Standard Operating Procedures for
Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment
February 2012
Health Effects Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
-------
Preamble
The 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) expanded EPA risk assessment requirements
under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food,
Drugs, and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA) by emphasizing protection of infants and children including
combining exposures from all potential pathways. Its directive for pesticide assessments to
provide "reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which
there is reliable information" resulted in the Agency routinely conducting both aggregate and
cumulative risk assessments. Aggregate risk assessments include all exposure pathways (i.e.,
food, drinking water, and residential non-dietary) and routes (i.e., oral, dermal, inhalation) to a
single chemical. Cumulative risk assessments include all exposure pathways (i.e., food, drinking
water, and residential) and routes (i.e., oral, dermal, inhalation) to multiple chemicals with a
common mechanism of toxicity. In response, the Agency developed a series of science policies1
which included the initial version of its Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential
Exposure Assessments (i.e., "SOPs" or "Residential SOPs") which addressed non-dietary
exposure pathways.
The SOPs were generally based on the Agency's Exposure Assessment Guidelines. The
document outlined a wide array of exposure scenarios that were intended to address all major
possible means by which individuals in the general public could be exposed to pesticides in a
residential environment (e.g., home, schools, parks, athletic fields or other publicly accessible
locations). Some notable scenarios include children playing on treated lawns or homeowners
spraying their gardens. Specifically tailored for each scenario, methods for estimating dermal,
inhalation, and non-dietary oral exposure were presented including descriptions and sources for
factors included in exposure algorithms. Due to some novel aspects and the overall
groundbreaking nature of the SOPs, they were first presented to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory
Panel (SAP) in 1997 with a follow-up review of some modifications in 1999.3
Since 1997, the SOPs have been used to assess exposure in residential settings for pesticide
regulatory decisions within the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) as required under FQPA.
This document represents the Agency's revised set of Residential SOPs and was presented to the
FIFRA SAP in 20094. In most cases, the exposure scenarios and basic algorithms remain the
same with changes made only to the algorithm inputs using more recent data sources. However,
some new scenarios have been added to this set of SOPs reflecting new products and uses and
some existing scenarios have modified exposure algorithms. In addition, appendices for each
SOP section provide extensive details on the underlying data that are recommended for the
algorithm inputs. This information can provide the basis for future probabilistic exposure
assessments.
1 http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/trac/science/
2 http://cfbub.epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid= 15263
3 http://www.epa.gov/scipolY/sap/meetings/1997/090997 mtg.htm#materials and
http://www.epa.gov/scipolv/sap/meetings/1999/092199 mtg.htm
4 http://www.epa.gov/scipolv/sap/meetings/2009/10Q609meeting.html
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
i
-------
The concept of using a "scenario-based" approach to complete exposure assessments is
longstanding and outlined in many Agency guidance documents and is consistent with federal
government risk assessment guidance (NRC, 2009). In this document, the Agency developed
scenarios which can be used to calculate all manner of possible pesticide exposures that can
occur in the general population. Quantifying human behaviors is critical for development of
pertinent exposure assessment methods and can be complex. For example, three separate
methods and sets of factors for children playing football, baseball, and soccer on fields treated
with pesticides could be used as the basis for an assessment. Instead, one broad category for
children playing on lawns is considered applicable to all potential exposure scenarios on treated
grass because the exposure metric on which it is based monitored individuals involved in a
routine that comprehensively reflected typical outdoor behaviors based on reported time-activity
data. This approach was broadly applied in the development of previous versions of the
Residential SOPs and throughout the development of this document because it reduces needed
resources and reasonably reflects typical behavior patterns. Given this premise, exposure
assessors should not view this document as a prescriptive checklist, but as a guide to performing
residential exposure assessments in conjunction with other relevant information pertinent to the
pesticide under examination.
The Residential SOPs are based on a number of intentional exposure human studies, which are
subject to ethics review pursuant to 40 CFR 26. Each of those studies has been reviewed for
ethics and is compliant with applicable ethics requirements. Additionally, as this document is
used to assess, and potentially support, proposed pesticide registrations, and much of the data
underlying the exposure factors is subject to the data protection provisions of FIFRA and the
Agency's implementing regulations, compensation may be required for reliance on certain
datasets.
To facilitate version control and tracking, the following documents the progression of the
Residential SOPs, including a detailed accounting of edits/revisions/corrections.
Dale
Docunu'iilsilion of Revisions (;is of l-'chrusirv 23. 2012)
Dec 1997
Original version
Feb 2001
• Supplemental document (ExpoSAC Policy 12), establishing revisions to:
o Transfer coefficients
o Transfer efficiency
o Area treated
o Revised breathing rates for inhalation exposure assessment
Jan 2012
• Comprehensive overhaul of 1997 and 2001 supplemental versions
Feb 2012
• Rounded body weights to 2 significant figures (e.g., 80 kg, 69 kg, etc.)
throughout entire document
• Added language regarding data requirement for surface residue (Sections 4.2.2,
8.2.2)
• Corrected page numbering in Section 7 and Appendix C
• Corrected illegible formulas throughout
• Page 8-13, corrected "E" in equation 8.7 to "DE"
2 2
• Page 7-24, corrected Box 3a from 10 |ig/cm to 15 |ig/cm
• Table 9-1: thickness of PVC tiling changed to 0.3 cm, and correspondingly
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
ii
-------
Dale
Dociimcnlnlion of Revisions (;is of l-'chriisirv 23. 2012)
corrected weight-to-surface area from 40 to 390 mg/cm2.
• Table 9-2: corrected 40 mg/cm2 to 390 mg/cm2 based on edit to PVC tiling
thickness.
• Table 10-2: corrected airless sprayer amount handled to "3 five gallon cans"
• Table 10-3: corrected paint can amount handled to "3 five gallon cans" for
airless sprayer
• Equation 10.2: corrected units mg/kg-day to mg/day
• Added new equation 6.2 describing calculation of application rate (lb ai/day)
rd
• Table 6-2: removed gray fill from 3 row
• Added "Documentation of Revisions" to preamble
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
iii
-------
Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction 1-1
1.1 General Principles of Exposure Assessment 1-2
1.2 Guidance on Residential Pesticide Usage 1-3
1.3 Residential Exposure Assessment Guidance 1-5
1.3.1 Potentially Exposed and Index Lifestages 1-6
1.3.2 Durations of Exposure 1-7
1.3.3 Handler Exposure 1-9
1.3.4 Post-application Exposure 1-11
1.3.5 Combining Exposure Scenarios 1-12
1.3.6 Exposure Uncertainty and Characterization 1-13
1.3.7 Ethical Considerations of Human Exposure Data 1-14
1.3.8 Deterministic Exposure Assessment Methodology 1-14
Section 2 Universal Exposure Factors 2-1
2.1 Body Weight 2-1
2.2 Inhalation Rates 2-2
2.3 Body Surface Area 2-2
2.4 Fraction Hand Surface Area Mouthed (FM) 2-4
2.5 Surface Area of Object Mouthed (SAM0) 2-5
2.6 Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva (SE) 2-5
2.7 Life Expectancy Averaging Time 2-5
Section 3 Lawns/Turf 3-1
3.1 Handler Exposure Assessment 3-2
3.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment 3-7
3.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment 3-7
3.2.2 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment: Physical Activities on Turf 3-7
3.2.3 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Hand-to-Mouth 3-14
3.2.4 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Object-to-Mouth.... 3-18
3.2.5 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Incidental Soil
Ingestion 3-22
3.2.6 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Episodic Granular
Ingestion 3-24
3.2.7 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment: Mowing 3-26
3.2.8 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment: Golfing 3-30
3.2.9 Combining Post-application Scenarios 3-35
Section 4 Gardens and Trees 4-1
4.1 Handler Exposure Assessment 4-2
4.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment 4-7
4.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment 4-8
4.2.2 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment 4-8
4.2.3 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment 4-18
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
iv
-------
4.2.4 Combining Post-application Scenarios 4-18
Section 5 Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems 5-1
5.1 Outdoor Aerosol Space Sprays (OASS) 5-1
5.1.1 Handler Exposure Assessment 5-1
5.1.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment 5-5
5.1.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment 5-5
5.1.2.2 Post-application Dermal and Non-dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment 5-11
5.1.2.3 Combining Post-application Scenarios 5-13
5.2 Candles, Coils, Torches & Mats (CCTM) 5-14
5.2.1 Handler Exposure Assessment 5-14
5.2.2 Post-Application Exposure Assessment 5-14
5.2.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment 5-15
5.2.2.2 Post-application Dermal and Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment 5-20
5.2.2.3 Combining Post-application Scenarios 5-21
5.3 Outdoor Residential Misting Systems (ORMS) 5-21
5.3.1 Handler Exposure Assessment 5-21
5.3.2 Post-Application Exposure Assessment 5-25
5.3.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment 5-25
5.3.2.2 Post-application Dermal and Non-dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment 5-33
5.3.2.3 Combining Post-application Scenarios 5-36
5.4 Animal Barn Misting Systems 5-36
5.4.1 Handler Exposure Assessment 5-37
5.4.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment 5-40
5.4.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment 5-41
5.4.2.2 Post-application Dermal and Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment 5-46
5.4.2.3 Combining Post-application Scenarios 5-49
Section 6 Insect Repellents 6-1
6.1 Handler Exposure Assessment 6-1
6.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment 6-4
6.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment 6-5
6.2.2 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment 6-5
6.2.3 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Hand-to-Mouth 6-10
6.2.4 Combining Post-application Scenarios 6-14
Section 7 Indoor Environments 7-1
7.1 Handler Exposure Assessment 7-3
7.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment 7-7
7.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment 7-8
7.2.1.1 Indoor Foggers 7-9
7.2.1.2 Indoor Spray Applications 7-10
7.2.1.3 Termiticide Applications (Foundation and Soil Injection) 7-15
7.2.2 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment 7-22
7.2.2.1 Post-Application Dermal Exposure Algorithm (hard surfaces and carpets) 7-22
7.2.2.2 Post-Application Dermal Exposure Algorithm (mattresses) 7-35
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
v
-------
7.2.3 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Hand-to-Mouth 7-39
7.2.4 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Object-to-Mouth... 7-43
7.2.5 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Dust Ingestion 7-48
7.2.6 Combining Post-application Scenarios 7-49
Section 8 Treated Pets 8-1
8.1 Handler Exposure Assessment 8-2
8.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment 8-5
8.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment 8-5
8.2.2 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment 8-5
8.2.3 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Hand-to-Mouth 8-12
8.2.4 Combining Post-application Scenarios 8-16
Section 9 Impregnated Materials 9-1
9.1 Handler Exposure Assessment 9-2
9.2 Post-Application Exposure Assessment 9-2
9.2.1 Post-Application Inhalation Exposure Assessment 9-2
9.2.2 Post-Application Surface Residue Concentration 9-2
9.2.3 Post-Application Dermal Exposure Assessment 9-4
9.2.4 Post-Application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Object-to-Mouth
(Textiles Only) 9-9
9.2.5 Post-Application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure: Hand-to-Mouth (Carpets,
Flooring, and Hard Surfaces Only) 9-12
9.2.6 Combining Post-application Scenarios 9-16
Section 10 Treated Paints & Preservatives 10-1
10.1 Residential Handler Exposure Assessment 10-1
10.2 Post-Application Exposure Assessment 10-5
10.2.1 Post-Application Dermal Exposure Assessment 10-6
10.2.2 Post-Application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Hand-to-Mouth.... 10-8
10.2.3 Post-Application Inhalation Exposure Assessment 10-12
Section 11 References 11-1
Appendix A Health Effects Division Residential Standard Operating Procedures
"Index Lifestage" White Paper A-l
Appendix B Supporting Data Analysis and Documentation for Universal
Exposure Factors for Residential Exposure Assessment B-l
B. 1 Generic Estimates of Fraction Hand Surface Area Mouthed B-l
B.2 Generic Estimates of Object Surface Area Mouthed B-8
B.3 Generic Estimates of Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva B-9
Appendix C Supporting Data Analysis and Documentation for Residential
Handler Exposure Assessment C-l
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
vi
-------
C. 1 Summary of Exposure Data Used to Generate Residential Unit Exposures C-l
C.2 Exposure Factors Used to Calculate Amount of Active Ingredient Handled C-l 51
C.2.1 Gardens and Trees C-151
C.2.1.1 Garden Size C-151
C.2.1.2 Hose-end Sprayer Application Volumes C-152
Appendix D Supporting Data Analysis and Documentation for Residential Post-
Application Exposure Assessment D-l
D.l Indoor Fogger Settling Time D-l
D.2 Background on Multi-Chamber Concentration and Exposure Model (MCCEM) D-2
D.3 Background on Well-Mixed Box Model D-6
D.3.1 Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems - Aerosol Spray Area Foggers D-6
D.3.2 Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems - Candles, Coils, Torches, and Mats (CCTM) D-9
D.3.3 Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems - Outdoor Residential Misting Systems (ORMS)D-12
D.3.4 Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems - Animal Barn Misting Systems D-l7
D.3.5 Indoor Environments - Instantaneous Release/Aerosol Applications D-23
D.3.6 Indoor Environments - Vapor Emission for Surface Sprays D-24
D.3.7 Vapor Emission for Surface-directed Sprays - Using the Saturation Concentration D-27
D.4 Selection of Air Velocity D-30
D.5 Estimates of Deposited Residue (DepR) D-31
D.5.1 Deposited Residue Based on Chemical-specific Data D-31
D.5.2 Deposited Residue Based on Application Rate D-32
D.5.3 Default residue values based on type of application D-41
D.6 Generic Estimates of Transferable Residue D-46
D.6.1 Turf D-47
D.6.2 Gardens, Trees, and "Pick-your-own" Farms D-52
D. 6.3 Indoor Surface s D -5 8
D.6.4 Treated Pets D-75
D.7 Generic Estimates of Residential Transfer Coefficients D-88
D.7.1 Turf D-88
D.7.2 Gardens, Trees, and "Pick-your-own" Farms D-96
D.7.3 Indoor Areas D-104
D.7.4 Treated Pets D-109
D. 8 Estimates for Residential Activity Duration D-115
D.8.1 Gardens, Trees, and "Pick-your-own" Farms D-l 15
D.8.2 Treated Pets D-121
D.9 Estimates of Hand-to-Mouth Events per Hour D-122
D.9.1 Outdoors - Turf D-122
D.9.2 Indoor D-l 24
D.9.3 Pets D-l 29
D. 10 Estimates of Object-to-Mouth Events per Hour D-130
D.10.1 Outdoors - Turf D-130
D.l0.2 Indoors D-l31
D.l 1 Insect Repellent Application Rates D-136
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
vii
-------
Introduction
Section 1 Introduction
The Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment (hereafter
referred to as "the SOPs" or "Residential SOPs") provide methods for assessment of pesticide
exposures unrelated to employment or dietary intake of food or water. These types of exposures
include two major scenarios: residential handler and post-application exposures. The term
"handler" refers to an individual who mixes, loads, and/or applies a pesticide. The term "post-
application" refers to exposure as a result of contact with pesticide residues in previously treated
areas.
The exposure assessment methods in this document are scenario-based and reflect homeowners
who purchase pesticides and complete their own applications as well as post-application
exposures resulting from both homeowner and professional or commercial applications in areas
that can be frequented by the general population. Prior to outlining exposure assessment
methodologies for specific scenarios (Sections 3.0 - 10.0), this document provides general
information, including:
• Section 1.1
• Section 1.2
• Section 1.3
• Section 2.0
General Principles of Exposure Assessment;
Guidance on Residential Pesticide Usage;
Residential Exposure Assessment Guidance; and
Universal Exposure Factors.
Exposure assessment methodologies are then outlined for the following major residential
scenarios:
Secti
Secti
Secti
Secti
Secti
Secti
Secti
on 3.0
on 4.0
on 5.0
on 6.0
on 7.0
on 8.0
on 9.0
Lawns and Turf;
Gardens and Trees;
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems;
Insect Repellents;
Indoor Environments;
Treated Pets;
Impregnated Materials; and
Section 10.0: Treated Paints and Preservatives.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-1
-------
Introduction
1.1 General Principles of Exposure Assessment
Exposure assessment is the process by which: (1) potentially exposed populations are identified;
(2) potential pathways of exposure are identified; and (3) potential doses are quantified. As
indicated above, the populations considered in these SOPs are those individuals who are
potentially exposed to pesticides in non-occupational or residential settings (e.g., homes, parks,
schools, athletic fields or any other area frequented by the general public). Exposures to
pesticides may occur from applying pesticides or from being in areas previously treated with
pesticides and contacting residues through oral, inhalation, or dermal routes.
Planning, Scoping, and Problem Formulation
It is important to adequately prepare prior to the initiation of a risk assessment and to clearly
define the limitations of an assessment as recently described by the National Academy of
Science (NRC, 2009). In Science and Decisions, much more detailed information is available
that describes these processes in detail. For assessments completed using these SOPs planning
and scoping are important because it ensures that assessors clearly identify the information that
will be used as the basis for an assessment, what specific types of exposure patterns will be
considered, what durations of exposure will be considered, and what potentially impacted
populations will be evaluated. A problem formulation exercise is important for assessors using
these SOPs because it will clearly assist them in defining which methods will be used to evaluate
particular exposure patterns and how data, if available, should be incorporated into the process.
It will also help in the ultimate characterization of the resulting risk estimates because the
process will aid in developing a more thorough understanding of the issues that should be
considered with the interpretation of the data, methods, and results of a particular assessment.
Calculation of Exposure
Exposure is commonly defined as contact of visible external physical boundaries (i.e., mouth,
nostrils, and skin) with a chemical agent (U.S. EPA, 1992). As described in the Guidelines for
Exposure Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992), exposure is dependent upon the intensity, frequency,
and duration of contact. The intensity of contact is typically expressed in terms of the
concentration of contaminant per unit mass or volume (i.e., jug/g, |ig/L, mg/m3, ppm, etc.) in the
medium to which humans are exposed (U.S. EPA, 1992). Exposure can be calculated as follows:
E = C * CR (11)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
2 3
C = contaminant concentration in the media (mg/cm ; mg/m , mg/g); and
CR = contact rate with that media (cm2/day; m /day; gm/day).
Calculation of Absorbed Dose
Dose refers to the amount of chemical to which individuals are exposed that crosses the external
boundary. Dose is dependent upon contaminant concentration and the rate of intake (i.e.,
inhalation or ingestion) or uptake (i.e., dermal absorption) and may be normalized to body
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-2
-------
Introduction
weight as a function of time (i.e., mg/kg-day). Daily dose is the amount of chemical that could
be ingested, inhaled, or deposited upon the skin per day (U.S. EPA, 1992) and can be calculated
as follows:
d_e*af
BW (12)
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Exposure/Dose Amortization
An accurate estimate of exposure over the course of weeks, years or a lifetime is difficult to
predict as exposure likely differs from one day to the next due to product-specific application
regimens, residue dissipation, human behavior and activity patterns, and the extent to which an
individual's exposure varies due to behavior changes. Approaches for amortizing dose over
various exposure durations are explained in more detail in Section 1.3; however an example
would be amortization of an individual's daily dose over their lifetime necessary for calculating
exposures for cancer risk assessments. This amortized dose is known as the lifetime average
daily dose (LADD) and it can be calculated as follows:
r\ *T7p
LADD =
AT*CF (1.3)
where:
LADD = lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day);
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
EF = exposure frequency (i.e., frequency of product use) (days/year);
ET = exposure time (years);
AT = averaging time (i.e., life expectancy) (years); and
CF = conversion factor (365 days/year).
1.2 Guidance on Residential Pesticide Usage
Prior to conducting a residential exposure assessment, all end-use product labels for the active
ingredient under consideration should be researched to capture the information discussed below
in order to define the overall scope of the assessment as well as specific exposure scenarios to
consider. Additional information such as sales information or pest control extension agents can
be considered as well.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-3
-------
Introduction
Potential Use in Residential Settings
Assessors should assume that a product may be used at residential sites or used by homeowners
unless specific labeling statements indicate otherwise. Each SOP section provides examples of
such labeling language. Additionally, restricted-use product (RUP) classification indicates that
the product cannot be bought or applied by homeowners (i.e., no residential handler
exposure/risk assessment required), but it may be applied by commercial applicators to
residential sites; therefore, a post-application risk assessment may be required.
Formulation Type
The label will list the type of formulation as part of, or associated with, the brand name.
Formulation type is important in an exposure assessment because different formulations can lead
to higher or lower exposures for handlers as well as having different levels of surface residue
transfer in post-application exposure scenarios. Examples of common residential formulations
are as follows:
• Liquid formulations (liquid formulations typically have a statement listing the number of
pounds active ingredient contained in a gallon of the liquid formulated product)
o Emulsifiable concentrates (EC)
o Soluble concentrates (SC)
o Liquids (L)
o Microencapsulated (ME)
• Solid Formulations
o Dusts
o Granules (G)
o Water dispersible granules/dry flowable (WDG/DF)
o Wettable Powder (WP)
• Other
o Bait stations
o Water soluble bags (WSB)
o Aerosol cans
o Trigger-pump sprayers
Use directions such as mixing/loading instructions, application equipment and application rate
terminology may also indicate the formulation if it is not explicitly stated on the label. For
example, solid products are typically measured in dry volume (e.g., ounces) and liquid products
are typically measured in wet volume (e.g., pints, quarts, gallons, etc.).
Possible Methods of Application
Use directions often specify the methods of application for a product either by prohibiting
specific application techniques (e.g., "do not apply in any type of irrigation equipment" or "spot
treatment only") or by listing the application equipment to be used. Handler assessments should
be performed for all equipment types applicable to the product and its application sites unless a
specific piece of equipment is prohibited on the labeling or is obviously incompatible with the
formulation, use directions, or the intended setting where the pesticide is to be used.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-4
-------
Introduction
Maximum Application Rates
Determine the maximum label-permitted application rate for each use site by comparing the
directions for each use listed on the label. This is important because exposure assessments must
consider the legal maximum application rates in order to account for those individuals who use
pesticides at the highest rates allowable under the law. Label-specified lower rates or pest-
specific rates should be noted as well if used in the assessment, and can provide valuable
information for risk managers to consider during the regulatory decision-making process. Often
there are multiple instructions with widely varying use rates because there are many uses
associated with one label (e.g., indoor/outdoor use, types of pests, application timing, etc.) -
these broad ranges of use should be addressed. Maximum rates also may vary by formulation, so
the maximum rate for each formulation must be determined.
Use Frequency
Determine the number of applications per year or season and the re-treatment interval, typically
estimated based on label directions for frequency of product application. Typical statements
include "apply at 7-day intervals while pests are present," "apply in early spring before first
mowing," or "apply a second spray in 3 to 5 days." Depending on the specific product, this can
inform the expected duration of exposure as well as yearly exposure frequency for estimating
lifetime exposure for cancer risk assessments. Often times, extension guidance or other
information related to pest lifecycles can inform this process.
1.3 Residential Exposure Assessment Guidance
Prior to conducting a residential pesticide exposure assessment, the following should be
considered:
(1) various products containing the pesticide,
(2) products' use patterns,
(3) application methods and equipment,
(4) expected exposed populations (e.g., adults for handler activities and adults and
children for post-application activities),
(5) expected routes of exposure (e.g., dermal, inhalation, oral), and
(6) expected durations of exposure for the pesticide being assessed.
This section builds on the general exposure assessment concepts and basic use information
presented in Section 1.1 and 1.2 above. The intent is to provide more specific guidance on the
issues that should be addressed in the development of a residential pesticide exposure
assessment. Section 1.3.1: Potentially Exposed and Index Lifestages describes the various
populations potentially exposed to pesticides in residential settings and how to select index
lifestages used in exposure assessment to encompass exposure and risks for all potentially
exposed populations. Section 1.3.2: Durations of Exposure addresses issues related to how
exposure patterns associated with the use of a pesticide, which can range from a single exposure
event through a lifetime, should be reconciled with its toxicological characteristics. Section
1.3.3: Handler Exposure and Section 1.3.4: Post-application Exposure describe special
considerations for homeowners that apply pesticides and for those exposed while engaging in
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-5
-------
Introduction
activities in areas previously treated with pesticides. Section 1.3.5: Combining Exposure
Scenarios discusses the issues associated with the development of exposure patterns which
account for combinations of behaviors which contribute to overall exposure to a pesticide.
Section 1.3.6: Exposure Uncertainty and Characterization introduces the concept of
uncertainty and how to interpret its effect on residential exposure estimates. Section 1.3.7:
Considerations for Use of Exposure Data describes issues surrounding Agency regulations
with respect to research with human subjects. Section 1.3.8: Deterministic Exposure
Assessment Methodology describes the Agency's approach of using point estimate inputs in
exposure algorithms as well as inclusion of distributional data analysis for use in more complex
probabilistic methods should they be warranted.
1.3.1 Potentially Exposed and Index Lifestages
In the beginning phase of an exposure and risk assessment, exposure assessors must first identify
the relevant lifestages for each exposure scenario (i.e., adults, children 1 < 2 years old, children 3
< 6 years old, etc.). A lifestage can be thought of as a distinct period during development of a
child, for example, where they have certain physical characteristics and also display discrete
behaviors and cognitive abilities. In most cases, individuals in multiple lifestages could be
potentially exposed within a particular exposure scenario. To simplify the exposure and risk
assessment process, an exposure assessor generally focuses the exposure assessment towards the
lifestage (or lifestages) of highest concern due to unique behavioral characteristics that may lead
to higher levels of exposure. This "index lifestage" approach utilizes quantitative assessments of
the index lifestage to protect for the exposures and risks for all potentially exposed lifestages.
This approach simplifies and streamlines the assessment process and allows risk managers to
focus on the area(s) of highest concern.
The Agency has analyzed the index lifestage issue using both quantitative (e.g., exposure
assessments) and qualitative (e.g., exposure and activity data) considerations. The analysis
focuses on four specific child lifestages as defined in the Agency's Guidance on Selecting Age
Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures for Environmental Contaminants5:
children 6 < 12 months old, children 1 < 2 years old, children 2 < 3 years old, and children 3 < 6
years old. While children younger than 6 months may potentially have exposure in the
residential setting, it is believed that exposure for children older than 6 months will be
equivalent, if not greater, due to behavioral and anatomical/physiological development;
therefore, the focus of the quantitative assessment was on children older than 6 months. This
analysis is presented in full in Appendix A.
Based on the combined quantitative and qualitative analysis of the index lifestage issue, the
Agency has determined that the children 1 < 2 years old lifestage represents the most appropriate
index lifestage for children for most of the individual SOPs. There are some exceptions to this
selection within this document. For example, in some of the individual SOPs, selecting some of
the younger lifestages (e.g., the 1 < 2 year old lifestage in animal barns) is inappropriate because
children in that age range are not expected to engage in the activities represented in the scenario.
5 http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/guidance-on-selecting-age-groups.htm
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-6
-------
Introduction
Any exceptions with regards to the index lifestage will be clearly presented and explained in the
individual SOP.
In addition to the children 1 < 2 years old lifestage, the adult lifestage should also be consistently
assessed for all SOPs and exposure routes with the exception of non-dietary ingestion exposure.
Adults typically do not have the highest calculated body burden, but the adult lifestage does
represent a major proportion of the exposed population and some exposure patterns, like
pesticide applications, are uniquely associated with adult behaviors.
1.3.2 Durations of Exposure
Depending on the type of pesticide (i.e., insecticide, fungicide, etc.) and its use profile (i.e.,
application regimen) as well as behavioral/activity patterns and exposure pathways, the potential
exists for individuals to experience exposure over a variety of exposure durations. Exposure can
be on the order of one day, intermittently over multiple days, months, years or a lifetime, or
continually over multiple days, months, years or a lifetime. The following should be considered
in conjunction with the duration of exposure for a particular pesticide:
• Use Pattern: The application frequency, pests of concern, and regional differences
impact use patterns. For example, more routine (i.e., repeated) treatments might occur in
consistently warmer, southern areas of the country where there is more constant pest
pressure over the course of a year.
• Environmental Persistence: The extent to which pesticide residues persist in the
environment can determine the frequency and extent of exposure. For example, if a lawn
is treated and the pesticide dissipates rapidly there is less chance of a sustained exposure
for children playing on that lawn compared to a pesticide where residues slowly dissipate.
• Biological Persistence: The route of exposure, distribution, metabolism, and excretion
of a pesticide should also be considered in conjunction with the available toxicological
database. For example, if exposure is frequent but the pesticide is rapidly excreted and
exposed individuals recover quickly from the toxicological effect continual exposure
durations may not be germaine to risk assessment. Conversely, if applications are
infrequent but the pesticide is slowly eliminated from the body then continual exposure
would likely need further or more detailed consideration.
• Toxicity Endpoint Reconciliation: Toxicology studies are conducted using protocols
which are designed to mimic various exposure patterns that can range from a one-time
exposure event to a lifetime of expected exposures. It is important that the selection of a
toxic endpoint be closely matched with an expected pesticide exposure pattern to yield
more accurate estimates of risk. In cases where this is not possible, assessors should
acknowledge the issue and describe how this can impact the interpretation of calculated
risk estimates.
Due to standard pesticide use patterns and toxicity information typically available, exposure
durations are summarized as short-term (i.e., up to 30 days), intermediate-term (i.e., 1-6 months),
long-term (i.e., greater than 6 months), and lifetime (for assessing cancer risk). For the purposes
of residential pesticide exposure assessment, the following is a general description of each
category.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-7
-------
Introduction
Short-term Exposure (up to 30 days)
Exposure up to one month can range from continual pesticide exposure or a series of intermittent
exposures over the course of one month. Though most residential handlers are not expected to
re-treat the same sites repeatedly day after day, a short-term average exposure should be
estimated in a residential handler assessment. Post-application exposure can be reasonably
characterized as short-term as well. For example, it is not unreasonable to assume a child would
play on a treated home lawn for a number of consecutive days and thus could be continually
exposed to residues resulting from a previous pesticide treatment. Short-term post-application
exposures can be refined by accounting for residue dissipation and re-treatment intervals. For
instance, if a product can be applied to residential lawns twice a year at 14 day intervals, this
could be accounted for in the calculation of transferable residues for short-term post-application
assessments. If residential handler or post-application exposure fits this pattern, exposure over
this time period should be compared with toxicity studies of comparable duration to assess risk.
Intermediate-term Exposure (1-6 months)
Exposure over the course of 1-6 months can range from continual pesticide exposure or a series
of intermittent exposures over the course of 1-6 months. Intermediate-term residential handler
assessments are generally not required because individuals are not expected to re-treat the same
sites repeatedly day after day for this duration, nor are a large number of pesticide applications
resulting in intermittent exposures expected over this duration. Residential post-application
exposure could, however, be characterized as intermediate-term. Additionally, as in short-term
assessments, residue dissipation and re-treatment intervals should be considered in a refined
assessment. If residential handler or post-application exposure fits this pattern, exposure over
this time period should be compared with toxicity studies of comparable duration to assess risk.
Long-term Exposure (greater than 6 months)
Exposure for more than 6 months can range from continual pesticide exposure or a series of
intermittent exposures for more than 6 months. Long-term residential handler assessments are
not required because individuals are not expected to re-treat the same sites repeatedly day after
day for this duration, nor are a large number of pesticide applications resulting in intermittent
exposures expected over this duration. For a limited number of situations, however, post-
application exposure could be characterized as long-term (e.g., post-application indoor inhalation
following structural termiticide applications). Additionally, as in short- and intermediate-term
assessments, residue dissipation and re-treatment intervals should be considered in a refined
assessment. If residential handler or post-application exposure fits this pattern, an average
exposure estimate over this time period should be compared with toxicity studies of comparable
duration to assess risk.
Lifetime Exposure
Calculation of pesticide exposure over an individual's lifetime is applicable only when the active
ingredient under consideration is a carcinogen and is calculated by considering multiple days of
exposure over many years. Cancer risk depends on the extent to which a person might be
exposed (i.e., over a certain duration and to a certain quantity of the pesticide) over the course of
their lifetime. Lifetime exposure is calculated using the lifetime average daily dose equation
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-8
-------
Introduction
shown in Equation 1.3 of Section 1.1 and includes two factors that are generic (i.e., non-chemical
specific) to cancer assessments: (1) the averaging time or lifetime and (2) the exposure time.
Residential handler cancer assessments should include typical application rates, if available (if
not, available maximum rates should be used) and amounts handled. Additionally, absent
reliable information, an assumption must be made as to the yearly exposure frequency (i.e., the
number of times that an individual applies the pesticide per year. The exposure frequency will
typically differ depending on the type of pesticide (e.g., fungicide, herbicide, insecticide) and
could potentially differ across formulations.
In the past, cancer risk assessments have assumed that children are no more sensitive than adults
to carcinogens (i.e., no adjustment was made to children's exposure estimates in calculating a
cumulative lifetime exposure). More recently, the Agency's "Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment" (U.S. EPA, 2005) and "Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from
Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens" (U.S. EPA, 2005) proposed age-dependent adjustment
factors to be applied to children's exposure. A lOx factor (exposure multiplier) is applied to
exposure incurred from birth to 2 years and a 3x factor is applied to exposure incurred from 2
years to 16 years. No factor is applied to children age 16 years and beyond. These age-
dependent factors are applied only to carcinogens shown to have a mutagenic mode of action. In
general, most carcinogenic pesticides have not been shown to act through a mutagenic mode of
action and thus this SOP document does not include further discussion of these adjustment
factors. Any pesticide found to be a carcinogen acting through a mutagenic mode of action will
be evaluated on a case by case basis and such an assessment should follow the Agency's 2005
guidance.
1.3.3 Handler Exposure
Handler exposure refers to an exposure scenario in which an adult is exposed during mixing,
loading, and applying a pesticide. Residential handler exposure assessments estimate dermal and
inhalation exposures for individuals using pesticides in and around their homes. Some key
assumptions for residential handler assessments include:
• Residential handlers are assumed to be wearing shorts and short-sleeve shirts, shoes, and
socks. This assumption differs from occupational handler assessments which assume
handlers are wearing at least long pants, long-sleeved shirts, shoes, and socks.
• Personal protective equipment (PPE) is not considered a mitigation option for residential
handlers because users are not trained and compliance would not be expected.
• Pesticides are assumed to be applied only by adults. The assessment methods account for
children 16 years and older who may also perform applications, thus for the purposes of
this document 16 year olds may be grouped with adults.
• All applicable application methods should be assessed unless prohibited by the product
label.
Handler exposure can be estimated in the absence of chemical-specific exposure monitoring data
with the following information:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-9
-------
Introduction
• Application site (e.g., lawns, gardens, kitchen baseboards, etc.);
• Formulation type (e.g., liquid, granule, etc.);
• Application equipment (e.g., aerosol can, sprinkler can, hose-end sprayer, etc.); and
• Application rate (e.g., lb ai/ft, lb ai/gal).
Given the information described above - application equipment, formulation, etc. - dermal and
inhalation handler exposure can be predicted using a factor known as the unit exposure. Unit
exposure is the ratio, for a given formulation and application equipment, of an individual's
exposure to the amount of active ingredient handled (AaiH), expressed as mass active ingredient
exposure per mass active ingredient handled (e.g., mg/lb ai). More specifically, this means that
an individual's exposure will increase by a given (and constant) amount for every "unit" increase
in the amount of active ingredient handled. It follows that the use of unit exposures assumes
proportionality between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled, such that if one
doubles the amount handled, the resulting exposure would be doubled as well.
Exposure monitoring data for individuals mixing, loading, and applying pesticides enables
derivation of unit exposure distributions for various pesticide formulations used in various
application scenarios (e.g., granule formulations applied using a rotary spreader or liquid
formulations applied via a handheld pump sprayer). These unit exposures can then be applied
generically for use in estimating dermal or inhalation exposure for any active ingredient by
estimating how much active ingredient an individual will handle using a particular piece of
application equipment.6 Appendix C references and summarizes all available handler exposure
studies from which unit exposures are derived for use in residential exposure assessment.
Each SOP section provides information for two inputs that are necessary for calculating
residential handler exposure: (1) unit exposures for each possible formulation/application
equipment combination and (2) factors for deriving the amount of active ingredient handled such
as area treated or volume used for each formulation/application equipment combination. Dermal
and/or inhalation handler exposure calculations follow the general form shown below.
E = UE * AR * A
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
UE = unit exposure (mg/lb ai);
AR = application rate (e.g., lb ai/ft2, lb ai/gal); and
A = area treated or amount handled (e.g., ft /day, gal/day).
Dermal and/or inhalation absorbed doses are calculated as:
E* AF
(1.4)
D = -
BW (1.5)
6 This topic was discussed during a 2007 FIFRA SAP. See:
http://www.epa.gov/scipolv/sap/meetings/2007/010907 mtg.htm
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-10
-------
Introduction
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
As described in Section 1.3.2 residential handlers are expected to generally experience only
short-term exposures. Intermediate- and long-term exposures are not typically expected but
should be considered with respect to regional differences and product label use directions.
Additionally, selection of exposure factor inputs is dependent on various considerations related
to the exposure duration. For residential handler exposure assessment, these considerations
include product application regimens and the extent to which an individual's exposure varies
from day-to-day.
1.3.4 Post-application Exposure
Post-application exposure refers to an exposure scenario in which an individual is exposed
through dermal, inhalation, and/or incidental oral (non-dietary ingestion) routes as a result of
being in an environment that has been previously treated with a pesticide. Post-application
dermal exposure pathways can be evaluated using estimates for surface residue (e.g., carpets,
foliage, turf, etc.), surface-to-skin residue transfer for individuals contacting treated surfaces
during certain activities, and exposure time. The measure of surface-to-skin residue transfer for
a given treated area and activity is known as the transfer coefficient (TC). Transfer coefficients
are derived from concurrent measurements of exposure and surface residue, and is the ratio of
exposure rate, measured in mass of chemical per time (e.g., |ig/hr), to residue, measured in mass
of chemical per foliar surface area (e.g., |ig/cm ). In other words, transfer coefficients are
exposure rates (e.g., mg/hr) normalized to residue (e.g., mg/cm2), with resulting units of cm2/hr.
It follows that exposure rate for a given treated area and activity can then be predicted from a
given residue using the transfer coefficient. Additionally, transfer coefficients are typically
applied genetically - that is, for any given chemical, treated area-activity transfer coefficients
(e.g., apple harvesting, playing on lawns or carpets) can be used.
Post-application inhalation exposure depends on concentrations in the air after treatment and
inhalation rates. Post-application oral exposures are based on the ingestion of residues that can
result from transfer of residues from hand-to-mouth or object-to-mouth or via direct ingestion of
residues through soil ingestion, dust ingestion, or ingestion of pesticide granules or baits.
Post-application dermal and inhalation assessments are typically conducted for a number of
lifestages (ranging from children 1 < 2 years old through adulthood) while non-dietary oral post-
application exposure assessments are typically only conducted for younger lifestages. Non-
dietary oral exposure generally consists of two "incidental" exposure pathways - exposure
resulting from children contacting treated surfaces and putting their hands in their mouth (i.e.,
"hand-to-mouth" exposure) and exposure resulting from children putting objects or other toys in
their mouth that had been in contact with treated surfaces (i.e., "object-to-mouth" exposure).
