
13 parents completed a daily diary of activities for themselves and the participant child for 4
14 consecutive days during the study period.
15 Soil ingestion rates are shown for all three family member participants in Table 5-4. The
16 mean and median estimates for children for all three tracers ranged from 36.7 to 206.9 mg/day
17 and 26.4 to 46.7 mg/day, respectively, and fall within the range of those reported by Davis et a/.,
18 1990. Adult soil ingestion estimates ranged from 23.2 to 624.9 mg/day for mean values and
19 from 0 to 259.5 mg/day for median values, and were more variable than for the children in the
20 study regardless of the tracer. The authors believed that this higher variability may have
21 indicated an important occupational contribution of soil ingestion in some, but not all, of the
22 adults. Similar to previous studies, the soil ingestion estimates were the highest for titanium.
23 Although toothpaste is a known source of titanium, the titanium content of the toothpaste used
24 by study participants was not determined.
25 Only three of a number of behaviors examined for their relationship to soil ingestion
26 were found to be associated with increased soil ingestion in this study:
27
28 reported eating of dirt (for children);
29 occupational contact with soil (for adults); and
30 hand washing before meals (for both children and adults).
31
5-7
-------
1 Several typical childhood behaviors, however, including thumb-sucking, furniture licking, and
2 carrying around a blanket or toy were not associated with increased soil ingestion for the
3 participating children. Among both parents and children, neither nail-biting nor eating unwashed
4 fruits or vegetables was correlated with increased soil ingestion. When investigating correlations
5 within the same family, a child's soil ingestion was not found to be associated with either
6 parent's soil ingestion, nor did the mother and father's soil ingestion appear to be correlated.
7 One advantage of this study is that it examines soil ingestion among family members,
8 both children and adults. However, the sample population was small. In addition, the families
9 were a subset of those in a previous study, chosen for their high compliance with the study
10 protocol, and as such may not be representative of the general population.
11
12 5.2.2. Relevant Studies of Primary Analysis
13 5.2.2.1 Binder et al., 1986
14 Binder et al. (1986) used a tracer technique modified from a method previously used to
15 measure soil ingestion among grazing animals to study the ingestion of soil among children 1 to
16 3 years of age who wore diapers. The children were studied during the summer of 1984 as part
17 of a larger study of residents living near a lead smelter in East Helena, Montana. Soiled diapers
18 were collected over a 3-day period from 65 children (42 males and 23 females), and composited
19 samples of soil were obtained from the children's yards. Both excreta and soil samples were
20 analyzed for aluminum, silicon, and titanium. These elements were found in soil but were
21 thought to be poorly absorbed in the gut and to have been present in the diet only in limited
22 quantities. This made them useful tracers for estimating soil intake. Excreta measurements were
23 obtained for 59 of the children. Soil ingestion by each child was estimated on the basis of each
24 of the three tracer elements using a standard assumed fecal dry weight of 15 g/day, and the
25 following equation:
26
i,e
27 where:
28 T; = estimated soil ingestion for child / based on element e (g/day);
5-S
-------
1 f; e = concentration of element e in fecal sample of child /' (mg/g);
2 F; = fecal dry weight (g/day); and
3 Sie = concentration of elements in child /'s yard soil (mg/g).
4
5 The analysis assumed that (1) the tracer elements were neither lost nor introduced during sample
6 processing; (2) the soil ingested by children originates primarily from their own yards; and (3)
7 that absorption of the tracer elements by children occurred in only small amounts. The study did
8 not distinguish between ingestion of soil and housedust, nor did it account for the presence of the
9 tracer elements in ingested foods or medicines.
10 The arithmetic mean quantity of soil ingested by the children in the Binder et al.
11 (1986) study was estimated to be 181 mg/day (range 25 to 1,324) based on the aluminum tracer;
12 184 mg/day (range 31 to 799) based on the silicon tracer; and 1,834 mg/day (range 4 to 17,076)
13 based on the titanium tracer (Table 5-5). The overall mean soil ingestion estimate, based on the
14 minimum of the three individual tracer estimates for each child, was 108 mg/day (range 4 to
15 708). The median values were 121 mg/day, 136 mg/day, and 618 mg/day for aluminum, silicon,
16 and titanium, respectively. The 95th percentile values for aluminum, silicon, and titanium were
17 584 mg/day, 578 mg/day, and 9,590 mg/day, respectively. The 95th percentile value based on
18 the minimum of the three individual tracer estimates for each child was 386 mg/day.
19 The authors were not able to explain the difference between the results for titanium and
20 for the other two elements, but they speculated that unrecognized sources of titanium in the diet
21 or in the laboratory processing of stool samples may have accounted for the increased levels.
22 The frequency distribution graph of soil ingestion estimates based on titanium shows that a
23 group of 21 children had particularly high titanium values (i.e., >1,000 mg/day). The remainder
24 of the children showed titanium ingestion estimates at lower levels, with a distribution more
25 comparable to that of the other elements.
26 The advantages of this study are that a relatively large number of children were studied
27 and tracer elements were used to estimate soil ingestion. However, the children studied may not
28 be representative of the U.S. population, and the study did not account for tracers ingested via
29 foods or medicines. Also, the use of an assumed fecal weight instead of actual fecal weights
30 may have biased the results of this study. Finally, because of the short-term nature of the survey,
31 soil intake estimates may not be entirely representative of long-term behavior, especially at the
32 upper end of the distribution of intake.
5-9
-------
1 5.2.2.2 Clausing et al, 1987
2 Clausing et al. (1987) conducted a soil ingestion study with Dutch children using a tracer
3 element methodology similar to that of Binder et al. (1986). Aluminum, titanium, and
4 acid-insoluble residue (AIR) contents were determined for fecal samples from children aged 2 to
5 4 years attending a nursery school and for samples of playground dirt at that school. Twenty-
6 seven daily fecal samples were obtained over a 5-day period for the 18 children examined.
7 Using the average soil concentrations present at the school, and assuming a standard fecal dry
8 weight of 10 g/day, soil ingestion was estimated for each tracer. Eight daily fecal samples were
9 also collected from six hospitalized, bedridden children. These children served as a control
10 group, representing children who had very limited access to soil.
11 The average quantity of soil ingested by the school children in this study was as follows:
12 230 mg/day (range 23 to 979 mg/day) for aluminum; 129 mg/day (range 48 to 362 mg/day) for
13 AIR; and 1,430 mg/day (range 64 to 11,620 mg/day) for titanium (Table 5-6). As in the Binder
14 et al. (1986) study, a fraction of the children (6/19) showed titanium values well above
15 1,000 mg/day, with most of the remaining children showing substantially lower values. Based
16 on the Limiting Tracer Method (LTM), mean soil intake was estimated to be 105 mg/day with a
17 population standard deviation of 67 mg/day (range 23 to 362 mg/day). Use of the LTM assumed
18 that "the maximum amount of soil ingested corresponded with the lowest estimate from the three
19 tracers" (Clausing et a/., 1987). Geometric mean soil intake was estimated to be 90 mg/day on
20 the assumption that the maximum amount of soil ingested cannot be higher than the lowest
21 estimate for the individual tracers.
22 Mean (arithmetic) soil intake for the hospitalized children was estimated to be 56 mg/day
23 based on aluminum (Table 5-7). For titanium, three of the children had estimates well in excess
24 of 1,000 mg/day, with the remaining three children in the range of 28 to 58 mg/day. Using the
25 LTM method, the mean soil ingestion rate was estimated to be 49 mg/day with a population
26 standard deviation of 22 mg/day (range 26 to 84 mg/day). The geometric mean soil intake rate
27 was 45 mg/day. The data on hospitalized children suggest a major nonsoil source of titanium for
28 some children and may suggest a background nonsoil source of aluminum. However, conditions
29 specific to hospitalization (e.g., medications) were not considered. AIR measurements were not
30 reported for the hospitalized children. Assuming that the tracer-based soil ingestion rates
31 observed in hospitalized children actually represent background tracer intake from dietary and
5-10
-------
1 other nonsoil sources, mean soil ingestion by nursery school children was estimated to be
2 56 mg/day, based on the LTM (i.e., 105 mg/day for nursery school children minus 49 mg/day for
3 hospitalized children).
4 The advantages of this study are that the investigators evaluated soil ingestion among two
5 populations of children that had differences in access to soil and corrected soil intake rates based
6 on background estimates derived from the hospitalized group. However, a smaller number of
7 children were used in this study than in the Binder et al. (1986) study and these children may not
8 be representative of the U.S. population. Tracer elements in foods or medicines were not
9 evaluated. Also, intake rates derived from this study may not be representative of soil intake
10 over the long-term because of the short-term nature of the study. In addition, one of the factors
11 that could affect soil intake rates is hygiene (e.g., hand washing frequency). Hygienic practices
12 can vary across countries and cultures and may be more stringently emphasized in a more
13 structured environment such as that found in child care centers in The Netherlands and other
14 European countries, compared to child care centers in the U.S.
15
16 5.2.2.3 Calabrese et a/., 1989
17 Calabrese et al. (1989) studied soil ingestion among children using the basic tracer design
18 developed by Binder et al. (1986). However, in contrast to the Binder study, eight tracer
19 elementsaluminum, barium, manganese, silicon, titanium, vanadium, yttrium, and
20 zirconium were analyzed instead of only three (aluminum, silicon, and titanium). Sixty-four
21 children between the ages of 1 and 4 years old were included in the study. These children were
22 all selected from the greater Amherst, MA area and were predominantly from two-parent
23 households where the parents were highly educated. The Calabrese et al. (1989) study was
24 conducted over a period of eight days to two weeks and included the use of a mass-balance
25 methodology in which duplicate samples of food, beverages, medicines, and vitamins were
26 collected and analyzed in addition to soil and dust samples collected from the child's home and
27 play area. Fecal and urine samples were also collected and analyzed for tracer elements.
28 In order to validate the mass-balance methodology used to estimate soil ingestion rates
29 among the children and to determine which tracer elements provided the most reliable data on
30 soil ingestion, known amounts of soil (300 mg over 3 days and 1,500 mg over 3 days) containing
31 eight tracers were administered to six adult volunteers (three males and three females). Soil,
5-11
-------
1 feces, and samples of food were analyzed for tracer elements to calculate recovery rates of tracer
2 elements in soil. From this investigation the authors confirmed that the tracer methodology
3 could adequately detect tracer elements in feces at the levels expected for the study of soil intake
4 rates in children. Aluminum, silicon, and yttrium exhibited the lowest standard deviation of
5 recovery and were therefore identified as the most reliable of the eight tracer elements analyzed;
6 the percentage of recovery of these three tracers was closest to 100%. The recovery of these
7 three tracers ranged from 120 to 153 percent when 300 mg of soil had been ingested over a
8 three-day period and from 88 to 94 percent when 1,500 mg soil had been ingested over a three-
9 day period (Table 5-8).
10 Using the three most reliable tracer elements, the mean soil intake rate for children,
11 adjusted to account for the amount of tracer found in food and medicines, was estimated to be
12 153 mg/day based on aluminum, 154 mg/day based on silicon, and 85 mg/day based on yttrium
13 (Table 5-5). Median intake rates were somewhat lower (29 mg/day for aluminum, 40 mg/day for
14 silicon, and 9 mg/day for yttrium). Upper (95th) percentile values were 223 mg/day for
15 aluminum, 276 mg/day for silicon, and 106 mg/day for yttrium. Similar results were observed
16 when soil and dust ingestion was combined (Table 5-9). Intake of soil and dust was estimated
17 using a weighted ingestion for one child in the study ranged from approximately 10 to
18 14 grams/day during the second week of observation. Average soil ingestion for this child was
19 5 to 7 mg/day, based on the entire study period.
20 In a subsequent paper (Calabrese and Stanek, 1992a), the authors used statistical
21 modeling to revise these soil ingestion estimates downward, based on a more accurate
22 representation of the amount of outdoor soil in indoor dust (31.3%). These new analyses
23 indicate that the estimates of median outdoor soil ingestion presented in the previous study
24 should be reduced by 35%. These revised soil ingestion estimates are reduced from 29 to!9
25 mg/d based on aluminum, 40 to 26 mg/d based on silicon, and 9 to 6 mg/d based on yttrium.
26 However, this adjustment was not used in subsequent analyses by Stanek and Calabrese.
27 The advantage of this study is that intake rates were corrected for tracer concentrations
28 in foods and medicines . Also, intake was observed over a longer time period in this study than
29 in earlier studies and the number of tracers used was larger than for other studies. A relatively
30 large population was studied, but it may not be entirely representative of the U.S. population
5-12
-------
1 because it was selected from a single location. The results presented in Calabrese et al. 1989
2 have been superseded by more refined analyses of the same data.
O
4 5.2.2.4 Van Wijnen et al, 1990
5 In a study by Van Wijnen et al. (1990), soil ingestion among Dutch children ranging in
6 age from 1 to 5 years was evaluated using a tracer element methodology similar to that used by
7 Clausing et al. (1987). Van Wijnen et al. (1990) measured three tracers (i.e., titanium,
8 aluminum, and acid insoluble residue (AIR)) in soil and feces and estimated soil ingestion based
9 on the LTM. An average daily feces dry weight of 15 g was assumed. A total of 292 children
10 attending day care centers were sampled during the first of two sampling periods and 187
11 children were sampled in the second sampling period; 162 of these children were sampled during
12 both periods (i.e., at the beginning and near the end of the summer of 1986). A total of 78
13 children were sampled at campgrounds, and 15 hospitalized children were sampled. The mean
14 values for these groups were: 162 mg/day for children in daycare centers, 213 mg/day for
15 campers and 93 mg/day for hospitalized children.
16 The authors also reported geometric mean LTM values because soil intake rates were
17 found to be skewed and the log transformed data were approximately normally distributed.
18 Geometric mean LTM values were estimated to be 111 mg/day for children in daycare centers,
19 174 mg/day for children vacationing at campgrounds (Table 5-10) and 74 mg/day for
20 hospitalized children (70-120 mg/day based on the 95 percent confidence limits of the mean).
21 AIR was the limiting tracer in about 80 percent of the samples. Among children attending
22 daycare centers, soil intake was also found to be higher when the weather was good (i.e., <2
23 days/week precipitation) than when the weather was bad (i.e., >4 days/week precipitation (Table
24 5-11). The authors suggest that the mean LTM value for hospitalized infants represents
25 background intake of tracers and should be used to correct the soil intake rates based on LTM
26 values for other sampling groups. Using mean values, corrected soil intake rates were 69 mg/day
27 (162 mg/day minus 93 mg/day) for daycare children and 120 mg/day (213 mg/day minus 93
28 mg/day) for campers. Corrected geometric mean soil intake was estimated to range from 0 to 90
29 mg/day with a 90th percentile value of 190 mg/day for the various age categories within the
30 daycare group and 30 to 200 mg/day with a 90th percentile value of 300 mg/day for the various
31 age categories within the camping group.
5-13
-------
1 The advantage of this study is that soil intake was estimated for three different
2 populations of children; one expected to have high intake, one expected to have "typical" intake,
3 and one expected to have low or background-level intake. Van W'ijnen et al. (1990) used the
4 background tracer measurements to correct soil intake rates for the other two populations. The
5 major limitation of this study is that tracer concentrations in food and medicine were not
6 evaluated. Also, the population of children studied was relatively large, but may not be
7 representative of the U.S. population. This study was conducted over a relatively short time
8 period. Thus, estimated intake rates may not reflect long-term patterns, especially at the high-
9 end of the distribution. Another limitation of this study is that values were not reported element-
10 by-element, which would be the preferred way of reporting. In addition, one of the factors that
11 could affect soil intake rates is hygiene (e.g., hand washing frequency). Hygienic practices can
12 vary across countries and cultures.
13
14 5.2.2.5 Calabrese et al 1996
15 Calabrese et al., 1996 examined the hypothesis that one cause of the variation between
16 tracers seen in soil ingestion studies could be related to differences in soil tracer concentrations
17 by particle size. In this study, the soil that was used by Calabrese et al. 1997a from Anaconda,
18 Montana was reanalyzed for the tracer concentration after it had been sieved to a particle size of
19 <250 jim in diameter (<2 mm soil particle size in the original study). The smaller particle size
20 was examined based on the assumption that children and adults principally ingest soil of small
21 particle size adhering to fingertips and under fingernails. For five of the tracers used in the
22 original study (Al, Si, Ti, Y, and Zr), soil concentration was not changed by particle size.
23 However, the soil concentrations of three tracers (La, Ce, and Nd) were increased two- to
24 fourfold at the smaller soil particle size. Soil ingestion estimates for these three tracers were
25 decreased by approximately 60% at the 95th percentile.
26 The importance of this study is that it provides further insights regarding the selection of
27 tracers for soil ingestion studies.
28
29 5.2.2.6 Calabrese et al. 1999
30 Calabrese et al. 1999 extends the findings from Calabrese et al. 1996 by quantifying trace
31 element concentrations in soil based on sieving to particle sizes of 100 to 250 jim and to particle
5-14
-------
1 sizes of 53 to < 100 jim. This study used the data from soil concentrations from the Anaconda,
2 Montana site reported by Calabrese et al. 1997. Results of the study indicated that soil
3 concentrations of Al, Si, and Ti do not increase at the two finer particle size ranges measured.
4 However, soil concentrations of Ce, La, and Nd increased by a factor of 2.5 to 4.0 in the 100-250
5 |im particle size range when compared with the 0 to 2 jim particle size range. There was not a
6 significant increase in concentration in the 53 to 100 |im particle size range.
7 The importance of this study is that it provides further insights regarding the selection of
8 tracers for soil ingestion studies.
9
10 5.2.2.7 Stanek and Calabrese 2000
11 In Stanek and Calabrese, 2000, the authors reanalyzed the soil ingestion data from the
12 Anaconda study. The authors assumed a lognormal distribution for the soil ingestion estimates
13 in the Anaconda study to predict average soil ingestion for children over a longer time period.
14 Using best linear unbiased predictors, the authors predicted 95th percentile soil ingestion values
15 over time periods of 7 days, 30 days, 90 days, and 365 days. The 95th percentile soil ingestion
16 values were predicted to be 133 mg/day over 7 days, 112 mg/day over 30 days, 108 mg/day over
17 90 days, and 106 mg/day over 365 days. Based on this analysis, estimates of the distribution of
18 longer term average soil ingestion are expected to be narrower, with the 95th percentile estimates
19 being as much as 25% lower (Stanek and Calabrese, 2000).
20
21 5.2.2.8 Stanek et al 2001b
22 Stanek et al. (200Ib) developed best linear unbiased predictors to reduce the biasing
23 effect of short-term soil ingestion estimates. This study estimated long-term average soil
24 ingestion distribution using daily soil ingestion estimates from children who participated in the
25 Anaconda, MT study. In this long-term (annual) distribution, the soil ingestion estimates were:
26 mean 31, median 24, 75th percentile 42, 90th percentile 75, and 95th percentile 91 mg/day. A
27 limitation of this analysis is that the distribution of long-term soil ingestion uses the median soil
28 ingestion estimate on a day, rather than the average of the tracer element estimate.
29
30 5.2.3 Key Studies of Secondary Analysis
31 5.2.3.1 Stanek and Calabrese, 1995a
5-15
-------
1 Stanek and Calabrese (1995a) presented a methodology which links the physical passage
2 of food and fecal samples to construct daily soil ingestion estimates from daily food and fecal
3 trace-element concentrations. Soil ingestion data for children obtained from the Amherst study
4 (Calabrese et al., 1989) were reanalyzed by Stanek and Calabrese (1995a). In the Amherst
5 study, soil ingestion measurements were made over a period of 2 weeks for a non-random
6 sample of sixty-four children (ages of 1-4 years old) living adjacent to a university in western
7 Massachusetts. During each week, duplicate food samples were collected for 3 consecutive days
8 and fecal samples were collected for 4 consecutive days for each subject. The total amount of
9 each of eight trace elements present in the food and fecal samples was measured. The eight trace
10 elements are aluminum, barium, manganese, silicon, titanium, vanadium, yttrium, and zirconium.
11 The authors expressed the amount of trace element in food input or fecal output as a "soil
12 equivalent," which was defined as the amount of the element in average daily food intake (or
13 average daily fecal output) divided by the concentration of the element in soil. A lag period of
14 28 hours between food intake and fecal output was assumed for all respondents. Day 1 for the
15 food sample corresponded to the 24 hour period from midnight on Sunday to midnight on
16 Monday of a study week; day 1 of the fecal sample corresponded to the 24 hour period from
17 noon on Monday to noon on Tuesday. Based on these definitions, the food soil equivalent was
18 subtracted from the fecal soil equivalent to obtain an estimate of soil ingestion for a trace
19 element. A daily overall ingestion estimate was constructed for each child as the median of trace
20 element values remaining after tracers falling outside of a defined range around the overall
21 median were excluded. Additionally, estimates of the distribution of soil ingestion projected
22 over a period of 365 days were derived by fitting log-normal distributions to the overall daily
23 soil ingestion estimates.
24 Table 5-12 presents the estimates of mean daily soil ingestion intake per child (mg/day)
25 for the 64 study participants. (The authors also presented estimates of the median values of daily
26 intake for each child. For most risk assessment purposes the child mean values, which are
27 proportional to the cumulative soil intake by the child, are needed instead of the median values.)
28 The approach adopted in this paper led to changes in ingestion estimates from those presented in
29 Calabrese et al. (1989).
30 Specifically, among elements that may be more useful for estimation of ingestion, the
31 mean estimates decreased for Al (153 mg/d to 122 mg/d) and Si ( 154 mg/d to 139 mg/d), but
5-16
-------
1 increased for Ti (218 mg/d to 271 mg/d) and Y (85 mg/d to 165 mg/d). The overall mean
2 estimate from this reanalysis was 179 mg/d. Table 5-13 presents the empirical distribution of the
3 the "overall" mean daily soil ingestion estimates for the 8-day study period (not based on
4 lognormal modeling). The estimated intake based on the overall estimates is 45 mg/day or less
5 for 50 percent of the children and 208 mg/day or less for 95 percent of the children. The upper
6 percentile values for most of the individual trace elements are somewhat higher. Next, estimates
7 of the respondents soil intake averaged over a period of 365 days were presented based upon the
8 lognormal models fit to the daily ingestion estimates (Table 5-13). The estimated median value
9 of the 64 respondents' daily soil ingestion averaged over a year is 75 mg/day, while the
10 95th percentile is 1,751 mg/day.
11 A strength of this study is that it attempts to make full use of the collected data through
12 estimation of daily ingestion rates for children. The screening of data to remove less consistent
13 tracer estimates, and the aggregation of the remaining values, may introduce error to the
14 analysis. Individual daily estimates of ingestion will be subject to larger errors than are weekly
15 average values, particularly since the assumption of a constant lag time between food intake and
16 fecal output may be not be correct for many subject days. The aggregation approach used to
17 arrive at the overall ingestion estimates rests on the assumption that the mean ingestion estimates
18 across acceptable tracers provides the most reliable ingestion estimates. The validity of this
19 assumption depends on the particular set of tracers used in the study, and is not fully assessed.
20 In developing the 365-day soil ingestion estimates, data that were obtained over a short
21 period of time (as is the case with all available soil ingestion studies) were extrapolated over a
22 year. The 2-week study period may not reflect variability in tracer element ingestion over a year.
23 While Stanek and Calabrese (1995a) attempt to address this through lognormal modeling of the
24 long term intake, new uncertainties are introduced through the parametric modeling of the
25 limited subject day data. Also, the sample population size of the original study was small and
26 site limited, and, therefore, is not representative of the U.S. population. Study mean estimates of
27 soil ingestion, such as the study mean estimates presented in Table 5-12, are substantially more
28 reliable than any available distributional estimates.
29
30 5.2.3.2 Stanek and Calabrese, 1995b
5-17
-------
1 Stanek and Calabrese (1995b) recalculated ingestion rates that were estimated in three
2 previous mass-balance studies (Calabrese et al., 1989 and Davis et al., 1990 for children's soil
3 ingestion, and Calabrese et al., 1990 for adult soil ingestion) using the Best Tracer Method
4 (BTM). This method allows for the selection of the most recoverable tracer for a particular
5 subject or group of subjects. The selection process involves ordering trace elements for each
6 subject based on food/soil (F/S) ratios. These ratios are estimated by dividing the total amount
7 of the tracer in food by the tracer concentration in soil. The F/S ratio is small when the tracer
8 concentration in food is almost zero when compared to the tracer concentration in soil. A small
9 F/S ratio is desirable because it lessens the impact of transit time error (the error that occurs
10 when fecal output does not reflect food ingestion, due to fluctuation in gastrointestinal transit
11 time) in the soil ingestion calculation. Because the recoverability of tracers can vary within any
12 group of individuals, the BTM uses a ranking scheme of F/S ratios to determine the best tracers
13 for use in the ingestion rate calculation. To reduce biases that may occur as a result of sources of
14 fecal tracers other than food or soil, the median of soil ingestion estimates based on the four
15 lowest F/S ratios was used to represent soil ingestion among individuals.
16 For children, the authors used data on 8 tracers from Calabrese et al., 1989 and data on 3
17 tracers from Davis et al. (1990) to estimate soil ingestion rates. The median of the soil ingestion
18 estimates from the lowest four F/S ratios from the Calabrese et al. (1989) study most often
19 included Al, Si, Ti, Y, and Zr. Based on the median of soil ingestion estimates from the best
20 four tracers, the mean soil ingestion rate was 132 mg/day and the median was 33 mg/day. The
21 95th percentile value was 154 mg/day. These estimates are based on data for 128 subject weeks
22 for the 64 children in the Calabrese et al. (1989) study. For the 101 children in the Davis et al.
23 (1990) study, the mean soil ingestion rate was 69 mg/day and the median soil ingestion rate was
24 44 mg/day. The 95th percentile estimate was 246 mg/day. These data are based on the three
25 tracers (i.e., Al, Si, and Ti) from the Davis et al. (1990) study. When the Calabrese et al. (1989)
26 and Davis et al. (1990) studies were combined, soil ingestion for children was estimated to be
27 104 mg/day (mean); 37 mg/day (median); and 217 mg/day (95th percentile), using the BTM.
28 When the adult data from the Calabrese et al. (1990) study were reevaluated, soil
29 ingestion rates were estimated to be 64 mg/day (mean); 87 mg/day (median); and 142 mg/day
30 (95th percentile), using the BTM.
5-18
-------
1 This study provides a reevaluation of previous studies. Its advantages are that it
2 combines data from two studies for children, one from Washington and one from Massachusetts,
3 which increases the number of observations. It also corrects for biases associated with the
4 differences in tracer metabolism. The limitations associated with the data used in this study are
5 the same as the limitations described in the summaries of the Calabrese et al. (1989), Davis et al.
6 (1990) and Calabrese et al. (1990) studies.
7
8 5.2.4. Relevant Studies of Secondary Analysis
9 5.2.4.1 Thompson and Burmaster, 1991
10 Thompson and Burmaster (1991) developed parameterized distributions of soil ingestion
11 rates for children based on a reanalysis of the key study data collected by Binder et al. (1986).
12 In the original Binder et al. (1986) study, an assumed fecal weight of 15 g/day was used.
13 Thompson and Burmaster reestimated the soil ingestion rates from the Binder et al. (1986) study
14 using the actual stool weights of the study participants instead of the assumed stool weights.
15 Because the actual stool weights averaged only 7.5 g/day, the soil ingestion estimates presented
16 by Thompson and Burmaster (1991) are approximately one-half of those reported by Binder et
17 al. (1986). Table 5-11 presents the distribution of estimated soil ingestion rates calculated by
18 Thompson and Burmaster (1991) based on the three tracers elements (i.e., aluminum, silicon,
19 and titanium), and on the arithmetic average of soil ingestion based on aluminum and silicon.
20 The mean soil intake rates were 97 mg/day for aluminum, 85 mg/day for silicon, and 1,004
21 mg/day for titanium. The 90th percentile estimates were 197 mg/day for aluminum, 166 mg/day
22 for silicon, and 2,105 mg/day for titanium. Based on the arithmetic average of aluminum and
23 silicon for each child, mean soil intake was estimated to be 91 mg/day and 90th percentile intake
24 was estimated to be 143 mg/day.
25 Thompson and Burmaster (1991) tested the hypothesis that soil ingestion rates based on
26 the adjusted Binder et al. (1986) data for aluminum, silicon and the average of these two tracers
27 were lognormally distributed. The distribution of soil intake based on titanium was not tested for
28 lognormality because titanium may be present in food in high concentrations and the Binder et
29 al. (1986) study did not correct for food sources of titanium. Although visual inspection of the
30 distributions for aluminum, silicon, and the average of these tracers all indicated that they may
31 be lognormally distributed, statistical tests indicated that only silicon and the average of the
5-19
-------
1 silicon and aluminum tracers were lognormally distributed. Soil intake rates based on aluminum
2 were not lognormally distributed. Table 5-14 also presents the lognormal distribution
3 parameters and underlying normal distribution parameters (i.e., the natural logarithms of the
4 data) for aluminum, silicon, and the average of these two tracers. According to the authors, "the
5 parameters estimated from the underlying normal distribution are much more reliable and
6 robust" (Thompson and Burmaster, 1991).
7 The advantages of this study are that it provides percentile data and defines the shape of
8 soil intake distributions. However, the number of data points used to fit the distribution was
9 limited. In addition, the study did not generate "new" data. Instead, it provided a reanalysis of
10 previously-reported data using actual fecal weights. This analysis is based on a study that did
11 not correct for tracer intake from food or medicine and the results may not be representative of
12 long-term intake rates because the data were derived from a short-term study.
13
14 5.2.4.2 Calabrese and Stanek 1992a
15 Calabrese and Stanek 1992a estimated the amount of outdoor soil in indoor dust using
16 statistical modeling. The model used data from 60 homes who participated in the Calabrese et
17 al. 1989 study. Scatter plots of each tracer concentration in soil versus dust for the subject
18 population were developed. Correlation analysis of the scatter plots was performed and an
19 estimate of the proportion of outdoor soil in indoor dust was developed using a model based on
20 the soil and dust data from Calabrese et al. 1989. The scatter plots show little evidence of a
21 consistent relationship between outdoor soil and indoor dust concentrations. The model uses
22 several simplifying assumptions. First, it assumes that the amount of dust produced every day
23 from both indoor and outdoor sources in a house is constant for all houses. Second, the model
24 assumes that the proportion of indoor dust due to outdoor soil is constant for all houses. Third, it
25 assumes that the concentration of the tracer element in dust produced from indoor sources is
26 constant for all houses. Using these assumptions, the model predicts that 31.3% of indoor dust
27 comes from outdoor soil. This model was then used to adjust the soil ingestion estimates from
28 Calabrese et al. 1989. In 1989, Calabrese assumed that all the excess fecal tracers were of soil
29 origin. Stanek and Calabrese 1992a reported that 50% of the excess fecal tracers were from
30 indoor origin. Taking that 50% multiplied by 31.3% results in 15%; which added to the 50%
5-20
-------
1 indicates that approximately 65% of the total residual excess fecal tracer were of soil origin
2 (Calabrese and Stanek 1992a).
3 This study provides a refinement to the calculations from Calabrese et al. 1989.
4 However, several assumptions were made to estimate the total residual excess fecal tracer that
5 comes from soil. The validity of these assumptions cannot be evaluated. Subsequent papers by
6 Stanek and Calabrese did not make use of this adjustment.
7
8 5.2.4.3 Sedman and Mahmood , 1994
9 Sedman and Mahmood (1994) used the results of two previous children's tracer studies
10 (Calabrese et al. 1989; Davis et al. 1990) to determine estimates of average daily soil ingestion
11 in young children and for over a lifetime. In the two studies, the intake and excretion of a
12 variety of tracers were monitored, and concentrations of tracers in soil adjacent to the children's
13 dwellings were determined. The authors determined soil ingesti on in these children using a mass
14 balance approach, dividing the excess tracer intake (i.e., quantity of tracer recovered in the feces
15 in excess of the measured intake) by the average concentration of tracer in soil samples from
16 each child's dwelling. They adjusted the mean estimates of soil ingestion in children for each
17 tracer (Y) from both studies to reflect that of a 2-year old child using the following equation:
18
19 Y, = jKf0-112"^ (5-3)
20 where:
21 Y; = adjusted mean soil ingestion (mg/day)
22 x = a constant
23 yr = average age (2 years)
24
25 The average ages of children in the two previous studies were 2.4 years in Calabrese
26 et al. (1989) and 4.7 years in Davis et al. (1990). The mean of the adjusted levels of soil
27 ingestion for a two year old child was 220 mg/kg for the Calabrese et al. (1989) study and 170
28 mg/kg for the Davis et al. (1990) study. From the adjusted soil ingestion estimates, based on a
29 normal distribution of means, the mean estimate for a 2-year old child was 195 mg/day and the
30 overall mean of soil ingestion and the standard error of the mean was 53 mg/day. Based on
31 uncertainties associated with the method employed, Sedman and Mahmood (1994)
5-21
-------
1 recommended a conservative estimate of soil ingestion in young children of 250 mg/day. Based
2 on the 250 mg/day ingestion rate in a 2-year old child, an average daily soil ingestion over a
3 lifetime was estimated to be 70 mg/day. The lifetime estimates were derived using the equation
4 presented above that describes changes in soil ingestion with age.
5
6 5.2.4.4 Calabrese and Stanek, 1995
7 Calabrese and Stanek (1995) explored sources and magnitude of positive and negative
8 errors in soil ingestion estimates for children on a subject-week and trace element basis.
9 Calabrese and Stanek (1995) identified possible sources of positive errors to be:
10 Ingestion of high levels of tracers before the start of the study and low ingestion
11 during the study period may result in over estimation of soil ingestion; and
12 Ingestion of element tracers from a non-food or non-soil source during the study
13 period.
14 Possible sources of negative bias identified by Calabrese and Stanek (1995) are the following:
15 Ingestion of tracers in food, but the tracers are not captured in the fecal sample either
16 due to slow lag time or not having a fecal sample available on the final study day; and
17 Sample measurement errors which result in diminished detection of fecal tracers, but
18 not in soil tracer levels.
19 The authors developed an approach that attempted to reduce the magnitude of error in the
20 individual trace element ingestion estimates. Results from a previous study conducted by
21 Calabrese et al. (1989) were used to quantify these errors based on the following criteria: (1) a
22 lag period of 28 hours was assumed for the passage of tracers ingested in food to the feces (this
23 value was applied to all subject-day estimates); (2) a daily soil ingestion rate was estimated for
24 each tracer for each 24-hr day a fecal sample was obtained; (3) the median tracer-based soil
25 ingestion rate for each subject-day was determined; and (4) negative errors due to missing fecal
26 samples at the end of the study period were also determined. Also, upper- and lower-bound
27 estimates were determined based on criteria formed using an assumption of the magnitude of the
28 relative standard deviation(RSD) presented in another study conducted by Stanek and Calabrese
29 (1995a). Daily soil ingestion rates for tracers that fell beyond the upper and lower ranges were
30 excluded from subsequent calculations, and the median soil ingestion rates of the remaining
31 tracer elements were considered the best estimate for that particular day. The magnitude of
5-22
-------
1 positive or negative error for a specific tracer per day was derived by determining the difference
2 between the value for the tracer and the median value.
3 Table 5-16 presents the estimated magnitude of positive and negative error for six tracer
4 elements in the children's study (conducted by Calabrese et a/., 1989). The original mean soil
5 ingestion rates ranged from a low of 21 mg/day based on zirconium to a high of 459 mg/day
6 based on titanium (Table 5-15). The adjusted mean soil ingestion rate after correcting for
7 negative and positive errors ranged from 97 mg/day based on yttrium to 208 mg/day based on
8 titanium (Table 5-16). Calabrese and Stanek (1995) concluded that correcting for errors at the
9 individual level for each tracer element provides more reliable estimates of soil ingestion.
10 This study is valuable in providing additional understanding of the nature of potential
11 errors in trace element specific estimates of soil ingestion. However, the operational definition
12 used for estimating the error in a trace element estimate was the observed difference of that
13 tracer from a median tracer value. The authors did not specifically identify sources of error or
14 seek direct evidence that individual tracers were indeed in error. Corrections to individual tracer
15 means were made according to how different values for that tracer were from the median values.
16 This approach is based on the hypothesis that the median tracer value is the most accurate
17 estimate of soil ingestion, and the validity of this assumption depends on the specific set of
18 tracers used in the study and need not be correct. The approach used for the estimation of daily
19 tracer intake is the same as in Stanek and Calabrese (1995a), and some limitations of that
20 approach are mentioned in the review of that study.
21
22 5.2.4.5 Stanek et a/., 2001a
23 In order to identify and evaluate biasing factors for soil ingestion estimates, the authors
24 developed a simulation model based on data from previous soil ingestion studies. The soil
25 ingestion data used in this model were taken from Calabrese et a/., 1989 (the Amherst study);
26 Davis etal., 1990; Calabrese et a/., 1997a (the Anaconda study) and Calabrese etal., 1997b, and
27 relied only on the aluminum and silicon trace element estimates provided in these studies.
28 Of the biasing factors explored, the impact of study duration was the most striking, with a
29 positive bias of more than 100% for 95th percentile estimates in a 4-day mass balance study. A
30 smaller bias was observed for the impact of absorption of trace elements from food. Although
31 the trace elements selected for use in mass balance studies are believed to have low absorption,
5-23
-------
1 whatever amount is not accounted for will result in an underestimation of the soil ingestion
2 distribution. In these simulations, the absorption of trace elements from food of up to 30% was
3 shown to negatively bias the estimated soil ingestion distribution by less than 20 mg/day. No
4 biasing effect was found for misidentifying play areas for soil sampling (i.e., ingested soil from a
5 yard other than the subject' s yard).
6
7 5.2.4.6 Zartarian et al, 2005
8 Zartarian et al. (2005) conducted an analysis of soil ingestion rates from several studies
9 in the literature to be used as input for the Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation
10 (SHEDS) model which was used in the EPA report entitled A Probabilistic Exposure Assessment
11 for Children Who Contact CCA-Treated Playsets and Decks (U. S. EPA 2005).
12 Soil ingestion rate estimates were derived for the SHEDS-Wood model (this refers to the
13 application of the SHEDS model to wood preservative exposure scenarios) using data from
14 Calabrese's Amherst and Anaconda studies. Data statistics from both of these studies were used
15 to fit distributions of soil/dust ingestion rates. The statistical distributions generated for
16 variability and uncertainty distributions relied upon two tracers only, Al and Si, in estimating the
17 parameters of the lognormal variability and uncertainty distributions. Using Monte-Carlo
18 sampling, values from the fitted distribution were sampled. The sampled values were separated
19 into those values under 500 mg/day and values that exceeded 500 mg/day. The model assumes
20 that soil ingestion values that exceed 500 mg/day are representative of pica behavior. The soil
21 ingestion rate distribution for non-pica behavior children developed for the SHEDS model has a
^o th th th
mean of 61, standard deviation 81, median 30, 25 percentile 12, 75 percentile 73, 95
th
23 percentile 236, and 99 percentile 402 (mg/day). This distribution was simulated using only the
24 results generated below 500 mg/day. For children exhibiting pica behavior the summary
2 C th th
statistics are: mean 962 mg/day, standard deviation 758, median 735, 25 percentile 590, 75
26 percentile 1046, 95 percentile 2130, 99 percentile 3852 mg/day.
27 The strength of this analysis is that it provides variability and uncertainty distributions. It
28 also provides estimates for pica behavior. A limitation of this analysis is that pica children and
29 incidental ingestion were simulated separately. The distribution for incidental soil ingestion
30 does not take into account that for long-term behavior, children are expected to have days where
31 they may ingest unusually high levels of soil.
5-24
-------
1
2 5.3 PICA
3 5.3.1. Prevalence
4 5.3.1.1 General Pica
5 Feldman (1986) defines pica as "the repeated eating of non-nutritive substances" .
6 Numerous articles have been published that report on the incidence of pica among various
7 populations. However, most of these papers describe pica for substances other than soil
8 including sand, clay, paint, plaster, hair, string, cloth, glass, matches, paper, feces, and various
9 other items. These papers indicate that pica behavior occurs in approximately half of all
10 children between the ages of 1 and 3 years (Sayetta, 1986). The incidence of behavior
11 ingesting non-nutritive substances in children has been shown to differ for different
12 subpopulations. The incidence rate appears to be higher for black children than for white
13 children. Approximately 30 percent of black children aged 1 to 6 years are reported to have
14 pica behavior, compared with 10 to 18 percent of white children in the same age group (Danford,
15 1982). There do not appear to be any sex differences in the incidence rates for males or females
16 (Kaplan and Sadock, 1985). Lourie et al. (1963) states that the incidence of pica is higher
17 among children in lower socioeconomic groups (i.e., 50 to 60 percent) than in higher income
18 families (i.e., about 30 percent). Pica behavior appears to be more common in rural areas
19 (Vermeer and Frate, 1979). A higher rate of pica has also been reported for pregnant women and
20 individuals with poor nutritional status (Danford, 1982). In general, pica behavior is more
21 frequent and more severe in mentally retarded children than in children in the general population
22 (Behrman and Vaughan 1983, Danford 1982, Forfar and Arneil 1984, Illingworth 1983, Sayetta
23 1986).
24
25 5.3.1.2 Soil Pica
26 It should be noted that the pica statistics cited above apply to the incidence of general
27 pica and not soil pica. A soil pica workshop conducted by ATSDR defined soil pica as the
28 recurrent ingestion of unusually high amounts of soil (i.e., 1,000 - 5,000 mg/day)(ATSDR,
29 2001). Information on the incidence of soil pica is limited, but it appears that soil pica is less
30 common than general pica. In addition, parental observations regarding children who are likely
31 to be high soil ingesters have been found to be inaccurate (Calabrese et al., 1997b). A study by
5-25
-------
1 Vermeer and Frate (1979) showed that the incidence of geophagia (i.e., intentional earth-eating)
2 was about 16 percent among children from a rural black community in Mississippi. However,
3 geophagy was described as a cultural practice among the community surveyed and may not be
4 representative of the general population. Average daily consumption of soil was estimated to be
5 50 g/day. Bruhn and Pangborn (1971) reported the incidence of pica for "dirt" to be 19 percent
6 in children, 14 percent in pregnant women, and 3 percent in nonpregnant women. However,
7 "dirt" was not clearly defined. The Bruhn and Pangborn (1971) study was conducted among 91
8 non-black, low income families of migrant agricultural workers in California. Based on the data
9 from the five key tracer studies (Binder et al., 1986; Clausing et al., 1987; Van W'ijnen et al.,
10 1990; Davis et al., 1990; and Calabrese et al., 1989) only one child out of the more than 600
11 children involved in all of these studies ingested an amount of soil significantly greater than the
12 range for other children. Although these studies did not include data for all populations and
13 were representative of short-term ingestions only, it can be assumed that the incidence rate of the
14 recurrent ingestion of unusually high amounts of soil in the general population is low.
15 However, it is incumbent upon the user to use the appropriate value for their specific study
16 population.
17
18 5.3.2. Soil Pica Among Children
19 Information on the amount of soil ingested by children with pica behavior is limited.
20 However, some evidence suggests that a rate on the order of 10 g/day may not be unreasonable.
21
22 5.3.2.1. Calabrese^a/,,1991
23 Calabrese et al. (1991) estimated that upper range soil ingestion values may range from
24 approximately 5 to 7 g/day. This estimate was based on observation of one pica child among the
25 64 children who participated in the study. In the study, a 3.5-year-old female exhibited extremely
26 high soil ingestion behavior during one of the two weeks of observation. Intake ranged from 74
27 to 2200 mg/day during the first week of observation and from 10,100 to 13,600 mg/day during
28 the second week of observation (Table 5-16). These results are based on mass-balance analyses
29 for seven tracer elements (aluminum, barium, manganese, silicon, titanium, vanadium, and
30 yttrium) of the eight used. Intake rates based on zirconium were significantly lower. In a
5-26
-------
1 subsequent paper, the authors indicated that this may have resulted from sample loss due to GI
2 absorption (Stanek and Calabrese, 1994).
O
4 5.3.2.2. Calabrese and Stanek, 1992b
5 Using a methodology that compared differential element ratios, Calabrese and Stanek
6 (1992b) quantitatively distinguished outdoor soil ingestion from indoor dust ingestion in a soil
7 pica child. This study was based on a previous mass-balance study (Calabrese et a/., 1991) in
8 which a 3.5-year-old child ingested 10 to 13 grams of soil per day during the second week of a 2-
9 week soil ingestion study.
10 Table 5-17 presents tracer ratios of soil, dust, and residual fecal samples in the soil pica
11 child. The authors reported that there was a maximum total of 28 pairs of tracer ratios based on
12 eight tracers. However, only 19 pairs of tracer ratios were available for quantitative evaluation,
13 as shown in Table 5-17. Of these 19 pairs, nine fecal tracer ratios fell between the limits for soil
14 and dust (Table 5-17). For these nine tracer soils, an interpolation was performed to estimate the
15 relative contribution of soil and dust to the residual fecal tracer ratio; this analysis indicates that
16 from 71 to 99% of the tracer originated from soil. All of the other 10 fecal tracer ratios that fell
17 outside the soil and dust limits were indicative of 100% soil origin. Therefore, the authors
18 conclude that the predominant proportion of the fecal tracers originated from outdoor soil and
19 not indoor dust.
20
21 5.3.2.3. Calabrese and Stanek, 1993
22 Calabrese and Stanek (1993) reviewed a study by Wong (1988) that attempted to estimate
23 the amount of soil ingested by two groups of children. Wong studied a total of 52 children in two
24 government institutions in Jamaica. The younger group (from the Glenhope Place of Safety)
25 contained 24 children with an average age of 3.1 years (range of 0.3 to 7.6 years). The older
26 group (from the Reddies Place of Safety) contained 28 children with an average age of 7.2 years
27 (range of 1.8 to 14 years). Fecal samples were obtained from the subject children and the
28 amount of silicon in dry feces was measured to estimate soil ingestion.
29 An unspecified number of daily fecal samples were collected from a hospital control
30 group of 30 children with an average age of 4.8 years (range of 0.3 to 12 years). Dry feces were
31 observed to contain 1.45% silicon, or 14.5 mg Si per gram of dry feces. This quantity was used
5-27
-------
1 as a baseline representing the background level of silicon ingestion from dietary sources.
2 Observed quantities of silicon greater than 1.45% were interpreted as originating from soil
3 ingestion.
4 The amount of soil ingested was calculated using the formula of Binder et al. (1986). One
5 fecal sample was collected each month from each subject over the four-month study period.
6 For the 28 children in the older group, soil ingestion was estimated to be 58 mg/day,
7 based on the mean minus one outlier, and 1520 mg/day, based on the mean of all the children.
8 The outlier was a child with an estimated average soil ingestion rate of 41 g/day over the 4
9 months. Of the 28 children in the group, 7 had an average soil ingestion greater than 100 mg/day,
10 4 had an average soil ingestion greater than 200 mg/day, and 1 had an average soil ingestion
11 greater than 300 mg/day; 8 children showed no indication of soil ingestion.
12 Estimates of soil ingestion were higher in the younger group of children. The mean soil
13 ingestion of all the children was 470 ± 370 mg/day. Due to some sample losses, of the 24
14 children studied, only 15 had samples for each of the 4 months of the study. Of the 24 children in
15 the group, 14 had an average soil ingestion less than 100 mg/day, 10 had an average soil
16 ingestion greater than 100 mg/day, 5 had an average soil ingestion greater than 600 mg/day, and
17 4 had an average soil ingestion greater than 1000 mg/day; 5 children showed no indication of
18 soil ingestion.
19 Over the entire 4-month study period, 9 of 84 samples (or 10.5%) yielded soil ingestion
20 estimates in excess of 1 g/day, indicating pica behavior. Of the 52 children studied, 6 displayed
21 soil pica behavior. The estimated soil ingestion for each of these subjects is shown in Table 5-18.
22 For the younger group of children, 5 of 24 (or 20.8%) displayed pica behavior on at least one
23 occasion. A high degree of daily variability in soil ingestion was observed among the six pica
24 children; three (#11, 12, and 22) showed pica behavior on only 1 of 4 days. The other three (#14,
25 18, and 27) showed pica behavior on 2, 3, and 4 days, respectively. Subject #27 consumed the
26 most soil (3.7 to 60.6 g/day); however, it was indicated that this child was mentally retarded,
27 whereas the other pica children were considered to have normal mental capabilities.
28 Sources of uncertainty or error in this study include differences between the hospital
29 study group (the background control) and the two study groups, lack of information on the intake
30 of silicon for the children in the study, use of a single fecal sample, and loss of fecal samples.
31 The use of a single soil tracer may also introduce error because there may be other sources of the
5-28
-------
1 tracer in the children's environment. For example, some toothpastes have extremely high silica
2 concentrations, and children may ingest significant quantities of toothpaste. Tracers may also be
3 found in indoor dust that children could ingest. However, despite these uncertainties, the results
4 are important in that they indicate that soil pica is not a rare occurrence in younger children.
5
6 5.3.2.4. Zartarian et al 2005
7 Zartarian et al. (2005) conducted an analysis of soil ingestion rates from several studies
8 in the literature to be used as input for the Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation
9 (SHEDS-Wood) model which was used in the EPA report entitled A Probabilistic Exposure
10 Assessment for Children Who Contact CCA-Treated Playsets and Decks (U.S. EPA 2005).
11 Soil ingestion rate estimates were derived for the SHEDS-Wood model using data from
12 Calabrese's Amherst and Anaconda studies. Data statistics from both of these studies were used
13 to fit distributions of soil/dust ingestion rates. Zartarian et al. (2005) derived a soil pica
14 distribution by sampling from the fitted lognormal distribution and retaining values above 500
15 mg/day. The mean and 95th percentile values for this population was estimated to be 963 mg/day
16 and 2170 mg/day, respectively. The distribution is presented in Table 5-20.
17
18 5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
19 The key studies described in this section were used to recommend values for soil intake
20 among children. The list of these studies is provided in Table 5-19. Estimates of the amount of
21 soil ingested by children based on the key studies are summarized in Table 5-20 and the
22 recommended values are presented in Table 5-21. The mean values ranged from 38 mg/day to
23 193 mg/day with a weighted average of 90 mg/day for soil ingestion and 106 mg/day when it
24 was considered that a portion of the soil ingested comes from dust. These estimates are based
25 on weighted averages using aluminum and silicon as tracers, except for Calabrese et al. (1997),
26 which uses the best tracer methodology. These tracer elements were considered the most
27 reliable based on a review of the current literature. Results obtained using titanium as a tracer
28 were not considered in the derivation of the recommendations because titanium exhibits greater
29 variability compared to other tracers. Results using titanium are consistently higher than other
30 tracers. This may indicate that there are other non-food and non-soil sources of titanium being
31 ingested. For example, titanium is used in paper coatings and as paper fillers and in paints,
5-29
-------
1 lacquers, and enamels (IPCS, 1982). Ingestion of these non-food items has not been
2 investigated.