Exposure via these pathways are dependent upon the surface loading of the pesticide, transfer of
the pesticide to children's hands or objects from the treated surface, and the number of times a
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-11
-------
Introduction
child places their hands or an object in their mouth. While the basic input variables remain
unchanged, the overall methodology/algorithm to assess this exposure has been revised since
previous versions of the Residential SOPs. Working collaboratively with the Agency's Office of
Research and Development (ORD), the Residential SOPs incorporate a modified version of the
algorithm utilized in the Stochastic Human Exposure Dose Simulation (SHEDS) - Multimedia
model. Previous SOP versions assumed complete removal of hand/object residue per mouthing
contact and complete residue replenishment of the hand/object per contact with the treated
surface. The revised algorithm follows a more realistic removal/replenishment mechanism
between hand/object mouthing events, establishing a maximum amount of residue which can be
on the hand, or a maximum dermal hand loading, based on the post-application dermal exposure
estimate.7
Like residential handler assessments, residential post-application assessments differ from
occupational post-application assessments in that they assume individuals are wearing typical
clothing such as shorts and short-sleeved shirts, shoes, and socks. Additionally, when managing
occupational post-application risks the Agency typically uses an administrative control known as
a Restricted Entry Interval (REI) which precludes worker activities in a treated area until
residues dissipate to certain levels. This is not feasible in residential settings because excluding
individuals from contact with their treated lawns or pets is not practical. Therefore, residential
post-application exposure assessments need to address the potential for exposure on the day of
application (i.e., "day 0") because there is not a viable means of mitigating that type of scenario.
If applicable, each SOP section provides separate algorithms for assessing dermal, inhalation,
and oral non-dietary post-application exposures. Because both residues and their transfer to the
body are likely dependent on both the chemical and scenario (e.g., indoors vs. outdoors; smooth
surfaces vs. textured surfaces; etc.), chemical- and scenario-specific data are most reliable when
performing post-application exposure assessments. However, in the absence of such data,
generic exposure factors outlined in the scenario-specific SOPs are provided and should be used
to estimate exposure.
As described in Section 1.3.2, individuals can experience post-application exposures for all
possible exposure durations and selection of exposure factor inputs is dependent on various
considerations related to the exposure duration. For post-application exposure assessment, these
considerations include product application regimens, residue dissipation, longitudinal activity
patterns, and the extent to which exposure is expected to vary from day-to-day.
1.3.5 Combining Exposure Scenarios
Each SOP provides methods for estimating daily exposures for a number of potential scenarios
with the focus on assessment of single routes of exposure (i.e., dermal, inhalation, and non-
dietary oral exposure). However, in reality, exposures to pesticides do not impact individuals
through only dermal or oral contact and do not occur as single, isolated events, but rather as a
series of sequential or concurrent events that may overlap or be linked in time and space. Based
7 The revised incidental oral exposure algorithm was first utilized in the Agency's N-Methvl Carbamate cumulative
risk assessment.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-12
-------
Introduction
on this, risk estimates resulting from different exposure routes are combined when it is likely that
they can occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and when the toxicological effects across
different routes of exposure are the same.
There are several methods of measuring and aggregating risk. Two aggregation methods used
include the Total MOE and the Aggregate Risk Index (ARI). Arithmetically, the two approaches
are the same when the uncertainty factors (UF) are the same for all routes of exposure. When the
UF's differ by route, however, the ARI is required. Further discussion of these two approaches
and the corresponding algorithms can be found in the Agency's General Principles for
Performing Aggregate Exposure and Risk Assessments8.
To the extent that information is available, it is important for the assessor to characterize the
potential for co-occurrence as well as to characterize the assessment inputs when combining
risks from multiple scenarios. For example, it is likely that a child could experience dermal and
hand-to-mouth exposures intermittently over a particular period of time while playing on
previously treated turf. If each of those exposure scenarios is assessed using health-protective
inputs, one must consider the likelihood when combining them that those individual health-
protective exposures could reasonably co-occur at those same levels. Each scenario-specific
SOP contains a more specific discussion and explanation of what routes of exposure should be
combined.
1.3.6 Exposure Uncertainty and Characterization
A number of different types of uncertainty are present in these SOPs. Uncertainty may occur as
a result of the techniques used to estimate environmental concentrations (i.e., analytical
uncertainty), the underlying models and relationships assumed for certain types of data (e.g.,
exponential decay for surface residues), and the application of surrogate information or data for
exposure scenarios and exposure factors lacking specific information. Expected but
unquantifiable variation in daily and longitudinal exposure also introduces uncertainty. Each
scenario-specific SOP includes an exposure characterization and data quality section which
describes the uncertainties associated with that particular scenario. While these uncertainties
exist they should be addressed in the exposure assessment process to ensure that resulting risk
assessments are developed in a manner that can be considered health protective for the particular
situations being evaluated (U.S. EPA, 2002). The following discussion outlines general or
universal uncertainties that should be considered in the interpretation of all the SOPs presented in
this document.
Surrogate Exposure Data
For many scenarios, specific information is lacking and available information for another
exposure scenario is considered appropriate to use. Examples include using exposure data for
individuals applying powder formulations to assess exposure for individuals applying liquid
products or using post-application occupational field worker exposure data for home gardening
activities. Though reasonable when exposure information is unavailable, the assessment should
characterize the uncertainty and identify the data gap.
8 http://www.epa.gov/oppQ0001/trac/science/aggregate.pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-13
-------
Introduction
Exposure Data Analysis
The exposure data utilized across residential exposure assessments (e.g., handler exposure data,
post-application exposure data, etc.) are considered reasonable for the purposes of establishing
distributions and estimating exposure. The data are from actual applications using standardized
exposure sampling methodologies and laboratory analyses.
Additionally, the use of exposure data in certain ways requires assumptions with regard to
correlations or relationships between variables. For example, the underlying assumption of the
use of exposure data as unit exposures - proportionality between the amount of active ingredient
handled and exposure - is uncertain, though potentially conservative. However, as a prediction
mechanism, it is considered practical and useful for the purposes of handler exposure assessment
in a regulatory context. It provides a straightforward handler exposure calculation method and
enables risk mitigation via formulation comparisons or decreased application rates. Where
assumptions such as this are implicit, the assessment should characterize the associated
uncertainty.
Longitudinal Exposure Variation
Information detailing the extent to which various residential pesticide exposure factors vary from
day-to-day or application-to-application is largely unavailable. Therefore, if day-to-day or
application-to-application variation is not assumed to occur for short-, intermediate-, long-term
or lifetime assessments, the likelihood of this pattern should be characterized.
1.3.7 Ethical Considerations of Human Exposure Data
As described in the preamble of this document, the Residential SOPs are based on a number of
monitoring studies that involved the intentional exposure of humans to pesticides (e.g., scripted
activities by human volunteers). These studies can only be used for regulatory purposes by the
Agency if they are compliant with the requirements of 40 CFR 26. Each of the studies used in
the development of this document has been found to be compliant with these requirements.
In some cases, however, research considered throughout the process of revising the SOPs,
though germane to a particular scenario under consideration, had to be excluded from
consideration because they are not compliant with 40 CFR 26. For example, for the Lawns/Turf
SOP, there is a section (Section 3.2.8) that describes how the exposure of golfers is estimated
based on monitoring data for workers at a golf course. In this case, one of the available golfer
exposure studies (Putnam et al., 2008) did not meet 40 CFR 26 requirements and, therefore, the
data from that study were not included in the final analysis. As the Agency considers the
Residential SOPs a "living" document, if additional applicable research is identified that should
be considered, it would also be subject to review under the criteria stipulated in 40 CFR 26.
1.3.8 Deterministic Exposure Assessment Methodology
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-14
-------
Introduction
Deterministic methods are most commonly used for residential exposure assessments. In a
deterministic exposure assessment, each algorithm input is represented by a single numeric value
called a point estimate. The output of a deterministic exposure assessment, therefore, is also a
single point estimate. Exposure estimates are easily calculated using deterministic methods and
can be relatively straightforward to communicate to risk managers. As described in Section
1.3.2, due to both expected exposure patterns and available toxicity information, routine
residential exposure assessments include short-term exposures, and sometimes intermediate- and
long-term exposures. For these assessments, the Agency typically utilizes arithmetic mean
inputs coupled with chemical-specific inputs such as maximum application rates or minimum
retreatment intervals in order to yield reasonably health-protective estimates of exposure.
Even though deterministic methods are straightforward and provide a health protective estimate
of exposure, they do not provide information on the variability and uncertainty inherent in the
algorithm inputs. As a result, deterministic assessment may not provide sufficient detail on the
range of possible exposures or the level of confidence in the estimate of exposure used in risk
assessment. Probabilistic assessment is a more complex methodology that accounts for the
variability of each algorithm input. Additionally, probabilistic methods can be incorporated into
more robust sensitivity analyses, based on each algorithm input's probability distribution. These
sensitivity analyses can be useful at identifying the inputs that are the main contributors of
exposure and can be used to prioritize additional research efforts (U.S. EPA, 2001).
As the main focus for the Residential SOPs is to provide a simple, yet health protective,
approach for assessing residential exposures in the form of a deterministic method using
appropriate default point estimates, each section presents summary tables and algorithms which
correspond to this goal. The appendices for each section, however, analyze and characterize the
data for each algorithm input in the form of probability distributions, so that users can conduct a
probabilistic exposure assessment, if necessary. Other than presenting datasets in a format useful
for probabilistic methods, this document does not provide any other guidance, nor should it be
viewed as recommending probabilistic assessment as a routine approach. As described above,
for routine use by the Agency, deterministic assessments yield understandable and health-
protective exposure estimates.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
1-15
-------
Universal Exposure Factors
Section 2 Universal Exposure Factors
Many of the algorithm inputs discussed in this document are specific to a particular scenario.
However, some factors are common across the SOPs. These factors include: body weight,
inhalation rate, body surface area, hand surface area mouthed, object surface area mouthed, and
saliva extraction factor. Where applicable, each SOP refers to this section for discussion of these
universal exposure factors.
Where appropriate and when data are available, the recommended distributions are presented for
lifestages that are potentially exposed during residential pesticide use. These are represented by
the following lifestages: adults 16 < 80 years (male and female combined), children 11 < 16
years old (male and female combined), children 6 < 11 years old (male and female combined),
children 3 < 6 years old (male and female combined), children 2 < 3 years old (male and female
combined), and children 1 < 2 years old (male and female combined) respectively. The selection
of these lifestages is based, in part, on discussions presented in Guidance on Selecting Age
Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants
(U.S. EPA, 2005). Distributions for different lifestages can be used if there is a need to assess a
more specific lifestage. The following sections provide summary descriptions and recommended
exposure assessment inputs for each factor.
2.1 Body Weight
In order to estimate risk, toxicological points of departure (POD) are compared with exposure
estimates. These PODs are typically dose values calculated by normalizing by body weight (e.g.,
mg/kg). Therefore, to make an appropriate comparison to estimate risk, exposure estimates must
be expressed in a similar fashion. Table 2-1 below provides body weights for use in residential
pesticide exposure assessment taken from the EPA Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition
(U.S. EPA, 2011; Tables 8-3 through 8-5). Adult body weights are provided for various
lifestages in the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition and have been averaged across
lifestages for both the percentiles and mean body weight values in the table below.
l iihk* 2-1: Kccuiiiim'iuk'ri I'.sliniiilos lor l}od\ Weight (k»)
l.ik'sliiiic
IVrcenliles
5
10
15
25
50
75
X5
«>0
95
Mcsin
C ombined \dulls
16 < 80 years old
53
57
t»u
t>t>
77
90
99
llu
12u
80
Male Adults
16 < 80 years old
61
65
69
73
83
96
100
110
120
86
Female Adults
13 < 49 years old3
46
50
52
56
63
78
87
95
110
69
Children
11 < 16 years old
34
37
41
45
54
65
73
79
89
57
Children
6 < 11 years old
20
21
22
24
29
37
42
46
53
32
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
2-1
-------
Universal Exposure Factors
l iihlo 2-1: Recommended llsliniiilos lor l}od\ Weight (k»)
l.ilcsliigc
Percent ill's
5
10
15
25
50
75
X5
«)0
95
Mc.in
Children
3 < 6 years old
14
14
15
16
18
20
22
24
26
19
Children
2 < 3 years old
11
12
12
12
14
15
16
16
17
14
Children
1 < 2 years old
8.9
9.3
9.7
10
11
12
13
13
14
11
Children
6 < 12 months old
7.1
7.5
7.9
8.3
9.1
10
11
11
11
9.2
a. Female body weight is meant to represent average body weight of women of child-bearing age, assumed to be ages 13 through 49. Data
provided in the EFH for ages 11 through <50 were averaged to represent this lifestage.
2.2 Inhalation Rates
Inhalation rates are utilized in a number of the SOPs in this document. The inhalation rates
presented in this section are based on recommendations from the Exposure Factors Handbook
2011 Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011; Table 6-1). The values provided in the Exposure Factors
Handbook 2011 Edition are derived from multiple studies and represent average daily inhalation
rates in units of m3/day. For the purposes of this SOP, the rates were converted to m /hr and the
adult rates were averaged across the lifestages provided in the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011
Edition. Table 2-2 provides inhalation rates on a per hour basis for adults and children.
Tsihlc 2-2: Recommended l.s(im;i(os for
Diiilt liih;il;ilioii R;iles(m7hr)
l.i lest ;i lie
Mean
Children
0.23
6 < 12 months old
Children
0.33
1 < 2 years old
Children
0.37
2 < 3 years old
Children
0.42
3 < 6 years old
Children
0.50
6 < 11 years old
Children
0.63
11 < 16 years old
Adults
0.64
16 < 81 years old
2.3 Body Surface Area
Body Surface Area
Body surface area is utilized in a number of the SOPs. Table 2-3 below provides total body
surface areas taken from the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011; Tables
7-9 through 7-11). Adult surface areas are provided for various lifestages in the Exposure
Factors Handbook 2011 Edition and have been averaged across lifestages for both the percentiles
and mean surface area values in the table below.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
2-2
-------
Universal Exposure Factors
l iihlo 2-3: Ki-comim-iidcd I'.sliniiilos lor l}od\ SiiiT;iit Aiv;i Mir)
l.ik'Ndiiic
IVrmililes
5
10
15
25
50
75
X5
90
95
Mi'iin
C ombined Males I'emales
16 < 80 years old
1.54
Lb
l.t>t>
1.75
1.93
2.12
2.23
2.3
2.42
1.95
Males
16 < 80 years old
1.71
1.78
1.83
1.9
2.05
2.21
2.31
2.38
2.49
2.07
Female Adults
13 < 49 years old3
1.42
1.48
1.53
1.59
1.74
1.90
2.04
2.12
2.22
1.77
Children
11 < 16 years old
1.19
1.25
1.31
1.40
1.57
1.75
1.86
1.94
2.06
1.59
Children
6 < 11 years old
0.81
0.85
0.88
0.93
1.05
1.21
1.31
1.36
1.48
1.08
Children
3 < 6 years old
0.61
0.64
0.66
0.68
0.74
0.81
0.85
0.89
0.95
0.76
Children
2 < 3 years old
0.52
0.54
0.55
0.57
0.61
0.64
0.67
0.68
0.70
0.61
Children
1 < 2 years old
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.49
0.53
0.56
0.58
0.59
0.61
0.53
Children
6 < 12 months old
0.39
0.4
0.41
0.43
0.46
0.48
0.49
0.5
0.51
0.45
a. Female body weight is meant to represent average body weight of women of child-bearing age, assumed to be ages 13 through 49. Data
provided in the EFH for ages 11 through <50 were averaged to represent this lifestage.
Adjustments to Transfer Coefficients for Children
One of the factors used in dermal post-application assessments, the transfer coefficient, is
typically derived from studies which utilize adult volunteers. In order to translate these transfer
coefficients to children, an adjustment factor is needed based on body surface area. Children
have a lower body surface area than adults and consequently they have lower absolute exposures
than adults, all other factors being equal. This translation is performed using a number of simple
surface area ratios depending on the lifestage under consideration.
For the adult component of this ratio, the combined (males and females) mean surface area is
used (i.e., 1.95 m , average of the mean surface areas for ages 16 < 80 years) (U.S. EPA, 2011;
Table 7-9). Then the corresponding combined male and female mean for the lifestage under
consideration is used to derive the adjustment factor. A summary of adjustment factors for
relevant lifestages, representing the respective ratios of mean body surface area to mean adult
body surface area is provided in Table 2-4 below.
l iihlc 2-4: 1 i*;iiisl'er (oelTieienl Siii'I'skt Aivsi Adjustment l";ic(or
l.ifcsliifie
Surface Area f m" >
I Mean: Combined Mules and l-cmalcs'l
Adjustment Factor
6 < 12 months
0.45
0.23
1 < 2 years
0.53
0.27
2 < 3 years
0.61
0.31
3 < 6 years
0.76
0.39
6 < 11 years
1.08
0.55
11 < 16 years
1.59
0.82
'U.S. EPA, 2011; Table 7-9
2 Derived as ratio of the combined male and female mean surface area for specified lifestage to adult surface area
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
2-3
-------
Universal Exposure Factors
Tnhle
2-4: Transler (uclTicicnl Surface Area Adjust nun ( l-aclnr
l.il'eslajic
Surface Area f m" >
|Mcan: Combined Mules and l-'ciiialcs'|
Adjustment l-aclnr
(J l>5 in , a\emge of male and female means; (e g , ' <> seal's old (> "<> in 1 l>5 in (> ^>)
2.4 Fraction Hand Surface Area Mouthed (FM)
An important factor used in hand-to-mouth post-application assessments is the fraction of a
hand's surface area that is mouthed by a child. This value is used in a number of the SOPs. The
fraction hand surface area mouthed values are from the Zartarian et al. (2005) analysis of data
originally presented in Leckie et al. (2000). The Leckie et al. (2000) study consisted of a data set
of 20 suburban children videotaped outdoors. Part of the videotape analysis performed by
Leckie was to determine the amount of the hand that was mouthed by each child every time a
mouthing event occurred. This was broken up into five categories, including:
• Outside mouth contact - defined as finger(s)/hand touching lips but no immersion in
mouth
• Partial finger - defined as less than half the finger(s) are inside mouth
• Full finger - defined as more than half the finger(s) are inside mouth
• Partial palm with fingers - defined as fingers in mouth as well as part of the palm area
• Partial palm without fingers - defined as fingers in mouth as well as part of the palm area
The analysis in Zartarian et al. (2005) consisted of assigning numerical values to each of the five
scenarios discussed above. It was assumed that each finger is 10% of the hand, and that the
surface area of palm that can be mouthed is 25% of the hand. For 1 "partial finger" inserted into
the mouth a value of 5% of the hand was selected, 2 partial fingers 10%, el cetera. Based on an
analysis of the data, it was determined that a beta distribution (a=3.7, J3=25) best fits the
observed data. Table 2-5 provides distributions and point estimates of fraction hand surface area
mouthed for use in residential pesticide exposure assessment. The data used to derive fraction of
hand surface area mouthed is provided in Section B.l of Appendix B.
Table 2-5: l-'racliou Hand Surface Area Mouthed
Statistic
l-'raclion
50th percentile
0.118
75th percentile
0.164
95th percentile
0.243
AM(SD)
0.127 (0.0614)
GM (GSD)
0.114(1.58)
Range
0.05-0.4
N
220
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
2-4
-------
Universal Exposure Factors
2.5 Surface Area of Object Mouthed (SAM0)
One of the factors used in object-to-mouth post-application assessments is the surface area
(expressed in cm ) of the object that is mouthed by a child, and is used in a number of the SOPs.
Based on the area of hand mouthed by 2-5 years old as reported by Leckie et al., (2000), and the
assumption that children mouth a smaller area of an object than their hand, an exponential
distribution with a minimum of 1 cm2, a mean of 10 cm2, and a maximum of 50 cm2 was chosen.
The maximum is comparable to the surface area of a ping-pong ball. Additional details and
analyses are provided in Section B.2 of Appendix B.
2.6 Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva (SE)
One of the factors used in hand-to-mouth and object-to-mouth post-application assessments is
the fraction of pesticide extracted from the hand/object via saliva. The values for fraction of
pesticide extracted by saliva are based on analysis of data collected in a study by Camann et al.
(1996). This study focused specifically on fraction of pesticide extracted by saliva from hands,
not objects. However, there are currently no data available to address the removal of residues
from objects by saliva during mouthing events so this study is being used for both hands and
objects. The estimates of saliva extraction were derived using a beta distribution (a = 7.0, p =
7.6). Table 2-6 provides estimates of pesticide extracted by saliva for use in residential pesticide
exposure assessment. Additional details and analyses are provided in Section B.3 of Appendix B.
Tiihk' 2-6: l r;ic(ion nl' Pesticide l.\lr;ick'd In S;ili\;i
Siiiiisiic
l-'i'iiclion of Pesticide l.\(r;iclcd In S;ili\;i
50th percentile
0.50
75 th percentile
0.57
90th percentile
0.64
95th percentile
0.68
99th percentile
0.80
AM(SD)
0.48 (0.13)
GM (GSD)
0.46 (1.35)
Range
0.22-0.71
N
27
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
2.7 Life Expectancy Averaging Time
An important factor to consider when evaluating cancer risk is life expectancy because it is used
to derive the lifetime average daily dose estimate. Life expectancy values are presented in the
Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition Table 18-1 (U.S. EPA, 2011). The table shows that
the overall life expectancy is 78 years based on life expectancy data from 2007. In 2007, the
average life expectancy for males was 75 years and 80 years for females. Based on the
available data, the recommended value for use in cancer risk assessments is 78 years.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
2-5
-------
Lawns/Turf
Section 3 Lawns/Turf
The residential lawns/turf SOP provides algorithms and inputs to assess a number of handler and
post-application turf exposure scenarios. The populations considered in this SOP are those
individuals who are potentially exposed to pesticides from either treating turf with a product
available for sale to the general public or after contact with treated turf in many settings,
including residential lawns, playgrounds, parks, recreation areas, schools, and golf courses.
Another potential source of exposure addressed by this section, where professional applications
could potentially lead to exposure by the general population, if applicable to the pesticide and its
label under consideration, is treated sod purchased at retail locations.
Before the development of an exposure assessment for a turf scenario, the assessor should review
the pesticide label to determine whether the scenario is appropriate based on the usage of the
product. Specific labeling statements that indicate an assessment for residential lawns is needed
are as follows:
• Registered for Use on Turfgrass: Determine whether the labeling contains directions
for use on "turfgrass," "lawns," or "ornamental turf," or on specific species of turfgrasses,
such as "bluegrass," "zoysia," "bentgrass," etc.
• Limitation and Descriptive Statements: Assume that a product registered for use on
turfgrass is used on home lawns or by homeowners, unless a specific statement on the
label indicates the product is only used in non-residential settings. Examples include:
o For golf course use only;
o For commercial sod farm use only;
o For professional athletic field use only; and
o For industrial/commercial turf use only.
Additionally, "Restricted Use Pesticide" classification indicates that the product cannot
be bought or applied by homeowners (i.e., no residential handler exposure/risk
assessment required), but it may be applied by commercial applicators to residential sites;
therefore, a post-application risk assessment may be required.
• Post-application assessments do not need to be performed if label directions indicate the
turf use is an edging use (e.g., along fence rows), a foundation perimeter treatment (e.g.,
3 foot band around the perimeter of a house), or a specific spot treatment (e.g., ant
mounds). These types of uses can result in residues on turf but residential exposure is
expected to be low. Post-application assessments should be conducted for all other turf
application scenarios.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-1
-------
Lawns/Turf
If a turf use is possible, the assessment should then characterize and estimate the potential for
exposure by route (e.g., dermal, non-dietary ingestion, inhalation) following the methodology
outlined in this SOP. The assessor should also consider the durations of exposure for each route.
Much of the data contained within this SOP is the result of the Outdoor Residential Data-Call-in
(OREDCI) that was issued to pesticide registrants in 1995 (U.S. EPA, 1995) under the authority
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This DCI required
additional data, which would allow for more refined turf handler and post-application exposure
assessments. It impacted all pesticide registrants who produced products that could lead to
handler and post-application exposure on turf. In anticipation of the need to provide these data
to the Agency, the industry-based Occupational and Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF)
was formed prior to the time that the DCI was issued.
3.1 Handler Exposure Assessment
This residential turf handler SOP provides a standard method for estimating potential dermal and
inhalation doses resulting from applying pesticides to residential turf. Such exposure is assumed
to occur only to adults (i.e., individuals 16 years old or older).
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm
As described in Section 1.3.3, daily dermal and inhalation exposure (mg/day) for residential
pesticide handlers, for a given formulation-application method combination, is estimated by
multiplying the formulation-application method-specific unit exposure by an estimate of the
amount of active ingredient handled in a day, using the equation below:
E = UE * AR * A
(3.1)
where:
E
UE
AR
A
exposure (mg/day);
unit exposure (mg/lb ai);
application rate (e.g., lb ai/ft2, lb ai/gal); and
area treated or amount handled (e.g., ft /day, gal/day).
Dermal and/or inhalation absorbed doses normalized to body weight are calculated as:
(3.2)
BW
where:
D
E
AF
BW
dose (mg/kg-day);
exposure (mg/day);
absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
body weight (kg).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-2
-------
Lawns/Turf
Handler exposure for applications to lawns and turf is generally considered short-term in
duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day
exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections
1.3.2 and 1.3.3 such as the product-specific application regimen.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for handler exposure (inhalation and dermal) assessments are provided in
Table 3-1 and Table 3-2. Following these tables, each scenario-specific input parameter is
described in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data
sources used to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should
be addressed when characterizing exposure.
T:ihk*3-I: I iii I - Recommended I nil llxnosuiv tmg/lh ;ii) Point llsliniiilos
I'ormuhilion
r.(|iiii>im-iii/
Application Method
l)crm;il
Inhiiliilion
Appendix P;i!ic
Rd'civiicc
Point l.stiuiiito
Point l.sliniiik'
Granules
Push-type spreaders
0.81
0.0026
C-4
Belly grinders
360
0.039
C-ll
Spoon
6.2
0.087
C-20
Cup
0.11
0.013
C-24
Hand dispersal
160
0.38
B-39
Shaker can
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for granule applications using a cup
recommended as surrogate data.
Liquid concentrates
Manually-pressurized
handwand
63
0.018
C-56
Hose-end sprayer
13.4
0.022
C-79
Backpack
130
0.14
C-91
Sprinkler can
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for hose-end sprayer applications of liquid
concentrates recommended as surrogate data.
Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Hose-end sprayer
6.26
0.034
C-107
Trigger-pump sprayers
85.1
0.061
C-113
Aerosol can
370
3.0
C-134
Wettable Powder
Manually-pressurized
handwand
69
1.1
C-141
Hose-end sprayer
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for hose-end sprayer applications of liquid
concentrates recommended as surrogate data.
Backpack
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for manually-pressurized handwand
applications of wettable powders recommended as surrogate
data.
Sprinkler can
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for hose-end sprayer applications of liquid
concentrates recommended as surrogate data.
Wettable Powder in
Water-soluble
Packaging
Manually-pressurized
handwand
No exposure data available for this scenario. Exposure data
for manually-pressurized handwand applications of liquid
concentrates recommended as surrogate data.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-3
-------
Lawns/Turf
T:ihk*3-I: I iii I - Recommended I nil llxnosuiv ling/lh ;ii) Point llsliniiilos
I'ormuhilion
r.(|iiii>im-iii/
Application Method
l)crm;d
Inhiiliilion
Appendix Psi«e
Hcld'cncc
Point I.N(iin;ik'
Poinl l.sliniiik'
Hose-end sprayer
No exposure dala a\ ailable lor iliib seeiiario. Exposure dala
for RTU hose-end sprayers recommended as surrogate data.
Backpack
No exposure data available for this scenario. Exposure data
for manually-pressurized handwand applications of liquid
concentrates recommended as surrogate data.
Sprinkler can
No exposure data available for this scenario. Exposure data
for RTU hose-end sprayers recommended as surrogate data.
Dry Flowable /
Water-dispersible
Granule
Manually-pressurized
handwand
Hose-end sprayer
Backpack
Sprinkler can
No exposure data available for this scenario. Application
method-specific exposure data for wettable powders
recommended as surrogate data.
Micro-encapsulates
Manually-pressurized
handwand
Hose-end sprayer
Backpack
Sprinkler can
No exposure data available for this scenario. Application
method-specific exposure data for liquid concentrates
recommended as surrogate data.
l iihk'3-2: Turf- Recommended Ihindlcr I xposuiT l-'iiclor Poinl l.s(ini;i(cs
exposure l-iicloi-
(unils)
Poinl I.NliniiiUMs)
Application Rate
(mass ai per unit area)
Maximum labeled rate
Area Treated/Amount Handled
Push-type spreader
(acres)
0.5
Belly grinder
(ft2)
1,000
Cup, Spoon, Hand
(ft2)
100
Manually-pressurized handwand
(gallons)
5
Backpack sprayer
(gallons)
5
Hose-end sprayer
(acres)
0.5
Sprinkler can
(ft2)
1,000
Trigger-sprayer
(# bottles)
1
Aerosol Can
(# cans)
1
Any equipment, fire ant mounds
(# mounds)
5
Body Weight
Adult (kg)
80
Unit Exposures
As described in Section 1.3.3, the unit exposure is the ratio, for a given formulation/application
method combination, between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled, with units
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-4
-------
Lawns/Turf
mass exposure per mass active ingredient handled (e.g., mg ai exposure/lb ai handled). The
recommended point estimates for individual handler scenarios are shown in Table 3-1.
Data summaries can be found in Appendix C.
Amount of Active Ingredient Handled
The algorithm for estimating handler exposure requires some estimate of the amount of active
ingredient handled per day. This factor varies based on the type of equipment or application
method used and is estimated based on the application rate specified on the product label. First,
the assessor should assemble application rate information in terms of active ingredient per area
treated (e.g., lb ai/acre, lb ai/1000 ft2) and active ingredient per volume of spray (e.g., lb ai/gallon
solution). For example, instructions for a granule formulation might direct application of 2 lbs of
product per 100 square feet or a spray application might say to apply 2 gallons of solution per
100 square feet.
Data on the amount of active ingredient handled are limited and difficult to collect. The amounts
of active ingredient handled presented in this SOP are reasonable high-end assumptions for
typical residential turf application equipment. These values and the supporting data (where
applicable) are discussed below.
• Push-type spreader: V2 an acre for broadcast applications. This value is supported by data
from the Outdoor Residential Pesticide Use and Usage Survey and National Gardening
Association Survey (Johnson, et al., 1999), which showed that 73% of the people
surveyed had lawns smaller than V2 acre.
• Belly grinder: 1,000 ft for spot treatments. Belly grinders are not practical for broadcast
lawn treatments.
• Cup, Spoon, or Hand: 100 ft for spot treatments. Applications of granule pesticides with
a cup, spoon, or by hand are not practical for broadcast lawn treatments, but are more
appropriate for treating ant mounds, yellow jacket nests or dandelions (check label for
pest directions).
• Manually-pressurized handwand sprayer: 5 gallons for spot treatments, which assumes
mixing/loading/applying two 2.5-gallon sprayers. Manually-pressurized hand sprayers
are not practical for broadcast lawn treatments due to the numbers of gallons generally
required for broadcast sprays (e.g., 15 gallons/1000 sq ft).
• Backpack sprayer: 5 gallons for spot treatments, which assumes mixing/loading/applying
two 2.5-gallon sprayers. Backpack sprayers are not practical for broadcast lawn
treatments due to the numbers of gallons generally required for broadcast sprays (e.g., 15
gallons/1000 sq ft).
• Hose-end sprayer: V2 an acre for broadcast applications. This value is further supported
by data from the Outdoor Residential Pesticide Use and Usage Survey and National
Gardening Association Survey (Johnson, et al., 1999), which showed that 73% of the
people surveyed had lawns smaller than V2 acre.
• Sprinkler can: 1,000 ft for spot treatments. Sprinkler cans are not practical for broadcast
lawn treatments due to the numbers of gallons generally required for broadcast sprays
(e.g., 15 gallons/1000 sq ft).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-5
-------
Lawns/Turf
• Trigger sprayer: 1 bottle. Trigger sprayers are not practical for broadcast lawn
treatments but are more appropriate for treating ant mounts, yellow jacket nests or
dandelions (check label for pest directions).
• Aerosol can: 1 can. Aerosol cans are not practical for broadcast lawn treatments but are
more appropriate for treating ant mounts, yellow jacket nests or dandelions (check label
for pest directions).
• Fire ant mound treatments (any equipment): 5 individual mounds. Note: some labels
have directions for broadcast applications to prevent invasion of fire ants of areas widely
infested.
Future Research/Data Needs
Unavailable information that would refine handler exposure assessments for pesticide
applications to turf include:
• Application intervals (i.e., how often chemicals are applied to turf) - either chemical-
specific or generic intervals by pesticide-type (e.g., fungicides, insecticides, etc.).
• Survey information (preferably longitudinal) detailing:
o General pesticide use to obtain, on a per capita basis, the probability of treating
turf with pesticides;
o Amount of product or formulation used or area treated per application; and,
o Product-specific application rates to obtain the likelihood that the maximum rate
is used.
• Handler exposure data:
o Specific for turf applications as well as for those formulations and/or application
methods currently unavailable as shown in Table 3-1;
o Describing the extent to which an individual's exposure for a given formulation
and application method varies from application-to-application.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Unit Exposures
• The exposure data underlying unit exposures are considered reasonable for the purposes
of estimating exposure. The data are from actual applications using standardized
exposure sampling methodologies and laboratory analyses.
• The underlying assumption of the use of exposure data as unit exposures -
proportionality between the amount of active ingredient handled and exposure - is
uncertain, though potentially conservative. However, as a prediction mechanism, it is
considered practical and useful for the purposes of handler exposure assessment in a
regulatory context. It provides a straightforward handler exposure calculation method
and enables risk mitigation in the form of formulation comparison and decreased
application rates.
• The extent to which an individual's exposure (expressed via unit exposures) varies day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-6
-------
Lawns/Turf
Amount of active ingredient handled
• Information on the amounts of active ingredient handled for typical residential turf
application equipment is largely unavailable. The estimates used however, are believed
to result in health protective exposure estimates.
• The extent to which the amount an individual will handle per application varies from day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
3.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment
Post-application exposure can result from a number of activities following pesticide applications
on turf. While exposure may occur for people of all ages, adults, children 11 < 16 years old,
children 6 < 11 years old, and children 1 < 2 years old are considered the index lifestages for
lawns and turf depending on the exposure scenario.
The Agency has derived standard methods for estimating exposure and dose for eight scenarios
resulting from contact with turf that has previously been treated with pesticides:
• Section 3.2.1 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old inhalation exposure resulting from activities
on turf;
• Section 3.2.2 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old dermal exposure resulting from activities on
turf;
• Section 3.2.3 - children
• Section 3.2.4 - children
activity;
• Section 3.2.5 - children
• Section 3.2.6 - children
ingestion;
• Section 3.2.7 - adult/children 11 < 16 years old dermal exposure resulting from mowing;
and
• Section 3.2.8 - adult/children 11 < 16 years old/children 6 < 11 years old dermal
exposure resulting from golfing.
3.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Post-application inhalation exposure while engaged in activities on or around previously treated
turf is generally not assessed and should be handled on a case-by-case basis. The combination of
low vapor pressure for chemicals typically used as active ingredients in outdoor residential
pesticide products and dilution in outdoor air is likely to result in minimal inhalation exposure.
3.2.2 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment: Physical Activities on Turf
1 < 2 years old non-dietary ingestion via hand-to-mouth activity;
1 < 2 years old non-dietary ingestion via object-to-mouth
1 < 2 years old non-dietary ingestion via soil ingestion;
1 < 2 years old non-dietary ingestion via episodic granular
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-7
-------
Lawns/Turf
The residential turf post-application SOP provides a standard method for estimating potential
dermal doses among adults and/or children 1 < 2 years old from dermal contact with turf that has
previously been treated with pesticides. This scenario assumes that pesticide residues are
transferred to the skin of adults/children who enter treated lawns for play, recreation, yardwork,
or other homeowner activities. Considering the strengths and limitations of available data and
behavioral characteristics of potentially exposed lifestages (see Appendix A for more details);
post-application dermal exposure is only calculated for adults and children 1 < 2 years old.
It is assumed that individuals contact previously treated turf on the same day a pesticide is
applied. However, the assessment can be refined to more accurately reflect exposure over a
longer period of time (e.g., a week or month) if toxicological or activity information indicate the
need for such estimates.
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm - Physical Activities on Turf
Exposure resulting from contacting previously treated turf while performing physical activities is
calculated as shown below. As discussed in Section 1.3.4 residential post-application exposure
assessment must include calculation of exposure on the day of application. Therefore, though an
assessment can present exposures for any day "t" following the application, it must include "day
0" exposure.
E = TTRt * CF1 * TC * ET
(3.3)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
TTRt = turf transferable residue on day t (|ig/cm2);
CF1 = weight unit conversion factor (0.001 mg/|ig);
TC = transfer coefficient (cm /hr); and
ET = exposure time (hr/day).
If chemical-specific TTR data are available, then surface residues from the day of application
should be used (assume that individuals could be exposed to residues immediately after
application). However, if data are not available, then TTRt can be calculated using the following
formula:
TTRt = AR * F * (I -FDf * CF2 * CF3
(3.4)
where:
TTRt = turf transferable residue on day t (|ig/cm );
AR = application rate (lbs ai/ft or lb ai/acre);
F = fraction of ai as transferable residue following application (unitless);
Fd = fraction of residue that dissipates daily (unitless);
t = post-application day on which exposure is being assessed;
o
CF2 = weight unit conversion factor (4.54 x 10 jug/lb); and
CF3 = area unit conversion factor (1.08 x 10"3 ft2/ cm2 or 2.47 x 10"8 acre/cm2).
Dermal absorbed doses are calculated as:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-8
-------
Lawns/Turf
F* AF
D= (3.5)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application dermal exposure following applications to lawns and turf is generally
considered short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate
short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors
outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment
intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or
lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the
exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions -
Physical Activities on Turf
Recommended values for post-application dermal (physical activities on turf) exposure
assessments are provided in Table 3-3. Following this table, each scenario-specific input
parameter is described in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key
assumptions; ii) data sources used to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of
limitations that should be addressed when characterizing exposure.
Tiil>lc3-3: Turf (Pin sic;il Aiii\ ilics) - Recommended Point r.s(im;i(os for Posi-Appliciilion Doriiuil
l.xnosurc l-'siiiors
Algorithm Nnliilion
llxposiiiv l-iicloi-
( ii nils)
Poinl l'.siiniiile(s)
AR
Application rate
(mass active ingredient per unit area)
Maximum labeled
application rate
F
Fraction of AR as TTR
following application (if
chemical-specific data is
unavailable)
L/WP/WDG
0.01
Granules
0.002
Fd
Daily residue dissipation
(if chemical-specific data
is unavailable)
(fraction)
L/WP/WDG
0.1
Granules
0.1
TC
Transfer
Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
L/WP/WDG
Adults
180,000
Children 1 < 2 years old
49,000
Granules
Adults
200,000
Children 1 < 2 years old
54,000
ET
Exposure Time
(hours per day)
Adults
1.5
Children 1 < 2 years old
1.5
BW
Body Weight
(kg)
Adults
80
Children 1 < 2 years old
11
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-9
-------
Lawns/Turf
Tiil>lc3-3: Turf (Pin sic;il Aiii\ ilics) - Recommended Point r.s(im;i(os for Posi-Appliciilion Doriiuil
I'.xposiiiv l-.iclnrs
Algorithm Nnliilion
llxposmv l";ic(or
(units)
Poinl l'.siiniiile(s)
L/WPAVDG = Liquids/Wettable Powders/Water-dispersible Granules
Turf Transferable Residue (TTR)
Following an application, some pesticide residue remains on turf for an individual to contact and
remove. This is referred to as turf transferable residue (TTR) and is assumed to be the most
significant source for dermal exposure in this scenario. The industry-based ORETF tested five
TTR collection techniques in 1996: the California roller method, the shoe method, the
polyurethane foam (PUF) roller method, the drag sled method, and the foliar wash method. A
follow-up study was conducted on a turf farm in 1997 using three modified techniques: the
modified California roller method, the modified shoe method, and the ORETF roller method.
The data from both of these studies are summarized and analyzed in a 1999 ORETF report
(Cowell, J. and Johnson, D., 1999; EPA MRID 44972203). Ultimately - based on the
information provided by ORETF and working in conjunction with the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) - a
TTR collection method (the Modified California Roller Method) was agreed upon for all future
TTR studies. The Modified California Roller was selected because it produced the most
consistent results across individuals, active ingredients, formulation types, and time than the
other techniques. It also was sensitive enough to detect low levels of residues and was one of the
easier techniques to use.
TTR studies using the Modified California Roller Method were required for all pesticide active
ingredients that had turf uses as part of the 1995 OREDCI (U.S. EPA, 1995), which was
amended in 1998. Subsequently, in October of 2007, the Agency revised the data requirements
that pertain to conventional pesticides. As part of these revisions, TTR studies were classified as
required for all occupational (e.g., sod farms, golf courses, parks, and recreational areas) or
residential turf uses under 40 CFR 158, subpart K (158.1070; post-application exposure data
requirements table).
If no chemical-specific TTR data are available, an initial screening level assessment can be
performed using the maximum labeled turf application rate.
Chemical-specific data
When chemical-specific data are available, the TTR is the surface residue on Day 0,
which assumes an individual could be exposed to residues immediately after application.
Calculating from Application Rate
When the application rate is in terms of mass active ingredient per area (e.g., lbs ai/ft2 or
lb ai/acre), the total deposited residue is assumed to be equivalent to the application rate.
Fraction of Application Rate Available For Transfer (F)
If chemical-specific TTR measurements are not available, a screening value for the fraction of
application rate available for transfer should be used to perform the assessment. For the purpose
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-10
-------
Lawns/Turf
of this SOP, 59 studies that collected turf transferable residues using the Modified California
Roller Method (36 studies using liquids, 11 studies using wettable powders/water dispersible
granules, and 12 studies using granules) were analyzed. Only TTR data collected with the
Modified California Roller Method were used in this analysis because this was the turf residue
collection method agreed upon by the Agency in the 1995 OREDCI (U.S. EPA, 1995). During
the analysis of these studies, it was determined that there was no statistical difference between
residues resulting from liquid, wettable powder (applied as a spray), or water dispersible granular
(applied as a spray) applications; as a result, these data were combined for analysis. Granular
data were analyzed separately. These analyses are presented in Section D. 6 of Appendix D.
For liquid applications (including wettable powders/water dispersible granules applied as
sprays), the recommended screening level point estimate for use in post-application dermal
exposure assessment is 0.01 (equivalent to 1%). For granular applications, the
recommended screening level point estimate for use in post-application dermal exposure
assessment is 0.002 (equivalent to 0.2%).
Daily Residue Dissipation (FD)
Post-application exposures must be assessed on the same day the pesticide is applied because it
is assumed that individuals could be exposed to turfgrass immediately after application.
Therefore, post-application exposures are based on residues found on the day of application (i.e.,
referred to as day 0). For subsequent days after application it is also important to estimate
exposure based on pesticide dissipation rates because of possible concerns over longer term
exposures (i.e., using an amortized dose) and possible re-treatment intervals. If no chemical-
specific TTR data are available, then a 10 percent dissipation rate per day should be assumed.
Transfer Coefficient (TC)
The transfer coefficients used for turf dermal scenarios were derived from data gathered while
adult human volunteers performed an approximate 2-hour composite routine consisting of 12
sequential activities which children and adults routinely engage on residential turf (D. Klonne
and D. Johnson, MRID 47292001). These activities represent behaviors that are reported in the
National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) for children aged 1 to 12 years (Klepeis, et.
al., 2001). The two-hour duration of the routine was chosen because NHAPS indicated that a
high-bound estimate of time children spend playing on turf is two hours per day. Two turf sites
were treated during the study; one with a liquid formulation and the other with a granular
formulation. A total of 40 participants performed the composite routine during the study; 10
participants each during two separate sessions at the two treated turf sites. The potential dermal
exposure to each study participant was measured by using whole-body dosimetry (inner and
outer dosimeters), foot washes, hand washes, and face/neck wipes. TTR was collected at both
sites using the Modified California Roller Method. All of these measurements were then used in
the transfer coefficient calculations.
An analysis was performed to assess the statistical differences between the TCs calculated using
the liquid data vs. the granular data. It was determined that these two distributions should not be
combined because the upper percentile values are higher for the granular TCs vs. the liquid TCs
even though the central tendency values of the two distributions are similar (See Section D. 7.1
of Appendix D). For children 1 < 2 years old, the transfer coefficient is adjusted for body surface
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-11
-------
Lawns/Turf
area by a factor of 0.27 (i.e., a 73% reduction in the TC) as outlined in Section 2.3. Table 3-4
provides some summary statistical information about the turf dermal transfer coefficient
distribution.
For liquid applications to lawns/turf, the recommended point estimates for use in post-
application adult and children 1 < 2 years old dermal exposure assessments are 180,000
and 49,000 cm2/hr, respectively.
For granular applications, the recommended point estimates for use in post-application
adult and children 1 < 2 years old dermal exposure assessment are 200,000 and 54,000
cm2/hr, respectively.
Tiihle 3-4: l)erm;il l.xposure Triinsfer Coefficients (1 -shirl ;iihI Shorts) I'm' lndi\ iduiils Performing
NIIAPS Aeli\ ilies
Sliiiislie
l.i(|iiid I riinsler Coefficient (cnr/lir)
(>r;iniil;ir Tr;insfcr Coefficient (cnf/lir)
Children 1 < 2
\c;irsold 1
Atlull
Children 1 < 2
jesirs old 1
Ariull
50th percentile
48,000
180,000
52,000
190,000
75th percentile
56,000
210,000
61,000
230,000
95th percentile
71,000
260,000
77,000
290,000
99th percentile
83,000
310,000
91,000
340,000
AM(SD)
49,000 (NA)
180,000 (41,000)
54,000 (NA)
200,000 (45,000)
GM (GSD)
48,000 (NA)
180,000 (1.26)
52,000 (NA)
190,000 (1.26)
Range
NA
110,000-260,000
NA
110,000-300,000
N
NA
20
NA
20
1 A 73% reduction in the adult transfer coefficient is recommended because of the differences of body
surface areas between adults and children 1 < 2 years old.
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
Exposure Time (ET)
Another important variable for addressing post-application exposure from treated turf is the
duration of time spent on turf. Empirical distributions were selected for adults and children
(expressed as cumulative distributions) from the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S.
EPA, 2011; Table 16-20). These distributions represent the amount of time spent at home in the
yard or other areas outside the house rather than just on lawns (see Table 3-5) as the available
data for time spent on lawns is not of sufficient quality for use in this SOP. The children's
exposure time distribution reflects children ages 1 to 4 years old as lifestage-specific data are not
currently available. Both the adult and children distributions taken from Exposure Factors
Handbook 2011 Edition Table 16-20 were bounded at the 90th percentile as use of the upper
percentiles of these distributions would likely overestimate time spent on lawns. Based on these
data, the recommended point estimate for use in post-application dermal exposure
assessment for adults and children is 1.5 hrs/day.
I "si hie 3-5: lime Spenl on Turf Tor Adults ;iihI Children
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-12
-------
Lawns/Turf
Siiiiisiic
Hours per l);i\
Adults
Children 1 < 2 \c;irs old 1
5 th percentile
0.08
0.42
25th percentile
0.5
1.0
50th percentile
1.5
1.5
75th percentile
3.0
3.0
90th percentile
5.5
5.1
100th percentile
5.5
5.1
1 Data represents 1 to 4 years old.
Future Research/Data Needs
Unavailable information that would refine post-application dermal exposure assessments for
pesticide applications to turf include:
• Application intervals (i.e., how often chemicals are applied to turf) - either chemical-
specific or generic intervals by pesticide-type (e.g., fungicides, insecticides, etc.).
• Survey information (preferably longitudinal) detailing:
o General pesticide use to obtain, on a per capita basis, the probability of treating
turf with pesticides;
o Product-specific application rates to obtain the likelihood that the maximum rate
is used; and,
o Lifestage-specific daily activity patterns for turf.
• Post-application exposure data:
o Describing the extent to which an individual's exposure for a given activity
varies.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Turf Transferable Residue
• The Modified California Roller Method was used in the selected turf dermal transfer
coefficient study to collect TTR. This TTR collection method was agreed upon by the
ORETF, CDPR, PMRA, and the Agency. For all assessments, transfer coefficients from
this study should only be used with TTR studies that utilize the Modified California
Roller Method. If chemical-specific TTR data collected via the Modified California
Roller Method are not available, then the screening level TTR value (i.e., based on
application rate) should be used.
• Absent chemical-specific data, estimates of turf transferable residue factors such as the
amount available following application and dissipation are used genetically based on
existing data for a wide variety of chemicals. Use of the data genetically, including using
high-end estimates, may overestimate exposure for some chemicals.
• Assessors should recognize that factors such as rainfall/irrigation, grass growth, and grass
mowing can greatly impact the dissipation rate of pesticides on turf when conducting turf
post-application exposure assessments.
Exposure Time
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-13
-------
Lawns/Turf
• The extent to which the amount of time spent conducting certain activities varies over an
extended period of time is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no variation
when assessing longer-term exposure times is considered conservative.
3.2.3 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Hand-to-
This SOP provides a standard method for estimating the dose from incidental ingestion of
pesticide residues from previously treated turf. Considering the strengths and limitations of
available data and behavioral characteristics of potentially exposed lifestages (see Appendix A for
more details), exposure for children 1 < 2 years old is calculated in this scenario. It assumed that
pesticide residues are transferred to the skin of children playing on treated turf and are
subsequently ingested as a result of hand-to-mouth transfer. It does not include residues ingested
as a result of mouthing an object or via soil ingestion (See Sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.5).
Post-application Hand-to-Mouth Exposure Algorithm
Exposure from hand-to-mouth activity is calculated as follows (based on the algorithm utilized in
the SHEDS-Multimedia model):
Mouth
E= HR*(Fm * SAh)*(ET * N _Replen)*\l-(l- SE)
(3.6)
where:
N_Replen
SE
FreqHtM
E
HR
Fm
SAh
ET
exposure (mg/day);
hand residue loading (mg/cm2);
fraction hand surface area mouthed / event (fraction/event);
typical surface area of one hand (cm2);
exposure time (hr/day);
number of replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour);
saliva extraction factor (i.e., mouthing removal efficiency); and
number of hand-to-mouth contacts events per hour (events/hour).
and
J7aj * T^)J?
1 Ml t.
hands
(3.7)
HR =
SAh *2
where:
DE
SAh
HR
F aihands
2
hand residue loading (mg/cm );
fraction ai on hands compared to total surface residue from dermal
transfer coefficient study (unitless);
dermal exposure (mg); and
typical surface area of one hand (cm2).
Dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-14
-------
Lawns/Turf
D = (3.8)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application hand-to-mouth exposure following applications to lawns and turf is generally
considered short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate
short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors
outlined in Sections 7.3.2and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment
intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or
lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the
exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Hand-to-Mouth Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application hand-to-mouth exposure assessments are provided in
Table 3-6. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to derive
recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed when
characterizing exposure.
Tsihie 3-(»: Turf- Keeommenrieri Point l-lsliniiiles lor Posl-Annliciilion II;iihI-|o-Moii|Ii 1'.\i)oniiiy l-':ielors
Algorithm
Noliilion
l'l\|)OMire l-':ielor
(unils)
Point llsliiiiiilels)
Fai|l(|M,is
Fraction of ai on hands
from dermal transfer
coefficient study
(unitless)
Liquid formulations
0.06
Granular formulations
0.027
DE
Dermal exposure (mg)
As calculated from Section 3.2.2
SAh
Typical surface area of one hand (cm2), children 1 <
2 years old
150
AR
Application rate
(mass active ingredient per unit area)
Maximum labeled application rate
HR
Residue available on the hands (mg/cm2)
Calculated via (DE * Faiw^ySAH
Fm
Fraction hand surface area mouthed
(fraction/event)
0.127
NReplen
Replenishment intervals per hour
(intervals/hr)
4
ET
Exposure time
(hrs/day)
1.5
SE
Saliva extraction factor
(unitless)
0.48
Freq_HtM
Hand-to-mouth events per hour
(events/hr)
13.9
BW
Body Weight
Children 1 < 2 years old
11.4
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-15
-------
Lawns/Turf
Tiil>lc3-(>: I iiiI - Ki'CommciHlcri Point l.s(iin;i(os for PoM-Anpliciilion Ihinri-lo-Moulh I xnosuiv I iicKms
Algorithm
Noliilion
r.xpoMiiv l-':uior
(unils)
Point I.N(im;ikMN)
(kg)
Hand Residue Loading (HR)
Hand residue is linked to dermal exposure and it is assumed that the fraction of residue on the
hands is equal to the fraction of the residue on the hands from the turf dermal transfer coefficient
study.
Fraction Active Ingredient on the Hands (Faihands)
The fraction of active ingredient available on the hands was based on the turf dermal transfer
coefficient study (D. Klonne and D. Johnson, MRID 47292001). These values were determined
for liquids and granules by taking the average fraction of active ingredient on the hands from all
monitoring units and comparing that value to the average fraction of active ingredient on the
entire body from all monitoring units assuming an individual is wearing a t-shirt and shorts. This
analysis resulted in values of 0.06 for liquids and 0.027 for granules.
Fraction Hand Surface Area Mouthed (F^)
See Section 2.4 of this SOP for discussion of the fraction of hand surface area mouthed
distribution. The recommended point estimate for use in post-application hand-to-mouth
exposure assessment is 0.127 per event.
Hand Surface Area (SAH)
The hand surface area for children 1 < 2 years old of 150 cm , for one hand, was based on
values from the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011).
Exposure Time (ET)
See discussion of exposure time in Section 3.2.2 above. The recommended point estimate for
use in post-application hand-to-mouth exposure assessment is 1.5 hrs/day.
Replenishment Intervals per Hour (N Replen)
This SOP assumes an estimate of 4 replenishment intervals per hour (i.e., residues on the hand
will be replenished every 15 minutes). This value was selected as a conservative assumption
based on the use of 30 minutes in the SHEDS model to coincide with the Consolidated Human
Activity Database (CHAD) diaries.
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva (SE)
See Section 2.6 of this SOP for discussion of fraction of pesticide extracted by saliva
distribution. The recommended point estimate for use in post-application hand-to-mouth
exposure assessment is 0.48.
Hand-to-Mouth Events per Hour (Freq HtM)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-16
-------
Lawns/Turf
Frequency of hand-to-mouth events is an important variable for hand-to-mouth post-application
exposure assessments. The estimates for frequency of hand-to-mouth events in outdoor
environments are based on the Xue et al. (2007) meta-analysis. The turf SOP utilizes hand-to-
mouth frequency data for the 1 < 2 year old lifestage. The estimates of hand mouthing frequency
(events/hour) for 1 < 2 years old were derived from 4 studies representing 32 participants. Based
on an analysis of the data by Xue et al., it was determined that a Weibull distribution (scale=
13.8, shape= 0.98) best fits the observed data. Table 3-7 provides distributions and point
estimates of hand-to-mouth events for use in residential pesticide exposure assessment and
AppendixD.9.1 provides additional analysis. The recommended point estimate for use in
post-application hand-to-mouth exposure assessment is 13.9 events/hr.
TiihlcJ-'7: I-'iv(|iiciio nllhmd-lo-MoiMh I.miKs (c\ en Is/hour)
Sliiiislic
Childron 1 < 2 jcsirs old
5
-------
Lawns/Turf
• The extent to which the amount of time spent conducting certain activities varies over an
extended period of time is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no variation
when assessing longer-term exposure times is considered conservative.
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva
• Though based on limited data, the determination of the fraction of pesticide extracted by
saliva from the hand is considered reasonable.
3.2.4 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Object-to-
This SOP provides a standard method for estimating the dose from incidental ingestion of
pesticide residues from previously treated turf. Considering the strengths and limitations of
available data and behavioral characteristics of potentially exposed lifestages (see Appendix A for
more details), exposure for children 1 < 2 years old is calculated in this scenario. It assumes that
pesticide residues are transferred to a child's toy and are subsequently ingested as a result of
object-to-mouth transfer. It does not include residues ingested as a result of soil ingestion (see
Section 3.2.5).
Post-application Object-to-Mouth Exposure Algorithm
Exposure from object-to-mouth activity is calculated as follows (based on the algorithm utilized
in SHEDS-Multimedia):
Mouth
E = OR * CF\ * SAM0 * (ET * N _ Replen) * 1 - (l - SE) N _Replen
Freq _ OtM
(3.9)
where:
SAM0
ET
N_Replen
SE
FreqOtM
E
OR
CF1
exposure (mg/day);
chemical residue loading on the object on day "t" (ug/cm2);
weight unit conversion factor (0.001 mg/|ig);
area of the object surface that is mouthed (cm2/event);
exposure time (hr/day);
number of replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour);
saliva extraction factor (i.e., mouthing removal efficiency); and
number of object-to-mouth contact events per hour (events/hour).
and
OR = AR * F0 * CF2 * CF3
(3.10)
where:
OR
AR
Fo
CF2
2
chemical residue loading on the object ((J,g/cm );
application rate (lbs ai/ft2or lb ai/acre);
fraction of residue available on the object (unitless);
weight unit conversion factor (4.54 x 108 jug/lb); and
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-18
-------
Lawns/Turf
CF3 = area unit conversion factor (1.08 x 10"3 ft2/cm2 or 2.47 x 10"'
acre/cm2).
and
Dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:
D = — (3.11)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application object-to-mouth exposure following applications to lawns and turf is generally
considered short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate
short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors
outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment
intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or
lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the
exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Object-to-Mouth Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application object-to-mouth exposure assessments are provided in
Table 3-8. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to derive
recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed when
characterizing exposure.
Tsihle 3-X: Turf- Kccoiiiinoiidod Poinl r.s(im;i(os for Post-Xnpliciilion Ohjcii-lu-.Moiilh Mxposuiv l';ic(nrs
Algorithm
Noliiliun
l'l\|)OMIIV 1-ilClOI-
(unils)
Point l'.sliniiilo(s)
AR
Application rate (to turf)
(mass active ingredient per unit area)
Maximum labeled application rate
F0
Fraction of AR as OR following application1
0.01
SAM0
Surface area of object mouthed
(cm2/event)
10
N Replen
Replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour)
4
SE
Saliva extraction factor
(fraction)
0.48
ET
Exposure time
(hours per day)
1.5
Freq_OtM
Object-to-mouth events per hour (events/hr)
8.8
BW
Body Weight (kg)
Children 1 < 2 years old
11.4
1 This SOP assumes that all of the residue on the turf could be transferred to the object (e.g., object residue is
equal to turf transferable residue).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-19
-------
Lawns/Turf
Fraction of Residue Available on the Object (Fq)
Following an application, some pesticide residue remains on turf. Some of this residue may be
transferred to a child's toy and subsequently ingested via object-to-mouth activities. For this
SOP, it is assumed that the residue that could be transferred to the object is the same as what is
available for dermal transfer. As a result, the fraction of total deposited residue available for
transfer using the turf transferable residue data (see discussion above in Section 3.2.2 for more
detail) should be used as a conservative estimate for the fraction of residue available on the
object. Based on the available liquid TTR data, the recommended point estimate for use in
post-application object-to-mouth exposure assessment is 0.01.
Surface Area of Object Mouthed (SAMo)
See Section 2.5 of this SOP for discussion of surface area of object mouthed. The
recommended point estimate for use in post-application object-to-mouth exposure
assessment is 10 cm2.
Exposure Time (ET)
See discussion of exposure time in Section 3.2.2 above. The recommended point estimate for
use in post-application object-to-mouth exposure assessment is 1.5 hrs/day.
Replenishment Intervals per Flour (N Replen)
This SOP assumes an estimate of 4 replenishment intervals per hour (i.e., residues on the hand
will be replenished every 15 minutes). This value was selected as a conservative assumption
based on the use of 30 minutes in the SHEDS model to coincide with the CHAD diaries.
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva (SE)
See Section 2.6 of this SOP for discussion of fraction of pesticide extracted by saliva
distribution. The recommended point estimate for use in post-application object-to-mouth
exposure assessment is 0.48.
Object-to-Mouth Events per Flour (Freq OtM)
Frequency of object-to-mouth events is an important variable for object-to-mouth post-
application exposure assessments. The estimates for frequency of object-to-mouth events in
outdoor environments are based on the Xue et al. (2010) meta-analysis. The turf SOP utilizes
object-to-mouth frequency data for the 1 < 2 year old lifestage. The estimates of object
mouthing frequency (events/hour) for 1 < 2 years old were derived from 2 studies representing
21 participants. Based on an analysis of the data by Xue et al. (2010), it was determined that a
Weibull distribution (scale=8.58, shape= 0.93) best fits the observed data. Table 3-9 provides
distributions and point estimates of hand to mouth events for use in residential pesticide exposure
assessment and Appendix D. 10.1 provides further detailed analysis. Based on this analysis, the
recommended point estimate for use in post-application object-to-mouth exposure
assessment is 8.8 events/hr.
liil)lo3-V: I iy(|ik'iio of Ohjccl-lo-Moiiih l'\onls (oxcnls/hour)
Sliiiislic
Children 1 < 2 jcsirs old
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-20
-------
Lawns/Turf
T.ihle 3-'.): l-'iv(|iicno of Ohjecl-lo-Moiiih l'\onls (oxcnls/hour)
Sliiiislic
( hildivn 1 < 2 jcsirs old
50th percentile
6.0
75 th percentile
10.8
95th percentile
21.3
AM(SD)
8.8 (8.8)
N
21
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
Future Research/Data Needs
Unavailable information that would refine post-application object-to-mouth exposure
assessments for pesticide applications to turf include:
• Application intervals (i.e., how often chemicals are applied to turf) - either chemical-
specific or generic intervals by pesticide-type (e.g., fungicides, insecticides, etc.).
• Survey information (preferably longitudinal) detailing:
o General pesticide use to obtain, on a per capita basis, the probability of treating
turf with pesticides;
o Product-specific application rates to obtain the likelihood that the maximum rate
is used; and,
o Daily activity patterns specific to object-to-mouth activities on turf (e.g., typical
surface area of object that is mouthed).
• Data on the amount of residue transferred from treated turf to both hard and soft
children's toys.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Turf Transferable Residue
• The assumption that the entire available turf transferable residue is transferred to the
object is considered conservative.
• Absent chemical-specific data, estimates of turf transferable residue factors such as the
amount available following application and dissipation are used genetically based on
existing data for a wide variety of chemicals. Use of the data genetically, including using
high-end estimates, may overestimate exposure for some chemicals.
• Assessors should recognize that factors such as rainfall/irrigation, grass growth, and grass
mowing can greatly impact the dissipation rate of pesticides.
Exposure Time
• The extent to which the amount of time spent conducting certain activities varies over an
extended period of time is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no variation
when assessing longer-term exposure times is considered conservative.
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva
• There are no data with which to determine the fraction of pesticide extracted by saliva
from an object. Use of the saliva extraction data for hands is considered a reasonable
surrogate.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-21
-------
Lawns/Turf
3.2.5 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Incidental
Soil Ingestion
This SOP provides a standard method for estimating dose from incidental ingestion of soil
containing pesticide residues. Considering the strengths and limitations of available data and
behavioral characteristics of potentially exposed lifestages (see Appendix A for more details),
exposure for children 1 < 2 years old is calculated in this scenario. It assumes that pesticide
residues in soil are ingested by children who play on treated areas (e.g., lawns, gardens,
playgrounds) as a result of normal mouthing activities (i.e., these estimates do not represent
exposure among children who exhibit pica, an abnormal ingestion behavior).
Post-application Incidental Soil Ingestion Exposure Algorithm
Exposure from incidental soil ingestion is calculated as follows:
E = SRt * SIgR * CF1 (3.12)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
SRt = soil residue on day "t" (jug/g);
SIgR = ingestion rate of soil (mg/day); and
CF1 = weight unit conversion factor (1 x 10"6 g/jug).
and
where:
SRt = AR*FS * (1-Fdf * CF2 * CF3 * CF4 (3.13)
SRt = soil residue on day "t" (jug/g);
AR = application rate (lbs ai/ft or lb ai/acre);
FS = fraction of ai available in uppermost cm of soil (fraction/cm);
Fd = fraction of residue that dissipates daily (unitless);
t = post-application day on which exposure is being assessed;
o
CF2 = weight unit conversion factor (4.54 x 10 jug/lb);
CF3 = area unit conversion factor (1.08 x 10"3 ft2/cm2 or 2.47 x 10"8 acre/cm2); and
"3
CF4 = soil volume to weight unit conversion factor (0.67 cm /g soil).
Dose, normalized to body weight, are calculated as:
D = (3.14)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day); and
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-22
-------
Lawns/Turf
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application soil ingestion exposure following applications to lawns and turf is generally
considered short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate
short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors
outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment
intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or
lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the
exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Incidental Soil Ingestion Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application incidental soil ingestion exposure assessments are
provided in Table 3-10. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described
in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions, ii) data sources used
to derive recommended input values, and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed
when characterizing exposure.
1 "sihie 3-10: Turf- Keeommenrieri Point 1-1 Minifies lor Post-\pplie
-------
Lawns/Turf
Future Research/Data Needs
Unavailable information that would refine post-application exposure assessments for pesticide
applications to turf include:
• Application intervals (i.e., how often chemicals are applied to turf) - either chemical-
specific or generic intervals by pesticide-type (e.g., fungicides, insecticides, etc.).
• Data could be produced to examine the potential for a range of pesticides to stay in the
uppermost 1 cm of soil over a period of time.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Soil Residue
• The uncertainties associated with this assessment stem from the use of an assumed
amount of pesticide available in the uppermost 1 cm of soil, and assumptions regarding
dissipation of chemical residues in the soil and soil ingestion. However, the defaults used
produce health protective exposure estimates.
3.2.6 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Episodic
Granular Ingestion
This SOP provides a standard method for estimating post-application doses from incidental
ingestion of pesticide pellets and granules that have been applied to lawns and gardens when
adequate site-or chemical-specific field data are unavailable. Considering the strengths and
limitations of available data and behavioral characteristics of potentially exposed lifestages (see
Appendix A for more details), exposure for children 1 < 2 years old is calculated in this scenario.
This scenario assumes that dry pesticide materials are ingested by children who play in treated
areas (e.g., lawns, playgrounds).
Post-application Episodic Granular Ingestion Exposure Algorithm
Exposure from incidental ingestion of pesticide pellets or granules is calculated as follows:
E = GIgR* FD * CF1
(3.15)
where:
E
GIgR
FD
CF1
exposure (mg/day);
ingestion rate of dry pesticide formulation (g/day);
fraction of ai in dry formulation (unitless); and
weight unit conversion factor (1,000 mg/g).
Dose, normalized to body weight, are calculated as:
D =
BW
(3.16)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-24
-------
Lawns/Turf
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application granular pesticide exposure following applications to lawns and turf would not
occur as a result of routine behavior and is considered an episodic event related to poisoning.
Thus, longer-term assessments are not conducted.
Post-application Episodic Granular Ingestion Algorithm Inputs and
Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application episodic granular ingestion exposure assessments are
provided in Table 3-11. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described
in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used
to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed
when characterizing exposure.
Tiil>k'3-11: T111T- Kccoiiiinoiidod Point r.s(im;i(os for Posl-Applii'iilion l-'.pisoriic (ir;inul;ir Ingestion
I aininimy l-'ilClOI'S
Algorithm
Noliilion
Ilxposiiiv l-iicloi-
(unils)
Point r.siiniiiic(s)
Fd
Fraction of active ingredient in dry formulation
Product specific
AR
Application rate (lbs/A or lbs/1,000 ft2)
Product specific
GIgR
Granule ingestion rate per day
(g/day)1
0.3
BW
Body Weight (kg)
Children 1 < 2 years old
11.4
1 See discussion below on how this value may be adjusted if product specific information is available.
Fraction of Active Ingredient in the Dry Formulation (FD)
The fraction of active ingredient in the dry formulation should be determined by consulting the
product label(s). In all cases, the formulation with the highest amount of active ingredient
should be used to assess episodic granular ingestion.
Granular Product Application Rate (AR)
The amount of granule product applied per area of lawn should be indicated by the product label.
The combination of this factor with the fraction of active ingredient in the product yields the
application rate in terms of active ingredient per area.
Granular Ingestion Rate (GIgR)
The assumed ingestion rate for dry pesticide formulations (e.g., pellets and granules) is 0.3
gram/day for children 1 < 2 years old. It is assumed that if 150 pounds of product were to be
applied to a V2 acre lawn, the amount of product per square foot would be approximately 3 g/ft
and a child would consume one-tenth of the product available in a square foot.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-25
-------
Lawns/Turf
If product-specific information is available, the granular ingestion rate may be adjusted to reflect
the amount of product applied on a per area basis if it is less or more than 150 pounds to a V2 acre
lawn. For instance, if 50 pounds of product is meant to treat a V2 acre lawn, then the ingestion
rate should be reduced by a third to 0.1 grams/day.
Future Research/Data Needs
There are currently no data needs for the episodic granular ingestion scenario.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Exposure assessments addressing non-dietary ingestion of granules should indicate this is
considered to be an episodic event, and should be addressed as a single scenario (i.e., the
exposure should not be combined with any other sources of exposure to the pesticide). Granule
size, granular color, particle density, and instructions such as "soil incorporate" should also be
considered.
An alternative assessment methodology for episodic granular ingestion can be done which
examines the amount of granular product that a child could eat before any adverse effects occur.
This alternative methodology can be used as characterization in support of the episodic granular
ingestion assessment methodology discussed above.
3.2.7 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment: Mowing
This SOP provides a method for estimating potential dermal doses from contact with turf that has
previously been treated with pesticides. Considering the strengths and limitations of available
data and behavioral characteristics of potentially exposed lifestages (see Appendix A for more
details), exposure for adults and children 11 < 16 years old is calculated in this scenario. This
scenario assumes that pesticide residues are transferred to the skin of adults and children 11 < 16
years old that enter treated lawns for mowing.
It is assumed that individuals can be mowing previously treated turf on the same day a pesticide
is applied even though this may be an unlikely scenario. However, the assessment can be refined
to more accurately reflect exposure over a longer period of time (e.g., a week or month) if usage
and activity information is available to allow for such calculations.
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm - Mowing
Exposure resulting from contacting previously treated turf while mowing is calculated as
follows:
E= TTRt * CF1 * TC *ET
(3.17)
where:
E
TTRt
CF1
TC
exposure (mg/day);
turf transferable residue on day "t" (|ig/cm2);
weight unit conversion factor (0.001 mg/|ig);
transfer coefficient (cm2/hr); and
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-26
-------
Lawns/Turf
ET = exposure time (hr/day).
TTRt = AR* Far* (1-Fd/ * CF2 * CF3 (3.18)
where:
TTRt = turf transferable residue on day "t" (|ig/cm );
AR = application rate (lbs ai/ft or lb ai/acre);
Far = fraction of ai retained on turf (unitless);
Fd = fraction of residue that dissipates daily (unitless);
t = post-application day on which exposure is being assessed;
o
CF2 = weight unit conversion factor (4.54 x 10 jug/lb); and
CF3 = area unit conversion factor (1.08 x 10"3 ft2/cm2or 2.47 x 10"8 acre/cm2).
Absorbed dose, normalized to body weight, are calculated as:
F* AF
D= (3.19)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application dermal exposure while mowing following applications to lawns and turf is
generally considered short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more
accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the
various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific
re-treatment intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-
term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect
the exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions - Mowing
Recommended values for post-application dermal mowing exposure assessments are provided in
Table 3-12. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to derive
recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed when
characterizing exposure.
I'iihlo 3-12: Turf ( Mow inii) - Ki-comim-ndcd Point l.s(iin;i(os for PoM-.\pplic;ilion l)ci in;il llxposmv
l";iclors
Algorithm Noiiilion
i:\posuiv l";idor
(unils)
Poilll r.Milllilk-IM
AR
Application rate
mass active ingredient per unit area
Maximum labeled
application rate
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-27
-------
Lawns/Turf
I'iihlo 3-12: Turf ( Mow inii) - Ki-comim-ndcd Point l.s(iin;i(os for Pos(-\|)|)lic;i(ion l)ci in;il llxposmv
l";iclors
Far
Fraction of AR as
TTR following
application
LAVPAVDG
0.01
Granules
0.002
Fd
Daily residue
dissipation
L/WPAVDG
0.1
Granules
0.1
TC
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
Adult
5,500
Children 11 < 16 years
old
4,500
ET
Exposure time
(hours per day)
1
BW
Body Weight
(kg)
Adults
80
Children 11 < 16 years
old
57
LAVP/WDG = liquid/wettable powder/water dispersible granule
Turf Transferable Residue (TTR)
See discussion of TTR in Section 3.2.2 above.
Fraction of Application Rate Available For Transfer (Fm)
See discussion of Far in Section 3.2.2 above.
Daily residue dissipation (FD)
See discussion of FD in Section 3.2.2 above.
Transfer Coefficient (TC)
The transfer coefficients used for the "mower" dermal scenarios were derived from data
collected during a golf course maintenance study (Klonne and Bruce, 2005). These data were
gathered while human volunteers (1) mowed greens with a walk-behind mower (8 participants)
and (2) mowed fairways with a riding mower (8 participants) on a golf course. The walk-behind
mower activity consisted of mowing using a walk-behind reel mower with a grass catcher,
emptying the grass catcher, and hosing off the mower with water at the conclusion of mowing.
Greens mowing occurred in the morning and a monitoring event consisted of mowing 4 to 5
greens (approximately 2 to 3 hours). The riding mower activity consisted of mowing fairways
(using a 5-reel riding mower), mowing tee boxes/surrounds (using a 3-reel riding mower),
emptying the grass catcher, and hosing off the mower with water at the conclusion of mowing.
Fairway mowing occurred in the morning and a monitoring event consisted of mowing either 5
to 6 fairways or tees/surrounds for 9 holes (approximately 2 to 4.5 hours). Post-application
exposure resulting from golf course mowing was deemed an appropriate surrogate for residential
homeowner mowing.
An analysis was performed to assess the statistical differences between the TCs calculated using
the walk-behind mower data vs. the riding mower data. It was determined that there was no
statistical difference between these datasets and, thus, in calculating the adult dermal "mower"
transfer coefficient, the data were combined (See Section D. 7.1 of Appendix D). For children 11
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-28
-------
Lawns/Turf
<16 years old, the transfer coefficient is adjusted for body surface area using a factor of 0.82
(i.e., a 18% reduction in the TC) as outlined in Section 2.3. Table 3-13 provides some summary
statistical information about the turf dermal transfer coefficient distribution for mowing
activities.
The recommended point estimates for use in post-application adult and children 11 < 16
years old dermal exposure assessments are 5,500 and 4,500 cm2/hr, respectively.
Tsihle 3-13: Turf (Mow ingi - Dcniiiil r.xposurc Tniiisfi'r CoclTicicnls (T-sliirl ;iihI Shorts) for IihN\ idiuils
IViionninii Mowing .\cli\ilios
Sliilislic
Ailull Tr;insrcr ( odTicicnl
(ciir/hn
Children 11 < l(> Yours Old
1 musl'iT ( oiTI'icii'ni (cnr/lir) 1
50Ql percentile
2,700
2,200
75 th percentile
6,300
5,200
95th percentile
22,000
18,000
99th percentile
54,000
44,000
AM(SD)
5,500 (7,300)
4,500 (NA)
GM (GSD)
2,700 (3.5)
2,200 (NA)
Range
319-25,860
NA
N
16
NA
1A 18% reduction in the adult transfer coefficient is recommended to account for the differences of body surface
areas between adults and children 11 < 16 years old.
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
Exposure Time (ET)
Another important variable for addressing post-application exposure from treated turf is the
duration of time spent mowing. No microactivity data were available that specifically examined
the amount of time a person spends mowing their home lawn; however, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics American Time Use Survey from 2007 (ATUS) examined the number of hours per day
a person performs lawn and garden care activities around their home. Based on these data, the
recommended point estimate for use in post-application dermal exposure assessment is 1
hour/day for mowing activities.
Future Research/Data Needs
Unavailable information that would refine post-application mowing exposure assessments for
pesticide applications to turf include:
• Application intervals (i.e., how often chemicals are applied to turf) - either chemical-
specific or generic intervals by pesticide-type (e.g., fungicides, insecticides, etc.).
• Survey information (preferably longitudinal) detailing:
o General pesticide use to obtain, on a per capita basis, the probability of treating
turf with pesticides;
o Product-specific application rates to obtain the likelihood that the maximum rate
is used; and,
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-29
-------
Lawns/Turf
o Daily activity patterns specific to the typical amount of time a person spends
mowing their home lawn.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Transfer Coefficient
• The use of the mowing component from a golf course maintenance study as a surrogate
for residential homeowner mowing is reasonably representative of the exposures related
to residential mowing activities. HED believes that residential mower's highest
exposures are most likely to occur when clippings are removed by hand from collection
bags for disposal and this activity was represented in the mowing activity of the golf
course maintenance study.
Turf Transferable Residue
• The Modified California Roller Method was used in the selected turf dermal transfer
coefficient study to collect TTR. This TTR collection method was agreed upon by the
ORETF, CDPR, PMRA, and the Agency. For all assessments, transfer coefficients from
this study should only be used with TTR studies that utilize the Modified California
Roller Method. If chemical-specific TTR data collected via the Modified California
Roller Method are not available, then default TTR data (i.e., based on the application
rate) should be used.
• Absent chemical-specific data, estimates of turf transferable residue factors such as the
amount available following application and dissipation are used genetically based on
existing data for a wide variety of chemicals. Use of this data genetically, including
using high-end estimates, may overestimate exposure for other chemicals.
• Assessors should recognize that mowing grass after an application may be limited by
label directions indicating not to mow until a certain period of time has passed after
application or else the product may not work.
• Assessors should recognize that real world factors such as rainfall/irrigation and grass
growth can greatly impact the dissipation rate of pesticides on turf.
Exposure Time
• The extent to which the amount of time spent conducting certain activities varies over an
extended period of time is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no variation
when assessing longer-term exposure times is considered conservative.
3.2.8 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment: Golfing
This SOP provides a standard method for estimating potential dermal doses to golfers from
dermal contact with turf that has previously been treated with pesticides. Considering the
strengths and limitations of available data and behavioral characteristics of potentially exposed
lifestages (See Appendix A for more details); exposure for adults, children 11 < 16 years old, and
children 6 < 11 years old is calculated in this scenario. This scenario assumes that pesticide
residues are transferred to the skin of adults and teens that play golf on treated turf.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-30
-------
Lawns/Turf
It is assumed that individuals can be golfing on previously treated turf on the same day a
pesticide is applied. However, the assessment can be refined to more accurately reflect exposure
over a longer period of time (e.g., a week or month) if toxicological or activity information is
available to allow for such calculations.