3 Most of the studies used in this chapter did not categorize soil intake by the age groups
4 recommended in EPA 2005. Therefore, the recommended values in Table 5-21 apply to
5 children from age 1 to 7 years. At this time, the raw data from these studies are not available.
6 Data are particularly lacking for children < 1 year of age. Van Wijnen etal. (1990) (Table 5-10)
7 derived soil ingestion estimates for various age categories. Although Van Wijnen et al. (1990)
8 was not considered a key study because the presence of tracers in food and medicines was not
9 taken into consideration and the study may not representative of U.S. children, it showed that
10 children 4 to < 5 years of age had median soil ingestion rates up to 1.8 times higher than children
11 <1 year of age. However, one needs to consider that infants may spend most of their time indoors
12 and dust concentration may be more appropriate for calculating ingestion rates for this group.
13 Using dust concentrations for estimating intake rates generally results in higher ingestion rates.
14 Dust samples were not collected by Van Wijnen et al. (1990).
15 There are a number of limitations with the data presented in Table 5-20. A number of
16 studies have indicated that aluminum and silicon can be absorbed in small amounts from the
17 digestive tract in adults (Davis and Mirick 2006). Therefore, these soil ingestion values may be
18 biased low. It is also worth noting that even though there are five key studies presented in Table
19 5-20, they represent only four populations (i.e, Amherst, Anaconda, Tri-city area in southeastern
20 Washington, and a subset of the Tri-city area study) adding up to 241 children. Other studies are
21 reanalyses of these populations. Therefore, in some instances the same population is counted
22 more than once in the weighted averages presented in Table 5-20. In addition, since the children
23 were studied for short periods of time and the prevalence of pica behavior is not known,
24 excluding children with pica behavior from the calculations may underestimate long-term soil
25 intake rates. It is plausible that many children may exhibit some pica behavior if studied for
26 longer periods of time. Since young children may spend a significant number of hours indoors,
27 it may not be appropriate to assume that all the soil ingested came from outdoor exposure.
28 Therefore, the recommended soil ingestion values are based on soil and dust estimates.
29 Rounding up to the nearest hundred, 100 mg/day is the best estimate of the mean soil
30 ingestion for children under 7 years of age. Over the period of study, 95th percentile values
31 ranged from 217 mg/day to 449mg/day with an average of 236 mg/day for soil ingestion and 449
5-30
-------
1 mg/day when both soil and dust are considered. Rounding to the nearest hundred, the
2 recommended 95th percentile soil ingestion rate for children is 400 mg/day based on soil
3 and dust ingestion. A distribution of soil ingestion values is presented in Table 5-20. However,
4 since the children were studied for a short period of time and usually during the summer months,
5 these values are not estimates of usual intake.
6 Data on soil ingestion rates for children who exhibit pica behavior (i.e., ingest unusually
7 high amounts of soil on a recurrent basis) are also limited. In conducting a risk assessment for
8 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-^-dioxin (TCDD), U.S. EPA (1984) used 5 g/day to represent the soil
9 intake rate for pica children. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) also investigated the
10 potential for exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD via soil ingestion. CDC used a value of 10 g/day to
11 represent the amount of soil that a child with pica behavior might ingest (Kimbrough et a/.,
12 1984). These values are consistent with those observed by Calabrese et al. (1991). An ingestion
13 rate of 10 g/day is a reasonable value for use in acute exposure assessments, based on the
14 available information. This value is based on only one pica child observed in the Calabrese et al.
15 (1989) study where the intake ranged from 10-14 grams/day during the second week of
16 observation. In addition, a statistical designation is not assigned to this value.
17 These recommendations are based on studies that used different survey designs and
18 populations. For example, in some studies soil ingestion estimates were adjusted to account for
19 the contribution of house dust to this estimate. Other studies used best tracer methodology while
20 others relied on estimates from specific tracers. Despite these differences, the mean and upper-
21 percentile estimates reported for these studies are relatively consistent. The confidence rating
22 for soil intake recommendations is presented in Table 5-22. It is important to understand,
23 however, the various uncertainties associated with these values. First, individuals were not
24 studied for sufficient periods of time to get a good estimate of the usual intake. Therefore, the
25 values presented in this section may not be representative of long-term exposures. Second, the
26 experimental error in measuring soil ingestion values for individual children is also a source of
27 uncertainty. For example, incomplete sample collection of both input (i.e., food and non food
28 sources) and output (i.e., urine and feces) is a limitation for some of the studies conducted. In
29 addition, an individual's soil ingestion value may be artificially high or low depending on the
30 extent to which a mismatch between input and output occurs due to individual variation in the
31 gastrointestinal transit time. Third, the degree to which the tracer elements used in these studies
5-31
-------
1 are absorbed in the human body is uncertain. Accuracy of the soil ingestion estimates depends
2 on how good this assumption is. Fourth, there is uncertainty with regard to the homogeneity of
3 soil samples and the accuracy of parents' knowledge about their child's playing areas. Fifth, all
4 the soil ingestion studies presented in this section with the exception of Calabrese et al. (1989)
5 were conducted during the summer when soil contact is more likely.
6 Although the recommendations presented in this section are derived from studies which
7 were mostly conducted in the summer, exposure during the winter months, when the ground is
8 frozen or snow covered in many regions of the United States, should not be considered as zero.
9 Exposure during these months, although lower than in the summer months, would not be zero
10 because some portion of house dust comes from outdoor soil.
11
12
13
5-32
-------
1 5.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5
2
3 ATSDR (2001) Summary report for the ATSDR soil-pica workshop. ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. March 20, 2001.
4 Available on line at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/NEWS/soilpica.html.
5
6 Binder, S.; Sokal, D.; Maughan, D. (1986) Estimating soil ingestion: the use of tracer elements in estimating the
7 amount of soil ingested by young children. Arch. Environ. Health. 41 (6): 341 -345.
8
9 Behrman, L.E.; Vaughan, V.C., III. (1983) Textbook of Pediatrics. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company.
10
11 Bruhn, C.M.; Pangborn, R.M. (1971) Reported incidence of pica among migrant families. J. of the Am. Diet.
12 Assoc. 58:417-420.
13
14 Calabrese, E.J.; Pastides, H.; Barnes, R.; Edwards, C.; Kostecki, P.T.; et al. (1989) How much soil do young
15 children ingest: an epidemiologic study. In: Petroleum Contaminated Soils, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
16 pp. 363-397.
17
18 Calabrese, E.J.; Stanek, E.J.; Gilbert, C.E.; and Barnes, R. (1990) Preliminary adult soil ingestion estimates: Results
19 of a pilot study. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 12:88-95.
20
21 Calabrese, E.J.; Stanek, E.J.; Gilbert, C.E. (1991) Evidence of soil-pica behavior and quantification of soil ingested.
22 Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 10:245-249.
23
24 Calabrese, E.J.; Stanek, E.J. (1992) What proportion of household dust is derived from outdoor soil? J. Soil Contam.
25 1(3): 253-263.
26
27 Calabrese, E.J.; Stanek, E.J. (1992) Distinguishing outdoor soil ingestion from indoor dust ingestion in a soil pica
28 child. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 15:83-85.
29
30 Calabrese, E.J.; Stanek, E.J. (1993) Soil pica: not a rare event. J. Environ. Sci. Health. A28(2):373-384.
31
32 Calabrese, E.J.; Stanek, E.J. (1995) Resolving intertracer inconsistencies in soil ingestion estimation. Environ.
33 Health Perspect. 103(5):454-456.
34
3 5 Calabrese, E. J.; Stanek, E. J.; Barnes, R.M. (1996) Methodology to estimate the amount and particle size of soil
36 ingested by children: Implications for exposure assessment at waste sites. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 24:
37 264-268.
5-33
-------
1 Calabrese, E.J.; Stanek, E.J.; Pekow, P.; Barnes, R.M. (1997a) Soil ingestion estimates for children residing on a
2 Superfund site. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 36:258-268.
O
4 Calabrese, E.I; Stanek, E.J.; Barnes, R.M. (1997b) Soil ingestion rates in children identified by parental
5 observation as likely high soil ingesters. J. Soil Contam. 6(3): 271-279.
6
7 Clausing, P.; Brunekreef, B.; Van Wijnen, J.H. (1987) A method for estimating soil ingestion by children. Int.
8 Arch. Occup. Environ. Health (W. Germany) 59(l):73-82.
9
10 Danford, D.C. (1982) Pica and nutrition. Annual Review of Nutrition. 2:303-322.
11
12 Davis, S.; Waller, P.; Buschbon, R.; Ballou, J.; White, P. (1990) Quantitative estimates of soil ingestion in normal
13 children between the ages of 2 and 7 years: population based estimates using aluminum, silicon, and titanium
14 as soil tracer elements. Arch. Environ. Hlth. 45:112-122.
15
16 Davis, S. and Mirick, D. (2006) Soil ingestion in children and adults in the same family. Journal of Exposure
17 Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 16:63-75.
18
19 Feldman, M.D. (1986) Pica: current perspectives. Psychosomatics (USA) 27(7):519-523.
20
21 Forfar, J.O.; Arneil, G.C., eds. (1984) Textbook of Paediatrics. 3rded. London: Churchill Livingstone.
22
23 Illingworth, R.S. (1983) The normal child. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
24
25 IPCS (1982). Environmental health criteria 24: Titanium. International Programme on Chemical Safety. Published
26 under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour
27 Organisation, and the World Health Organization. Available on-line at
28 http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc24.htm#SectionNumber:3.1
29
30 Kaplan, H.I.; Sadock, B.J. (1985) Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry/IV. Baltimore, MD: Williams and
31 Wilkins.
32
33 Kimbrough, R.; Falk, H.; Stemr, P.; Fries, G. (1984) Health implications of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
34 (TCDD) contamination of residential soil. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 14:47-93.
35
36 Lourie, R.S.; Layman, E.M.; Millican, F.K. (1963) Why children eat things that are not food. Children 10:143-146.
37
38 Sayetta,R.B. (1986) Pica: Anoverview. American Family Physician 33(5):181-185.
5-34
-------
2 Sedman, R.; Mahmood, R.S. (1994) Soil ingestion by children and adults reconsidered using the results of recent
3 tracer studies. Air and Waste, 44:141-144.
4
5 Stanek, E.J.; Calabrese, EJ. (1994) Bias and the detection limit model for soil ingestion. J. Soil Contam. 3(2): 183-
6 189.
7
8 Stanek, E.J.; Calabrese, EJ. (1995a) Daily estimates of soil ingestion in children. Environ. Health Perspect.
9 103(3):276-285.
10
11 Stanek, E. I; Calabrese, EJ. (1995b) Soil ingestion estimates for use in site evaluations based on the best tracer
12 method. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 1:133-156.
13
14 Stanek, EJ.; Calabrese, E J.; Barnes, R. (1999) Soil ingestion estimates for children in Anaconda using trace element
15 concentrations in different particle size fractions. Human Ecol. Risk Assessment 5(3): 547-558.
16
17 Stanek, E J.; Calabrese, E J. (2000) Daily soil ingestion estimates for children at a Superfund site. Risk Analysis
18 20(5): 627-635.
19
20 Stanek, EJ.; Calabrese, E J.; Zorn, M. (2001a) Biasing factors for simple soil ingestion estimates in mass balance
21 studies of soil ingestion. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 7(2): 329-355.
22
23 Stanek, EJ.; Calabrese, E J.; Zorn, M. (200 Ib) Soil ingestion distributions for Monte Carlo risk assessment in
24 children. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 7(2): 357-368.
25
26 Thompson, K.M.; Burmaster, D.E. (1991) Parametric distributions for soil ingestion by children. Risk Analysis.
27 11:339-342.
28
29 U.S. EPA. (1984) Risk analysis of TCDD contaminated soil. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
3 0 Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA 600/8-84-031.
31
32 U.S. EPA. (2005) Guidance on selecting age groups for monitoring and assessing childhood exposures to
33 environmental contaminants. Risk Assessment Forum, Office of Research and Development, Washington,
34 DC. EPA/630/P-03/003F.
35
36 Van Wijnen, J.H.; Clausing, P.; Brunekreff, B. (1990) Estimated soil ingestion by children. Environ. Res. 51:147-
37 162.
38
5-35
-------
1 Vermeer, D.E.; Frate, D.A. (1979) Geophagia in rural Mississippi: environmental and cultural contexts and
2 nutritional implications. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 32:2129-2135.
O
4 Wong, M.S. (1988) The Role of Environmental and Host Behavioural Factors in Determining Exposure to Infection
5 with Ascaris lumbricoldes and Trichuris trichlura. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of
6 the West Indies. 1988.
7
8 Zartarian, V.G., J. Xue, H. A. Ozkaynak, W. Dang, G. Glen, L. Smith, and C. Stallings. (2005). A probabilistic
9 exposure assessment for children who contact CCA-treated playsets and decks using the stochastic human
10 exposure and dose simulation model for the wood preservative scenario (SHEDS-WOOD), Final Report. U.S.
11 Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/X-05/009.
12
5-36
-------
Table 5-1. Average Daily Soil Ingestion Values Based on Aluminum, Silicon, and Titanium as Tracer Elements3
Element
Aluminum
Silicon
Titanium
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
(mg/d)
38.9
82.4
245.5
38.9
245.5
Median
(mg/d)
25.3
59.4
81.3
25.3
81.3
Standard Error of
the Mean
(mg/d)
14.4
12.2
119.7
12.2
119.7
Range
(mg/d)b
279.0 to 904.5
-404.0 to 534.6
-5,820.8 to 6,182.2
-5,820.8
6,182.2
Excludes three children who did not provide any samples (N=101).
bNegative values occurred as a result of correction for nonsoil sources of the tracer elements.
Source: Adapted from Davis et al. (1990).
Table 5-2. Soil Ingestion Estimates for the Median of Best Four Trace Elements Based on Food/Soil Ratios for 64
Anaconda Children (mg/day) Using Al, Si, Ti, Y, and Zr
Category
Median of
best 4
Best tracer
2nd best
3rd best
4th best
Soil Ingestion (mg/day)a
Min
-101.3
-53.4
-115.9
-170.5
-298.3
P5
-91.0
-24.4
-62.1
-88.9
-171.0
P10
-53.8
-14.4
-48.6
-67.0
-131.9
P25
-38.0
2.2
-26.6
-52.0
-74.7
P50
-2.4
20.1
1.5
-18.8
-29.3
P75
26.8
68.9
38.4
25.6
0.2
P90
73.1
223.6
119.5
154.7
74.8
P95
159.8
282.4
262.3
376.1
116.8
Max
380.2
609.9
928.5
1293.5
139.1
Mea
n
6.8
65.5
33.2
31.2
-34.6
SD
74.5
120.3
144.8
199.6
79.7
aNegative values occurred as a result of calculating child-specific estimates for multiple days. For example, negative
estimates of soil ingestion occurred when an individual child had low, but positive, soil ingestion, but the standard
deviation was large.
Source: Calabrese et al. (1997).
5-37
-------
Table 5-3. Dust Ingestion Estimates for the Median of Best Four Trace Elements Based on Food/Dust Ratios for 64
Anaconda Children (mg/day) Using Al, Si, Ti, Y, and Zr
Category
Median of
best 4
Best tracer
2nd best
3rd best
4th best
Soil Ingestion (mg/day)a
Min
-261.5
-377.0
-239.8
-375.7
-542.7
P5
-186.2
-193.8
-147.2
-247.5
-365.6
P10
-152.7
-91.0
-137.1
-203.1
-277.7
P25
-69.5
-20.8
-59.1
-81.7
-161.5
P50
-5.5
26.8
7.6
-14.4
-55.1
P75
62.8
198.1
153.1
49.4
52.4
P90
209.2
558.6
356.4
406.5
277.3
P95
353.0
613.6
409.5
500.5
248.8
Max
683.9
1499.4
1685.1
913.2
6120.5
Mean
16.5
127.2
82.7
25.5
81.8
SD
160.9
299.1
283.6
235.9
840.3
aNegative values occurred as a result of calculating child-specific estimates for multiple days. For example, negative
estimates of dust ingestion occurred when an individual child had low, but positive, dust ingestion, but the standard
deviation was large.
Source: Calabrese etal. (1997).
Table 5-4. Mean and Median Soil Ingestion (mg/day) by Family Member
Participant Tracer Element Estimated Soil Ingestion3 (mg/day)
Mean Median Std Maximum
Child"
Aluminum
Silicon
Titanium
36.7
38.1
206.9
33.3
26.4
46.7
35.4
31.4
277.5
107.9
95.0
808.3
Source: Davis and Mirick 2006
a For some study participants, estimated soil ingestion resulted in a negative value. These estimates have been set to
0 mg/day for tabulation and analysis.
b Results based on 12 children with complete food, excreta, and soil data.
5-38
-------
Table 5-5. Estimated Daily Soil Ingestion Based on Aluminum, Silicon, and Titanium Concentrations
Estimation
Method
Aluminum
Silicon
Titanium
Minimum
Mean
(mg/day)
181
184
1,834
108
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
Source: Binder^al. (1986).
5-39
-------
Table 5-6. Calculated Soil Ingestionby Nursery School Children
Child
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Arithmetic
Mean
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).
5-40
-------
Table 5-7. Calculated Soil Ingestion by Hospitalized, Bedridden Children
Child
1
2
3
4
5
6
Arithmetic Mean
Sample
G5
G6
Gl
G2
G8
G3
G4
G7
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
Source: Adapted from Clausing et al. (1987).
Table 5-8. Mean and Standard Deviation Percentage Recovery of Eight Tracer Elements
Tracer Element
Al
Ba
Mn
Si
Ti
V
Y
Zr
300 mg Soil Ingested
Mean
152.8
2304.3
1177.2
139.3
251.5
345.0
120.5
80.6
SD
107.5
4533.0
1341.0
149.6
316.0
247.0
42.4
43.7
1,500 mg Soil Ingested
Mean
93.5
149.8
248.3
91.8
286.3
147.6
87.5
54.6
SD
15.5
69.5
183.6
16.6
380.0
66.8
12.6
33.4
Source: Adapted from Calabrese et al. (1989).
5-41
-------
Table 5-9. Soil and Dust Ingestion Estimates for Children Ages 1-4 Years
Tracer Element
Aluminum
soil
dust
soil/dust combined
Silicon
soil
dust
soil/dust combined
Yttrium
soil
dust
soil/dust combined
Titanium
soil
dust
soil/dust combined
N
64
64
64
64
64
64
62
64
62
64
64
64
Intake (mg/day)a
Mean
153
317
154
154
964
483
85
62
65
218
163
170
Median
29
31
30
40
49
49
9
15
11
55
28
30
SD
852
1,272
629
693
6,848
3,105
890
687
717
1,150
659
691
95th
Percentile
223
506
478
276
692
653
106
169
159
1,432
1,266
1,059
Maximum
6,837
8,462
4,929
5,549
54,870
24,900
6,736
5,096
5,269
6,707
3,354
3,597
"Corrected for Tracer Concentrations in Foods
Source: Adapted from Calabrese et al. (1989).
5-42
-------
Table 5-10. Geometric Mean (GM) and Standard Deviation (GSD) LTM Values for Children at Daycare Centers
and Campgrounds
Age (yrs)
birth to <1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<4
4to<5
3 to <5C
All girls
All boys
Total
Sex
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Daycare Centers
n
3
1
20
17
34
17
26
29
1
4
27
33
86
72
162a
GMLTM
(mg/day)
81
75
124
114
118
96
111
110
180
99
146
105
117
104
111
GSD LTM
(mg/day)
1.09
-
1.87
1.47
1.74
1.53
1.57
1.32
-
1.62
1.57
1.47
1.70
1.46
1.60
Campgrounds
n
-
-
3
5
4
8
6
8
19
18
25
26
36
42
78b
GMLTM
(mg/day)
-
-
207
312
367
232
164
148
164
136
164
142
179
169
174
GSD LTM
(mg/day)
-
-
1.99
2.58
2.44
2.15
1.27
1.42
1.48
1.30
1.38
1.36
1.67
1.79
1.73
aAge and/or sex not registered for eight children.
bAge not registered for seven children.
This age category is calculated from the previous two rows of data in order to conform to the standardized age
categories used in this Handbook.
Source: Adapted from Van Wijnen et al. (1990).
5-43
-------
Table 5-11. Estimated Geometric Mean Limiting Tracer Method (LTM) Values of Children Attending Day care
Centers According to Age, Weather Category, and Sampling Period
Weather Category
Bad
(>4 days/week precipitation)
Reasonable
(2-3 days/week precipitation)
Good
(<2 days/week precipitation)
Age
(years)
<1
lto<2
2to<3
4to<5
<1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<4
4to<5
3 to <5a
<1
lto<2
2to<3
3to<4
4to<5
3 to <5a
First Sampling Period
n
3
18
33
5
4
42
65
67
10
77
Estimated Geometric
Mean
LTM Value
(mg/day)
94
103
109
124
102
229
166
138
132
137
Second Sampling Period
n
3
33
48
6
1
10
13
19
1
20
Estimated Geometric
Mean
LTM Value
(mg/day)
67
80
91
109
61
96
99
94
61
92
"This age category is calculated from the available data in order to conform to the standardized age categories
used in this Handbook. Value is a weighted mean of the previous two rows.
Source: VanWijnsnetal. (1990).
5-44
-------
Table 5-12. Distribution of Average (Mean) Daily Soil Ingestion Estimates per Child for 64 Children" (mg/day)
Type of Estimate
Number of
Samples
Mean
25th Percentile
50th Percentile
75th Percentile
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
Maximum
Overall
(64)
179
10
45
88
186
208
7,703
Al
(64)
122
10
19
73
131
254
4,692
Ba
(33)
655
28
65
260
470
518
17,991
Mn
(19)
1,053
35
121
319
478
17,374
17,374
Si
(63)
139
5
32
94
206
224
4,975
Ti
(56)
271
8
31
93
154
279
12,055
V
(52)
112
8
47
177
340
398
845
Y
(61)
165
0
15
47
105
144
8,976
Zr
(62)
23
0
15
41
87
117
208
Tor 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).
Table 5-13. Estimated Distribution of Individual Mean Daily Soil Ingestion Based on Data for 64 Subjects
Projected over 365 Days"
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).
5-45
-------
Table 5-14. Summary Statistics and Parameters for Distributions of Estimated Soil Ingestionby Tracer Element3
Mean
Min
10th
20th
30th
40th
Med
60th
70th
80th
90th
Max
Soil Intake (mg/day)
Al
97
11
21
33
39
43
45
55
73
104
197
1,201
Si
85
10
19
23
36
52
60
65
79
106
166
642
Ti
1,004
1
3
22
47
172
293
475
724
1,071
2,105
14,061
Meana
91
13
22
34
43
49
59
69
92
100
143
921
Lognormal Distribution Parameters
Median
Standard Deviation
Arithmetic Mean
45
169
97
60
95
85
-
-
59
126
91
Underlying Normal Distribution Parameters
Mean
Standard Deviation
4.06
0.88
4.07
0.85
-
-
4.13
0.80
a Using Binder et al. (1986) data with actual fecal weights.
bMean = arithmetic average of soil ingestion based on aluminum and silicon.
Source: Thompson and Burmaster (1991).
5-46
-------
Table 5-15. Positive/negative Error (Bias) in Soil Ingestion Estimates in the Calabrese et al. (1989) Mass-
balance Study: Effect on Mean Soil Ingestion Estimate (Mg/day )a
Tracer
Aluminum
Silicon
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zirconium
Negative Error
Lack of Fecal
Sample on Final
Study Day
14
15
82
66
8
6
Other
Causesb
11
6
187
55
26
91
Total
Negative
Error
25
21
269
121
34
97
Total
Positive
Error
43
41
282
432
22
5
Net Error
+18
+20
+13
+311
-12
-92
Original
Mean
153
154
218
459
85
21
Adjusted
Mean
136
133
208
148
97
113
"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.
bValues indicate impact on mean of 12 8-subject-weeks in milligrams of soil ingested per day.
Source: Calabrese and Stanek (1995).
5-47
-------
Table 5-16. Daily Soil Ingestion Estimation in a Soil-Pica Child by Tracer and by Week (mg/day)
Tracer
element
Al
Ba
Mn
Si
Ti
V
Y
Zr
Estimated Soil Ingestion (mg/day)
Weekl
74
458
2,221
142
1,543
1,269
147
86
Week 2
13,600
12,088
12,341
10,955
11,870
10,071
13,325
2,695
Source: Calabresee/a/. (1991).
5-48
-------
Table 5-17. Ratios of Soil, Dust, and Residual Fecal Samples in the Soil Pica Child
Tracer Pairs
1. Mn/Ti
2. Ba/Ti
3. Si/Ti
4. V/Ti
5. Ai/Ti
6. Y/Ti
7. Mn/Y
8. Ba/Y
9. Si/Y
10. V/Y
11. Al/Y
12. Mn/Al
13. Ba/Al
14. Si/Al
15. V/A1
16. Si/V
17. Mn/Si
18. Ba/Si
19. Mn/Ba
Ratio
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
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
Source: Calabrese and Stanek (1992).
5-49
-------
Table 5-18. Daily Variation of Soil Ingestion by Children Displaying Soil Pica in Wong (1988)
Child subject number
Month
Estimated soil ingestion
(mg/day)
Glenhope Place of Safety
11
12
14
18
22
1
2
o
3
4
1
2
o
5
4
1
2
o
3
4
1
2
o
3
4
1
2
o
3
4
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
Reddies Place of Safety
27
1
2
3
4
48,314
60,692
51,422
3,782
Source: Calabrese and Stanek (1993).
5-50
-------
Table 5-19 Key Studies Used to Derive Recommendations
Key Studies
Davis rf a/. 1990
3tanek and Calabrese,
1995a
3tanek and Calabrese,
1995b
Calabrese et al. 1997a
Davis and Mirick 2006
Sample Size
101
64
162
64
12
Comments
Primary analysis
Secondary analysis. This paper is a refinement of the data collected
by Calabrese et al. 1989
Secondary analysis. This paper is a refinement of the data
collected by Calabrese et al. 1989 and Davis et al. 1990 using
best tracer methodology.
Primary analysis
Primary Analysis
the
5-51
-------
Table 5- 20 . Summary of Estimates of Incidental Soil and Dust Ingestionby Children (1-7 years old) from Key Studies (mg/day)a
Sample Size
101
64
162
64 b
12
Weighted
Average
Age
(yr)
2-7
1-4
1-7
1-3
3-7
1-7
Source
Soil
Soil and Dust
Soil
Soil
Soil
Dust Only c
Soil and Dust d
Soil
Soil
Soil and Dust
Mean
61
112
131
104
66
127
97
38
90
106
P25
8
10
2
-
8
P50
42
82
31
37
20
27
24
35
60
P75
84
80
69
198
134
78
134
P90
169
156
224
559
392
174
392
P95
239
217
283
614
449
236
449
Reference
Davis et al.
1990
Stanek and
Calabrese
1995a
Stanek and
Calabrese
1995b
Calabrese et al.
1997a
Davis and
Mirick 2006
a Using the average of Al and Si as tracers (except otherwise specified under note "b")
b Using the best tracer method
0 Calculated assuming all the ingestion originated from dust.
d Calculated by averaging the "soil" and "dust only" rows.
5-52
-------
Table 5-21. Summary of Recommended Values for Soil Ingestion
Population
Children (1-7 years old)
Mean
Incidental
Ingestion
100 mg/day
Pica
10 g/day
95th percentile
Incidental
Ingestion
400 mg/day
Pica
~
Note: See Section 5.4 for discussion of these values.
5-53
-------
Table 5-22. Confidence in Soil Intake Recommendation
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to U. S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection period
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of variability
Lack of bias in study design (high
rating is desirable)
Measurement error
All key studies are from peer review literature.
Papers are widely available from peer review journals.
However, raw data were not available to do age specific
analysis
Methodology used was presented, but results are difficult
to reproduce.
The focus of the studies was on estimating soil intake rate
by children.
Studies used children from specific areas of the U.S.
All the studies were based on primary data.
Studies were conducted after 1980. Soil ingestion
behaviors are not expected to change with time.
Children were not studied long enough to fully
characterize day to day variability. Most of the studies
were conducted during the summer months.
The basic approach is the only practical way to study soil
intake, but refinements are needed in tracer selection and
matching input with outputs. The more recent studies
corrected the data for sources of the tracers in food. There
are, however, some concerns about absorption of the
tracers into the body and lag time between input and
output.
The sample sizes used in the key studies were adequate for
some age groups, but not representative of the U.S. Data
are lacking for the very young children and children older
than 7 years old.
The study population may not be representative of the U.S.
in terms of race, socio-economics, and geographical
location; Studies focused on specific areas.
Day-to-day variability was not very well characterized.
The selection of the population studied may introduce
some bias in the results (i.e., children near a smelter site,
volunteers in nursery school).
Errors may result due to problems with absorption of the
tracers in the body and mismatching inputs and outputs.
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Other Elements
5-54
-------
Table 5-22. Confidence in Soil Intake Recommendation
Considerations
Rationale
Ratine
Number of studies
There are 5 key studies. However, only four of those are
original data.
Medium
Agreement between researchers
Despite the variability, there is general agreement among
researchers on central estimates of daily intake for
children.
Medium
Overall Rating
Studies were well designed; results were fairly consistent;
sample size was adequate for some age groups; accuracy
of methodology is uncertain; variability cannot be
characterized due to limitations in data collection period.
Data at the upper end are highly uncertain. Distributions
provided may not be representative of long-term behavior.
Medium (for
children - long-term
central estimate)
Low (for upper
percentile and
distributions of
long-term behavior)
5-55
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6. OTHER NON-DIETARY INGESTION FACTORS 6-1
6.1 INTRODUCTION 6-1
6.2 STUDIES RELATED TO NON-DIETARY INGESTION 6-2
6.2.1 Davis, 1995 6-2
6.2.2 Groot et al., 1998 6-5
6.2.3 Reed et al., 1999 6-6
6.2.4 Zartarian et al., 1997 and 1998 6-7
6.2.5 Stanek et al., 1998 6-8
6.2.6 Freeman et al., 2001 6-10
6.2.7 Juberg et al., 2001 6-11
6.2.8 Greene, 2002 6-12
6.2.9 Tulve et al., 2002 6-13
6.2.10 Smith andNorris, 2003 6-14
6.2.11 AuYeung et al., 2004 6-15
6.2.12 Black et al., 2005 6-16
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 6-17
6.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6 6-19
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6-1. Extrapolated Total Mouthing Times Minutes per Day (time awake) 6-21
Table 6-2. Frequency of Contact (Contacts per Hour) 6-22
Table 6-3. Prevalence of Non-Food Ingestion/Mouthing Behaviors by Child's Age: Percent of
Children Whose Parents Reports the Behavior in the Past Month 6-23
Table 6-4 Percent of Children with Reported Behaviors From the Telephone Survey Conducted
in the MNCPES (n = 168) 6-26
Table 6-5. Median (Mean) Observed Activity Rate (Hand Contacts Per Hour) Based on 4 Hours
of Observation Per Person 6-26
Table 6-6. Comparison of Observed Activities for Boys and Girls (Mean) 6-27
Table 6-7. Mouthing times for Pacifiers and Other Objects, by Age Category 6-27
Table 6-8 . Average Mouthing Time by Object Category and Age (min/hr) 6-28
Table 6-9. Mouthing Time Statistics for Various Objects (min/hr) 6-29
Table 6-10. Estimated Daily Mouthing Times for Various Objects (min/day) 6-31
Table 6-11. Variability in Objects Mouthed for Different Age Groups 6-32
Table 6-12. Mouthing Duration by Age Group for Pacifiers, Fingers, Toys, and
Other Objects 6-33
Table 6-13. Indoor Mouthing Frequency (Contacts/Hour) 6-34
Table 6-14. Outdoor Mouthing Frequency (Contacts/Hour) 6-35
Table 6-15. Indoor Mouthing Contact Duration (Minutes/Hour) 6-36
Table 6-16. Outdoor Mouthing Contact Duration (Minutes/Hour) 6-37
Table 6-17. Videotaped Mouthing and Food-handling Activity as Median Hourly Frequency
(Contacts/Hour) and Median Duration (% of Tape Time) (Mean ± SD) 6-38
Table 6-18. Summary of Studies on Mouthing Behavior 6-39
Table 6-19. Summary of Mouthing Frequency Data 6-40
Table 6-20. Summary of Recommended Values for Total Mouthing Time
(minutes per day) 6-42
Table 6-21. Summary of Recommended Values for Mouthing Frequency
(contacts per hour) 6-43
Table 6-22. Confidence in Mouthing Behavior Recommendations 6-44
-------
1 6. OTHER NON-DIETARY INGESTION FACTORS
2
3 6.1 INTRODUCTION
4 Young children (i.e., ages 6 months through approximately 4 years) have the potential for
5 exposure to toxic substances through non-dietary ingestion pathways other than soil ingestion
6 (e.g., ingesting pesticide residues that have been transferred from treated surfaces to the hands or
7 objects that are mouthed). These children have an urge to mouth objects or their fingers in
8 exploring their environment, as a sucking reflex and as a habit (Groot et al., 1998). Exposure via
9 this route may exceed other routes of ingestion (i.e., food, pica, drinking water, breast milk) and
10 dermal exposure, because non-dietary ingestion may result in higher ingestion rates of
11 contaminated material (Weaver et al., 1998). This exposure route is also difficult to assess
12 because there is little literature or research on mouthing behavior (Reed et al., 1999) and little
13 information on the susceptibility of children to toxic substances (Weaver et al., 1998).
14 Mouthing behavior includes all activities in which objects, including fingers, are touched
15 by the mouth or put into the mouth except for eating and drinking, and includes licking, sucking,
16 chewing, and biting (Groot et al., 1998). Children's contact with surfaces is intermittent and
17 nonuniform over different parts of the body and the nature of the mouthing itself is intermittent
18 and nonuniform, making this pathway difficult to model (Zartarian et al., 1997).
19 Children exhibit large differences in mouthing behavior (Groot et al., 1998). Infants are
20 born with a sucking reflex for breast feeding, and within a few months, they begin to use sucking
21 or mouthing as a means to explore their surroundings. Children will use both sucking and
22 licking to explore their environment. Sucking also becomes a means of comfort when a child is
23 tired or upset. In addition, teething normally causes substantial mouthing behavior sucking or
24 chewing to alleviate discomfort in the gums. Each child is different, and large differences
25 occur between children, even within the same family.
26 Mouthing becomes critical in exposure to potentially toxic substances when it involves
27 the behavior of a small child around potentially contaminated sources. Children play close to the
28 ground and are frequently licking their fingers or mouthing toys or objects. As a result,
29 mouthing becomes a potentially significant exposure route. Children may ingest more toxic
30 constituents through this behavior than from dietary ingestion or inhalation because they may
6-1
-------
1 place wet, sticky fingers on potentially-contaminated surfaces, and more toxic substances may
2 adhere to the fingers than if the fingers were dry (Gurunathan et al., 1998).
3 Gurunathan et al. (1998) estimated that young children spend as much as 90 percent of
4 their days inside, so exposure to contaminants that may infiltrate the home through the vapor
5 phase (e.g., volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-VOCs (SVOCs)) may be of concern.
6 This may be a significant pathway of exposure to SVOCs because these compounds can be
7 deposited on surfaces in the home or become absorbed onto plastic toys or in stuffed animals
8 where they can serve as reservoirs for toxic constituents (Gurunathan et al., 1998).
9 Few studies have investigated this potential exposure route. The shortage of research and
10 data may be due to the difficulty in observing very young children and the labor-intensive effort
11 in gathering the data (Hubal et al., 2000). The applicable research efforts use two general
12 approaches to gather data: real-time hand recording, in which trained persons observe a child and
13 manually record information on a survey sheet or score sheet; and videotaping, in which trained
14 videographers tape a child's activities and subsequently extract the pertinent data manually or
15 with computer software (Hubal et al., 2000).
16 Some researchers express mouthing behavior in terms of frequency of occurrence (e.g.,
17 contacts per hour or contacts per minute). Others express mouthing behavior as a rate in units of
18 minutes per hour of mouthing time. Both approaches have their use in exposure assessments.
19 The former approach is more appropriate when studying children's behavior during various
20 microactivities. The latter, however, is more useful when studying children's behavior during
21 macroactivities. Macroactivities can be described by a child's general activities such as
22 sleeping, watching television, playing, and eating. Microactivities refer to the specific behavior
23 a child is engaged in such as hand-to-surface contacts and hand-to-mouth behavior (Hubal et al.,
24 2000). Time spent in various macroactivities in several microenvironments (e.g., indoors at
25 home) are presented in Chapter 9.
26
27 6.2 STUDIES RELATED TO NON-DIETARY INGESTION
28 6.2.1 Davis, 1995
29 In 1992, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center under Cooperative Agreement
30 with EPA, conducted a study to estimate children's soil intake rates and collect mouthing
31 behavior data. Originally, the study was designed with two primary purposes: (1) to describe
6-2
-------
1 and quantify the distribution of soil ingestion values in a group of children under the age of five
2 who exhibit behaviors that would be likely to result in the ingestion of larger than normal
3 amounts of soil; and (2) to assess and quantify the degree to which soil ingestion varies among
4 children according to season of the year (summer vs. winter). The study was conducted during
5 the first four months of 1992 and included 92 children from the Tri-Cities area in Washington
6 State. The children were volunteers among a group selected through random digit dialing and
7 their ages ranged between 0 and 48 months. The study was conducted during a 7-day period.
8 Because there was no standard methodology to study mouthing behavior, a pretest and a
9 series of pilot studies were conducted to examine various aspects of the methodology. As a
10 result of the pilot studies, it was determined that although parents could be taught to conduct
11 observations using the instrument, the resulting ranking of children according to degree of
12 mouthing behavior did not correspond very well to the rankings based on observations of the
13 same children by trained staff observers. Therefore, using parents' observations to select a group
14 with high mouthing activity was not deemed appropriate. Funding constraints made it
15 impractical to continue with the original design of screening a large number of children and
16 conducting field work during two different times of the year.
17 The Davis (1995) research recognizes that mouthing behavior is intermittent. Therefore,
18 a practice called the "interval method" of observation was used. This method measures both
19 frequency and duration of the behavior. Under this method, children were observed during 15
20 second intervals, during which the mouthing behavior was recorded. Based on the types of
21 behaviors observed in the testing of the instrument, two mouthing behaviors were selected for
22 the full study. These included: 1) tongue contacts object; and 2) object in mouth. In addition
23 four other behaviors were included in an attempt to better describe the types of behaviors that
24 would likely result in soil ingestion: 1) hand touches ground; 2) child is repulsed by object in
25 mouth and tries to get it out; 3) other person stops child's contact with object; and 4) child is out
26 of sight or view. To further characterize potential exposures to soil associated with the three
27 types of mouthing behaviors, six object categories were included along with the behaviors: 1)
28 hand, finger, or thumb; 2) other body parts, including toes, feet, arms; 3) natural materials,
29 including dirt, sand, rocks, leaves; 4) toys and other objects, including books, utensils, keys; 5)
30 surfaces, including window sills, floors, furniture, carpet; and 6) food or drink. An additional
31 code was added to indicate whether an object was swallowed by the child. The type of activity
-------
1 the child was engaged in during the observation period was also recorded. In addition to
2 mouthing behavior data, information about how long the child spent indoors and outdoors each
3 day, and the general types of outdoor settings in which the child played was collected.
4 Mouthing behavior data were collected during a 4-day period. Both trained observers
5 and one parent observed the children to record mouthing behavior data. Trained observers
6 recorded mouthing behavior data for 1 hour during active play time, and the parent recorded
7 mouthing behavior data for the first 15 minutes of that hour.
8 The basic measure of each type of mouthing activity derived from the observation form
9 was the percent of time spent in that activity. This measure was defined as the percentage of the
10 total number of intervals observed that indicate such an activity took place. If there was no
11 activity in an interval, that interval was excluded. For tabulating the object categories, multiple
12 instances of the same object in a single interval were counted only once in that interval.
13 Multiple instances of different objects in a single interval were counted separately under each
14 object category.
15 Based on the mouthing behavior data collected in this study, EPA calculated that during
16 the period of observation (assumed to be 1 hour) the average mouthing activity was 6.2 minutes
17 and the average tongue activity was 0.70 minutes. It is important to note that this is based on
18 one hour of observation. In order to estimate the overall mouthing activity in a day, one would
19 have to make some assumptions about the amount of time a child is involved in active play time
20 in a day. These values may also be underestimates because they assume that all the children in
21 the study were observed for one hour on each of the four days. If this were true, each child
22 would have a total of 960 intervals of observations (i.e., 3,600 seconds x intervals/15 seconds x 4
23 days). The data show that the number of intervals of observation ranged from 80 to 840. It can
24 be concluded that some children were either observed for less than one hour or less than 4 days.
25 In order to compare the values estimated by Groot et al. (1998) whose work also used
26 time as a basis for measuring mouthing activity, it is necessary to multiply the Davis (1995)
27 hourly estimate by an estimate of how long the children are awake during the day. According to
28 Davis (1995), small children aged 0 to 48 months are awake approximately 8.9 hours per day.
29 Based upon this estimate, the Davis (1995) findings translate into about 55 minutes per day of
30 mouthing activity and 6 minutes per day of tongue activity. The 55 minutes compares favorably
31 to the 37 minutes and 44 minutes estimated by Groot et al. (1998) for 3- to 6-month and 6- to 12-
6-4
-------
1 month old children, respectively, but is significantly above the 16.4 minutes and 9.3 minutes
2 estimated for the 12- to 18-month and 18- to 36-month old children, respectively. The difference
3 may be attributable to differences in sleep time between children at either end of the continuum
4 of ages included in the study (0 to 48 months).
5 Although the research included the largest sample population of the reviewed literature,
6 92 sample points is still a small number considering the wide variability associated with
7 mouthing in children. The random nature in which the population was selected probably
8 provides a representative population of the northwest U.S., but not the national population in
9 general. The interval time of 15 seconds would also appear to be small and potentially easily
10 skewed for those children observed less than an hour. In addition, most other studies used
11 observation times of 15 minutes to continuous observation throughout waking hours.
12
13 6.2.2 Groot et al., 1998
14 In this study, Groot et al. (1998) examined the mouthing behavior of infants and young
15 children between the ages of 3 and 36 months in the Netherlands. The study was part of a larger
16 effort to determine if PVC toys softened with phthalates could pose health risks to children from
17 mouthing. As part of the effort, the investigators asked parents to observe their children and
18 gather information that could be used to estimate how often children engage in mouthing and the
19 duration spent mouthing during a day. Parents were asked to observe their children ten times per
20 day for 15-minute intervals (i.e., 150 minutes total per day) for two days and measure mouthing
21 with a stopwatch. In total, 36 parents participated in the study and 42 children were observed by
22 their parents. For the study, a distinction was made between toys meant for mouthing (e.g.,
23 pacifiers, teething rings) and those not meant for mouthing. The time a child spent mouthing a
24 dummy (e.g., pacifier) was not included in the time recorded.
25 Although the sample size was relatively small, the results provide a first-order estimate
26 on mouthing times during a day. The results (Table 6-1) show wide variation. The standard
27 deviation in all four age categories except the 3- to 6-month old children exceeds the mean time
28 estimated mouthing during a day. The large standard deviations is not unexpected given the vast
29 behavioral differences from child to child and the small sample size of the study. The overall
30 trend of the data, however, may be accurate in that it shows that as the children age, the time
31 spent mouthing decreases. The 3- to 6-month children were estimated to mouth 37 minutes per
6-5
-------
1 day and the 6- to 12-month children 44 minutes per day. After 12 months, the estimated
2 mouthing time drops quickly to 16 minutes per day for 12- to 18-month children and 9 minutes
3 per day for 18- to 36-month children.
4 The study has several limitations that have an impact on the usability of the data. The
5 initial drawback concerns the small size of the study. The authors of the study acknowledge this
6 shortcoming and recommend further study using a larger sample population. In addition, the
7 study also incorporated mostly higher-educated persons. The area where the study was
8 performed consisted primarily of parents with higher education. The study had recruited persons
9 of lower education and socioeconomic levels, but these persons chose not to participate in the
10 study after recruitment. Therefore, the results do not reflect data from the full spectrum of the
11 population. The study also recorded only the time spent mouthing and not the number of times
12 that mouthing occurred and did not differentiate the types of objects mouthed. In addition,
13 children were observed for a period of two consecutive days and may not reflect long-term
14 behavior. Because this study was conducted in the Netherlands, it may not be representative of
15 the U.S. population.
16
17 6.2.3 Reed et al., 1999
18 In this study, Reed et al. (1999) used videotaping to quantify the frequency and type of
19 contacts children have during the course of an hour. The contacts included numerous categories:
20 hand to clothing, hand to dirt, hand to hand, hand to mouth, hand to object, object to mouth, hand
21 to smooth surface (e.g., counter tops, table tops), hand to textured surface (e.g., stuffed animal).
22 A total of 30 children were observed in this study. Children were observed in both day care (20
23 children 3-6 years old) and residential (10 children 2-5 years old) settings. Parents and daycare
24 providers were also asked to complete questionnaires describing the behavior of the children. In
25 addition, the study also differentiated between the use of right and left hands.
26 Over the course of the research, the investigators found that the behavior of children in
27 daycare and residential settings was similar except for the contact rate of hand to smooth
28 surfaces. Children in residential settings had higher contact rates with smooth surfaces than
29 children in day care centers. The results of the study are compiled in Table 6-2. The highest
30 contacts were with object (123 contacts/hr), smooth surfaces (84 contacts/hr), and other (83
31 contacts/hr). The two lowest contact rates were the hand-to-mouth (9.5 contacts/hr) and object-
6-6
-------
1 to-mouth (16.3 contacts/hr). Because the contact rates of hand-to-objects and smooth surfaces
2 are high, these results indicate that the fingers would appear to provide a continual dose per
3 hand-to-mouth contact because of constant touching of potentially contaminated surfaces.
4 Pesticides and other SVOCs are partitioned between the vapor and deposited phases (e.g., on
5 dust or absorbed on a plastic toy or stuffed animal) such that a child's fingers, especially if wet
6 from mouthing, will continually be acquiring doses of these types of constituents (Gurunathan et
7 al., 1998).
8 The investigators also noted that children acted equally on their environment with both
9 hands with the exception of object-to-mouth behavior. Therefore, the compiled data are reported
10 as combined right and left hand data. The object-to-mouth behavior showed a strong preference
11 for the right hand over the left hand for nearly all children (Reed et al., 1999). The preference
12 ratio for the right hand over the left hand for this category was 6.8 to 1.
13 The advantages of this study is that it incorporates a wide variety of contacts that small
14 children have, not just the hand-to-mouth or object-to-mouth. This information allows assessors
15 to identify areas or surfaces that may serve as sources for toxic constituent transfer. This is
16 especially important for exposure to SVOCs such as pesticides (e.g., chlorpyrifos) that have an
17 affinity for absorption onto dust particles, plastic toys, and into the polyurethane foam (PUF) that
18 is used in many stuffed animals (Gurunathan et al., 1998). Another strength of this study is the
19 agreement it shows with earlier work by Zartarian et al. (1998) for the hand to mouth contacts.
20 Some of the shortcomings are the small sample size of the study and the lack of comment as to
21 the representativeness of the sample population to the U.S. population. The authors
22 acknowledged the weakness in regard to the sample size and recommended further work with a
23 larger population. The study makes no mention of the representativeness of the sample
24 population or addresses the need for a representative population for any additional study.
25
26 6.2.4 Zartarian et al., 1997 and 1998
27 Zartarian et al. (1997, 1998) conducted a pilot study of four children of farm workers to
28 investigate the applicability of using videotaping for gathering information related to children's
29 interaction with their environment. The evaluation of the videotaping included observation of
30 the children's contact frequency and duration with objects in their environment, duration spent in
31 different locations, activity levels, and frequency distributions.
6-7
-------
1 Four Mexican-American farm worker children two girls and two boys between the
2 ages of 2.5 and 4.2 years were videotaped for 33 hours using hand-held cameras over the
3 course of a single day in 1993. The videotaping gathered information on detailed micro-activity
4 patterns of children to be used to evaluate software for videotaped activities and translation
5 training methods The data were also reported by type of object/surface and by left or right hand.
6 The investigators presented the data for their observations on a per child and per hand
7 basis. None of the children had average contact frequencies for either hand, individually, lower
8 than 3 contacts/hr for hand to mouth contact, and the investigators estimated the average as 9
9 contacts/hr with an average range of 1 to 29 contacts/hr. As also reported by Reed et al. (1999),
10 the most frequently contacted objects were toys and hard (i.e., smooth) surfaces. The average
11 contact time with objects is only 2 to 3 seconds; therefore, according to the authors,
12 questionnaires and diaries would be insufficient in gathering that level of activity.
13 This study has several weaknesses. The sample population is very small, only four
14 children; however, the work was reported as a pilot study completely acknowledging that further
15 work was necessary. The effort was intended to evaluate the methodology of collecting
16 observations, not the contact data itself. The data are not presented in a format that can be used
17 to support other research or supply recommended estimates for contact frequency. This study
18 may not reflect long-term behavior. In addition, the sample population is not representative of
19 the U.S. population in general.
20
21 6.2.5 Stanek et al., 1998
22 Stanek et al. (1998) presented a methodology that characterizes the prevalence of
23 mouthing behavior among healthy children . Data regarding the frequency of 28 mouthing
24 behaviors were collected via face-to-face interviews over a period of 3 months from parents or
25 guardians of 533 children ages 1 to 6 years old attending well-visits in Western Massachusetts.
26 Three clinics participated in this study during the months of August, September, and October,
27 1992: Kaiser Permanente's clinic in Amherst, a private clinic associated with the Cooley
28 Dickinson Hospital in Northampton, and the Bay State Medical Center clinic in Springfield.
29 Participants were questioned about the frequency of 28 mouthing behaviors of the children over
30 the past month in addition to exposure time (e.g., time outdoors, play in sand or dirt) and
6-8
-------
1 children's characteristics (e.g., teething). Response categories of the clinic questionnaire
2 corresponded to daily, at least weekly, at least monthly, and never.
3 The authors expressed the mouthing rate for each child as the sum of rates for responses
4 to four questions on mouthing specific outdoor objects. Regression models with variables in a
5 step-wise manner identified factors related to high outdoor mouthing rates. The authors first
6 considered variables that indicated opportunity for exposure, then subjects' characteristics (e.g.,
7 teething) and environmental factors, and finally, concurrent reported behaviors.
8 Table 6-3 presents the prevalence of non-food ingestion/mouthing behaviors by child's
9 age as the percent of children whose parents reported the behavior in the past month. The table
10 includes a column of data for the 3 to <6 year age category; this column was calculated by EPA
11 as a weighted mean value of the individual data for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds in order to conform to
12 the standardized age categories used in this Handbook. Outdoor soil mouthing behavior
13 prevalence was found to be higher than indoor dust mouthing prevalence, but both behaviors had
14 the highest prevalence among 1-year-old children and dropped quickly among children 2 years
15 old and older. The investigators conducted principal component analyses on responses to four
16 questions relating to ingestion/mouthing of outdoor objects (Table 6-3) in an attempt to
17 characterize variability. Responses were converted to mouthing rates per week, using values of
18 0, 0.25, 1, and 7 for responses of never, monthly, weekly, and daily ingestion. Outdoor
19 ingestion/mouthing rates for were 4.73 per week and 0.44 per week for children 1 year of age
20 and 2-6 years of age, respectively. The frequency with which children played in sand/dirt was
21 estimated as a measure of potential exposure; 71% of the children were reported to have played
22 in sand or dirt at least weekly, and 45% were reported to have played in the sand or dirt daily.