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm - Golfing
Exposure resulting from contacting previously treated turf while golfing is calculated as follows:
E= TTRt * CF1 * TC * ET
(3.20)
where:
and
E = exposure (mg/day);
TTRt = turf transferable residue on day "t" (|ig/cm );
CF1 = weight unit conversion factor (0.001 mg/|ig);
TC = transfer coefficient (cm /hr); and
ET = exposure time (hr/day).
TTRt = AR*F* (1-Fdf * CF2 * CF3
(3.21)
where:
TTRt = turf transferable residue on day "t" (|ig/cm );
AR = application rate (lbs ai/ft2 or lb ai/acre);
F = fraction of ai retained on turf (unitless);'
Fd = fraction of residue that dissipates daily (unitless);
t = post-application day on which exposure is being assessed;
o
CF2 = weight unit conversion factor (4.54 x 10 jug/lb); and
CF3 = area unit conversion factor (1.08 x 10"3 ft2/cm2or 2.47 x 10"8 acre/cm2).
Absorbed dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:
F* AF
D= (3.22)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application dermal exposure while golfing following applications to golf course turf is
generally considered short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more
accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the
various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific
re-treatment intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-31
-------
Lawns/Turf
term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect
the exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions - Golfing
Recommended values for post-application dermal golfing exposure assessments are provided in
Table 3-14. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to derive
recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed when
characterizing exposure.
liihlo 3-14: 1 in
'1'(Coifing) - Rocoin minded Point llsliniiilos lor PoM-.\pplic;ilion l)crm;il llxposmv
l";ic(»rs
Al^uriihm
I'1\|)ummv l";ic(or
Point I.N(iiii;ik'(s)
Noliiiion
( ii nils)
AR
Application rale
Maximum labeled
(mass active ingredient per unit area)
rate
F
Fraction of AR as TTR
LAVP/WDG
0.01
following application
Granules
0.002
Fd
Daily residue dissipation
LAVP/WDG
0.1
Granules
0.1
TC
Transfer Coefficient
Adult
5,300
(cm2/hr)
Children 11 < 16 years old
4,400
Children 6 < 11 years old
2,900
ET
Exposure time
(hours per day)
Pesticides used on greens, tees,
and fairways
4
Pesticides used only on greens
1
and tees
BW
Body Weight
Adults
80
(kg)
Children 11 < 16 years old
57
Children 6 < 11 years old
32
NA = not applicable
LAVP/WDG = liquid/wettable powder/water dispersible granule
Turf Transferable Residue (TTR)
See discussion of TTR in Section 3.2.2 above.
Fraction of Application Rate Available For Transfer (F)
See discussion of F in Section 3.2.2 above.
Daily residue dissipation (FD)
See discussion of FD in Section 3.2.2 above.
Transfer Coefficient (TC)
The transfer coefficients used for the "golfer" dermal scenarios were derived using the best
available data. In this case, data collected during a golf course maintenance study (Klonne and
Bruce, 2005) was considered to provide the best representation of the exposures that might be
experienced by golfers. Data were gathered while human volunteers moved cups on golf greens
(6 participants). The cup changing activity consisted of making a new hole with a hand operated
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-32
-------
Lawns/Turf
cup cutter, putting the plastic cup liner from the old hole into the new hole, filling the old hole
with sand and the plug from the new hole. Some cup changers also repaired ball marks on the
greens with a hand tool similar to those used by golfers. Cup changing occurred first thing in the
morning and a monitoring event consisted of changing 18 cups. Most workers performed the
cup changing while bending over and not contacting the turf with anything, but their shoes and
hands; however, one worker routinely kneeled on one knee and two other workers kneeled for a
few holes. HED has fit a distribution from the 6 cup changing exposures to calculate a surrogate
transfer coefficient for golfers (See Section D. 7.1 of Appendix D).
For children 11 < 16 years old, the transfer coefficient is adjusted for body surface area using a
factor of 0.82 (i.e., a 18% reduction in the TC) as outlined in Section 2.3. For children 6 < 11
years old, the transfer coefficient is adjusted for body surface area using a factor of 0.55 (i.e., a
45% reduction in the TC) as outlined in Section 2.3. Table 3-15 provides some summary
statistical information about the turf dermal transfer coefficient distribution for golfing activities.
The recommended point estimates for use in post-application adult, children 11<16 years
old, and children 6<11 years old dermal exposure assessment are 5,300; 4,400; and 2,900
cm2/hr, respectively.
Table 3-15: Turf (Colfinii) - l)crm;d llxposmv
l i iiiislii- Coefficients (T-shirt iiml Shorts) lor IihN\ idiiiils
Collin"
Sliiiislic
Ariull Tninsfcr CoelTk-ienl
(cur/hi)
Children 11 < l(> Yc;irs
Old 1 ViinslVr Coefficient
Children (i < 11 Yc.irs Old
I'mnslcr Coefficient
(cnr/lir) 1
(cnr/lir)"
50 peiveiiule
ISnn
2,300
1,500
75 th percentile
6,400
5,300
3,500
95th percentile
21,000
17,000
12,000
99th percentile
49,000
40,000
27,000
AM(SD)
5,300 (7,000)
4,400 (NA)
2,900 (NA)
GM (GSD)
2,800 (3.3)
2,300 (NA)
1,500 (NA)
Range
988-18,863
NA
NA
N
6
NA
NA
1 A 18% reduction in the adult transfer coefficient is recommended to account for the differences of body
surface areas between adults and children 11 < 16 years old.
A 45% reduction in the adult transfer coefficient is recommended to account for the differences of body
surface areas between adults and children 6 < 11 years old.
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
Exposure Time (ET)
Another important variable for addressing post-application exposure from treated turf while
golfing is the duration of time spent golfing. The duration is assumed to be 4 hours for a
chemical that can be used on all parts of a golf course (greens, tees, and fairways). This estimate
is the average time it takes to play a round of golf and is based on a report completed by the
Center for Golf Course Management (1992).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-33
-------
Lawns/Turf
It should also be noted that some chemicals are limited to use on greens and tees or are primarily
used on just greens and tees for cultural reasons. When chemicals meet these criteria, the
exposure time is 1 hour because contact time is proportionately lower with the treated area. If a
chemical has a label restriction for greens and tees, then a single exposure calculation should be
completed for the 1 hour duration.
Future Research/Data Needs
Unavailable information that would refine post-application golfing exposure assessments for
pesticide applications to turf include:
• Application intervals (i.e., how often chemicals are applied to turf) - either chemical-
specific or generic intervals by pesticide-type (e.g., fungicides, insecticides, etc.).
• Survey information (preferably longitudinal) detailing:
o General pesticide use to obtain, on a per capita basis, the probability of treating
golf course turf with pesticides;
o Product-specific application rates to obtain the likelihood that the maximum rate
is used; and,
o Daily activity patterns specific to the typical amount of time a person spends
golfing.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Risk assessments for children (< 5 years old) golfing are complex due to the extrapolation of
adult dermal exposure data and because of the increased likelihood of other behaviors that might
contribute to exposure, such as mouthing contaminated hands or golf balls. Therefore, the risk
associated with children in a golfing scenario is addressed qualitatively below:
• Five-year-old children are assumed to be the representative lifestage for children in a
golfing scenario. The surface area to body weight ratio (SA/BW) for male children 5
years of age (the difference is larger for males compared to females making the value
more protective) was calculated by using the 95th percentile for body surface area and the
50th percentile for body weight. The ratio was intentionally skewed to account for the
uncertainties that would be expected with calculating dose levels for children if more
definitive data were available, and for potential additional exposure that may occur from
mouthing behaviors. This skewed SA/BW ratio for children was compared to that of the
average adult, and found to be approximately 70 percent greater. Based on this parameter
alone, a child's exposure could be almost twice that of the adult golfer; however, it
should be noted that a child is not expected to use the golf course for the same length of
time as an adult. While an adult is likely to play a full round of golf (i.e., 18 holes),
which takes approximately 4 hours, a child would probably only spend about 2 hours
(i.e., the 75th percentile for time spent playing on grass by children aged 1-4 years and 5-
11 years) on the course. Thus, the child's shorter duration on the golf course offsets the
higher SA/BW ratio, and therefore, the child golfer's exposure is likely to be similar to
that of the adult golfer.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-34
-------
Lawns/Turf
Transfer Coefficient
• The use of the cup changing component from a golf course maintenance study is an
acceptable surrogate for golfer exposure because it is assumed that a golfer's highest
exposures are most likely to occur when contacting residues from turf on and around the
greens and residues remaining on the golf ball. The actions associated with cup changing
in the golf course maintenance study are similar to typical golfer actions and, as a result,
the actions should result in similar exposures.
Turf Transferable Residue
• The Modified California Roller Method was used in the selected turf dermal transfer
coefficient study to collect TTR. This TTR collection method was agreed upon by the
ORETF, CDPR, PMRA, and the Agency. For all assessments, transfer coefficients from
this study should only be used with TTR studies that utilize the Modified California
Roller Method. If chemical-specific TTR data collected via the Modified California
Roller Method are not available, then default TTR data (i.e., based on the application
rate) should be used.
• Absent chemical-specific data, estimates of turf transferable residue factors such as the
amount available following application and dissipation are used genetically based on
existing data for a wide variety of chemicals. Use of the data genetically, including using
high-end estimates, may result in overestimates for some chemicals.
• Assessors should recognize that real world factors such as rainfall/irrigation, grass
growth, and grass mowing can greatly impact the dissipation rate of pesticides on turf.
Irrigation and mowing are of particular importance to the golfer scenario in that both of
these activities occur on almost a daily basis at most golf courses. Based on these factors,
the golfer exposure scenario should be considered conservative in nature when compared
to possible real world exposures.
Exposure Time
• The extent to which the amount of time spent conducting certain activities varies over an
extended period of time is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no variation
when assessing longer-term exposure times is considered conservative.
3.2.9 Combining Post-application Scenarios
Risk estimates resulting from different exposure scenarios are combined when it is likely that
they can occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and when the toxicological effects across
different routes of exposure are the same (see Section 1.3.5). When combining scenarios, it is
important to fully characterize the potential for co-occurrence as well as characterizing the risk
inputs and estimates. Risk estimates should be combined even if any one scenario or route of
exposure exceeds the level of concern because this allows for better risk characterization for risk
managers. The following issues should be considered when combining scenarios for the
residential turf SOP:
¦ There are a number of non-dietary ingestion exposure scenarios that could potentially be
combined with the dermal exposure scenario. These non-dietary ingestion scenarios
should be considered inter-related and it is likely that they occur interspersed amongst
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-35
-------
Lawns/Turf
each other across time. For example, a child may place his hand in his mouth X number
of times as well as place an object in his mouth Y number of times during a certain period
of time. Each of these events could result in a potential transfer of residue, but could also
result in a soil ingestion event as soil may be present on the hand or object during
mouthing. The potential combinations of co-occurrence of the hand-to-mouth/object-to-
mouth/soil ingestion scenarios across a particular period of time are limitless. Combining
all three of these scenarios with the dermal exposure scenario would be overly-
conservative because of the conservative nature of each individual assessment. Based on
this discussion, the post-application exposure scenarios that should be combined for
short-term exposure durations are the dermal and hand-to-mouth scenarios. This
combination should be considered a protective estimate of children's exposure to
pesticides used on turf.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
3-36
-------
Gardens and Trees
Section 4 Gardens and Trees
The procedures outlined in this section should be used to assess dermal and inhalation exposure
during (i.e., handler) and following pesticide applications (i.e., post-application) to gardens and
trees at home by professional pesticide applicators or homeowners themselves. Other potential
sources of exposure addressed by this section where professional applications could potentially
lead to exposure by the general population, if applicable to the pesticide and its label under
consideration, include "pick-your-own" farms and treated plants purchased at retail locations.
For the purposes of this section, a "pick-your-own" farm is a commercial farming operation that
allows public access for harvesting fruits, vegetables, or ornamental plants in large-scale fields
that can be treated with commercially labeled pesticides. Additionally, as dietary exposure is a
separate component of the overall human health exposure/risk assessment, this section does not
include dietary exposure resulting from fruits or vegetables treated with pesticides at home.
The following are example use sites from pesticide product labeling that would necessitate an
assessment for this scenario:
• Gardens:
o Flowers (e.g., chrysanthemums);
o Fruits (e.g., strawberries); and
o Vegetables (e.g., tomatoes, squash, etc.).
• Trees:
o Fruits (e.g., apples, citrus);
o Nuts (e.g., pecans);
o Shrubs (e.g., boxwood); and
o Ornamentals (e.g., maples).
The exposure assessor should assume use is permitted for use in home gardens and trees or by
homeowners unless a specific statement on the label indicates the product is only used in non-
residential settings. Examples of such statements include:
o Commercial or research greenhouse use only;
o For nursery-grown ornamentals only; and
o For use in commercial plantings only.
Additionally, "Restricted Use Pesticide" classification indicates that the product cannot be
bought or applied by homeowners (i.e., no residential handler exposure/risk assessment
required), but it may be applied by commercial applicators to residential sites; therefore, a post-
application risk assessment may be required.
Once scenarios are identified, the assessment should then characterize and estimate the potential
for exposure by route (i.e., dermal, inhalation) using the methodologies outlined in this section.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-1
-------
Gardens and Trees
4.1 Handler Exposure Assessment
Handler exposure can result from treating home gardens and trees with pesticides. Some key
assumptions for these assessments include:
• Adults are considered the index lifestage for this scenario as it is assumed that pesticides
are applied by adults only (i.e., individuals 16 years and older).
• All application equipment and methods are assumed feasible unless prohibited by the
product label.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm
As described in Section 1.3.3, daily dermal and inhalation exposure (mg/day) for residential
pesticide handlers, for a given formulation-application method combination, is estimated by
multiplying the formulation-application method-specific unit exposure by an estimate of the
amount of active ingredient handled in a day, using the equation below:
E = UE * AR * A (4.1)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
UE = unit exposure (mg/lb ai);
AR = application rate (e.g., lb ai/ft, lb ai/gal); and
A = area treated or amount handled (e.g., ft2/day, gal/day).
Dermal and/or inhalation absorbed doses normalized to body weight are calculated as:
E* AE
E> = (4.2)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Handler exposure for applications to gardens and trees is generally considered short-term in
duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day
exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections
1.3.2 and 1.3.3 such as the product-specific application regimen.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for handler exposure (inhalation and dermal) assessments are provided in
Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. Following these tables, each scenario-specific input parameter is
described in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions, ii) data
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-2
-------
Gardens and Trees
sources used to derive recommended input values, and iii) discussion of limitations that should
be addressed when characterizing exposure.
liihk'4-l: (iiii'dcus iiiid l ives- Recommended I nil I-ainisiiiv img/lh ;ii) Point I sliiniKis
I'ormiikilinn
l'.(|iiipmcnl/.\pplic;iliun
Method
Doi'iiiid
Iiihidiilion
Appendix P;iiic
Reference
Point l.sliniiik'
Point I stiniiitc
Granules
Push-type spreaders
0.81
0.0026
C-4
Belly grinders
360
0.039
C-ll
Spoon
6.2
0.087
C-20
Cup
0.11
0.013
C-24
Hand dispersal
160
0.38
C-28
Shaker can
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for granule applications using a cup
recommended as surrogate data.
Dusts/Powders
Plunger duster
250
1.7
C-32
Bulb duster
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for plunger duster applications recommended
as surrogate data.
Electric/power duster
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for shaker can applications of dusts/powders
recommended as surrogate data.
Hand crank duster
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for shaker can applications of dusts/powders
recommended as surrogate data.
Shaker can
4300
18
C-36
Liquid concentrates
Manually-pressurized
handwand
63
0.018
C-56
Hose-end sprayer
58
0.0014
C-79
Backpack
130
0.14
C-91
Sprinkler can
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for hose-end sprayer applications of liquid
concentrates recommended as surrogate data.
Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Hose-end sprayer
6.26
0.034
C-107
Trigger-sprayers
85.1
0.061
C-113
Aerosol can
370
3.0
C-134
Wettable Powder
Manually-pressurized
handwand
69
1.1
C-141
Hose-end sprayer
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for hose-end sprayer applications of liquid
concentrates recommended as surrogate data.
Backpack
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for manually-pressurized handwand
applications of wettable powders recommended as surrogate
data.
Sprinkler can
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for hose-end sprayer applications of liquid
concentrates recommended as surrogate data.
Wettable Powder in
Water-soluble
Packaging
Manually-pressurized
handwand
No exposure data available for this scenario. Exposure data
for manually-pressurized handwand applications of liquid
concentrates recommended as surrogate data.
Hose-end sprayer
No exposure data available for this scenario. Exposure data
for RTU hose-end sprayers recommended as surrogate data.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-3
-------
Gardens and Trees
liihk'4-l: (iiii'dcus iiiid l ives- Recommended I nil r.xposniv img/lh ;ii) Point r.slim;ilcs
I'ormiikition
l'.(|iiipmcnl/.\pplic;ilion
Method
l)crm;il
Iiihidiilion
Appendix P;iiic
Reference
Point I sliniiitc
Point I stiniiitc
Backpack
No exposure data available for this scenario. Exposure data
for manually-pressurized handwand applications of liquid
concentrates recommended as surrogate data.
Sprinkler can
No exposure data available for this scenario. Exposure data
for RTU hose-end sprayers recommended as surrogate data.
Dry Flowable /
Water-dispersible
Granule
Manually-pressurized
handwand
Hose-end sprayer
Backpack
Sprinkler can
No exposure data available for this scenario. Application
method-specific exposure data for wettable powders
recommended as surrogate data.
Micro-encapsulates
Manually-pressurized
handwand
Hose-end sprayer
Backpack
Sprinkler can
No exposure data available for this scenario. Application
method-specific exposure data for liquid concentrates
recommended as surrogate data.
T;il>lc4-2: (.unions ;ind l ives - Recommended lliindler r.xposniv l uctor Point l-'sliimiles
r.xposniv l";ic(or
(units)
Poinl l'.sliniiile(s)
Application Rate
(mass ai per unit area)
Maximum labeled rate
Garden Size
(ft2)
1200
Amount product or
finished spray solution
used
Manually-pressurized handwand
(gallons)
5
Backpack
(gallons)
5
Hose-end sprayer
(gallons)
11
Sprinkler can
(gallons)
5
Ready-to-use single use containers
(e.g., aerosol cans, trigger-spray bottles, shaker cans)
2
Body Weight
(kg)
80
Unit Exposures
As described in Section 1.3.3, the unit exposure is the ratio, for a given formulation/application
method combination, between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled, with units
mass exposure per mass active ingredient handled (e.g., mg ai exposure/lb ai handled). The
recommended point estimates are shown in Table 4-1. Data summaries can be found in
Appendix C.
Amount of active ingredient Handled
The algorithm for estimating handler exposure requires some estimate of the amount of active
ingredient handled per day. This factor varies based on the type of equipment or application
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-4
-------
Gardens and Trees
method used and is estimated based on the application rate specified on the product label. First,
the assessor should assemble application rate information in terms of active ingredient per area
treated (e.g., lb ai/1000 ft) and/or active ingredient concentration established per volume of
spray (e.g., lb ai/gallon solution). For example, instructions for a granule formulation might
direct application of 2 lbs of product per 100 square feet or a spray application might say to
apply 2 gallons of solution per 100 square feet. Additionally, the assessment must reflect
exposure resulting from use of the product and chemical at the maximum allowable application
rate found on the product label. The probability of using a product at its maximum allowable
rate at home is unknown, so additional information (e.g., use surveys or pest-specific application
rates), can be used, if available, to characterize the exposure resulting from use at the maximum
allowable rate.
Once the application rate is determined, an amount of area treated or amount of volume sprayed
is used to convert the application rate into the amount of active ingredient handled (which is then
used with the unit exposure to estimate handler exposure). For this scenario, the amount of area
treated is estimated using information about garden size from a survey (Johnson et al., 1999).
Note that these results represent garden sizes, not garden areas treated. Table 4-3 below presents
a statistical summary assuming a lognormal distribution for garden size to be used when
application rates are in terms of area. The recommended point estimate for garden size is
1200 ft2. Additional information and analysis is presented in Section A. 1 of Appendix C.
1 'sihie 4-3: Sisilisliesil Siimmsin - (.union Si/e ifr)
50th percentile
80
75th percentile
390
95th percentile
3700
99th percentile
18000
AM(SD)
1200 (18000)
GM (GSD)
80 (10)
Range
unknown
N
364
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
If a case is being considered in which the application rate is based on spray concentration, an
estimate for the amount of finished spray solution volume is necessary. Such a rate would be
used for spraying trees, for example, where an "area-based" approach would not be appropriate
or useful because label instructions provide target spray concentrations. However, this factor is
likely application method-specific (i.e., one might apply more solution using a hose-end sprayer
than a sprinkler can) and explicit information on volumes sprayed in home applications is
unavailable.
For hose-end sprayers, application volume was derived from a study measuring exposure during
applications of liquid formulations to fruit trees and ornamental shrubs using a hose-end sprayer
(Merricks, 1998). A statistical summary assuming a normal distribution for application volume
is provided in Table 4-4 below. The recommended point estimate for amount sprayed for
hose-end sprayers is 11 gallons. Statistical analyses and data summary are provided in Section
A.l of Appendix C.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-5
-------
Gardens and Trees
1 ;il)lc 4-4: Miilisliciil Siimniiin - Application Volume (pillions) lor IIoso-oikI Spr;i>ors
50 percentile
11
75 th percentile
14
95th percentile
19
99th percentile
22
AM(SD)
11(5.1)
GM (GSD)
10(1.6)
Range
6-21
N
20
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
For all other applications, information on the amount of product used is largely unavailable. For
manually-pressurized handwands, backpacks, and sprinkler cans, a volume of 5 gallons is
recommended; for aerosol cans and trigger-sprayers, 2 cans or containers per application
is recommended. Should ready-to-use containers of granules or dusts/powders not specify
an area-based application rate, 2 containers per application is recommended. These are
conservative estimates based on professional judgment informed by existing applicator studies
which discussed the extent of use (e.g., duration, volume, etc.).
Future Research/Data Needs
Unavailable information that would refine handler exposure assessments for pesticide
applications to gardens and trees include:
• Application intervals (i.e., how often chemicals are applied to gardens and trees) - either
chemical-specific or generic intervals by pesticide-type (e.g., fungicides, insecticides,
etc.).
• Survey information (preferably longitudinal) detailing:
o Daily/weekly/monthly probability of treating gardens and trees with pesticides;
o Amount of product or formulation used or area treated per application;
o Product-specific application rates to obtain the likelihood that the maximum rate
is used.
• Handler exposure data:
o Specific for garden and tree applications, beyond what had been included in
previous residential data call-ins (DCIs), including those formulations and/or
application methods currently unavailable in Table 4-2;
o Describing the extent to which an individual's exposure for a given formulation
and application method varies from application-to-application.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-6
-------
Gardens and Trees
Unit Exposures
• The exposure data underlying unit exposures are considered reasonable for the purposes
of estimating exposure. The data are from actual applications using standardized
exposure sampling methodologies and laboratory analyses.
• The underlying assumption of the use of exposure data as unit exposures -
proportionality between the amount of active ingredient handled and exposure - is
uncertain, though potentially conservative. However, as a prediction mechanism, it is
considered practical and useful for the purposes of handler exposure assessment in a
regulatory context. It provides a straightforward handler exposure calculation method
and enables risk mitigation in the form of formulation comparison and decreased
application rates.
• The extent to which an individual's exposure (expressed via unit exposures) varies day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
Amount of active ingredient handled
• Information on the amounts of active ingredient handled for typical residential gardens
and trees application equipment is largely unavailable. The estimates used however, are
believed to result in health protective exposure estimates.
• The extent to which the amount an individual will handle per application varies from day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
4.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment
Post-application exposure can result from conducting activities in previously treated areas such
as gardening or picking fruits following pesticide applications by professional pesticide
applicators or by homeowners themselves.
Adults and children 6 < 11 years old are considered the index lifestages for this exposure
scenario as it is assumed that younger children (i.e., < 6 years old) won't utilize these areas for
playing nor engage in the types of activities associated with these areas (e.g., gardening or
picking fruits) to the extent that older children will. Additionally, by law, "pick-your-own"
farms cannot spray pesticides within the pre-harvest interval (PHI), e.g., 7 or 14 days prior to
harvest. Therefore, assessments applicable for activities at "pick-your-own" farms should
account for residue dissipation during the PHI (i.e., residue @ "day of application + PHI").
This section addresses standard methods for estimating exposure and dose for three scenarios
resulting from contact with gardens and/or trees that have previously been treated with
pesticides:
• Section 4.2.1 - adult/children 6 < 11 years old inhalation exposure resulting from
activities in gardens and/or trees;
• Section 4.2.2 - adult/children 6 < 11 years old dermal exposure resulting from activities
in gardens and/or trees; and
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-7
-------
Gardens and Trees
• Section 4.2.3 - children 1 < 2 years old non-dietary ingestion.
4.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Post-application inhalation exposure while performing activities in previously treated gardens or
trees is rarely assessed due to the combination of low vapor pressure for typical pesticide active
ingredients and the expected dilution in outdoor air. These should be handled on a case-by-case
basis.
4.2.2 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment
Post-application dermal exposure resulting from contact with previously treated gardens and
trees is dependent on three exposure factors: foliar residue, leaf-to-skin residue transfer, and
exposure time. Considering the strengths and limitations of available data and behavioral
characteristics of potentially exposed lifestages, post-application dermal exposure is assessed for
adults and children 6 < 11 years old.
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm
The algorithm to calculate daily exposure and dose is shown below. As discussed in Section
1.3.4, residential post-application exposure assessment must include calculation of exposure on
the day of application. Therefore, though an assessment can present exposures for any day "t"
following the application, it must include "day 0" exposure.
E = DFRt * CF1 * TC * ET
(4.3)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
DFRt = dislodgeable foliar residue on day "t" (|ig/cm );
CF1 = weight unit conversion factor (0.001 mg/|ig);
TC = transfer coefficient (cm /hr); and
ET = exposure time (hrs/day).
In the absence of chemical-specific data, DFRt can be calculated as follows:
DFRt = AR* Far* (1-Fd)' * CF2 * CF3
(4.4)
where:
2
DFRt = dislodgeable foliar residue on day "t" (|ig/cm );
AR = application rate (lbs ai/ft2 or lb ai/acre);
Far = fraction of ai as dislodgeable residue following application (unitless);
Fd = fraction of residue that dissipates daily (unitless);
t = post-application day on which exposure is being assessed;
o
CF2 = weight unit conversion factor (4.54 x 10 jug/lb); and
CF3 = area unit conversion factor (1.08 x 10"3 ft2/cm2 or 2.47 x 10"8 acre/cm2).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-8
-------
Gardens and Trees
Absorbed dermal dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:
F* AF
D= (4.5)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application dermal exposure following applications to gardens and trees is generally
considered short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate
short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors
outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment
intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or
lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the
exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application dermal exposure assessments are provided in Table
4-5 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to derive
recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed when
characterizing exposure.
1 "sihie 4-5: (iiii'dens. l ives, iiiid "Pick-jour-ow n" hu ms - Keeoinineiuled Poiiil llsliniiiles lor Posi-
Apnlieiilion Derniiil l-'\p«isiire l-'iielors
Algorithm
Noliiiioii
r.\|)<>Mire l";ie(»r
(unils)
Poiiil l'.sliiiiiile(s)
AR
Application rate
(mass ai per unit area)
Maximum labeled
rate
Far
DFR following application, if chemical-specific is unavailable
(fraction)
0.25
Fd
Daily residue dissipation, if chemical-specific is unavailable
(fraction)
0.10
TC
Transfer
Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
Gardens3
Adults
8400
Children 6 < 11 years old
4600
Trees, Retail
Plants (if
applicable)3
Adults
1700
Children 6 < 11 years old
930
Indoor Plants
Adults
220
Children 6 < 11 years old
120
ET
Exposure
Time
(hours per
day)
Home activities'3
Gardens
Adults
2.2
Children 6 < 11 years
old
1.1
Trees, Retail
Plants (if
applicable)
Adults
1.0
Children 6 < 11 years
old
0.50
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-9
-------
Gardens and Trees
1 iihlo 4
-5: (.unions. 1
'im. iiiid "Pick-winr-Miiv hiclnr
(iinils)
Poim l'.sliiiiiilo(s)
Adults
1.0
Indoor Plants
Children 6 < 11 years
old
0.50
"Pick-your-own"
Farms (if
applicable)
Adults
5.0
Children 6 < 11 years old
1.9
BW
Body weight
Adults
80
(kg)
Children 6 < 11 years old
32
a Transfer coefficient point estimates from a composite distribution assuming equal proportion of time spent
conducting various activities. See "Transfer Coefficient" section below. Children 6 < 11 years old TC derived
using surface area adjustment (see Section 2.3).
b Activity time point estimates from a composite distribution assuming equal proportion of each respective
activity. Time for children 6 < 11 years old derived using hrs/day ratio adjustment. See "Exposure Time" section
below and Section D. 8.1 of Appendix D,
Application Rate
The assessment must reflect exposure resulting from use of the product and chemical at the
maximum allowable application rate found on the product label. The probability of using a
product at its maximum allowable rate at home or at "pick-your-own" farms is unknown, so
additional information (e.g., use surveys), can be used, if available, to characterize the exposure
resulting from use at the maximum allowable rate.
When chemical-specific residue information is unavailable, the assessment methodologies
outlined in this section require the application rate to be in terms of mass active ingredient per
area (e.g., lb ai/ft). Typically, this is listed on the label however, it sometimes must be
estimated based on the solution concentration (e.g., lb ai/gallon dilute solution) and the volume
of solution applied (e.g., 0.5 gallons solution/ft). This "area-based" approach is intuitive for
garden applications where a user can approximate their garden's size and spray accordingly.
This is more difficult, however, for applications to trees since a user would not typically spray
trees on a square footage basis. More likely, the product label directs the user to "spray to run
off' or "as needed". In these cases, a label indicating the chemical's application rate for orchards
or other trees used by professional applicators should be used - typically listed as an "area-
based" rate in pounds of active ingredient per acre (lb ai/acre). In the event there is no
professional label, the "area-based" application rate from sprays to gardens should be used. The
assumption of similar foliar concentration for gardens and trees is reasonable absent chemical-
and site-specific residue data.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-10
-------
Gardens and Trees
Dislodgeable Foliar Residue
Estimates of Chemical Residue following Pesticide Applications
Following an application, some pesticide residue remains on the leaves of the target plant for an
individual to contact and remove from the leaf surface. This is represented by a measurement
from a standardized analytical method (Iwata, et al., 1977) and is referred to as dislodgeable
foliar residue (DFR). If DFR measurements are unavailable, it can be estimated from the
application rate using default fractions. Either way, the goal is to establish an average
concentration of pesticide residue per unit area of foliage (e.g., |ig/cm2) that an individual can
potentially contact over the course of the exposure period. Exposure can then be predicted using
a surface-to-skin residue "transfer coefficient" (discussed below) - a metric which accounts for
contact with treated surfaces based on the type of crop and activity being performed (e.g.,
harvesting apples).
As stated previously, it is assumed that contact with previously treated residential gardens or
trees occur on the same day of application. Therefore, whether measured or estimated, the
exposure assessment needs to include an estimated exposure based on the DFR on the day of
application (i.e., DFRt=o). For "pick-your-own" farms, however, individuals cannot conduct
activities until the PHI has expired; therefore, residue should be representative of residue that has
dissipated for a number of days (e.g., at 7 days or DFRt=7). When chemical- and crop-specific
data are available, DFR on the day of application and subsequent days can be estimated using a
standard exponential decay model. Notably, the Agency recently revised the data requirements
that pertain to conventional pesticides. As part of these revisions, DFR studies were classified as
required for all occupational and residential uses under 40 CFR 158, subpart K (158.1070; post-
application exposure data requirements table).
In the absence of data, however, DFR can be estimated using generic assumptions for both the
initial residue available (i.e., DFRt=o) and residue dissipation. Analysis of DFR data from field
studies for various types of crops and various active ingredients indicate that the amount of
dislodgeable residue, on the day of application, expressed as a fraction of the application rate,
ranges from 0.02 to 0.89 (i.e., 2% to 89%). The data were fit to a lognormal distribution with a
geometric mean of 0.18 and a geometric standard deviation of 2.21. Because dislodgeable
residue cannot physically be greater than that deposited, the distribution must be truncated at 1.0
(i.e., 100% of the application rate). Note that this distribution is only meant as a basis for
selecting a generic value for the DFR on the day of application as a fraction of the application
rate and is inappropriate to use probabilistically. Because the data are comprised of a variety of
chemicals on a variety of crops under a variety of conditions, this distribution represents the
variability of many different situations. Within each particular DFR study, because the nature of
the sampling results in an average DFR estimate, the distribution of the DFR on the day of
application as a fraction of the application rate is much less variable - indicating that, for a given
chemical the range may be only 2 - 5% or 30 - 35%, not 2 - 89%. Furthermore, because the
chemical-specific variability of this fraction is small, a distribution for use probabilistically is
unnecessary (i.e., it will not have much effect on the outcome) and a point estimate is appropriate
for use in both deterministic and probabilistic assessments. When chemical-specific data are
unavailable the recommended default value for the fraction of application rate as
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-11
-------
Gardens and Trees
dislodgeable foliar residue for both liquid and solid formulations following application is
0.25 (25%). Complete data analysis can be found in Section D.6.2 of Appendix D.
Residue Dissipation
An analysis of various available studies was conducted to determine residue dissipation for use
in exposure assessment in the absence of chemical-specific data. Expressed as a fraction per
day, residue dissipation ranges from 0.03 to 0.47 (i.e., 3% to 47%) with a geometric mean of
0.16 and a geometric standard deviation of 2.18. Complete data analysis can be found in Section
D.6.2 of Appendix D. The recommended default residue dissipation for both liquid and
solid formulations for use in exposure assessment is 0.10 (10% per day).
Transfer Coefficient
Post-application dermal exposure can be predicted using estimates for foliar residue, leaf-to-skin
residue transfer for individuals contacting treated foliage during certain activities, and exposure
time. The measure of leaf-to-skin residue transfer for a given crop and activity is known as the
transfer coefficient (TC). Transfer coefficients are derived from concurrent measurements of
exposure and foliar residue, and are the ratio of exposure rate, measured in mass of chemical per
time (e.g., |ig/hr), to residue, measured in mass of chemical per foliar surface area (e.g., |ig/cm ).
In other words, transfer coefficients are exposure rates (e.g., mg/hr) normalized to residue (e.g.,
2 2
mg/cm ), with resulting units of cm /hr. It follows that exposure rate for a given crop and
activity can then be predicted from a given residue using the transfer coefficient. Additionally,
transfer coefficients are typically applied genetically - that is, for any given chemical, crop-
activity transfer coefficients (e.g., apple harvesting) can be used.
Unlike occupational settings where individuals generally perform one task on one crop
throughout the day (e.g., harvesting apples), individuals in residential settings are likely to
conduct various activities related to gardening and tree or plant maintenance. Transfer
coefficients from occupational reentry exposure studies conducted by the Agricultural Reentry
Task Force (ARTF), were used to establish composite transfer coefficients representing an array
of plausible activities likely to occur in residential settings associated with home gardening and
other scenarios. Additionally, also unlike occupational settings, the transfer coefficients
represent individuals wearing shorts and short-sleeve shirts by using "outer dosimeter" exposure
measurements for the forearm and lower leg sections.
Transfer coefficients were derived for activities conducted in gardens and in trees (both at home
and at "pick-your-own" farms), as well as for indoor plants and retail plants treated at
commercial locations. Table 4-6 below lists the representative crops and activities and the
occupational field reentry studies used to derive their respective transfer coefficients. Because
the individuals monitored in these studies were adults, use of these transfer coefficients to assess
post-application exposure for children 6 < 11 years old requires an adjustment for body surface
area as described in Section 2.3. The recommended adjustment factor for children 6 < 11
years old is 0.55. In practice, this means that a transfer coefficient for children 6 < 11 years old
are expected to be approximately 55% of an adult transfer coefficient (i.e., Adult TC * 0.55).
Complete data analysis for all transfer coefficients can be found in Section D. 7.2 of Appendix D.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-12
-------
Gardens and Trees
Tsihle 4-(»: (.unions. Trees, iind "Pick-viiir-im if" l-~;irms - Triinsler CoelTieienl Studies
Residential Posl-;ipplie;ilion Ac(i\i(>
Rep resell l;ili\e ( rop/.\e(i\ i(\
( onihin;itions
Siiulj ( ode
MRU)
AR IT #
Gardens
(vegetables, fruits, and flowers)
Cabbage weeding
45191701
ARF037
Tomato tying
45530103
ARF051
Squash harvesting
45491902
ARF049
Chrysanthemum pinching
45344501
ARF039
Trees and Retail Plants
(fruits, nuts, ornamentals, shrubs,
bushes)
Ornamental citrus tree pruning
45469501
ARF043
Apple harvesting
45138202
ARF025
Orange harvesting
45432301
ARF041
Grapefruit harvesting
45432302
ARF042
Indoor Plants
Ornamental citrus tree pruning
45469501
ARF043
Gardens
Transfer coefficients for residential gardening were derived using studies representing likely
residential gardening activities such as weeding and picking flowers, fruits, or vegetables. Also,
when appropriate for certain pesticides, these would be applicable for activities in "pick-your-
own" farms growing field grown crops (e.g., pumpkins, strawberries, etc.). Four separate
exposure studies were used: a study each for cabbage weeding (Klonne, et al., 2000; MRID
45191701), tomato tying (Klonne, et al., 2001; MRID 45530103), squash harvesting (Klonne, et
al., 2001; MRID 45491902), and chrysanthemum pinching (Klonne, et al., 2000; MRID
45344501). Each individual study was fit to a lognormal distribution, and then combined into a
single custom distribution via simulation assuming an equal proportion (e.g., 25%) for each
distribution. Table 4-7 below summarizes the statistical information for this data set. Based on
this composite dataset, the recommended point estimates for use in post-application dermal
exposure assessment for gardens are 8400 cm2/hr for adults and 4600 cm2/hr for children 6
<11 years old.
Tsihle 4-"7: Si;iiislie:il Sumiiiiin - Ciirdeninu Tr;insl'er CoelTieieiils (enr/lir)
50th percentile
3200
75th percentile
13000
95th percentile
31000
99th percentile
38000
AM
8400
Range
160-41000
N
67
AM = arithmetic mean
Note: Distributional parameters are not applicable for this distribution. Users are directed to the distributional
parameters for each of the sub-distributions outlined in Section D. 7.2 of Appendix D.
Trees and Retail Plants
Transfer coefficients were derived representing activities at home that individuals would perform
on trees such as picking roses or apples or thinning shrubs and bushes. Also, when appropriate
for certain pesticides, these would be applicable for activities in "pick-your-own" farms growing
tree crops (e.g., apples, some flowers, etc.) as well as for contact with retail plants previously
treated with pesticides at commercial locations. Four separate exposure studies were used: a
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-13
-------
Gardens and Trees
study each for apple harvesting (Klonne, et al., 2000; MRID 45138202), orange harvesting
(Klonne, et al., 2000; MRID 45432301), grapefruit harvesting (Klonne, et al., 2000; MRID
45432302), and ornamental citrus tree pruning (Klonne, et al., 2000; MRID 45469501).
Each individual study was fit to a lognormal distribution, and then combined into a single custom
distribution via simulation assuming an equal proportion (e.g., 25% each) for each distribution.
Table 4-8 below summarizes the statistical information for this data set. Based on this composite
dataset, the recommended point estimates for use in post-application dermal exposure
assessment are 1700 cm2/hr for adults and 930 cm2/hr for children 6 < 11 years old.
1 "sihie 4-X: Si;iiislic
-------
Gardens and Trees
Home Activities
Exposure times for activities associated with gardens and trees at home were derived using a
residential survey (Johnson et al., 1999) and Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (as presented in 1997 EPA
Exposure Factors Handbook; Vol. Ill, Table 15-62). While Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 includes
information on "time spent working with soil in a garden or other circumstances working" for all
lifestages including children 6 < 11 years old, the data are presented as hours/month, thus
making it difficult to interpret daily exposure times necessary for exposure assessments of short
duration. The residential survey (Johnson et al., 1999), on the other hand, asked about specific
types of residential landscaping and maintenance activities and the amount of time an individual
spends conducting such activities quantified in "hours per week" and "days per week".
However, because this survey only included individuals 18 years or older, Tsang and Klepeis,
1996 (as presented in 1997 EPA Exposure Factors Handbook; Vol. Ill, Table 15-62) was used to
adjust these results for those under 18 years. Analysis of this survey information can be found in
Section D.8.1 of Appendix D.
Gardens
As for transfer coefficients for gardening, a custom distribution for home gardening was
simulated using cumulative distributions derived from the Johnson, et al. (1999) survey results
for vegetable gardening and flower gardening in equal proportion (i.e., 50% each). Each
cumulative distribution was truncated at 16 hours per day (i.e., 16 hrs = 100th percentile) to
subtract for 8 hours of sleep. Additionally, as described in Appendix D, based on Tsang and
Klepeis, 1996 (as presented in 1997 EPA Exposure Factors Handbook; Vol. Ill, Table 15-62),
activity time for children 6 < 11 years old is considered to be approximately half that for adults
and are adjusted accordingly. Table 4-10 below provides a statistical summary of the composite
distribution for time spent in home gardening activities. The recommended point estimates for
use in post-application dermal exposure assessment are 2.2 hours per day for adults and
1.1 hours per day for children 6 < 11 years old.
1 "sihie 4-10: Nome Ciirileninii-Ae(i\i(\ Time (hrs/(l;i\) S(;i(islic;il Siiiiiin;ir\
Sliiiislie
(iiirrieninu
Adults
Youlhs
50th percentile
1.4
0.7
75 th percentile
2.9
1.5
95th percentile
6.9
3.5
99th percentile
13
6.5
AM
2.2
1.1
N
883
883
Notes:
AM = arithmetic mean
- Distributions are truncated at 16 hours per day
- Distributional parameters are not applicable (NA) for this distribution. Users are directed to the distributional
parameters for each of the sub-distributions outlined in Section D.8.
lof Appendix D
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-15
-------
Gardens and Trees
Trees. Retail Plants and Indoor Plants
A custom distribution for activity time associated with trees at home was simulated using
cumulative distributions derived from the Johnson, et al., 1999 survey results for roses,
shrubs/bushes, and fruit/nut trees (i.e., 33% each). This distribution is also considered a
reasonable representation for time spent during activities associated with indoor plants. Each
cumulative distribution was truncated at 16 hours per day (i.e., 16 hrs = 100th percentile) to
subtract for 8 hours of sleep. Table 4-11 below provides a statistical summary of the composite
distribution. The recommended point estimates for use in post-application dermal exposure
assessment are 1.0 hour per day for adults and 0.5 hour per day for children 6 < 11 years
old.
Tsihlo 4-11: lloino Tiocs. Koliiil Phinls. iiiid Indoor Phiuls - Ao(i\ i(\ Timo (hrs/d;i\) Sl;i(is(io;d Suinm;ir\
Sliiiislio
l-'ruil. Nul. iind ()rn;imoiil;il 11
oos iind liushos iiiid Shrubs
Adults
Youths
50th percentile
0.5
0.25
75th percentile
1.4
0.7
95th percentile
3.4
1.7
99th percentile
6.3
3.2
AM
1.0
0.5
N
831
831
Notes:
AM = arithmetic mean
- Distributions are truncated at 16 hours per day.
- Distributional parameters are not applicable (NA) for this distribution. Users are directed to the distributional
parameters for each of the sub-distributions outlined in Section D.8.
1 of Appendix D.
"Pick-your-own" Farm Activities
Survey information specifically for the amount of time spent at "pick-your-own" farms is
unavailable. Therefore, information from Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (presented in the 1997 EPA
Exposure Factors Handbook; Vol. Ill Table 15-112) for amount of time "spent outdoors at a
farm" was used. The time for adults, aged 18-64 years, ranged from 5 minutes to 16 hours per
day, while the time for children, aged 5-11, ranged from 25 minutes to 4.4 hours per day. Note
that, while the upper-end of the distribution indicates the time spent for adults is near 16 hours
per day, it is assumed that anything greater than 8 hours at a "pick-your-own" farm is unlikely
and values higher than this are likely a characteristic of the genericness of the data set used to
estimate this exposure factor (i.e., "time spent outdoors at a farm" is not necessarily
representative of "time spent at a "pick-your-own" farm"). Table 4-12 below provides a
statistical summary of this data. When a "pick your own" farm post-application exposure
assessment is appropriate, the recommended values for exposure time are 5.0 hours per day
for adults and 1.9 hours per day for children 6 < 11 years old. Additional information can be
found in Section D.8 of Appendix D.
Tsihlo 4-12: Timo Spoilt ill "PioU-uiur-ow n" l"sirms (hrs/d;i\) Sliiiisiioiil Suiiiin;ir\
l.il'osliiiio
Alio
(from diiiii)
Sliiiisiios
N
M o;i n
Sumniiin I'oroonIilos
5
25
50
75
yo
•)5
yx
<)<)
Adults
18-64
91
5.0
0.3
1.3
3.8
8.3
10.6
13.0
15.6
15.9
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-16
-------
Gardens and Trees
Children
6<11
5-11
7
1.9
0.4
0.8
1.7
2.2
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (presented in 1997 EPA Exposure Factors Handbook Vol. Ill; Table 15-112).
Future Research/Data Needs
Unavailable information that would refine post-application dermal exposure assessments for
pesticide applications to gardens and trees include:
• Application intervals (i.e., how often chemicals are applied to gardens and trees) - either
chemical-specific or generic intervals by pesticide-type (e.g., fungicides, insecticides,
etc.).
• Survey information (preferably longitudinal) detailing:
o Daily/weekly/monthly probability of treating gardens and trees with pesticides;
o Product-specific application rates to obtain the likelihood that the maximum rate
is used; and,
o Daily activity patterns specific to gardens and trees.
• Post-application exposure data:
o Specific for residential garden and tree activities;
o Describing the extent to which an individual's exposure for a given activity
varies.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Transfer Coefficient: Because exposure data for deriving "residential" transfer coefficients were
unavailable, they were derived using occupational exposure studies. This is likely health-
protective due to the level of activity by workers compared to an individual conducting a similar
activity at home (e.g., picking apples). Additionally, the relationships underlying the use of post-
application exposure data as transfer coefficients - proportionality between exposure and time
and between exposure rate (i.e., mg/hr) and residue - are uncertain, though potentially
conservative.
Dislodgeable Foliar Residue: Absent chemical-specific data, estimates of dislodgeable foliar
residue factors such as the amount available following application and dissipation are used
generically based on existing data for a wide variety of chemicals. Use of these data genetically,
including using high-end estimates, may overestimate exposure for some chemicals.
Exposure Time: Information on the amount of time spent conducting certain activities, while
from a robust survey, was not available in a "per day" format. Thus, to normalize weekly data
on a "per day" basis, the assumption was made (based on the responses for "days per week" for
these activities) that individuals conducted activities 2 days per week. Additionally, the survey
did not provide information on individuals younger than 18 years of age; therefore, an
adjustment was made to the survey information based on the distributional ratio of adults to
children 6 < 11 years old for "time spent working with soil in a garden or other circumstances
working" from Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (as presented in the 1997 EPA Exposure Factors
Handbook; Vol. Ill Table 15-62).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-17
-------
Gardens and Trees
Information on time spent at a "pick-your-own" farm is unavailable; therefore "time spent
outdoors on a farm" was used as a reasonable surrogate dataset.
4.2.3 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment
As a standard practice, post-application non-dietary ingestion exposure (i.e., hand-to-mouth,
object-to-mouth, soil ingestion, etc.) for adults is not assessed - it is assumed that an adult would
not place pesticide-contaminated hands, objects, or soil in their mouth. Additionally, for this
scenario, post-application non-dietary ingestion exposure is also not assessed for young children.
Unlike treated grass at home or in recreational areas or indoor floor surfaces, for this scenario the
potential for exposure via non-dietary ingestion for young children is greatly diminished. Since
the extent to which young children engage in the types of activities associated with these areas
(e.g., gardening or picking fruits) or utilize these areas for prolonged periods of play is low,
significant non-dietary ingestion exposure is not expected.
4.2.4 Combining Post-application Scenarios
Aggregation of post-application exposure is generally not applicable to activities associated with
gardens and trees, given the lack of non-dietary ingestion exposure expected for the activities
and index lifestages. In the event post-application inhalation exposure is assessed, it should be
combined with post-application dermal exposure for adults and children 6 < 11 years old
according to Section 1.3.5.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
4-18
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Section 5 Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
This section covers the following exposure scenarios:
• Outdoor aerosol space sprays (handler/post-application);
• Candles, coils, torches, mats (post-application);
• Outdoor residential misting systems (handler/post-application); and
• Animal barn misting systems (handler/post-application).
Each of these exposure scenarios is designated for outdoor use fogging products only. Each
section offers additional description of the exposure scenario and the handler and/or post-
application exposure. Indoor fogging products (i.e., "bug bombs") are covered in Section 7.
While barns and stables are "indoors" (i.e., enclosed or semi-enclosed structures), they are
included in this section because of methodological similarities to the other scenarios in this
section and because barns often have significantly more air exchange than standard indoor
commercial or residential spaces.
5.1 Outdoor Aerosol Space Sprays (OASS)
Outdoor aerosol space sprays are insecticide products available in aerosol cans formulated to kill
or repel outdoor flying pests by an aerosol "fog". This section provides a standard method for
estimating handler (i.e., applicator) exposure and post-application exposure to outdoor aerosol
space sprays (OASS) used to kill or repel flying insects in outdoor spaces like yards or patios.
This exposure scenario can also be used to assess wasp/hornet spray products that typically have
a more directed spray pattern than other types of outdoor foggers, for lack of scenario-specific
data for these types of products. For handlers, inhalation and dermal exposure may occur during
the application of the aerosol spray product (i.e., the spray event); thus dermal and inhalation
exposure should be assessed. Post-application exposure may occur from inhalation exposure
following a spray application, as well as dermal and non-dietary ingestion exposure resulting
from residues deposited on the turf or lawn.
5.1.1 Handler Exposure Assessment
This section provides a standard method for completing handler exposure assessments for adults
treating an outdoor space with outdoor aerosol space sprays. It is assumed that only individuals
16 years of age or older handle (i.e., mix/load/apply) pesticides. The basis for this scenario is
that handler exposure occurs as the aerosol spray is being applied by the applicator holding the
product can and activating the spray. The method should be used for estimating potential doses
that residential users may receive during aerosol applications from inhalation and dermal contact
when chemical-specific data are unavailable.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-1
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
This scenario assumes that pesticides may be inhaled or may come into contact with the skin
during the application of aerosol spray products. The method to determine handler inhalation
and dermal exposure to pesticides from aerosol applications relies on data from a study in which
dermal and inhalation exposures were measured during use of an aerosol spray for indoor
insecticide crack and crevice treatment, and is used in this scenario to represent an outdoor
aerosol spray (See Appendix C). Thus, this method should be used in the absence of chemical-
specific data, or as a supplement to estimates based on chemical-specific data.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm
As described in Section 1.3.3, daily dermal and inhalation exposure (mg/day) for residential
pesticide handlers is estimated by multiplying a unit exposure appropriate for the formulation
and application method by an estimate of the amount of active ingredient handled in a day using
the equation below:
E = UE * AR (5.1)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
UE = unit exposure (mg/lb ai); and
AR = application rate (lb ai/day).
The application rate can be calculated as follows:
AR = A product * A.I. * CF1 * N (5.2)
where:
AR = application rate (lb ai/ day);
A product = amount of product in 1 can (oz or g/can);
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (% ai);
CF1 = weight conversion factor (1 lb/16 oz or 1 lb/454 g); and
N = number of cans used in one application (cans/day).
Alternatively, if the aerosol can contents are expressed as a volume in milliliters, the application
rate for use in the exposure assessment can be calculated as follows:
AR A product * A.I. * CF1 * D product *N (5.3)
where:
AR = application rate (lb ai/ day);
A product = amount of product in 1 can (mL/can);
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (% ai);
CF1 = weight conversion factor (1 lb/454 g);
D product = density of product (g/mL); and
N = number of cans used in one day (cans/day).
Absorbed dermal and/or inhalation doses normalized to body weight are calculated as:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-2
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
F* AF
D= (5.4)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Handler exposure for outdoor aerosol space spray applications is generally considered short-term
in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day
exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections
1.3.2 and 1.3.3 such as the product-specific application regimen.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for handler exposure (inhalation and dermal) assessments are provided in
Table 5-1 and Table 5-2. Following these tables, each scenario-specific input parameter is
described in more detail. This description includes a summary of: i) key assumptions; ii) data
sources used to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should
be addressed when characterizing exposure.
T;tl>lc5-I: Outdoor Aerosol Sp;tcc Spr;t\s- Recommended I nil r.xpostirc (m^/lh ;ii) Point r.slim;ilcs
l-'o i'iiiii l;i I ion
Icpiipnunt/
Application
Method
l)crm;il
Inhiiliilion
Appendix P:iiic
Reference
Point Msiiniiiic
Point I'.siiniiiic
Ready-to-Use
(RTU)
Aerosol can
370
3.0
C-134
1 ;il>lc 5-2: Outdoor Aerosol Sp:ice Spr;i\s - Recommended Ihindlcr l.xposniv l-'iiclor Point Mstiniiites
Algorithm
Solution
l-lxpoMirc l-'iiclor
(units)
Point l'.sliniiile(s)
AR
Application rate
(lb ai/ day)
Product-specific
D product
Density of
product
(g/mL)
Water-based
products
1.0 (or product-specific)
Solvent-based
products
0.8 (or product-specific)
N
Number of cans used per day
1
A.I.
Percent ai in product
Product-specific
A product
Amount of product per can
(ounces, grams or milliliters)
Product-specific
BW
Body weight
(kg)
80
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-3
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Unit Exposures (UE)
As described in Section 1.3.3, the unit exposure is the ratio, for a given formulation/application
method combination, of exposure to amount of active ingredient handled, with units of mass
exposure per mass active ingredient handled (e.g., mg ai exposure/lb ai handled).
Application Rate (AR)
For the purposes of OASS handler exposure assessment, the application rate is the amount of
active ingredient applied per day. The application rate can be determined from product-specific
factors that are listed on the label or from generic factors listed above.
Number of Cans (N)
Absent product- or chemical-specific data, it is assumed that 1 full can of product is applied
by a residential handler at one time, and that one can of product represents a residential
handler's complete insecticidal aerosol product use per day. According to the Residential
Exposure Joint Venture (REJV) survey (REJV, 2002), no household surveyed used more than
one outdoor aerosol space spray product in one day. If extensive pest pressure exists, residential
users would likely seek alternative application equipment.
Density (D product)
The density should represent the product being assessed. If product-specific densities are
available, they should be used in the assessment. Otherwise, if the product is water-based, the
assessor should use the density of water (1.0 g/mL). If the product is solvent-based, the
assessor should use 0.8 g/mL, an average based on an informal survey of various organic
solvents described in CRC (Lide, 1981).
Amount of Product (A product)
The amount of product (ounces, grams or milliliters per can) is a product-specific value and can
be found on the product label.
Future Research/Data Needs
There are several main research/data needs with respect to the outdoor aerosol space spray
handler scenario.
• A monitoring study is needed in which the spray application is conducted in a manner
consistent with outdoor aerosol space sprays to more appropriately characterize dermal
and inhalation handler exposure potential. The unit exposures for the outdoor aerosol
space spray handler scenario were sourced from a study in which the spray application
was completed indoors to baseboards.
• Use pattern information (i.e., amount handled, etc.) is needed to better characterize the
residential handler exposure potential during application events.
• Scenario-specific unit exposure data are needed to more appropriately characterize
dermal and inhalation handler exposure from wasp/hornet directed aerosol spray
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-4
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
applications; the wasp/hornet directed aerosol spray products typically have a modified
delivery system (i.e., directed spray) than other outdoor products.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Unit Exposures
• Only one study is available to represent unit exposures for residential handlers of aerosol
spray products. The study is used to represent all residential handler (indoor and
outdoor) aerosol exposure scenarios. The monitoring study was completed indoors where
applicators directed the aerosol spray towards the baseboards of a residence. As the only
data available, this study was considered a reasonable surrogate for outdoor aerosol space
sprays.
Amount of active ingredient handled
• Information on the amounts of active ingredient handled for typical outdoor aerosol
sprace sprays is largely unavailable. The estimates used however, are believed to result
in health protective exposure estimates.
• The extent to which the amount an individual will handle per application varies from day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
5.1.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment
Post-application exposure can result from activities performed in a treated patio or yard
following outdoor aerosol space spray pesticide applications. While exposure may occur for
people of all ages, adults and children 1 < 2 years old are considered the index lifestages based
on behavioral characteristics and the strengths and limitations of available data (sqq Appendix A).
This section addresses standard methods for estimating exposure and dose for three post-
application exposure pathways resulting from use of area foggers:
• Section 5.1.2.1 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old inhalation exposure; and,
• Section 5.1.2.2 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old dermal and children 1 < 2 years old non-
dietary exposure.
Post-application exposure is not anticipated to occur following pesticide application of wasp/
hornet products. These products are applied directly to insect nests/hives and it is not likely that
residential bystanders would be present in these areas.
5.1.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment
The well-mixed box (WMB) model was used to develop the exposure equation for the outdoor
aerosol space spray post-application inhalation scenario (See Section D. 3 of Appendix I) for
additional detail on the WMB). The WMB was used to model pesticide air concentrations within
an enclosed, fixed volume (i.e., a box) over time after an initial outdoor aerosol space spray
application. The WMB model incorporates a number of simplifying assumptions: fresh air
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-5
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
(having no pesticide concentration) enters the box at a constant airflow rate; a turbulent internal
airflow thoroughly mixes the fresh air with the pesticide-laden air resulting in a uniform
pesticide air concentration within the box; and the perfectly mixed air exits the box at the same
constant airflow rate (i.e., the inflow rate equals the outflow rate). Thus, the outdoor area where
the aerosol is being applied is assumed to be in an enclosed box. Using the WMB model is
conservative for estimation of exposures for an open patio, deck or yard where dissipation is
expected to be greater than the enclosed space that the WMB depicts.
The evacuation of the aerosol from the box depends on airflow. For an outdoor scenario, the
airflow, Q, is the product of the cross-sectional area and the wind velocity. The cross-sectional
area is dependent on the area/volume of the treated space, and is defined in each SOP sub-
scenario. The WMB model developed for this scenario models the pesticide air concentrations
after an initial, instantaneous release of an outdoor aerosol space spray. Only dissipation due to
airflow into and out of the box is modeled.
For the inhalation route of exposure, the point of departure (POD) could be based on the
reference concentration (RfC) methodology. In the RfC methodology, air concentrations are not
converted to doses, rather, risks are assessed on the basis of comparison of exposure
concentrations with reference concentrations typically determined from animal studies. This
approach is not always available for every chemical; therefore, the exposure assessor should
discuss the possibility of this approach with a toxicologist.
Post-application Inhalation Exposure Algorithm
Post-application inhalation exposure to adults or children in an outdoor area that has been treated
with an aerosolized pesticide is largely dependent on the amount applied and the airflow. It
should be noted that two factors, exposure time and volume, are not significant factors for
calculation of exposure from outdoor aerosol space sprays. Exposure time is not a significant
factor in the exposure calculation due to the rapid dissipation of pesticide air concentrations from
outdoor aerosol space sprays. Based on the minimum airflow rate (Q) given in Table 5-3 below,
the pesticide air concentration within the enclosed space is virtually zero (less than 0.1% of the
initial concentration) after approximately 7 minutes. The integration of the WMB model
equation to derive the exposure equation results in the volume term used to calculate the initial
concentration (mass of active ingredient/volume of box) canceling out the volume term from the
decay rate constant (See Section D.3.1 of Appendix D for equation description and derivation).
^ IR*AR
h =
0
(5.5)
where:
E
IR
AR = application rate (mg ai/day); and
Q = airflow through the treated area (m3/hour).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-6
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
The airflow through the treated space can be calculated as follows:
Q=AV *CF1 * CF2 * Across.sectlon (5.6)
where:
"3
Q = airflow through treated space (m /hr);
AV = air velocity (m/s);
CF1 = time unit conversion factor (60 seconds/1 minute);
CF2 = time unit conversion factor (60 minutes / hour); and
-^cross-section = cross-section of outdoor space treated (m ).
Application rate can be calculated as follows:
AR = A
product
* A.I. * CF1 * N (5.7)
where:
AR = application rate (mg ai/ day);
A product = amount of product in 1 can (oz or g/can);
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (% ai);
CF1 = weight conversion factor (28,350 mg/oz or 1,000 mg/g); and
N = number of cans applied per day in one application (cans/day).
Alternatively, if the aerosol can contents are expressed as a volume in milliliters, the application
rate for use in the exposure assessment can be calculated as follows:
AR = A.I. * A product * CF * Dproduct *N (5.8)
where:
AR = application rate (mg ai/day);
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (% ai);
A product = amount of product per can (mL/can);
CF = conversion factor to convert grams to milligrams (1,000 mg/1 g);
D product = density of product (g/mL); and
N = number of cans applied per day in one application (cans/day).
Absorbed inhalation dose normalized to body weight is calculated as:
F* AF
D= (5.9)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-7
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Post-application inhalation exposure following applications of outdoor aerosol space sprays is
generally considered short-term in duration, but is dependent on the use pattern of the specific
product being assessed and the dissipation/degradation properties of the active ingredient.
Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile
can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4
such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals, and activity patterns. If
longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed
necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Inhalation Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended parameters for post-application inhalation exposure assessments are provided in
Table 5-3 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in
more detail. This description includes a summary of: i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to
derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed
when characterizing exposure.
Table 5-3: Outdoor Aerosol Sp;iee Sprsijs - Recommended Posl-;ipplic;ition Inhibition l.xposui e l";ie(or
Point I.N(ini;i(cs
Algorithm
Noliiliou
l.xposiirc l";ie(or
( ii nils)
I'oiul l'.sliiiiiile(s)
AR
Application rate
(mg ai / day)
Product-specific
-^cross-section
Cross sectional area of area treated
(m2)
15
AV
Air velocity
(m/s)
0.1
Q
Airflow through treated area
(m3/hr)
5,400
N
Number of cans applied per day in one application
(cans/day)
1
D product
Density of product
(g/mL)
Water-based products
1.0
Solvent-based products
0.8
A.I.
Percent ai in product
(%)
Product-specific
A product
Amount of product
(mL/can)
Product-specific
IR
Inhalation rate
(m3/hour)
Adult
0.64
Children (1 < 2 years
old)
0.33
BW
Body Weight
(kg)
Adult
80
Children (1 < 2 years
old)
11
Application Rate (AR)
The application rate is the amount of active ingredient applied per day. The application rate can
be determined from product-specific factors that are listed on the product label. This application
rate is determined by amount of product in a can, how many cans are used in an application, and
the percentage of active ingredient.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-8
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Air Velocity (AV)
The air velocity is the speed of the air moving through the treated area defined for the well-
mixed box model. The fraction of the chemical available for inhalation in outdoor air is a
function of the movement of air into and out of the backyard "box". The air velocity determines
the rate at which the contents of the outdoor area treated are evacuated. Wind velocity is an
influencing factor affecting flying pest nuisance. Bidlingmayer et al. (1995) examined the effect
of wind velocity on suction trap catches. Their research noted that trap catches declined as wind
velocities increased over the entire range of observed velocities. Wind velocities within the
range of normal mosquito flights, about 1 m/s, resulted in trap catch reductions on significant
nights of approximately 50% by wind at 0.5 m/s and 75% at 1.0 m/s.
The wind speed range considered here corresponds with the lower two tiers of the Beaufort wind
force scale, an empirical measure for describing wind speed. The Beaufort wind force scale is a
range on a numerical basis of 0-10, from still air conditions up to hurricane force winds. This
SOP covers Beaufort numbers 0-1. The Beaufort number 0 corresponds to calm wind conditions
of <0.3 m/s [18 meters/minute; 0.7 mph]. The Beaufort number 1 corresponds to light air
conditions of 0.3-1.5 m/s [18-90 meters/minute; 0.7-3.4 mph]. This SOP provides a distribution
of wind velocities from 0.1-1.5 m/s [0.2-3.4 mph], the upper limit for "light air" condition on the
Beaufort scale and a reasonable upper bound for wind velocities where these products would be
used to control flying pests. This windspeed represents a range of values foreseeable where
OASS products may be used (i.e., in a yard or on an outdoor patio where flying pests may pose a
nuisance). When wind velocities are higher than 1.5 m/s, these products are less likely to be
used because of reduced flying pest pressure.
The recommended point estimate for use in a deterministic exposure assessment is 0.1 m/s
(0.22 mph). The range of air velocities applicable to this assessment are 0.1 m/s to 1.5 m/s.
A
cross section
Across-section represents the cross-sectional area of the volume of treated space for this exposure
scenario, with units m . Unless otherwise specified by the product label, the exposure scenario
for outdoor aerosol space sprays considers a 20 ft. x 20 ft. x 8 ft. (height) space treated.
Therefore, the cross-sectional area for the treated space is 160 ft (20 ft width x 8 ft height)
or 15 m2.
Airflow (Q)
Airflow (Q) is defined as the volume of natural air that uniformly passes through a given area in
a specified period of time. In the well-mixed box model, the airflow through the treated space is
"3
the product of the air velocity (AV) and the cross-sectional area (Acr0ss section), with units m /hour.
As mentioned above, the cross-sectional area of the space treated is assumed to be 20 ft x 8 ft
2 2
(160 ft or 15 m ). The range of air velocities to represent calm air conditions is 0.1 m/s to a
maximum of 1.5 m/s. Therefore, the airflow for a typical space treated is assumed to range from
3 3
5,400 m /hour (as the conservative default value) to 81,000 m /hour (representing a high-end
air velocity for calm air conditions).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-9
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Number of Cans per Day (N)
Absent product- or chemical-specific data, it is assumed that 1 full can of product is applied
by a residential handler at one time, and that one can of product represents a residential
handler's complete insecticidal aerosol product use per day. According to the Residential
Exposure Joint Venture (REJV) survey (REJV, 2002), no household surveyed used more than
one outdoor aerosol space spray product in one day. If extensive pest pressure exists, residential
users would likely seek alternative application equipment.
Density (D product)
The density should represent the product being assessed. If product-specific densities are
available, they should be used in the assessment. Otherwise, if the product is water-based, the
assessor should use the density of water (1.0 g/mL). If the product is solvent-based, the
assessor should use 0.8 g/mL, an average based on an informal survey of various organic
solvents described in CRC (Lide, 1981).
Amount of Product (A product)
The amount of product (ounces, grams, or milliliters per can) is a product-specific value and
should be stated on the label.
Future Research/Data Needs
There are several research/data needs with respect to the post-application outdoor aerosol space
spray scenario.
• Survey data could be developed to examine the actual size of the space treated by typical
outdoor aerosol space sprays. The OASS exposure scenario assumes that residential
users treat a 20 ft x 20 ft space, unless otherwise specified on the label.
• Limited data are available to characterize the spatio-temporal distribution pattern that
results from the release of an aerosol spray can.
• Use pattern information (i.e., amount handled, etc.) is needed to better characterize the
residential post-application exposure potential after application events.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
The OASS exposure scenario also makes the following health protective assumptions:
• all the amount of the applied pesticide is in the air available for inhalation exposure, and
• all the amount of the applied pesticide settles onto the treated area (e.g.,turf) and is
available for dermal exposure
• the simplifying assumptions implicit in the well-mixed box model identified in the first
two paragraphs of Section 5.1.2.1 would be health protective, since the modeled air
concentrations would dissipate less rapidly (resulting in higher pesticide concentrations)
in the artificially defined fixed volume compared to a true open outdoor space.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-10
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
5.1.2.2 Post-application Dermal and Non-dietary Ingestion Exposure
Assessment
Dermal and incidental oral post-application exposures are expected to occur after the spray
settles onto the treated areas of a yard (e.g., deck, patio, or turf). Based on the data available and
the assumptions that would be considered for assessing dermal and non-dietary ingestion
exposures from smooth surfaces (e.g., patios and decks) and textured surfaces (e.g., turf/lawns),
this SOP makes a health protective assumption that all of the outdoor spray settles onto turf.
This settling is assumed to occur in a uniform fashion throughout the treated area, similar to a
direct lawn broadcast treatment. Once the application rate is determined, the turf transferable
residues and resulting dermal and incidental oral exposures should be assessed following the
methodologies outlined in Section 3.2.
The following equation can be used to convert the application rate in pounds ai per square foot as
is deposited on the turf:
where:
AR Aproduct * A.I.*CF1 *N
Ta
(5.10)
AR = application rate (lb ai/ft or lb ai/A);
A product = amount of product per can (oz or g/can);
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (% ai);
CF1 = weight conversion factor (1 lb/16 oz or 1 lb/454 g);
N = number of cans applied per day in one application (cans); and
Ta = treated area (ft2 or A).
Alternatively, if the aerosol can contents are expressed as a volume in milliliters, the application
rate for use in the exposure assessment can be calculated as follows:
A * A t * (T * n * TsJ
j t} product -^product /r 1 1
AK — (j.ll
where:
AR
2
= application rate (lb ai/ft or lb ai/A);
A.I.
= percent active ingredient in product (% ai);
A product
= amount of product per can (mL/can);
CF
= conversion factor (1 lb/454 g);
D product
= density of product (g/mL);
N
= number of cans per day in one application (cans); and
Ta
= treated area (ft2 or A).
Post-application dermal and non-dietary ingestion exposure following applications of outdoor
aerosol space sprays is generally considered short-term in duration, but is dependent on the use
pattern of the specific product being assessed and the dissipation/degradation properties of the
active ingredient. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-11
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in
Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals, and
activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime
exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the exposure
profile are recommended.
Post-application Dermal and Non-Dietary Ingestion Algorithm Inputs and
Assumptions
The following provides a general discussion for each exposure factor and recommended point
estimates for use in exposure assessment.
Application Rate (AR)
The application rate is the amount of spray applied per unit area. The application rate per
day/spray can be determined from product-specific factors that are listed on the label or from
generic factors listed above. This application rate is calculated in lbs ai/ft or lb ai/A.
Amount of Product (A product)
The amount of product (ounces, grams, or milliliters per can) is a product-specific value and
should be stated on the label.
Number of Cans per Day (cans)
Absent product- or chemical-specific data, it is assumed that 1 full can of product is applied
by a residential handler at one time, and that one can of product represents a residential
handler's complete insecticidal aerosol product use per day. According to the Residential
Exposure Joint Venture (REJV) survey (REJV, 2002), no household surveyed used more than
one outdoor aerosol space spray product in one day. If extensive pest pressure exists, residential
users would likely seek alternative application equipment.
Percent Active Ingredient in Product (A.I.)
The percent active ingredient in the product being assessed can be determined from the product
label.
Treated Area (Ta)
An outdoor living space with dimensions of 20 ft. x 20 ft. x 8 ft. (i.e., 400 ft ) is assumed when
calculating airborne concentration levels and turf deposition. The recommended treated area
is based on a recent survey on U.S. decking market, which was conducted by the Center for
International Trade in Forest Products (CINTRAFOR). This deck size was selected to represent
the typical area treated on a patio, deck, or yard. In this survey, CINTRAFOR contacted a
random sample of U.S. homebuilders via telephone. Based on the survey results, the mean deck
size for "spec" homes (n=109) was 361ft2. This translates to approximately a 20 ft x 18 ft
surface area. The mean deck size for custom homes (n=174) was 490 ft (Eastin et al., 2005).
This translates to approximately 20 ft x 24.5 ft surface area. The overall mean deck size
identified in this survey is believed to be an appropriate surrogate for the amount of outdoor
living space treated by aerosol fogging products. Therefore, in the absence of additional
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-12
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
information, 20 ft. x 20 ft. x 8 ft. is used as the volume of space that is treated with an outdoor
aerosol space spray and 20 ft x 20 ft is used as the surface area of a treated area.
Density (D product)
The density should represent the product being assessed. If product-specific densities are
available, they should be used in the assessment. Otherwise, if the product is water-based, the
assessor should use the density of water (1.0 g/mL). If the product is solvent-based, the
assessor should use 0.8 g/mL, an average based on an informal survey of various organic
solvents described in CRC (Lide, 1981).
Future Research/Data Needs
There are four main potential research/data needs with respect to the post-application exposure
from the outdoor aerosol space spray scenario.
• The OASS exposure scenario assumes that residential users treat a 20 ft x 20 ft space
unless otherwise specified on the product label. Survey and efficacy data could be
developed to examine the actual size of the amount of space treated by typical outdoor
aerosol space sprays.
• Extremely limited data are available to indicate the spatio-temporal deposition pattern
that results from the release of an aerosol spray can. Additional studies could be
designed to capture the deposition pattern of aerosol spray pesticides in outdoor
conditions.
• Survey data could be developed to examine the amounts of aerosol spray product/active
ingredient handled during typical outdoor treatment scenarios.
• No data are available to indicate the extent of dermal deposition on skin from airborne
particles as a result of aerosolized pesticide spray events. Studies could be designed to
capture the extent of dermal deposition as a result of aerosolized pesticide sprays.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
The OASS exposure scenario makes the following health protective assumptions:
• all the amount of the applied pesticide is in the air available for inhalation exposure, and
• all the amount of the applied pesticide settles onto the turf and is available for dermal
exposure.
5.1.2.3 Combining Post-application Scenarios
Risk estimates resulting from different exposure scenarios are combined when it is likely that
they can occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and when the toxicological effects across
different routes of exposure are the same. When combining scenarios, it is important to fully
characterize the potential for co-occurrence as well as characterizing the risk inputs and
estimates. Risk estimates should be combined even if any one scenario or route of exposure
exceeds the level of concern because this allows for better risk characterization for risk
managers.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-13
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
It is likely that children could be exposed to an area treated by an OASS product via inhalation,
dermal and non-dietary ingestion (hand-to-mouth) routes and that these scenarios could occur
simultaneously. Therefore, these exposure scenarios should be combined when toxicological
effects are the same across these routes of exposure.
5.2 Candles, Coils, Torches & Mats (CCTM)
Candles, coils, torches, and mats (CCTM) are pesticide products that are ignited or placed on a
burner to release the active ingredient as a smoke or vapor in order to repel insects. The scenario
represents use of CCTM products for a gathering of people outdoors in a yard or on a patio using
the product(s) to repel flying pests. This section provides standard methods for estimating
potential exposure to pesticides from the use of pesticidal candle, coil, torch or mat for the
purposes of outdoor pest control.
Handler exposure, both dermal and inhalation, is expected to be negligible as the application
activity (i.e., product activation) does not involve application (e.g., spraying liquids or spreading
granules) in the typical sense. However, adult and child post-application inhalation exposure
resulting from being in proximity to CCTM products following activation is the primary
exposure route. Post-application dermal exposure from CCTM use is expected to be negligible.
5.2.1 Handler Exposure Assessment
Pesticidal candles, coils, torches and mats are typically marketed for residential use to repel
flying insects and pests. Upon activation (i.e., ignition or heating), these products emit small
particles (<2 |im) over the useful life of the product (Lucas, J., EPA, Allethrins SMART
Meeting, 10/17/03). Handler exposure does not need to be assessed quantitatively because the
ignition or activation of these products is instantaneous and quantitative post-application
exposure adequately assesses the exposure potential from CCTM.
5.2.2 Post-Application Exposure Assessment
Post-application exposure can result from presence in a patio or yard during use of candles, coils,
torches, or mats containing pesticides. While exposure may occur for people of all ages, adults
and children 1 < 2 years old are considered the index lifestages based on behavioral
characteristics and the strengths and limitations of available data (sqq Appendix A).
This section addresses standard methods for estimating exposure and dose for three post-
application exposure pathways resulting from use of candles, coils, torches, and mats:
• Section 5.2.2.1 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old inhalation exposure; and,
• Section 5.2.2.2 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old dermal and children non-dietary exposure.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-14
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
5.2.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Post-application inhalation exposure occurs as a result of inhalation of the airborne emission
released by the pesticidal candle, coil, torch or mat. This section provides a standard method for
completing post-application inhalation exposure assessments for adults and children during the
use of pesticidal candles, coils, or mats for short-term pest control.
As with the outdoor aerosol space sprays, the algorithm assumes a simple WMB model
adequately represents the exposure scenario (See Section D.3 of Appendix D for additional
details on the WMB). The algorithms presented in this scenario assume that no further
inhalation exposure occurs after the CCTM is spent or extinguished. The exposure scenario
assumes that the CCTM product is in use for the entire exposure time.
The WMB model was used to develop the exposure equation for the CCTM post-application
inhalation scenario (Fan et al, 2001). The CCTM scenario differs from the other exposure
scenarios in this SOP section in that the WMB model includes a constant emission rate term
during the exposure time and, thus, results in a more complex exposure equation. The WMB
model was used to model pesticide air concentrations within an enclosed, fixed volume (i.e., a
box) over time during the constant emission of a pesticide from a CCTM product. The WMB
model incorporates a number of simplifying assumptions: fresh air (having no pesticide
concentration) enters the box at a constant airflow rate; a turbulent internal airflow thoroughly
mixes the fresh air with the pesticide-laden air resulting in a uniform pesticide air concentration
within the box; and the perfectly mixed air exits the box at the same constant airflow rate (i.e.,
the inflow rate equals the outflow rate). Thus, the outdoor area where the CCTM product is
being applied is assumed to be in an enclosed box. Using the WMB model is conservative for
estimation of exposures for an open patio or deck where dissipation is expected to be greater than
the enclosed space that the WMB depicts.
The evacuation of the CCTM emission from the box depends on airflow. For an outdoor
scenario, the airflow, Q, is the product of the cross-sectional area and the wind velocity. The
cross-sectional area is dependent on the area/volume of the treated space, and is defined in each
SOP sub-scenario. The WMB model developed for this scenario models the pesticide air
concentrations during a constant emission of pesticide from a CCTM product. Only constant
emission and dissipation due to airflow into and out of the box is modeled.
For the inhalation route of exposure, the point of departure (POD) could be based on the
reference concentration (RfC) methodology. In the RfC methodology, air concentrations are not
converted to doses, rather, risks are assessed on the basis of comparison of exposure
concentrations with reference concentrations typically determined from animal studies. This
approach is not always available for every chemical; therefore, the exposure assessor should
discuss the possibility of this approach with a toxicologist.