23 The authors found that children who played in the sand or dirt had higher outdoor object
24 ingestion/mouthing rates. Thus, children with higher direct exposure to sand or dirt were more
25 likely to ingest or mouth outdoor objects. The investigators found similar results when
26 comparing the time spent outdoors to reported outdoor ingestion and mouthing rates; the data
27 indicate that 65% of one-year old children and 42 percent of children 2-6 years old spend less
28 than 3 hours per day outdoors. A strength of this study is that it focuses on the prevalence
29 of specific behaviors to quantify soil mouthing or ingestion among healthy children. The results
30 of this study might have important health implications as it showed that 1-year-old children with
31 high general levels of mouthing behavior have the potential for high risk soil ingestion.
6-9
-------
1 A limitation associated with this study is that the data are based on recall behavior from
2 the summer previous to the interview. Extrapolation to other seasons may be difficult. In
3 addition, data were collected for children in Western Massachusetts and data were only available
4 for the healthy children who were present for well-visits.
5
6 6.2.6 Freeman et al., 2001
7 As part of the Minnesota Children's Pesticide Exposure Study (MNCPES), macroactivity
8 and microactivity data were collected via questionnaire from the families of a group of 168
9 children, and a subset of 19 of these children were videotaped for four consecutive hours during
10 the months of August and September 1997. The children were between the ages of 3 and 12
11 years old and were living in both urban and rural areas of Minnesota. For the time/activity
12 questionnaires, the parents provided the responses for children ages 3 and 4, and collaborated
13 with or assisted older children with their responses. The videotapes were analyzed using the
14 methods reported by Reed (1999), and for comparison, four children's videotapes were also
15 analyzed using the VideoTraq transcription system described by Zartarian et al. (1995).
16 Videotapes were transcribed once for the left hand and once for the right hand, and the frequency
17 of six behaviors (hand-to-mouth, hand-to-object, object-to-mouth, hand-to-smooth surface, hand-
18 to-textured surface, and hand-to-clothing) was recorded. The amount of time each child spent
19 indoors, outdoors, in contact with soil or grass, and whether the child was barefoot was also
20 recorded. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS and Systat.
21 For the survey responses, only eating food dropped on the floor was significantly greater
22 for one age group (3-4 year olds), when compared to two other age groups (Table 6-4). When
23 the survey responses were further broken down by age, the 3-year-olds had significantly more
24 positive responses for all reported behavior compared to the other age groups. High response
25 rates (>70%) to additional questions directed toward the 3- and 4-year-old children, regarding
26 the use of blankets and toys indicated that these questions should also have been asked of the
27 older children.
28 Among the four age categories studied for the 19 videotaped children, object-to-mouth
29 activities were significantly greater for the 3-year-olds than any other age group, with a mean of
30 6 contacts per hour (P = 0.002) (Table 6-5). Contact with clothing was slightly more frequent
6-10
-------
1 and contact with smooth surfaces less frequent among the two oldest groups of children, but
2 neither of these differences was statistically significant.
3 Gender differences were observed for some of the activities, with boys spending
4 significantly more time outdoors than girls (Table 6-6). Hand-to-mouth and object-to-mouth
5 activities were less frequent outdoors than indoors for both boys and girls. No significant
6 differences were observed in the frequency of events recorded using the Reed manual counting
7 system and the Video Iraq computer-based video transcription system.
8 The advantage of this study is that it contains both survey and videotaped information on
9 mouthing behavior, and that various ages were studied. The limitations of the study are that the
10 sample size is small and was from a limited area (urban area of St. Paul/Minneapolis) not
11 representative of the national population in general.
12
13 6.2.7 Juberg et al., 2001
14 Juberg et al. (2001) used a diary-based approach to record mouthing behavior in children
15 up to three years of age. An initial pilot study involved 30 children, including 15 between the
16 ages of 0 and 18 months and 15 between the ages of 19 and 36 months. A second phase of the
17 study added 92 children to the younger group and 95 to the older group, for a total pooled data
18 set of 107 and 110 persons, respectively. For the pilot and second study, diary forms were
19 distributed to approximately 450 families; the distribution was split equally between a
20 commercial child play research center and a nursery school/daycare center. Parents were asked
21 to observe their child's behavior on a single day of their choosing during a three-week period,
22 and record the insertion of objects into the mouth by noting the "time in" and "time out."
23 Mouthed items were classified as pacifiers, teethers, plastic toys, or other objects. In the data
24 analysis, pacifiers were examined as a separate category and data for all other items were pooled
25 into a "non-pacifier" category.
26 The results of the combined pilot and Phase II data are shown in Table 6-7. For both age
27 groups, mouthing time for pacifiers greatly exceeded mouthing time for non-pacifiers, with the
28 difference more acute for the older age group than for the younger age group. Histograms of the
29 observed data show a peak in the low end of the distribution (0 to 100 minutes per day) and a
30 rapid decline at longer durations.
6-11
-------
1 A third phase of the study focused on children between the ages of 3 and 18 months and
2 included only non-pacifiers. Subjects were observed for 5 non-consecutive days over a 2-month
3 period. A total of 168 participants returned surveys for at least one day, providing a total of 793
4 person-days of data. The data yielded a mean mouthing duration of 36 minutes per day; the mean
5 was the same when calculated on the basis of 793 person-days of data as on the basis of 168
6 daily average mouthing times.
7 The advantages of this study are that it involved a large number of participants compared
8 to other studies of mouthing behavior. It also exhibited consistency of results from the pilot
9 study to the second and third phases. The potential sources of error include the limited
10 geographic range of the study (western New York state) and the subjective nature of the
11 observation and diary-based approach. Another limitation of this study is that it focused on
12 object mouthing behavior and did not include hand-to-mouth behavior.
13
14 6.2.8 Greene, 2002
15 The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) investigated the potential health
16 risks to children under three years of age from teethers, rattles, and toys made from polyvinyl
17 chloride (PVC) containing various dialkyl phthalate (DAP) plasticizers. They conducted an
18 observational study to quantify the cumulative time per day that young children spend mouthing
19 objects, including toys and other children's products. The study was conducted from December
20 1999 through February 2001 in two geographical areas: Houston, TX and Chicago, IL. Subjects
21 were recruited using telephone random digit dialing techniques.
22 During the first phase of the study, the parent or legal guardian observed the child and
23 recorded all mouthing behaviors for four 15-minute segments over two days. If the child was
24 under 36 months of age, they were recruited to participate in phase II. During phase II, a trained
25 observer recorded the child's behavior for a total of four hours on at least two different days.
26 The observations were done at different times of the day at home or a the child care facility
27 attended by the child. A total of 491 children participated in phase I. The total number of
28 participants in phase II was 169. The age of the children were between 3 months and 3 years of
29 age. Of the 169 children in phase II, 109 participated in phase I. Data from phase I were
30 analyzed and reported independently from phase II and were not provided by Greene (2002).
6-12
-------
1 Table 6-8 provides the average mouthing time by object category and age in minutes per
2 hour. Mouthing time statistics by object categories and age are presented in Table 6-9. The
3 average mouthing time for all objects ranged from 5.3 to 10.5 minutes per hour, with the highest
4 mouthing time corresponding to children <1 year of age and the lowest to the 2-3 years of age.
5 Among the objects mouthed, pacifiers represent about one third of the total mouthing time, with
6 3.4 minutes per hour for the youngest children, 2.6 minutes per hour for the children between 1
7 and 2 years and 1.8 minutes per hour for children over 2 years old. The next largest single item
8 category was anatomy, representing children sucking fingers and thumbs. In this category,
9 children under 1 year of age spent 2.4 minutes per hour and it declined with age, with the 1.2
10 minutes per hours for the 2-3 years old.
11 Daily mouthing times were estimated using a bootstrap procedure using a normally
12 distributed random variable for the exposure time based on the child's age. The bootstrap
13 procedure is a statistical technique in which a set of collected data is randomly sub-sampled
14 hundreds or thousands of times in order to empirically derive confidence limits on the mean of
15 the main sample set. The empirical distribution of mouthing time was used to calculate statistics
16 and confidence intervals and was selected independently of exposure time. The bootstrap
17 sampling was done 5000 times to generate mean, median, and 95th percentile daily mouthing
18 time for each age group and object category. The results of the bootstrap procedure are
19 presented in Table 6-10. The estimated mean daily mouthing time for non-pacifiers ranged from
20 37 min/day to 70 min/day with the lowest number corresponding to the 2-3 years old and the
21 largest number corresponding to the 3 months -12 months old.
22
23 6.2.9 Tulve et al., 2002
24 In this study, previously unpublished data from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
25 Center, Seattle, Washington were analyzed. Data were collected by trained observers who
26 described and quantified the mouthing behavior of 90 children in their home environment. The
27 children ranged in age from 10-60 months. The observers recorded mouth and tongue contacts
28 with hands, other body parts, natural objects, surfaces, and toys every 15 seconds for a minimum
29 of 15 minutes. Children's activities were coded as quiet or active play, and locations were coded
30 as indoor or outdoor environments. The final data set that was analyzed for this study included
31 only those children who were coded as engaging in quiet play in an indoor environment (72
6-13
-------
1 children, ranging in age from 11-60 months). A total of 186 observations were included in the
2 study, with the number of observations per child ranging from 1-6. Data analyses to evaluate the
3 influence of age and gender were conducted using a linear SAS model (Version 8.02; SAS
4 Institute, Cary, NC).
5 Results of the data analyses indicated that there was no association between mouthing
6 frequency and gender, but a clear association between mouthing frequency and age was
7 observed. Using a tree analysis, children <24 months had the highest frequency of mouthing
8 behavior (81 events/hour) and children >24 months had the lowest (42 events/hour) (Table 6-11).
9 Both groups of children were observed to mouth toys and hands more frequently than body parts
10 other than hands and surfaces.
11 The advantage of this study is that mouthing data is provided for different age groups and
12 for a variety of objects (mouth-body, -hand, -surface, and -toy). This study is limited in that it
13 focuses on children involved in quiet play in an indoor environment.
14
15 6.2.10 Smith and Norris, 2003
16 Smith and Norris (2003) conducted a diary-based observational study of mouthing
17 behavior among 236 children between the ages of 1 month and 5 years. Children were observed
18 at home by parents, who recorded the time that mouthing began, the type of mouthing (licking,
19 sucking, chewing, etc.), the type of object being mouthed, and the time that mouthing ceased.
20 Children were observed for a total of 5 hours over a two-week period; the observation time
21 consisted of twenty 15-minute periods evenly distributed through the week and throughout the
22 child's waking hours. Results of the study are shown in Table 6-12. While no overall pattern
23 could be found in the different age groups tested, a Kruskal-Wallis test on the data for all items
24 mouthed indicated that there was a significant difference between the age groups. Across all age
25 groups and types of items, licking and sucking accounted for 64% of all mouthing behavior.
26 Pacifiers and fingers exhibited less variety on mouthing behavior (principally sucking), while
27 other items had a higher frequency of licking, biting, or other mouthing.
28 The principal advantage of this study is its inclusion of the type of mouthing behavior in
29 the survey. However, it suffers from the same limitations as many other survey-based studies,
30 including observer bias, a relatively low sample size (especially when broken down by age), and
31 a limited geographic scope. The study was conducted in the United Kingdom.
6-14
-------
1 6.2.11 AuYeung etal.,2004
2 Au Yeung et al. videotaped 38 children (20 female and 18 male; ages 1-6 years) for two
3 hours during indoor and outdoor play. Children were recruited for the study by calling telephone
4 numbers randomly extracted from the telephone directory for an approximately 400 square mile
5 portion of the San Francisco peninsula. Families who lived in a residence with a lawn and
6 whose annual income was >$35,000 were asked to participate. Videotaping took place between
7 August 1998 and May 1999. Most of the videotaping took place during outdoor play, however,
8 data were included for several children (one child <2 years old and 8 children >2 years old) who
9 had more than 15 minutes of indoor play during their videotaping sessions. The videotapes were
10 translated into ASCII computer files using VirtualTimingDevice software, which allowed the
11 duration of very short mouthing events to be captured.
12 For analysis, the mouthing contacts were divided into indoor and outdoor locations, and
13 16 object/surface categories. Mouthing frequency, contact duration, and hourly duration were all
14 analyzed by age and gender separately, and in combination. Mouthing contacts were defined as
15 contact with the lips, inside of the mouth, and/or the tongue; dietary contacts were ignored.
16 Nonparametric tests, such as the Wilcoxon rank sum test were used for the data analyses.
17 Mouthing frequencies for indoor locations are shown in Table 6-13. For the one child
18 observed that was <24 months, the total mouthing frequency was 84.8 contacts/hour; for children
19 >24 months, the median indoor mouthing frequency was 19.5 contacts/hour. Outdoor median
20 mouthing frequencies (Table 6-14) were very similar for children <24 months (13.9
21 contacts/hour) and >24 months (14.6 contacts/hour).
22 For the children in all age groups, the median duration of each mouthing contact was 1-2
23 seconds, confirming the observations of other researchers that children's mouthing contacts are
24 of very short duration. For the one child observed that was <24 months, the total indoor
25 mouthing duration was 11.1 minutes/hour; for children >24 months, the median indoor mouthing
26 duration was 0.9 minutes/hour (Table 6-15). For outdoor environments, median contact
27 durations for these age groups decreased to 0.8 and 0.6 minutes/hour, respectively (Table 6-16).
28 Both age and gender were found to be associated with differences in mouthing behavior.
29 Children <24 months had significantly longer hand-to-mouth contact durations than older
30 children (p = 0.04), but no significant age-related differences were found in mouthing
31 frequencies or hourly mouthing durations. Girls had significantly higher frequencies of
6-15
-------
1 mouthing contacts with the hands and non-dietary objects than boys (p = 0.01 andp = 0.008,
2 respectively). Girls' hand-to-mouth contact durations were also significantly shorter than for
3 boys (p = 0.04).
4 This study is useful in that it provides distributions of outdoor mouthing frequencies and
5 durations with a variety of objects and surfaces. Although indoor mouthing data are also
6 included in this study, the results are based on a small number of children (w=9) and a limited
7 amount of indoor play.
8
9 6.2.12 Black et al., 2005
10 In a recent study, the mouthing and food-handling behavior of 52 children (26 boys and
11 26 girls) from 29 homes in the mid-Rio Grande Valley was videotaped as part of a year-long
12 pesticide exposure study (Black et al., 2005). The children were grouped into four age
13 categories: infants (7-12 months), 1-year-olds (13-24 months), 2-year-olds (25-36 months), and
14 preschoolers (37-53 months). Detailed baseline and activity questionnaires were administered,
15 and each child was videotaped for four hours. The children were followed by the videographers
16 through the house and yard, except for times when they were napping or using the bathroom.
17 Records were kept of any significant interruptions during videotaping. Virtual Timing Device
18 software, a refinement of the videotape software described by Zartarian et al. (1997) was used to
19 analyze the videotapes. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software was used to analyze
20 microactivity data and questionnaire results.
21 Most of the children (49 of 52) spent the majority of their time indoors. Of the 39
22 children who spent time both indoors and outdoors, all three behaviors (hand-to-mouth, object-
23 to-mouth and food handling) were more frequent and longer while the child was indoors. Hand-
24 to-mouth activity was recorded during the videotaping for all but one child, a 30-month-old girl.
25 For the four age groups, the mean hourly hand-to-mouth frequency ranged from 11.9 (2-
26 year-olds) to 22.1 (preschoolers), the mean hourly object-to-mouth frequency ranged from 7.8
27 (2-year-olds) to 24.4 (infants), and the mean hourly hand-to-food frequency ranged from 10.8
28 (infants) to 17.2 (1-year-olds). Significant linear trends were observed for hourly object-to-
29 mouth frequency, which decreased as age increased (adjusted R2 = 0.179; P = 0.003), and hand-
30 to-mouth frequency, which increased with increasing food contact frequency for children over 12
31 months (adjusted R2 = 0.291; P = 0.002). Results of this study are shown in Table 6-17.
6-16
-------
1 The advantage of this study is that it includes both survey and videotaped information on
2 mouthing behavior. The limitations of this study are that the sample population was fairly small
3 and was from a limited area (mid-Rio Grande Valley) not representative of the national
4 population in general. In addition, the duration data in this study is presented as "% of tape
5 time" and cannot be converted to a "minutes/day" format for comparison with other studies.
6
7 6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
8 Due to the paucity of the available research data, mouthing frequency data should be
9 used with caution. Table 6-18 summarizes the studies on mouthing behavior that were described
10 in this chapter. Table 6-19 summarizes the mean mouthing time and frequencies for hand-to-
11 mouth, object-to-mouth, and totals from these studies. Table 6-20 and 6-21 summarize the
12 recommended mean values for mouthing time and frequency, respectively, for the recommended
13 age categories. The data for each of the standardized age categories in Table 6-20 and 6-21 are
14 calculated as a weighted mean of values from studies in this chapter that are relevant to each age
15 category. In some cases the age categories used in the studies did not correspond exactly to
16 EPA's recommended age groups. In those cases, the closest age group was used as indicated in
17 the Tables 6-20 and 6-21. As mentioned earlier, the studies in this chapter use different units of
18 reporting mouthing behavior. If the assessor is interested in estimating exposures during
19 macroactivities, then the total amount of time engaged in mouthing behavior (Table 6-20) may
20 be the unit of interest. If the assessor is interested in estimating exposures to various
21 microactivities, then the number of contacts with hands or objects per unit of time (Table 6-21)
22 may be the unit of interest. No data were available for infants from birth to <1 month old. There
23 were also no recommendations presented for 1 to <3 months in Table 6-21 and 6-22 or for 3 to
24 <6 years in Table 6-20. Smith and Norris (2003) included children from 1-5 years of age.
25 However, the study is biased high because it included children who were sucking their thumb or
26 finger. According to Smith and Norris (2003), this effect is more significant in the older children
27 in the study.
28 Total mean mouthing time ranged from 7 min/day to 65 min/day, with the lowest value
29 corresponding to 2 to 6 years old and the highest value corresponding to 6 to <12 months old.
30 Total mean mouthing frequency ranged from 5 contacts/hr to 54 contacts/hr, with the lowest
31 value corresponding to the 6 to <11 years old and the highest value corresponding to the 1 to <2
6-17
-------
1 years old. Mean hand-to-mouth contact ranged from 4 contacts/hr to 20 contacts/hr, with the
2 lowest value corresponding to the 6 to <11 years old and the highest value corresponding to the 6
3 to <12 months old.
4 Table 6-22 presents the confidence ratings for the recommended values. The overall
5 confidence rating was low because sample sizes were small for some of the age groups.
6 Children's behavior is difficult to measure and somewhat subjective because it depends on the
7 experience of the observer.
6-18
-------
1 6.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6
2
3 AuYeung, W; Canales, R; Beamer, P; Ferguson, AC; and Leckie, JO. (2004) Young children's mouthing behavior:
4 An observational study via videotaping in a primarily outdoor residential setting. J Children's Health 2(3-4):271-
5 295.
6
7 Black, K; Shalat, SL; Freeman, NCG; Jimenez, M; Donnelly, KC; Calvin, JA. (2005) Children's mouthing and
8 food-handling behavior in an agricultural community on the US/Mexico border. JEAEE. 15:244-251.
9
10 Davis (1995). Soil Ingestion in Children with Pica (Final Report), EPA Cooperative Agreement CR 816334-01
11
12 Freeman, CG; Jimenez, M; Reed, KJ; Gurunathan, S; Edwards, RD; Roy, A; Adgate, JL; Pellizzari, ED;
13 Quackenboss, J; Sexton, K; Lioy, PJ. (2001) Quantitative analysis of children's microactivity patterns: The
14 Minnesota children's pesticide exposure study. JEAEE 11:501-509.
15
16 Greene, M.A. (2002) Mouthing times among young children from observational data. U.S. Consumer Product
17 Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD.
18
19 Groot M., Lekkerkerk M., Steenbekkers L. (1998) Mouthing behavior of young children - an observational study.
20 H&C onderzoeksrapport 3.
21
22 Gurunathan S., Robson M., Freeman N., Buckley B., Roy A., Meyer R., Bukowski J., and Lioy P. (1998)
23 Accumulation of chloropyrifos on residential surfaces and toys accessible to children. Environ. Health Pers.
24 106(1):9-16.
25
26 Hubal, E.A.; Sheldon, L.S.; Burke, J.M.; McCurdy, T.R.; Berry, M.R.; Rigas, M.L.; Zartarian, V.G. (2000)
27 Children's exposure assessment: A review of factors influencing children's exposure, and the data available to
28 characterize and assess that exposure. Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure
29 Research Laboratory, RTF, NC.
30
31 Juberg,D.R.; Alfano, K; Coughlin, R.J.; Thompson, K.M. (2001) An Observational Study of Object Mouthing
32 Behavior by Young Children. Pediatrics 107 (1) 135-142.
33
34 Reed K., Jimenez M., Freeman N., and Lioy P. (1999) Quantification of children's hand and mouthing activities
35 through a videotaping methodology. JEAEE. 9:513-520.
36
37 Smith, S.A., and Norris, B. (2003). Reducing the risk of choking hazards: mouthing behavior of children aged 1
38 month to 5 years. Injury Control and Safety Promotion 10(3):145-154.
39
40 Stanek, E.J.; Calabrese, E.J.; Mundt, K.; Pekow, P.; Yeatts, K.B. (1998) Prevalence of soil mouthing/ingestion
41 among healthy children aged 1 to 6. Journal of Soil Contamination. 7(2):227-242.
42
43 Tulve, NS; Suggs, JC; McCurdy, T; Cohen Hubal, EA; Moya, J. (2002) Frequency of mouthing behavior in young
44 children. JEAEE. 12:259-264.
45
46 U.S. EPA (1997) Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for residential exposure assessment. Washington, DC:
47 Office of Pesticide Programs.
48
49 U.S. EPA, National Exposure Research Laboratory. (1999) Children's exposure assessment: A review of factors
50 influencing children's exposure, and the data available to characterize and assess that exposure.
51
52 Weaver V., Buckley T., and Groopman J. (1998) Approaches to environmental exposure assessment in children.
53 Environ. Health Pers. 106(3):827-831
54
6-19
-------
1 Zartarian V., Ferguson A., and Leckie J. (1997) Quantified dermal activity data from a four-child pilot field study.
2 JEAEE 7(4):543-553.
3
4 Zartarian, VG; Ferguson, AC; Leckie, JO. (1998) Quantified mouthing activity data from a four-child pilot field
5 study. JEAEE 8(4):543-553.
6
6-20
-------
Table 6-1. Extrapolated Total Mouthing Times Minutes per Day (time awake)
Age (months)
3 -6
6- 12
12- 18
18-36
No. Children
5
14
12
11
Mean
36.9
44
16.4
9.3
Standard Dev.
19.1
44.7
18.2
9.8
Minimum
14.5
2.4
0
0
Maximum
67
171.5
53.2
30.9
Note: The object most mouthed in all age groups in the fingers except for the 6-12 month group which mostly
mouthed on toys.
Source: Groot et al. (1998)
6-21
-------
Table 6-2. Frequency of Contact (Contacts per Hour)
Variable
Clothing
Dirt
Hand
Hand to mouth
Object
Object to mouth
Other
Smooth surface
Textured surface
Mean
66.6
11.4
21.1
9.5
122.9
16.3
82.9
83.7
22.1
Median
65
0.3
14.2
8.5
118.7
3.6
64.3
80.2
16.3
Minimum
22.8
0
6.3
0.4
56.2
0
8.3
13.6
0.2
Maximum
129.2
146.3
116.4
25.7
312
86.2
243.6
190.4
68.7
90th Percentile
103.3
56.4
43.5
20.1
175.8
77.1
199.6
136.9
52.2
Source: Reed et al. (1999)
6-22
-------
Table 6-3. Prevalence of Non-Food Ingestion/Mouthing Behaviors by Child's Age: Percent of Children Whose
Parents Reports the Behavior in the Past Month
Non-Food
Ingestion/mouthing
Prevalence
of
Behavior
Child's Age (years)
1
N=171
2
N=70
3
N=93
4
N=82
5
N=90
6
N=22
3 to <6a
N=265
All
N=528
Uutdoor "soil' moutnmg/lngestion
Sand, stones
Grass, leaves,
Flowers
Twigs, sticks,
woodchips
Soil, dirt
Dust, lint, dustballs
Plaster, chalk
Paintchips, splinters
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
54
36
17
48
34
16
42
29
12
38
24
11
14
7
2
8
5
2
6
2
0
26
10
0
16
7
0
23
7
0
21
7
0
4
1
0
10
3
0
0
0
0
19
6
2
24
14
2
13
9
0
5
3
1
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
9
2
1
13
4
1
13
5
1
7
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
4
1
0
7
4
1
9
6
1
11
7
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
9
5
5
5
0
0
5
0
0
9
9
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
12
4
1
16
8
1
12
7
0
5
2
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
27
16
6
26
16
6
23
14
4
18
10
4
6
3
1
5
2
1
3
1
0
General mouthing of objects
Other toys
Paper, cardboard,
tissues
Teething toys
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
88
82
63
71
54
28
65
55
44
53
44
27
37
23
9
29
16
6
64
42
20
32
20
8
15
9
6
44
26
9
23
12
5
4
1
0
42
28
7
18
7
2
3
1
0
23
9
5
14
9
5
9
9
9
50
32
12
24
13
5
8
4
2
62
49
30
41
28
13
29
22
17
6-23
-------
Non-Food
Ingestion/mouthing
Crayons, pencils,
erasers
Blankets, cloth
Shoes, Footware
Clothing
Other items
Crib, chairs,
furniture
Prevalence
of
Behavior
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
Child's Age (years)
1
N=171
56
41
19
51
42
29
50
42
20
49
39
25
41
35
22
37
26
13
2
N=70
54
37
17
21
17
11
23
10
1
34
24
7
30
26
11
11
9
3
3
N=93
46
25
4
26
17
9
8
3
0
37
23
11
30
24
15
8
3
1
4
N=82
50
27
6
22
18
13
7
2
0
43
28
9
23
15
7
10
5
1
5
N=90
41
26
4
22
14
7
2
1
0
26
16
6
21
10
6
4
2
0
6
N=22
36
27
18
14
14
5
5
5
0
27
14
14
27
14
5
5
0
0
3 to <6a
N=265
46
26
5
23
16
10
6
2
0
35
22
9
25
16
9
7
3
1
All
N=528
50
32
12
32
25
16
22
16
7
39
27
14
31
23
14
17
11
5
Sucking of fingers, etc
Suck fingers/thumb
Suck feet or toes
Use pacifier
Suck hair
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
67
60
44
37
23
8
24
22
20
1
1
1
41
27
21
14
4
1
9
9
6
3
3
1
43
31
22
12
3
0
6
5
5
8
2
1
57
43
26
11
2
1
2
2
1
9
2
0
39
31
24
3
1
0
2
2
1
10
4
2
41
18
14
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
5
0
46
35
24
9
2
0
3
3
2
9
3
1
52
41
30
18
9
3
11
10
9
5
2
1
6-24
-------
Non-Food
Ingestion/mouthing
Prevalence
of
Behavior
Child's Age (years)
1
N=171
2
N=70
3
N=93
4
N=82
5
N=90
6
N=22
3 to <6a
N=265
All
N=528
"Disgusting" object mouthing/ingestion
Soap, detergent,
shampoo
Plastic, plastic wrap
Cigarette butts,
:obacco
Matches
[nsect
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
48
37
15
32
22
7
16
10
4
6
2
1
5
2
0
34
27
14
19
11
4
6
4
0
4
3
0
1
0
0
24
14
3
8
3
1
5
4
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
17
11
2
7
4
0
4
1
1
4
1
0
4
4
2
9
6
0
9
4
1
3
2
1
1
1
0
2
2
2
9
9
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
10
2
8
4
1
4
2
1
2
1
0
3
2
2
29
21
8
17
10
3
8
5
2
4
2
0
3
2
1
Other ingestion and behaviors
Toothpaste
Chew gum
Bite nails
Suck hair
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
% > Monthly
% > Weekly
% Daily
63
60
52
18
10
3
8
5
2
62
57
42
97
94
87
56
40
17
26
23
7
76
64
39
92
91
86
76
60
18
31
24
12
85
77
43
94
93
93
76
60
13
29
20
9
96
88
55
93
92
89
91
69
21
33
26
10
88
81
52
86
86
82
100
68
36
59
45
14
73
68
45
93
92
89
81
63
17
31
23
10
89
82
50
84
82
77
58
43
14
24
18
7
78
71
45
aWeighted mean of 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds' data calculated by EPA to conform to standardized age categories
used in this Handbook.
Source: Stanek et al. (1998).
6-25
-------
Table 6-4. Percent of Children with Reported Behaviors From the Telephone Survey Conducted in the
MNCPES (n= 168).
Reported Behavior
Hand-to-mouth
Non-feed items in mouth
Eats food dropped on floor
Eats most food without
utensils
Puts paint chips in mouth
Percent Reported by Age Group
3-4 Years (n=27) 5-9 Years (n=93) 10-12 Years (n=48)
56
52
48
37
0
39
31
10
29
0
35*
37
4**
19*
0
x2 test, *P<0.10 between youngest and oldest groups; **significant difference across three groups.
Source: Freeman et al., 2001
Table 6-5. Median (Mean) Observed Activity Rate (Hand Contacts Per Hour) Based on 4 Hours of
Observation Per Person.
Observed Activity
Age
Object-to-mouth***
Hand-to-mouth
Touch clothing**
Touch textured surface*
Touch smooth surface
Touch object
Age Category (Years)
3-4 (n=3) 5-6 (n=7) 7-8 (n=4) 10-12 (n=5)
3(6)
3.5 (4)
26 (34)
40 (52)
134 (151)
130 (153)
0(1)
2.5 (8)
22 (26)
20 (32)
111 (120)
117 (132)
0(1)
3(5)
50 (54)
22 (58)
120(155)
111 (164)
0(1)
2(4)
35(53)
16 (24)
94 (96)
127(179)
Kruskal Wallis test comparison across four age groups: *P=0.1108; **P=0.0796; ***P=0.002.
Source: Freeman et al., 2001
6-26
-------
Table 6-6. Comparison of Observed Activities for Boys and Girls (Mean).
Observed Activity
Hours since last hand wash
Time spent outdoors (minutes)*
Time spent indoors (minutes)*
Hand-to-mouth indoors/hour*
Hand-to-mouth outdoors/hour
Object-to-mouth indoors/hour
Object-to-mouth outdoors/hour
Boys (n=8)
5.9
104.4
134.3
4.7
1.7
1.0
0.1
Girls (n=ll)
3.5
54.0
186.0
8.1
2.3
2.6
1.0
*P<0.05 by Mann-Whitney test.
Source: Freeman et al., 2001
Table 6-7. Mouthing times for Pacifiers and Other Objects, by Age Category
Object Type
Pacifier
Non-Pacifier
Teether
Plastic Toy
Other Objects
Age 0 to 18 months
All Respondents
(minutes/day)
108 (n= 107)
33b(n=107)
6(n=107)
17(n=107)
9(n=107)
Doers Onlya
(minutes/day)
221 (n=52)
not calculated
20 (n=34)
28 (n=66)
22 (n=46)
Age 19 to 36 months
All Respondents
(minutes/day)
126 (n=110)
5b(n=110)
0(n=110)
2(n=110)
2(n=110)
Doers Onlya
(minutes/day)
462 (n=52)
not calculated
30(n=l)
11 (n=21)
15 (n=18)
sDoers only analysis refers to means calculated for the subset of the sample population that participated in the activity; zeroes are eliminated from
the calculation of the mean.
bTotal for non-pacifiers may not equal sum of individual items due to rounding.
Source: Juberg et al., 2001
6-27
-------
Table 6-8 Average Mouthing Time by Object Category and Age (min/hr)
Object Category
All Objects
Pacifiers
Non Pacifiers
All Soft Plastic Items
Soft Plastic Items Not Food Contact
Soft Plastic Toys, Teethers and Rattles
Soft Plastic Toys
Soft Plastic Teethers and Rattles
Other Soft Plastic Items
Soft Plastic Food Contact Items
Anatomy
Non Soft Plastic Toys, Teethers and Rattles
Other Items
All Ages
7.7
2.6
5.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.8
0.9
2.1
3-12
months
10.5
3.4
7.1
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
2.4
1.8
2.5
12-24
months
7.3
2.6
4.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
1.7
0.6
2.1
24-36
months
5.3
1.8
3.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.2
0.2
1.7
Source : Greene, 2002
6-28
-------
Table 6-9. Mouthing Time Statistics for Various Objects (min/hr)
Age Group
Mean (SD)
Median
gS^Percentile
gg^Percentile
All Items
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 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 Pacifiers
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 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
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 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
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 months
0.4 (0.6)
0.3 (0.4)
0.2 (0.4)
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.8
1.1
1.3
2.0
1.5
1.8
Soft Plastic Toys, Teethers, and Rattles
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 months
0.3 (0.5)
0.2(0.3)
0.1 (0.2)
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.9
0.2
2.0
1.3
1.6
Soft Plastic Toys
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 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
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 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
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 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
6-29
-------
Table 6-9. Mouthing Time Statistics for Various Objects (min/hr)
Age Group
Mean (SD)
Median
gS^Percentile
gg^Percentile
Soft Plastic Food Contact Items
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 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
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 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
Non Soft Plastic Toys, Teethers, and Rattles
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 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
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 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
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 months
3.4(6.9)
2.6 (6.5)
1.8 (7.9)
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.5
19.9
4.8
37.3
28.6
46.3
Source: Greeene, 2002
6-30
-------
Table 6-10. Estimated Daily Mouthing Times for Various Objects (min/day)
Age Group
Mean
(confidence
intervals)
Median
(confidence
intervals)
gS^Percentile
(confidence
intervals)
gg^Percentile
(confidence
intervals)
Non Pacifiers
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 months
70.1
(60.6-79.8)
47.4
(38.9 -57.1)
37.0
(27.0 -48.5)
65.6
(52.3 -78.2)
37.0
(28.7-49.9)
23.8
(18.4 -29.3)
134.4
(117.1 - 153.2)
121.5
(85.2 - 166.0)
124.3
(70.9 - 173.3)
153.1
(129.6- 180.6)
180.3
(123.6 -235.5)
167.9
(104.0 -208.0)
Soft Plastic Items
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 months
4.4
(3.0-6.1)
3.8
(2.8 -4.9)
4.2
(2.5-6.1)
1.5
(0.3-3.7)
2.2
(1.0-3.8)
1.5
(0.2-3.0)
17.5
(12.2-23.3)
13.0
(9.6 - 17.8)
18.5
(9.6 -29.4)
23.0
(16.2 -30.1)
18.9
(12.8 -23.8)
28.0
(15.9 -37.6)
Soft Plastic Toys
3-12 months
12-24 months
24-36 months
1.3
(0.7-2.0)
1.9
(1.2-2.6)
0.8
(0.3 - 1.6)
0.0
(0.0-0.3)
0.1
(0.0-0.6)
0.0
(0.0-0.2)
7.1
(3.9- 11.0)
8.8
(5.6- 11.7)
3.3
(1.4 - 16.3)
10.5
(5.8- 13.7)
12.6
(9.0- 16.0)
12.1
(2.0-21.0)
Note: Based on 5000 bootstrap samples.
Source: Greene, 2002
6-31
-------
Table 6-11. Variability in Objects Mouthed for Different Age Groups.
Variable
Mouth-body
Mouth-hand
Mouth-surface
Mouth-toy
Total events
All Subjects
na
186
186
186
186
186
Meanb
(events/h)
8
16
4
27
56
Median
(events/h)
2
11
1
18
44
95% CI°
(events/h)
2-3
9-14
0.8-1.2
14-23
36-52
<24 Months
na
69
69
69
69
69
Meanb
(events/h)
10
18
7
45
81
Median
(events/h)
4
12
5
39
73
95% CI°
(events/h)
3-6
9-16
3-8
31-48
60-88
>24 Months
na
117
117
117
117
117
Meanb
(events/h)
7
16
2
17
42
Median
(events/h)
1
9
1
9
31
95% CI°
(events/h)
0.8-1.3
7-12
0.9-1.1
7-12
25-39
a Number of observations.
b Arithmetic mean.
c The 95% confidence limits apply to median. Values were calculated in logs and converted to original units.
Source: Tulve et al, 2002
6-32
-------
Table 6-12. Mouthing Duration by Age Group for Pacifiers, Fingers, Toys, and Other Objects
Item Mouthed
Dummy (Pacifier)
Fingers
Toys
Other Objects
Not Recorded
Total (all objects)
Age Group, sample size (w), and Mouthing Duration (hours:minutes: seconds)
1-3
months
n= 9
0:47:13
0:18:22
0:00:14
0:05:14
0:00:45
1:11:48
3-6
months
n = 14
0:27:45
0:49:03
0:28:20
0:12:29
0:00:24
1:57:41
6-9
months
n= 15
0:14:36
0:16:54
0:39:10
0:24:30
0:00:00
1:35:11
9-12
months
n= 17
0:41:39
0:14:07
0:23:04
0:16:25
0:00:01
1:35:16
12-15
months
n= 16
1:00:15
0:08:24
0:15:18
0:12:02
0:00:02
1:36:01
15-18
months
n= 14
0:25:22
0:10:07
0:16:34
0:23:01
0:00:08
0:15:13
18-21
months
n= 16
1:09:02
0:18:40
0:11:07
0:19:49
0:00:11
1:58:49
21-24
months
n= 12
0:25:12
0:35:34
0:15:46
0:12:53
0:14:13
1:43:39
2 years
n = 39
0:32:55
0:29:43
0:12:23
0:21:46
0:02:40
1:39:27
3 years
n = 31
0:48:42
0:34:42
0:11:37
0:15:16
0:00:01
1:50:19
4 years
w = 29
0:16:40
0:19:26
0:03:11
0:10:44
0:00:05
0:50:05
5 years
w = 24
0:00:20
0:44:06
0:01:53
0:10:00
0:02:58
0:59:17
Source: Smith and Norris, 2003
6-33
-------
Table 6-13. Indoor Mouthing Frequency (Contacts/Hour)."
Age (months) n
Statistic
Hands
Total non-dietary
<24
>24
All ages0
1
8
9
Mean
Median
Range
Mean
Median
Range
73.5
13.9
13.3
2.2-34.1
20.5
14.8
2.5-70.4
84.8
22.7
19.5
2.8-51.3
29.6
22.1
3.2-82.2
a Shows data from children who had more than 15 minutes in view indoors.
b All object/surface categories included: animal, clothes/towels, fabric, hands, metal, non-dietary water,
paper/wrapper, plastic, skin, toys, vegetation/grass, and wood.
0 Ages 1-6 years.
Source: AuYeung et al., 2004
6-34
-------
Table 6-14. Outdoor Mouthing Frequency (Contacts/Hour).
Age (months) n
Statistic
Hands
Total non-dietary
<24
>24
All ages0
8
30
38
Mean
Median
Range
Mean
5th percentile
25th percentile
Median
75th percentile
95th percentile
99th percentile
Mean
5th percentile
25th percentile
Median
75th percentile
95th percentile
99th percentile
13.0
7.0
1.3-47.7
11.3
0.2
4.7
8.6
14.8
27.7
39.5
11.7
0.4
4.4
8.4
14.8
31.5
47.6
20.4
13.9
6.2 - 56.4
17.7
0.6
7.6
14.6
22.4
43.8
53.0
18.3
0.8
9.2
14.5
22.4
51.7
56.6
a All object/surface categories included: animal, clothes/towels, fabric, hands, metal, non-dietary water,
paper/wrapper, plastic, skin, toys, vegetation/grass, and wood.
0 Ages 1-6 years.
Source: AuYeung et al., 2004
6-35
-------
Table 6-15. Indoor Mouthing Contact Duration (Minutes/Hour).a
Age (months) n
Statistic
Hands
Total non-dietary
<24
>24
All ages0
1
8
9
Mean
Median
Range
Mean
Median
Range
10.7
0.7
0.7
0- 1.8
1.8
0.7
0- 10.0
11.1
1.2
0.9
0.1 -3.6
2.3
0.9
0.1 - 10.5
a Shows data from children who had more than 15 minutes in view indoors.
b All object/surface categories included: animal, clothes/towels, fabric, hands, metal, non-dietary water,
paper/wrapper, plastic, skin, toys, vegetation/grass, and wood.
0 Ages 1-6 years.
Source: AuYeung et al., 2004
6-36
-------
Table 6-16. Outdoor Mouthing Contact Duration (Minutes/Hour).
Age (months) n
Statistic
Hands
Total non-dietary
<24
>24
All ages0
8
30
38
Mean
Median
Range
Mean
5th percentile
25th percentile
Median
75th percentile
95th percentile
99th percentile
Mean
5th percentile
25th percentile
Median
75th percentile
95th percentile
99th percentile
2.7
0.4
0- 14.7
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0.4
1.2
2.2
0.9
0
0.1
0.2
0.6
2.6
11.2
3.1
0.8
0.2- 15.0
0.7
0
0.2
0.6
1.0
2.1
2.5
1.2
0
0.2
0.6
1.2
2.9
11.5
a All object/surface categories included: animal, clothes/towels, fabric, hands, metal, non-dietary water,
paper/wrapper, plastic, skin, toys, vegetation/grass, and wood.
0 Ages 1-6 years.
Source: AuYeung et al., 2004
6-37
-------
Table 6-17. Videotaped Mouthing and Food-handling Activity as Median Hourly Frequency (Contacts/Hour) and Median
Duration (% of Tape Time) (Mean ± SD)
Age
Infant
1 year old
2 year old
Preschool
N
1
3
1
2
1
8
9
Hand to
Frequency
14(19. 8±
14.5)
13.3 (15.8 ±
8.7)
9.9(11.9±
9.3)
19.4 (22.1 ±
22.1)
mouth
Duration
3. 0(4. 6 ±6.0)
2.2 (3. 8 ±7.0)
1.3 (1.5± 1.3)
1.5 (3.1 ± 3.4)
Object tc
Frequency
18.1 (24.4 ±
11.6)
8.4 (9. 8 ±6. 3)
5.5 (7. 8 ±5. 8)
8.4(10.1 ±
12.4)
) Mouth
Duration
3.1 (4.0 ±2.4)
1.3 (1.6± 1.2)
0.9 (1.3± 1.1)
1.9 (3.0 ±3. 9)
Fo
Frequency
10.0 (10. 8 ±
9.0)
16.1 (17.2 ±
14.0)
13.9 (14.7 ±
10.9)
10.2 (15.7 ±
11.8)
od
Duration
3. 9 (7.0 ±7. 4)
5.2(6.8± 5.8)
5.6(5.0± 3.8)
5. 6 (4. 7 ±2. 6)
Source: Black et al. (2005)
6-38
-------
Table 6-18. Summary of Studies on Mouthing Behavior
Study
Grootetal. 1998
Reedetal. 1999
Zartarian 1997 and 1998
Davis 1995
Stanek et al. 1998
Jubergetal., 2001
Freeman et al., 2001
Greene, 2002
Tulve et al., 2002
Smith and Norris, 2003
AuYeung et al., 2004
Black etal, 2005
Population Size
42
30
4
92
355
Phase 1 &2:217
Phase3: 168
168
169
72
236
38
52
Population Studied
3-36 months in Netherlands
children from well educated parents
20 children 3-6 years
10 children 2-5 years
Day care and residential settings
2.5-4.2 years
children of farm workers
10-60 months
Washington State
1-6 years
private medical clinic
Springfield, Massachusetts
Phase 1 & 2: less than 3 yrs old
Phase 3: 3 to 18 months
Western New York - research center and day
care
3-12 years
Urban and rural areas of Minnesota
3-36 months
Chicago and Houston metropolitan area
10-60 months
Indoor home environment
Ages 1 month to 5 years
in-home
Netherlands
Ages 1-6 years
Indoor and outdoor home environment
San Francisco peninsula
7-53 months
Mid-Rio Grande Valley
Agricultural community
6-39
-------
Table 6-19. Summary of Mouthing Frequency Data
Age (months)
10-60
2.5-4.2 years
3-6
6-12
12-18
18-36
2-6 years
3-4 years
5-6 years
7-8 years
10-12 years
0-18
18-36
3-12
12-24
24-36
<24
>24
Mean Mouthing Frequency /Time
Hand-to-mouth
Object-to-Mouth
Total
55 mm/day
9 contacts/hr
37 mm/day
44 min/day
16 min/day
9 min/day
9.5 contacts/hr
4 contacts/hr
8 contacts/hr
5 contacts/hr
4 contacts/hr
16.3 contacts/hr
6 contacts/hr
1 contacts/hr
1 contacts/hr
1 contacts/hr
25.8 contacts/hr
10 contacts/hr
9 contacts/hr
6 contacts/hr
5 contacts/hr
70 min/day "
56 min/day a
2.4 min/hr; 26 min/day b
1 .7 min/hr; 18 min/day b
1.2 min/hr; 12 min/day b
1 8 contacts/hr
16 contacts/hr
62 contacts/hr
26 contacts/hr
70 min/day
48 min/day
37 min/day
81 ± 7 contacts/hr
42 ± 4 contacts/hr
Population Size
4
5
14
12
11
30
3
7
4
5
146
40
64
60
45
28
44
Reference
EPA analysis based on
Davis 1995
Zartarianl997
Grootetal. 1998
Reedetal. 1999
Freeman etal. 2001
Jubergetal,2001
Greene, 2002
Tulve et al. 2002
6-40
-------
Table 6-19. Summary of Mouthing Frequency Data
Age (months)
1-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
<24
2-6
7-12
13-24
25-36
37-53
Mean Mouthing Frequency /Time
Hand-to-mouth
50 min/day c
96 min/day c
77 min/day c
98 min/day c
36 min/day c
39 min/day c
80 min/day c
113 min/day c
148 min/day c
1 99 min/day c
171 min/day c
543 min/day c
7 contacts/hr
12 min/day b
12 contacts/hr
2 min/day b
20 contacts/hr
16 contacts/hr
12 contacts/hr
22 contacts/hr
Object-to-Mouth
29 min/day
1 32 min/day
251 min/day
156 min/day
157 min/day
136 min/day
99 min/day
142 min/day
304 min/day
179 min/day
96 min/day
64 min/day
1 contact/hr
1 min/day b
8 contacts/hr
1 min/day b
24 contacts/hr
10 contacts/hr
8 contacts/hr
10 contacts/hr
Total
79 min/day c
228 min/day c
328 min/day c
254 min/day c
193 min/day c
175 min/day c
1 79 min/day c
255 min/day c
452 min/day c
378 min/day c
267 min/day c
607 min/day c
9 contacts/hr
12 min/day b
20 contacts/hr
3 min/day b
44 contacts/hr
26 contacts/hr
20 contacts/hr
32 contacts/hr
Population Size
9
14
15
17
16
14
16
12
39
31
29
24
9
38
13
12
18
9
Reference
Smith and Norris 2003
AuYeungetal.,2004'1
Black et al. 2005
a Doers only from Table 6-8; totals calculated by adding all non pacifier objects
b Daily mouthing estimated using 10 hours awake for children under 2 years old and 10.7 hours awake for children 2-3 years old from Greene (2002).
c Includes finger/thumb sucking
d Includes indoor and outdoor data.
6-41
-------
Table 6-20. Summary of Recommended Values for Total Mouthing Time (minutes per 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
2 to 6 years
Mean Mouthing
Time
(min/day)
no data
no data
27
65
39
32
no data
7
Source
no data available
no data available ( Smith and Norris, 2003 were not used because thumb/finger
sucking had a significant effect on results)
Weighted mean of:
Groot et al., 1998 and Reed et al. 1999
Weighted mean of:
Groot et al., 1998 and Greene, 2002 (used 3-12 months)
Weighted mean of:
Groot etal., 1998 (used 12-18 months)
Greene, 2002
AuYeung et al., 2004 (used <24 months)
Weighted mean of:
Groot et al., 1998 (used 18-36 month group)
Greene, 2002
no data available (Smith and Norris (2003)data were not used because
thumb/finger sucking had a significant effect on results)
AuYeung et al., 2004
1 Excludes mouthing pacifiers
6-42
-------
Table 6-21. Summary of Recommended Values for Mouthing Frequency (contacts per hour)
Age
birth to < 1 mo
1 to <3 mo
6 to < 12 mo
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
2 to 6 years
3 to <6 years
6 to < 1 1 years
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
3 to <6 years
Mean Mouthing Frequency
Hand-to-Mouth
no data
no data
20 contacts/hr
16 contacts/hr
12 contacts/hr
12 contacts/hr
14 contacts/hr
4 contacts/hr
Object-to-Mouth
no data
no data
24 contacts/hr
38 contacts/hr
8 contacts/hr
8 contacts/hr
19 contacts/hr
1 contacts/hr
Total
no data
no data
44 contacts/hr
54 contacts/hr
20 contacts/hr
20 contacts/hr
32 contacts/hr
5 contacts/hr
Contact frequency with specific objects and surfaces (percent
doing daily, weekly, and monthly)
Reference
Black et al. 2005
Weighted mean of:
Tulve et al., 2002, AuYeung et al,
2004, and Black et al., 2005
Hand-to-mouth is weighted mean
of Zartarian 1997 and Black et al.
2005
Object-to-mouth is based on Black
etal. 2005
Total is based on Black et al. 2005
AuYeung et al, 2004
Weighted mean of:
Reed et al. 1999, Freeman et al.
2001, Tulve et al. 2002, and Black
etal. 2005
Based on weighted mean of 7-8
and 10-12 years old from Freeman
etal. 2001
Stanek et al., 1998 (Table 6-3)
6-43
-------
Table 6-22. Confidence in Mouthing Behavior Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
Peer Review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of Interest
Data pertinent to U.S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection
period
Validity of Approach
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of variability
Lack of bias in study design
Measurement error
There are eleven studies; nine of the studies are from
peer-reviewed journals; one is an EPA analysis of raw
data from a contractor's report to EPA and one is a
government report
Studies in journals have wide circulation.
Contractor's report only available through EPA
Can follow analysis, but cannot reproduce the data
unless raw data are provided.
Studies focused on mouthing behavior as well as other
hand contacts.
All but one of the studies were conducted in the U.S.
Analyses were done on primary data. EPA did the
analysis of the raw data from Davis et al. (1995) and
composited data from the Stanek et al. (1998) study to
conform to standardized age groupings.
Recent studies were evaluated.
Data were collected for a period of several days, not
enough to represent seasonal variations.
Measurements were made by observation methods. Both
surveys and videotaping were used. Videotaping
techniques may be more reliable, but resource intensive.