Post-application Inhalation Exposure Algorithm
The following algorithm is used to determine post-application inhalation exposure to the CCTM
products (See Section D.3.2 of Appendix D for equation description and derivation):
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-15
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
„ IR-Ve-ER
E =
0
ET-
V_
Q
(5.12)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
"3
IR = inhalation rate (m /hr);
Ve = vaporization efficiency (%);
ER = emission rate (mg ai/hr);
ET = exposure time (hr/day);
"3
V = volume of treated space (m ); and
Q = airflow (m3/hr).
The airflow through the treated space can be calculated as follows:
(1 = A V *CF 1 * CF7 * A
siy J 1 * si cross-section
(5.13)
where:
Q
AV
CF1
CF2
Across-sec tion
airflow through treated space (m /hr);
air velocity (m/s);
time unit conversion factor (60 seconds/1 minute);
time unit conversion factor (60 minutes / hour); and
cross-section of outdoor space treated (m ).
The emission rate from a CCTM product can be calculated as follows:
A*NP
ER = -
UL
(5.14)
where:
ER
A
NP
UL
= emission rate (mg ai/hr);
= amount of mg ai in CCTM product (mg ai/product);
= number of products used (products); and
= useful life of product (hours).
Inhalation dose normalized to body weight is calculated as:
D =
E*AF
BW
(5.15)
where:
D
E
AF
BW
= dose (mg/kg-day);
= exposure (mg/day);
= absorption factor (inhalation); and
= body weight (kg).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-16
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Post-application inhalation exposure following uses of candles, coils, torches, or mats is
generally considered short-term in duration, but is dependent on the use pattern of the specific
product being assessed and the dissipation/degradation properties of the active ingredient.
Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile
can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4
such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals, and activity patterns. If
longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed
necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Inhalation Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application inhalation exposure assessments are provided in Table
5-4 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of: i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to
derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed
when characterizing exposure.
Tabic 5-4: CCTM - Recommended .Post-application Inhalation Exposure Faetor Point Estimates
Algorithm
Notation
Exposure Faetor
(units)
Point Estimate(s)
VE
Vaporization efficiency
(percent)
100% assumed unless registrant provides data
for product
A
Amount of ai in the product
(mg)
Product-specific
ER
Emission rate
Calculated
(mg ai/hr)
UL
Useful life
Candles/Coils/T orches
4
(hours)
Mats
4
ET
Exposure time
Adults
2.3
(hours)
Children 1 < 2 years old
2.3
V
Volume of treated space
(m3)
51
Q
Airflow through treated area
(m3/hr)
4,000
AV
Air velocity
(m/s)
0.1
NP
Number of products used
(# products)
1 product per treated area
Across-
section
Cross sectional area of area treated
(m2)
11
IR
Inhalation rate
Adults
0.64
(m3/hour)
Children 1 < 2 years old
0.33
BW
Body Weight
Adults
80
(kg)
Children 1 < 2 years old
11
Vaporization Efficiency (Vhj
Vaporization efficiency is the percentage of active ingredient in the product that becomes
available for inhalation exposure through heating, burning, or activation of the product.
As a CCTM product is heated or burned, it is likely that not all of the active ingredient in the
product will be available for inhalation exposure. If this information is available through product
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-17
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
efficacy studies or other sources, it can be used in the equation. In the absence of data, 100%
vaporization efficiency will be assumed for the active ingredient.
Amount of Active Ingredient in Product (A)
The amount of active ingredient available in the product (e.g., mg ai/product) is found on the
product label.
Useful Life (UL)
The useful life is the time (measured in hours) that the CCTM product is active (i.e., it is
active as an emission source). For example, many candles and coils have a 4-6 hour
useful life. Mosquito mats often have a useful life of 4 hours. This can also be a
product-specific input. (Lucas, J., EPA Allethrins SMART Meeting, 10/17/03).
Emission Rate (ER)
The emission rate (mg ai/hour) is the amount of active ingredient available in the product,
measured in milligrams ai/product, divided by the useful life (UL) of the product.
Exposure Time (ET)
Another important variable for addressing post-application exposure is the duration of time spent
in areas treated by CCTM products. The exposure time for adults and children conservatively
assumes that the time spent in the volume of treated space is equivalent to the time spent at home
outdoors in the yard or other areas around the house ("doers only"). The exposure time values
are from the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Table 16-20), converted from minutes
per day to hours per day. The original analysis generated statistics for the subset of the survey
lifestage that reported being in the location or doing the activity in question (i.e., "doers only").
Based on these data, the recommended point estimate for use in post-application inhalation
CCTM exposure assessment for adults and children is 2.3 hrs/day.
Tsihle 5-5: Time Spoilt Outdoors Ai Home in I lie Y;ird or Oilier Are;is Outside I lie
Mouse
Siniislie
Hours pei' l);i\
Atlu Its
Children 1 < 2 \esirs old
5th percentile
0.1
0.4
25th percentile
0.5
1.0
50th percentile
1.5
1.5
75th percentile
3.0
3.0
90th percentile
5.5
5.1
95th percentile
7.3
5.8
Arithmetic Mean
2.3
2.3
Reference: 2011 EFH, Table
16-20 (Adults 18-64)
Reference: 2011 EFH, Table 16-
20 (Children 1 < 4 years old)
Volume (V)
•j
The volume of treated space is assumed to be 51 m for CCTM products, unless otherwise
noted on an available product label. The 51m3 volume represents a 15 ft. x 15 ft. x 8 ft. (1800
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-18
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
-3
ft) treated space. This represents a typical treated space based on experience and professional
judgment and review of current product labels that pertain to this exposure scenario.
Air Velocity (AV)
The air velocity is the speed of the air moving through the treated volume defined for the well-
mixed box model. The fraction of the chemical available for inhalation in outdoor air is a
function of the movement of air into and out of the backyard "box". The air velocity determines
the rate at which the contents of the outdoor area treated are evacuated. Wind velocity is an
influencing factor affecting flying pest nuisance. Bidlingmayer et al. 1995 examined the effect
of wind velocity on suction trap catches. Their research noted that trap catches declined as wind
velocities increased over the entire range of observed velocities. Wind velocities within the
range of normal mosquito flights, about 1 m/s resulted in trap catch reductions on significant
nights of approximately 50% by wind of 0.5 m/s and 75% at 1.0 m/s.
The wind speed range considered here corresponds with the lower two tiers of the Beaufort wind
force scale, an empirical measure for describing wind speed. The Beaufort wind force scale is a
range on a numerical basis of 0-10, from still air conditions up to hurricane force winds. This
SOP covers Beaufort numbers 0-1. The Beaufort number 0 corresponds to calm wind conditions
of <0.3 m/s [18 meters/minute; 0.7 mph]. The Beaufort number 1 corresponds to light air
conditions of 0.3-1.5 m/s [18-90 meters/minute; 0.7-3.4 mph]. Thus, this SOP provides a
distribution of wind velocities from 0.1-1.5 m/s [0.2-3.4 mph], the upper limit for "light air"
condition on the Beaufort scale and a reasonable upper bound for wind velocities where these
products would be used to control flying pests. This windspeed represents a range of values
foreseeable where CCTM products may be used (i.e., in a yard or on an outdoor patio where
flying pests may pose a nuisance). When wind velocities are higher than 1.5 m/s, these products
are less likely to be used because of reduced flying pest pressure.
The recommended point estimate for use in a deterministic exposure assessment is 0.1 m/s
(0.22 mph). The range of air velocities applicable to this assessment are 0.1 m/s to 1.5 m/s.
A
cross section
Across-section represents the cross-sectional area of the volume of treated space for this exposure
scenario, measured in m2 Unless otherwise specified by the product label, the exposure scenario
for CCTM considers a 15ft x 15 ft x 8 ft space; therefore the cross-sectional area for the
treated space is 120 ft2 (15 ft width x 8 ft height) or 11 m2.
Airflow (Q)
Airflow (Q) is defined as the volume of natural air that uniformly passes through a given area in
a specified period of time. The airflow is a function of the cross-sectional area and wind velocity
In the well-mixed box model, the airflow through the treated space is the product of the air
velocity and the cross-sectional area, and is measured in m3/hour. As mentioned above, the
2 2
cross-sectional area of the space treated is assumed to be 15 ft x 8 ft (120 ft, or 11 m ). The
range of air velocities to represent calm air conditions is 0.1 m/s to a maximum of 1.5 m/s.
-2
Therefore, the airflow for a typical space treated is assumed to range from 4,000 m /hour (as the
health-protective default value) to 60,000 m3/hour.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-19
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Number of Products Used (Np)
The number of products is related to the size of the space treated by the product user. A product
user is typically directed to use a proportional amount of product per area (e.g., if 1 CCTM treats
a 15 ft x 15 ft area, then treating twice the space would require double the product). The
airborne concentration of active ingredient is the same in both examples. Therefore, the CCTM
exposure scenario considers the smallest typical treatment area (i.e., 15 ft x 15 ft). The
recommended point estimate for use in a deterministic exposure assessment is 1 product
used for the default treated space size (15 ft x 15 ft area). This value can be adjusted based
on product-specific label directions for how many CCTM products can treat the typical 15 ft by
15 ft area.
Future Research/Data Needs
The following area areas for research/data need with respect to the post-application exposure
from the CCTM scenario:
• the extent of post-application inhalation exposure potential as a result of airborne
particles released from the activation of candles, coils, torches, and mats
• studies designed to capture the extent of inhalation exposure as a result of the activation
and use of these types of consumer products.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
• The simplifying assumptions implicit in the well-mixed box model identified in the first
two paragraphs of Section 5.2.2./would tend to be health protective since the modeled air
concentrations would dissipate less rapidly (resulting in higher pesticide concentrations)
in the artificially defined fixed volume compared to a true open outdoor space.
• Due to the relative useful life (e.g., 4-6 hours for candles & mats) of CCTM products
compared to the time spent outdoors, the algorithm models the air concentration during
the "burn time" of the CCTM products. Exposure time is typically less than the burn
time of the product. If time spent outdoors (ET) were to exceed the useful life of such
products, the exposure equation derived for this section would need to be modified to
account for the change in the emission rate of the product.
• A source emission continued beyond the useful life of the product would overestimate
pesticide air concentrations, thus the use of the exposure equation in this section
represents a health protective approach.
5.2.2.2 Post-application Dermal and Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure
Assessment
The inhalation route of exposure is expected to be the primary post-application exposure route.
Residues deposited on patios or other surfaces are expected to be negligible after use of a CCTM
product. Due to the size fraction of particles released from the activation of CCTM products,
particles are expected to remain airborne rather than be deposited on surfaces. Therefore, dermal
and incidental oral post-application exposures to surface residues do not need to be quantitatively
assessed.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-20
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
5.2.2.3 Combining Post-application Scenarios
Risk estimates resulting from different exposure scenarios are combined when it is likely that
they can occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and when the toxicological effects across
different routes of exposure are the same. When combining scenarios, it is important to fully
characterize the potential for co-occurrence as well as characterizing the risk inputs and
estimates. Risk estimates should be combined even if any one scenario or route of exposure
exceeds the level of concern because this allows for better risk characterization for risk
managers.
As no residues from CCTM products are expected to be deposited on patios or other surfaces, no
post-application dermal and non-dietary ingestion exposures are expected to occur. Therefore,
these exposure scenarios are not quantitatively assessed, and are not combined with post-
application inhalation exposure.
5.3 Outdoor Residential Misting Systems (ORMS)
Outdoor residential misting systems (sometimes called "mosquito misters") are application
systems designed to spray pesticides in a fine mist to kill mosquitoes and other insects outdoors.
Misting systems include spray nozzles that are mounted around the perimeter of a home in the
lawn or landscaping, or on parts of the house or fence. The spray nozzles are connected by
tubing to a supply of insecticide. These systems can operate automatically (i.e., at preset
intervals) or manually (e.g., remote control or switch).
This section provides standard methods for estimating potential doses from pesticides applied
using outdoor residential misting systems (ORMS) in yards or on patios. Adults filling the
ORMS drums with the pesticide may experience dermal and inhalation exposure. Adults and
children occupying the yard or patio following the application of a pesticide using an ORMS
may experience inhalation, dermal and incidental oral exposure. This section describes the
methods for estimating the potential dose for handlers using ORMS, the method for estimating
the potential dose from post-application inhalation exposure to a treated yard or patio, as well as
the method for estimating residue deposited on the lawn following a pesticide treatment from the
ORMS which can be used in conjunction with methods outlined in Section 3.2 to estimate dermal
and oral post-application doses following direct applications to lawns.
5.3.1 Handler Exposure Assessment
Misting systems are typically marketed as systems that include a mix tank, a timer controlled
pump, and fixed pipes or hoses that run to the nozzles. The systems are often professionally
installed and include a service contract to cover maintenance and insecticide refilling.
Nevertheless, it is possible for residential homeowners to purchase the pesticide and load the
tank (or drums) themselves; therefore, a residential handler assessment may be required.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-21
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
This section provides a standard method for conducting handler exposure assessments for adults
mixing and loading pesticides to be used in outdoor residential misting systems. It is assumed
that only individuals 16 years of age or older mix and load (i.e., handle) pesticides.
The basis for this scenario is that handler exposure occurs as the pesticide is poured into the
drum by the applicator holding the product container; no applicator scenario is required as
misting systems spray the pesticide in the treatment area automatically.
This scenario assumes that pesticides can be inhaled or can come into contact with the skin
during the mixing and loading of the pesticide products in the drums as part of the residential
misting system. The method to determine handler inhalation and dermal exposure to pesticides
from these activities relies on data measuring dermal and inhalation exposure during mixing and
loading (i.e., pouring a liquid pesticide). Thus, this method should be used in the absence of
chemical-specific data, or as a supplement to estimates based on chemical-specific data.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm
As described in Section 1.3.3, daily dermal and inhalation exposure (mg/day) for residential
pesticide handlers is estimated for a given formulation-application method combination by
multiplying the formulation-application method-specific unit exposure by an estimate of the
amount of active ingredient handled in a day, using the equation below:
E = UE *AR
(5.16)
where:
E
UE
AR
exposure (mg/day);
unit exposure (mg/lb ai); and
application rate (lb ai/day).
The application rate can be calculated as follows:
AR = Vd*N*DR *A.I. *Dmo
(5.17)
where:
AR = application rate per day (lb ai/ day);
Vd = volume of the drum of the misting system (gallons/drum);
N = number of drums filled per day (drums/day)
DR = dilution rate (volume product /volume total solution);
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (%); and
Dh2o = water density (lb/gal).
Absorbed dermal and/or inhalation doses normalized to body weight are calculated as:
(5.18)
BW
where:
D
dose (mg/kg-day);
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-22
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Handler exposure for outdoor residential misting systems is generally considered short-term in
duration as filling the centralized reservoir tanks typically occur once in a 90-day period.
Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile
can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3
such as the product-specific application regimen.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for handler exposure (inhalation and dermal) assessments are provided in
Table 5-6 and Table 5-7. Following these tables, each scenario-specific input parameter is
described in more detail. This description includes a summary of: i) key assumptions; ii) data
sources used to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should
be addressed when characterizing exposure.
T;il>lc5-(>: Outdoor Rcsidcnthil Misling S\s(ems - Recommended I nil llxnosuiv img/lh ;ii) Point Istiniiitcs
l-'o nun hi 1 icin
K(|ii ipmoiil/
Application
Method
Derniid
lnh;tl;ilion
Appendix
PiliiC
Reference
Point l.sliniiitc
Point I'.siiniiiie
Liquid concentrates
Mixing/loading
0.232
0.000219
NA
NA = not applicable - data from occupational handler data source (see:
lUtD:/Avww.CDa.aov/DCSticidcs/scicncc/handlcr-c\DOSiirc-data, html)
Tsihle 5-"7: Outdoor Rcsidcnthil Misting Systems - Recommended Ihindlcr l-'.xposiirc l';ictor Point
I.Nliniiilcs
Algorithm
Notation
r.xposiirc l-iictoi-
(units)
Point I'lsliniitlets)
AR
Application rate
(lb ai/ day)
Product-specific
Dh20
Density of product
(lb/gal)
8.34
VD
Volume of Drum
(gallons/drum)
55
DR
Dilution Rate (volume product /volume
total solution)
Product-specific
N
Number of drums filled per day
(drums/day)
1
A.I.
Percent ai in product
(%)
Product-specific
BW
Body weight
(kg)
80
Unit Exposure (UE)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-23
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
As described in Section 1.3.3, the unit exposure is the ratio between exposure and the amount of
active ingredient handled for a given formulation/application method combination, with units
mass exposure per mass active ingredient handled (e.g., mg ai exposure/lb ai handled).
Drum Volume (Vp)
The drum feeds into the plumbing that leads to the nozzles of the residential misting system. The
default drum size is based on a typical drum size (30 or 55 gallons).
Number of Drums Filled per Day (N)
One drum is assumed to be filled per day, as residential misting systems are likely only
connected to one drum.
Dilution Rate (DR)
The label should state the amount (e.g., gallons) of concentrated product per amount of water.
This can also be given as parts of product per parts of water. Dilution rate is the volume of the
product amount stated on the label divided by the sum of product volume and water volume (i.e.,
volume total solution).
Water Density (DH2o)
The dilute solution of pesticide for application through the misting system is assumed to have
the same density as water (i.e., 8.34 lbs/gallon), since pesticide concentrate is typically mixed
with large volumes of water.
Future Research/Data Needs
Potential research/data need with respect to the outdoor residential misting system scenario
include:
• survey data to examine the prevalence of these systems in the United States
• information detailing the breakdown of maintenance (i.e., characterizing the percentage
of systems that are professional maintained versus homeowner maintained), and
• equipment type (e.g., how often the systems are refilled/reloaded, and the spray
frequency of these systems).
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Unit Exposures
• The unit exposures used for this scenario are from the "All Liquids, Open Mixing and
Loading" Scenario in EPA's Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate
Reference Table (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/handler-exposure-table.pdf).
The use of occupational exposure data may overestimate homeowner exposure.
Additionally, the values were adjusted to represent the type of clothing a homeowner or
non-professional residential handler would wear (i.e., short-sleeved shirt, shorts and no
chemical-resistant gloves) and are the best available data set for determining residential
exposures during open pouring with liquid chemicals.
• The underlying assumption of the use of exposure data as unit exposures -
proportionality between the amount of active ingredient handled and exposure - is
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-24
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
uncertain, though potentially conservative. However, as a prediction mechanism, it is
considered practical and useful for the purposes of handler exposure assessment in a
regulatory context. It provides a straightforward handler exposure calculation method
and enables risk mitigation in the form of formulation comparison and decreased
application rates.
• The extent to which an individual's exposure (expressed via unit exposures) varies day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
5.3.2 Post-Application Exposure Assessment
Post-application exposure can result from physical activities in areas previously treated by
residential misting systems. While exposure may occur for people of all ages, adults and
children 1 < 2 years old are considered the index lifestages depending on the exposure scenario
based on behavioral characteristics and the strengths and limitations of available data (see
Appendix A).
Automatic spray systems were originally used in animal housing structures, such as dairy barns,
to control flying insects. Recently, these systems have been adapted for use in residential sites,
including residential yards, to control mosquitoes and other pests. These systems are fed from a
central holding tank and utilize an array of spray nozzles to automatically deliver a fine mist of
dilute solution at specified intervals throughout the day.
It is currently unclear whether these systems are intended to target flying insects or insect resting
surfaces. According to a discussion paper written by the Consumer Specialty Products
Association (CSPA, 2005), these systems are designed to apply product to resting surfaces where
insects seek harborage during non-feeding periods. However, in an efficacy study conducted by
Florida A & M University, it was determined that the system was only efficacious against flying
insects (Cilek et. al, 2008). Despite the discrepancy, it is reasonable to assume that some residue
deposits on outdoor surfaces and is available for both dermal and non-dietary ingestion exposure.
This section addresses standard methods for estimating exposure and dose for three post-
application exposure pathways resulting from contact during outdoor activities in patios and
backyards following use of an outdoor residential misting system:
• Section 5.3.2.1 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old inhalation exposure resulting from
activities on patios and backyards; and,
• Section 5.3.2.2 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old dermal and children 1 < 2 years old non-
dietary ingestion exposure.
5.3.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment
This SOP provides a standard method for completing post-application inhalation exposure
assessments for adults and children after a pesticide treatment in an outdoor space. The basis for
this scenario is that inhalation exposure occurs from the airborne aerosols released by mister
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-25
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
nozzles. The well-mixed box (WMB) model was used to develop the exposure equation for the
outdoor residential misting systems (ORMS) post-application inhalation scenario.9 The WMB
model incorporates a number of simplifying assumptions: fresh air (having no pesticide
concentration) enters the box at a constant airflow rate; a turbulent internal airflow thoroughly
mixes the fresh air with the pesticide-laden air resulting in a uniform pesticide air concentration
within the box; and the perfectly mixed air exits the box at the same constant airflow rate (i.e.,
the inflow rate equals the outflow rate). Thus, the outdoor area where the aerosol is being
applied is assumed to be in an enclosed box. Using the WMB model is conservative for
estimation of exposures for an open patio, deck or yard where dissipation is expected to be
greater than the enclosed space that the WMB depicts. Also, this scenario assumes instantaneous
spray releases, that is, the total amount of aerosol released at each spray event is modeled to
occur instantaneously.
The evacuation of the aerosol from the box depends on airflow. For an outdoor scenario, the
airflow, Q, is the product of the cross-sectional area and the wind velocity. The cross-sectional
area is dependent on the area/volume of the treated space, and is defined in each SOP sub-
scenario. The WMB model developed for this scenario models the pesticide air concentrations
after multiple instantaneous aerosol spray releases at regular time intervals10. Only dissipation
due to airflow into and out of the box is modeled.
For the inhalation route of exposure, the point of departure (POD) could be based on the
reference concentration (RfC) methodology. In the RfC methodology, air concentrations are not
converted to doses, rather, risks are assessed on the basis of comparison of exposure
concentrations with reference concentrations typically determined from animal studies. This
approach is not always available for every chemical; therefore, the exposure assessor should
discuss the possibility of this approach with a toxicologist.
Post-Application Inhalation Exposure Algorithm
The following algorithm is used to determine post-application inhalation exposure to the ORMS
(See Section D.3.3 of Appendix D for equation description and derivation):
E
IR*Cn *V
Q
int(ET ¦ PR) +
^ _ j^frac(ET-PK) ^
O^R)
(5.19)
where:
E
IR
C„
V
Q
ET
= exposure (mg/day);
= inhalation rate (m /hr);
"3
= initial air concentration (mg/m );
= volume of treated space (m );
"3
= airflow (m /hr);
= exposure time (hours/day);
9
For the ORMS and animal barn scenarios, the WMB models describing the air concentrations over time have the same form. The
parameterization of these models is the only difference. For the ORMS scenario, the decay rate constant is specified by the ratio of the airflow
rate and the volume of the treated space; whereas for the animal barn scenario, the decay rate constant is specified by the air changes per hour.
10 The regular spray applications are assumed to continue for the entire time spent outdoors.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-26
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
= pulse rate (spray events/hr);
= fraction portion of the product of the exposure time (ET) and the pulse
rate (PR);
= integer (i.e., whole number) portion of the product of the exposure time
(ET) and the pulse rate (PR).
= time between application events (i.e., the inverse of the pulse rate, or
1/PR).
For example, if the time between applications is 40 minutes or 2/3 hour (i.e., Tba = 0.67) or
equivalently, the pulse rate is 3 sprays over 2 hours (i.e., PR = 1.5); and the exposure time is
three hours (ET = 3), then int(ET PR) = int(3 x 1.5) = int(4.5) = 4; and frac(ET PR) = frac(4.5) =
0.5.
Note: If you are assessing (1) exposure due to one spray event or (2) exposure due to multiple
spray events when the exposure time is a whole number multiple of the time between
applications, see Section D. 3.3 of Appendix D, equation D. 17 and D.20, respectively.
The airflow in the patio/backyard is determined as follows:
Q AV CF 1 CF2 Acr0ss_secfi0n (5.20)
where:
Q
"3
= airflow through treated space (m /hr);
AV
= air velocity (m/s);
CF1
= time unit conversion factor (60 seconds/1 minute);
CF2
= time unit conversion factor (60 minutes/ hour); and
Across-sec tion
= cross-section of outdoor space treated (m ).
If chemical-specific data are available, air concentration is the air concentration at time 0.
Specifically, the scenario assumes that individuals could be exposed to the air concentration
immediately after application. While most product labels indicate that ORMS must be
programmed so that "people or pets may not be present", there are frequently no restrictions on
reentry time into the treated area. If data are not available, then the initial air concentration can
be calculated using the following formula:
Co = AR * CF 1 * CF2 (5.21)
where:
Co
AR
CF1
CF2
PR
frac(ETPR)
int(ETPR)
R
Tba
"3
= initial air concentration (mg/m );
"3
= application rate per spray event (lbs ai/ft);
= weight unit conversion factor (454,000 mg/lb); and
3 3
= volume unit conversion factor (35.3 ft / 1.0 m ).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-27
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
If application rates are given on the label, these rates should be used. Application rates are
typically given in ounces of solution per 1000 ft3 per spray event. The following equation can be
"3
used to convert this rate to pounds ai per ft :
AR = ARlabei*A.I.*CF*DH20
V
y NC
where:
"3
AR = application rate per spray (lb ai/ ft);
ARiabei = application rate on label (given as ounces per 1000 ft3) (oz);
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (%);
CF = volume unit conversion factor (1 gallon/128 ounces);
Dh2o = water density (lb/gal); and
Vnc = nozzle coverage volume (as stated on label) (typically 1000 ft3, or as
otherwise stated on the product label).
If application rate is not given on the label, it can be calculated as follows:
1R A.I. * PR * GPM * SD * PH20
Vnc
where:
"3
AR = application rate per spray (lb ai/fit);
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (%);
DR = dilution rate (volume of product/volume total solution);
GPM = nozzle flowrate (gal/min);
SD = spray duration (min);
Dh2o = water density (lb/gal); and
"3
Vnc = nozzle coverage volume (ft ).
Absorbed inhalation dose normalized to body weight is calculated as:
F* AF
D= (5.24)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application inhalation exposure following applications by outdoor residential misting
systems is generally considered short-term in duration but is dependent on the use pattern of the
specific product being assessed and the dissipation/degradation properties of the active
ingredient. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-28
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections
1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals, and activity
patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime exposures) are
deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the exposure profile are
recommended.
Post-application Inhalation Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application inhalation exposure assessments are provided in Table
5-8 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of: i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to
derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed
when characterizing exposure.
Tsihie 5-X: Outdoor Kesidenli;il Misling Stslems- Keeommenrieri Pos(-;ipplk';i(ion 1 nh;il;ilion r.xposuiv
l-'iielors Point I'.siiniiiies
Algorithm
Noliilion
l'l\|)UMire l-iielor
(units)
Poim l'.sliniiile(s)
AR
Application rate per spray event
(lb ai/1000 ft3)
Product-specific
PR
Pulse Rate
(spray s/hr)
1
(unless otherwise specified on label)
DR
Dilution Rate (volume product/volume total
solution)
Product-specific
GPM
Nozzle flowrate
(gal/min)
0.014
SD
Spray duration
(min)
1
Dh20
Water density
(lb/gal)
8.34
Vnc
Nozzle coverage volume
(ft3)
1,000 ft3 per nozzle
V
Volume of treated space
(m3)
90.6
Q
Airflow
(m3/hr)
5,400
AV
Air velocity
(m/s)
0.1
Co
Initial air concentration
(mg/m3)
Calculated; concentration at time "0"
-^cross-section
Cross sectional area of area treated
(m2)
15 m2
ET
Exposure time
(hours/day)
Adult
2.3
Children 1 < 2
years old
2.3
IR
Inhalation rate (m3/hour)
Adult
0.64
Children 1 < 2
years old
0.33
BW
Body weight
(kg)
Adult
80
Children 1 < 2
years old
11
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-29
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Application Rate (AR)
The application rate is the amount of spray applied per unit area times the number of sprays
applied per day. The application rate can be determined from product-specific factors that are
listed on the label or from generic factors listed above. This application rate needs to be
determined on a volume basis (i.e., lb ai applied per 1,000 cubic feet) to determine inhalation
exposures.
Dilution Rate (DR)
The label should state the amount (e.g., gallons) of concentrated product per amount of water.
This can also be given as parts of product per parts of water. Dilution rate is the volume of the
product amount stated on the label divided by the sum of product volume and water volume (i.e.,
volume total solution).
Pulse Rate (PR): Number of Spray Events per hour
The pulse rate, or number of spray events per hour, is label-specific. A default of 1 spray event
per hour is assumed when no product-specific data are available (CSPA 2005). This value is
combined with exposure time (hours/day) to determine exposure to the individual. It is assumed
that the airborne residues would disperse between applications.
Nozzle Flow rate (GPM)
The nozzle flowrate is a function of the amount of water the system will use in a 24-hr period.
For this SOP, a nozzle flowrate (gal/min) of 0.011-0.014 gal/min is assumed (CSPA, 2005;
Cilek, et. al., 2008). The nozzle flow rate is a function of the number of nozzles on the system
and the number of minutes that the system operates each day. This is the amount of diluted
product released from the nozzle per unit of time.
Spray Duration (SD)
Available information indicates the spray duration is approximately 30-60 seconds (0.5 - 1.0
min) in length (CSPA, 2005). The recommended point estimate for use in a deterministic
risk assessment is 60 seconds (1 minute).
Water Density (DH2o)
The dilute solution of pesticide for application through the misting system is assumed to have
the same density as water (i.e., 8.34 lbs/gallon), as the pesticide concentrate is typically mixed
with large volumes of water.
Nozzle Coverage Volume (VNc)
The nozzle coverage volume is specified in the product label. If no volume is specified, the
-2
volume coverage of 1,000 ft per nozzle is assumed. The range of volume coverage is 880-
1440 ft3 per nozzle (CSPA, 2005; Cilek, et. al., 2008),
Volume of Treated Space (V)
3 3
An outdoor living space with dimensions of 20 ft. x 20 ft. x 8 ft. (i.e., 3,200 ft or 90.6 m ) is
assumed when calculating airborne concentration levels. This volume was selected to
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-30
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
represent typical treated space - e.g., a patio, deck, or yard. This value is based on a recent
survey on U.S. decking market which was conducted by the Center for International Trade in
Forest Products (CINTRAFOR). In this survey, CINTRAFOR contacted a random sample of
U.S. homebuilders via telephone. Based on the survey results, it was determined that the mean
deck size for "spec" homes (n=109) was 361ft . This translates to approximately a 20 ft x 18 ft
surface area. The mean deck size for custom homes (n=174) was 490 ft2 (Eastin et al., 2005).
This translates to approximately 20 ft x 24.5 ft surface area. The overall mean deck size
identified in this survey is believed to be is an appropriate surrogate for the amount of outdoor
living space treated by ORMS. Therefore, in the absence of additional information, 20 ft. x 20 ft.
x 8 ft. is used as the volume of outdoor space that is treated with ORMS and other outdoor sprays
and 20 ft x 20 ft is used as the surface area of a treated area.
A
cross section
Across-section represents the cross-sectional area of the volume of treated space for this exposure
scenario, measured in m . Unless otherwise specified by the product label, the exposure scenario
for misting systems considers a 20ft x 20 ft x 8 ft area; therefore, the cross-sectional area for
the treated space is 160 ft2 (20 ft width x 8 ft height) or 15 m2.
Air velocity (AV)
The air velocity is the speed of the air moving through the treated area defined for the well-
mixed box model. The fraction of the chemical available for inhalation in outdoor air is a
function of the movement of air into and out of the backyard "box". The air velocity determines
the rate at which the contents of the outdoor area treated are evacuated. Wind velocity is an
influencing factor affecting flying pest nuisance. Bidlingmayer et al., 1995 examined the effect
of wind velocity on suction trap catches. Their research noted that trap catches declined as wind
velocities increased over the entire range of observed velocities. Wind velocities within the
range of normal mosquito flights, about 1 m/s resulted in trap catch reductions on significant
nights of approximately 50% by wind of 0.5 m/s and 75% at 1.0 m/s.
The wind speed range considered here corresponds with the lower two tiers of the Beaufort wind
force scale, an empirical measure for describing wind speed. The Beaufort wind force scale is a
range on a numerical basis of 0-10, from still air conditions up to hurricane force winds. This
SOP covers Beaufort numbers 0-1. The Beaufort number 0 corresponds to calm wind conditions
of <0.3 m/s [18 meters/minute; 0.7 mph]. The Beaufort number 1 corresponds to light air
conditions of 0.3-1.5 m/s [18-90 meters/minute; 0.7-3.4 mph]. Thus, this SOP provides a
distribution of wind velocities from 0.1-1.5 m/s [0.2-3.4 mph], the upper limit for "light air"
condition on the Beaufort scale and a reasonable upper bound for wind velocities where these
products would be used to control flying pests. This windspeed represents a range of values
foreseeable in which ORMS may be used (i.e., in a yard or on an outdoor patio where flying
pests may pose a nuisance). When wind velocities are higher than 1.5 m/s, ORMS are less likely
to be used because of reduced flying pest pressure.
The recommended point estimate for use in a deterministic exposure assessment is 0.1 m/s
(0.22 mph). The range of air velocities applicable to this assessment are 0.1 m/s to 1.5 m/s.
Airflow (Q)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-31
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Airflow is defined as the volume of natural air that uniformly passes through a given area in a
specified period of time. In the well-mixed box model, the airflow through the treated space is
"3
the product of the air velocity and the cross-sectional area, and is measured in m /hour. As
mentioned above, the cross-sectional area of the space treated is assumed to be 20 ft x 8 ft (160
2 2
ft or 15 m ). The range of air velocities to represent calm air conditions is 0.1 m/s to a
maximum of 1.5 m/s. Therefore, the airflow for a typical space treated is assumed to range from
3 3
5,400 m /hour (as the health protective default value) to 81,000 m /hour.
Air Concentration (Co)
The initial concentration is based upon instantaneous release of diluted product and mixing into a
fixed space (nozzle coverage area). It is assumed there is complete mixing of the applied
product in the area.
Exposure Time (ET)
Another important variable for addressing post-application exposure is the duration of time spent
in areas treated by outdoor residential misting systems. The exposure time for adults and
children conservatively assumes that the time spent in the volume of treated space is equivalent
to the time spent at home outdoors in the yard or other areas around the house ("doers" only).
The exposure time values are from the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Table 16-20),
converted from minutes per day to hours per day. The original analysis generated statistics for
the subset of the survey lifestage that reported being in the location or doing the activity in
question (i.e., "doers" only). Based on these data, the recommended point estimate for use in
post-application inhalation exposure assessment for adults and children is 2.3 hrs/day.
Tsihle 5-9: Time Spoilt Outdoors At Homo in I lie Y;inl or Oilier A reus Outside (he
House
Sliilislie
Horn's pei' l);i\
Adults
Children 1 < 2 \e;irs old
5th percentile
0.1
0.4
25th percentile
0.5
1.0
50th percentile
1.5
1.5
75 th percentile
3.0
3.0
90th percentile
5.5
5.1
95th percentile
7.3
5.8
Arithmetic Mean
2.3
2.3
Reference: 2011 EFH, Table
16-20 (Adults 18-64)
Reference: 2011 EFH, Table 16-
20 (Children 1 < 4 years old)
Future Research/Data Needs
Areas where future research would address some data gaps with respect to the post-application
ORMS scenario include:
• Limited air monitoring data are available for ORMS. Studies could be designed to
characterize the air concentration of aerosolized pesticide sprays after misting
applications.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-32
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
• No data are available to characterize the prevalence of outdoor residential misting
systems in different regions of the U.S. A survey could be conducted to determine
ORMS use patterns.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
• The simplifying assumptions implicit in the well-mixed box model identified in the first
two paragraphs of Section 5.3.2.1 would be health protective; the modeled air
concentrations would dissipate less rapidly (i.e., resulting in higher pesticide
concentrations) in the artificially defined fixed volume compared to a true open outdoor
space.
• The ORMS exposure scenario makes the health protective assumption that all of the
applied pesticide is in the air available for inhalation exposure, and then that all of the
applied pesticide settles onto the turf and is available for dermal exposure.
5.3.2.2 Post-application Dermal and Non-dietary Ingestion Exposure
Assessment
Dermal and incidental oral post-application exposures are expected to occur after the spray
settles onto the treated areas of a yard (e.g., deck, patio, or turf). Based on the data available and
the assumptions that would be considered for assessing dermal and non-dietary ingestion
exposures from smooth surfaces (e.g., patios and decks) and textured surfaces (e.g., turf/lawns),
this SOP makes a health protective assumption that all of the outdoor spray settles onto turf.
This settling is assumed to occur in a uniform fashion throughout the treated area, similar to a
direct lawn broadcast treatment. While exposure may occur for people of all ages, adults and
children 1 < 2 years old are considered the index lifestages based on behavioral characteristics
and the strengths and limitations of available data. Once the application rate is determined, the
turf transferable residues and resulting dermal and incidental oral exposures should be assessed
following the methodologies outlined in Section 3.2.
To calculate the residue on turf, use one of the following equations.
If application rates are given on the label, these rates should be used. Application rates are
"3
typically given in ounces per 1000 ft . A high-end height estimate of 8 feet is assumed which
allows for a smaller turf surface area for the pesticide to be deposited on and, therefore, a higher
concentration of residue is available. The following equation can be used to convert the
application rate in pounds ai per square foot as is deposited on the turf:
AT? *AT*PT«*r) *W
^=AKlabd A.l. 1* UH20 H
where:
AR
ARlabel
A.I.
2
= application rate per spray (lb ai/ ft);
= application rate on label (in ounces per 1,000 cubic feet) (oz);
= percent active ingredient in product (%);
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-33
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
CF = conversion factor to convert ounces to gallons (1 gallon/128 ounces);
Dh2o = water density (lb/gal);
H = height of nozzle (8 ft); and
Vnc = nozzle coverage volume (ft3).
If application rate is not given on the label, it can be calculated using the following formulas:
AR A.I. * PR * GPM * SD * PH20 (5 26)
where:
NC
2
AR = application rate per spray (lb ai/fit);
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (%);
DR = dilution rate (volume product/volume total solution);
GPM = nozzle flowrate (gal/min);
SD = spray duration (min);
Dh2o = water density (lb/gal); and
Anc = nozzle coverage area (ft).
Post-application dermal and non-dietary exposure following applications by outdoor residential
misting systems is generally considered short-term in duration, but is dependent on the use
pattern of the specific product being assessed and the dissipation/degradation properties of the
active ingredient. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-
day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in
Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals, and
activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime
exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the exposure
profile are recommended.
Post-application Dermal and Non-Dietary Ingestion Algorithm Inputs and
Assumptions
The following provides a general discussion for each exposure factor and derivation of
recommended point estimates for use in exposure assessment.
Application Rate (AR)
The application rate is the amount of spray applied per unit area times the number of sprays
applied per day. The application rate can be determined from product-specific factors that are
listed on the label or from generic factors listed above. This application rate needs to be
determined on an area basis (i.e., lbs ai applied per square foot) to assess incidental oral and
dermal exposures.
Dilution Rate (DR)
The label should state the amount (e.g., gallons) of concentrated product per amount of water.
This can also be given as parts of product per parts of water. Dilution rate is the volume of the
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-34
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
product amount stated on the label divided by the sum of product volume and water volume (i.e.,
volume total solution).