Data for some age groups were not available. An effort
was made to consider age and gender, but sample sizes
were small; SES factors not evaluated
An effort was made to consider age and gender, data for
infants and older children are fairly limited.
Subjects were selected from volunteers.
Measuring children's behavior is difficult and somewhat
subjective and depends on the experience of the
observer.
High
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
Eleven studies were evaluated
There is general agreement among the researchers.
Although there are eleven studies, for some of the age
groups sample size was small, variability in the
population cannot be assessed. Variation in behavior
due to seasons cannot be evaluated. Measuring
children's behavior is difficult.
Medium
High
Low
6-44
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7. INHALATION ROUTE 7-1
7.1 INTRODUCTION 7-1
7.2 INHALATION RATE STUDIES 7-1
7.2.1 Linn et al., 1992 7-1
7.2.2 Spier et al., 1992 7-2
7.2.3 Adams, 1993 7-3
7.2.4 Layton, 1993 7-5
7.2.5 Rusconi et al., 1994 7-7
7.2.6 Lordo et al., 2006 7-9
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 7-11
7.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7 7-12
APPENDIX 7A
VENTILATION DATA 7-38
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 7-1. Calibration And Field Protocols For Self-monitoring of Activities Grouped by
Subject Panels 7-13
Table 7-2. Subject Panel Inhalation Rates by Mean VR, Upper Percentiles, And Self-estimated
Breathing Rates 7-13
Table 7-3. Distribution of Predicted Intake Rates by Location And Activity Levels For
Elementary And High School Students 7-14
Table 7-4. Average Hours Spent Per Day in a Given Location and Activity Level For
Elementary and High School Students 7-14
Table 7-5. Distribution Patterns of Daily Inhalation Rates For Elementary (EL) And High
School (HS) Students Grouped by Activity Level 7-15
Table 7-6. Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hr) by Age Group And Activity Levels for
Laboratory Protocols 7-16
Table 7-7. Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (m3/hr) by Age Group And Activity Levels in
Field Protocols 7-17
Table 7-8. Comparisons of Estimated Basal Metabolic Rates (BMR) With Average Food-energy
Intakes (EFD) For Individuals Sampled in The 1977-78 NFCS 7-18
Table 7-9. Daily Inhalation Rates Calculated From Food-energy Intakes 7-19
Table 7-10. Daily Inhalation Rates Obtained From The Ratios Of Total Energy Expenditure to
Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) 7-20
Table 7-11. Inhalation Rates For Short-term Exposures 7-21
Table 7-12. Mean, Median, and SD of Respiratory Rate According to Waking or Sleeping in
618 Infants and Children Grouped in Classes of Age 7-22
Table 7-13. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Ventilation Rate (L/min) in Males, by Age
Category 7-24
Table 7-14. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Ventilation Rate (L/min) in Females, by
Age Category 7-25
Table 7-15. Average Time Spent Per Day Performing Activities Within Specified Intensity
Categories, and Average Ventilation Rates Associated With These Activity Categories,
for Males According to Age Category 7-26
Table 7-16. Average Time Spent Per Day Performing Activities Within Specified Intensity
Categories, and Average Ventilation Rates Associated With These Activity Categories,
for Females According to Age Category 7-29
Table 7-17. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Ventilation Rate (m3/day) in Males, by Age
Category 7-32
Table 7-18. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Ventilation Rate (nrVday) in Females, by
Age Category 7-33
Table 7-19. Descriptive Statistics for Duration of Time (hr/day) Spent Performing Activities
Within the Specified Activity Category, by Age and Gender Categories
7-34
Table 7-20. Confidence in Inhalation Rate Recommendations 7-36
Table 7-21. Summary of Recommended Values For Inhalation 7-37
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 7-1. 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th Smoothed Centiles by Age in Awake
Subjects 7-23
Figure 7-2. 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th Smoothed Centiles by Age in Asleep
Subjects 7-23
-------
1 7. INHALATION ROUTE
2
3 7.1 INTRODUCTION
4 This chapter presents data and recommendations for inhalation rates that can be used to
5 assess children's exposure to contaminants in air. Inhalation rates vary with both size and
6 activity level, both of which influence oxygen consumption. Infants and young children have a
7 higher resting metabolic rate and rate of oxygen consumption per unit body weight than do
8 adults because they have a larger cooling surface per unit body weight and because they are
9 growing rapidly. The oxygen consumption of a resting infant aged between one week and one
10 year is 7 mL/kg body weight per minute. The rate for an adult under the same conditions is 3-5
11 mL/kg per minute (WHO, 1986). Thus, while on an absolute basis, greater amounts of air and
12 pollutants are inhaled by adults than children per similar time periods, on a body-weight basis,
13 the volume of air passing through the lungs of a resting infant is twice that of a resting adult
14 under the same conditions. The recommended inhalation rates for children are summarized in
15 Section 7.3.
16
17 7.2 INHALATION RATE STUDIES
18 7.2.1 Linn et al., 1992
19 Linn et al. (1992) conducted a study that estimated the inhalation rates for "high-risk"
20 subpopulation groups exposed to ozone in their daily activities in the Los Angeles area. The
21 population surveyed consisted of several panels of both adults and children. The panels
22 consisting of children included Panel 2: 17 healthy elementary school students (5 males and 12
23 females, ages 10-12 years); Panel 3:19 healthy high school students (7 males and 12 females,
24 ages 13-17 years); Panel 6: 13 young asthmatics (7 males and 6 females, ages 11-16 years).
25 An initial calibration test was conducted, followed by a training session. Finally, a field
26 study that involved the subjects collecting their own heart rate and diary data was conducted.
27 During the calibration tests, ventilation rate (VR), breathing rate, and heart rate (HR) were
28 measured simultaneously at each exercise level. From the calibration data an equation was
29 developed using linear regression analysis to predict VR from measured HR.
30 In the field study, each subject recorded in diaries their daily activities, change in
31 locations (indoors, outdoors, or in a vehicle), self-estimated breathing rates during each
7-1
-------
1 activity/location, and time spent at each activity/location. Healthy subjects recorded their HR
2 once every 60 seconds using a Heart Watch, an automated system consisting of a transmitter and
3 receiver worn on the body. Asthmatic subjects recorded their diary information once every hour.
4 Subjective breathing rates were defined as slow (walking at their normal pace), medium (faster
5 than normal walking), and fast (running or similarly strenuous exercise). Table 7-1 presents the
6 calibration and field protocols for self-monitoring of activities for each subject panel.
7 Table 7-2 presents the mean, 99th percentile, and mean VR at each subjective activity
8 level (slow, medium, fast). The mean and 99th percentile VR were derived from all HR
9 recordings that appeared to be valid, without considering the diary data. Each of the three
10 activity levels was determined from both the concurrent diary data and HR recordings by direct
11 calculation or regression. The authors reported that the diary data showed that on a typical day,
12 most individuals spent most of their time indoors at slow activity level. During slow activity,
13 asthmatic subjects had higher VRs than healthy subjects (Table 7-2). The authors also reported
14 that in every panel the predicted VR correlated significantly with the subjective estimates of
15 activity levels.
16 A limitation of this study is that calibration data may overestimate the predictive power
17 of HR during actual field monitoring. The wide variety of exercises in everyday activities may
18 result in greater variation of the VR-HR relationship than was calibrated. Another limitation is
19 the small sample size of each subpopulation surveyed. An advantage of this study is that diary
20 data can provide rough estimates of ventilation patterns which are useful in exposure
21 assessments. Another advantage is that inhalation rates were presented for both healthy and
22 asthmatic children.
23
24 7.2.2 Spier et al., 1992
25 Spier et al. (1992) investigated the activity patterns of 17 elementary school students (10-
26 12 years old) and 19 high school students (13-17 years old) in suburban Los Angeles from late
27 September to October (oxidant pollution season). Calibration tests were conducted in supervised
28 outdoor exercise sessions. The exercise sessions consisted of 5 minutes each of rest, slow
29 walking, jogging, and fast walking. HR and VR were measured during the last 2 minutes of each
30 exercise. Individual VR and HR relationships for each individual were determined by fitting a
31 regression line to HR values and log VR values. Each subject recorded their daily activities,
7-2
-------
1 change in location, and breathing rates in diaries for 3 consecutive days. Self-estimated
2 breathing rates were recorded as slow (slow walking), medium (walking faster than normal), and
3 fast (running). HR was recorded once per minute during the 3 days using a Heart Watch.
4 VR values for each self-estimated breathing rate and activity type were estimated from the
5 HR recordings by employing the VR and HR equation obtained from the calibration tests.
6 The data presented in Table 7-3 represent HR distribution patterns and corresponding
7 predicted VR for each age group during hours spent awake. At the same self-reported activity
8 levels for both age groups, inhalation rates were higher for outdoor activities than for indoor
9 activities. The total number of hours spent indoors was higher for high school students
10 (21.2 hours) than for elementary school students (19.6 hours). The converse was true for
11 outdoor activities: 2.7 hours for high school students and 4.4 hours for elementary school
12 students (Table 7-4). Based on the data presented in Tables 7-3 and 7-4, the average activity -
13 specific inhalation rates for elementary school students (10-12 years old) and high school
14 students (13-17 years old) were calculated and are presented in Table 7-5. For elementary
15 school students, the average daily inhalation rates (based on indoor and outdoor locations) are
16 15.8 m3/day for light activities, 4.6 nrVday for moderate activities, and 1.0 m3/day for heavy
17 activities. For high school students the daily inhalation rates for light, moderate, and heavy
18 activities are estimated to be 16.4 m3/day, 3.0 nrVday, and 0.6 m3/day, respectively (Table 7-5).
19 A limitation of this study is the small sample size. The results may not be representative
20 of all children in these age groups. Another limitation is that the accuracy of the self-estimated
21 breathing rates reported by younger age groups is uncertain. This may affect the validity of the
22 data set generated. An advantage of this study is that inhalation rates were determined for
23 children and adolescents. These data are useful in estimating exposure for the younger
24 population.
25
26 7.2.3 Adams, 1993
27 Adams (1993) conducted research to accomplish two main objectives: (1) identification
28 of mean and ranges of inhalation rates for various age/gender cohorts and specific activities, and
29 (2) derivation of simple linear and multiple regression equations that could be used to predict
30 inhalation rates through other measured variables: breathing frequency and oxygen consumption.
31 A total of 160 subjects participated in the primary study. For children, there were two age-
-------
1 dependent groups: children 6 to 12.9 years old and adolescents 13 to!8.9 years old. An
2 additional 40 children from 6 to 12 years old and 12 young children from 3 to 5 years old were
3 identified as subjects for pilot testing purposes.
4 Resting protocols conducted in the laboratory for all age groups consisted of three phases
5 (25 minutes each) of lying, sitting, and standing. The phases were categorized as resting and
6 sedentary activities. Two active protocols moderate (walking) and heavy (jogging/ running)
7 phases were performed on a treadmill over a progressive continuum of intensity levels made
8 up of 6-minute intervals at three speeds ranging from slow to moderately fast. All protocols
9 involved measuring ventilation rate (VR), heart rate (HR), breathing frequency, and oxygen
10 consumption. Measurements were taken in the last 5 minutes of each phase of the resting
11 protocol and the last 3 minutes of the 6-minute intervals at each speed designated in the active
12 protocols.
13 In the field, all children completed spontaneous play protocols; the older adolescent
14 population (16-18 years) completed car driving and riding, car maintenance (males), and
15 housework (females) protocols.
16 During all activities in either the laboratory or field protocols, VR for the children's
17 group revealed no significant gender differences. Therefore, VR data presented in Appendix
18 Tables 7A-1 and 7A-2 were categorized by activity type (lying, sitting, standing, walking, and
19 running) for young children and children without regard to gender. These categorized data from
20 the appendix tables are summarized as inhalation rates in Tables 7-6 and 7-7. The laboratory
21 protocols are shown in Table 7-6. Table 7-7 presents the mean inhalation rates by group and for
22 moderate activity levels in field protocols. Data were not provided for the light and sedentary
23 activities because the group did not perform for this protocol or the number of subjects was too
24 small for appropriate comparisons. Accurate predictions of inhalation rates across all population
25 groups and activity types were obtained by including body surface area (BSA), HR, and
26 breathing frequency in multiple regression analysis (Adams, 1993). Adams (1993) calculated
27 BSA from measured height and weight using the equation:
28
BSA = Height(°-425) x Weight(°-425) x 71.84 (7-1)
29
7-4
-------
1 A limitation associated with this study is that the population does not represent the
2 general U.S. population. Also, the classification of activity types (i.e., laboratory and field
3 protocols) into activity levels may bias the inhalation rates obtained for various age/gender
4 cohorts. The estimated rates were based on short-term data and may not reflect long-term
5 patterns.
6
7 7.2.4 Layton, 1993
8 Layton (1993) presented a new method for estimating metabolically consistent inhalation
9 rates for use in quantitative dose assessments of airborne radionuclides. Generally, the approach
10 for estimating the breathing rate for a specified time frame was to calculate a time-weighted-
11 average of ventilation rates associated with physical activities of varying durations. However, in
12 this study, breathing rates were calculated on the basis of oxygen consumption associated with
13 energy expenditures for short (hours) and long (weeks and months) periods of time, using the
14 following general equation to calculate energy-dependent inhalation rates:
15
16 VE = Ex Hx VQ (7-2)
17 where:
18 VE = ventilation rate (L/min or nrVhr);
19 E = energy expenditure rate; [kilojoules/minute (KJ/min) or
20 megajoules/hour (MJ/hr)];
21 H = volume of oxygen [at standard temperature and pressure, dry air
22 consumed in the production of 1 KJ of energy expended (L/KJ or
23 m3/MJ)]; and
24 VQ = ventilatory equivalent (ratio of minute volume (L/min) to oxygen
25 uptake (L/min)); unitless.
26
27 Layton used two alternative approaches to estimate daily chronic (long term) inhalation
28 rates for different age/gender cohorts of the U.S. population using this methodology.
29
7-5
-------
1 7.2.4.1. First Approach
2 Inhalation rates were estimated by multiplying average daily food energy intakes for
3 different age/gender cohorts, volume of oxygen (H), and ventilatory equivalent (VQ), as shown
4 in the equation above. The average food energy intake data (Table 7-8) are based on
5 approximately 30,000 individuals and were obtained from the USDA 1977-78 Nationwide Food
6 Consumption Survey (USDA-NFCS). The food energy intakes were adjusted upwards by a
7 constant factor of 1.2 for all individuals 9 years and older. This factor compensated for a
8 consistent bias in USDA-NFCS that was attributed to under-reporting of the foods consumed or
9 the methods used to ascertain dietary intakes. Layton used a weighted average oxygen uptake of
10 0.05 L O2/KJ which was determined from data reported in the 1977-78 USDA-NFCS and the
11 second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II). The survey sample
12 for NHANES II was approximately 20,000 participants. A VQ of 27 used in the calculations
13 was calculated as the geometric mean of VQ data that were obtained from several studies.
14 The inhalation rate estimation techniques are shown in footnote (a) of Table 7-9.
15 Table 7-9 presents the daily inhalation rate for each age/gender cohort. The highest daily
16 inhalation rates were 10 m3/day for children between the ages of 6 and 8 years, 17 nrVday for
17 males between 15 and 18 years, and 13 m3/day for females between 9 and 11 years. Inhalation
18 rates were also calculated for active and inactive periods for the various age/gender cohorts.
19 The inhalation rate for inactive periods was estimated by multiplying the basal metabolic
20 rate (BMR) times H times VQ. BMR was defined as "the minimum amount of energy required
21 to support basic cellular respiration while at rest and not actively digesting food" (Layton, 1993).
22 The inhalation rate for active periods was calculated by multiplying the inactive inhalation rate
23 by the ratio of the rate of energy expenditure during active hours to the estimated BMR. This
24 ratio is presented as F in Table 7-9. These data for active and inactive inhalation rates are also
25 presented in Table 7-9. For children, inactive and active inhalation rates ranged between 2.35
26 and 5.95 m3/day and 6.35 to 13.09 m3/day, respectively.
27
28 7.2.4.2. Second Approach
29 Inhalation rates were calculated as the product of the BMR of the population cohorts, the
30 ratio of total daily energy expenditure to daily BMR, H, and VQ. The BMR data obtained from
31 the literature were statistically analyzed, and regression equations were developed to predict
7-6
-------
1 BMR from body weights of various age/gender cohorts. The statistical data used to develop the
2 regression equations are presented in Appendix Table 7A-3. The data obtained from the second
3 approach are presented in Table 7-10. Inhalation rates for children (6 months - 10 years) ranged
4 from 7.3 to 9.3 m3/day for male and 5.6 to 8.6 m3/day for female children; for older children (10
5 to 18 years), inhalation rates were 15 m3/day for males and 12 m3/day for females. These rates
6 are similar to the daily inhalation rates obtained using the first approach. Also, the inactive
7 inhalation rates obtained from the first approach are lower than the inhalation rates obtained
8 using the second approach. This may be attributed to the BMR multiplier employed in the
9 equation of the second approach to calculate inhalation rates.
10 Inhalation rates were also obtained for short-term exposures for various age/gender
11 cohorts and five energy-expenditure categories (rest, sedentary, light, moderate, and heavy).
12 BMRs were multiplied by the product of the metabolic equivalent, H, and VQ. The data
13 obtained for short term exposures are presented in Table 7-11.
14 This study obtains similar results using three different approaches. The major strengths
15 of this study are that it estimates inhalation rates in different age groups and that the populations
16 are large. Explanations for differences in results due to metabolic measurements, reported diet,
17 or activity patterns are supported by observations reported by other investigators in other studies.
18 Major limitations of this study are (1) the estimated activity pattern levels are somewhat
19 subjective; (2) the explanation that activity pattern differences are responsible for the lower level
20 obtained with the metabolic approach (25 %) compared to the activity pattern approach is not
21 well supported by the data; and (3) different populations were used in each approach, which may
22 have introduced error.
23
24 7.2.5 Rusconi et al., 1994
25 Rusconi et al. (1994) examined a large number of infants and children in order to
26 determine the reference values for respiratory rate in children aged 15 days to 3 years. Previous
27 discrepancies in methodologies and results, and lack of age-related reference values for the first
28 years of life prompted the investigators to obtain normal reference values for respiratory rate
29 from a sufficient number of subjects. They assessed 618 infants and children (336 males and
30 282 females) aged 15 days to 3 years old who did not have respiratory infections or any severe
7-7
-------
1 disease. Of the 618, a total of 309 were in good health and in day care centers, while the
2 remaining 309 were seen in hospitals or outpatients.
3 Respiratory rates were recorded twice, 30 to 60 minutes apart, listening to breath sounds
4 for 60 seconds with a stethoscope, when the child was awake and calm and when the child was
5 sleeping quietly (sleep not associated with any spontaneous movement, including eye
6 movements or vocalizations) (Table 7-12). The children were assessed for one year in order to
7 determine the repeatability of the recordings, to compare respiratory rate counts obtained by
8 stethoscope and by observation, and to construct reference percentile curves by age in a large
9 numb er of subj ects.
10 The authors plotted the differences between respiratory rate counts determined by
11 stethoscope at 30- to 60-minute intervals against their mean count in waking and sleeping
12 subjects. The standard deviation of the differences between the two counts was 2.5 and 1.7
13 breaths/minute, respectively, for waking and sleeping children. This standard deviation yielded
14 95% repeatability coefficients of 4.9 breaths when the infants and children were awake and 3.3
15 breaths when they were asleep.
16 In both waking and sleeping states, the respiratory rate counts determined by stethoscope
17 were found to be higher than those obtained by observation. The mean difference was 2.6 and
18 1.8 breaths per minute, respectively, in waking and sleeping states. The mean respiratory rate
19 counts were significantly higher in infants and children at all ages when awake and calm than
20 when asleep. A decrease in respiratory rate with increasing age was seen in waking and sleeping
21 infants and children. A scatter diagram of respiratory rate counts by age in waking and sleeping
22 subjects showed that the pattern of respiratory rate decline with age was similar in both states,
23 but it was much faster in the first few months of life. The authors constructed centile curves by
24 first log-transforming the data and then applying a second degree polynomial curve, which
25 allowed excellent fitting to observed data. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 show smoothed percentiles by
26 age in waking and sleeping subjects, respectively.
27 The authors suggested that the differences between the reported respiratory rates in
28 healthy infants and children might be due to various factors, including the number of infants
29 studied, the period of time of counting, the method of counting, and the state of the infant. The
30 variability of respiratory rate among subjects was higher in the first few months of life, which
31 may be attributable to biological events that occur during these months, such as maturation of the
-------
1 neurologic control of breathing and changes in lung and chest wall compliance and lung
2 volumes.
3 An advantage of this study is that it provides distribution data for respiratory rate for
4 children from infancy (less than 2 months) to 36 months old. These data are not U.S. data;
5 however, U.S. distributions were not available.
6
7 7.2.6 Lordo et al., 2006
8 Lordo et al. (2006), under direction from EPA's National Center for Environmental
9 Assessment (NCEA), conducted a study to ascertain ventilation rates for children and adults.
10 Specifically, they sought to improve upon the methodology used by Layton (1993) and other
11 studies that relied upon the ventilatory equivalent (VQ) and a linear relationship between oxygen
12 consumption and fitness rate. The authors used a revised approach, developed by EPA's
13 National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), in which an individual's ventilation rate is
14 derived from his or her oxygen consumption rate. Lordo et al. apply this revised approach using
15 weight data from the 1999-2002 NHANES and metabolic equivalents (METS) data from EPA's
16 Consolidated Human Activity Database (CHAD).
17 NHANES provided age, gender, and body weight data for 19,022 individuals from
18 throughout the United States. From these data, basal metabolic rate (BMR) was estimated using
19 an age-specific linear equation used in Appendix 5 A the Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA,
20 1997), and in several other studies and reference works.
21 The CHAD database is a compilation of several databases of human activity patterns.
22 Lordo et al. used one of these studies, the National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS), as
23 its source for METS values because it was more representative of the entire United States
24 population than the other studies in the database. The NHAPS data set included activity data for
25 9,196 individuals, each of which provided 24 hours of activity pattern data using a diary-based
26 questionnaire. While NHAPS was identified as the best available data source for activity
27 patterns, there were some shortcomings in the quality of the data. Study respondents did not
28 provide body weights; instead, body weights are simulated using statistical sampling. Also, the
29 NHAPS data extracted from CHAD could not be corrected to account for non-random sampling
30 of study participants and survey days.
7-9
-------
1 NHANES and NHAPS data were grouped into age categories using the standardized age
2 categories presented elsewhere in this Handbook, with the exception that children under the age
3 of one year were placed into a single category to preserve an adequate sample size within the
4 category. For each NHANES participant, a "simulated" 24-hour activity pattern was generated
5 by randomly sampling activity patterns from the set of NHAPS participants with the same
6 gender and age category as the NHANES participant. Twenty such patterns were selected at
7 random for each NHANES participant, resulting in 480 hours of simulated activity data for each
8 NHANES participant. The data were then scaled down to a 24-hour time frame to yield an
9 average 24-hour activity pattern for each of the 19,022 NHANES individuals.
10 Each activity was assigned a METS value based on statistical sampling of the statistical
11 distribution assigned by CHAD to each activity code. For most codes, these distributions were
12 not age-dependent, but age was a factor for some activities for which intensity level varies
13 strongly with age. Using statistical software, equations for METS based on normal, lognormal,
14 exponential, triangular, and uniform distributions were generated as needed for the various
15 activity codes. The METS values were then translated into energy expenditure (EE) by
16 multiplying the METS by the basal metabolic rate (BMR), which was calculated as a linear
17 function of body weight. The oxygen consumption rate VO2 was calculated by multiplying EE by
18 H, the volume of oxygen consumed per unit of energy. VO2 was calculated both as volume per
19 time and as volume per time per unit body weight.
20 The ventilation rate for each activity within the 24-hour simulated activity pattern for
21 each individual was estimated as a function of VO2, body weight, age, and gender. Following
22 this, average ventilation rate was calculated for each individual for the entire 24-hour period, as
23 well as for four separate classes of activities based on METS value (sedentary/passive (METS
24 less than or equal to 1.5), light intensity (METS greater than 1.5 and less than or equal to 3.0),
25 moderate intensity (METS greater than 3.0 and less than or equal to 6.0), and high intensity
26 (METS greater than 6.0)). Data for individuals were then used to generate summary tables based
27 on gender and age categories.
28 Data from this study are presented in Tables 7-13 through 7-19. Tables 7-13 and 7-14
29 present, for male and female subjects respectively, summary statistics for daily average
30 ventilation rate by age category on a volumetric (L/min) and weight adjusted (L/min-kg) basis.
31 Tables 7-15 and 7-16 present, for male and female subjects respectively, mean ventilation rates
7-10
-------
1 by age category on a volumetric (L/min) and weight adjusted (L/min-kg) basis for the five
2 different activity level ranges described above. They also present the daily ventilation rates
3 (L/day and L/day-kg) for each activity level and age group and the mean number of hours spent
4 engaged in each of these activities by subjects in each age group.
5 Tables 7-17 and 7-18 present the same data as Tables 7-13 and 7-14, respectively, but in
6 units of m3/day and m3/day-kg rather than L/min and L/min-kg. Table 7-19 presents the number
7 of hours spent at each activity level by males and females; the data are similar to the activity data
8 presented in Tables 7-15 and 7-16 but offer percentile data in addition to the mean.
9
10 7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
11 The recommended inhalation rates for children are based on the EPA-sponsored research
12 of Lordo et al. (2006), which is the most recent and geographically broad of the studies described
13 in this chapter. The study represents an improvement upon studies previously used for
14 recommended inhalation rates in this Handbook in that it uses a large data set that is
15 representative of the United States as a whole and considers the correlation between body weight
16 and inhalation rate. The confidence level for the studies considered in this chapter are presented
17 in Table 7-20.
18 Table 7-21 summarizes the short-and long-term inhalation rates for the standard age
19 categories used in this Handbook.
7-11
-------
1 7.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7
2
3 Adams, W.C. (1993) Measurement of breathing rate and volume in routinely performed daily activities, Final
4 Report. California Air Resources Board (CARB) Contract No. A033-205. June 1993. 185 pgs.
5
6 Basiotis, P.P.; Thomas, R.G.; Kelsay, J.L.; Mertz, W. (1989) Sources of variation in energy intake by men and
7 women as determined from one year's daily dietary records. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 50:448-453.
8
9 Layton, D.W. (1993) Metabolically consistent breathing rates for use in dose assessments. Health Physics 64(1):23-
10 36.
11
12 Linn, W.S.; Shamoo, D.A.; Hackney, J.D. (1992) Documentation of activity patterns in "high-risk" groups exposed
13 to ozone in the Los Angeles area. In: Proceedings of the Second EPA/AWMA Conference on Tropospheric
14 Ozone, Atlanta, Nov. 1991. pp. 701-712. Air and Waste Management Assoc., Pittsburgh, PA.
15
16 Lordo, B.; Sanford, J.; Mohnson, M. (2006) Revision of the Metabolically-Derived Ventilation Rates Within the
17 Exposure Factors Handbook. Battelle Institute, Columbus, OH. Prepared for USEPA/ORD, Contract No.
18 EP-C-04-027.
19
20 Rusconi, F.; Castagneto, M.; Garliardi, L.; Leo, G.; Pellegatta, A.; Porta, N.; Razon, S.; Braga, M. (1994) Reference
21 values for respiratory rate in the first 3 years of life. Pediatrics 94(3):350-5. September 1994.
22
23 Spier, C.E.; Little, D.E.; Trim, S.C.; Johnson, T.R.; Linn, W.S.; Hackney, J.D. (1992) Activity patterns in
24 elementary and high school students exposed to oxidant pollution. J. Exp. Anal. Environ. Epid. 2(3):277-
25 293.
26
27 WHO (1986) Principles for evaluating health risks from chemicals during infancy and early childhood: the need for
28 a special approach. Environmental Health Criteria 59, World Health Organization, International
29 Programme on Chemical Safety.
30
31
32
7-12
-------
Table 7-1. Calibration And Field Protocols For Self-monitoring of Activities Grouped by Subject Panels
Panel
Panel 2 - Healthy Elementary
School Students - 5 male,
12 female, age 10-12
Panel 3 - Healthy High School
Students - 7 male, 12 female,
age 13-17
Panel 6 - Young Asthmatics - 7
male, 6 female, age 11-16
Calibration Protocol
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
Laboratory exercise tests on bicycles
and treadmills
Field Protocol
Saturday, Sunday and Monday (school
day) in early autumn; HR recordings
and activity diary during waking hours
and during sleep.
Same as Panel 2, however, no HR
recordings during sleep for most
subjects.
Summer monitoring for 2 successive
weeks, including 2 controlled exposure
studies with few or no observable
respiratory effects.
Source: Linnetal., 1992
Table 7-2. Subject Panel Inhalation Rates by Mean VR, Upper Percentiles, And Self-estimated Breathing Rates
Panel
Healthy
2 - Elementary School Students
3 - High School Students
Asthmatics
6 - Elementary and High School
Students
Na
17
19
13
Inhalation Rates (m3/hr)
Mean VR
(m3/hr)
0.90
0.84
1.20
99th
Percentile VR
1.98
2.22
2.40
Mean VR at Activity Levels
(m3/hr)b
Slow
0.84
0.78
1.20
Medium
0.96
1.14
1.20
Fast
1.14
1.62
1.50
"Number of individuals in each survey panel.
bSome 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).
Source: Linnetal., 1992
7-13
-------
Table 7-3. Distribution of Predicted Intake Rates by Location And Activity Levels For Elementary And High
School Students
Activity %
Age (yrs) Student Location Level Recorded
Time3
10-12
13-17
tic
(nd=17)
HSC
(nd=19)
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
Inhalation Rates (m3/hr)
Mean ± SD
0.84 ±0.36
0.96 ±0.36
1.02 ±0.60
0.96 ±0.54
1.08 ±0.48
1.14 ±0.60
0.78 ±0.36
0.96 ± 0.42
1.26 ±0.66
0.96 ±0.48
1.26 ±0.78
1.44 ±1.08
Percentile Rankingsb
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
50th
0.78
0.84
0.84
0.78
0.96
0.96
0.72
0.84
1.08
0.90
1.08
1.02
99.9th
2.34
2.58
3.42
4.32
3.36
3.60
3.24
4.02
6.84C
5.28
5.70
5.94
"Recorded time averaged about 23 hr per elementary school student and 33 hr. per high school student,
over 72-hr, periods.
bGeometric means closely approximated 50th percentiles; geometric standard deviations were 1.2-1.3 forHR,
1.5-1.8 for VR.
°EL = elementary school student; HS = high school student.
dN = number of students that participated in survey.
eHighest single value.
Source: Spier etal., 1992
Table 7-4. 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)
Location
Indoors
Outdoors
Indoors
Outdoors
Activity Level
Slow
16.3
2.2
19.5
1.2
Medium
2.9
1.7
1.5
1.3
Fast
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
Total Time Spent
(hrs/day)
19.6
4.4
21.2
2.7
Source: Spier etal., 1992
Table 7-5. Distribution Patterns of Daily Inhalation Rates For Elementary (EL) And High School (HS) Students
Grouped by Activity LeveP
7-14
-------
Students
Elementary school,
ages 10-12 years
(N=17)
High school,
ages 13-17 years
(N=19)
Location
Indoors
Outdoors
Indoors
Outdoors
Activity typeb
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Mean IRC
(m3/day)
13.7
2.8
0.4
2.1
1.8
0.6
15.2
1.4
0.3
1.2
1.6
0.3
Percentile Rankings
1st
2.9
0.7
0.1
0.8
0.4
0.2
5.9
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.1
50th
12.7
2.4
0.3
1.7
1.6
0.5
14.0
1.3
0.2
1.1
1.4
0.2
99.9th
38.1
7.5
1.4
9.5
5.7
1.8
63.2
6.0
1.4
6.3
7.4
1.2
a Generated using data from Tables 7-3 and 7-4
b For this report, activity type presented in Table 7-2 was redefined as light activity for slow, moderate activity
for medium, and heavy activity for fast.
0 Daily inhalation rate (IR) was calculated by multiplying the hours spent at each activity level (Table 7-4) by the
corresponding inhalation rate (Table 7-3).
Source: Adapted from Spier etal., 1992
7-15
-------
Table 7-6. Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (nf/hr) by Age Group And Activity Levels for Laboratory
Protocols
Age Group
Young Children
(3-5. 9 years)
Average inhalation rate (m3/hr)
(N=12, gender not specified)
Children
(6- 12. 9 years)
Average inhalation rate (m3/hr)
(N=40, 20 male and 20 female)
Activity Level
Resting"
0.37
0.45
Sedentary15
0.40
0.47
Light0
0.65
0.95
Moderated
DNPf
1.74
Heavy6
DNPf
2.23
aResting defined as lying (see Appendix Table 7A-1 for original data).
bSedentary defined as sitting and standing (see Appendix Table 7A-1 for original data).
°Light defined as walking at speed level 1.5-3.0 mph (see Appendix Table 7A-1 for original data).
dModerate defined as fast walking (3.3 - 4.0 mph) and slow running (3.5 - 4.0 mph) (see Appendix Table 7A-1
for original data).
eHeavy defined as fast running (4.5 - 6.0 mph) (see Appendix Table 7A-1 for original data).
TJNP. Group did not perform this protocol or N was too small for appropriate mean comparisons. All young
children did not run.
Source: Adapted from Adams, 1993
7-16
-------
Table 7-7. Summary of Average Inhalation Rates (nf/hr) by Age Group And Activity Levels in Field Protocols
Age Group
Young Children (3 -5. 9 years)
Average inhalation rate (m3/hr)
(N=12, gender not specified)
Children (6- 12. 9 years)
Average inhalation rate (m3/hr)
fN=40 90 malp anH 90 fpmalf^
Moderate Activity3
0.68
1.07
a Moderate activity was defined as mowing (males); wood working (males); yard work (males); and play
(children) (see Appendix Table 7A-2 for original data).
Source: Adams, 1993.
7-17
-------
Table 7-8. Comparisons of Estimated Basal Metabolic Rates (BMR) With Average Food-energy Intakes (EFD)
For Individuals Sampled in The 1977-78 NFCS
Cohort/Age
(years)
Body Weight
kg
BMRa
MJd"1
kcal d'1
Energy Intake (EFD)
MJd"1
kcal d"1
Ratio
EFD/BMR
Children
<1
Ito2
3 to 5
6 to 8
7.6
13
18
26
1.74
3.08
3.69
4.41
416
734
881
1053
3.32
5.07
6.14
7.43
793
1209
1466
1774
1.90
1.65
1.66
1.68
Males
9 to 11
12 to 14
15 to 18
36
50
66
5.42
6.45
7.64
1293
1540
1823
8.55
9.54
10.8
2040
2276
2568
1.58
1.48
1.41
Females
9 to 11
12 to 14
15 to 18
36
49
56
4.91
5.64
6.03
1173
1347
1440
7.75
7.72
7.32
1849
1842
1748
1.58
1.37
1.21
"Calculated from the appropriate age and gender-based BMR equations given in Appendix Table 7A-3.
MJ d"1 - mega joules/day
kcal d"1 - kilo calories/day
EFD= Food energy intake (Kcal/day) or (MJ/day)
Source: Layton, 1993
7-18
-------
Table 7-9. Daily Inhalation Rates Calculated From Food-energy Intakes
Cohort/Age
(years)
Children
<1
1-2
3-5
6-8
Males
9-11
12-14
15-18
Females
9-11
12-14
15-18
L
1
2
3
3
o
J
o
J
4
3
3
4
Daily Inhalation Ratea
(mVday)
4.5
6.8
8.3
10
14
15
17
13
12
12
Sleep
(hours)
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
9
9
8
MET Value
Ab
.9
.6
.7
.7
.9
.8
.7
1.9
1.6
1.5
Fc
2.7
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.5
2.0
1.7
Inhalation Rates
Inactived
(mVday)
2.35
4.16
4.98
5.95
7.32
8.71
10.31
6.63
7.61
8.14
Active6
(mVday)
6.35
9.15
10.96
13.09
18.3
19.16
21.65
16.58
15.22
13.84
T)aily inhalation rate was calculated by multiplying the EFD values (see Table 7-8) by H x VQ for subjects under
9 years of age and by 1.2 x H x VQ (for subjects 9 years of age and older (see text for explanation), where EFD
= Food energy intake (Kcal/day) or (MJ/day), H = Oxygen uptake = 0.05 LO2/KJ or 0.21 LO2/Kcal, and
VQ = Ventilation equivalent = 27 = geometric mean of VQs (unitless).
bFor individuals 9 years of age and older, A was calculated by multiplying the ratio for EFD/BMR (unitless)
(Table 7-8) by the factor 1.2 (see text for explanation).
°F = (24 x A - 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.
dlnhalation rate for inactive periods was calculated as BMR x H x VQ, and for active periods by multiplying the
inactive inhalation rate by F (see footnote c); BMR values are from Table 7-8, where BMR = basal metabolic rate
(MJ/day) or (kg/hr).
L = number of years for each age cohort.
MET = metabolic equivalent.
Source: Layton, 1993
7-19
-------
Table 7-10. Daily Inhalation Rates Obtained From The Ratios Of Total Energy Expenditure to Basal Metabolic
Rate (BMR)
Gender/Age
(yrs)
Male
0.5 - <3
3-<10
10-<18
Female
0.5 - <3
3-<10
10-<18
Body Weight3
(kg)
14
23
53
11
23
50
BMRb
(MJ/day)
3.4
4.3
6.7
2.6
4.0
5.7
VQ
27
27
27
27
27
27
Ac
.6
.6
.7
.6
.6
.5
H
(m3O2/MJ)
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Inhalation Rate, VE
(m3/day)d
7.3
9.3
15
5.6
8.6
12
aBody weight was based on the average weights for age/gender cohorts in the U.S. population.
bThe BMRs (basal metabolic rate) are calculated using the respective body weights and BMR equations (see
Appendix Table 7A-3).
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 7-9 for 12-14 years and 15-18 years, age brackets for males and females were used: male =1.7 and
female = 1.5.
dlnhalation rate = BMR x A x H x VQ; VQ = ventilation equivalent and H = oxygen uptake.
Source: Layton, 1993
7-20
-------
Table 7-11. Inhalation Rates For Short-term Exposures
Gender/Age
(yrs)
Male
0.5 - <3
3-<10
10-<18
Female
0.5 - <3
3-<10
10-<18
Weight
(kg)a
14
23
53
11
23
50
BMRb
(MJ/day)
3.40
4.30
6.70
2.60
4.00
570
Activity Type
Rest
Sedentary
Light | Moderate
Heavy
MET (BMR Multiplier)
1
1.2
2C
4d
10e
Inhalation Rate (m3/hr)f'g
0.19
0.24
0.38
0.14
0.23
039
0.23
0.29
0.45
0.17
0.27
038
0.38
0.49
0.78
0.29
0.45
066
0.78
0.96
1.50
0.60
0.90
1 96
1.92
2.40
3.78
1.44
2.28
3 18
"Body weights were based on average weights for age/gender cohorts of the U.S. population
bThe BMRs for the age/gender cohorts were calculated using the respective body weights and the BMR
equations (Appendix Table 7A-3).
cRange = 1.5 - 2.5.
dRange = 3-5.
"Range = >5 - 20.
fThe inhalation rate was calculated as IR = BMR (MJ/day) x H (0.05 L/KJ) x MET x VQ (27) x (d/24 hrs)
gOriginal data were presented in L/min. Conversion to m3/hr was obtained as follows: mm
m
hr
1000L
Source: Layton, 1993
7-21
-------
Table 7-12. Mean, Median, and SD of Respiratory Rate According to Waking or Sleeping in 618 Infants and
Children Grouped in Classes of Age
Age (months)
<2
2to<6
6 to <12
12to<18
18 to <24
24 to <30
30 to 36
N
104
106
126
77
65
79
61
Respiratory Rate (breaths/min)
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
Source: Rusconi et al., 1994
7-22
-------
70
60
50
?
dj
£ 30
tr
a 20
10
12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 35
Age (months)
Figure 7-1. 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th Smoothed Gentiles by Age in Awake Subjects
(RR = respiratory rate). Source: Rusconi et al., 1994
70
60
50
7 40
Oi
£ 30
a.
a.
20
10
12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Age (months)
Figure 7-2. 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th Smoothed Gentiles by Age in Asleep Subjects
(RR = respiratory rate). Source: Rusconi et al., 1994
7-23
-------
Table 7-13. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Ventilation Rate (L/min) in Males, by Age Category
Age Category
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
N
419
308
261
540
940
1337
1241
Daily Average Ventilation Rate, Unadjusted for Body Weight
(1^; L/min)
Mean
6.08
9.37
9.19
8.78
9.32
10.64
11.95
Percentiles
5th
3.32
6.76
6.56
7.24
7.00
7.92
8.75
10th
3.96
7.23
7.09
7.55
7.42
8.41
9.31
25th
4.97
8.09
7.94
7.91
8.15
9.22
10.06
50th
6.04
9.11
9.16
8.74
9.09
10.27
11.55
75th
7.24
10.43
10.07
9.47
10.23
11.68
13.31
90th
8.28
11.82
11.30
10.16
11.50
13.57
15.23
95th
8.81
12.43
12.30
10.70
12.31
14.73
16.23
Maxi-
mum
11.84
16.83
19.56
13.56
17.34
19.82
27.23
Daily Average Ventilation Rate, Adjusted for Body Weight
( 1&/BW: L/min-kg)
Mean
0.759
0.823
0.658
0.488
0.307
0.198
0.159
Percentiles
5th
0.634
0.669
0.542
0.363
0.221
0.144
0.116
10th
0.655
0.706
0.567
0.386
0.238
0.153
0.126
25th
0.696
0.756
0.606
0.426
0.261
0.171
0.140
50th
0.754
0.813
0.655
0.481
0.302
0.192
0.158
75th
0.808
0.876
0.704
0.540
0.346
0.220
0.176
90th
0.872
0.949
0.757
0.606
0.381
0.252
0.194
95th
0.898
1.027
0.782
0.639
0.403
0.267
0.206
Maxi-
mum
1.025
1.201
0.944
0.753
0.559
0.351
0.274
Individual daily averages are weighted by their 4-year sampling weights as assigned within NHANES 1999-2002 when calculating the statistics in this table. Ventilation rate was
estimated using a multiple linear regression model.
Source: Lordo et al., 2006
7-24
-------
Table 7-14. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Ventilation Rate (L/min) in Females, by Age Category
Age Category
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to<16 years
16 to<21 vears
N
415
245
255
543
894
1451
1182
Daily Average Ventilation Rate, Unadjusted for Body Weight
(1^; L/min)
Mean
5.92
9.24
8.85
8.45
8.62
9.33
9.44
Percentiles
5th
3.36
6.31
6.19
6.86
6.94
7.27
6.85
10th
3.81
7.03
6.99
7.21
7.19
7.72
7.37
25th
4.75
7.81
7.90
7.78
7.65
8.36
8.18
50th
5.84
9.05
8.75
8.35
8.30
9.08
9.17
75th
6.79
10.17
9.69
9.04
9.32
10.10
10.43
90th
8.09
12.12
10.82
9.74
10.51
11.29
11.89
95th
8.79
12.93
11.36
10.37
11.35
12.09
12.70
Maxi-
mum
18.23
17.20
15.98
13.71
14.46
18.46
20.91
Daily Average Ventilation Rate, Adjusted for Body Weight
( 1&/BW: L/min-kg)
Mean
0.793
0.831
0.663
0.480
0.297
0.174
0.148
Percentiles
5th
0.634
0.677
0.569
0.335
0.194
0.131
0.110
10th
0.673
0.703
0.583
0.372
0.214
0.138
0.117
25th
0.720
0.765
0.618
0.414
0.248
0.153
0.132
50th
0.782
0.818
0.664
0.475
0.296
0.170
0.144
75th
0.863
0.901
0.703
0.533
0.339
0.194
0.163
90th
0.922
0.976
0.740
0.614
0.381
0.217
0.186
95th
0.961
1.017
0.767
0.636
0.404
0.236
0.197
Maxi-
mum
1.112
1.200
0.857
0.775
0.519
0.327
0.248
Individual daily averages are weighted by their 4-year sampling weights as assigned within NHANES 1999-2002 when calculating the statistics in this table. Ventilation rate was
estimated using a multiple linear regression model.
Source: Lordo et al., 2006
7-25
-------
Table 7-15. Average Time Spent Per Day Performing Activities Within Specified Intensity Categories, and Average
Ventilation Rates Associated With These Activity Categories, for Males According to Age Category
Age Category
#NHANES
Participants
Reporting
Activity
Average
Duration
(hr/day)
Spent at
Activity
Ventilation Rate During This
Activity1
Unadjusted for
Body Weight
(L/min)
Adjusted for
Body Weight
(L/min-kg)
Daily Ventilation Rate Associated
With This Activity2
Unadjusted for
Body Weight
(L/day)
Adjusted for
Body Weight
(L/day-kg)
Sleep or nap (Activity ID = 14500)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 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
419
308
261
540
940
1,337
1,241
701
728
753
627
678
496
255
13.5
12.6
12.1
11.2
10.2
9.4
8.7
8.4
8.1
7.9
8.0
8.3
8.5
9.2
3.08
4.50
4.61
4.36
4.61
5.26
5.31
4.73
5.16
5.65
5.78
5.98
6.07
5.97
0.385
0.395
0.330
0.243
0.151
0.098
0.071
0.058
0.061
0.065
0.066
0.069
0.075
0.080
2,499
3,405
3,334
2,928
2,814
2,958
2,769
2,368
2,496
2,676
2,757
2,979
3,098
3,309
311.8
298.9
239.1
162.9
92.5
54.9
36.9
29.0
29.4
30.9
31.7
34.5
38.1
44.3
Sedentary & Passive Activities (METS < 1.5 Includes Sleep or Nap)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 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
419
308
261
540
940
1,337
1,241
701
728
753
627
678
496
255
15.0
14.3
14.6
14.1
13.5
13.8
13.2
12.4
12.3
12.3
13.1
14.5
15.9
16.6
3.18
4.62
4.79
4.58
4.87
5.64
5.76
5.11
5.57
6.11
6.27
6.54
6.65
6.44
0.397
0.406
0.343
0.255
0.160
0.105
0.077
0.062
0.066
0.071
0.072
0.076
0.082
0.086
2,858
3,958
4,206
3,886
3,949
4,692
4,575
3,807
4,117
4,522
4,918
5,693
6,345
6,411
355.9
347.5
301.7
216.0
130.2
87.1
61.1
46.6
48.6
52.2
56.5
66.1
78.1
85.9
7-26
-------
Age Category
#NHANES
Participants
Reporting
Activity
Average
Duration
(hr/day)
Spent at
Activity
Ventilation Rate During This
Activity1
Unadjusted for
Body Weight
(L/min)
Adjusted for
Body Weight
(L/min-kg)
Daily Ventilation Rate Associated
With This Activity2
Unadjusted for
Body Weight
(L/day)
Adjusted for
Body Weight
(L/day-kg)
Light Intensity Activities (1.5 < METS < 3.0)
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
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
5.3
5.5
5.5
6.6
7.6
7.5
7.1
6.1
5.7
6.1
5.6
5.5
5.0
4.9
7.94
11.56
11.67
11.36
11.64
13.22
13.41
12.97
13.64
14.38
14.56
14.12
13.87
13.76
0.988
1.019
0.837
0.633
0.384
0.246
0.179
0.158
0.161
0.166
0.167
0.164
0.171
0.185
2,603
3,959
3,917
4,561
5,345
5,943
5,745
4,821
4,714
5,271
5,005
4,669
4,131
4,014
322.7
350.7
281.9
255.2
177.5
110.9
76.9
58.5
55.5
60.8
57.0
54.0
50.8
53.9
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
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
3.7
4.0
3.8
3.2
2.7
2.3
3.3
5.2
5.7
5.4
5.0
3.7
2.9
2.3
14.49
21.35
21.54
21.03
22.28
26.40
29.02
29.19
30.30
31.58
32.71
29.76
29.29
28.53
1.804
1.878
1.546
1.173
0.736
0.491
0.387
0.357
0.357
0.366
0.376
0.344
0.360
0.383
3,157
5,141
4,958
3,890
3,567
3,733
5,904
9,369
10,560
10,438
9,953
6,705
5,058
4,036
396.5
451.0
353.4
214.5
115.1
68.8
78.3
115.2
124.1
121.3
115.1
77.4
62.0
54.1
7-27
-------
Age Category
# NHANES
Participants
Reporting
Activity
Average
Duration
(hr/day)
Spent at
Activity
Ventilation Rate During This
Activity1
Unadjusted for
Body Weight
(L/min)
Adjusted for
Body Weight
(L/min-kg)
Daily Ventilation Rate Associated
With This Activity2
Unadjusted for
Body Weight
(L/day)
Adjusted for
Body Weight
(L/day-kg)
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
31 to<41 years
41 to <51 years
51 to <61 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
81 vears and older
183
164
162
263
637
1,111
968
546
567
487
452
490
343
168
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
27.47
40.25
40.45
39.04
43.62
50.82
53.17
53.91
54.27
57.31
58.42
54.13
52.46
53.31
3.477
3.523
2.889
2.167
1.410
0.950
0.711
0.660
0.644
0.655
0.675
0.624
0.646
0.716
325
799
242
639
851
1,154
1,275
1,041
1,183
1,124
1,441
1,158
1,181
1.052
41.2
68.3
17.4
34.3
28.2
21.9
16.9
12.8
14.1
12.7
16.5
13.3
14.6
13.9
1 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 weights
corresponding to the 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
weights corresponding to the 4-year sampling weights assigned within NHANES 1999-2002.
2 An individual's daily average ventilation rate equals the product of the individual's weighted average ventilation rate for the
given activity category (L/min), estimated using a multiple linear regression model, and the number of minutes per day that the
individual performs an activity within the category. Numbers in these two columns represent weighted averages across
individuals in the specified age category, with the weights corresponding to the 4-year sampling weights assigned within
NHANES 1999-2002.