Nozzle Flow rate (GPM)
The nozzle flowrate is a function of the amount of water your system will use in a 24-hr period.
For this SOP, a nozzle flowrate (gal/min) of 0.011-0.014 gal/min is assumed (Cilek, et. al.,
2008; CSPA, 2005). The nozzle flow rate is a function of the number of nozzles on the system
and the number of minutes that the system operates each day. This is the amount of diluted
product released from the nozzle per unit of time.
Spray Duration (SD)
Each spray event is assumed to last for approximately 30-60 seconds (0.5 - 1.0 min) (CSPA,
2005). The recommended point estimate for use in a deterministic risk assessment is 60
seconds (1 minute), in the absence of available product-specific information.
Water Density (DH2o)
The dilute solution of pesticide for application through the misting system is assumed to have
the same density as water (i.e., 8.34 lbs/gallon), as the pesticide concentrate is typically mixed
with large volumes of water.
Nozzle Coverage Area or Volume (ANcor V^c)
-2
The nozzle coverage volume is specified in the product label as 1,000 ft per nozzle (Vnc)- A
conservative height estimate of 8 ft is assumed, making the ground area coverage 125 ft per
nozzle (Anc). A high-end height estimate of 8 feet is assumed which allows for a smaller turf
surface area for the pesticide to be deposited on and, therefore, a higher concentration of residue
is available, thus producing a health protective estimate. An 8 foot height is also the assumed
height of the box model, and a reasonable high-end estimate of the height of the residential
misting system based on professional judgment.
Future Research/Data Needs
Future areas of research that could address data gaps with respect to the post-application ORMS
scenario include:
• No data are available to characterize the prevalence of outdoor residential misting
systems in different regions of the U.S. A survey could be conducted to determine
ORMS use patterns.
• No data are available to characterize the deposition pattern of ORMS systems in the
outdoor environment. Studies could be designed to capture the deposition patterns, air
concentrations, and chemical fate during for ORMS treatments.
• No data are available to indicate the extent of dermal deposition on human skin from
aerosolized pesticides released from ORMS. Studies could be designed to capture the
extent of dermal deposition as a result of airborne aerosols released from ORMS.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-35
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
• Outdoor Residential Misting Systems typically operate on timed applications or by
remote control activation. The ORMS scenario models residential bystander exposure in
that it assumes bystanders are present immediately following a spray event, not during
the application.
• The ORMS exposure scenario makes the health protective assumption that all of the
applied pesticide is in the air available for inhalation exposure, and then that all of the
applied pesticide settles onto the turf and is available for dermal and incidental oral
exposure.
5.3.2.3 Combining Post-application Scenarios
Risk estimates resulting from different exposure scenarios are combined when it is likely that
they can occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and when the toxicological effects across
different routes of exposure are the same. When combining scenarios, it is important to fully
characterize the potential for co-occurrence as well as characterizing the risk inputs and
estimates. Risk estimates should be combined even if any one scenario or route of exposure
exceeds the level of concern because this allows for better risk characterization for risk
managers.
It is likely that children could be exposed to an area treated by ORMS via inhalation, dermal and
non-dietary ingestion (hand-to-mouth) routes and that these scenarios could occur
simultaneously. Therefore, these exposure scenarios should be combined when toxicological
effects are the same across these routes of exposure.
5.4 Animal Barn Misting Systems
Animal barn residential misting systems are application systems designed to spray an aerosolized
insecticide to kill mosquitoes and other nuisance insects in and around barns. These systems are
fed from a central holding tank and utilize an array of spray nozzles to automatically deliver an
aerosolized insecticide at specified intervals throughout the day. The spray nozzles are typically
mounted between 8-10 feet high. These systems operate automatically (i.e., at preset intervals)
or manually (e.g., via remote control or switch).
This section provides standard methods for estimating potential doses from pesticides applied
using misting systems in animal barns. Adults filling the misting system drums with the
pesticide have the potential for dermal and inhalation exposure. Adults and children occupying
animal barns following the application of a pesticide using a misting system can experience
inhalation, dermal and incidental oral exposure.
This section provides the methods for estimating the potential dose for handlers using misting
systems, the method for estimating the potential dose from post-application inhalation exposure
to a treated barn, as well as the method for estimating residue deposited on hard surfaces
following a pesticide treatment from a animal barn misting system which can be used in
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-36
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
conjunction with methods outlined in Section 3.2 source not found to estimate dermal and oral
post-application doses following direct applications to indoor surfaces.
5.4.1 Handler Exposure Assessment
Barn misters are typically marketed as systems that include a mix tank, a timer-controlled pump,
and fixed plumbing that run to the spray nozzles. The systems are generally expected to be
professionally installed and include a service contract to cover maintenance and insecticide
refilling. However, it is possible for a residential user to purchase pesticide concentrates and
load the drum/holding tank to refill these systems. Therefore, a residential handler scenario may
be necessary.
This section provides a standard method for completing handler exposure assessments for adults
who are mixing and loading insecticides to be used in barn misting systems. The basis for this
scenario is that handler exposure occurs as the pesticide is poured into the drum by the handler
holding the product container; no applicator scenario is required to be assessed as the misting
nozzles spray the pesticide in the treatment area automatically (without contact with the
residential handlers).
This scenario assumes that pesticides are available to be inhaled or have the potential to contact
the skin during the mixing and loading of the pesticide products in drums/holding tanks as part of
the barn misting system. It is assumed that only individuals 16 years of age or older mix and
load (i.e., handle) pesticides. The method to determine handler inhalation and dermal exposure
to pesticides from these activities relies on data measuring dermal and inhalation exposure
during mixing and loading (e.g., pouring a liquid pesticide). Thus, this method should be used in
the absence of chemical-specific data, or as a supplement to estimates based on chemical-specific
data.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm
As described in Section 1.3.3, daily dermal and inhalation exposure (mg/day) for residential
pesticide handlers, for a given formulation-application method combination, is estimated by
multiplying the formulation-application method-specific unit exposure by an estimate of the
amount of active ingredient handled in a day, using the equation below:
E = UE *AR
(5.27)
where:
E
UE
AR
exposure (mg/day);
unit exposure (mg/lb ai); and
application rate (lb ai/day).
The application rate can be calculated as follows:
AR = Vd*N*DR *A.I. *Dh20
(5.28)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-37
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
where:
AR = application rate per day (lb ai/ day);
Vd = volume of the drum of the misting system (gallons/drum);
N = number of drums filled per day (drums/day);
DR = dilution rate (volume of product/volume of total solution);
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (%); and
Dh2o = water density (lb/gal).
Absorbed dermal and/or inhalation doses normalized to body weight are calculated as:
F* AF
D= (5.29)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Handler exposure for animal barn misting systems is generally considered short-term in duration
as filling the centralized reservoir tanks typically occur once in a 90 day period. Refinement of
this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile can be
accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 such as
the product-specific application regimen.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for handler exposure (inhalation and dermal) assessments are provided in
Table 5-10 and Table 5-11. Following these tables, each scenario-specific input parameter is
described in more detail. This description includes a summary of: i) key assumptions; ii) data
sources used to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should
be addressed when characterizing exposure.
1 "sihie 5-10: Aniniiil |};un Misting S\s(ems- Recommended I nil llxposnre (mji/lh ;ii) Poinl Kslim;iles
I'ormiihilion
r.(|iii|>menl/
Application
Method
l)erm;il
lnh;iliilion
Appendix Piiiie
Reference
Poinl llsliniiile
Poinl llsliniiile
Liquid
concentrates
Mixing/loading
0.232
0.000219
NA
NA = not applicable - data from occupational handler data source (see:
lUtD:/Avww.CDa.aov/DCSticidcs/scicncc/handlcr-c\DOSiirc-data, html)
T;ihlc5-ll: Aniniiil liiirn Misting Stsicms - Recommended Ihindlcr llxposnre l";iclor Poinl Msliniiiles
Algorithm
Noiiiiion
llxposnre l-iiclor
(iniils)
Poinl l'lsliniiile(s)
AR
Application rate
(lb ai/ day)
Product-specific
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-38
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
1 "sihie 5-11: Aniniiil li;irn Misting S\stems - Recommended Ihmdler lAposure l ;ie(or Point l.s(im;i(es
Dh20
Density of product
(lb/gal)
8.34
VD
Volume of Drum
(gallons/drum)
55
DR
Dilution Rate (volume of product /
volume of total solution)
Product-specific
N
Number of drums filled per day
(drums/day)
1
A.I.
Percent ai in product concentrate
(%)
Product-specific
BW
Body weight
(kg)
80
Unit Exposure (UE)
As described in Section 1.3.3, the unit exposure is the ratio between exposure and the amount of
active ingredient handled for a given formulation/application method combination, with units
mass exposure per mass active ingredient handled (e.g., mg ai exposure/lb ai handled).
Drum Volume (Vp)
The default assessment can provide risk estimates based on three typical drum/holding tank
sizes (30, 55, or 125 gallons) as part of the animal barn misting system, unless additional
scenario-specific information is provided on the product labels. The 30 and 55 gallon drums
represent likely configurations of a residential animal barn misting system and the 55 and 125
gallon systems represent likely configurations of the commercial stable animal misting system.
Number of Drums Filled per Day (N)
One drum is assumed to be filled per day on an episodic basis, as residential misting systems
are likely only connected to one drum.
Dilution Rate (DR)
The label should state the amount (e.g., gallons) of concentrated product per amount of water.
This can also be given as parts of product per parts of water. Dilution rate is the volume of the
product amount stated on the label divided by the sum of product volume and water volume (i.e.,
volume total solution). For example, a 1:3 dilution would be a 0.25 dilution rate.
Water Density (DH2o)
Pesticide products used in misting systems are typically mixed with large volumes of water.
Therefore, the dilute insecticide solution applied through the misting system is assumed to have
the same density as water (i.e., 8.34 lbs/gallon).
Future Research/Data Needs
Future research that could address data needs with respect to the animal barn misting system
scenario include:
• survey data that could be produced to examine the prevalence of these systems in the
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-39
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
United States.
• Information detailing the breakdown of maintenance (i.e., characterizing the percentage
of systems that are professional maintained versus homeowner maintained), and
• equipment type (i.e., how often the systems are refilled/reloaded, and the spray frequency
of these systems) could be useful to fully characterize the residential handler exposure
potential.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Unit Exposures
• The unit exposures used for this scenario are from the "All Liquids, Open Mixing and
Loading" Scenario in EPA's Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate
Reference Table (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/handler-exposure-table.pdf).
The use of occupational exposure data may overestimate homeowner exposure.
Additionally, the values were adjusted to represent the type of clothing a homeowner or
non-professional residential handler would wear (i.e., short-sleeved shirt, shorts and no
chemical-resistant gloves) and are the best available data set for determining residential
exposures during open pouring with liquid chemicals.
• The underlying assumption of the use of exposure data as unit exposures -
proportionality between the amount of active ingredient handled and exposure - is
uncertain, though potentially conservative. However, as a prediction mechanism, it is
considered practical and useful for the purposes of handler exposure assessment in a
regulatory context. It provides a straightforward handler exposure calculation method
and enables risk mitigation in the form of formulation comparison and decreased
application rates.
• The extent to which an individual's exposure (expressed via unit exposures) varies day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
5.4.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment
Post-application exposure can result from presence in residential barns or commercial stables
following pesticide applications. While exposure may occur for people of all ages, adults and
children 3 < 6 years old are considered the index lifestage depending on the exposure scenario
based on behavioral characteristics and the strengths and limitations of available data.
This section addresses standard methods for estimating exposure and dose for three post-
application exposure pathways resulting from time spent in animal barns that have previously
been treated by a misting system:
• Section 5.4.2.1 - adult/children 3 < 6 years old inhalation exposure; and,
• Section 5.4.2.2 - adult/children 3 < 6 years old dermal and children 3 < 6 years old non-
dietary ingestion exposure.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-40
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
5.4.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment
This section provides a standard method for completing post-application inhalation exposure
assessments for adults and children after a pesticide treatment in a animal barn. The basis for
this scenario is that inhalation exposure occurs from the airborne aerosols released by mister
nozzles. As with the ORMS scenario, the well-mixed box (WMB) model was used to develop
the exposure equation for the animal barn misting systems post-application inhalation scenario11.
The WMB model incorporates a number of simplifying assumptions: fresh air (having no
pesticide concentration) enters the box at a constant airflow rate (based on the number of air
changes per hour), a turbulent internal airflow thoroughly mixes the fresh air with the pesticide-
laden air resulting in a uniform pesticide air concentration within the box, and the perfectly
mixed air exits the box at the same constant airflow rate (i.e., the inflow rate equals the outflow
rate). Thus, the indoor area where the aerosol is being applied (i.e., barn) is assumed to be in an
enclosed box, which is a reasonable assumption for a walled, indoor space. This scenario
assumes instantaneous spray releases; that is, the total amount of aerosol released at each spray
event is modeled to occur instantaneously.
The evacuation of the aerosol from the box depends on airflow. For an indoor scenario, the
airflow is the product of the volume of the treated space and the number of air changes per hour,
ACH. The WMB model developed for this scenario models the pesticide air concentrations after
multiple instantaneous aerosol spray releases at regular time intervals12. Only dissipation due to
airflow into and out of the box is modeled.
For the inhalation route of exposure, the point of departure (POD) could be based on the
reference concentration (RfC) methodology. In the RfC methodology, air concentrations are not
converted to doses, rather, risks are assessed on the basis of comparison of exposure
concentrations with reference concentrations typically determined from animal studies. This
approach is not always available for every chemical; therefore, the exposure assessor should
discuss the possibility of this approach with a toxicologist.
Post-Application Inhalation Exposure Algorithm
Post-application inhalation exposure for adults/children resulting from animal barns that have
been previously treated with pesticide can be calculated using the following equations (See
Section D.3.4 of Appendix D for equation description and derivation):
r IR-Cr,- ET ¦ PR
E = 2 (5.30)
ACH V ;
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
IR = inhalation rate (m /hr);
ACH = air changes per hour (hour"1);
11 For the ORMS and animal barn scenarios, the WMB models describing the air concentrations over time have the same form. The
parameterization of these models is the only difference. For the ORMS scenario, the decay rate constant is specified by the ratio of the airflow
rate and the volume of the treated space; whereas for the animal barn scenario, the decay rate constant is specified by the air changes per hour.
12 The regular spray applications are assumed to continue for the entire time spent inside the animal barn.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-41
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
-3
Co = initial concentration (mg/m );
PR = pulse rate (sprays/hr); and
ET = exposure time (hrs/day).
Note: If you are assessing (1) exposure due to one spray event or (2) exposure due to multiple
spray events when the exposure time is not a whole number multiple of the time between
applications, see Section D. 3.4 of Appendix D, equationD.30 andD.35, respectively.
If product-specific data are available, air concentration is the residue immediately after a spray,
typically referred to as "time 0". This exposure scenario assumes that individuals are exposed to
the air concentration immediately after the application event. However, if chemical-specific data
are not available, the initial air concentration can be calculated using the following formula:
C0 = AR * CF1 * CF2 (5.31)
where:
"3
Co = initial air concentration (mg/m );
AR = application rate per spray event (lbs ai/ft3);
CF1 = weight unit conversion factor (454,000 mg/lb); and
CF2 = volume unit conversion factor (35.3 ft3/ 1.0 m3).
If application rates are given on the product label, these rates should be used. Application rates
are typically given on product labels in ounces per 1000 ft3. The following equation can be used
3 3
to convert the application rate from ounces product per 1000 ft to pounds ai per ft :
AR= ARlabei*A-L*CF*DH20 (5 32)
V
y NC
where:
"3
AR = application rate per spray (lb ai/ ft);
ARiabei = application rate on label (given as ounces per 1000 ft3) (oz);
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (%);
CF = volume unit conversion factor (1 gallon/128 ounces);
Dh2o = water density (lb/gal); and
Vnc = nozzle coverage volume (as stated on label) (1000 ft3).
If application rate is not given on the label, it can be calculated as follows:
A.I. * DR * GPM * SD * D,
AR =
'mo
V
v NC
where:
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (%);
"3
AR = application rate per spray (lb ai/ft);
(5.33)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-42
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
DR = dilution rate (volume of product/volume of total solution);
GPM = nozzle flowrate (gal/min);
SD = spray duration (min);
Dh2o = water density (lb/gal); and
"3
Vnc = nozzle coverage volume (ft).
Absorbed inhalation dose normalized to body weight is calculated as:
E*AF
D =
BW (5.34)
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application inhalation exposure following applications by misting systems in animal barns
is generally considered short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more
accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the
various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific
re-treatment intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-
term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect
the exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Inhalation Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application inhalation exposure assessments are provided in Table
5-12 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of: i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to
derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed
when characterizing exposure.
Table 5-12: Aniiiiiil li;irn Misting S\s(ems - Recommended lnh;il;i(ion Iaixisiiit l ;ic(or Point l.s(iin;i(cs
Algorithm
Noliilion
r.\|)osiiiv l";ic(or
(iinils)
I'oinl llsliiiiiilcis)
AR
Application rale per sjpra\ cv cnl
(lb ai/ ft3)
Product-specific
DR
Spray dilution rate
(volume of product/ volume of total solution)
Product-specific
GPM
Nozzle flowrate
(gal/min)
0.014
SD
Spray duration
(min)
1
Vnc
Nozzle coverage volume
(ft3)
1,000 ft3 per nozzle, or label specific
ACH
Air changes per hour
(hour1)
4
Dh20
Water density
8.34
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-43
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Tsihle5-I2: Aniiiiiil li;irn Misting S\s(ems- Recommended lnh;il;i(ion I'xposure l ;ic(or Point llsiiniiiies
(lb/gal)
PR
Pulse Rate
(spray s/hr)
1 spray event per hour
Co
Initial air concentration
(mg/m3)
Calculated; Concentration at time "0"
ET
Exposure time
(hr/day)
Adult
4
Children 3 < 6 years old
2
IR
Inhalation rate
(m3/hour)
Adult
0.64
Children 3 < 6 years old
0.42
BW
Body weight
(kg)
Adult
80
Children 3 < 6 years old
19
Application Rate (AR)
The application rate is the amount of spray applied per unit volume per spray event. The
application rate can be determined from product specific factors that are listed on the label or
from generic factors listed above. This application rate needs to be determined on a volume
basis (i.e., lb ai applied per 1000 cubic feet) to determine inhalation exposures.
Dilution Rate (DR)
The label should state the amount (e.g., gallons) of concentrated product per amount of water.
This can also be given as parts of product per parts of water. Dilution rate is the volume of the
product amount stated on the label divided by the sum of product volume and water volume (i.e.,
volume total solution).
Nozzle Flow rate (GPM)
The nozzle flowrate is a function of the amount of water the system will use in a 24 hr period. A
nozzle flowrate (gal/min) of 0.011-0.014 gal/min is assumed (CSPA, 2005; Cilek, et. al.,
2008). The nozzle flow rate is a function of the number of nozzles on the system and the number
of minutes that the system operates each day. This is the amount of dilute pesticide spray
released from the nozzle per unit of time.
Spray Duration (SD)
Each spray event is assumed to last for approximately 30-60 seconds (0.5 - 1.0 min) (CSPA,
2005). The recommended point estimate for use in a deterministic risk assessment is 60
seconds (1 minute).
Nozzle Coverage Volume (V^c)
The nozzle coverage volume is specified in the product label. If no volume is specified, it is
•j
assumed that the nozzle coverage area is 1,000 ft per nozzle (CSPA, 2005; Cilek, et. al.,
2008). The range is 880-1440 ft3.
Air Changes per Hour (ACH)
Air changes per hour is the rate that air within an indoor environment is replaced by outdoor air.
For a typical barn, the air exchange rate ranges between 4 and 8 air changes per hour. This is
the ratio of the airflow over the volume of space (Q/V). Typical equine references suggest this
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-44
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
range of air changes per hour to maintain fresh air conditions and good air quality in the more
challenging stable environments. A lower number of air changes per hour reflect winter
conditions and a higher number of air changes represent warmer weather conditions (Horse
Stable Ventilation Publication, Penn State University 2003).
Water Density (DH2o)
Pesticide products used in these systems are typically mixed with large volumes of water.
Therefore, the dilute pesticide solution applied through the misting system is assumed to have
the same density as water (i.e., 8.34 lbs/gallon).
Air Concentration (Co)
The initial concentration is based upon instantaneous release of diluted product and mixing into a
fixed space (nozzle coverage area). It is assumed there is complete mixing of the applied
product in the area.
Pulse Rate (PR): Number of Spray Events per Hour
The number of spray events per hour is label-specific. A default value of 1 spray event per
hour will be assumed when no product-specific data are available (CSPA, 2005). Based on an
evaluation of product information, this value is considered a health protective assumption.
Exposure Time (ET)
The exposure time of adults who spend time in and around animal barns is 4 hours per day
in the treated space. Children are assumed to spend 2 hours per day in the treated space.
These recommended exposure time values are based on a study that examined the relationship
between respiratory problems and time spent in animal barns (Mazan, 2009). In this study, it
was reported that anecdotal evidence suggests that casual riders are unlikely to spend more than
1-2 hours per day and a total 2-5 days per week in a barn. Based on this anecdotal evidence, 4
hours per day is believed to be a conservative estimate of time spent inside an animal barn for the
adult rider who also performs some non-occupational barn-related tasks. Similarly, since casual
child riders are likely to spend less time performing non-riding activities than adults, 2 hours per
day is believed to be a conservative estimate for children.
Future Research/Data Needs
There are three main research/data needs with respect to the post-application animal barn misting
system scenario.
• Limited air monitoring data are available for animal barn misting systems. Studies could
be designed to characterize the air concentration of aerosolized pesticide sprays.
• No data are available to characterize the prevalence of animal barn misting systems in
different regions of the U.S. A survey could be conducted to determine animal barn
misting system use patterns.
• No data are available to determine how much time a person spends in a residential animal
barn and a commercial animal stable. A time-activity survey could be conducted to
determine the breakdown of activities and time spent in animal barns.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-45
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
• Animal Barn Misting Systems typically operate on timed applications or by remote
control activation. The scenario models residential post-application inhalation exposure
and it assumes individuals are present immediately following a spray event, not during
the application.
5.4.2.2 Post-application Dermal and Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure
Assessment
For pesticide use in an animal barn misting system, there is potential for post-application dermal
and incidental oral exposure once the aerosol settles on surfaces inside the barn. A person could
potentially be exposed to these residues when cleaning the barn, taking out equipment, and
interacting with animals housed in barns.
Dermal and incidental oral post-application exposures are expected to occur after the spray
settles onto the areas inside the barn. While exposure may occur for people of all ages, adults
and children 3 < 6 years old are considered to be the most representative index lifestages for the
animal barn misting system scenarios. This assumption is based on the behavioral characteristics
of the index lifestages, safety rules and precautions inside a animal barn, and the strengths and
limitations of available data. Aerosol settling is assumed to occur in a uniform fashion
throughout the treated area, and exposure is assumed to be similar to a broadcast indoor
treatment. Once the application rate is determined, the indoor hard surface transferable residues
and resulting dermal and incidental oral exposures should be assessed following the
methodologies outlined in Section 7.2. The indoor post-application exposure scenario should be
used as a surrogate to assess animal barn hard surfaces after a broadcast treatment. The
Exposure Time (ET) input should be the same used in the animal barn misting system post-
application inhalation exposure assessment (Section 5.4.2.1).
To calculate the residue on indoor hard surfaces, use one of the following equations.
If application rates are given on the label, these rates should be used. Application rates are
"3
typically given in ounces per 1000 ft . A high-end height estimate of 8 feet is assumed which
allows for a smaller turf surface area for the pesticide to be deposited on and, therefore, a higher
concentration of residue is available. The following equation can be used to convert the
application rate in pounds ai per square foot as is deposited on indoor surfaces:
AR *AT*TF1*n
AR= label H2Q (5.35)
V\r
NC
where:
2
AR = application rate per spray (lb ai/ cm );
ARiabei = application rate on label (in ounces per 1,000 cubic feet) (oz);
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (%);
CFi = conversion factor to convert ounces to gallons (1 gallon/128 ounces);
Dh2o = water density (lb/gal);
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-46
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
CF2 = conversion factor (1 ft2/929 cm2);
H = height of nozzle (8 ft); and
"3
Vnc = nozzle coverage volume (ft).
If application rate is not given on the label, it can be calculated using the following formulas:
AR = A.I. * PR * GPM * SD * CF * PH2Q
A-nc
where:
2
AR = application rate per spray (lb ai/cm );
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (%);
DR = dilution rate (volume product/volume total solution);
GPM = nozzle flowrate (gal/min);
SD = spray duration (min);
CF = conversion factor (1 ft2/929 cm2);
Dh2o = water density (lb/gal); and
Anc = nozzle coverage area (ft2).
Post-application dermal exposure following applications by animal barn misting systems is
generally considered short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more
accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the
various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific
re-treatment intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-
term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect
the exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Dermal and Non-Dietary Ingestion Algorithm Inputs and
Assumptions
The following provides a general discussion for each exposure factor and derivation of
recommended point estimates for use in exposure assessment.
Application Rate (AR)
The application rate is the amount of spray applied per unit area times the number of sprays
applied per day. The application rate can be determined from product specific factors that are
listed on the label or from generic factors listed above. This application rate needs to be
determined on an area basis (i.e., lbs ai applied per square centimeter) to assess incidental oral
and dermal exposures.
Dilution Rate (DR)
The label should state the amount (e.g., gallons) of concentrated product per amount of water.
This can also be given as parts of product per parts of water. Dilution rate is the volume of the
product amount stated on the label divided by the sum of product volume and water volume (i.e.,
volume total solution).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-47
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
Nozzle Flow rate (GPM)
The nozzle flowrate is a function of the amount of water your system will use in a 24-hr period.
A nozzle flowrate (gal/min) of 0.011-0.014 gal/min is assumed (Cilek, et. al., 2008; CSPA,
2005). The nozzle flow rate is a function of the number of nozzles on the system and the number
of minutes that the system operates each day. This is the amount of diluted product released
from the nozzle per unit of time.
Spray Duration (SD)
Each spray event is assumed to last for 30-60 seconds approximately (0.5 - 1.0 min) (CSPA,
2005). The recommended point estimate for use in a deterministic risk assessment is 60
seconds (1 minute).
Water Density (DH2o)
The dilute solution of pesticide for application through the misting system is assumed to have
the same density as water (i.e., 8.34 lbs/gallon), as the pesticide concentrate is typically mixed
with large volumes of water.
Nozzle Coverage Area or Volume (ANCor VNc)
•j
The nozzle coverage volume is specified in the product label as 1,000 ft per nozzle (Vnc)- A
conservative height estimate of 8 ft is assumed, making the ground area coverage 125 ft per
nozzle (Anc)- A high-end height estimate of 8 feet is assumed which allows for a smaller turf
surface area for the pesticide to be deposited on and, therefore, a higher concentration of residue
is available, thus making the exposure estimate health-protective. An 8 foot height is also the
assumed height of the box model, and a reasonable high end estimate of the height of the
residential animal barn misting system based on professional judgment.
Exposure Time (ET)
The exposure time of adults who spend time in and around animal barns is 4 hours per day
in the treated space. Children are assumed to spend 2 hours per day in the treated space.
These recommended exposure time values are based on a study that examined the relationship
between respiratory problems and time spent in animal barns (Mazan, 2009). In this study, it
was reported that anecdotal evidence suggests that casual riders are unlikely to spend more than
1-2 hours per day and a total 2-5 days per week in a barn. Based on this anecdotal evidence, 4
hours per day is believed to be a conservative estimate of time spent inside an animal barn for the
adult rider who also performs some non-occupational barn-related tasks. Similarly, since casual
child riders are likely to spend less time performing non-riding activities than adults, 2 hours per
day is believed to be a conservative estimate for children.
Note: Exposure Time (ET) input should be the same used in the animal barn misting system
post-application inhalation exposure assessment (Section 5.4.2.1), not the indoor post-application
assessment.
Future Research/Data Needs
There are three main research/data needs with respect to the post-application animal barn
scenario.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-48
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
• No data are available to characterize the prevalence of animal barn misting systems in
different regions of the U.S. A survey could be conducted to determine animal barn
misting systems use patterns.
• No data are available to characterize the deposition pattern of animal barn misting
systems. Studies could be designed to capture the deposition patterns on hard surfaces
for animal barn misting systems and residue available for transfer.
• No data are available to indicate the extent of dermal deposition on human skin from
aerosolized pesticides released from animal barn misting systems. Studies could be
designed to capture the extent of dermal deposition as a result of airborne aerosols
released from animal barn misting systems.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
• Animal Barn Misting Systems typically operate on timed applications or by remote
control activation. The animal barn scenario models residential post-application
exposure and assumes individuals are present immediately following a spray event, not
during the application.
• The animal barn exposure scenario makes the health protective assumption that all the
amount of the applied pesticide is in the air available for inhalation exposure, and that all
the amount of the applied pesticide settles onto the ground in the barn and is also
available for dermal and incidental oral exposure.
• Quantitative dermal post-application exposure assessment is assumed to be health-
protective for animal barn misting systems. Persons are not likely to be participating in
activities on animal barn floors that would result in significant contact and/or transferable
residue available for dermal exposure, such as the indoor activities assumed as part of the
indoor hard surface post-application dermal assessment. Therefore, the surrogate post-
application dermal methodology (derived as part of the Indoor Environments SOP) is a
health protective surrogate to estimate animal barn post-application dermal exposure.
• Non-dietary ingestion post-application exposure is expected to be minimal compared to
the post-application dermal and inhalation exposure. It is expected that those children
entering animal barns are typically under adult supervision. Therefore, a quantitative
assessment of hand-to-mouth exposure is health protective.
5.4.2.3 Combining Post-application Scenarios
Risk estimates resulting from different exposure pathways are combined when it is likely that
they can occur simultaneously based on the use pattern, the behavior associated with the exposed
lifestage, and when the toxicological effects across different routes of exposure are the same.
When combining scenarios, it is important to fully characterize the potential for co-occurrence as
well as characterizing the risk inputs and estimates. Risk estimates should be combined even if
any one scenario or route of exposure exceeds the level of concern because this allows for better
risk characterization for risk managers.
For animal barn misting system scenarios, it is likely that children could be exposed to an area
treated via the inhalation, dermal and non-dietary ingestion (hand-to-mouth) routes. Therefore,
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-49
-------
Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems
these exposure scenarios should be considered and combined, if appropriate, when toxicological
effects are the same across these routes of exposure.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
5-50
-------
Insect Repellents
Section 6 Insect Repellents
This section provides an outline of the procedures used to assess, estimate and characterize
exposures resulting from the use of personal insect repellents available in many formulations
such as aerosol sprays, lotions, pump sprays, gels, towelettes and wrist bands. It also includes
repellents formulated with sunscreens. Other repellent-type products are covered under separate
sections such as mosquito coils (Section 5.2), misting systems (Section 5.7), or repellent-
impregnated clothing or textiles (Section 9).
Exposure results from deliberate application to the skin and clothing of individuals. Repellent
use can be on the order of days or weeks or longer, depending on the activity pattern and
geographic area. Insect repellents are used on people of all ages. While exposure may occur for
people of all ages, considering the strengths and limitations of available data and behavioral
characteristics of potentially exposed lifestages, adults and children 1 < 2 years old are
considered the index lifestages whose exposure assessments are expected to encompass those for
all lifestages.
Repellents are all "ready-to-use" (i.e., there is no mixing of liquid concentrates or powders) and
are sprayed or otherwise applied onto the skin or clothing. The individual applying insect
repellents is, for the purposes of this section, the "handler". Adults are assumed to experience
both dermal and inhalation handler exposure, as well as post-application dermal and, potentially,
inhalation exposure. Adults are assumed to apply repellents to themselves or to others.
However, for aerosol and pump-spray repellents, individuals to whom the products are being
applied can experience indirect inhalation exposure during the application. For children, post-
application exposure consists of dermal, (potentially) inhalation, and hand-to-mouth exposure.
6.1 Handler Exposure Assessment
Unlike other pesticide applications, "handler" and "post-application" exposures resulting from
repellent applications are not truly separate events since many applications are self-applications.
Therefore, for the purposes of this SOP, "handler" dermal exposure can be considered in concert
with "post-application" dermal exposure (i.e., dermal exposure is only assessed as part of the
post-application dermal scenario). However, for aerosol and pump-sprayer repellent products,
inhalation exposure for adults and children during the application process is possible and can be
assessed under the standard "handler" process described below.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm
As described in Section 1.3.3, daily dermal and inhalation exposure (mg/day) for residential
pesticide handlers, for a given formulation-application method combination, is estimated by
multiplying the formula-application method-specific unit exposure by an estimate of the amount
of active ingredient handled in a day, using the equation below:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-1
-------
Insect Repellents
E = UE * AR (6.1)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
UE = unit exposure (mg/lb ai);
AR = application rate (e.g., lb ai/day)
The application rate can be calculated as follows:
AR = A.I * W* N (6.2)
where:
AR = application rate per day (lb ai/ day);
A.I. = % active ingredient in product (by weight);
W = weight of product unit (e.g., 12 oz aerosol can)
N = number of product units used per day (e.g. cans/day)
Absorbed dermal and/or inhalation doses normalized to body weight are calculated as:
E* AE
D= (6.3)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Handler exposure for repellent applications is generally considered short-term in duration.
Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile
can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3
such as the product-specific application regimen.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for repellent handler exposure (inhalation only) assessments are provided
in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2. Following these tables, each scenario-specific input parameter is
described in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions, ii) data
sources used to derive recommended input values, and iii) discussion of limitations that should
be addressed when characterizing exposure.
Tsihle (>-l: Insert Kcpi'llenls - Recommended I nil I-'aixisiiiv (iii^/ll) ;ii) Point l-lsiiniiiios
l-'o nun hi 1 icin
l.(|iiipnicn(/\pplic;ition
Method
Doi'iiiiil
Inhibition
Appendix P.iiie
UcTcmicc
Point l.stiniiitc
I'oinl llsliiiiiilo
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-2
-------
Insect Repellents
Tsihle (>-l: Insert Repellents - Recommended I nil l-lxposnrc (m^/lh ;ii) Point r.slimiitcs
l-'o nun hi 1 icin
l'.(|iiipniem/.\pplic;ilion
Method
Doi'iiiiil
Inhiiliilion
Appendix Psiiio
Rd'cmicc
Point l.stiniiitc
I'oinl llsliiiiiilo
Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Aerosol can
Dermal handler
exposure for
repellent
applications
considered as part
of post-application
dermal exposure.
3.0
C-134
Trigger-pump sprayers
0.061
C-113
T;ibk'(>-2: Insect Repellents - Recommended Ihimllcr l-'.xposiirc I'nctor Point l-'.stim;itcs
I xposnic l-iicloi-
(units)
Poinl r.sliniiilc(s)
Application Rate
(% ai in product)
Maximum labeled rate
Amount used
# aerosol cans or pump
sprays per day
1
Body Weight
(kg)
Adult
80
Children 1 < 2 years old
11
Unit Exposures
As described in Section 1.3.3, the unit exposure is the ratio, for a given formulation/application
method combination, between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled, with units
mass exposure per mass active ingredient handled (e.g., mg ai exposure/lb ai handled). The
recommended point estimates are shown in Table 6-1. Data summaries can be found in
Appendix C.
Application Rate
The algorithm for estimating handler exposure requires some estimate of the amount of active
ingredient handled per day. For repellents, this factor varies based on the type of product being
applied and is estimated based on the percentage of active ingredient specified on the product
label and the amount of product being sprayed. Both of these can be determined on a product-
and chemical-specific basis, however, as a default, 1 can or pump spray bottle per day for
handlers is assumed based on professional judgment.
Future Research/Data Needs
Unavailable information that would refine handler exposure assessments for repellents include:
• Application intervals (i.e., how often repellents are applied)
• Survey information detailing:
o Daily/weekly/monthly probability of using a repellent product;
o Amount of product or formulation used per application; and,
• Handler exposure data:
o Specific for repellent applications;
o Describing the extent to which an individual's exposure for a given formulation
and application method varies from application-to-application.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-3
-------
Insect Repellents
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Unit Exposures
• This section relies on surrogate data considered reasonable for estimating handler
exposure for scenarios that are lacking data.
• The underlying assumption of the use of exposure data as unit exposures -
proportionality between the amount of active ingredient handled and exposure - is
uncertain, though potentially conservative. However, as a prediction mechanism, it is
considered practical and useful for the purposes of handler exposure assessment in a
regulatory context. It provides a straightforward handler exposure calculation method
and enables risk mitigation in the form of formulation comparison and decreased
application rates.
• The extent to which an individual's exposure (expressed via unit exposures) varies day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
Amount of active ingredient handled
• Information on the amount of product/formulation (thus, active ingredient) handled per
application is largely unavailable. The recommended point estimates are, therefore,
intended to be conservative to ensure an appropriately health protective exposure
estimate.
• The assumption that each the applicator ("handler") and the person to whom the repellent
is being applied to are equally exposed to an entire repellent product during application is
a conservative estimate for screening-level purposes. It is not possible for them to be
simultaneously exposed to the entire can, but the actual proportions of active ingredient
to which each participant is exposed is unknown.
• The extent to which the amount an individual will handle per application varies from day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
6.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment
Post-application dermal and non-dietary ingestion exposure may occur as a direct result of a
repellent application via dermal absorption and hand-to-mouth activities, respectively. Post-
application inhalation exposure should be considered based on the chemical's volatility. While
post-application exposure may occur for people of all ages, the assessment for adults and
children 1 < 2 years old are expected to encompass the exposures for all lifestages.
This section addresses standard methods for estimating exposure and dose for three individual
scenarios resulting from use of insect repellents:
• Section 6.2.1 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old inhalation exposure;
• Section 6.2.2 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old dermal exposure; and
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-4
-------
Insect Repellents
• Section 6.2.3 - children 1 < 2 years old non-dietary ingestion via hand-to-mouth activity.
6.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Post-application inhalation exposure resulting from insect repellents is generally not assessed
and should be handled on a case-by-case basis. The combination of low vapor pressure for
chemicals typically used as active ingredients in insect repellent products and dilution in outdoor
air is expected to result in minimal inhalation exposure.
6.2.2 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment
This SOP provides a standard method for estimating dermal doses among adults and children 1 <
2 years old from skin treated with insect repellents, as well as sunscreens containing insect
repellents.
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm
Post-application dermal exposure resulting from repellent treatments is a function of the amount
of product applied to the body. Thus, it is dependent on three factors:
• The application rate (i.e., the target concentration of chemical on the skin per
application);
• The total area of the body to which the repellent is applied; and,
• The number of applications.
If reliable product-specific information is available that details the target concentration of active
ingredient applied to the skin (e.g., mg active ingredient per square centimeter of skin), that
information is preferable and should be used in this SOP in the formula below. However, in the
event that such information is unavailable, or otherwise considered unreliable, the assessor can
use a formulation-specific rate described in this SOP combined with the label-specified
percentage of active ingredient to obtain a reasonable estimate of the target skin concentration of
active ingredient (see the formula below). The algorithms to calculate dose are presented below.
Discussion of each factor is presented in the remainder of this SOP.