Source: Lordo et aL 2006
7-28
-------
Table 7-16. Average Time Spent Per Day Performing Activities Within Specified Intensity Categories, and Average
Ventilation Rates Associated With These Activity Categories, for Females According to Age Category
Age Category
#NHANES
Participants
Reporting
Activity
Average
Duration
(hr/day)
Spent at
Activity
Ventilation Rate During This
Activity1
Unadjusted for
Body Weight
(L/min)
Adjusted for
Body Weight
(L/min-kg)
Daily Ventilation Rate Associated
With This Activity2
Unadjusted for
Body Weight
(L/day)
Adjusted for
Body Weight
(L/day-kg)
Sleep or nap (Activity ID = 14500)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 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
415
245
255
543
894
1,451
1,182
1,023
869
763
622
700
470
306
13.0
12.6
12.1
11.1
10.3
9.6
9.1
8.6
8.3
8.3
8.1
8.4
8.6
9.1
2.92
4.59
4.56
4.18
4.36
4.81
4.40
3.89
4.00
4.40
4.56
4.47
4.52
4.49
0.391
0.414
0.342
0.238
0.151
0.090
0.069
0.055
0.056
0.060
0.061
0.061
0.066
0.072
2,275
3,466
3,307
2,788
2,686
2,766
2,398
2,009
1,996
2,197
2,222
2,255
2,325
2,456
304.9
313.0
248.4
158.9
92.7
51.6
37.7
28.6
27.8
29.9
29.8
30.5
33.9
39.1
Sedentary & Passive Activities (METS < 1.5 Includes Sleep or Nap)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 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 vears and older
415
245
255
543
894
1,451
1,182
1,023
869
763
622
700
470
306
14.1
14.3
14.9
14.3
14.0
14.2
13.6
12.6
12.3
12.2
12.7
14.3
15.4
16.5
3.00
4.71
4.73
4.40
4.64
5.21
4.76
4.19
4.33
4.75
4.96
4.89
4.95
4.89
0.402
0.425
0.355
0.251
0.160
0.097
0.075
0.060
0.060
0.065
0.067
0.066
0.072
0.078
2,538
4,046
4,215
3,773
3,898
4,442
3,876
3,164
3,197
3,489
3,771
4,183
4,569
4.841
339.4
365.9
316.4
214.8
134.3
83.1
61.0
45.0
44.7
47.5
50.7
56.6
66.6
77.3
7-29
-------
Table 7-16. Average Time Spent Per Day Performing Activities Within Specified Intensity Categories, and Average
Ventilation Rates Associated With These Activity Categories, for Females According to Age Category (continued)
Age Category
#NHANES
Participants
Reporting
Activity
Average
Duration
(hr/day)
Spent at
Activity
Ventilation Rate During This
Activity1
Unadjusted for
Body Weight
(L/min)
Adjusted for
Body Weight
(L/min-kg)
Daily Ventilation Rate Associated
With This Activity2
Unadjusted for
Body Weight
(L/day)
Adjusted for
Body Weight
(L/day-kg)
Light Intensity Activities (1.5 < METS <. 3.0)
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
31 to<41 years
41 to <51 years
51 to <61 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
81 years and older
415
245
255
543
894
1,451
1,182
1,023
869
763
622
700
470
306
6.0
5.6
5.8
6.3
7.3
7.6
7.0
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.5
6.2
6.0
5.3
7.32
11.62
11.99
10.92
11.07
12.02
11.08
10.55
11.07
11.78
12.02
10.82
10.83
10.40
0.978
1.050
0.897
0.619
0.382
0.225
0.174
0.149
0.154
0.161
0.161
0.147
0.158
0.167
2,727
4,019
4,255
4,148
4,845
5,454
4,660
4,075
4,338
4,656
4,714
4,046
3,873
3,308
362.7
366.8
318.5
235.6
167.0
101.9
73.2
57.7
60.5
63.8
63.2
55.1
56.6
52.9
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
31 to<41 years
41 to <51 years
51 to <61 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
81 years and older
415
245
255
543
894
1,451
1,182
1,023
869
763
622
700
470
306
3.9
4.0
3.3
3.4
2.6
2.0
3.3
4.8
5.0
5.0
4.6
3.3
2.5
2.1
13.98
20.98
21.34
20.01
21.00
23.55
23.22
22.93
22.70
24.49
25.24
21.42
21.09
20.87
1.866
1.896
1.600
1.135
0.723
0.441
0.365
0.325
0.316
0.333
0.339
0.292
0.308
0.335
3,222
5,118
4,076
3,986
3,220
2,852
4,586
6,769
6,927
7,559
7,026
4,255
3,140
2,580
434.0
452.5
306.0
226.0
111.0
53.3
72.0
95.9
96.4
102.1
94.6
58.0
45.8
41.4
7-30
-------
Table 7-16. Average Time Spent Per Day Performing Activities Within Specified Intensity Categories, and Average
Ventilation Rates Associated With These Activity Categories, for Females According to Age Category (continued)
Age Category
# NHANES
Participants
Reporting
Activity
Average
Duration
(hr/day)
Spent at
Activity
Ventilation Rate During This
Activity1
Unadjusted for
Body Weight
(L/min)
Adjusted for
Body Weight
(L/min-kg)
Daily Ventilation Rate Associated
With This Activity2
Unadjusted for
Body Weight
(L/day)
Adjusted for
Body Weight
(L/day-kg)
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
31 to<41 years
41 to <51 years
51 to <61 years
61 to <71 years
71 to<81 years
81 years and older
79
55
130
347
707
1,170
887
796
687
515
424
465
304
188
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
24.19
36.48
37.58
34.53
39.39
46.56
44.09
45.68
44.44
46.98
47.35
40.02
40.64
41.88
3.263
3.376
2.800
1.979
1.331
0.879
0.696
0.650
0.613
0.653
0.634
0.544
0.594
0.666
244
471
355
407
568
840
621
725
646
725
965
111
718
654
32.3
44.3
25.6
23.4
18.7
15.8
9.8
10.2
8.9
10.1
13.0
10.5
10.5
10.7
1 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 weights
corresponding to the 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
weights corresponding to the 4-year sampling weights assigned within NHANES 1999-2002.
2 An individual's daily average ventilation rate equals the product of the individual's weighted average ventilation rate for the
given activity category (L/min), estimated using a multiple linear regression model, and the number of minutes per day that the
individual performs an activity within the category. Numbers in these two columns represent weighted averages across
individuals in the specified age category, with the weights corresponding to the 4-year sampling weights assigned within
NHANES 1999-2002.
Source: Lordo et al, 2006
7-31
-------
Table 7-17. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Ventilation Rate (mVday) in Males, by Age Category
Age Category
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to<16 years
16 to <21 years
N
419
308
261
540
940
1337
1241
Daily Average Ventilation Rate, Unadjusted for Body Weight
(J^mVday)
Mean
8.76
13.49
13.23
12.65
13.42
15.32
17.22
Percentiles
5th
4.77
9.73
9.45
10.42
10.08
11.41
12.60
10th
5.70
10.41
10.20
10.87
10.69
12.11
13.41
25th
7.16
11.65
11.43
11.40
11.73
13.27
14.48
50th
8.70
13.11
13.19
12.58
13.09
14.79
16.63
75th
10.43
15.02
14.49
13.64
14.73
16.81
19.16
90th
11.93
17.03
16.27
14.63
16.56
19.54
21.94
95th
12.69
17.89
17.71
15.41
17.72
21.21
23.38
Maxi-
mum
17.05
24.24
28.17
19.52
24.97
28.54
39.21
Daily Average Ventilation Rate, Adjusted for Body Weight
( }&/BW: m3/day-kg)
Mean
1.093
1.186
0.948
0.703
0.441
0.285
0.229
Percentiles
5th
0.913
0.964
0.781
0.523
0.318
0.208
0.168
10th
0.943
1.017
0.816
0.555
0.343
0.221
0.181
25th
1.002
1.088
0.873
0.613
0.376
0.246
0.202
50th
1.085
1.171
0.943
0.693
0.434
0.276
0.228
75th
1.163
1.261
1.014
0.778
0.499
0.317
0.253
90th
1.256
1.367
1.090
0.873
0.549
0.362
0.279
95th
1.293
1.479
1.127
0.920
0.581
0.384
0.296
Maxi-
mum
1.476
1.730
1.360
1.084
0.805
0.505
0.395
Individual daily averages are weighted by their 4-year sampling weights as assigned within NHANES 1999-2002 when calculating the statistics in this table. Ventilation rate was
estimated using a multiple linear regression model.
Source: Lordo et al, 2006
7-32
-------
Table 7-18. Descriptive Statistics for Daily Average Ventilation Rate (mVday) in Females, by Age Category
Age Category
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
N
415
245
255
543
894
1451
1182
Daily Average Ventilation Rate, Unadjusted for Body Weight
(J^mVday)
Mean
8.53
13.31
12.74
12.16
12.41
13.44
13.59
Percentiles
5th
4.84
9.08
8.91
9.87
9.99
10.47
9.86
10th
5.48
10.12
10.07
10.38
10.35
11.11
10.61
25th
6.83
11.24
11.38
11.20
11.01
12.04
11.78
50th
8.41
13.03
12.60
12.02
11.95
13.08
13.20
75th
9.78
14.64
13.96
13.01
13.42
14.54
15.02
90th
11.65
17.45
15.58
14.03
15.13
16.25
17.12
95th
12.66
18.62
16.37
14.93
16.34
17.41
18.29
Maxi-
mum
26.26
24.77
23.01
19.74
20.82
26.58
30.11
Daily Average Ventilation Rate, Adjusted for Body Weight
( }&/BW: m3/day-kg)
Mean
1.142
1.197
0.955
0.691
0.427
0.251
0.214
Percentiles
5th
0.913
0.975
0.820
0.482
0.279
0.189
0.158
10th
0.969
1.013
0.840
0.536
0.307
0.198
0.169
25th
1.037
1.102
0.890
0.596
0.357
0.220
0.190
50th
1.127
1.178
0.956
0.684
0.427
0.245
0.208
75th
1.243
1.297
1.012
0.768
0.489
0.279
0.235
90th
1.327
1.405
1.065
0.884
0.548
0.312
0.268
95th
1.384
1.465
1.105
0.916
0.582
0.340
0.284
Maxi-
mum
1.601
1.728
1.234
1.116
0.748
0.471
0.357
Individual daily averages are weighted by their 4-year sampling weights as assigned within NHANES 1999-2002 when calculating the statistics in this table. Ventilation rate was
estimated using a multiple linear regression model.
Source: Lordo et al., 2006
7-33
-------
Table 7-19. Descriptive Statistics for Duration of Time (hr/day) Spent Performing Activities Within the Specified Activity Category, by Age and Gender
Categories
Age Category
Duration (hr/day) Spent at Activity - Males
N
Mean
Percentiles
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
Maxi-
mum
Duration (hr/day) Spent at Activity - Females
N
Mean
Percentiles
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
Maxi-
mum
Sleep or nap (Activity ID = 14500)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to<16 years
16 to <21 years
419
308
261
540
940
1337
1241
13.51
12.61
12.06
11.18
10.18
9.38
8.69
12.63
11.89
11.19
10.57
9.65
8.84
7.91
12.78
12.15
11.45
10.70
9.75
8.94
8.08
13.19
12.34
11.80
10.94
9.93
9.15
8.36
13.53
12.61
12.07
11.18
10.19
9.38
8.67
13.88
12.89
12.39
11.45
10.39
9.61
9.03
14.24
13.13
12.65
11.63
10.59
9.83
9.34
14.46
13.29
12.75
11.82
10.72
9.95
9.50
15.03
13.79
13.40
12.39
11.24
10.33
10.44
415
245
255
543
894
1451
1182
12.99
12.58
12.09
11.13
10.26
9.57
9.08
12.00
11.59
11.45
10.45
9.55
8.82
8.26
12.16
11.88
11.68
10.70
9.73
8.97
8.44
12.53
12.29
11.86
10.92
10.01
9.27
8.74
12.96
12.63
12.08
11.12
10.27
9.55
9.08
13.44
12.96
12.34
11.38
10.54
9.87
9.39
13.82
13.16
12.57
11.58
10.74
10.17
9.79
14.07
13.31
12.66
11.75
10.91
10.31
10.02
14.82
14.55
13.48
12.23
11.43
11.52
11.11
Sedentary & Passive Activities (METS <, 1.5 Includes Sleep or Nap)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
419
308
261
540
940
1337
1241
14.95
14.27
14.62
14.12
13.51
13.85
13.21
13.82
13.22
13.52
13.01
12.19
12.39
11.39
14.03
13.33
13.67
13.18
12.45
12.65
11.72
14.49
13.76
14.11
13.54
12.86
13.06
12.32
14.88
14.25
14.54
14.03
13.30
13.61
13.08
15.44
14.74
15.11
14.53
13.85
14.30
13.97
15.90
15.08
15.60
15.26
14.82
15.41
14.83
16.12
15.38
15.77
15.62
15.94
16.76
15.44
17.48
16.45
17.28
17.29
19.21
18.79
18.70
415
245
255
543
894
1451
1182
14.07
14.32
14.86
14.27
13.97
14.19
13.58
12.86
13.02
13.81
12.88
12.49
12.38
11.80
13.05
13.25
13.95
13.15
12.74
12.76
12.17
13.53
13.73
14.44
13.56
13.22
13.34
12.79
14.08
14.31
14.81
14.23
13.82
14.05
13.52
14.54
14.88
15.32
14.82
14.50
14.82
14.29
15.08
15.36
15.78
15.43
15.34
15.87
15.08
15.49
15.80
16.03
15.85
16.36
16.81
15.67
16.14
16.40
16.91
17.96
18.68
19.27
16.96
Light Intensity Activities (1.5 < METS ^ 3.0)
Birth to <1 year
1 year
2 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to<16 years
16 to <21 vears
419
308
261
540
940
1337
1241
5.30
5.52
5.48
6.60
7.62
7.50
7.13
2.97
2.68
3.06
3.86
5.07
4.48
4.37
3.25
2.89
3.26
4.25
5.57
5.59
4.97
3.71
3.37
3.85
5.16
6.63
6.75
6.00
4.52
4.31
4.58
6.20
7.63
7.67
7.02
7.29
8.23
7.58
8.26
8.72
8.51
8.29
8.08
9.04
8.83
9.31
9.78
9.19
9.43
8.50
9.73
9.04
9.70
10.12
9.63
10.03
9.91
10.90
9.92
10.74
11.59
10.91
11.50
415
245
255
543
894
1451
1182
6.00
5.61
5.78
6.25
7.27
7.55
6.98
3.49
2.83
3.20
3.78
4.63
4.89
4.60
3.70
2.94
3.54
4.10
5.46
5.62
5.08
4.26
3.46
4.29
4.79
6.33
6.75
5.91
5.01
4.39
5.33
5.84
7.17
7.67
6.85
8.43
8.28
7.48
7.86
8.34
8.55
7.96
9.31
9.03
8.46
8.84
9.42
9.27
9.16
9.77
9.39
8.74
9.38
9.79
9.57
9.57
10.53
10.57
9.93
10.32
11.06
10.85
12.29
7-34
-------
Age Category
Duration (hr/day) Spent at Activity - Males
N
Mean
Percentiles
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
Maxi-
mum
Duration (hr/day) Spent at Activity - Females
N
Mean
Percentiles
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
Maxi-
mum
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
419
308
261
540
940
1337
1241
3.67
4.04
3.83
3.15
2.66
2.35
3.35
0.63
0.45
0.59
0.55
0.65
0.88
1.13
0.97
0.59
0.76
0.75
0.92
1.09
1.42
1.74
1.14
1.23
1.30
1.65
1.66
2.19
4.20
5.29
4.74
3.80
2.68
2.30
3.45
5.20
6.06
5.37
4.52
3.57
3.02
4.37
5.80
6.61
5.82
5.11
4.36
3.62
5.24
6.21
6.94
6.15
5.32
4.79
3.89
5.59
7.52
7.68
7.40
6.30
5.95
5.90
6.83
415
245
255
543
894
1451
1182
3.91
4.02
3.27
3.35
2.57
2.01
3.26
0.53
0.52
0.50
0.70
0.65
0.89
1.27
0.74
0.73
0.78
0.89
0.95
1.08
1.48
1.10
1.08
1.22
1.61
1.82
1.45
2.21
4.87
5.14
4.01
3.88
2.66
1.96
3.39
5.77
6.10
4.88
4.71
3.41
2.51
4.24
6.27
7.00
5.35
5.29
3.95
3.03
4.74
6.54
7.37
5.57
5.65
4.32
3.28
5.07
7.68
8.07
6.93
7.58
6.10
4.96
6.68
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 vears
183
164
162
263
637
1111
968
0.20
0.31
0.10
0.27
0.32
0.38
0.40
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.10
0.14
0.14
0.22
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.21
0.27
0.28
0.56
0.14
0.33
0.38
0.47
0.53
0.50
0.78
0.25
0.75
1.10
1.03
0.99
0.59
0.93
0.33
1.16
1.50
1.34
1.29
0.96
1.52
0.48
1.48
3.20
2.35
2.59
79
55
130
347
707
1170
887
0.17
0.22
0.15
0.19
0.24
0.30
0.24
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.14
0.18
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.19
0.18
0.21
0.35
0.16
0.22
0.26
0.40
0.34
0.33
0.40
0.48
0.46
0.67
0.66
0.51
0.40
0.43
0.65
0.73
0.98
0.96
0.60
0.58
0.48
1.01
1.43
1.71
3.16
1.61
Individual measures are weighted by their 4-year sampling weights as assigned within NHANES 1999-2002 when calculating the statistics in this table. Ventilation rate was
estimated using a multiple linear regression model.
Source: Lordo et al, 2006.
7-35
-------
Table 7-20. Confidence in Inhalation Rate Recommendations
Considerations
Study Elements
Peer Review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to U.S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection period
Validity of approach
Representativeness of the population
Characterization of variability
Lack of bias in study design
Measurement error
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between researchers
Overall Rating
Rationale
The key study used in the recommendations has
undergone internal peer review, but not external
review yet. The primary data used in the study
have been peer reviewed.
The Lordo et al. 2006 is not yet available in the
peer review literature, however the primary data
sets used in the study are publicly available.
Results can be reproduced using the primary data
publicly available.
Study focused on ventilation rates and factors
influencing them.
Studies conducted in the U.S.
Lordo et al. 2006 is an analysis of existing primary
data.
Recent studies were evaluated.
Effort was made to collect data over time.
Measurements were made by indirect methods.
The key study sampled a large and representative
of the U.S. general population.
Variability was presented in a cursory manner
through calculation of summary statistics.
Subjects were selected randomly from the U.S.
population.
Inhalation rates were not measured directly.
Rather, they were estimated using other
measurements (i.e., activity patterns, metabolic
equivalents and body weight). Measurement error
is well documented by statistics, but procedures
measure factor indirectly.
One key study contributed the recommended
values; five additional relevant studies were
evaluated.
There is general agreement among researchers
using different experimental methods.
Recommendations are based on one study not yet
published, but it is the most recent data and
scientific methodology available.
Rating
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium
High
High
Medium
High
High
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
7-36
-------
Table 7-21. Summary of Recommended Values For Inhalation
Activity Level
Age Range
(years)
Males
Mean m3/day
N
Females
Mean m3/day
N
Long-term Exposures
(All)
(Percentiles see Tables 7-
13 and 7-14)
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
8.76
13.49
13.23
12.65
13.42
15.32
17.22
419
308
261
540
940
1337
1241
8.53
13.31
12.74
12.16
12.41
13.44
13.59
415
245
255
543
894
1451
1182
Short-term Exposures
Sleep or Nap
(Percentiles see Tables 7-
15 and 7-16)
Sedentary/Passive
(Percentiles see Tables 7-
15 and 7-16)
Light Intensity
(Percentiles see Tables 7-
15 and 7-16)
Moderate Intensity
(Percentiles see Tables 7-
15 and 7-16)
High Intensity
(Percentiles see Tables 7-
15 and 7-16)
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
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
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
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
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
4.44
6.48
6.64
6.28
6.64
7.57
7.65
4.58
6.65
6.90
6.60
7.01
8.12
8.29
11.43
16.65
16.80
16.36
16.76
19.04
19.31
20.87
30.74
31.02
30.28
32.08
38.02
41.79
39.56
57.96
58.25
56.22
62.81
73.18
76.56
419
308
261
540
940
1337
1241
419
308
261
540
940
1337
1241
419
308
261
540
940
1337
1241
419
308
261
540
940
1337
1241
183
164
162
263
637
1111
968
4.20
6.61
6.57
6.02
6.28
6.93
6.34
4.32
6.78
6.81
6.34
6.68
7.50
6.85
10.54
16.73
17.27
15.72
15.94
17.31
15.96
20.13
30.21
30.73
28.81
30.24
33.91
33.44
34.83
52.53
54.12
49.72
56.72
67.05
63.49
415
245
255
543
894
1451
1182
415
245
255
543
894
1451
1182
415
245
255
543
894
1451
1182
415
245
255
543
894
1451
1182
79
55
130
347
707
1170
887
7-37
-------
APPENDIX 7A
VENTILATION DATA
-------
Table 7A-1. Mean Minute Ventilation (Ve, L/min) by Group and Activity for Laboratory Protocols
Activity
Lying
Sitting
Standing
Walking
Running
1.5 mph
1.875 mph
2.0 mph
2.25 mph
2.5 mph
3.0 mph
3.3 mph
4.0 mph
3.5 mph
4.0 mph
4.5 mph
5.0 mph
6.0 mph
Young Childrena
6.19
6.48
6.76
10.25
10.53
DNP
11.68
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
Children3
7.51
7.28
8.49
DNP
DNP
14.13
DNP
15.58
17.79
DNP
DNP
26.77
31.35
37.22
DNP
DNP
aYoung Children, male and female 3-5.9 years old; Children, male and female 6-12.9 years old;
DNP: group did not perform this protocol or N was too small for appropriate mean comparisons.
Source: Adams, 1993
7A-1
-------
Table 7A-2. Mean Minute Ventilation (Ve, L/min) by Group and Activity for Field Protocols
Activity3
Play
Young Children13
11.31
Children15
17.89
""Activities for which groups did not perform the protocol or N was too small for appropriate mean comparisons
were car driving, car riding, yardwork, housework, car maintenance, mowing, and woodworking.
bYoung Children, male and female 3-5.9 years old; Children, males and females 6-12.9 years old.
Source: Adams, 1993
Table 7A-3. Statistics of the Age/gender Cohorts Used to Develop Regression Equations for Predicting Basal
Metabolic Rates (BMR)
Gender,
Age (years)
Males
Under 3
3 to < 10
10 to < 18
Females
Under 3
3 to < 10
10 to < 18
BMR
MJd"1
1.51
4.14
5.86
1.54
3.85
5.04
SD
0.918
0.498
1.171
0.915
0.493
0.780
CV
0.61
0.12
0.20
0.59
0.13
0.15
Body
Weight
(kg)
6.6
21
42
6.9
21
38
N
162
338
734
137
413
575
BMR Equationa
0.249 bw- 0.127
0.095 bw + 2.110
0.074 bw + 2.754
0.244 bw- 0.130
0.085 bw + 2.033
0.056 bw + 2.898
r
0.95
0.83
0.93
0.96
0.81
0.8
aBody weight (bw) in kg
SD: Standard deviation.
CV: Coefficient of variation (SD/mean)
r: coefficient of correlation
Source: Layton, 1993
7A-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DERMAL ROUTE 8-1
8.1 INTRODUCTION 8-1
8.2 SURFACE AREA 8-2
8.2.1. Background 8-2
8.2.2. Measurement Techniques 8-2
8.2.3. Body Surface Area Studies 8-3
8.2.3.1. Costeff, 1966 8-3
8.2.3.2. U.S. EPA, 1985 8-4
8.2.3.3. Phillips et al., 1993 8-5
8.2.3.4. Wong et al. (2000) 8-6
8.2.3.5. U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES III Data 8-6
8.2.4. Application of Body Surface Area Data 8-7
8.3 ADHERENCE OF SOLIDS TO SKIN 8-8
8.3.1. Background 8-8
8.3.2. Adherence of Solids to Skin Studies 8-8
8.3.2.1. Kissel etal., 1996a 8-8
8.3.2.2. Kissel et al., 1996b 8-8
8.3.2.3. Holmes et al., 1999 8-9
8.3.2.4. Kissel et al., 1998 8-10
8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 8-12
8.4.1. Body Surface Area 8-12
8.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8 8-15
APPENDIX 8A - Formulas for Total Body Surface Area 8A-1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 8-1. Total Body Surface Area of Male Children in Square Meters3 8-17
Table 8-2. Total Body Surface Area of Female Children in Square Metersa 8-18
Table 8-3. Percentage of Total Body Surface Area by Body Part For Children 8-19
Table 8-4. Descriptive Statistics For Surface Area/body Weight (SA/BW) Ratios (nrVkg) . 8-20
Table 8-6. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from EPA Analysis of
NHANES III (All Children) 8-21
Table 8-7. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from EPA Analysis of
NHANES III (Male Children) 8-22
Table 8-8. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (m2) Derived from EPA Analysis of
NHANES III (Female Children) 8-23
Table 8-9. Summary of Field Studies 8-24
Table 8-10. Geometric Mean and Geometric Standard Deviations of Solids Adherence by
Activity and Body Region 8-25
Table 8-11. Summary of Groups Assayed in Round 2 of Field Measurements 8-26
Table 8-12. Attire for Individuals within Children's Groups Studied 8-27
Table 8-13. Geometric Means (Geometric Standard Deviations) of Round 2 Post-activity
Loadings 8-28
Table 8-14. Summary of Controlled Green House Trials - Children Playing 8-29
Table 8-15. Preactivity Loadings Recovered from Greenhouse Trial Children Volunteers . 8-30
Table 8-19. Confidence in Solids Adherence to Skin Recommendations 8-32
Table 8A-1. Estimated Parameter Values for Different Age Intervals 8A-4
Table 8A-2. Summary of Surface Area Parameter Values for the Dubois and Dubois Model
8A-5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 8-1. Schematic of Dose and Exposure: Dermal Route 8-2
Figure 8-2. Skin Coverage as Determined by Fluorescence vs. Body Part for Adults
Transplanting Plants and for Children Playing in Wet Soils 8-33
Figure 8-3. Gravimetric Loading vs. Body Part for Adult Transplanting Plants in Wet Soil
and for Children Playing in Wet and Dry Soils 8-33
-------
1 8. DERMAL ROUTE
2
3 8.1 INTRODUCTION
4 Children may be more highly exposed to environmental toxicants through dermal routes
5 than adults. For instance, children often play and crawl on contaminated surfaces and are more
6 likely to wear less clothing than adults. These factors result in higher dermal contact with
7 contaminated media. In addition, children have a higher surface area relative to body weight. In
8 fact, the surface-area-to-body weight ratio for newborn infants is more than two times greater
9 than that for adults (Cohen-Hubal et al., 1999).
10 Dermal exposure can occur during a variety of activities in different environmental media
11 and microenvironments (U.S. EPA, 1992a; 1992b, 2004). These include:
12
13 Water (e.g., bathing, washing, swimming);
14 Soil (e.g., outdoor recreation, gardening, construction);
15 Sediment (e.g., wading, fishing);
16 Liquids (e.g., use of commercial products);
17 Vapors/fumes (e.g., use of commercial products); and
18 Indoors (e.g., carpets, floors, counter tops).
19
20 The major factors that must be considered when estimating dermal exposure are the
21 chemical concentration in contact with the skin, the extent of skin surface area exposed, the
22 duration of exposure, the absorption of the chemical through the skin, the internal dose, and the
23 amount of chemical that can be delivered to a target organ (i.e., biologically effective dose) (see
24 Figure 8-1). This chapter focuses on measurements of body surface areas and dermal adherence
25 of solids to the skin. For guidance on how to use these factors to assess dermal exposure, readers
26 are referred to Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications (U.S. EPA, 1992b)
27 and Risk Assessment Guidelines (RA Gs) Part E (U. S. EPA, 2004).
3-1
-------
Exposure
Chemical
Potential
Dose
Applied
Dose
Biologically
Effective
Dose
Internal
Dose
Metabolism
Effect
Skin
Uptake
Figure 8-1. Schematic of Dose and Exposure: Dermal Route
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992a).
1 8.2 SURFACE AREA
2 8.2.1. Background
3 The total surface area of skin exposed to a contaminant should be determined using
4 measurement or estimation techniques before conducting a dermal exposure assessment. This
5 section presents estimates of skin surface area for the whole body and individual body parts.
6 Additionally information is presented on the application of skin surface area data to specific
7 exposure scenarios.
8
9 8.2.2. Measurement Techniques
10 Coating, triangulation, and surface integration are direct measurement techniques that
11 have been used to measure total body surface area and the surface area of specific body parts.
12 Consideration has been given for differences due to age, gender, and race. The results of the
13 various techniques have been summarized in Development of Statistical Distributions or Ranges
14 of Standard Factors Used in Exposure Assessments (U.S. EPA, 1985).
15 The coating method consists of coating either the whole body or specific body regions
16 with a substance of known density and thickness. Triangulation consists of marking the area of
8-2
-------
1 the body into geometric figures, then calculating the figure areas from their linear dimensions.
2 Surface integration is performed by using a planimeter and adding the areas.
3 The triangulation measurement technique developed by Boyd (1935) has been found to
4 be highly reliable. It estimates the surface area of the body using geometric approximations that
5 assume that parts of the body resemble geometric solids. More recently, Popendorf and
6 Leffmgwell (1976), and Haycock et al. (1978) have developed similar geometric methods that
7 assume body parts correspond to geometric solids, such as the sphere and cylinder. A linear
8 method proposed by DuBois and DuBois (1916) is based on the principle that the surface areas
9 of the parts of the body are proportional, rather than equal to the surface area of the solids they
10 resemble.
11 In addition to direct measurement techniques, several formulas have been proposed to
12 estimate body surface area from measurements of other major body dimensions (i.e., height and
13 weight) (U.S. EPA, 1985). Generally, the formulas are based on the observation that body
14 weight and height are correlated with surface area and are derived using multiple regression
15 techniques. A discussion and comparison of formulas to determine total body surface area are
16 presented in Appendix 8 A.
17
18 8.2.3. Body Surface Area Studies
19 8.2.3.1. Costeff, 1966
20 Costeff (1966) developed an empirical formula for calculating the surface area of
21 children based on weight only:
22
4W + 7
23 SA = (1)
W + 90
24 where:
25
26 SA = surface area (m2);
27 Constants = 4,7, and 90; and
28 W weight (kg).
29
30 This simple formula applies to the weight range between 1.5 and 100 kg.
8-3
-------
1 8.2.3.2. U.S. EPA, 1985
2 U.S. EPA (1985) analyzed the direct surface area measurement data of Gehan and
3 George (1970) using the Statistical Processing System (SPS) software package of Buhyoff et al.
4 (1982). For their analysis, Gehan and George (1970) selected 401 measurements made by Boyd
5 (1935) that were complete for surface area, height, weight, and age. Boyd (1935) had reported
6 surface area estimates for 1,114 individuals using coating, triangulation, or surface integration
7 methods (U.S. EPA, 1985).
8 U.S. EPA (1985) used SPS to generate equations to calculate surface area as a function of
9 height and weight. These equations were then used to calculate body surface area distributions
10 of the U.S. population using the height and weight data obtained from the National Health and
11 Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) II and the computer program QNTLS of Rochon and
12 Kalsbeek(1983).
13 The equation proposed by Gehan and George (1970) was determined by U.S. EPA (1985)
14 to be the best choice for estimating total body surface area. However, the paper by Gehan and
15 George (1970) gave insufficient information to estimate the standard error about the regression.
16 Therefore, U.S. EPA (1985) used the direct measurements of 401 individuals and re-analyzed the
17 data using the formula of Dubois and Dubois (1916) and SPS to obtain the standard error.
18 Regression equations were developed for specific body parts using the Dubois and
19 Dubois (1916) formula and using the surface area of various body parts provided by Boyd (1935)
20 and Van Graan (1969) in conjunction with SPS. Equations to estimate the body part surface area
21 of children were not developed because of insufficient data.
22 The percentile estimates for total surface area of male and female children presented in
23 Tables 8-1 and 8-2 were calculated using the total surface area regression equation and
24 NHANES II height and weight data, and using QNTLS. Estimates were not included for
25 children younger than 2 years old because NHANES height data were not available for this age
26 group. For children, the error associated with height and weight cannot be assumed to be zero
27 because of their relatively small sample sizes. Therefore, the standard errors of the percentile
28 estimates could not be estimated. This is because it cannot be assumed that the errors associated
29 with the exogenous variables (height and weight) are independent of those associated with the
30 model, i.e. there are insufficient data to determine the relationship between these errors.
8-4
-------
1 Measurements of the surface area of children's body parts are summarized as a
2 percentage of total surface area in Table 8-3. Because of the small sample size, it is unclear how
3 accurately these estimates represent averages for the age groups. Note that the proportion of
4 total body surface area contributed by the head decreases from childhood to adulthood, whereas
5 the proportion contributed by the leg increases.
6
7 8.2.3.3. Phillips et al., 1993
8 Phillips et al. (1993) observed a strong correlation (0.986) between body surface area and
9 body weight and studied the effect of using these factors as independent variables in the lifetime
10 average daily dose (LADD) equation. The authors concluded that, because of the correlation
11 between these two variables, the use of body surface area to body weight (SA/BW) ratios in
12 human exposure assessments is more appropriate than treating these factors as independent
13 variables. Direct measurement (coating, triangulation, and surface integration) data from the
14 scientific literature were used to calculate SA/BW ratios for two age groups of children (infants
15 aged 0 to 2 years and children aged 2.1 to 17.9 years). These ratios were calculated by dividing
16 body surface areas by corresponding body weights for the 401 individuals analyzed by Gehan
17 and George (1970) and summarized by U.S. EPA (1985). Distributions of SA/BW ratios were
18 developed, and summary statistics were calculated for the two age groups and the combined data
19 set.
20 Summary statistics for the two children's age groups are presented in Table 8-4. The
21 shapes of these SA/BW distributions were determined using D'Agostino's test. The results
22 indicate that the SA/BW ratios for infants are lognormally distributed. SA/BW ratios for
23 children were neither normally nor lognormally distributed. According to Phillips et al. (1993),
24 SA/BW ratios should be used to calculate LADDs by replacing the body surface area factor in
25 the numerator of the LADD equation with the SA/BW ratio and eliminating the body weight
26 factor in the denominator of the LADD equation.
27 The effect of gender and age on SA/BW distribution was also analyzed by classifying the
28 401 observations by gender and age. Statistical analyses indicated no significant differences
29 between SA/BW ratios for males and females. SA/BW ratios were found to decrease with
30 increasing age.
31
$-5
-------
1 8.2.3.4. Wong et al. (2000)
2 Wong et al. (2000) reports on surveys that gathered information on activity patterns
3 related to dermal contact with soil. Two random dialing national phone surveys were conducted.
4 The initial Soil Contact Survey (SCS-I) was conducted in 1996 (also reported on by Garlock et
5 al., 1999) and the second Soil Contact Survey (SCS-II) was conducted in 1999. Information
6 about children were gathered from adults over the age of 18. SCS-I had 450 participants with
7 complete responses and SCS-II had 483 participants with complete responses.
8 SCS-I gathered information on 211 children. For older children (those between the ages
9 of 5 and 17 years) information was gathered on their participation in "gardening and yardwork,"
10 "outdoor sports," and "outdoor play activities." For children less than 5 years old, information
11 was gathered on "outdoor play activities" including whether the activity occurred on a
12 playground or yard with "bare dirt or mixed grass and dirt" surfaces. An effort was also made to
13 determine the clothing worn while participating in these play activities during warm weather
14 months (April though October). For both groups of children, information was gathered
15 concerning frequency of hand washing and bathing,
16 Results of SCS-I indicate that most children wore short pants, a dress or skirt, short
17 sleeve shirts, no socks, and leather or canvas shoes during the outdoor play activities of interest.
18 Using the survey data on clothing and total body surface area data from U.S. EPA (1985),
19 estimates were made of the skin area exposed (expressed as percentages of total body surface
20 area) associated with various age ranges and activities (Table 8-5).
21
22 8.2.3.5. U.S. EPA Analysis of NHANES III Data
23 The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), 1988-94
24 was conducted on a nationwide probability sample of approximately 33,994 persons aged 2
25 months and older. The survey was designed to obtain nationally representative information on
26 the health and nutritional status of the population of the United States through interviews and
27 direct physical examinations. A number of anthropometrical measurements were taken for each
28 participant in the study, including body weight. Unit nonresponse to the household interview
29 was 14 percent, and an additional 8 percent did not participate in the physical examinations
30 (including body weight measurements).
8-6
-------
1 Certain subpopulations were over sampled to ensure a prespecified minimum sample size
2 for each analytic domain. These over sampled subpopulations include children, older persons,
3 Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, and people living in certain geographic areas. Sample
4 data were assigned weights to account both for the disparity in sample sizes for these groups and
5 for other inadequacies in sampling, such as the presence of non-respondents. The weight for
6 each participant was calculated as the reciprocal of the participant's probability of selection, with
7 adjustments for other variabilities in sampling rates such as changes made to the sampling rates
8 at the time of data collection.
9 Body weight data from NHANES III study were used to calculate estimated body surface
10 areas for children in the standard age categories using the empirical relationship found in
11 Appendix 8A. The methodology was similar to that used in U.S. EPA (1985), as described in
12 Section 8.2.3.2, but more recent NHANES data were used. The resulting skin surface areas are
13 presented in Tables 8-6 (all children), 8-7 (male children), and 8-8 (female children).
14
15 8.2.4. Application of Body Surface Area Data
16 The skin area studies summarized above address total skin surface area. Application of
17 these data to many exposure scenarios involve some reduction in exposed skin area. This section
18 discusses how this issue has been addressed in EPA guidance.
19 For swimming and bathing scenarios, past exposure assessments have assumed that 75 to
20 100 percent of the skin surface is exposed (U.S. EPA, 1992b). More recent guidance
21 recommends assuming 100% exposure for these scenarios with a central default recommendation
22 of 6,600 cm2 for children aged 0-6 years in residential settings (U.S. EPA, 2004).
23 It is generally assumed that adherence of solids to skin occurs only on the areas of the
24 body not covered by clothing. Past guidance has presented clothing scenarios that suggest that
25 roughly 10 to 25 percent of the skin area is uncovered (U.S. EPA, 1992b). Since some studies
26 have suggested that exposure can occur under clothing, the upper end of this range was selected
27 in Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications (U.S. EPA, 1992b) for deriving
28 defaults. More recent guidance suggests a central default value of 2,800 cm2 exposed skin area
29 for children aged 0-6 in residential settings (US EPA, 2004). This was derived assuming a
30 clothing scenario that limited exposure to head, hands, forearms, lower legs and feet.
31
3-7
-------
1 8.3 ADHERENCE OF SOLIDS TO SKIN
2 8.3.1. Background
3 A variety of solid residues can accumulate on skin including soil, household dust,
4 sediments and commercial powders. The amount of material adhering to the surface of the skin
5 is a required parameter for calculating dermal dose when the exposure scenario involves dermal
6 contact with a chemical in a solid matrix. A number of studies have measured this factor and
7 they have been used to support EPA guidelines (U.S. EPA 1992b and 2004). This section
8 summarizes the studies that estimate the adherence of solids to skin for use as exposure factors.
9
10 8.3.2. Adherence of Solids to Skin Studies
11 8.3.2.1. Kissel et al., 1996a
12 Kissel et al. (1996a) conducted soil adherence experiments using five soil types
13 obtained locally in the Seattle, WA, area: sand, loamy sand, loamy sand, sandy loam,
14 and silt loam. All soils were analyzed by hydrometer (settling velocity) to determine
15 composition. Clay content ranged from 0.5 to 7.0%. Organic carbon content,
16 determined by combustion, ranged from 0.7 to 4.6%. Soils were dry-sieved to obtain
17 particle size ranges of < 150, 150-250, and >250 jim. For each soil type, the amount of
18 soil adhering to an adult female hand, using both sieved and unsieved soils, was
19 determined by measuring the soil sample weight before and after the hand was pressed
20 into a pan containing the test soil. Loadings were estimated by dividing the recovered
21 soil mass by total hand area, although loading occurred primarily on only one side of the
22 hand. Results showed that generally, soil adherence to hands was directly correlated
23 with moisture content, inversely correlated with particle size, and independent of clay
24 content or organic carbon content.
25
26 8.3.2.2. Kissel et al., 1996b
27 Further experiments were conducted by Kissel et al. to estimate soil adherence
28 associated with various indoor and outdoor activities: greenhouse gardening, tae kwon
29 do karate, soccer, rugby, reed gathering, irrigation installation, truck farming, and
30 playing in mud (Kissel et al., 1996b). Several of the activities studied involved children,
31 as shown in Table 8-9
-------
1 A summary of field studies by activity, gender, age, field conditions, and
2 clothing worn is presented in Table 8-9. The subjects' body surfaces (forearms, hands,
3 lower legs for all sample groups; faces and/or feet pairs in some sample groups) were
4 washed before and after the monitored activities. Paired samples were pooled into
5 single ones. Mass recovered was converted to loading using allometric models of
6 surface area. Geometric means for soil adherence by activity and body region are
7 presented in Table 8-10. The results presented are based on direct measurement of soil
8 loading on the surfaces of skin before and after activities that may be expected to have
9 soil contact (Kissel et al., 1996b). The results indicate that the amount of soil adherence
10 to the hands is higher than for other parts of the body.
11
12 8.3.2.3. Holmes et al., 1999
13 Holmes et al. (1999) collected pre- and post-activity soil loadings on various
14 body parts of individuals within groups engaged in various occupational and
15 recreational activities. These groups included children at a daycare center (Daycare
16 kids) and playing indoors in a residential setting (Indoor kids). This study was
17 conducted as a follow up to previous field sampling of soil adherence on individuals
18 participating in various activities (Kissel et al., 1996b). For this round of sampling, soil
19 loading data were collected utilizing the same methods used and described in Kissel et
20 al. (1996b). Information regarding the groups of children studied and their observed
21 activities is presented in Table 8-11.
22 The daycare children studied were all at one location, and measurements were
23 taken on three different days. The children freely played both indoors in the house and
24 outdoors in the backyard. The backyard was described as having a grass lawn, shed,
25 sand box, and wood chip box. In this setting, the children engaged in typical activities
26 including: playing with toys and each other, wrestling, sleeping, and eating. The
27 number of children within each day's group and the clothing worn is described in Table
28 8-12.
29 The five children measured on the first day were washed first thing in the
30 morning to establish a preactivity level. They were next washed at noon to determine
31 the postactivity soil loading for the morning (Daycare kids No. la). The same children
8-9
-------
1 were washed once again at the close of the day for measurement of soil adherence from
2 the afternoon play activities (Daycare kids No. Ib).
3 For the second observation day (Daycare kids No. 2), postactivity data were
4 collected for five children. All the activities on this day occurred indoors. For the third
5 daycare group (Daycare kids No. 3), four children were studied.
6 On two separate days, children playing indoors in a home environment were
7 monitored. The first group (Indoor kids No. 1) had four children while the second group
8 (Indoor kids No. 2) had six children. The play area was described by the authors as
9 being primarily carpeted. The clothing worn by the children within each day's group is
10 described in Table 8-12.
11 The geometric means and standard deviations of the postactivity soil adherence
12 for each group of children and for each body part are summarized in Table 8-13.
13 According to the authors, variations in the soil loading data from the daycare
14 participants reflect differences in the weather and access to the outdoors.
15 An advantage of this study is that it provides a supplement to soil loading data
16 collected in a previous round of studies (Kissel et al., 1996b). Also, the data support the
17 assumption that hand loading can be used as a conservative estimate of soil loading on
18 other body surfaces for the same activity. The activities studied represent normal child
19 play both indoors and outdoors, as well as for different combinations of clothing. The
20 small number of participants is a disadvantage of this study. Also, the children studied
21 and the activity setting may not be representative of the U.S. population.
22
23 8.3.2.4. Kissel et al., 1998
24 In this study, Kissel et al.(1998) measured dermal exposure to soil from staged
25 activities conducted in a greenhouse. A fluorescent marker was mixed in soil so that
26 soil contact for a particular skin surface area could be identified. The subjects, which
27 included a group of children, were video-imaged under a long-wave ultraviolet (UV)
28 light before and after soil contact. In this manner, soil contact on hands, forearms, lower
29 legs, and faces was assessed by presence of fluorescence. In addition to fluorometric
30 data, gravimetric measurements for preactivity and postactivity were obtained from the
31 different body parts examined.
8-10
-------
1 The studied group of children played for 20 minutes in a soil bed of varying
2 moisture content representing wet and dry soils. For wet soils, both combinations of
3 long sleeves and long pants and short sleeves and short pants were tested. Children only
4 wore short sleeves and short pants during play in the dry soil. Clothing was laundered
5 after each trial. Thus, a total of three trials with children were conducted. The
6 parameters describing each of these trials are summarized in Table 8-14.
7 Before each trial, each child was washed in order to obtain a preactivity or
8 background gravimetric measurement. Preactivity data are shown in Table 8-15. Body
9 part surface areas were calculated using U.S. EPA (1985) for the range of heights and
10 weights of the study participants.
11 For wet soil, postactivity fluorescence results indicated that the hand had a much
12 higher fractional coverage than other body surfaces (see Figure 8-2). No fluorescence
13 was detected on the forearms or lower legs of children dressed in long sleeves and pants.
14 As shown in Figure 8-3, postactivity gravimetric measurements showed higher
15 soil loading on hands and much lower amounts on other body surfaces, as was observed
16 with fluorescence data. According to Kissel et al. (1998), the relatively low loadings
17 observed on non-hand body parts may be a result of the limited area of contact rather
18 than lower localized loadings. A geometric mean dermal loading of 0.7 mg/cm2 was
19 found on the children's hands following play in wet soil. Mean loadings were lower on
20 hands in the dry soil trial and on lower legs, forearms, and faces in both the wet and dry
21 soil trials. Higher loadings were observed for all body surfaces with the higher moisture
22 content soils.
23 This report is valuable for showing soil loadings from soils of different moisture
24 content and providing evidence that dermal exposure to soil is not uniform for various
25 body surfaces. There is also some evidence from this study demonstrating the protective
26 effect of clothing. Disadvantages of the study include a small number of study
27 participants and a short activity duration. Also, no information is provided on the ages
28 of the children involved in the study.
29
30 8.3.2.5. Shoafetal.,2005
8-11
-------
1 The purpose of this study was to obtain sediment adherence data for children
2 playing in a tide flat. The study was conducted on one day in late September 2003 at a
3 tide flat in Jamestown, Rhode Island. Nine subjects (three females and six males) ages 7
4 to 12 years old participated in the study. This study reports direct measurements of
5 sediment loadings on five body parts (face, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet) after
6 play in a tide flat. Each of nine subjects participated in two timed sessions and pre- and
7 post-activity sediment loading data were collected. Geometric mean (geometric standard
8 deviations) dermal loadings (mg/cm2) on the face, forearm, hands, lower legs and feet
9 for the combined sessions were 0.04 (2.9), 0.17 (3.1), 0.49 (8.2), 0.70 (3.6) and 21 (1.9),
10 respectively. Participants' parents completed questionnaires regarding their child's
11 typical activity patterns during tide flat play, exposure frequency and duration, clothing
12 choices, bathing practices and clothes laundering.
13 The primary advantage of this study is that it provides adherence data specific to
14 children and sediments which had previously been largely unavailable. Results will be
15 useful to risk assessors considering exposure scenarios involving child activities at a
16 coastal shoreline or tide flat. The limited number of participants (9) and sampling over
17 just one day and one location, make extrapolation to other situations uncertain.
18
19 8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
20 8.4.1. Body Surface Area
21 Body surface area estimates have been derived from direct measurements and
22 from correlations with height and weight. Re-analysis of data collected by Boyd (1935)
23 by several investigators (Gehan and George, 1970; U.S. EPA, 1985; ; Phillips et al.,
24 1993) constitutes much of this literature. The U.S. EPA (1985) study summarizes and
25 compares previous reports in the literature, provides statistical distributions for adults,
26 and provides data for total body surface area and body parts by gender for children. The
27 results are based on selected measurements from the original data collected by Boyd
28 (1935). The EPA analysis of NHANES III data uses correlations with body weight and
29 height for deriving skin surface area (see Section 8.2.3.5 and Appendix 8A). NHANES
30 III used a statistically based survey design which should ensure reasonable
31 representativeness of the general population.
8-12
-------
1 The recommendations for body surface area for children are summarized in
2 Table 8-17. The recommendations for total body surface area are based on the EPA
3 analysis of NHANES III data and are presented for the standard age groupings in Tables
4 8-6 to 8-8. The recommendations in Table 8-17 refer to Table 8-3 for body part
5 percentages which were based on U.S. EPA (1985). Age specific body part areas can be
6 obtained by applying these percentages to the total body part areas in Tables 8-6 to 8-8.
7 Table 8-18 presents the confidence ratings for various aspects of the recommendations
8 for body surface area and indicates an overall confidence rating of medium.
9 For bathing and swimming exposure scenarios, an assumption of 100% skin area
10 exposure is recommended. For exposure scenarios involving contact with solids, it is
11 reasonable to assume that clothing reduces the contact area. RAGS Part E (US EPA,
12 2004) presents default assumptions for exposed skin areas of children in a residential
13 setting. The child resident was assumed to wear a short-sleeved shirt and shorts (no
14 shoes). Therefore, the exposed skin was limited to face, hands, forearms (45% of total
15 arms), lower legs (40% of total legs), and feet. The percentages of total skin area for
16 these body parts can be obtained from Table 8-3 and applied to the total skin area in
17 Tables 8-6 to 8-8, to derive age specific exposure areas. This clothing scenario is
18 characteristic of warm weather situations and should be adjusted based on judgement to
19 represent other climatic conditions. Although, it is generally assumed that adherence of
20 solids to skin occurs to only the areas of the body not covered by clothing, it is
21 important to understand that soil and dust particles can get under clothing and be
22 deposited on skin to varying degrees depending on the protective properties of the
23 clothing. Assessors should consider this possibility for the scenario of concern and use
24 larger skin areas if judged appropriate.
25
26 8.4.2. Adherence of Solids to Skin
27 The adherence factor (AF) describes the amount of material that adheres to the
28 skin per unit of surface area. Although most research in this area has focused on soils, a
29 variety of other solid residues can accumulate on skin including household dust,
30 sediments and commercial powders. Studies on soil adherence have shown that 1) soil
31 properties influence adherence, 2) soil adherence varies considerably across different
8-13
-------
1 parts of the body and 3) soil adherence varies with activity (U.S. EPA, 2004). Ideally
2 exposure assessors should use adherence data derived from testing that matches the
3 exposure scenario of concern in terms of solid type, exposed body parts and activities as
4 closely as possible. It is recommended that assessors use Tables 8-9 and 8-10 for this
5 purpose. These tables provide body-part specific adherence values for a variety of
6 solids (garden soils, indoor dust, sediment, etc.) and activities. Table 8-9 lists the age
7 range covered by each study. This should be used as a general guide to the ages covered
8 by these data. The small number of subjects in these studies prevents the development
9 of recommendations for narrower age groups.
10 EPA guidance under RAGS Part E (US EPA, 2004) provides body part area-
11 weighted adherence factors that can facilitate dermal exposure calculations. These
12 values were derived by adding the mass of solid adhering to various body parts and
13 dividing by the total exposed skin area. These values as summarized in Table 8-16 can
14 be directly applied to the total exposed skin surface area.
15 The solids adherence recommendations are summarized in Table 8-17. The
16 overall confidence rating for the adherence recommendations is medium as shown in
17 Table 8-19. Insufficient data are available to develop distributions or probability
18 functions. Note also that the skin adherence studies have not considered the influence of
19 skin moisture on adherence. Skin moisture varies for an individual depending on factors
20 such as activity and ambient temperature/humidity. It also varies across individuals. It
21 is uncertain how well this variability has been captured in the adherence studies.
22 The dermal adherence value represents the amount of material on the skin at the
23 time of measurement. EPA, 1992b recommends interpreting adherence values as
24 representative of contact events. Assuming that the amount measured on the skin
25 represents its accumulation between washings and that people wash at least once per
26 day, these adherence values can be interpreted as daily contact rates (U.S. EPA, 1992b).
27 The rate of solids accumulation on skin over time has not been well studied, but
28 probably occurs fairly quickly. Therefore pro-rating the adherence values for exposure
29 time periods of less than one day is not recommended.
8-14
-------
1 8.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8
2
3 Boyd, E. (1935) The growth of the surface area of the human body. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University
4 of Minnesota Press.
5
6 Buhyoff, G.J.; Rauscher, H.M.; Hull, R.B.; Killeen, K.; Kirk, R.C. (1982) User's Manual for Statistical
7 Processing System (version 3C. 1). Southeast Technical Associates, Inc.
8
9 Cohen-Hubal, E.A.; Sheldon, L.S.; Burke, J.M.; McLundy, T.R.; Berry, M.R.; Rigas, M.L.; Zartarian,
10 V.G.; Freeman, N.C.G. (1999) Children's exposure assessment: A review of factors influencing
11 children's exposure, and the data available to characterize and assess that exposure. Research
12 Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research
13 Laboratory.
14
15 Costeff (1966) A simple empirical formula for calculating approximate surface area in children. Arch.
16 Dis. Child. 41:651-683.
17
18 Dubois, D.; Dubois, E.F. (1916) A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight
19 be known. Arch, of Intern. Med. 17:863-871.
20
21 Gehan, E.; George, G.L. (1970) Estimation of human body surface area from height and weight. Cancer
22 Chemother. Rep. 54(4):225-235.
23
24 Garlock T.J., Shirai, J.H. and Kissel, J.C. (1999) Adult responses to a survey of soil contact related
25 behaviors. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epid. 1999: 9: 134-142.
26
27 Geigy Scientific Tables (1981) Nomograms for determination of body surface area from height and mass.
28 Lentner, C. (ed.). CIBA-Geigy Corporation, West Caldwell, NJ. pp. 226-227.
29
30 George, S.L.; Gehan, E.A.; Haycock, G.B.; Schwartz, G.J. (1979) Letters to the editor. J. Fed. 94(2):342.
31
32 Haycock, G.B.; Schwartz, G.J.; Wisotsky, D.H. (1978) Geometric method for measuring body surface
33 area: A height-weight formula validated in infants, children, and adults. J. Fed. 93(l):62-66.
34
35 Holmes, K.K.; Kissel, J.C.; Richter, K.Y. (1996) Investigation of the influence of oil on soil adherence to
36 skin. J. Soil. Contam. 5(4):301-308.
37
38 Holmes, Jr., K.K., J.H. Shirai, K.Y. Richter, and J. C. Kissel (1999) Field Measurement of Dermal
39 Loadings in Occupational and Recreational Activities, Environmental Research, Section A, 80,
40 148-157.
41
42 Kissel, J.; Richter, K.; Duff, R.; Fenske, R. (1996a) Factors Affecting Soil Adherence to Skin in Hand-
43 Press Trials. Bull. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 56:722-728.
44
45 Kissel, J.; Richter, K.; Fenske, R. (1996b) Field measurements of dermal soil loading attributable to
46 various activities: Implications for exposure assessment. Risk Anal. 16(1): 116-125.
47
48 Kissel, J.C., Shirai, J. H., Richter, K.Y., and R.A. Fenske (1998) Investigation of Dermal Contact with
49 Soil in Controlled Trials, Journal of Soil Contamination, 7(6): 737-752.
50
51
52
53 Phillips, L.J.; Fares, R.J.; Schweer, L.G. (1993) Distributions of total skin surface area to body weight
54 ratios for use in dermal exposure assessments. J. Expos. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 3(3):331-338.
55
8-15
-------
1 Popendorf, W.J.; Leffingwell, J.T. (1976) Regulating OP pesticide residues for farmworker protection.
2 In: Residue Review 82. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1982. pp. 125-201.
3
4 Rochon, I; Kalsbeek, W.D. (1983) Variance estimation from multi-stage sample survey data: the
5 jackknife repeated replicate approach. Presented at 1983 SAS Users Group Conference, New
6 Orleans, Louisiana, January 1983.
7
8 Sendroy, J.; Cecchini, L.P. (1954) Determination of human body surface area from height and weight. J.
9 Appl. Physiol. 7(1):3-12.
10
11 Shoaf, MB; J.H. Shirai, G. Kedan, J. Schaum, J.C. Kissel. 2005. Child Dermal Sediment Loads Following
12 Play in a Tide Flat. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 15:407-412.
13
14 U.S. EPA. (1985) Development of statistical distributions or ranges of standard factors used in exposure
15 assessments. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and
16 Environmental Assessment. EPA 600/8-85-010. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA.
17 PB85-242667.
18
19 U.S. EPA. (1992a) Guidelines for exposure assessment. Federal Register. FR 57:104:22888-22938.
20 May 29, 1992.
21
22 U.S. EPA. (1992b) Dermal exposure assessment: principles and applications. Washington, DC: Office
23 of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment/OHEA. U.S.
24 EPA/600/8-9-91.
25
26 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (1996) Analysis of the National Human Activity
27 Pattern Survey (NHAPS) Respondents from a Standpoint of Exposure assessment. Office of
28 Research and Development, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-96/074.
29
30 U.S. EPA. (2004) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual
31 (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). EPA/540/R/99/005.
3 2 http ://www. epa. gov/superfund/programs/risk/ragse/index. htm
33
34 Van Graan, C.H. (1969) The determination of body surface area. Supplement to the South African J. of
35 Lab. and Clin. Med. 8-2-69.
36
37 Wong, EY; JH Shirai; TJ Garlock and JC Kissel. Adult proxy responses to a survey of children's dermal
3 8 soil contact activities. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 10:509-517.
39
40
8-16
-------
Table 8-1. Total Body Surface Area of Male Children in Square Meters"
A j-v^v
Age
(yr)b
2<3
3<4
4<5
5<6
6<7
7<8
8<9
9<10
10<11
IK 12
12<13
13<14
14<15
15<16
16<17
17<18
3<6
6<9
9<12
12<15
15<18
5
0.527
0.585
0.633
0.692
0.757
0.794
0.836
0.932
1.01
1.00
1.11
1.20
1.33
1.45
1.55
1.54
0.616
0.787
0.972
1.19
1.50
10
0.544
0.606
0.658
0.721
0.788
0.832
0.897
0.966
1.04
1.06
1.13
1.24
1.39
1.49
1.59
1.56
0.636
0.814
1.00
1.24
1.55
15
0.552
0.620
0.673
0.732
0.809
0.848
0.914
0.988
1.06
1.12
1.20
1.27
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.62
0.649
0.834
1.02
1.27
1.59
25
0.569
0.636
0.689
0.746
0.821
0.877
0.932
1.00
1.10
1.16
1.25
1.30
1.51
1.60
1.66
1.69
0.673
0.866
1.07
1.32
1.65
Percentile
50
0.603
0.664
0.731
0.793
0.866
0.936
1.00
1.07
1.18
1.23
1.34
1.47
1.61
1.70
1.76
1.80
0.728
0.931
1.16
1.49
1.75
75
0.629
0.700
0.771
0.840
0.915
0.993
.06
.13
.28
.40
.47
.62
.73
.79
.87
.91
0785
.01
.28
.64
.86
85
0.643
0.719
0,796
0.864
0.957
.01
.12
.16
.35
.47
.52
.67
.78
.84
.98
.96
0817
.05
.36
.73
.94
90
0.661
0.729
0.809
0.895
1.01
1.06
1.17
1.25
1.40
1.53
1.62
1.75
1.84
1.90
2.03
2.03
0.842
1.09
1.42
1.77
2.01
95
0.682
0.764
0.845
0.918
1.06
1.11
1.24
1.29
1.48
1.60
1.76
1.81
1.91
2.02
2.16
2.09
0.876
1.14
1.52
1.85
2.11
aLack of height measurements for children <2 years in NHANES II precluded calculation of surface areas
for this age group.
bEstimated values calculated using NHANES II data.
Source: U.S. EPA (1985).
8-17
-------
Table 8-2. Total Body Surface Area of Female Children in Square Meters"
Age (yr)b
2<3
3<4
4<5
5<6
6<7
7<8
8<9
9<10
10<11
IK 12
12<13
13<14
14<15
15<16
16<17
17<18
3<6
6<9
9<12
12<15
15<18
Percentile
5
0.516
0.555
0.627
0.675
0.723
0.792
0.863
0.897
0.981
1.06
1.13
1.21
1.31
1.38
1.40
1.42
0.585
0.754
0.957
1.21
1.40
10
0.532
0.570
0.639
0.700
0.748
0.808
0.888
0.948
1.01
1.09
1.19
1.28
1.34
1.49
1.46
1.49
0.610
0.790
0.990
1.27
1.44
15
0.544
0.589
0.649
0.714
0.770
0.819
0.913
0.969
1.05
1.12
1.24
1.32
1.39
1.43
1.48
1.51
0.630
0.804
1.03
1.30
1.47
25
0.557
0.607
0.666
0.735
0.791
0.854
0.932
1.01
1.10
1.16
1.27
1.38
1.45
1.47
1.53
1.56
0.654
0.845
1.06
1.37
1.51
50
0.579
0.649
0.706
0.779
0.843
0.917
1.00
1.06
1.17
1.30
1.40
1.48
1.55
1.57
1.60
1.63
0.711
0.919
1.16
1.48
1.60
75
0.610
0.688
0.758
0.830
0.914
0.977
1.05
1.14
1.29
1.40
1.51
1.59
1.66
1.67
1.69
1.73
0.770
1.00
1.31
1.61
1.70
85
0.623
0.707
0.777
0.870
0.961
1.02
1.08
1.22
1.34
1.50
1.62
1.67
1.74
1.72
1.79
1.80
0.808
1.04
1.38
1.68
1.76
90
0.637
0.721
0.794
0.902
0.989
1.06
1.11
1.31
1.37
1.56
1.64
1.75
1.76
1.76
1.84
1.84
0.831
1.07
1.43
1.74
1.82
95
0.653
0.737
0.820
0.952
1.03
1.13
1.18
1.41
1.43
1.62
1.70
1.86
1.88
1.83
1.91
1.94
0.879
1.13
1.56
1.82
1.92
aLack of height measurements for children <2 years in NHANES II precluded calculation of surface areas
for this age group.
bEstimated values calculated using NHANES II data.
Source: U.S. EPA (1985).
8-18
-------
Table 8-3. Percentage of Total Body Surface Area by Body Part For Children
Age (yr)
<1
1<2
2<3
3<4
4<5
5<6
6<7
7<8
8<9
9<10
10<11
IK 12
12<13
13<14
14<15
15<16
16<17
17<18
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
Percent of Total
Head
Mean
18.2
16.5
14.2
13.6
13.8
13.1
12.0
8.74
9.97
7.96
7.58
Min-Max
18.2-18.3
16.5-16.5
13.3-14.0
12.1-15.3
11.6-12.5
Trunk
Mean
35.7
35.5
38.5
31.9
31.5
35.1
34.2
34.7
32.7
32.7
31.7
Min-Max
34.8-36.6
34.5-36.6
29.9-32.8
30.5-32.4
33.4-34.9
Arms
Mean
13.7
13.0
11.8
14.4
14.0
13.1
12.3
13.7
12.1
13.1
17.5
Min-Max
12.4-15.1
12.8-13.1
14.2-14.7
13.0-15.5
11.7-12.8
Hands
Mean
5.3
5.68
5.30
6.07
5.70
4.71
5.30
5.39
5.11
5.68
5.13
Min-Max
5.21-5.39
5.57-5.78
5.83-6.32
5.15-6.62
5.15-5.44
Legs
Mean
20.6
23.1
23.2
26.8
27.8
27.1
28.7
30.5
32.0
33.6
30.8
Min-Max
18.2-22.9
22.1-24.0
26.0-28.6
26.0-29.3
28.5-28.8
Feet
Mean
6.54
6.27
7.07
7.21
7.29
6.90
7.58
7.03
8.02
6.93
7.28
Min-Max
6.49-6.59
5.84-6.70
6.80-7.88
6.91-8.10
7.38-7.77
N: Number of subjects, (males and females)
Source: U.S. EPA (1985).
8-19
-------
Table 8-4. Descriptive Statistics For Surface Area/body Weight (SA/BW) Ratios (nf/kg)
Age (yrs.)
0-2
2.1- 17.9
Mean
0.0641
0.0423
Range
Min-Max
0.0421-0.1142
0.0268-0.0670
SDa
0.0114
0.0076
SEb
7.84e-4
1.05e-3
Percentiles
5
0.0470
0.0291
10
0.0507
0.0328
25
0.0563
0.0376
50
0.0617
0.0422
75
0.0719
0.0454
90
0.0784
0.0501
95
0.0846
0.0594
Standard deviation.
bStandard error of the mean.
Source: Phillips et al. (1993).
8-20
-------
Table 8-5. Estimated skin surface exposed during warm weather outdoor activities
Age (years)
n
Mean
Median
S.D.
Skin area exposed (% of total)
Play
<5
41
38.0
36.5
6.0
Gardening/yardwork
5-17
437
33.8
33.0
8.3
Organized Team Sport
5-17
65
29.0
30.0
10.5
Source: Wong et al. (2000).
Table 8-6. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (nf) Derived from EPA Analysis of NHANES III (All
Children)
Age
Group
2 to <3 months
3 to <5 months
6 to
-------
Table 8-7. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (nf) Derived from EPA Analysis of NHANES III
(Male Children)
Age
Group
2 to <3 months
3 to <5 months
6 to
-------
Table 8-8. Mean and Percentile Skin Surface Area (nf) Derived from EPA Analysis of NHANES III
(Female Children)
Age
Group
2 to <3 months
3 to <5 months
6 to
-------
Table 8-9. Summary of Field Studies
Activity
Month
Event8
(his)
Nb
M
F
Age
(yrs)
Conditions
Clothing
ndoor
Fae Kwon Do
ndoor Kids No. 1
ndoor Kids No. 2
)aycare Kids No. la
)aycare Kids No. Ib
)aycare Kids No.2c
)aycare Kids No. 3
Feb.
Jan.
Feb.
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Nov.
1.5
2
2
3.5
4
8
8
7
4
6
6
6
5
4
6
3
4
5
5
4
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
8-42
6-13
3-13
1-6.5
1-6.5
1-4
1-4.5
Carpeted floor
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
martial arts uniform, sleeves
rolled back, barefoot
3 of 4 short pants, 2 of 4 short
sleeves, socks, no shoes
5of 6 long pants, 5 of 6 long
sleeves, socks, no shoes
4 of 6 in long pants, 4 of 6
short sleeves, shoes
4 of 6 in long pants, 4 of 6
short sleeves, no shoes
4 of 5 long pants, 3 of 5 long
sleeves, all barefoot for part ol
the day
All long pants, 3 of 4 long
sleeves, socks and shoes
Outdoor
soccer No. 1
jardenersNo. 1
\rcheologists
Cids-in-mud No. 1
Cids-in-mud No. 2
shoreline Play
Nov.
Aug.
July
Sept.
Sept.
Sept
0.67
4
11.5
0.17
0.33
0.33-
i n
8
8
7
6
6
9
8
1
o
J
5
5
6
0
7
4
1
1
o
J
13-15
16-35
16-35
9-14
9-14
7-12
Half grass-half bare earth
Weeding, pruning,
digging a trench
Digging with trowel,
screening dirt, sorting
Lake shoreline
Lake shoreline
Tidal flat
6 of 8 long sleeves, 4 of 8
long pants, 3 of 4 short pants
and shin guards
6 of 8 long pants, 7 of 8 short
sleeves, 1 sleeveless, socks,
shoes, intermittent use of
gloves
6 of 7 short pants, all short
sleeves, 3 no shoes or socks,
2 sandals
All in short sleeve T-shirts,
shorts, barefoot
All in short sleeve T-shirts,
shorts, barefoot
No shirt or short sleeve T-
shirts shnrts harpfnnt
aEvent duration
bNumber of subjects
Activities were confined to the house
Sources: Kissel et al. (1996b); Holmes et al. (1996), Shoaf et al. (2005).
8-24
-------
Table 8-10. Geometric Mean and Geometric Standard Deviations of Solids Adherence by Activity and
Body Region3
Activity
Nb
Post-activity Dermal Solids Loadings (mg/cm2)
Hands
Arms
Legs
Faces
Feet
Indoor
Fae Kwon Do
ndoor Kids No. 1
ndoor Kids No. 2
)aycare Kids No. la
)aycare Kids No. Ib
)aycare Kids No. 2
)aycare Kids No. 3
7
4
6
6
6
5
4
0.0063
1.9
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
0.0042
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
0.0041
2.3
0.0031
1.5
0.030
1.7
0.023
1.2
0.011
1.4
0.014
3.0
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
jardenersNo. 1
^.rcheologists
Cids-in-mudNo. 1
Cids-in-mudNo. 2
Shoreline Play
8
8
7
6
6
9
0.11
1.8
0.20
1.9
0.14
1.3
35
2.3
58
2.3
0.49
8.2
0.011
2.0
0.050
2.1
0.041
1.9
11
6.1
11
3.8
0.17
3.1
0.031
3.8
0.072
0.028
4.1
36
2.0
9.5
2.3
0.70
3.6
0.012
1.5
0.058
1.6
0.050
1.8
0.04
2.9
0.17
0.24
1.4
24
3.6
6.7
12.4
21
1.9
aMeans are presented above the standard deviations. The standard deviations generally exceed the means
by large amounts indicating high variability in the data.
bNumber of subjects.
Sources: Kissel et al. (1996b); Holmes et al. (1996); Shoaf et al. (2005).
8-25
-------
Table 8-11. Summary of Groups Assayed in Round 2 of Field Measurements
Activity
Day care kids No. la
Day care kids No. Ib
Day care kids No. 2
Day care kids No. 3
Indoor kids No. 1
Indoor kids No. 2
Month
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Nov.
Jan.
Feb.
Event" (hrs)
3.5
4
8
8
2
2
rf
6
6
5
4
4
6
Males
5
5
4
3
3
4
Females
1
1
1
1
1
2
Ages
1-6.5
1-6.5
1- 4
1 -4.5
6 - 13
3 - 13
a Event duration.
b Number of subjects.
Source: Holmes et al. (1999).
8-26
-------
Table 8-12. Attire for Individuals within Children's Groups Studied
Activity
Daycare kids No. la
Daycare kids No. Ib
Daycare kids No. 2
Daycare kids No. 3b
Indoor kids No. 1
Indoor kids No. 2
n"
6
6
5
4
4
6
Pants
Long
4
4
4
4
1
5
Short
2
2
1
0
3
1
Sleeves
Long
1
1
2
3
2
5
Short
5
5
3
1
2
1
Socks
High
1
1
NA
0
0
0
Low
5
5
NA
4
4
6
Shoes
low leather or canvas
shoes - 6
barefoot - 3
low leather or canvas
shoes - 3
barefoot - 2
shoes/socks l/i day and
barefoot 1A day - 3
low shoes - 4
no shoes (socks only) - 4
no shoes (socks only) - 6
a Number of subjects.
b All children wore jackets when engaged in outdoor activities.
NA - "Not Available": 3 children wore socks for 1A day in the morning but no specific information is provided on the
type of socks worn.
Source: Holmes et al. (1999).
8-27
-------
Table 8-13. Geometric Means (Geometric Standard Deviations) of Round 2 Post-activity Loadings
Activity
Day care kids No. la
Day care kids No. Ib
Day care kids No. 2
Day care kids No. 3
Indoor kids No. 1
Indoor kids No. 2
n"
4
6
6
6
5
4
Postactivity Dermal Soil Loadings (mg/cm2)
Hands
0.11(1.9)
0.15(2.1)
0.073 (1.6)
0.036 (1.3)
0.0073 (1.9)
0.014(1.5)
Forearms
0.026 (1.9)
0.031(1.8)
0.023 (1.4)
0.012(1.2)
0.0042 (1.9)
0.0041 (2.0)
Lower legs
0.030(1.7)
0.023 (1.2)
0.011(1.4)
0.014(3.0)
0.0041 (2.3)
0.0031(1.5)
Facesb
Feet
0.079 (2.4)
0.13(1.4)
0.044 (1.3)
0.0053 (5.1)
0.012 (1.4)
0.0091 (1.7)
a Number of subjects (number of data points for specific non-hand body parts may deviate slightly).
b Children's feet rather than faces were washed in order to reduce the chance of a child's refusal to participate.
Source: Holmes et al. (1999).
8-28
-------
Table 8-14. Summary of Controlled Green House Trials - Children Playing
Activity
Playing
Ages
8-12
Duration
(min)
20
Soil moisture
(%)
17-18
16-18
3-4
Clothing*
L
S
S
n
4
9
5
Male
3
5
3
Female
1
4
2
a L, long sleeves and long pants; S, short sleeves and short pants.
Source: Kissel etal. (1998).
Table 8-15. Preactivity Loadings Recovered from Greenhouse Trial Children Volunteers
Area
Hands
Forearms
Lower legs
Face
n
12
12
12
12
Body part surface area (cm2)
420-798
584-932
1,206-2,166
388-602
Geometric mean
(95% C.I.) ( g/cm2)
9.4
(5.4-15.8)
3.4
(2.3 - 5.2)
1.0
(0.7 - 1.5)
0.8
(0.5 - 1.5)
Source: Kissel etal. (1998).
8-29
-------
Table 8-16. Area Weighted Adherence Factors
Exposure Scenario
Indoor Children
Daycare Children (playing indoors and outdoors)
Children Playing (dry soil)
Children Playing (wet soil)
Children-in-mud
Age
(years)
1-13
1-6.5
8-12
8-12
9-14
Geometric Mean Area Weighted
Adherence Factor (mg/cm2)
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.2
21
Source: U.S. EPA, 2004
Table 8-17. Summary of Recommended Values for Skin Surface Area and Solids Adherence
Factor
Whole body
surface area
Body part
surface areas
Solids
adherence
Central
Tendency
see Tables 8-9, 8-
10,8-16
Upper Percentile
see Tables 8-6, 8-7, and
8-8
see Table 8-3
Multiple Percentiles
see Tables 8-6, 8-7, and
8-8
see Table 8-3
8-30
-------
Table 8-18. Confidence in Body Surface Area Measurement Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
Level of Peer Review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to U.S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection
period
Validity of approach
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of
variability
Lack of bias in study design
Measurement error
Studies were from peer reviewed journal articles.
EPA report was peer reviewed before distribution.
The journals used have wide circulation.
EPA report available from National Technical
Information Service.
Experimental methods are well-described.
Experiments measured skin area directly.
Experiments conducted in the U.S.
Re-analysis of primary data in more detail by two
different investigators .
Neither rapidly changing nor controversial area;
estimates made in 1935 deemed to be accurate and
subsequently used by others.
Not relevant to exposure factor; parameter not
time dependent.
Approach used by other investigators; not
challenged in other studies.
Not statistically representative of U.S. population.
Individual variability due to age, race, or gender
not studied.
Objective subject selection and measurement
methods used; results reproduced by others with
different methods.
Measurement variations are low; adequately
described by normal statistics.
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
NA
High
Medium
Low
High
Low/Medium
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement among
researchers
Overall Rating
1 experiment; two independent re-analyses of this
data set.
Consistent results obtained with different analyses;
but from a single set of measurements.
This factor can be directly measured. It is not
subject to dispute. Influence of age, race, or
gender have not been detailed adequately in these
studies.
Medium
Medium
Medium
8-31
-------
Table 8-19. Confidence in Solids Adherence to Skin Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
Level of Peer Review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to U.S.
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection
period
Validity of approach
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of
variability
Lack of bias in study design
Measurement error
Studies were from peer reviewed journal articles.
Articles were published in widely circulated
journals.
Reports clearly describe experimental method.
The goal of the studies was to determine soil
adherence to skin.
Experiments were conducted in the U.S.
Experiments were used to directly measure soil
adherence to skin;
New studies were presented.
Seasonal factors may be important, but have not
been studied adequately.
Skin rinsing technique is a widely employed
procedure.
Soil/dust studies were limited to the State of
Washington and sediment study limited to Rhode
Island. May not be representative of other locales.
Variability in soil adherence is affected by many
factors including soil properties, activity and
individual behavior patterns.
The studies attempted to measure soil adherence in
selected activities and conditions to identify
important activities and groups.
The experimental error is low and well controlled.
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
High
Low
Low
High
High
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement among
researchers
Overall Rating
The experiments were controlled as they were
conducted by a few laboratories; activity patterns
were studied by only one laboratory.
Results from key study were consistent with
earlier estimates from relevant studies and
assumptions, but are limited to hand data.
Data are limited, therefore it is difficult to
extrapolate from experiments and field
observations to general conditions. Application of
results to other similar activities may be subject to
variation.
Medium
Medium
Medium
-------
Hands
Lower legs/short pants
Forearms/short sleeves
Faces -
::£= H
Y7.
Adult
Child
1 I ' ' ' I' I I I
20 40 60 80
Percent Fluorescing
1i
100
Figure 8-2. Skin Coverage as Determined by Fluorescence vs. Body Part for Adults
Transplanting Plants and for Children Playing in Wet Soils
IU-=
*s 1-
o
txO
1? o.i-
"a
J
| 0.01 ,
0.001 -
T n
X
J_ ^
>
I I<
1 X
1
>
-t T
T T<
x 1
adult x
child, wet +
child, dry O
n<,
Hands
Legs
Arms
Faces
Figure 8-3. Gravimetric Loading vs. Body Part for Adult Transplanting Plants in Wet Soil
and for Children Playing in Wet and Dry Soils
8-33
-------
APPENDIX 8A
Formulas FOR TOTAL BODY SURFACE AREA
-------
1 APPENDIX 8A
2 Formulas FOR TOTAL BODY SURFACE AREA
3
4 Most formulas for estimating surface area (SA), relate height to weight to surface
5 area. The following formula was proposed by Gehan and George (1970):
6
I SA = KW2/3 (8A-1)
o
9 where:
10
11 SA = surface area in square meters;
12 W = weight in kg; and
13 K = constant.
14
15 While the above equation has been criticized because human bodies have
16 different specific gravities and because the surface area per unit volume differs for
17 individuals with different body builds, it gives a reasonably good estimate of surface
1 8 area.
19 A formula published in 1916 that still finds wide acceptance and use is that of
20 DuBois and DuBois. Their model can be written:
21
22 where:
(8A-2)
23
24 SA = surface area in square meters;
25 H = height in centimeters; and
26 W = weight in kg.
27
28 The values of a0 (0.0071 82), a! (0.725), and a2 (0.425) were estimated from a
29 sample of only nine individuals for whom surface area was directly measured. Boyd
30 (1935) stated that the Dubois formula was considered a reasonably adequate substitute
3 1 for measuring surface area. Nomograms for determining surface area from height and
32 mass presented in Volume I of the Geigy Scientific Tables (1981) are based on the
33 DuBois and DuBois formula.
34 Boyd (1935) developed new constants for the DuBois and DuBois model based
35 on 23 1 direct measurements of body surface area found in the literature. These data
36 were limited to measurements of surface area by coating methods (122 cases), surface
37 integration (93 cases), and triangulation (16 cases). The subjects were Caucasians of
38 normal body build for whom data on weight, height, and age (except for exact age of
39 adults) were complete. Resulting values for the constants in the DuBois and DuBois
40 model were a0 = 0.01787, ax = 0.500, and a2 = 0.4838. Boyd also developed a formula
41 based exclusively on weight, which was inferior to the DuBois and DuBois formula
42 based on height and weight.
43 Gehan and George (1970) proposed another set of constants for the DuBois and
44 DuBois model. The constants were based on a total of 401 direct measurements of
45 surface area, height, and weight of all postnatal subjects listed in Boyd (1935). The
8A-1
-------
1 methods used to measure these subjects were coating (163 cases), surface integration
2 (222 cases), and triangulation (16 cases).
3 Gehan and George (1970) used a least-squares method to identify the values of
4 the constants. The values of the constants chosen are those that minimize the sum of
5 the squared percentage errors of the predicted values of surface area. This approach
6 was used because the importance of an error of 0.1 square meter depends on the
7 surface area of the individual. Gehan and George (1970) used the 401 observations
8 summarized in Boyd (1935) in the least-squares method. The following estimates of
9 the constants were obtained: a0 = 0.02350, al = 0.42246, and a2 = 0.51456. Hence,
10 their equation for predicting SA is:
11
12 SA = 0.02350 Ha42246W°-51456 (8A-3)
13
14 or in logarithmic form:
15
16 lnSA =-3.75080 +0.42246 lnH +0.51456 InW (8A-4)
17 where:
18
19 SA = surface area in square meters;
20 H = height in centimeters; and
21 W = weight in kg.
22
23 This prediction explains more than 99 percent of the variations in surface area
24 among the 401 individuals measured (Gehan and George, 1970).
25 The equation proposed by Gehan and George (1970) was determined by the
26 U.S. EPA (1985) as the best choice for estimating total body surface area. However,
27 the paper by Gehan and George gave insufficient information to estimate the standard
28 error about the regression. Therefore, the 401 direct measurements of children and
29 adults (i.e., Boyd, 1935) were reanalyzed in U.S. EPA (1985) using the formula of
30 Dubois and Dubois (1916) and the Statistical Processing System (SPS) software
31 package to obtain the standard error.
32 The Dubois and Dubois (1916) formula uses weight and height as independent
33 variables to predict total body surface area (SA), and can be written as:
34
35
36
37
38
39
(8A-5)
40
41
42
43
44 or in logarithmic form:
8A-2
-------
1
2
3
4
5 ln(SA)i = In a0 + a^ In Hj + a2 In Wj + In Q{ (8A-6)
7 where:
8
9 SAj = surface area of the i-th individual (m2);
10 H; = height of the i-th individual (cm);
11 W; = weight of the i-th individual (kg);
12 a0, al3 and a2 = parameters to be estimated; and
13 e; = a random error term with mean zero and constant variance.
14
15
16
17 Using the least squares procedure for the 401 observations, the following parameter
18 estimates and their standard errors were obtained:
19
20
21
22 a0 = -3.73 (0.18), a\ = 0.417 (0.054), a2 = 0.517 (0.022)
24 e model is then:
25
26
27
28 SA = 0.0239Ha417W°-517 (8A-7)
29 or in logarithmic form:
30
31 In SA = 3.73+0.417 InH + 0.517 InW (8A-8)
32
33 with a standard error about the regression of 0.00374. This model explains more than
34 99 percent of the total variation in surface area among the observations, and is
35 identical to two significant figures with the model developed by Gehan and George
36 (1970).
37 When natural logarithms of the measured surface areas are plotted against
38 natural logarithms of the surface predicted by the equation, the observed surface areas
39 are symmetrically distributed around a line of perfect fit, with only a few large
40 percentage deviations. Only five subjects differed from the measured value by 25
41 percent or more. Because each of the five subjects weighed less than 13 pounds, the
42 amount of difference was small. Eighteen estimates differed from measurements by
43 15 to 24 percent. Of these, 12 weighed less than 15 pounds each, 1 was overweight (5
44 feet 7 inches, 172 pounds), 1 was very thin (4 feet 11 inches, 78 pounds), and 4 were
45 of average build. Since the same observer measured surface area for these 4 subjects,
46 the possibility of some bias in measured values cannot be discounted (Gehan and
47 George 1970).
8A-3
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Gehan and George (1970) also considered separate constants for different age
groups: less than 5 years old, 5 years old to less than 20 years old, and greater than 20
years old. The different values for the constants are presented below:
Table 8A-1. Estimated Parameter Values for Different Age Intervals
Age
group
All ages
<5 years old
> 5 - <20 years
old
> 20 years old
Number
of persons
401
229
42
30
a0
0.02350
0.02667
0.03050
0.01545
al
0.42246
0.38217
0.35129
0.54468
32
0.51456
0.53937
0.54375
0.46336
The surface areas estimated using the parameter values for all ages were
compared to surface areas estimated by the values for each age group for subjects at
the 3rd, 50th, and 97th percentiles of weight and height. Nearly all differences in
surface area estimates were less than 0.01 square meter, and the largest difference was
0.03 m2 for an 18-year-old at the 97th percentile. The authors concluded that there is
no advantage in using separate values of a0, al3 and a2 by age interval.
Haycock et al. (1978) without knowledge of the work by Gehan and George
(1970), developed values for the parameters a0, al3 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, ax = 0.3964, and a2 =
0.5378. The result was the following equation for estimating surface area:
= 0.024265H°-3964W°-5378
(8A-9)
expressed logarithmically as:
In SA = In 0.024265 + 0.3964 In H + 0.5378 In W
(8 A-10)
8A-4
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The coefficients for this equation agree remarkably with those obtained by Gehan and
George (1970) for 401 measurements.
George et al. (1979) agree that a model more complex than the model of DuBois
and DuBois for estimating surface area is unnecessary. Based on samples of direct
measurements by Boyd (1935) and Gehan and George (1970), and samples of
geometric estimates by Haycock et al. (1978), these authors have obtained parameters
for the DuBois and DuBois model that are different than those originally postulated in
1916. The DuBois and DuBois model can be written logarithmically as:
InSA = Ina0 + ax InH + a2lnW
(8 A-11)
The values for a0, al3 and a2 obtained by the various authors discussed in this
section are presented to follow:
Table 8A-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)
Hay cock etal. (1978)
Number
of
persons
9
231
401
81
a0
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
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.
8A-5
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
9. ACTIVITY FACTORS 9-1
9.1 INTRODUCTION 9-1
9.2 ACTIVITY PATTERNS 9-1
9.2.1 Timmer et al., 1985 9-2
9.2.2 Robinson and Thomas, 1991 9-3
9.2.3 Wiley et al., 1991 9-4
9.2.4 U.S. EPA, 1992 and U.S. EPA, 2004 9-5
9.2.5 Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 9-5
9.2.6 Funk et al., 1998 9-9
9.2.7 Hubal et al., 2000 9-10
9.2.8 Wong et al., 2000 9-11
9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 9-13
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 9-1. Mean Time Spent (minutes) Performing Major Activities Grouped by Age, Sex and
Type of Day 9-16
Table 9-2. Mean Time Spent (minutes) in Major Activities Grouped by Type of Day for Five
Different Age Groups 9-17
Table 9-3. Mean Time Spent Indoors and Outdoors Grouped by Age and Day of the Week
9-18
Table 9-4. Mean Time Spent at Three Locations for both CARB and National Studies (ages 12
years and older) 9-19
Table 9-5. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments Grouped by Total
Population and Gender (12 years and over) in the National and CARB Data 9-20
Table 9-6. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Type of Day for
the California and National Surveys 9-21
Table 9-7. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Age Groups for
the National and California Surveys 9-22
Table 9-8. Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Ages 12 Years and Under Spent in Ten Major
Activity Categories for All Respondents 9-23
Table 9-9. Mean Time Children Spent in Ten Major Activity Categories by Age a 9-24
Table 9-10. Mean Time Children Ages 12 Years and Under Spent in Ten Major Activity
Categories Grouped by Seasons and Regions 9-25
Table 9-11. Mean Time Children Ages 12 Years and Under Spent in Six Major Location
Categories for All Respondents (minutes/day) 9-26
Table 9-12. Mean Time Children Spent in Six Location Categories Grouped by Age and Gender
9-27
Table 9-14. Mean Time Children Spent in Proximity to Two Potential Exposures Grouped by
All Respondents, Age, and Gender 9-29
Table 9-15. Mean Time Spent Indoors and Outdoors Grouped by Age 9-30
Table 9-16. Water and Soil Contact Exposure Factors 9-31
Table 9-17. Number of Showers Taken Per Day 9-31
Table 9-18. Time (minutes) Spent Taking a Shower and Spent in the Shower Room After
Taking a Shower by the Number of Respondents 9-32
Table 9-19. Time Spent Taking a Shower and Spent in the Shower Room Immediately After
Showering 9-32
Table 9-20. Time spent bathing, showering, and in bathroom after bathing and showering
(distribution) 9-33
Table 9-21.Time spent bathing, showering, and in bathroom after bathing and showering
(percentiles) 9-34
Table 9-22. Range of Number of Times Washing the Hands at Specified Daily Frequencies by
the Number of Respondents 9-35
Table 9-23. Number of Minutes Spent Working or Being Near Excessive Dust in the Air
(minutes/day) 9-35
Table 9-24. Range of Number of Times per Day a Motor Vehicle was Started in a Garage or
Carport and Started with the Garage Door Closed 9-36
Table 9-25. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Dirt, Grass 9-37
Table 9-26. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Dirt, Sand/Gravel, or Grass (minutes/day)
-------
9-38
Table 9-27. Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the
Number of Respondents 9-39
Table 9-28. Number of Minutes Spent Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool
(minutes/month) 9-39
Table 9-29. Time Spent Sleeping/Napping: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-40
Table 9-30. Time Spent Attending School Full-Time: Whole Population and Doers Only:
Percentile Values 9-40
Table 9-31. Time Spent in Active Sports: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-41
Table 9-32. Time Spent on Exercise: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-41
Table 9-33. Time Spent on Outdoor Recreation: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-42
Table 9-34. Time Spent on Walking: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-42
Table 9-35. Time Spent Bathing: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values . . . 9-43
Table 9-36. Time Spent Eating: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values .... 9-43
Table 9-37. Time Spent at Restaurants: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-44
Table 9-38. Time Spent Indoors at School: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-44
Table 9-39. Time Spent on School Grounds/Playgrounds: Whole Population and Doers Only:
Percentile Values 9-45
Table 9-40. Time Spent at Home in Kitchen: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-46
Table 9-41. Time Spent at Home in Living Room/Family Room/Den: Whole Population and
Doers Only: Percentile Values 9-46
Table 9-42. Time Spent at Home in Dining Room: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-47
Table 9-43. Time Spent at Home in Bathroom: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-47
Table 9-44. Time Spent at Home in Bedroom: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-48
Table 9-45. Time Spent at Home in Study/Office: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-48
Table 9-46. Time Spent at Home in Garage: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-49
Table 9-47. Time Spent at Home: All Rooms Combined: Whole Population and Doers Only:
Percentile Values 9-49
Table 9-48. Time Spent in an Car: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values . . 9-50
Table 9-49. Time Spent in a Truck (Pickup or Van): Whole Population and Doers Only:
Percentile Values 9-50
Table 9-50. Time Spent in a Truck (Not Pickup or Van): Whole Population and Doers Only:
Percentile Values 9-51
-------
Table 9-51. Time Spent on a Bus: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values . . . 9-51
Table 9-52. Time Spent on a Train: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values . 9-52
Table 9-53. Time Spent on an Airplane: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
9-52
Table 9-54. Time Spent on a Boat: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values . . 9-53
Table 9-55. Total Time Spent Inside Vehicles: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile
Values 9-53
Table 9-56. Time Spent Inside Grocery/Convenience Stores, Other Stores, and Malls: Whole
Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values 9-54
Table 9-57. Average Time Spent Inside and Outside, By Age Category 9-54
Table 9-58. Statistics for 24-hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent with Smokers Present
9-55
Table 9-59. Gender and Age Groups 9-56
Table 9-60. Assignment of At-Home Activities to Ventilation Levels for Children 9-57
Table 9-61. Aggregate Time Spent (minutes/day) At-Home in Activity Groups by Adolescents
and Children3 9-58
Table 9-62. Comparison of Mean Time (minutes/day) Spent At-Home by Gender3 (Adolescents)
9-58
Table 9-63. Comparison of Mean Time (minutes/day) Spent At-Home by Gender and Age for
Children3 9-58
Table 9-64. Number of Person-Days/Individuals3 for Children in CHAD3 Database 9-59
Table 9-65. Number of Hours Per Day Children Spend in Various Microenvironments by Age
9-60
Table 9-66. Average Number of Hours Per Day Children Spend Doing Various Macroactivities
While Indoors at Home 9-61
Table 9-67. Number of Hours Per Day Children Spend in Various Microenvironments by Age -
Recast Into New Standard Age Categories 9-62
Table 9-68. Number of Hours Per Day Children Spend in Various Macroactivities While
Indoors at Home - Recast Into New Standard Age Categories 9-63
Table 9-69. Number and percentage of respondents with children and those reporting outdoor
play3 activities in both warm and cold weather 9-64
Table 9-70. Play frequency and duration for all child players (from SCS-II data) 9-64
Table 9-71. Hand washing and bathing frequency for all child players (from SCS-II data) . 9-65
Table 9-72 NHAPS and SCS-II play duration3 comparison 9-65
Table 9-73. NHAPS and SCS-II hand wash frequency comparison 9-66
Table 9-77. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations 9-70
-------
1 9. ACTIVITY FACTORS
2
3 9.1 INTRODUCTION
4 As a consequence of a child's immaturity and small stature, certain activities and
5 behaviors specific to children place them at higher risk to certain environmental agents (Chance
6 andHarmsen, 1998). Individual or group activities are important determinants of potential
7 exposure, because toxic chemicals introduced into the environment may not cause harm to a
8 child until an activity is performed that subjects the child to contact with those contaminants. An
9 activity or time spent will vary on the basis of, for example, culture, hobbies, location, gender,
10 age, and personal preferences. It is difficult to accurately collect/record data for a child's
11 activity patterns (Hubal et al., 2000). Children engage in more contact activities than adults;
12 therefore, a much wider distribution of activities need to be considered when assessing children's
13 exposure (Hubal et al., 2000). Behavioral patterns, preferred activities, and developmental
14 stages result in different exposures for children than for adults (Chance and Harmsen, 1998).
15 This section summarizes data on how much time children spend participating in various
16 activities in various microenvironments and on the frequency of performing various activities.
17 These data cover a wide scope of activities and populations, which are arranged by age group
18 when such data are available.
19 One of the objectives of this Handbook is to provide recommended exposure factor
20 values using a consistent set of age groups. In this chapter, several studies are used as sources for
21 activity pattern data. In some cases, the source data could be retrieved and analyzed using the
22 standard age groupings introduced in Chapter 1 of this Handbook. In other cases, the original
23 source data were not available, and the study results are presented here using the same age
24 groups as the original study, whether or not they conform to the standard age groupings.
25
26 9.2 ACTIVITY PATTERNS
27 This section briefly describes published time-use studies that provide information on
28 time-activity patterns of children in the U.S. For a detailed description of the studies, the reader
29 is referred to the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997).
30
31
9-1
-------
1 9.2.1 Timmer et al., 1985
2 Timmer et al. (1985) conducted a study using the data obtained on children's time use
3 from a 1981-1982 panel study. A total of 922 children between the ages of 3 and 17 years
4 participated in the survey, which used a time diary and a standardized interview. The time diary
5 involved children reporting their activities beginning at 12.00 AM the previous night, the
6 duration and location of each activity, the presence of another individual, and whether they were
7 performing other activities at the same time. The standardized interview was administered to the
8 children to gather information about their psychological, intellectual (using reading
9 comprehension tests), and emotional well-being; their hopes and goals; their family
10 environment; and their attitudes and beliefs.
11 The mean time spent performing major activities on weekdays and weekends by age, sex,
12 and type of day is presented in Table 9-1. On weekdays, children spend about 40% of their time
13 sleeping, 20% in school, and 10% eating, washing, dressing, and performing other personal
14 activities (Timmer et al., 1985). The data in Table 9-1 indicate that girls spent more time than
15 boys performing household work and personal care activities and less time playing sports. Also,
16 the children spent most of their free time watching television.
17 Table 9-2 presents the mean time children spent during weekdays and weekends
18 performing major activities by five different age groups. The significant effects of each variable
19 (i.e., age and sex) are also shown. Older children spent more time performing household and
20 market work, studying, and watching television and less time eating, sleeping, and playing. The
21 authors estimate that, on average, boys spent 19.4 hours a week and girls spent 17.8 hours per
22 week watching television.
23 A limitation associated with this study is that it was conducted in 1981. It is likely that
24 activity patterns in children have changed from 1981 to the present. Thus, application of these
25 data for current exposure assessment may bias exposure assessment results. Another limitation
26 is that the data do not provide overall annual estimates of children's time use since data were
27 collected only during the time of the year when children attend school and not during school
28 vacation.
29 EPA estimated the total time indoors and outdoors using the Timmer data. Activities
30 performed indoors were assumed to include household work, personal care, eating, sleeping,
31 attending school, studying, attending church, watching television, and engaging in household
9-2
-------
1 conversations. The average times spent in these indoor activities and half the time spent in each
2 activity which could have occurred indoors or outdoors (e.g., market work, sports, hobbies, art
3 activities, playing, reading, and other passive leisure) were summed. Table 9-3 summarizes the
4 results of this analysis by age groups and time of the week.
5
6 9.2.2 Robinson and Thomas, 1991
7 Robinson and Thomas (1991) reviewed and compared data from the 1987-88 California
8 Air Resources Board (CARB) time-activity study for California residents and from a similar
9 1985 national study, Americans' Use of Time. Both studies used the diary approach to collect
10 data. Time- use patterns were collected for individuals aged 12 years and older. Telephone
11 interviews based on the random-digit-dialing procedure were conducted for approximately 1,762
12 and 2,762 respondents for the CARB study and the national study, respectively.
13 In addition, Robinson and Thomas (1991) defined a set of 16 microenvironments based
14 on the activity and location codes employed in the two studies. The mean duration of time spent
15 in three location categories is presented in Table 9-4. Respondents spent most of their time
16 indoors: 1255 and 1279 min/day for the CARB study and the national study, respectively.
17 Table 9-5 presents the mean duration of time and standard mean error for the
18 16 microenvironments, grouped by total sample population and gender. Also included is the
19 mean time spent for respondents who reported participating in each activity ("doers"). Table 9-5
20 shows that in both studies males spend more time in work locations, in automobiles and other
21 vehicles, in autoplaces (garages), and engaging in physical outdoor activities at outdoor sites.
22 In contrast, females spend more time cooking, engaging in other kitchen activities, performing
23 other chores, and shopping. The same trends also occurred on a per-participant basis.
24 Table 9-6 shows the mean time spent in various microenvironments by time of week
25 (weekday or weekend) in both studies. Generally, respondents spent most of their time during
26 the weekends in restaurants/bars (CARB study), motor vehicles, outdoor activities,
27 social-cultural settings, leisure/communication activities, and sleeping. Microenvironmental
28 differences by age are presented in Table 9-7.
29 Limitations associated with the Robinson and Thomas (1991) study are that the CARB
30 survey was performed in California only. Therefore, if applied to other populations, the data set
31 may be biased. In addition, the studies were conducted in 1980s and may bias exposure
-------
1 assessment results when used for current exposure assessments. Another limitation is that time
2 distribution patterns were not provided for both studies and the data are based on short-term
3 studies. The available data could not be re-analyzed to conform to the standardized age
4 categories used in this Handbook.
5
6 9.2.3 Wiley et al., 1991
7 The California children's activity pattern survey design (Wiley et al., 1991) provided
8 estimates of the time children spent in various activities and locations (microenvironments) on a
9 typical day. A total of 1,200 children under the age of 12 years were included in the study. The
10 average time spent participating in each of the 10 activity categories is presented in Table 9-8.
11 Also included in this table are the detailed activity, including its code, with the highest mean
12 duration of time; the percentage of respondents who reported participating in any activity
13 (percent doing); and the mean, median, and maximum time duration for "doers." The activity
14 category with the highest time expenditure was personal care (794 min/day, or 13.2 hours/day),
15 with night sleep being the detailed activity with the highest average minutes. The activity
16 category "don't know" had a duration of about 2 min/day and only 4% of the respondents
17 reported missing activity time.
18 Table 9-9 presents the mean time spent in the 10 activity categories by age and gender;
19 because the original source data were available, the age categories used by Wiley have been
20 replaced by the standardized age categories used in this Handbook. Differences in activity
21 patterns for boys and girls tended to be small. Table 9-10 presents the mean time spent in the 10
22 activity categories grouped by season and by geographic region. There were seasonal
23 differences for 5 activity categories: personal care, educational activities, social/entertainment,
24 recreation, and communication/ passive leisure. Time expenditure differences in various regions
25 of the state were minimal for childcare, work-related activities, shopping, personal care,
26 education, social life, and recreation.
27 Table 9-11 presents the distribution of time across six location categories. The
28 participation rates (percent) of respondents; the mean, median, and maximum time for "doers;"
29 and the detailed location with the highest average time expenditure are shown. The largest
30 amount of time spent was at home (1,078 min/day); 99 percent of respondents spent time at
31 home (1,086 min/participant/day). Tables 9-12 and 9-13 show the average time spent in the six
9-4
-------
1 locations grouped by age and gender, and season and region, respectively. Again, because the
2 original source data were available, the age categories used by Wiley have been replaced in
3 Table 9-12 by the standardized age categories used in this Handbook. There are age differences
4 in time expenditure in educational settings (Table 9-12). There are no differences in time
5 expenditure at the six locations by regions, and time spent in school decreased in the summer
6 months compared to other seasons (Table 9-13).
7 Table 9-14 shows the average potential exposure time children spent in proximity to
8 gasoline fumes and gas oven fumes. The sampled children spent more time closer to gas oven
9 fumes (11 min/day) than to gasoline fumes (2 min/day). Age categories in Table 9-14 have been
10 modified to conform to the standardized categories used in this Handbook.
11 EPA estimated the total time indoors and outdoors using the data from the Wiley et al.
12 (1991) study. Activities performed indoors, were assumed to include household work, child
13 care, personal needs and care, education, and communication and passive leisure. The average
14 times spent in these indoor activities and half the time spent in each activity which could have
15 occurred either indoors or outdoors (i.e., work-related, goods/services, organizational activities,
16 entertainment/social, don't know/not coded) were summed. Table 9-15 summarizes the results
17 of this analysis using the standard age groups.
18
19 9.2.4 U.S. EPA, 1992 and U.S. EPA, 2004
20 U.S. EPA (1992) addressed the variables of exposure time, frequency, and duration
21 needed to calculate dermal exposure as related to water and soil contact activities . EPA
22 published updated dermal guidance in 2004 (U.S. EPA, 2004). The reader is referred to these
23 documents for detailed discussion of these variables. The default values for children as
24 presented in U.S. EPA (2004) are summarized in Table 9-16. They were derived from earlier
25 guidance and judgment. The default recommendations are presented as representing children
26 aged 1 to 6 years and cannot be assigned to the standardized age groups (due to lack of more
27 specific supporting data).
28
29 9.2.5 Tsang and Klepeis, 1996
30 Tsang and Klepeis (1996) analyzed the data collected under The National Human
31 Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS). This survey was conducted by EPA and is the largest and
9-5
-------
1 most current human activity pattern survey available (Tsang and Klepeis, 1996). A total of
2 9,386 individuals of all ages participated in the study. NHAPS was conducted on a virtually
3 daily basis from late September 1992 through September 1994 by the University of Maryland's
4 Survey Research Center using a computer-assisted telephone interview instrument (CATI) to
5 collect 24-hour retrospective diaries and answers to a number of personal and exposure related
6 questions from each respondent. Data were collected on duration and frequency of selected
7 activities and of the time spent in selected microenvironments. In addition, demographic
8 information was collected for each respondent to allow for statistical summaries to be generated
9 according to specific subgroups of the U.S. population (e.g., gender, age, race, employment
10 status, census region, season). The participants' responses were weighted according to
11 geographic, socioeconomic, time/season, and other demographic factors to ensure that results
12 were representative of the U.S. population.
13 Tables 9-17 through 9-56 provide data from the NHAPS study. In most cases, the source
14 data have been reviewed and the analysis done by Tsang and Klepeis has been recast to conform
15 to the age categories used in this Handbook. Because no data were available on subjects' age in
16 months, age groups less than 1 year old are consolidated into a single group. Tables 9-17 through
17 9-28 present data on the amount of time spent in selected activities and/or the corresponding
18 distribution data, when available.
19
20 Table 9-17 presents number of showers per day by age of respondents. The data
21 shows that the majority of respondents aged 11 years or older took a shower one or
22 two times a day, while younger children showered less frequently.
23
24 Table 9-18 shows time spent taking a shower and time spent in the shower room
25 immediately after showering. Most of the respondents spent 10-20 minutes taking a
26 shower and in the shower room after showering.
27
28 Table 9-19 provides the percentile data for the same activity shown in Table 9-18.
29 The 50th percentile value is 10 to 15 minutes for showering and 1 to 5 minutes for
30 time spent after showering was complete. The 90th percentile values vary across age
31 groups and range from 30-40 minutes and 10-29 minutes for time spent showering
32 and in the bathroom after showering, respectively.
33
34 Table 9-20 presents total time (minutes) spent in the shower or bathtub and in the
35 bathroom immediately after a shower or bath. The majority of respondents spent
36 from 10-30 minutes in the shower or bathtub and approximately 10 minutes in the
37 bathroom afterwards.
9-6
-------
1 Table 9-21 presents the percentile data for the same activity shown in Table 9-20.
2 The 50th percentile values range from 15-30 minutes and from 2-10 minutes for
3 taking a shower or bath and time spent in the bathroom after the bath, respectively.
4
5 Table 9-22 provides a range of number of times washing the hands in a day. Most
6 respondents washed their hands 3-5 times a day.
7
8 Table 9-23 presents statistics data for the number of minutes per day spent working
9 or being near excessive dust in the air. For older children and adolescents, the 50th
10 percentile data indicates that 38 to 60 minutes/day are spent in air with excessive
11 dust.
12
13 Table 9-24 provides data for the frequency of starting a motor vehicle in a garage or
14 carport and started with the garage door closed.
15
16 Table 9-25 provides data for the range of minutes/day spent playing on dirt, grass, or
17 sand/gravel.
18
19 Table 9-26 provides the percentile data for the same activity shown in Table 9-25.
20
21 Table 9-27 provides the number of times/month swimming in a freshwater swimming
22 pool by number of respondents. The majority of respondents swim in freshwater
23 pools 1 or 2 times/month. A few individuals reported swimming much more
24 frequently (up to 30 or even 60 times per month.)
25
26 Table 9-28 provides percentile data for the same activity shown in Table 9-27.
27
28 Tables 9-29 through 9-56 provide statistics for 24-hour cumulative time (minimum,
29 percentiles, and maximum) spent in or in the presence of selected locations or activities. For
30 each location or activity, statistics are calculated for the entire survey population ("Whole
31 Population" and for the subset of the survey population that reported being in or doing the
32 location or activity in question ("Doers Only"). When the sample size was 10 persons or fewer,
33 percentile values were not calculated. Also note that these activities are not necessarily mutually
34 exclusive, e.g. time spent in active sports likely overlaps with exercise time.
35
36 Table 9-29 provides number of minutes spent sleeping/napping in a day.
37
38 Table 9-30 presents data for time spent attending full-time school.
39
40 Table 9-31 provides data for time spent in active sports.
41
42 Table 9-32 provides time spent on exercise.
43
9-7
-------
1 Table 9-33 presents data for time spent in outdoor recreation.
2
3 Table 9-34 provides data for time spent walking.
4
5 Table 9-35 provides data for time spent bathing.
6
7 Table 9-36 presents statistics for minutes eating.
8
9 Table 9-37 provides data for time spent indoors at a restaurant.
10
11 Table 9-38 provides data for time spent indoors at school.
12
13 Table 9-39 provides information for time spent outdoors on school
14 grounds/playgrounds, at parks or golf courses, and at pools/rivers/lakes.
15
16 Table 9-40 provides information on time spent at home in the kitchen.
17
18 Table 9-41 provides information on time spent at home in the living room, family
19 room, or den.
20
21 Table 9-42 provides information on time spent at home in the dining room.
22
23 Table 9-43 provides information on time spent at home in the bathroom.
24
25 Table 9-44 provides information on time spent at home in the bedroom.
26
27 Table 9-45 provides information on time spent at home in the study or office.
28
29 Table 9-46 provides information on time spent at home in the garage.
30
31 Table 9-47 provides information on time spent at home in the utility room or laundry
32 room.
33
34 Table 9-48 provides information on time spent in a car.
35
36 Table 9-49 provides information on time spent in a truck (pickup or van).
37
38 Table 9-50 provides information on time spent in a truck (not a pickup or van).
39
40 Table 9-51 provides information on time spent on a bus.
41
42 Table 9-52 provides information on time spent on a train.
43
44 Table 9-53 provides information on time spent on an airplane.
45
46 Table 9-54 provides information on time spent on a boat.
9-8
-------
1 Table 9-55 provides information on the total time spent in vehicles.
2
3 Table 9-56 provides information on time spent in grocery/convenience stores, other
4 stores, and malls.
5
6 Table 9-57 provides data on time spent in indoor and outdoor environments.
7
8 Table 9-58 provides information on time spent in the presence of smokers. For this
9 data set, the authors' original age categories were used because the methodology used
10 to generate the data could not be reproduced.
11
12 Advantages of the NHAPS data set are that it is representative of the U.S. population and
13 it has been adjusted to be balanced geographically, seasonally, and for day/time. Also, it is
14 inclusive of all ages, genders, and races. A disadvantage of the study is that for the standard age
15 categories, "N" is small for the "doers" of many activities. In addition, means cannot be
16 calculated for time spent over 60, 120, and 181 minutes in selected activities. Therefore, actual
17 time spent at the high end of the distribution for these activities cannot be assessed with
18 accuracy.
19
20 9.2.6 Funk et al., 1998
21 Funk et al. (1998) used the data from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) study
22 to determine distributions of exposure time by tracking the time spent participating in daily at-
23 home and at-school activities for male and female children and adolescents. CARB performed
24 two studies from 1987 to 1990; the first was focused on adults (18 years and older) and
25 adolescents (12-17 years old), and the second focused on children (6-11 years old) (Funk et al.,
26 1998). The targeted groups were noninstitutionalized English speaking Californians with a
27 telephone in their residence. Individuals were contacted by telephone and asked to account for
28 every minute within the previous 24 hours, including the amount of time spent on an activity and
29 the location of the activity. The surveys were conducted on different days of the week as well as
30 different seasons of the year.
31 Using the location descriptors provided in the CARB study, Funk et al. (1998)
32 categorized the activities into two groups, "at home" (any activity at principal residence) and
33 "away." Each activity was assigned to one of three ventilation levels (low, moderate, or high)
34 based on the level of exertion expected from the activity. Ambiguous activities were assigned to
9-9
-------
1 moderate ventilation levels. Among the adolescents and children studied, means were
2 determined for the aggregate age groups, as shown in Table 9-59.
3 Funk et al. used several statistical methods, such as Chi-square, Kolmogorov-Smirnov,
4 and Anderson-Darling, to determine whether the time spent in an activity group had a known
5 distribution. Most of the activities performed by children were assigned a low or moderate
6 ventilation rate (Table 9-60).
7 The aggregate time periods spent at home in each activity are shown in Table 9-61.
8 Aggregate time spent at home performing different activities was compared between genders.
9 There were no significant differences between adolescent male and females in any of the activity
10 groups (Funk et al., 1998) (Table 9-62). In children ages 6-11 years there were differences
11 found between gender and age at the low ventilation levels. In the moderate ventilation level
12 there were significant differences between two age groups (6-8 years, and 9-11 years) and
13 gender (Funk et al., 1998) (Table 9-63).
14 Large proportions of the respondents in the study did not participate in high-ventilation-
15 level activities; discrete distributions were used to characterize high ventilation activity groups
16 (Funk et al., 1998). Lognormal distribution best described the time spent by children at high
17 ventilation levels.
18
19 9.2.7 Hubal et al., 2000
20 Hubal et al. (2000) reviewed available data, including activity pattern data, to
21 characterize and assess environmental exposures to children. The EPA National Exposure
22 Research Laboratory's Consolidated Human Activity Database (CHAD), which contained data
23 from several studies on human activities, was reviewed. For children and adolescents younger
24 than 18 years, CHAD contained 4,300 person-days of information and 3,009 person-days of
25 macroactivity data for 2,640 children less than 12 years old (Hubal et al., 2000) (Table 9-64).
26 Specific examples of the type of macroactivity data available in CHAD for children are shown
27 in Tables 9-65 and 9-66. The number of hours spent in various microenvironments are shown in
28 Table 9-65 and time spent in various activities indoors at home in Table 9-66.
29 The authors noted that CHAD contains approximately "140 activity codes and 110
30 location codes," but the data generally are not available for all activity locations for any single
31 respondent. In fact, not all of the codes were used for most of the studies. Even though many
9-10
-------
1 codes are used in macroactivity studies, many of the activity codes do not adequately capture the
2 richness of what children actually do. They are much too broadly defined and ignore many
3 child-oriented behaviors. Thus, there is a need for more and better-focused research into
4 children's activities." CHAD is available on the EPA Internet at:
5 http://www.epa.gov/chadnetl/.
6 EPA has performed an analysis of the source data used by Hubal et al. (2000) to recast
7 the study's results using CHAD data downloaded in 2000 and the new standard age categories.
8 The results are shown in Tables 9-67 and 9-68. In this analysis, individual study participants
9 within CHAD whose behavior patterns were measured over multiple days were treated as
10 multiple one-day activity patterns. This is a potential source of error or bias in the results
11 because a single individual may contribute multiple data sets to the aggregate population being
12 studied.
13
14 9.2.8 Wong et al., 2000
15 Wong et al. (2000) conducted telephone surveys to gather information on children's
16 activity patterns as related to dermal contact with soil during outdoor play on bare dirt or mixed
17 grass and dirt surfaces. This study, the second Soil Contact Survey (SCS-II), was a follow-up to
18 the initial Soil Contact Survey (SCS-I), conducted in 1996, that primarily focused on assessing
19 adult behavior related to dermal contact with soil and dust (Garlock et al., 1999). As part of
20 SCS-I, information was gathered on the behavior of children under the age of 18 years, however,
21 the questions were limited to clothing choices and the length of time after soil contact to hand
22 washing. Questions were posed for SCS-II to further define children's outdoor activities and
23 hand washing and bathing frequency. For both soil contact surveys households were randomly
24 phoned in order to obtain nationally representative results. The adult respondents were
25 questioned as surrogates for one randomly chosen child under the age of 18 residing within the
26 household.
27 In the SCS-II, of 680 total adult respondents with a child in their household, 500 (73.5%)
28 reported that their child played outdoors on bare dirt or mixed grass and dirt surfaces (identified
29 as "players"). Those children that reportedly did not play outdoors ("non-players") were
30 typically very young (< 1 year) or relatively older (> 14 years). Of the 500 children that played
31 outdoors, 497 played outdoors in warm weather months (April through October) and 390 were
9-11
-------
1 reported to play outdoors during cold weather months (November through March). These results
2 are presented in Table 9-69. The frequency (days/week), duration (hours/day), and total hours
3 per week spent playing outdoors was determined for those children identified as "players"
4 (Table 9-70). The responses indicated that during the warmer months children spend a relatively
5 high percentage of time outdoor and a lesser amount of time in cold weather. The median play
6 frequency reported was 7 days/week in warm weather and 3 days/week in cold weather. Median
7 play duration was 3 hours/day in warm weather and 1 hour/day during cold weather months.
8 Adult respondents were then questioned as to how many times per day their child washed
9 his/her hands and how many times the child bathed or showered per week during both warm and
10 cold weather months. This information provided an estimate of the time between skin contact
11 with soil and removal of soil by washing (i.e., exposure time). Hand washing and bathing
12 frequencies for child players are reported in Table 9-71. Based on these results, hand washing
13 occurred a median of 4 times per day during both warm and cold weather months. The median
14 frequency for baths and showers was estimated to be 7 times per week for both warm and cold
15 weather.
16 Based on reported household incomes, the respondents sampled in SCS-II tended to have
17 higher incomes than that of the general population. This may be explained by the fact that phone
18 surveys cannot sample those households without telephones. Additional uncertainty or error in
19 the study results may be presented by the use of surrogate respondents. Adult respondents were
20 questioned regarding child activities that may have occurred in prior seasons, introducing the
21 chance of recall error. In some instances, a respondent did not know the answer to a question or
22 refused to answer. In Tables 9-72 and 9-73 information were extracted from the National
23 Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) (U.S. EPA, 1996). Table 9-72 compares mean play
24 duration data from SCS-II to similar activities identified in NHAPS. The number of times per
25 day a child washed his or her hands was presented in both SCS-II and NHAPS follow-up survey
26 B and are shown in Table 9-73. Corresponding information for bathing frequency data collected
27 from SCS-II was not collected in NHAPS. As indicated in Tables 9-72 and 9-73, where
28 comparison is possible, NHAPS and SCS-II results showed similarities in observed behaviors.
29
30 9.2.9. Graham and McCurdy, 2004
31
9-12
-------
1 This paper uses analyses of CHAD to evaluate how cohort definitions can affect statistics
2 on activity patterns. Age and gender are typically used as the primary cohort-defining attributes,
3 but more complex exposure models also use weather, day-of-the-week, and employment
4 attributes for this purpose. All of these attributes and others were evaluated to determine if
5 statistically significant differences exist among them to warrant their being used to define
6 distinct cohort groups. The analysis focused mostly on the relationship between cohort attributes
7 and the time spent outdoors, indoors, and in motor vehicles. The results indicate that besides age
8 and gender, other important attributes for defining cohorts are the physical activity level of
9 individuals, whether factors such as daily maximum temperature in combination with months of
10 the year, and combined weekday/weekend with employment status. Less important are
11 precipitation and ethnic data. While statistically significant, the collective set of attributes does
12 not explain a large amount of variance in outdoor, indoor, or in-vehicle locational decisions.
13 Based on other research, parameters such as lifestyle and life stages that are absent from CHAD
14 might have reduced the amount of unexplained variance. The authors recommend that exposure
15 modelers use age and gender as "first-order" attributes to define cohorts followed by physical
16 activity level, daily maximum temperature or other suitable weather parameters, and day type
17 possibly beyond a simple weekday/weekend classification.
18
19 9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
20 Assessors are commonly interested in a number of specific types of time use data for
21 children including times for bathing, showering, indoor activity, outdoor activity, swimming, and
22 surface type during play. The studies used to develop recommendations for these factors are
23 summarized in Tables 9-74 and 9-75. The recommended values for the factors are discussed
24 below and summarized in Table 9-76. Only means or medians were provided because these are
25 based on short term data and 95th percentiles would be potentially misleading for long term
26 estimates. The confidence in the recommendations for activity patterns is presented in Table 9-
27 77.
28 Time Spent Indoors and Outdoors - Assessors often require knowledge of time
29 individuals spend indoors versus outdoors. Ideally, this issue would be addressed on a site-
30 specific basis since the times are likely to vary considerably depending on the climate,
31 residential setting (i.e., rural versus urban), personal traits (i.e., age, health) and personal habits.
9-13
-------
1 Activities can vary significantly with differences in age. Table 9-75 summarizes the studies that
2 present information on time indoors and outdoors. Of these studies, the Wiley et al. (1991) and
3 Tsang and Kleipeis (1996) studies were most conducive to being recast to fit the standardized
4 age categories in this Handbook. The recommended values are presented in Table 9-76 for the
5 standardized age groups,. The recommendations for time spent indoors at a residence are based
6 on the EPA re-analysis of the Tsang and Kleipeis (1996). The recommendations for total time
7 spent indoors are based on the EPA re-analysis of the Tsang and Kleipeis (1996) and Wiley et al.
8 (1991) data. The recommendations for total time spent outdoors are based on the EPA re-
9 analysis of the Tsang and Kleipeis (1996) and Wiley et al. (1991) data.
10 Showering and Bathing - The recommended values for shower and bath duration are
11 presented in Table 9-76 for the standardized age groups, based on the EPA re-analysis of the
12 Tsang and Kleipeis (1996).
13 Swimming - The recommended values for swimming time are presented in Table 9-76
14 for the standardized age groups, based on the EPA re-analysis of the Tsang and Kleipeis (1996).
15 Playing on Sand or Gravel, on Grass, and on Dirt - The recommended values for time
16 spent playing on sand, gravel, grass or dirt are presented in Table 9-76 based on the EPA re-
17 analysis of the Tsang and Kleipeis (1996). .
18
19
9-14
-------
1 9.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9
2
3 Chance, W.G.; Harmsen, E. (1998) Children are different: environmental contaminants and children's health.
4 Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 89, Supplement, pp. 59-513.
5
6 Funk, L.; Sedman, R.; Beals, J.A.J.; Fountain, R. (1998) Quantifying the distribution of inhalation exposure in
7 human populations: distributions of time spent by adults, adolescents, and children at home, at work, and at
8 school. Risk Analysis. 18(l):47-56.
9
10 Graham, SE and McCurdy, T (2004). Developing meaningful cohorts for human exposure models. J Expo Anal
11 Environ Epidemiol. 14:23-43.
12
13 Hubal, E.A.; Sheldon, L.S.; Burke, J.M.; McCurdy, T.R.; Berry, M.R.; Rigas, M.L.; Zartarian, V.G.; Freeman, N.G.
14 (2000) Children's exposure assessment: a review of factors influencing children's exposure and the data available
15 to characterize and assess that exposure. Environ. Health Persp. 108:475-485.
16
17 Robinson, J.P; Thomas, J. (1991) Time spent in activities, locations, and microenvironments: a California-National
18 Comparison Project report. Las Vegas, NV: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring
19 Systems Laboratory.
20
21 Timmer, S.G.; Eccles, J.; O'Brien, K. (1985) How children use time. In: Juster, F.T.; Stafford, P.P.; eds. Time,
22 goods, and well-being. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social
23 Research, pp. 353-380.
24
25 Tsang, A.M.; Klepeis, N.E. (1996) Results tables from a detailed analysis of the National Human Activity Pattern
26 Survey (NHAPS) response. Draft Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Lockheed
27 Martin, Contract No. 68-W6-001, Delivery Order No. 13.
28
29 U.S. EPA. (1992) Dermal exposure assessment: principles and applications. Washington, DC: Office of Health
30 and Environmental Assessment. EPA No. 600/8-91-01 IB. Interim Report.
31
32 U.S. EPA. (1997) Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington, DC: National Center for Environmental Assessment,
3 3 Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa,b,c.
34
35 U.S. EPA. (2004) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E,
36 Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). EPA/540/R/99/005.
3 7 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/ragse/index.htm
38
39 Wiley, J.A.; Robinson, J.P.; Cheng, Y.; Piazza, T.; Stork, L.; Plasden, K. (1991) Study of children's activity
40 patterns. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board Research Division. Sacramento,
41 CA.
42
43 Wong E. Y., Shirai, J.H, Garlock, T. J., and Kissel, J.C. (2000) Adult proxy responses to a survey of children's
44 dermal soil contact activities. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 10:509-517.
45
9-15
-------
Table 9-1. Mean Time Spent (minutes) Performing Major Activities Grouped by Age, Sex and Type of Day
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
NAa
Percent of Time Accounted for
by Activities Above
Age (3- 1 1 years)
Duration of Time (mins/day)
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%
Age (12-17 years)
Duration of Time (mins/day)
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%
a NA = Unknown
Source: Timmer et al., 1985.
9-16
-------
Table 9-2. Mean Time Spent (minutes) in Major Activities Grouped by Type of Day for Five Different Age Groups
Activity
Market Work
Personal Care
Household Work
Eating
Sleeping
School
Studying
Church
Visiting
Sports
Outdoor activities
Hobbies
Art Activities
Other Passive Leisure
Playing
TV
Reading
Being read to
NA
Time Duration (mins)
Weekday
Age Groups
3-5
--
41
14
82
630
137
2
4
14
5
4
0
5
9
218
111
5
2
30
6-8
14
49
15
81
595
292
8
9
15
24
9
2
4
1
111
99
5
2
14
9-11
8
40
18
73
548
315
29
9
10
21
8
2
3
2
65
146
9
0
23
12-14
14
56
27
69
473
344
33
9
21
40
7
4
3
6
31
142
10
0
25
15-17
28
60
34
67
499
314
33
3
20
46
11
6
12
4
14
108
12
0
7
Weekend
Age Groups
3-5
-
47
17
81
634
-
1
55
10
3
8
1
4
6
267
122
4
3
52
6-8
4
45
27
80
641
-
2
56
8
30
23
5
4
10
180
136
9
2
7
9-11
10
44
51
78
596
-
12
53
13
42
39
3
4
7
92
185
10
0
14
12-14
29
60
72
68
604
-
15
32
22
51
25
8
7
10
35
169
10
0
4
15-17
48
51
60
65
562
-
30
37
56
37
26
3
10
18
21
157
18
0
9
Significant
Effects3
A,S,AxS (F>M)
A,S, AxS (F>M)
A
A
A
A
A (Weekend only)
A,S (M>F)
A
A,S (M>F)
A,S, AxS (M>F)
A
A
A
a Effects are significant for weekdays and weekends, unless otherwise specified A = age effect, P<0.05, for both weekdays and weekend
activities; S = sex effect P<0.05, F>M, M>F = females spend more time than males, or vice versa; and AxS = age by sex interaction, P<0.05.
Source: Timmer et al., 1985.
9-17
-------
Table 9-3. Mean Time Spent Indoors and Outdoors Grouped by Age and Day of the Week
Age Group
(yrs)
3-5
6-8
9-11
12-14
15-17
Time Indoors
Weekday
(hrs/day)
19.4
20.7
20.8
20.7
19.9
Time Indoors
Weekend
(hrs/day)
18.9
18.6
18.6
18.5
17.9
Time Outdoors
Weekday
(hrs/day)
2.5
1.8
1.3
1.6
1.4
Time Outdoors
Weekend
(hrs/day)
3.1
2.5
2.3
1.9
2.3
Source: Adapted from Timmer et al. (1985).
9-18
-------
Table 9-4. Mean Time Spent at Three Locations for both CARD and National Studies (ages 12 years and older)
Location Category
Indoor
Outdoor
In-Vehicle
Lotal Lime Spent
Mean duration (mins/day)
CARB
(n=1762)b
1255C
86d
98d
1440
S.E.a
28
5
4
National
(n = 2762)b
1279C
74d
87d
1440
S.E.
21
4
2
a S.E. = Standard Error of Mean
b Weighted Number - National sample population was weighted to obtain a ratio of 46.5 males and 53.5 females, in equal
proportion for each day of the week, and for each quarter of the year.
c Difference between the mean values for the CARB and national studies is not statistically significant.
d Difference between the mean values for the CARB and national studies is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Source: Robinson and Lhomas, 1991.
9-19
-------
Table 9-5. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments Grouped by Total Population and
Gender (12 years and over) in the National and CARD Data
Microenvironment
Autoplaces
Restaurant/bar
In-vehicle
In- Vehicle/other
Physical/outdoors
Physical/indoors
Work/study-residence
Work/study-other
Cooking
Other activities/kitchen
Chores/child
Shop/errand
Other/outdoors
Social/cultural
Leisure-eat/indoors
Sleep/indoors
Microenvironment
Autoplaces
Restaurant/bar
In-vehicle
In- Vehicle/other
Physical/outdoors
Physical/indoors
Work/study-residence
Work/study-other
Cooking
Other activities/kitchen
Chores/child
Shop/errand
Other/outdoors
Social/cultural
Leisure-eat/indoors
Sleep/indoors
National Data
Mean Duration (mins/day) (standard error)3
N = 1284b
Male
5(1)
22(2)
92(3)
1(1)
24(3)
11(1)
17(2)
221 (10)
14(1)
54(3)
88(3)
23(2)
70(6)
71(4)
235 (8)
491 (14)
"Doer"c
Male
90
73
99
166
139
84
153
429
35
69
89
56
131
118
241
492
N = 1478b
Female
1(0)
20(2)
82(3)
1(0)
11(2)
6(1)
15(2)
142 (7)
52(2)
90(4)
153 (5)
38(2)
43(4)
75(4)
215 (7)
496(11)
"Doer"
Female
35
79
94
69
101
57
150
384
67
102
154
74
97
110
224
497
N = 2762b
Total
3(0)
21(1)
87(2)
1(0)
17(2)
8(1)
16(1)
179 (6)
34(1)
73(2)
123 93)
31(1)
56(4)
73(3)
224 (5)
494 (9)
"Doer"
Total
66
77
97
91
135
74
142
390
57
88
124
67
120
118
232
495
CARB Data
Mean Duration (mins/day) (standard error)"
N = 867b
Male
31(8)
45(4)
105 (7)
4(1)
25(3)
8(1)
14(3)
213(14)
12(1)
38(3)
66(4)
21(3)
95(9)
47(4)
223 (10)
492 (17)
"Doer"0
Male
142
106
119
79
131
63
126
398
43
65
75
61
153
112
240
499
N = 895b
Female
9(2)
28(3)
85(4)
3(2)
8(1)
5(1)
11(2)
156(11)
42(2)
60(4)
134 (6)
41(3)
44(4)
59(5)
251 (10)
504(15)
"Doer"
Female
50
86
100
106
86
70
120
383
65
82
140
78
82
114
263
506
N = 1762b
Total
20(4)
36(3)
95(4)
3(1)
17(2)
7(1)
13(2)
184(9)
27(1)
49(2)
100 (4)
31(2)
69(5)
53(3)
237 (7)
498 (12)
"Doer"
Total
108
102
111
94
107
68
131
450
55
74
109
70
117
112
250
501
* Standard error of the mean
b Weighted number
0 Doer = Respondents who reported participating in each activity/location spent in microenvironments.
Source: Robinson and Thomas, 1991.
9-20
-------
Table 9-6. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Type of Day for the California and
National Surveys (sample population ages 12 years and older)
Weekday
Microenvironment
1 Autoplaces
2 Restaurant/Bar
3 In- Vehicle/Internal Combustion
4 In- Vehicle/Other
5 Physical/Outdoors
6 Physical/Indoors
7 Work/Study -Residence
8 Work/Study-Other
9 Cooking
10 Other Activities/Kitchen
11 Chores/Child
12 Shop/Errand
13 Other/Outdoors
14 Social/Cultural
1 5 Leisure-Eat/Indoors
16 Sleep/Indoors
Mean Duration (standard error)3
(mins/day)
CARB
(n=1259)c
21(5)
29(3)
90(5)
3(1)
14(2)
7(1)
14(2)
228(11)
27(2)
51(3)
99(5)
30(2)
67(6)
42(3)
230 (9)
490(14)
NAT
(n=1973)c
3(1)
20(2)
85(2)
1(0)
15(2)
8(1)
16(2)
225 (8)
35(2)
73(3)
124 (4)
30(2)
51(4)
62(3)
211(6)
481 (10)
Mean Duration for "Doer"b
(mins/day)
CARB
108
83
104
71
106
64
116
401
58
76
108
67
117
99
244
495
NAT
73
73
95
116
118
68
147
415
57
87
125
63
107
101
218
483
Weekend
Microenvironment
1 Autoplaces
2 Restaurant/Bar
3 In- Vehicle/Internal Combustion
4 In- Vehicle/Other
5 Physical/Outdoors
6 Physical/Indoors
7 Work/Study -Residence
8 Work/Study-Other
9 Cooking
10 Other Activities/Kitchen
11 Chores/Child
12 Shop/Errand
13 Other/Outdoors
14 Social/Cultural
1 5 Leisure-Eat/Indoors
16 Sleep/Indoors
Mean Duration (standard error)3
(mins/day)
CARB
(n=503)c
19(4)
55(6)
108(8)
5(3)
23(3)
7(1)
10(2)
74(11)
27(2)
44(3)
103 (7)
35(4)
74(7)
79(7)
256(12)
520 (20)
NAT
(n=789)c
3(1)
23(2)
91(6)
0(0)
23(4)
9(2)
15(3)
64(6)
34(2)
73(4)
120 (5)
35(3)
67(7)
99(6)
257(11)
525 (17)
Mean Duration for "Doer"b
(mins/day)
CARB
82
127
125
130
134
72
155
328
60
71
114
81
126
140
273
521
NAT
62
84
100
30
132
80
165
361
55
90
121
75
132
141
268
525
a Standard Error of Mean
b Doer = Respondent who reported participating in each activity/location spent in microenvironments.
c Weighted Number
Source: Robinson and Thomas, 1991.
9-21
-------
Table 9-7. Mean Time Spent (minutes/day) in Various Microenvironments by Age Groups for the National and
California Surveys
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
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
National Data
Mean Duration (Standard Error)"
Age 12- 17 years
N=340b
2(1)
9(2)
79(7)
0(0)
32(8)
15(3)
22(4)
159(14)
11(3)
53(4)
91(7)
26(4)
70(13)
87(10)
237(16)
548(31)
"Doer"0
73
60
88
12
130
87
82
354
40
64
92
68
129
120
242
551
Age 18-24 years
N=340
7(2)
28(3)
103 (8)
1(1)
17(4)
8(2)
19(6)
207 (20)
18(2)
42(3)
124 (9)
31(4)
34(4)
100(12)
181 (11)
511 (26)
"Doer"
137
70
109
160
110
76
185
391
39
55
125
65
84
141
189
512
CARB Data
Mean Duration (Standard Error)"
Age 12- 17 years
N=183b
16(8)
16(4)
78(11)
1(0)
32(7)
20(4)
25(5)
196 (30)
3(1)
31(4)
72(11)
14(3)
58(8)
63 (14)
260 (27)
557 (44)
"Doer"0
124
44
89
19
110
65
76
339
19
51
77
50
78
109
270
560
Age 18-24 years
N=250
16(4)
40(8)
111(13)
3(1)
13(3)
5(2)
30(11)
201 (24)
14(2)
31(5)
79(8)
35(7)
80(15)
65 (10)
211 (19)
506 (30)
"Doer"
71
98
122
60
88
77
161
344
40
55
85
71
130
110
234
510
" Standard error.
b All N's are weighted number.
0 Doer = Respondents who reported participating in each activity/location spent in microenvironments.
Source: Robinson and Thomas, 1991.
9-22
-------
Table 9-8. Mean Time (minutes/day) Children Ages 12 Years and Under Spent in Ten Major Activity Categories for
All Respondents
Activity Category
Work-related"
Household
Childcare
Goods/Services
Personal Needs and Care0
Education11
Organizational Activities
Entertain/Social
Recreation
Communication/Passive
Leisure
Don't know/Not coded
All Activities'
Mean
Duration
(mins/day)
10
53
< 1
21
794
110
4
15
239
192
2
1441
%
Doing
25
86
< 1
26
100
35
4
17
92
93
4
Mean
Duration
for Doersb
(mins/day)
39
61
83
81
794
316
111
87
260
205
41
Median
Duration
for Doer
(mins/day)
30
40
30
60
770
335
105
60
240
180
15
Maximum
Duration
for Doers
(mins/day)
405
602
290
450
1440
790
435
490
835
898
600
Detailed Activity with
Highest Avg. Minutes
(code)
Eating at work/school/daycare (06)
Travel to household (199)
Other child care (27)
Errands (38)
Night sleep (45)
School classes (50)
Attend meetings (60)
Visiting with others (75)
Games (87)
TV use (91)
a Includes eating at school or daycare, an activity not grouped under the "education activities" (codes 50-59, 549).
b "Doers" indicate the respondents who reported participating in each activity category.
0 Personal care includes night sleep and daytime naps, eating, travel for personal care.
d Education includes student and other classes, homework, library, travel for education.
" Column total may not sum to 1440 due to rounding error
Source: Wiley etal., 1991.
9-23
-------
Table 9-9. Mean Time Children Spent in Ten Major Activity Categories by Age and Gender
Activity
Category
Work-related
Household
Childcare
Goods/Services
Personal Needs and Care"
Education11
Organizational Activities
Entertainment/Social
Recreation
Communication/Passive
Leisure
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted)
Mean Duration (minutes/day) - BOYS
birth
to 1
month
0
12
0
0
910
180C
0
0
0
338
3
lto<3
months
0
30
0
16
1143
0
0
0
0
250
7
3to<6
months
0
49
0
14
937
75
0
0
26
339
15
6 to
<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
6 to
<11
years
12
61
0
22
726
120
11
15
265
208
239
11
yearsd
13
63
3
24
707
120
16
43
227
226
62
0-11
yrs
11
58
2
26
802
100
6
18
228
226
624
Activity
Category
Work-related
Household
Childcare
Goods/Services
Personal Needs and Care"
Education1"
Organizational Activities
Entertainment/Social
Recreation
Communication/Passive
Leisure
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted)
Mean Duration (minutes/day) - GIRLS
birth
to 1
month
0
28
0
0
1123
0
0
0
0
290
4
lto<3
months
0
29
0
18
1115
0
0
0
0
278
10
3to<6
months
5
23
0
14
971
110
0
0
10
308
11
6 to
<12
months
1
25
0
24
922
94
0
1
147
226
23
lto<2
years
3
45
0
24
894
25
0
13
256
179
43
2to<3
years
22
65
0
34
858
40
2
6
305
107
50
3to<6
years
9
49
0
31
820
81
3
16
270
161
151
6 to
<11
years
10
67
2
26
747
134
8
17
224
203
225
11
yearsd
19
78
9
15
703
151
13
52
175
225
59
0-11
yrs
11
58
2
26
802
100
6
18
228
189
576
a Personal needs and care includes night sleep and daytime naps, eating, travel for personal care.
b Education includes student and other classes, homework, library, travel for education.
°The data for this age group and category are two values of zero and one of 540.
dThe 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.
Source: EPA Analysis of source data used by Wiley et al. (1991).
9-24
-------
Table 9-10. Mean Time Children Ages 12 Years and Under Spent in Ten Major Activity Categories Grouped by
Seasons and Regions
Activity Category
Work-related
Household
Childcare
Goods/Services
Personal Needs and
Care"
Education1"
Organizational
Activities
Entertainment/Social
Recreation
Communication/Pass
ive Leisure
Don't know/Not
coded
All Activities0
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted)
Mean Duration (minutes/day)
Season
Winter
(Jan-Mar)
10
47
<1
19
799
124
3
14
221
203
<1
1442
318
Spring
(Apr-June)
10
58
1
17
774
137
5
12
243
180
2
1439
204
Summer
(July- Sept)
6
53
<1
26
815
49
5
12
282
189
3
1441
407
Fall
(Oct-Dec)
13
52
<1
23
789
131
3
22
211
195
<1
1441
271
All
Seasons
10
53
<1
21
794
110
4
15
239
192
2
1441
1200
Region of California
So.
Coast
10
45
<1
20
799
109
2
17
230
206
1
1440
224
Bay
Area
10
62
<1
21
785
115
6
10
241
190
1
1442
263
Rest of
State
8
55
1
23
794
109
6
16
249
175
3
1439
713
All
Regions
10
53
<1
21
794
110
4
15
239
192
2
1441
1200
a Personal needs and care includes night sleep and daytime naps, eating, travel for personal care.
b Education includes student and other classes, homework, library, travel for education.
0 The column totals may not be equal to 1440 due to rounding error.
Source: Wiley etal., 1991.
9-25
-------
Table 9-11. Mean Time Children Ages 12 Years and Under Spent in Six Major Location Categories for All
Respondents (minutes/day)
Location Category
Home
School/Childcare
Friend's/Other's House
Stores, Restaurants,
Shopping Places
In-transit
Other Locations
Don't Know/Not Coded
All Locations
Mean
Duration
(min)
1,078
109
80
24
69
79
<1
1,440
%
Doing
99
33
32
35
83
57
1
Mean
Duration
for Doers
(min)
1,086
330
251
69
83
139
37
Median
Duration
for Doers
(min)
1,110
325
144
50
60
105
30
Maximum
Duration for
Doers
(min)
1,440
1,260
1,440
475
1,111
1,440
90
Detailed Location with Highest
Avg. Time
Home - bedroom
School or daycare facility
Friend's/other's house - bedroom
Shopping mall
Traveling in car
Park, playground
--
Source: Wiley etal., 1991.
9-26
-------
Table 9-12. Mean Time Children Spent in Six Location Categories Grouped by Age and Gender
Location Category
Home
School/Childcare
Friend's/Other's House
Stores, Restaurants,
Shopping Places
In-transit
Other Locations
Don't Know/Not Coded
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)
Mean Duration (minutes/day) - BOYS
birth
to 1
month
938
0
418
0
77
7
0
3
lto<3
months
1295
1
40
14
51
40
0
7
3to<6
months
1164
26
127
21
69
33
0
15
6to<12
months
1189
53
63
36
63
36
0
31
lto<2
years
1177
73
54
29
56
52
0
54
2to<3
years
1161
86
69
22
61
41
0
62
3to<6
years
1102
79
89
24
67
78
0
151
6to
-------
Table 9-13. Mean Time Children Spent in Six Location Categories Grouped by Season and Region
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)
Mean Duration (minutes/day)
Season
Winter
(Jan-Mar)
1,091
119
69
22
75
63
<1
1,439
318
Spring
(Apr-June)
1,042
141
75
21
75
85
<1
1,439
204
Summer
(July-Sept)
1,097
52
108
30
60
93
<1
1,440
407
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
Region of California
So.
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
a The column totals may not sum to 1,440 due to rounding error.
Source: Wiley etal., 1991.
9-28
-------
Table 9-14. Mean Time Children Spent in Proximity to Two Potential Exposures Grouped by All Respondents, Age,
and Gender
Potential
Exposures
Gasoline Fumes
Gas Oven Fumes
Sample Sizes
(Unweighted N's)
Mean Duration (minutes/day) - BOYS
birth
to 1
month
3
0
3
lto<3
months
9
0
7
3to<6
months
0
2
15
6to<12
months
2
2
31
lto<2
years
1
1
54
2to<3
years
4
3
62
3to<6
years
2
0
151
6to
-------
Table 9-15. Mean Time Spent Indoors and Outdoors Grouped by Age
Age Groups
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 years8
All Ages
Boys
sample
size
3
7
15
31
54
62
151
239
62
624
time indoors
(mm/day)
1440
1432
1407
1322
1101
1121
1117
1145
1166
1181
time outdoors
(mm/day)
0
8
33
118
339
319
323
295
274
258
Girls
sample
size
4
10
11
23
43
50
151
225
59
576
time indoors
(mm/day)
1440
1431
1421
1280
1164
1102
1140
1183
1215
1181
time outdoors
(min/day)
0
9
19
160
276
338
300
255
225
258
"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.
Note: Indoor and outdoor minutes may not sum to 1440 due to rounding errors.
Source: EPA Analysis of source data used by Wiley et al. (1991).
9-30
-------
Table 9-16. Water and Soil Contact Exposure Factors for Children*
Event time
and
frequency
Exposure
Duration °
Water Contact
Bathingb
Central
20 min/event
1 event/day
350 days/yr
6 years
Upper
60 min/event
1 event/day
350 days/yr
6 years
Swimming
Central
Site-specific
6 years
Upper
Site-specific
6 years
Soil Contact
Central
1 event/day
days/yr is
site -specific
6 years
Upper
1 event/day
350 days/yr
6 years
"Children age range defined as 1 to 6 years
"Bathing represents baths as well as showers.
c Exposure duration is set at 6 years because this corresponds to age range addressed by these factors.
Source: U.S. EPA,, 2004
Table 9-17. Number of Showers Taken Per Day
Age (years)
Oto
-------
Table 9-18. Time (minutes) Spent Taking a Shower and Spent in the Shower Room After Taking a Shower by the
Number of Respondents
Age
Total N
Minutes per Shower
0
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61+
DK
Time (minutes) Spent Taking Showers
Oto
-------
Table 9-20. Time spent bathing, showering, and in bathroom after bathing and showering (distribution)
Time, min
Total N
0
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91+
Duration of Bath
Oto
-------
N
Percentile
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Duration of Bath
Oto
-------
Table 9-22. Range of Number of Times Washing the Hands at Specified Daily Frequencies by the Number of
Respondents
Age
Oto
-------
Table 9-24. Range of Number of Times per Day a Motor Vehicle was Started in a Garage or Carport and Started
with the Garage Door Closed
in survey
N
answering
answering
Number of Times per Day Vehicle Was Started
0
1-2
3-5
6-9
10+
DK
All Motor Vehicle Starts in Garage or Carport (number of respondents)
Oto
-------
Table 9-25. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Dirt, Grass , or Sand/Gravel
Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Dirt (number of respondents)
Age
Oto
-------
Table 9-26. Number of Minutes Spent Playing on Dirt, Sand/Gravel, or Grass (minutes/day)
N
Percentile
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Time Spent Playing on Dirt: Whole Population
Oto
-------
Table 9-27. Number of Times Swimming in a Month in Freshwater Swimming Pool by the Number of Respondents
Age
Oto
-------
Table 9-29. Time Spent Sleeping/Napping: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent sleeping/napping (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-31. Time Spent in Active Sports: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent on active sports (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent on outdoor recreation (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-35. Time Spent Bathing: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent on bathing (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-37. Time Spent at Restaurants: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent at restaurants (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-39. Time Spent on School Grounds/Playgrounds: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
N
Percentile
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Time Spent on School Grounds/Playground: Whole Population (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-40. Time Spent at Home in Kitchen: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent at home in kitchen (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-42. Time Spent at Home in Dining Room: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent at home in dining room (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-44. Time Spent at Home in Bedroom: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent at home in bedroom (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-46. Time Spent at Home in Garage: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent at home in garage (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-48. Time Spent in an Car: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent in a car (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-50. Time Spent in a Truck (Not Pickup or Van): Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent in a truck (not pickup or van) (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-52. Time Spent on a Train: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent on a train (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-54. Time Spent on a Boat: Whole Population and Doers Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent on a boat (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-56. Time Spent Inside Grocery/Convenience Stores, Other Stores, and Malls: Whole Population and Doers
Only: Percentile Values
Age
N
Min
Percentiles
1
2
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Total time spent inside grocery/convenience stores, other stores, and malls (whole population) (min/day)
Oto
-------
Table 9-58. Statistics for 24-hour Cumulative Number of Minutes Spent with Smokers Present
Category
Age (years)
Age (years)
Aae ("years')
Population Group
1-4
5-11
12-17
N
155
224
256
Mean
366.6
318.1
245.8
Std.
Dev.
324.5
314
243.6
Std.
Error
26.06
20.98
15.23
Min
5
1
1
Percentiles
5
30
25
10
25
90
105
60
50
273
190
165
75
570
475
360
90
825
775
595
95
1010
1050
774
98
1140
1210
864
99
1305
1250
1020
Max
1440
1440
1260
Source: EPA Analysis of source data used by Tsang and Klepeis (1996) (NHAPS database).
9-55
-------
Table 9-59. Gender and Age Groups
Age Group
Adolescents
Children3
Subgroup
Males
Females
Young males
Young females
Old males
Old females
Sample Size
98
85
145
124
156
160
Age Range
12-1 7 years
12-1 7 years
6-8 years
6-8 years
9-11 years
9-11 years
a Children under the age of 6 are excluded for the present study (too few responses in CARB study).
Source: Funk etal, 1998.
9-56
-------
Table 9-60. Assignment of At-Home Activities to Ventilation Levels for Children
Low
Watching child care
Night sleep
Watch Personal care
Homework
Radio use
LVuse
Records/tapes
Reading books
Reading magazines
Reading newspapers
Letters/writing
Other leisure
Homework/watch LV
Reading/LV
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
Lalking/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 LV
LV/eating
LV/something else
Reading book/eating
Read magazine/eat
Read newspaper/eat
Source: Funketal, 1998.
9-57
-------
Table 9-61. Aggregate Time Spent (minutes/day) At-Home in Activity Groups by Adolescents and Children8
Activity Group
Low
Moderate
High
-^^^Tjarticmants
Adolescents
Mean
789
197
1
43
SD
230
131
11
72
Children
Mean
823
241b
3
58
SD
153
136
17
47
a Time spent engaging in all activities embodied by Ve category (minutes/day).
b Significantly differ from adolescents (p <0.05).
c Represents time spent at-home by individuals participating in high ventilation levels (i.e. doers).
Source: Funketal., 1998.
Table 9-62. Comparison of Mean Time (minutes/day) Spent At-Home by Gender3 (Adolescents)
Activity Group
Low
Moderate
High
Male
Mean
775
181
2
SD
206
126
16
Female
Mean
804
241
0
SD
253
134
0
Source: Funketal., 1998.
Table 9-63. Comparison of Mean Time (minutes/day) Spent At-Home by Gender and Age for Children3
Activity
Group
Low
Moderate
High
High^,,,^
Males
6-8 Years
Mean
806
259
3
77
SD
134
135
17
59
9-11 Years
Mean
860
198
7
70
SD
157
111
27
54
Females
6-8 Years
Mean
828
256
1
68
SD
155
141
9
11
9-11 Years
Mean
803
247
2
30
SD
162
146
10
23
a Time spent engaging in all activities embodied by Ve category (minutes/day)
b Participants in high Ve activities (i.e. doers)
Source: Funketal., 1998.
9-58
-------
Table 9-64. Number of Person-Days/Individualsa for Children in CHAD" Database
Age Group
0 year
0-6 months
6-12 months
1 year
12- 18 months
18-24 months
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 years
1 1 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
3009/2640
California11
104
50
54
97
57
40
112
113
91
98
81
85
103
90
105
121
1200
Cincinnati0
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
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
a CHAD - Consolidated Human Activity Database is available on U.S. EPA Intranet.
b The California study referred to in this table is the Wiley 1991 study.
c The Cincinnati study referred to in this table is the Johnson 1989 study.
The number of person-days of data are the same as the number of individuals for all studies except for the Cincinnati study.
Since up to three days of activity pattern data were obtained from each participant in this study, the number of person-days of
data is approximately three times the number of individuals.
Source: Hubal et al., 2000.
9-59
-------
Table 9-65. Number of Hours Per Day Children Spend in Various Microenvironments by Age
Age (years)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Average ± Std. Dev. (Percent of Children Reporting >0 Hours in Microenvironment)
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)
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)
Source: Hubal et al., 2000.
9-60
-------
Table 9-66. Average Number of Hours Per Day Children Spend Doing Various Macroactivities While Indoors at
Home
Age
(year)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Number of hours and Percentage of Children Reporting >0 Hours for Microenvironment/macroactivity)
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)
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)
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)
Source: Hubal et al, 2000.
9-61
-------
Table 9-67. Number of Hours Per Day Children Spend in Various Microenvironments by Age - Recast Into New
Standard Age Categories
Age
Category
birth to <1
month
lto<3
months
3to<6
months
6 to <12
months
lto<2
years
2to<3
years
3to<6
years
6to
-------
Table 9-68. Number of Hours Per Day Children Spend in Various Macroactivities While Indoors at Home - Recast Into New Standard Age Categories
Age
Category
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
Eat
mean
hr/day
2.2
2.4
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
%
doing
98%
100%
100%
100%
99%
98%
99%
98%
94%
84%
Sleep or Nap
mean
hr/day
13.0
14.8
13.5
12.9
12.5
12.0
11.2
10.2
9.7
8.9
%
doing
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
98%
Shower or Bathe
mean
hr/day
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
%
doing
41%
24%
9%
11%
21%
22%
38%
54%
50%
45%
Play Games
mean
hr/day
5.0
0.7
1.3
1.1
3.2
2.6
2.5
2.0
1.8
1.9
%
doing
53%
6%
31%
30%
45%
45%
38%
28%
18%
5%
Watch
TV/Listen to
Radio
mean
hr/day
1.3
1.6
1.0
1.3
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.6
3.0
3.2
%
doing
8%
15%
21%
25%
52%
77%
86%
84%
85%
73%
Read, Write,
Homework
mean
hr/day
0.7
0.0
1.1
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.4
2.2
%
doing
2%
0%
3%
4%
13%
18%
25%
43%
45%
37%
Think, Relax,
Passive
mean
hr/day
2.7
3.5
2.5
2.5
1.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.3
%
doing
48%
79%
59%
35%
26%
30%
28%
20%
20%
24%
Source: Based on data source used by Hubal et al., 2000. (CHAD Database)
9-63
-------
Table 9-69. Number and percentage of respondents with children and those reporting outdoor playa activities in both
warm and cold weather
Source
SCS-II base
SCS-II
oversample
Total
Respond-
ents with
children
n
197
483
680
Child playersa
n
128
372
500
%
65.0
77.0
73.5
Child non players
n
69
111
180
%
35.0
23.0
26.5
Warm
weather
playerb
n
127
370
497
Cold
weather
player
n
100
290
390
Player in
both
seasons
%
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.
Source: Wong et al. (2000)
Table 9-70. Play frequency and duration for all child players (from SCS-II data)
Statistic
n
5th Percentile
50th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
Cold weather
Frequency
(d/wk)
372
1
3
7
Duration
(hrs/d)
374
1
1
4
Total
(hrs/wk)
373
1
5
20
Warm weather
Frequency
(d/wk)
488
2
7
7
Duration
(hrs/d)
479
1
3
8
Total
(hrs/wk)
480
4
20
50
Source: Wong et al. (2000)
9-64
-------
Table 9-71. Hand washing and bathing frequency for all child players (from SCS-II data)
Statistic
n
5th Percentile
50th Percentile
95th Percentile
Cold weather
Hand washing
(times/d)
329
2
4
10
Bathing
(times/wk)
388
2
7
10
Warm weather
Hand washing
(times/d)
433
2
4
12
Bathing
(times/wk)
494
3
7
14
Source: Wong et al. (2000)
Table 9-72 NHAPS and SCS-II play duration" comparison
Data Source
NHAPS
SCS-II
Mean play duration
(min/d)
Cold weather
114
102
Warm weather
109
206
Total
223
308
»testb
pO.OOOl
II.
b 2x2 Chi-square test for contingency between NHAPS and SCS-II.
Source: Wong et al. (2000)
9-65
-------
Table 9-73. NHAPS and SCS-II hand wash frequency comparison
Data
Source
NHAPS
SCS-II
NHAPS
SCS-II
Season
cold
cold
warm
warm
Percent15 reporting frequency (times/d) of:
0
3
1
3
0
1-2
18
16
18
12
3-5
51
50
51
46
6-9
17
11
15
16
10-19
7
7
7
10
20-29
1
1
2
1
30+
1
0
1
0
"Don't
know"
o
5
15
4
13
*tesf
p U.Uo
p u.uui
a Selected previous day activities in NHAPS, average day outdoor play on bare dirt or mixed grass and dirt in SCS-
II.
b Results are reported as percentage of total for clarity. Incidence data were used in statistical tests.
c 2x2 Chi-square test for contingency between NHAPS and SCS-II.
Source: Wong etal, 2000
Table 9-74. Summary of Activity Pattern Studies
Summary of Activity Patterns Studies
Study
Timmer(1985)
Robinson & Thomas (1991)
Wiley (1991)*
Tsang&Kleipeis(1996)*
Funk (1998)
Hubal (2000)*
Age Groups
(yrs)
3-5,6-8,9-11,12-
14, 15-17
12-adults
0-2,3-5,6-8,9-11
1-4,5-11,12-17
6-11,12-17
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
8,9,10,11
Sample Size
922
1,762
(California)
2,762 (national)
1,200
Varies with age
groups and
activities
768
2,640
Population
National
California and
National
California
U.S. National
California
Based on Wiley
(1991), Johnson
(1989), and Tsang
&Kleipeis(1996)
Activities
18 microenvironments
16 microenvironments
10 microenvironments
23 microenvironments
Activities grouped
into low, medium, and
high ventilation levels
Activities grouped
into indoors at home,
indoors at school,
outdoors at home,
outdoors at part, and
in vehicle
*These studies were re-analyzed by obtaining the source data and recasting it to fit the standardized age categories used in this
Handbook.
9-66
-------
Table 9-75. Summary of Mean Time Spent Indoors and Outdoors from Several Studies
Age (years)
3-5 years
6-8 years
9-11 years
12-14 years
15-17 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
1 1 years
0 to <1 year
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
llto <16 years
16 to <21 years
Time Indoors
(hours/day)1
19
20
20
20
19
24
24
23
22
18
19
19
19
19
23
22
21
21
21
21
21
Time Outdoors
(hours/day)1
2.8 (national)
2.2
1.8
1.8
1.9
0
0
1
2
6
5
5
5
5
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
Study
Timmeretal., 1985
See Table 9-3
Wiley etal., 1991
(EPA Analysis
of source data)
See Table 9-15
Tsang and Kleipeis, 1996
(EPA Analysis
of source data)
See Table 9-57
1 Mean of weekday and weekend rounded up to two significant figures, where applicable.
Standardized age groupings are shown in bold.
9-67
-------
Table 9-76. Summary of Recommended Values for Activity Factors
Type
Time Indoors (at residence)
Time Indoors (total)
Time Outdoors
Showering
Bathing
Playing on Sand/Gravel
Age Group
0 to <1 year
Ito < 2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <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
-------
Type
Playing on Grass
Playing on Dirt
Age Group
0 to <1 years
Ito < 2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <6 years
6 to
-------
Table 9-77. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
TIME SPENT INDOORS VS. OUTDOORS
Studv Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interes
Data pertinent to US
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collecti
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
Characterization of variab
Lack of bias in study desi
rating is desirable)
Measurement error
The original studies received a high level of peer review; re-analysis of sou
The studies are widely available to the public.
The reproducibility of these studies is left to question. Evidence has shown
over the past decade since the study was published, due to economic condit
developments, etc. Thus, it is assumed there would be differences in reproc
data were reanalyzed in the same manner the results are expected to be the :
The studies focused on general activity patterns.
The studies focused on the U.S. population.
Data were collected via questionnaires and interviews.
The studies were published in 1985, 1991, and 1996.
TfWiipgxmA Households were sampled 4 times during 3 month intervals from I
NHAPS: data were collected in a single telephone interview and are based <
A 24 hour or real time recall diary method was used to collect data.
Timmer: The sample population was 922 children between the ages of 3-17
size was 2,100 individuals under the age of 21.
pHpmbttidji focused on activities of children.
iM^riability was characterized by age, gender, and day of the week; location
categories for children.
^i(as^inoted were sampled during time when children were in school (acth
represented); activities in the 1980's and 1990's may be different than they
Measurement or recording error may occur since the diaries were based on
recall).
ce flatow;
High
Ihikclaliwi
ons and te
ucing thes
lame.
High
High
High
Medium
'eMeriiptc
in one day
High
yettsglid.
High
oMfidisrin*
ilktediiiiimi
ire now.
dsMdjmin
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between resea
o
J
Qtff scult to compare due to varying categories of activities and the unique a
study.
Overall Rating
High
t^Olftliiibd
Medium
3 not peer-reviewe
ies have tended to
;hnological
: results. However
December, 1981.
of activity.
MHAPS: The sani]
3 and various age
vacation time are
ost cases a 24 hou
ions found within
9-70
-------
Table 9-77 Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations (cont'd)
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
TIME SPENT SHOWERING
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interes
Data pertinent to US
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collecti
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
Characterization of variab
Lack of bias in study desi
rating is desirable)
Measurement error
The original study received high level of peer review. The re-analysis of th
standardized age categories was not peer-reviewed.
Raw data are available to the public.
Results are reproducible.
The study focused specifically focused on time spent showering.
The study focused on the U.S. general population.
The study was based on primary data.
The study was published in 1996.
)5F]p£]da1i were collected between October 1992 and September 1994.
The study used a valid methodology and approach which, in addition to 24
information on temporal conditions and demographic data such as geograp
status for various U.S. subgroups.
Study consisted of 9,386 total participants consisting of all ages; 2100 resp
this category
pTSpuiliaiwere representative of the U.S. population.
iffihe study provides a distribution on showering duration.
;5Fl(ihighdy includes distributions for showering duration. Study is based on
Measurement or recording error may occur because diaries are based on 24
;NH0WS<
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
hottigtork
lie locatioi
)MdntiLoff
High
High
shdffighrm
IMidraral
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between resea
One; the study was a national study.
xJfteffecommendation is based on the data (presented in ranges) from only c
widely accepted study. The recommended value was selected based on prc
data were presented as a range (10-20 minutes).
Overall Rating
Low
ikwMttili
fessionalji
Medium
ata to conform to 1
>, collected
and socioeconomi
s 0 to 20 years old
data.
HAPS), but it is a
dgment because tl
9-71
-------
Table 9-77. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations (cont'd)
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
SHOWER FREQUENCY
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to US
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collectk
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
Characterization of variab
Lack of bias in study desij
rating is desirable)
Measurement error
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreementbetween reseat
The original study received high level of peer review. The re-analysis oft
standardized age categories was not peer-reviewed.
Raw data are available to the public.
Results can be reproduced or methodology can be followed and evaluated
and social conditions exists.
The survey collected information on duration and frequency of showering
The data represents the U.S. population
The study was based on primary data.
The study was published in 1996.
rTfierflato were collected between October 1992 and September 1994.
The study used a valid methodology and approach which, in addition to 2<
information on temporal conditions and demographic data such as geogra]
status for various U.S. subgroups. Responses were weighted according to
The study consisted of 9,386 total participants consisting of all age groups
years old for this category.
)6pjdaiBowere based on the U.S. population.
like study provided data that varied across geographic region, race, gende
level, day of the week, seasonal conditions, and medical conditions of resj
iSthJfehis based on short term data..
Measurement or recording error may occur because diaries were based on
leNBMPS
High
proHSpd c«
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
-hoHrgtiari
ihic locatio
this demog
;N©itoksp
High
, emfigh/m
tondent.
Medium
2Midniuiirc(
One; the study was based on one, primary, national study.
dkrommendation was based on only one study.
Overall Rating
Low
Not Ranked
Medium
ata to conform to
mparable econom
s, collected
and socioeconom
aphic data.
ndents ages 0-20
nt status, educatio
ill.
Table 9-77. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations (cont'd)
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
TIME SPENT SWIMMING
Studv Elements
Level of peer review
The original study received
standardized age categories
high level of peer review. The re-analysis of th
was not peer-reviewed.
:NHLA»Sd
d ta to conform to tl
9-72
-------
Table 9-77. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations (cont'd)
Considerations
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of intere;
Data pertinent to US
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collect
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of th<
population
Characterization of varia
Lack of bias in study des
rating is desirable)
Measurement error
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreementbetween rese;
Rationale
Raw data are available to the public.
Results can be reproduced or methodology can be followed and evaluated f
and social conditions exists.
itThe survey collected information on duration and frequency of selected act
micro-environments. It only addresses time swimming at a swimming pool
The data represents the U.S. population
The study was based on primary data.
The study was published in 1996.
ofhpstatolwere collected between October 1992 and September 1994.
The study used a valid methodology and approach which, in addition to 24-
information on temporal conditions and demographic data such as geograpl
status for various U.S. subgroups. Responses were weighted according to t
The study consisted of 9,386 total participants consisting of all age groups;
old swam at least once.
Studies were based on the U.S. population.
)ilto£ study provided data that varied across geographic region, race, gender,
level, day of the week, seasonal conditions, and medical conditions of resp<
gfh^isgMy includes distributions for swimming duration. Study is based on
Measurement or recording error may occur because diaries were based on ^
Rating
High
rovHSghco
\Mcsliniatil
High
High
Medium
Medium
hoiHtijhrie
ic location
lis demogr
273Lrospon
High
emplighne:
indent..
slklddiimi
4-flfediuHK
One; the study was based on one, primary, national study.
ifiberanmendation was based on only one study.
Overall Rating
Low
Not Ranked
Medium
iparable economic
me spent in select
, collected
ind socioeconomi<
phic data.
ents aged 0-20 ye
t status, education
ata.
1.
Table 9- 77. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations (cont'd)
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
TIME SPENT PLAYING ON SAND, GRAVEL, OR GRASS
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
The original study received high level of peer review. The re-analysis of tl
standardized age categories was not peer-reviewed.
Raw data are available to the public.
Results can be reproduced or methodology can be followed and
evaluated provided comparable economic and social conditions exists.
eNHAsPSi
High
High
ata to conform to 1
9-73
-------
Table 9- 77. Confidence in Activity Patterns Recommendations (cont'd)
Considerations
Focus on factor of
interest
Data pertinent to US
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data
collection period
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of
the population
Characterization of
variability
Lack of bias in study
design (high rating is
desirable)
Measurement error
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between
researchers
Rationale
The survey collected information on duration and frequency of selected
activities and time spent in selected micro-environments.
The data represents the U.S. population.
The study was based on primary data.
The study was published in 1996.
The data were collected between October 1992 and September 1994.
The study used a valid methodology and approach which, in addition to
24-hour diaries, collected information on temporal conditions and
demographic data such as geographic location and socioeconomic status
for various U.S. subgroups. Responses were weighted according to this
demographic data.
The study consisted of 9,386 total participants consisting of all age
groups; 2100 respondents aged 0-20 years old for this category.
The studies were based on the U.S. population.
The study provided data that varied across geographic region, race,
gender, employment status, educational level, day of the week, seasonal
conditions, and medical conditions of respondent..
The study includes distributions for bathing duration. Study is based on
short-term data.
Measurement or recording error may occur because diaries were based
on 24-hour recall.
Rating
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium-
low
High
High
Medium
Medium
One; the study was based on one, primary, national study.
Recommendation was based on only one study. Recommendations
based on 50% time spent playing on grass.
Overall Rating
Low
Not
Ranked
Medium
9-74
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10. CONSUMER PRODUCTS 10-1
10.1 BACKGROUND 10-1
10.2 CONSUMER PRODUCTS USE STUDIES 10-1
10.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 10-2
10.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10 10-3
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 10-1. Consumer Products Commonly Found in Some U.S. Households3 10-4
Table 10-2. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Household Cleaning
Agents Such as Scouring Powders or Ammonia (minutes/day) 10-7
Table 10-3. Number of Minutes Spent Using Any Microwave Oven (minutes/day) 10-7
Table 10-4. Number of Respondents Using a Humidifier at Home 10-8
Table 10-5. Number of Respondents Indicating that Pesticides Were Applied by a Professional
at Home to Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies .... 10-9
Table 10-6. Number of Respondents Reporting Pesticides Applied by the Consumer at Home To
Eradicate Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies 10-9
-------
1 10. CONSUMER PRODUCTS
2
3 10.1 BACKGROUND
4 Consumer products may contain toxic or potentially toxic chemical constituents to which
5 children may be exposed as a result of their use. For example, household cleaners can contain
6 ammonia, alcohols, acids and organic solvents which may have health concerns. Potential
7 pathways of exposure to consumer products or chemicals released from consumer products
8 during use include ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact.
9 This chapter presents information on the amount of product used, frequency of use, and
10 duration of use for various consumer products typically found in households. There are limited
11 data available on consumer product use for the general population and especially for children.
12 Children can be in environments where adults use household consumer products such as
13 cleaners, solvents, and paints. As such, children can be passively exposed to chemicals in these
14 products. Table 10-1 provides a list of household consumer products that are commonly found
15 in some U.S. households (U.S. EPA, 1987). It should be noted that these are 1987 data and
16 current consumer use of some products listed may have changed (e.g., aerosol product use has
17 declined). The studies presented in the following sections represent readily available surveys for
18 which data were collected on the frequency and duration of use and amount of use of cleaning
19 products, painting products, household solvent products, cosmetic and other personal care
20 products, household equipment, pesticides, and tobacco. The reader is referred to the Exposure
21 Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997) for a more detailed presentation for use of consumer
22 products for the general population.
23
24 10.2 CONSUMER PRODUCTS USE STUDIES
25 National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS). The U. S. EPA collected
26 information for the general population on the duration and frequency of selected activities and
27 the time spent in selected microenvironments via 24-hour diaries. Over 9000 individuals from
28 all age groups in 48 contiguous states participated in NHAPS. The survey was conducted
29 between October 1992 and September 1994. Individuals were interviewed to categorize their
30 24-hour routines (diaries) and/or answer follow-up exposure questions that were related to
31 exposure events. Demographic data, including socioeconomic (gender, age, race, education,
10-1
-------
1 etc.), geographic (census region, state, etc.), and temporal (day of week, month, season) data
2 were included in the study (Tsang and Klepeis, 1996). Data were collected for a maximum of 82
3 possible microenvironments and 91 different activities.
4 As part of the survey, data were also collected on duration and frequency of use of
5 selected consumer products. Because the age categories used by the study authors do not
6 coincide with the standardized age categories used in this Handbook, the source data from
7 NHAPS were re-analyzed by EPA to generate data for the standardized age categories. These
8 data are presented in Tables 10-2 through 10-6 for age groups less than 1 year, 1 year, 2 years, 3
9 to <6 years, 6 to <11 years, 11 to <16 years, and 16 to <21 years. Data for subsets of the first
10 year of life (e.g., 1 to 2 months, 3 to 5 months, etc.) are not available. Distribution data are
11 presented for selected percentiles (where possible). Other data are presented in ranges of time
12 spent in an activity (e.g., working with or near a product being used) or ranges for the number of
13 times an activity involving a consumer product was performed. Total N denotes the number of
14 respondents for that specific activity category.
15 As discussed in previous chapters of this Handbook that used NHAPS as a data source,
16 the primary advantage of NHAPS is that the data were collected for a large number of
17 individuals and the survey was designed to be representative of the U.S. general population.
18 However, due to the wording of questions in the survey, precise data are not available for
19 consumers who spent more than 60, 120, 180, or 240 minutes (depending on the activity) using
20 some consumer products. This prevents accurate characterization of the high range of the
21 distribution and may also introduce error into the calculation of the mean.
22
23 10.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
24 Due to the large range and variation among consumer products and their exposure
25 pathways, it is not feasible to specify recommended exposure values as had been done in other
26 chapters of this handbook. The user is referred to the contents/references of this chapter and
27 Chapter 16 of the Exposure Factors Handbook to derive appropriate exposure factors.
10-2
-------
1 10.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 10
2
3
4 Tsang, A.M.; Klepeis, N.E. (1996) Results tables from a detailed analysis of the National Human Activity Pattern
5 Survey (NHAPS) response. Draft Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by
6 Lockheed Martin, Contract No. 68-W6-001, Delivery Order No. 13.
7
8 U.S. EPA (1987). Methods for assessing exposure to chemical substances - Volume 7 - Methods for assessing
9 consumer exposure to chemical substances. Washington, DC: Office of Toxic Substances. EPA/560/5-
10 85/007.
11
12 U.S. EPA (1997). Exposure Factors Handbook, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research
13 and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/P-95/002FC.
10-3
-------
Table 10-1. Consumer Products Commonly Found in Some U.S. Households*
Consumer Product Category
Cosmetics Hygiene Products
Household Furnishings
Garment Conditioning Products
Household Maintenance Products
Consumer Product
Adhesive bandages
Bath additives (liquid)
Bath additives (powder)
Cologne/perfume/aftershave
Contact lens solutions
Deodorant/antiperspirant (aerosol)
Deodorant/antiperspirant (wax and liquid)
Depilatories
Facial makeup
Fingernail cosmetics
Hair coloring/tinting products
Hair conditioning products
Hairsprays (aerosol)
Lip products
Mouthwash/breath freshener
Sanitary napkins and pads
Shampoo
Shaving creams (aerosols)
Skin creams (non-drug)
Skin oils (non-drug)
Soap (toilet bar)
Sunscreen/suntan products
Talc/body powder (non-drug)
Toothpaste
Waterless skin cleaners
Carpeting
Draperies/curtains
Rugs (area)
Shower curtains
Vinyl upholstery, furniture
Anti-static spray (aerosol)
Leather treatment (liquid and wax)
Shoe polish
Spray starch (aerosol)
Suede cleaner/polish (liquid and aerosol)
Textile water-proofing (aerosol)
Adhesive (general) (liquid)
Bleach (household) (liquid)
Bleach (see laundry)
Candles
Cat box litter
Charcoal briquets
Charcoal lighter fluid
Drain cleaner (liquid and powder)
Dishwasher detergent (powder)
Dishwashing liquid
Fabric dye (DIY)b
Fabric rinse/softener ('liauid')
10-4
-------
Table 10-1. Consumer Products Commonly Found in Some U.S. Households* (continued)
Consumer Product Category
Household Maintenance Products
(continued)
Home Building/Improvement Products (DIY)b
Consumer Product
Fabric rinse/softener (powder)
Fertilizer (garden) (liquid)
Fertilizer (garden) (powder)
Fire extinguishers (aerosol)
Floor polish/wax (liquid)
Food packaging and packaged food
Furniture polish (liquid)
Furniture polish (aerosol)
General cleaner/disinfectant (liquid)
General cleaner (powder)
General cleaner/disinfectant (aerosol and pump)
General spot/stain remover (liquid)
General spot/stain remover (aerosol and pump)
Herbicide (garden-patio) (Liquid and aerosol)
Insecticide (home and garden) (powder)
Insecticide (home and garden) (aerosol and pump)
Insect repellent (liquid and aerosol)
Laundry detergent/bleach (liquid)
Laundry detergent (powder)
Laundry pre-wash/soak (powder)
Laundry pre-wash/soak (liquid)
Laundry pre-wash/soak (aerosol and pump)
Lubricant oil (liquid)
Lubricant (aerosol)
Matches
Metal polish
Oven cleaner (aerosol)
Pesticide (home) (solid)
Pesticide (pet dip) (liquid)
Pesticide (pet) (powder)
Pesticide (pet) (aerosol)
Pesticide (pet) (collar)
Petroleum fuels (home( (liquid and aerosol)
Rug cleaner/shampoo (liquid and aerosol)
Rug deodorizer/freshener (powder)
Room deodorizer (solid)
Room deodorizer (aerosol)
Scouring pad
Toilet bowl cleaner
Toiler bowl deodorant (solid)
Water-treating chemicals (swimming pools)
Adhesives, specialty (liquid)
Ceiling tile
Caulks/sealers/fillers
Dry wall/wall board
Flooring (vinyl)
House Paint (interior) (liquid)
House Paint and Stain (exterior) (liquid)
Insulation (solid)
10-5
-------
Table 10-1. Consumer Products Commonly Found in Some U.S. Householdsa (continued)
Consumer Product Category
Consumer Product
Home Building/Improvement Products (DIY)b
(Continued)
Paint/varnish removers
Paint thinner/brush cleaners
Patching/ceiling plaster
Roofing
Refinishing products (polyurethane, varnishes, etc.)
Spray paints (home) (aerosol)
Wall paneling
Wall paper
Wall paper glue
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 subjective listing based on consumer use profiles.
DIY = Do It Yourself.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1987.
10-6
-------
Table 10-2. Number of Minutes Spent in Activities Working with or Near Household Cleaning Agents Such as
Scouring Powders or Ammonia (minutes/day)
Age
N"
Min
Percentilesb
1
0
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent in Activities Working with or Near Household Cleaning
Agents Such as Scouring Powders or Ammonia (minutes/day)
0 to <1
Ito < 2
2 to <3
3 to <6
6 to < 1 1
1 1 to < 1 6
16 to <21
o
6
5
11
21
34
41
0
5
10
0
1
0
0
-
0
1
0
0
-
0
1
0
0
-
0
2
1
0
-
0
2
1
0
-
3
3
-)
3
-
5
5
5
7
-
20
10
15
15
-
20
20
37
30
-
25
20
60
60
-
28
26
60
132
-
29
28
60
156
10
121
30
30
30
60
180
a N = doer sample size
b P ere entiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes; perc entiles were not calculated where N <1 0.
Source: EPA Analysis of source data used by Tsang and Klepeis (1996) (NHAPS database)
Table 10-3. Number of Minutes Spent Using Any Microwave Oven (minutes/day)
Age
N"
Min
Percentilesb
1
0
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Max
Time spent using any microwave oven (minutes/day)
0 to <1
Ito < 2
2 to <3
3 to <6
6 to < 1 1
11 to <16
16 to <21
0
0
0
1
54
110
137
1
0
0
0
_
-
-
-
0
0
0
_
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
_
-
-
-
5
5
5
10
11
10
_
-
-
-
15
18.3
15
_
-
-
-
20
30
34
25
30
80
_
-
-
1
30
60
121
a N = doer sample size
b Perc entiles are the percentage of doers below or equal to a given number of minutes; perc entiles were not calculated where N <1 0.
Source: EPA Analysis of source data used by Tsang and Klepeis (1996) (NHAPS database)
10-7
-------
Table 10-4. Number of Respondents Using a Humidifier at Home
Age (years)
Oto
-------
Table 10-5. Number of Respondents Indicating that Pesticides Were Applied by a Professional at Home to Eradicate
Insects, Rodents, or Other Pests at Specified Frequencies
Age (years)
Oto
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
11. BODY WEIGHT STUDIES 11-1
11.1 INTRODUCTION 11-1
11.2 BODY WEIGHT STUDIES 11-1
11.2.1 Hamill et al., 1979 11-1
11.2.2. National Center for Health Statistics, 1987 11-1
11.2.3. Burmaster and Crouch, 1997 11-2
11.2.4 U.S. EPA, 2000 11-3
11.2.5 Ogden et al., 2004 11-3
11.2.6 EPA Analysis of NHANES III Data 11-4
11.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 11-5
11.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 11 11-5
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11-1. Smoothed Percentiles of Weight (In Kg) by Sex And Age: Statistics From NCHS
And Data From Fels Research Institute, Birth to 36 Months 11-7
Table 11-2. Weight in Kilograms For Males 2 Months-19 Years of Age- Number Examined,
Mean, and Selected Percentiles, by Age Category: United States, 1976-1980a 11-8
Table 11-3. Weight in Kilograms For Females 6 Months-19 Years of Age- Number Examined,
Mean, and Selected Percentiles, by Age Category: United States, 1976-19803 11-9
Table 11-4. Statistics for Probability Plot Regression Analyses: Natural Log of Body Weights 6
Months to 20 Years of Age 11-10
Table 11-5. Body Weight Estimates (in kilograms) by Age and Gender, U.S. Population 1988-94
11-11
Table 11-6. Body Weight Estimates (in kilograms) by Age, U.S. Population 1988-94 .... 11-12
Table 11-7. Mean Body Weight (kilograms) by Age and Gender Across Multiple Surveys
11-13
Table 11-8. Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kg) Derived from NHANES III (All Children)
11-14
Table 11-9 Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kg) Derived from NHANES III (Male Children)
11-14
Table 11-10. Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kg) Derived from NHANES III (Female
Children) 11-15
Table 11-11. Summary of Recommended Values for Body Weight 11-15
Table 11-12. Confidence in Body Weight Recommendations 11-16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11-1. Weight by Age percentiles for Girls Aged Birth-36 Months 11-17
Figure 11-2. Weight by Age Percentiles for Boys Aged Birth-36 Months 11-18
Figure 11-3. Mean Body Weight Estimates, U.S. Population, 1988-94 11-19
Figure 11-4. Median Body Weights Estimates, U.S. Population, 1988-94 11-20
-------
1 11. BODY WEIGHT STUDIES
2
3 11.1 INTRODUCTION
4 The average daily dose is a dose that is typically normalized to the average body weight
5 of the exposed population. The purpose of this section is to describe key published studies on
6 body weight for children in the general U.S. population, as described in the Exposure Factors
1 Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997). Recommended values are based on the results of these studies.
8
9 11.2 BODY WEIGHT STUDIES
10 11.2.1 Hamill et al., 1979
11 A National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Task Force that included academic
12 investigators and representatives from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Nutrition
13 Surveillance Program selected, collated, integrated, and defined appropriate data sets to generate
14 growth curves for the age interval from birth to 36 months (Hamill et al., 1979). The percentile
15 curves were developed to assess the physical growth of children in the U.S. and are based on
16 accurate measurements made on large, nationally representative samples of children. Smoothed
17 percentile curves were derived for body weight by age for all children and independently for
18 boys and for girls. The data used to construct the curves were provided by the Pels Research
19 Institute, Yellow Springs, Ohio. These data came from an ongoing longitudinal study in which
20 anthropometric data from direct measurements are collected regularly from approximately 1,000
21 participants in various areas of the U.S. The NCHS used advanced statistical and computer
22 technology to generate the growth curves. Table 11-1 presents the percentiles of weight by sex
23 and age. Figures 11-1 and 11-2 present percentile values of body weight grouped by age for
24 boys and for girls, respectively. Limitations of this study are that mean body weight values were
25 not reported and the data are more than 25 years old. However, this study does provide body
26 weight data for infants less than 6 months old, which are lacking in many other studies.
27
28
29 11.2.2. National Center for Health Statistics, 1987
30 Statistics on anthropometric measurements, including body weight, for the U.S.
31 population were collected by NCHS through the second National Health and Nutrition
11-1
-------
1 Examination Survey (NHANES II). NHANES II was conducted on a nationwide probability
2 sample of 27,801 persons aged 6 months to 74 years from the civilian, noninstitutionalized
3 population of the United States. A total of 20,322 individuals in the sample were interviewed
4 and examineda response rate of 73.1 percent. The survey began in February 1976 and was
5 completed in February 1980. The sample was selected so that certain subgroups thought to be at
6 high risk of malnutrition (persons with low incomes, preschool children, and the elderly) were
7 oversampled. The estimates were weighted to reflect national population estimates. The
8 weighting was accomplished by inflating examination results for each subject by the reciprocal
9 of selection probabilities adjusted to account for those who were not examined, and-post
10 stratifying by race, age, and sex.
11 The NHANES II collected standard body measurements of sample subjects, including
12 height and weight, that were made at various times of the day and in different seasons of the
13 year. This technique was used because an individual's weight may vary between winter and
14 summer and may fluctuate with patterns of food and water intake and other daily activities
15 (NCHS, 1987). Percentile data for children, by age, are presented in Table 11-2 for males, and
16 in Table 11-3 for females.
17
18 11.2.3. Burmaster and Crouch, 1997
19 Burmaster and Crouch (1997) performed data analysis to fit normal and lognormal
20 distributions to the body weights of females and males aged 9 months to 70 years. Exposure
21 Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997) used a pre-published version of this paper. The numbers
22 reported in Table 11-4 are based on the final paper and vary slightly from those reported in the
23 Exposure Factors Handbook.
24 Data used in this analysis were from the second survey of the National Center for Health
25 Statistics, NHANES II, which included 27,801 persons 6 months to 74 years of age in the U.S.
26 (Burmaster et al., 1997). The NHANES II data had been statistically adjusted for non-response
27 and probability of selection, and stratified by age, sex, and race to reflect the entire U.S.
28 population prior to reporting. Burmaster and Crouch conducted exploratory and quantitative data
29 analyses and fit normal and lognormal distributions to percentiles of body weights of children,
30 teens, and adults as a function of age. Cumulative distribution functions were plotted for female
31 and male body weights on both linear and logarithmic scales.
11-2
-------
1 The maximum likelihood estimation was used to fit lognormal distributions to the data.
2 Linear and quadratic regression lines were fitted to the data. A number of goodness-of-fit
3 measures were conducted on data generated. The investigators found that lognormal
4 distributions give strong fits to the data for each gender across all age groups. Statistics for the
5 lognormal probability plots for children aged 9 months to 20 years are presented in Table 11-4.
6 These data can be used for further analyses of body weight distribution (i.e., application of
7 Monte Carlo analysis). The reader is referred to the original study for a more detailed
8 description.
9
10 11.2.4 U.S. EPA, 2000
11 EPA's Office of Water has estimated body weights for children by age and gender using
12 data from NHANES III, which was conducted from 1988 to 1994. NHANES III collected body
13 weight data for approximately 15,000 children between the ages of 2 months and 17 years.
14 Table 11-5 presents the body weight estimates in kilograms by age and gender. Table 11-6
15 shows the body weight estimates for infants under the age of 3 months; Figures 11-3 and 11-4
16 compare the body weights (mean and median) of males and females of various age groups,
17 respectively.
18 The limitations of these data are that the data were not available for infants under 2
19 months old, and that the data are roughly over 12 years old. With the upward trends in body
20 weight from NHANES II (1976-1980) to NHANES III, the data in Tables 11-5 and 11-6 may
21 underestimate current body weights. Adjustment factors may be needed to update the estimates
22 from 1988-1994 data to the present. However, the data are national in scope and represent the
23 general children's population.
24
25 11.2.5 Ogden et al., 2004
26 Ogden et al. (2004) analyzed trends in body weight measured by the National Health
27 Examination Surveys II and III (NHES II and III), the National Health and Nutrition
28 Examination Surveys I, II, and III (NHANES I, II, and III), and NHANES 1999-2002. The
29 surveys covered the period from 1960 to 2002. Table 11-7 presents the measured body weights
30 for various age groups as measured in NHES and NHANES. Population means were calculated
31 using sample weights to account for variation in sampling for certain subsets of the U.S.
-------
1 population. The data indicate that mean body weight has increased over the period analyzed.
2 There is some uncertainty inherent in such an analysis, however, because of changes in sampling
3 methods during the 42 year time span covered by the studies. Because this study is based on an
4 analysis of NHANES data, its limitations are the same as those for that study. However, it does
5 serve to illustrate the importance of the use of timely data when analyzing body weight.
6
7 11.2.6 EPA Analysis of NHANES III Data
8 The NHANES III, 1988-94 was conducted on a nationwide probability sample of
9 approximately 33,994 persons aged 2 months and older, of which approximately 15,000 were
10 children. The survey was designed to obtain nationally representative information on the health
11 and nutritional status of the population of the United States through interviews and direct
12 physical examinations. A number of anthropometrical measurements were taken for each
13 participant in the study, including body weight. Unit nonresponse to the household interview
14 was 14 percent, and an additional 8 percent did not participate in the physical examinations
15 (including body weight measurements).
16 Certain subpopulations were oversampled to ensure a prespecified minimum sample size
17 for each analytic domain. These oversampled subpopulations include children, older persons,
18 Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, and people living in certain geographic areas. Sample
19 data were assigned weights to account both for the disparity in sample sizes for these groups and
20 for other inadequacies in sampling, such as the presence of non-respondents. The weight for
21 each participant was calculated as the reciprocal of the participant's probability of selection, with
22 adjustments for other variabilities in sampling rates such as changes made to the sampling rates
23 at the time of data collection.
24 Using the data and the weighting factors from NHANES III, EPA calculated body weight
25 statistics for the standard age categories. Mean and percentile values were calculated using the
26 sampling weights provided for each individual in the data set. The mean value for a given group
27 was calculated using the following formula:
28
29 v
30 _ T" '" '
x= -^
31 >W,
11-4
-------
1 where:
2 x = sample mean;
3 xt = the ith observation;
4 wi = sample weight assigned to observation xt.
5
6 Percentile values were calculated by first calculating the sum of the weights for all observations
7 in a given group and multiplying this sum by the percentile of interest (e.g., multiplying by 0.25
8 to determine the 25th percentile). The observations were then ordered from least to greatest, and
9 each observation was assigned a cumulative weight, equal to its own weight plus all weights
10 listed before the observation. The first observation listed with a cumulative weight greater than
11 the value calculated for the percentile of interest was selected.
12 Table 11-8 presents the percentiles of body weight for all children by age category.
13 Tables 11-9 and 11-10 present body weight by age category for male and female children,
14 respectively.
15 Limitations of these data are that the data were not available for infants younger than 2
16 months old, and that the data are over 12 years old. As with EPA's earlier analysis of NHANES
17 II data with different age categories (U.S. EPA, 2000), the data in Tables 11-8 to 11-10 may
18 underestimate current body weights due to an observed upward trend in body weights (Ogden et
19 al., 2004). Adjustment factors may be needed to update the estimates from 1988-1994 data to
20 the present. However, the NHANES data remain the principal source of body weight data
21 collected nationwide from a large number of subjects.
22
23 11.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
24 The recommended values for body weight are summarized in Table 11-11. Table 11-12
25 presents the confidence ratings for body weight recommendations.
26 For infants (birth to 2 months), appropriate values for body weight may be selected from
27 Table 11-1. These data (percentiles only) are presented for male and female infants. For older
28 infants and children, means and percentiles may be selected from Tables 11-8 (all), 11-9 (males)
29 and 11-10 (females).
30
11-5
-------
11.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 11
3 Burmaster, D.E.; Crouch, E.A.C. (1997) Lognormal distributions for body weight as a function of age for males and
4 females in the United States, 1976-1980. Risk Anal. 17(4):499-505.
5
6 Hamill, P. V.V.; Drizd, T.A. ; Johnson, C.L.; Reed, R.B.; Roche, A. F.; Moore, W.M. (1979) Physical growth:
7 National Center for Health Statistics Percentiles. American J. Clin. Nutr. 32:607-609.
8
9 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) (1987) Anthropometric reference data and prevalence of overweight,
10 United States, 1976-80. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Series 11,
11 No. 238. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National
12 Center for Health Statistics. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 87-1688.
13
14 Ogden, C.L.; Fryar, C.D.; Carroll, M.D.; and Flegal, K.M. (2004). Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass
15 Index, United States 1960-2002. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, No. 347, October 27, 2004.
16 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center
17 for Health Statistics.
18
19 U.S. EPA (1989) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human health evaluation manual.
20 Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
21 EPA/540/1-89/002.
22
23 U.S. EPA (1997) Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development. EPA/600-
24 P-95/002F.
25
26 U.S. EPA (2000) Memorandum entitled: Bodyweight estimates on NHANES III data, revised, Contract 68-C-
27 99-242, Work Assignment 0-1 from Bob Clickner, Westat Inc. to Helen Jacobs, U.S. EPA dated
28 March 3, 2000.
29
11-6
-------
Table 11-1. Smoothed Percentiles of Weight (In Kg) by Sex And Age: Statistics From NCHS And Data From Pels
Research Institute, Birth to 36 Months
Sex and Age
Male
Birth
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
9 Months
12 Months
1 8 Months
24 Months
30 Months
36 Months
Female
Birth
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
9 Months
12 Months
1 8 Months
24 Months
30 Months
36 Months
Smoothed3 Percentile
5th
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
Weight in Kilograms
2.54
3.16
4.43
6.20
7.52
8.43
9.59
10.54
11.44
12.26
2.36
2.97
4.18
5.79
7.00
7.84
8.92
9.87
10.78
11.60
2.78
3.43
4.78
6.61
7.95
8.84
9.92
10.85
11.80
12.69
2.58
3.22
4.47
6.12
7.34
8.19
9.30
10.26
11.21
12.07
3.00
3.82
5.32
7.20
8.56
9.49
10.67
11.65
12.63
13.58
2.93
3.59
4.88
6.60
7.89
8.81
10.04
11.10
12.11
12.99
3.27
4.29
5.98
7.85
9.18
10.15
11.47
12.59
13.67
14.69
3.23
3.98
5.40
7.21
8.56
9.53
10.82
11.90
12.93
13.93
3.64
4.75
6.56
8.49
9.88
10.91
12.31
13.44
14.51
15.59
3.52
4.36
5.90
7.83
9.24
10.23
11.55
12.74
13.93
15.03
3.82
5.14
7.14
9.10
10.49
11.54
13.05
14.29
15.47
16.66
3.64
4.65
6.39
8.38
9.83
10.87
12.30
13.57
14.81
15.97
4.15
5.38
7.37
9.46
10.93
11.99
13.44
14.70
15.97
17.28
3.81
4.92
6.74
8.73
10.17
11.24
12.76
14.08
15.35
16.54
aSmoothed by cubic-spline approximation.
Source: Hamill et al. (1979).
11-7
-------
Table 11-2. Weight in Kilograms For Males 2 Months-19 Years of Age-Number Examined, Mean, and Selected Percentiles, by Age Category: United States,
1976-1980a
Age
birth to <1 monthb
1 to <2 monthsb
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
Number of
Persons
Examined
-
-
103
287
589
613
627
1556
1373
1037
890
Mean
(kg)
-
-
6.6
7.7
9.4
11.7
13.7
18.0
30.7
55.2
71.8
Percentile
5*
-
-
5.3
6.3
7.5
9.4
11.4
13.7
19.5
34.0
54.1
10th
-
-
5.5
6.6
7.9
9.8
11.8
14.6
21.1
36.5
56.6
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
50th
-
-
6.8
7.7
9.4
11.7
13.6
17.5
28.5
53.0
68.7
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
95th
-
-
8.4
9.6
11.4
14.5
16.5
24.0
48.7
84.3
101.0
Note: 1 kg = 2.2046 pounds.
"Includes clothing weight, estimated as ranging from 0.09 to 0.28 kilogram.
b No data available for infants less than two months old.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics (1987).
11-8
-------
Table 11-3. Weight in Kilograms For Females 6 Months-19 Years of Age-Number Examined, Mean, and Selected Percentiles, by Age Category: United States,
1976-1980a
Age
birth to <1 month"
1 to <2 monthsb
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
Number
of Persons
Examined
-
-
131
269
574
617
597
1658
1321
1144
1001
Mean
(kg)
-
-
6.0
7.1
8.8
11.0
13.4
18.0
30.6
53.2
62.2
Percentile
5*
-
-
4.7
5.8
7.2
9.1
10.8
13.3
19.0
34.1
46.7
10th
-
-
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.4
11.2
14.0
20.5
37.2
48.2
15th
-
-
5.2
6.1
7.7
9.6
11.6
14.5
21.3
40.4
49.7
25th
-
-
5.6
6.4
8.0
9.9
12.1
15.4
23.4
45.2
52.2
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
90th
-
-
7.3
8.4
10.4
12.9
15.6
22.6
44.3
70.6
80.8
95*
-
-
7.8
8.7
10.8
13.4
16.3
25.1
50.2
78.2
92.6
Note: 1 kg = 2.2046 pounds.
" Includes clothing weight, estimated as ranging from 0.09 to 0.28 kilogram.
b No data available for infants less than two months old.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics (1987).
11-9
-------
Table 11-4. Statistics for Probability Plot Regression Analyses: Natural Log of Body Weights 6 Months to
20 Years of Age
Age Midpoint
(yrs)
0.75
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
10.5
11.5
12.5
13.5
14.5
15.5
16.5
17.5
18.5
19.5
Best-Fit Parameters for Lognormal Distribution (kg)
Males
u2a
2.23
2.46
2.60
2.75
2.87
2.98
3.13
3.21
3.33
3.43
3.59
3.69
3.78
3.88
4.02
4.09
4.20
4.19
4.25
4.26
02b
0.132
0.119
0.120
0.114
0.133
0.138
0.145
0.151
0.181
0.165
0.195
0.252
0.224
0.215
0.181
0.159
0.168
0.167
0.159
0.154
Females
u2a
2.16
2.38
2.56
2.69
2.83
2.98
3.10
3.19
3.31
3.46
3.57
3.71
3.82
3.92
3.99
4.00
4.05
4.08
4.07
4.10
02b
0.145
0.129
0.112
0.136
0.134
0.164
0.174
0.174
0.156
0.214
0.199
0.226
0.213
0.215
0.187
0.156
0.167
0.165
0.147
0.149
au2, - Natural log mean of body weight (kg).
b o2 - Natural log standard deviation of body weight (kg).
Source: Burmaster et al. (1997).
11-10
-------
Table 11-5. Body Weight Estimates (in kilograms) by Age and Gender, U.S. Population 1988-94
Age
2-6 months
7-12 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
1 3 years
14 years
1 5 years
16 years
17 years
1 and older
1-3 years
1-14 years
1 5-44 years
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
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
Source: U.S. EPA, 2000.
11-11
-------
Table 11-6. Body Weight Estimates (in kilograms) by Age, U.S. Population 1988-94
Age
Newborn
1 Month
2 Months
3 Months
3 Months and
Younger
Sample Size
NA
NA
243
190
433
Population
NA
NA
408,837
332,823
741,660
Male and Female
Median
NA
NA
6.3
7.0
6.6
Mean
NA
NA
6.3
6.9
6.6
95% CI
NA
NA
6.1-6.4
6.7-7.1
6.4-6.7
NA = Not available.
CI = Confidence Intervals.
Source: U.S. EPA (2000).
11-12
-------
Table 11-7. Mean Body Weight (kilograms) by Age and Gender Across Multiple Surveys
Gender
and
Age
(years)
Male
o
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Female
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
NHES II, 1963-65
N
-
-
575
632
618
603
576
595
-
-
-
-
-
536
609
613
581
584
525
-
-
-
-
mean
-
-
22.0
24.7
27.8
31.2
33.7
38.2
-
-
-
-
-
21.5
24.2
27.5
31.4
35.2
39.8
-
-
-
-
std.
err.
-
-
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
NHES III, 1966-70
N
-
-
-
-
643
626
618
613
556
458
-
-
-
-
-
547
582
586
503
536
442
-
-
mean
-
-
-
-
42.9
50
56.7
61.6
64.8
68.1
-
-
-
-
-
46.6
50.5
54.2
56.5
58.1
57.6
-
-
std.
err.
-
-
-
-
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
-
-
NHANES I, 1971-74
N
298
308
304
273
179
164
152
169
184
178
200
174
174
171
169
176
124
136
272
292
281
314
176
169
152
171
197
166
177
198
184
167
171
150
141
130
mean
13.6
15.6
17.7
20.2
22.0
24.9
26.4
31.6
34.2
38.8
44.0
49.9
56.3
60.3
66.9
68.6
74.3
72.6
13.0
15.0
16.8
19.7
21.6
24.3
27.5
32.0
33.8
41.2
46.7
51.8
54.6
56.6
56.8
59.5
58.2
59.5
std.
err.
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
2
.3
.1
.3
.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.8
.0
.0
.0
0.9
.1
.6
.1
.4
NHANES II, 1976-80
N
370
421
405
393
146
150
145
141
165
153
147
165
188
180
180
183
156
150
330
367
388
369
150
154
125
154
128
143
146
155
181
144
167
134
156
158
mean
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
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
std.
err.
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
0.1
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
NHANES III, 1988-94
N
644
516
549
497
283
269
266
281
297
281
203
187
188
187
194
196
176
168
624
587
537
554
272
274
248
280
258
275
236
220
218
191
208
201
175
177
mean
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
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
std.
err.
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
0.1
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
NHANES 1999-2002
N
262
216
179
147
182
185
214
174
187
182
299
298
266
283
306
313
284
270
248
178
191
186
171
196
184
183
164
194
316
321
324
266
273
256
243
225
mean
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
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
std.
err.
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.7
0.8
.1
.3
.9
.6
.1
.4
.4
.1
.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.2
0.7
.0
.3
.1
.4
.0
.7
2
2
.5
.2
NHES = National Health Examination Survey; NHANES = National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Source: Ogden et al, 2004
11-13
-------
Table 11-8. Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kg) Derived from NHANES III (All Children)
Age
Group
2 to <3 months
3 to <5 months
6 to <11 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <5 years
6 to <11 years
11 to<16 years
16 to <21 years
N
234
556
1163
1230
1224
3214
2694
2181
1891
mean
6.3
7.4
9.1
11.4
13.5
18.0
30.6
54.2
67.0
percentiles
5th
4.8
5.9
7.3
9.1
10.9
13.5
19.2
34.0
48.0
10th
5.2
6.2
7.7
9.5
11.4
14.3
20.8
36.7
50.7
15th
5.4
6.4
7.8
9.8
11.9
14.8
21.6
39.5
52.5
25th
5.7
6.7
8.3
10.2
12.4
15.6
23.6
44.0
56.0
50th
6.3
7.4
9.1
11.3
13.4
17.4
28.8
52.0
64.1
75th
6.9
7.9
9.9
12.2
14.6
19.7
35.0
61.9
74.2
85th
7.3
8.6
10.4
12.8
15.3
21.1
40.0
68.1
80.5
90th
7.4
8.9
10.7
13.3
15.8
22.2
43.8
72.7
85.8
95th
7.8
9.4
11.2
14.0
16.3
24.5
49.2
81.4
98.3
Note: No data are available for persons less than 2 months old.
Source: EPA Analysis of NHANES III data
Table 11-9 Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kg) Derived from NHANES III (Male Children)
Age
Group
2 to <3 months
3 to <5 months
6 to <11 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <5 years
6 to <11 years
11 to<16 years
16 to <21 years
N
103
287
589
613
627
1556
1373
1037
890
mean
6.6
7.7
9.4
11.7
13.7
18.0
30.7
55.2
71.8
percentiles
5th
5.3
6.3
7.5
9.4
11.4
13.7
19.5
34.0
54.1
10th
5.5
6.6
7.9
9.8
11.8
14.6
21.1
36.5
56.6
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
50th
6.8
7.7
9.4
11.7
13.6
17.5
28.5
53.0
68.7
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
95th
8.4
9.6
11.4
14.5
16.5
24.0
48.7
84.3
101.0
Note: No data are available for persons less than 2 months old.
Source: EPA Analysis of NHANES III data
11-14
-------
Table 11-10. Mean and Percentile Body Weights (kg) Derived from NHANES III (Female Children)
Age
Group
2 to <3 months
3 to <5 months
6 to <11 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <5 years
6 to <11 years
11 to<16 years
16 to <21 years
N
131
269
574
617
597
1658
1321
1144
1001
mean
6.0
7.1
8.8
11.0
13.4
18.0
30.6
53.2
62.2
percentiles
5th
4.7
5.8
7.2
9.1
10.8
13.3
19.0
34.1
46.7
10th
5.1
5.9
7.5
9.4
11.2
14.0
20.5
37.2
48.2
15th
5.2
6.1
7.7
9.6
11.6
14.5
21.3
40.4
49.7
25th
5.6
6.4
8.0
9.9
12.1
15.4
23.4
45.2
52.2
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
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
Note: No data are available for persons less than 2 months old.
Source: EPA Analysis of NHANES III data
Table 11-11. Summary of Recommended Values for Body Weight
Population
birth to <1 month
1 to <2 months
2 to <3 months
3 to <5 months
6 to <11 months
1 to <2 years
2 to <3 years
3 to <5 years
6 to <11 years
11 to <16 years
16 to <21 years
Table Reference
See Table 11-1
See Tables 11-9 (all),
11-10 (males), and
11-11 (females)
Source
Hamilletal. (1979)
EPA analysis of
NHANES III data
11-15
-------
Table 11-12. Confidence in Body Weight Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study Elements
Level of peer review
Accessibility
Reproducibility
Focus on factor of interest
Data pertinent to US
Primary data
Currency
Adequacy of data collection
period
Validity of approach
Study size
Representativeness of the
population
Characterization of variability
Lack of bias in study design
(high rating is desirable)
Measurement error
NHANES III was the major source for central tendency and percentile
values. This analysis has not yet been published. Body weights of young
infants (0-2 months) are derived from Hamill et al. (1979), a published
study which received a high level of peer review
NHANES III and Hamill et al. (1979) are available to the public. U.S.
EPA (2000) is available upon request.
Results can be reproduced by analyzing NHANES II data, NHANES III
data, and the Pels Research Institute data.
The studies focused on body weight, the exposure factor of interest.
The data represent the U.S. population.
The primary data were generated from NHANES II and III data and Pels
studies, thus these data are secondary.
The data were collected between 1976-1980 for Hamill et al. and
NHANES II. U.S. EPA (2000) and EPA's analysis of NHANES III using
the new age groupings covered the years 1988-94. Ogden et al. (2004)
covered the years 1960-2002.
The NHANES II study included data collected over a period of 4 years.
Body weight measurements were taken at various times of the day and at
different seasons of the year. NHANES III study included data collected
over a 7-year period.
Direct body weights were measured for both studies. For NHANES II,
subgroups at risk for malnutrition were over-sampled. Weighting was
accomplished by inflating examination results for those not examined and
were stratified by race, age, and sex. The Pels data are from an ongoing
longitudinal study where the data are collected regularly.
The sample size consisted of 28,000 persons for NHANES II. Author
noted in Hamill et al. (1979) that the data set was large. NHANES III
study included 14,387 individuals under the age of 21 years.
Data collected focused on the U.S. population for both studies.
All studies characterized variability regarding age and sex. Additionally
NHANES II characterized race (for Blacks, Whites and total populations)
and sampled persons with low income.
There are no apparent biases in the study designs for NHANES II. The
study design for collecting the Pels data was not provided.
For NHANES II and III, measurement error is expected to be low because
body weights were performed in a mobile examination center using
standardized procedures and equipment. Also, measurements were taken
at various times of the day to account for weight fluctuations as a result of
recent food or water intake. The authors of Hamill etal. (1979) report
that study data are based on accurate direct measurements from an
ongoing longitudinal study.
Low for
NHANES
analysis;
High for
young
infants
High
High
High
High
Medium
High for
central
tendency;
medium for
percentiles
High
High
High
High
High
Medium-
High
High
Other Elements
Number of studies
Agreement between
researchers
There are two studies.
There is consistency among the studies.
Overall Rating
Medium
High
High
11-16
-------
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Age in Months
Figure 11-1. Weight by Age percentiles for Girls Aged Birth-36 Months
Source: Hamill et al. (1979).
11-17
2.2
-------
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Age in Months
Figure 11-2. Weight by Age Percentiles for Boys Aged Birth-36 Months
Source: Hamill et al. (1979).
I
o
a
CO
11-18
-------
male ""famate
////*////// / ///////////
* . Nfc ^ <\ n- r ^ ^ J? A*
Figure 11-3. Mean Body Weight Estimates, U.S. Population, 1988-94
Source: U.S. EPA (2000).
11-19
-------
male female
90.0
Age
Figure 11-4. Median Body Weights Estimates, U.S. Population, 1988-94
Source: U.S. EPA (2000).
11-20
------- |