If product-specific information is available, absorbed dose is calculated as:
D = ARP * ET * AppF * SA/BW * FBody * AF (6.4)
where:
D
ARp
ET
AppF
SA/BW
FBody
AF
= dose (mg/kg-day);
= product-specific application rate (mg ai/cm2 skin);
= exposure time (hours/day);
= application frequency (applications/hour);
= total body surface area to body weight ratio (cm /kg);
= clothing-dependent fraction of body exposed (fraction exposed/application);
= absorption factor.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-5
-------
Insect Repellents
If product-specific information is unavailable, absorbed dose is calculated as:
D = ARf * Faj * ET * AppF * SA/BW * FBody * AF (6.5)
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
ARf = formulation-specific application rate (mg product/cm2 skin);
Fai = product-specific fraction of active ingredient (mg ai/mg product);
ET = exposure time (hours/day);
AppF = application frequency (applications/hour);
SA/BW = total body surface area to body weight ratio (cm2/kg);
FBody = clothing-dependent fraction of body exposed (fraction exposed/application);
AF = absorption factor.
Post-application exposure following repellent applications is generally considered short-term in
duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day
exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections
1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as product-specific application intervals and activity patterns. If longer-term
assessments (i.e., intermediate-term, long-term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary,
similar refinements to more accurately reflect the exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application dermal exposure assessments are provided in Table
6-3 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions, ii) data sources used to derive
recommended input values, and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed when
characterizing exposure.
Tiihlc (>-3: Insect Repellents - Recommended Point l-'slim;ilos lor Posl-Appliciilion l)crm;il l-'.\posiirc
l";idors
Algorithm
Noiiiiion
I'1\|)ommv l";ic(or
(units)
Poinl llsliniiilols)
ARf
Formulation-specific application rate
(mg product/cm2 skin)
Aerosol
1.1
Pump spray
0.62
Lotion
2.0
Towelette
1.1
Fai
Amount of active ingredient
(%)
Maximum labeled rate
(product-specific)
l^Body
Fraction of body exposed per application
(representing shorts for men and shorts/top for women)
0.75
SA/BW
Surface Area to Body Weight Ratio
(cm2/kg)
Adult
280
Children 1 < 2
years old
640
ET
Exposure Time (hours/day)
Adult
3.7
Children 1 < 2
years old
3.5
AppF
Application Frequency
Traditional
0.25
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-6
-------
Insect Repellents
(applications/hour)
With sunscreen
0.5
Application Rate (ARF; mgproduct/cm skin)
Most of the products assessed will not have labels that state active-ingredient-based application
rates in quantifiable terms (e.g., mg ai/cm ). Application rates vary depending on the
formulation, with lotions being applied most heavily. Efficacy studies were used as the basis for
application rates, since these data are formulation-specific and are from actual repellent
applications (Carroll, S.P. 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2007e, 2008a, 2008b). While the studies
themselves vary with respect to the application location and different types of active ingredients
the repellent efficacy studies that EPA receives are conducted by treating a portion of a subject's
skin with insect repellent, exposing the treated skin to mosquitoes, and observing the rate at
which the insects "bite" the subject's skin. Table 6-4 provides a summary for the formulation-
based application rates. The recommended point estimates are shown in Table 6-3. See
Section D.ll of Appendix D for detailed information on application rates for various
formulations.
Tsihle (>-4: Si;iiislic;d Suiiiin;ir\ - Repellent Product Annliciilion R;i(e (inii producl/enr)
Siiiiisiic
Aerosol
Pump-spr;i>
l.olion
Toiu'kMU*
5U pei'ceiiule
U 'J"1
o so
1.9
1.1
75th percentile
1.5
0.78
2.4
1.3
95th percentile
2.9
1.5
3.5
1.8
99th percentile
4.7
2.3
4.6
2.3
AM(SD)
1.1 (0.93)
0.62 (0.45)
2.0 (0.80)
1.1 (0.36)
GM (GSD)
0.92 (2.0)
0.50(1.9)
1.9(1.5)
1.1(1.4)
Range
0.17-3.5
0.056-2.3
0.68-4.5
0.5-2.5
N
144
420
120
240
Statistics based on lognormal distributions.
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
Exposure Time (ET)
Another important variable for addressing post-application exposure from insect repellents is the
duration of time during which repellents are applied. For duration of time during which
repellents are applied, the amount of time spent performing outdoor recreational activities was
used (U.S. EPA, 2011; Tables 16-26 and 16-25, "doers only"). It is likely that insect repellents
would be used when adults and children are performing outdoor activities, so this dataset was
considered a reasonable surrogate. Children 1 < 2 is considered the index lifestage because of
the expected greater use of repellents compared with younger children due to time spent in
activities during which repellents would be used. However, no data were available for this
lifestage, so time spent in outdoor recreation for children 3 < 6 years old was used as a surrogate
dataset. Note that only the "doers" are represented, meaning that individuals who did not
respond that they perform outdoor recreational activities were excluded. Based on these data,
the recommended point estimates for use in post-application dermal exposure assessment
for adults and children 1 < 2 years old are 3.7 and 3.5 hrs/day, respectively.
1 "sihie (>-5: l ime Spent Outdoors (ln s/d;i\)
Shitislie
Atlu lis
Children 1 < 2 je.irs old
5th percentile
0.5
0.5
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-7
-------
Insect Repellents
25th percentile
1.3
1.0
50th percentile
2.9
2.5
75th percentile
5.2
4.0
90th percentile
8.4
9.8
95th percentile
9.8
10.1
99th percentile
11.5
10.4
Mean
3.7
3.5
Source: U.S. EPA, 2011; Table
16-26
Source: U.S. EPA, 2011; Table 16-25 (children 3 < 6
years old data used as a surrogate dataset - not available
for children 1 < 2 years old).
Application Frequency (AppF):
The assessor should consider the exposure scenario, formulation, and target pest while
determining the number of applications per hour. Most insect repellent labels do not specify the
number of applications to be made per hour. More commonly, a label will carry a statement
such as "reapply as needed." Efficacy studies are designed to measure the duration of repellency
provided by the products tested. If product-specific information on the duration of efficacy
repellency is available, the assessor should use it in their assessment to determine the application
frequency specific to the individual product.
However, if this information is unavailable, a generic application frequency of 1 every 4 hours
(0.25 applications/hour) is recommended for traditional repellents, while an application
frequency of 1 every 2 hours (0.5 applications/hour) is recommended for repellents
formulated with sunscreens. Sunscreen applications are assumed to occur more frequently.
This is based on information from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) indicating effective
repellency times vary from 2-6 hours (i.e., 1 application every 2-6 hours) depending on the
product and formulation (Fradin and Day, 2002).
Body Weight and Surface Area
The exposure algorithm uses surface area (SA) and body weight (BW) as a ratio instead of as
two separate factors. The recommended point estimate ratio for adults is 280 cm2/kg and
640 cm /kg for children 1 < 2, from the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition, Table 7-15
(U.S. EPA, 2011). Table 6-6 below provides a summary of this exposure parameter.
I'iihlo (»-(»: Surl'sici* Aivii lo Bod\ Weight Kiilio (cm'/kg)
¦M.iilc
Ariull
Youth
( liilri
Miilos iiiid li'innk's: > IS ms.
Miilos iind l-'oniiik's: 2-IX\rs.
Miilos iiml IVniiik's: < 2 \rs.
y5
330
5yo
850
90
320
500
780
75
300
450
720
50
290
420
620
25
270
380
560
10
240
330
510
5
240
290
470
Mean
280
420
640
Source: U.S. EPA, 2011, Table 7-15.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-8
-------
Insect Repellents
Fraction of Body Exposed (FBody)
Clothing-dependent fraction of body exposed (surface area body exposed/total body surface
area) are presented in Table 6-7 below. These estimates are based on Wong, et al. (2000) and are
intended to represent a range of exposure scenarios in different activity and weather conditions.
A default point estimate of 75% is recommended to reflect males and females in swimwear.
Other estimates are shown - 17% represents an individual wearing a long-sleeve shirt, pants,
socks, and shoes; 31% represents an individual wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, socks, and
shoes - to reflect additional clothing scenarios should the assessment require additional
characterization.
1 "sihie ft-"7: Percentage of Total liod\ Surface Are.i t'.xnosed
Clot liin vi Scenario
IJod> Purls l.xposcd
¦Mi of l}od\ S.\ l.\nosed
Per liod\ Piirl
Total
Long-sleeve shirt, pants, socks, shoes
Face/Neck
5%
17%
Hands/wrists
6%
Ankles
6%
Short-sleeve shirt, shorts, socks, shoes
Lower thighs/upper shins
13%
31%
Forearms
6%
Face/Neck
6%
Feet
7%
Shorts (males);
Shorts and top (females)
Torso
38%
75%
Arms
Lower thighs/upper shins
13%
Lower shins
6%
Feet
7%
Hands
5%
Face/Neck
5%
Future Research/Data Needs
Unavailable information that would refine post-application dermal exposure assessments for
pesticide applications to insect repellents include:
• Measurements of "whole body" exposure following repellent applications under differing
situations (e.g., single-event as well as longitudinal repeated applications at campsites,
beaches, etc.) to replace method of extrapolating from forearm or leg measurements.
• Survey information detailing:
o Daily/weekly/monthly probability of using a repellent
o Repellent application regimens (i.e., applications per day) - both daily and
longitudinal frequencies.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Formulation-specific Application Rates: The formulation-specific application rates were derived
from available repellent efficacy studies where the amount of repellent applied to a known
surface area (i.e., the area of a certain section of forearm or leg) was measured typically via a
"before-and-after" weighing. The extent to which the data in these studies present a true
statistical representation of repellent application rates is unknown. Furthermore, because the
applications were to legs or forearms only, the use of these rates in the post-application dermal
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-9
-------
Insect Repellents
exposure equation requires extrapolation to the rest of the body, assuming the same loading for
across body parts.
Fraction of Body Exposed: Though a default of 75% is recommended, three "scenarios"
described by the amount of body exposed per application are meant to represent the broad range
of repellent exposure situations and can be used for additional exposure characterization. This is
because, for example, the proportion of total repellent applications comprising heavy-use
repellent applications (i.e., an application to 75% of a person's skin) is unknown.
Daily Application Frequency: The number of repellent applications per day would be highly
chemical-specific, since it would be dependent on the product's efficacy. However, in the event
this information is unknown, the range of 1 application every 2-6 hours (Fradin and Day, 2002)
is reasonable.
6.2.3 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Hand-
to-Mouth
This SOP provides a standard method for estimating the dose for children 1 < 2 years old from
incidental ingestion of pesticide residues from skin treated with insect repellents. This scenario
assumes that pesticide residues resulting from the application of insect repellents on the skin are
subsequently ingested as a result of hand-to-mouth transfer.
Post-application Hand-to-Mouth Exposure Algorithm
Exposure from hand-to-mouth activity is calculated as follows (based on the algorithm utilized in
SHEDS-Multimedia):
E =
where:
E
HR
Fm
SAh
ET
N_Replen
SE
FreqHtM
HR * (/<;.
M * SAh
) * (ET * N _ Replen) * [ 1 - (l - SE) N _Replen
(6.6)
= exposure (mg/day);
= hand residue loading (mg/cm2);
= fraction hand surface area mouthed/event (fraction/event);
= typical surface area of one hand (cm2);
= exposure time (hours/day);
= number of replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour);
= saliva extraction factor (i.e., mouthing removal efficiency); and
= number of hand-to-mouth contacts events per hour (events/hour).
and
HR=ARf*Fa1 (6.7)
where:
HR = hand residue loading (mg/cm );
ARf = formulation-specific application rate (mg ai/cm2 skin);
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-10
-------
Insect Repellents
Fai = product-specific fraction of active ingredient (mg ai/mg product);
Oral dose, normalized to body weight, are calculated as:
Z> = — (6.8)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application hand-to-mouth exposure following repellent applications is generally considered
short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term
multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in
Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals, and
activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime
exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the exposure
profile are recommended.
Post-application Hand-to-Mouth Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application hand-to-mouth exposure assessments are provided in
Table 6-8. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions, ii) data sources used to derive
recommended input values, and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed when
characterizing exposure.
I'iihlo (i-X: Insect Kopollonls - Recommended Point l-lsliniiilos lor Posi-Appliciilion Ihind-lo-Moiilh
l.xnosiirc Inclors
Algorithm
Noliilion
l.xposuiv l-iiclor
(¦¦nils)
Point l'.sliniiilo(s)
ARf
Formulation-specific application rate
(mg product/cm2 skin)
Aerosol
1.1
Pump spray
0.62
Lotion
2.0
Towelette
1.1
Fai
Amount of active ingredient
(%)
Maximum labeled rate
(product-specific)
SAh
Typical surface area of one hand (cm2), children 1 < 2 years old
150
Fm
Fraction hand surface area mouthed
(fraction/event)
0.127
NReplen
Replenishment intervals
(intervals/hr)
Traditional
0.25
With sunscreen
0.5
ET
Exposure Time
(hours/day)
3.5
SE
Saliva extraction factor
(fraction)
0.48
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-11
-------
Insect Repellents
I'iihlo (i-X: Insect Kcpcllcnls - Recommended Point l-lsliniiilos lor Posl-Appliciilion Ihind-lo-Moiilh
l.xposurc Inclors
Freq_HtM
Hand-to-mouth events per hour
(events/hr)
13.9
BW
Body Weight
(kg)
11.4
Hand Residue Loading (HR)
The application rate described in the post-application dermal exposure section is assumed to be
equally distributed across the body. Therefore, those rates can be directly used as the
concentration on the hands following a repellent application. Thus, the concentration on the
hands is the product of the formulation-specific rates shown in Table 6-8 and the amount of
active ingredient in the repellent.
Fraction Hand Surface Area Mouthed (Fm)
See Section 2.4 of this SOP for discussion of the fraction of hand surface area mouthed
distribution. The recommended point estimate for use in post-application hand-to-mouth
exposure assessment is 0.127 (12.7%).
Hand Surface Area (SAH)
The hand surface area for children 1 < 2 years old of 150 cm , for one hand, is recommended
based on the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition, Table 7-2 (U.S. EPA, 2011).
Exposure Time (ET)
Another important variable for addressing post-application exposure from insect repellents is the
duration of time during which repellents are applied. For duration of time during which
repellents are applied, the amount of time spent performing outdoor recreational activities was
used (U.S. EPA, 2011; Tables 16-25, "doers only"). It is likely that insect repellents would be
used when children are performing outdoor activities, so this dataset was considered a reasonable
surrogate. Children 1 < 2 is considered the index lifestage because of the expected greater use of
repellents compared with younger children due to time spent in activities during which repellents
would be used. However, no data were available for this lifestage, so time spent in outdoor
recreation for children 3 < 6 years old was used as a surrogate dataset. Note that only the
"doers" are represented, meaning that individuals who did not respond that they perform outdoor
recreational activities were excluded. Based on these data, the recommended point estimate
for use in post-application hand-to-mouth exposure assessment for children 1 < 2 years old
is 3.5 hrs/day.
Table (>-'>: Time Spoil! lor Kcpcllcnl I so (hrs/d;i\)
Sliiiislic
Children 1 < 2 je.irs old
5th percentile
0.5
25th percentile
1.0
50th percentile
2.5
75 th percentile
4.0
90th percentile
9.8
95th percentile
10.1
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-12
-------
Insect Repellents
99th percentile
10.4
Mean
3.5
Source: U.S. EPA, 2011; Table 16-25 (data for children 1 < 2 year unavailable - children 3 < 6
years old data used as a surrogate dataset).
Replenishment Intervals per Hour (N Replen)
Unlike other hand-to-mouth scenarios where replenishment can come from treated indoor
surfaces or treated turf, replenishment for insect repellents is assumed to only occur when an
application occurs. As a result, application frequency is used to represent replenishment
intervals per hour. Most insect repellent labels do not specify the number of applications to be
made per hour. More commonly, a label will carry a statement such as "reapply as needed."
Efficacy studies are designed to measure the duration of repellency provided by the products
tested. If product-specific information on the duration of efficacy repellency is available, the
assessor should use it in their assessment to determine the application frequency specific to the
individual product. However, if this information is unavailable, a generic application
frequency of 1 every 4 hours (0.25 apps/hour) is recommended for traditional repellents
and 1 every 2 hours (0.5 apps/hour) is recommended for repellents formulated with
sunscreens. This is based on information from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) indicating
effective repellency times vary from 2-6 hours (i.e., 1 application every 2-6 hours) depending on
the product and formulation (Fradin and Day, 2002).
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva (SE)
See Section 2.6 for discussion of the distribution of values for the fraction of pesticide extracted
by saliva distribution. The recommended point estimate for use in post-application hand-to-
mouth exposure assessment is 0.48.
Hand-to-Mouth Events per Hour (Freq HtM)
Frequency of hand-to-mouth events is an important variable for hand-to-mouth post-application
exposure assessments. However, there are currently no data available that specifically address
the number of hand-to-mouth events that occur relative to the amount of time a child is in contact
with an insect repellent. As a result, the estimates for frequency of hand-to-mouth events in
outdoor environments from the Xue et al. (2007) meta-analysis were selected as a surrogate. The
outdoor data were selected because they represent the most likely time when insect repellents
will be used on children. The insect repellent SOP utilizes hand-to-mouth frequency data for the
1 < 2 year old lifestage to represent children. Distributions for different lifestages can be used if
there is a need to assess a more specific exposure lifestage. The estimates of hand mouthing
frequency (events/hour) for 1 < 2 years old were derived from 4 studies representing 32
participants. Based on an analysis of the data by Xue et al., it was determined that a Weibull
distribution (scale= 13.8, shape= 0.98) best fits the observed data. Table 6-10 provides
distributions and point estimates of hand-to-mouth events for use in residential pesticide
exposure assessment and Appendix D.9.1 provides additional analysis. The recommended
point estimate for use in post-application hand-to-mouth exposure assessment is 13.9
events/hour.
1 "si hie (>-10:
I-'iv(|iiciio of Iliinri-lu-Moiiih I-.m-iKs (ocnls/hoiin
Sliiiislic
Children 1 < 2 h'iii's old
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-13
-------
Insect Repellents
50th percentile
8.0
75 th percentile
19.2
95th percentile
42.2
AM(SD)
13.9(13.6)
Range
1 - 46.7
N
32
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
Future Research/Data Needs
Information that would refine post-application dermal exposure assessments for the application
of insect repellents are listed below. Existing surveys such as the REJV survey and DEET Joint
Venture Survey can be further reviewed for this information.
• Repellent application regimens - both daily and longitudinal frequencies
• Survey information detailing:
o Daily/weekly/monthly probability of using a repellent; and
o Product- and/or formulation-specific application rates enabling determination of
hand-specific concentrations under differing scenarios as well as repeat
applications to measure the extent to which the rate varies per individual.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Formulation-specific Application Rates: The formulation-specific application rates were derived
from available repellent efficacy studies where the amount of repellent applied to a known
surface area (i.e., the area of a certain section of forearm or leg) was measured typically via a
"before-and-after" weighing. Though the applications in these studies were to legs or forearms
only, these rates were assumed to apply to the hands as well.
Daily Application Frequency: The number of repellent applications per day would be highly
chemical-specific, since it would be dependent on the product's efficacy. However, in the event
this information is unknown, the range of 1 application every 2-6 hours (Fradin and Day, 2002)
is reasonable.
6.2.4 Combining Post-application Scenarios
Risks resulting from different exposure scenarios are combined when it is likely that they can
occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and when the toxicological effects across different
routes of exposure are the same (see Section 1.3.4). When combining scenarios, it is important
to fully characterize the potential for co-occurrence as well as characterizing the risk inputs and
estimates. Risks should be combined even if any one scenario or route of exposure exceeds the
level of concern because this allows for better risk characterization for risk managers. For insect
repellents, the post-application exposure scenarios that should be combined are the dermal and
hand-to-mouth scenarios. This combination should be considered a protective estimate of
children's exposure from the use of insect repellents.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
6-14
-------
Indoor Environments
Section 7 Indoor Environments
This section considers those individuals who are potentially exposed to pesticides from either
treating indoor areas with a product available for sale to the general public or after contact with
treated indoor surfaces in many settings including homes, schools, and daycares. Before the
development of an exposure assessment for this scenario, the assessor should review the
pesticide label to determine whether it is appropriate based on the usage of the product.
For the purposes of the indoor SOP, the following definitions are used:
A fogger (or total release aerosol) is a pesticide device designed to automatically release its total
content in one operation for the purpose of creating a permeating fog within a confined space to
deliver the pesticide throughout the space. Total release aerosols do not need any other
application equipment (PR NOTICE 98-6, 1998).
Broadcast application is defined as an application to broad expanses of surfaces such as walls,
floors, and ceilings (U.S. EPA, 1996); a coarse spray of liquid insecticide or application of a dust
insecticide in a room. Broadcast applications should be evenly distributed (University of
Nebraska-Lincoln Extension, 2006).
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug (Coarse application) is defined as a coarse spray of liquid insecticide or
application of a dust insecticide in a wide band or strip (University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Extension, 2006) or over a small area (< 2 ft2) (38 FR 21685, 1973). These applications are
typically done with a manually-pressurized handwand or an aerosol can with typical nozzles.
Example label language that would indicate this type of application includes:
"Use a coarse, manually-pressurized spray. Treat entry points such as around doors, windows, and eaves. Treat areas where
pests normally feed or hide such as baseboards and corners."
"Use a manually-pressurized system with a fan-type nozzle to apply the dilution uniformly."
"Spot treat floor or rugs beneath furniture, in closets, and storage areas, but do not apply to entire floor area."
".. .treat mattress, box springs, bed frames, and headboards."
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug (Pin Stream application) is defined similarly to the coarse perimeter
treatment except that the method of application utilizes a pin stream nozzle similar to what is
used for crack and crevice applications. However, these types of applications are not made into
cracks and crevices and a larger area is treated than would be expected with a crack and crevice
application. Example label language that would indicate this type of application includes the
language listed above for coarse applications with the exception of the type of nozzle used:
"Use a manually-pressurized system with a pinpoint nozzle."
Crack and crevice application is defined as an application of pesticides with the use of a pin
stream nozzle, into cracks and crevices in which pests hide or through which they may enter a
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-1
-------
Indoor Environments
building. Such openings commonly occur at expansion joints, between different elements of
construction, and between equipment and floors. These openings may lead to voids such as
hollow walls, equipment legs and bases, conduits, motor housings, and junction or switch boxes
(U.S. EPA, 1996). Example label language that would indicate this type of application includes:
"Treat areas where pests normally feed or hide such as around water pipes, behind or under refrigerators, cabinets, sinks and
stoves."
"Place injector tips into cracks and crevices."
When reviewing proposed labels, the following key items should be considered to determine if
an indoor assessment should be conducted, and if so, what type of application should be
assessed:
• Look for statements describing or limiting the use of the proposed product. These
statements may be on the front panel of the label associated with the brand or trade name
or in the use directions section of the label. If a label indicates an indoor residential use,
assume that the product is used at residential sites such as daycares, schools, or other sites
where children may be present, unless a specific labeling statement indicates use in a
non-residential setting. Examples of statements that restrict use in residential sites, and
therefore, would preclude a residential assessment, include:
o For use in commercial sites only; and
o For use in food handling establishments only.
A Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP) classification indicates that the product cannot be
bought or applied by homeowners (i.e., no residential handler exposure/risk assessment
required), but it may be applied by commercial applicators to residential sites; therefore,
a post-application risk assessment may be required.
• Determine what type of application is allowed on the label. Check the label for directions
for use as a broadcast, perimeter, spot or crack and crevice treatment. Use the definitions
and key label language provided above as a guide.
• Determine whether the pesticide label contains directions for use on carpets or hard
surfaces, such as walls, countertops, hard floors, or cabinets. If no distinction is made as
to what type of surface the product can be applied to, an assessment for both types of
surfaces should be conducted.
If an indoor use is possible, the assessment should then characterize and estimate the potential
for exposure by route (i.e., dermal, inhalation, non-dietary ingestion) following the methodology
outlined in this SOP. The assessor should consider the durations of exposure for each route.
Specific considerations include the number of applications allowed per year and the re-treatment
interval required between those treatments. Depending on the specific product, this can indicate
if intermediate- or long-term assessments are required.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-2
-------
Indoor Environments
7.1 Handler Exposure Assessment
The residential indoor handler SOP provides a standard method for estimating potential dermal
and inhalation doses resulting from applying pesticides indoors. Adults are considered the index
lifestage for this scenario as it is assumed that pesticides are applied by adults only (i.e.,
individuals 16 years or older).
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm
As described in Section 1.3.3, daily dermal and inhalation exposure (mg/day) for residential
pesticide handlers, for a given formulation-application method combination, is estimated by
multiplying the formula-application method-specific unit exposure by an estimate of the amount
of active ingredient handled in a day, using the equation below:
E = UE * AR * A (7.1)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
UE = unit exposure (mg/lb ai);
AR = application rate (e.g., lb ai/ft, lb ai/gal); and
A = area treated or amount handled (e.g., ft2/day, gal/day).
Absorbed dermal and/or inhalation doses normalized to body weight are calculated as:
d_E*AF (7.2)
BW
where:
D
E
AF
BW
= dose (mg/kg-day);
= exposure (mg/day);
= absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
= body weight (kg).
Handler exposure for indoor applications is generally considered short-term in duration.
Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile
can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3,
such as the product-specific application regimen.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for handler exposure (dermal and inhalation) assessments are provided in
Table 7-1 and Table 7-2. Following these tables, each scenario-specific input parameter is
described in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data
sources used to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should
be addressed when characterizing exposure.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-3
-------
Indoor Environments
l iihlo 7-1: Indoor l.n\ imninciHs - Recommended I nil llxnosuiv (mg/lh ;ii) Point l.slim;i(es
loniiiiliiiion
1 .c|ii ipmciil
\pplicalioii MciIhh.1
Dermal
Inhalation
\ppeiidi\ I'aue
keloid ice
Poiih 1 !siimak'
l\»ini 1 !siimale
Dusts/Powders
Plunger duster
250
1.7
C-32
Bulb duster
No exposure data available for this application scenario. Exposure
data for plunger duster applications recommended as surrogate
data.
Electric/power duster
No exposure data available for this application scenario. Exposure
data for shaker can applications of dusts/powders recommended as
surrogate data.
Hand crank duster
No exposure data available for this application scenario. Exposure
data for shaker can applications of dusts/powders recommended as
surrogate data.
Shaker can
4,300
18
C-36
Liquid
concentrates
Manually-pressurized
handwand
(w/ or w/o pin stream
nozzle)
No exposure data available for this application scenario. Exposure
data for manually-pressurized handwand applications of wettable
powder recommended as surrogate data.
Ready-to-Use
(RTU)
Aerosol can
(w/ or w/o pin stream
nozzle)
370
3.0
C-134
Trigger-sprayer
85.1
0.061
C-113
Gels
No exposure data available for this application scenario; however,
exposure is considered negligible.
Pastes
No exposure data available for this application scenario; however,
exposure is considered negligible.
Foams
No exposure data available for this application scenario; however,
exposure is considered negligible.
Bait
(granular; hand dispersal)
160
0.38
B-39
Bait station / trap
(enclosed in child
resistant packaging)
No exposure data available for this application scenario; however,
exposure is considered negligible.
Pest Strip
No exposure data available for this application scenario; however,
exposure is considered negligible.
Wettable
Powder
Manually-pressurized
handwand
(w/ or w/o pin stream
nozzle)
69
1.1
C-141
Wettable
Powder in
Water-soluble
Packaging
Manually-pressurized
handwand
(w/ or w/o pin stream
nozzle)
No exposure data available for this application scenario. Exposure
data for manually-pressurized handwand applications of wettable
powders recommended as surrogate data.
LI
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-4
-------
Indoor Environments
liihlo
n-2: Indoor l'.n\ iroiiinonls - Recommended Ihmdkr I xnosuiv l";ic(or Point l.s(ini;i(cs
l.\|)(ISIIIT 1-ilClOI-
(units)
Poini
I.N(ini;i(e(s)
Amount Applied
(see units specified)
Manually-pressurized handwand
(gallons)
Broadcast
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug
(Coarse application)
0.5
Manually-pressurized handwand
(w/pin stream nozzle)
(gallons)
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug
(Pin stream application)
Crack and crevice
Bulb duster
(pounds dust)
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug
Crack and crevice
0.25
Broadcast
Plunger duster (pounds dust)
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug
(Coarse application)
Amount
product /
/solution used
Electric/power duster
(pounds dust)
Broadcast
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug
(Coarse application)
0.5
Hand crank duster pounds dust
Broadcast
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug
(Coarse application)
Shaker can
Broadcast
1
^containers)
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug
(Coarse application)
0.5
Broadcast Surface Spray
1
Aerosol can
(# 16-oz cans)
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug
(Coarse application)
0.5
Space spray
0.25
Aerosol can
(w/ pin stream nozzle)
(# 16-oz cans)
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug
(Pin stream application)
Crack and crevice
0.5
Trigger-pump sprayer
^containers)
Broadcast
1
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug
(Coarse application)
0.5
Body Weight
(kg)
80
Unit Exposures
As described in Section 1.3.3, the unit exposure is the ratio between exposure and the amount of
active ingredient handled for a given formulation/application method combination, with units of
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-5
-------
Indoor Environments
mass exposure per mass active ingredient handled (e.g., mg ai exposure/lb ai handled). The
recommended point estimate for use in handler dermal and inhalation exposure
assessments represents approximately the arithmetic mean of the distribution. Data
summaries can be found in Appendix C.
Estimating the Amount of Active Ingredient Handled
The algorithm for estimating handler exposure requires some estimate of the amount of active
ingredient handled per day. This factor varies based on the type of equipment or application
method used and is estimated based on the application rate specified on the product label. First,
the assessor should assemble application rate information in terms of active ingredient per
volume of spray (e.g., lb ai/gallon solution). For example, instructions for a liquid formulation
might direct application of 0.5 gallons of solution per 100 square feet. For handler indoor
assessments, the following are the recommended amounts of active ingredient handled for
typical indoor application equipment.
• Manually-pressurized handwand: 0.5 gallons for broadcast, perimeter/spot/bedbug
(coarse and pin stream applications) treatments and crack and crevice treatments. These
values are supported by data from the Pesticide Handler Exposure Database (PHED),
which indicate about 0.5 gallons for a commercial applicator crack/crevice and limited
surface treatment in residences.
• Dusters: 0.5 pounds of dust for broadcast and for perimeter/spot/bedbug (coarse
application) and 0.25 pounds of dust for perimeter/spot/bedbug (bulb duster application)
and crack and crevice treatments. These values are based on best professional judgment
since no data are available and may be refined based on label information.
• Shaker can: 1 can for broadcast and 0.5 can for perimeter/spot/bedbug (coarse
application) treatments. These values are based on best professional judgment since no
data are available and may be refined based on label information.
• Aerosol Can: 1 can for broadcast surface sprays. 0.5 can for perimeter/spot/bedbug
(coarse and pin stream applications) treatment surface sprays and crack and crevice
surface spray treatments, 0.25 for space sprays. These values are supported by data from
the Pesticide Handler Exposure Database (PHED), which indicate one 15-oz can is used
to make applications to crack, crevices, baseboards, under sinks, behind appliances, etc,
as well as best professional judgment.
• Trigger-pump sprayer: 1 container for broadcast and V2 container for
perimeter/spot/bedbug (coarse application) treatments. These values are based on best
professional judgment since no data are available and may be refined based on label
information.
Future Research/Data Needs
Unavailable information that would refine handler exposure assessments for indoor pesticide
applications include:
• Information on the amount handled or area treated for the various scenarios.
• Information on unit exposures for several formulation/equipment combinations.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-6
-------
Indoor Environments
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
The uncertainties associated with this assessment stem from the use of assumed amounts of
active ingredient handled for typical indoor treatments. The estimated doses are believed to be
high-end, conservative estimates.
Unit Exposures
• The exposure data underlying unit exposures are considered reasonable for the purposes
of estimating exposure. The data are from actual applications using standardized
exposure sampling methodologies and laboratory analyses.
• The underlying assumption of the use of exposure data as unit exposures -
proportionality between the amount of active ingredient handled and exposure - is
uncertain, though potentially conservative. However, as a prediction mechanism, it is
considered practical and useful for the purposes of handler exposure assessment in a
regulatory context. It provides a straightforward handler exposure calculation method
and enables risk mitigation in the form of formulation comparison and decreased
application rates.
• The extent to which an individual's exposure (expressed via unit exposures) varies day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
Amount of active ingredient handled
• Information on the amount of product/formulation (thus, active ingredient) handled per
application is lacking, making the estimates highly uncertain. The recommended point
estimates are, therefore, intended to be high-end to ensure an appropriately conservative
exposure estimate.
• The extent to which the amount an individual will handle per application varies from day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
7.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment
Post-application exposure can result from contact with indoor surfaces following a pesticide
application. While exposure may occur for people of all ages, adults and children 1 < 2 years are
considered the index lifestages for this exposure scenario based on behavioral characteristics and
the strengths and limitations of available data.
This section addresses standard methods for estimating exposure and dose for five individual
post-application exposure pathways resulting from exposure to pesticides that have been used to
treat indoor areas:
• Section 7.2.1 - Post-application inhalation exposures;
• Section 7.2.2 - Post-application dermal exposures;
• Section 7.2.3 -Non-dietary ingestion via hand-to-mouth activity;
• Section 7.2.4 -Non-dietary ingestion via object-to-mouth activity; and
• Section 7.2.5 -Non-dietary ingestion via dust ingestion.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-7
-------
Indoor Environments
7.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment
This SOP provides a standard method for completing post-application inhalation exposure
assessments for adults and children after a pesticide treatment indoors (e.g., in a house, school,
daycare, etc). The basis for each scenario is that non-handler inhalation exposure occurs while
occupying indoor areas after a pesticide treatment. It covers fogger, space spray, and surface-
directed applications, as well as foundation/soil injection termiticide applications.
Inhalation exposure primarily occurs through breathing air containing pesticide vapors or
aerosols. Aerosols are a spray of fine particles, which tend to settle out of the air after a certain
time period depending on the particle size. Some examples of indoor devices that produce
aerosols include foggers and aerosol cans. Vapors occur when the pesticide volatilizes from a
surface after an application (e.g., broadcast application with a manually-pressurized handwand).
Volatilization of a pesticide indoors is dependent on many factors, including the vapor pressure
of the chemical, the media on which it has been applied, and air temperature.
For the inhalation route of exposure, there is a possibility that the point of departure (POD) used
for risk assessment may be based on the reference concentration (RfC) methodology. In the RfC
methodology, air concentrations are not converted to doses, rather, risks are assessed on the basis
of comparison of air concentrations with reference concentrations typically determined from
animal studies. This approach is not always available for every chemical; therefore, the exposure
assessor should discuss the possibility of this approach with a toxicologist.
If the post-application inhalation exposure assessment performed needs to be refined, it is
recommended that specialized computer software be used. The computer model currently used
by the Agency is theMCCEMmodel or Multi-Chamber Concentration and Exposure Model.
The MCCEM was peer reviewed in 1998 (Eastern Research Group, 1998). The appendix to this
SOP provides standard model inputs for using MCCEM in exposure assessments, but the
assessor should refer to the MCCEM User's Manual for details on the operation of MCCEM and
for information concerning the underlying assumptions and limitations of each (U.S. EPA,
1995). One notable limitation is that MCCEM treats all emissions as vapor or gas. Therefore,
air concentration calculations for aerosols using the MCCEM model will not account for the fact
that a certain amount of the pesticide in the air is expected to settle out. All specific model
inputs and calculations represented in this SOP are based on MCCEM Version 1.2 (available on
the EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/mccem.htm).
Post-application inhalation exposure following applications indoors is generally considered
short-term in duration, but is dependent on the use pattern of the specific product being assessed
and the dissipation/degradation properties of the active ingredient. Refinement of this dose
estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by
accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as residue dissipation,
product-specific re-treatment intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e.,
intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to
more accurately reflect the exposure profile are recommended.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-8
-------
Indoor Environments
The indoor post-application inhalation exposure assessment section is divided into 3 sections:
indoor foggers (Section 7.2.1.1), indoor spray applications (Section 7.2.1.2; covering both space
sprays and surface-directed sprays), and foundation/soil injection termiticide applications
(Section 7.2.1.3). The following table provides a summary of the possible post-application
inhalation scenarios following treatment of indoor areas. More information about each scenario
is provided below.
Decision 1 iihlo lor Posl-iippliciilion Inhiihilion Scoiiiirios
Possible post-application
assessments
Should an (Ism'smiiciiI /)(.' conducted for the type of unnliciilions bchn\ '.'
logger
(Section 7.2.1.1)
Indoor Spray Applications
(Section 7.2.1.2)
Termiticide
Applications
(T'oundation and
Soil Injection)
(Section 7.2.1.3)
Space Spray
(i.e., living Insect Killer)
S url ace-direc ted Spray
(e.g.. Broadcast/
Spot/Perimeter/Crack and
Crevice spray w/
Manually-pressurized
I Iandwand)
Exposure to pesticide
aerosols in air
(Algorithm # 1)
No
(reentry
restriction and
ventilation
requirements)
If label has reentry
restriction/ ventilation
requirements - No
If label does not have
reentry
restriction/ ventilation
requirements — Yes
No
No
Exposure to pesticide
vapors in air
(Algorithm #2)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(using MCCEM
model)
7.2.1.1 Indoor Foggers
Fogger devices are designed to spread a fog of pesticide filling a room with aerosols, which will
eventually settle out of the air. To address post-application inhalation exposure to pesticide
aerosols following fogger applications, most fogger product labels typically require statements
such as: "Do Not Reenter Building for Four Hours; then open exterior doors and windows and
allow to air for 60 minutes before reoccupying area" with the intention of reducing inhalation
exposure. Information provided by manufacturers indicate that the particle size distribution for
most total release foggers ranges from 15 micrometers (um) to 60 um. The average settling time
for various particle sizes can be calculated based on Stokes Law (see Section D-l of Appendix
D). According to calculations of settling time versus droplet size, it will take 2 hours for a 15
micrometer particle to settle and 8 minutes for a 60 micrometer particle to settle from an eight-
foot ceiling height. Therefore, as long as fogger product labels include a statement restricting
entry for at least 2 hours, post-application inhalation exposure to pesticide aerosols should be
negligible. If there is no reentry time restriction on the product label, the ORE assessor should
recommend that the Registration Division (RD) ensure the appropriate restrictions/directions are
added to the label.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-9
-------
Indoor Environments
After pesticide residues from a fogger deposit onto the indoor floor surface, there is the potential
for volatilization of those residues into the air. Therefore, an assessment for exposure to
pesticide vapors should be conducted according to algorithm #2 below; Exposure to pesticide
vapors.
7.2.1.2 Indoor Spray Applications
Indoor spray applications fall into two categories: (1) space sprays (e.g., flying insect killers),
and (2) surface-directed sprays (e.g., broadcast applications made with a manually-pressurized
handwand).
For space sprays, it is assumed that there may be post-application inhalation exposure to
pesticide aerosols that are still airborne after application. It should be noted that some space
spray labels have directions similar to those for indoor foggers, where the user is instructed to
leave the room for a period of time and to ventilate the room prior to re-entry. Labels include
statements such as: "Direct the spray towards the ceiling and upper corners of the room. Keep
areas closed for at least 1/2 hour. Do not remain in treated area. Ventilate area thoroughly
before re-entry." In those cases, post-application exposure to pesticide aerosols is expected to be
negligible considering the re-entry restriction and the ventilation requirement. However, if the
label does not contain such directions or requirements, then a post-application inhalation
assessment for exposure to pesticide aerosols (algorithm #1 below) should be conducted. Similar
to foggers, once the pesticide residues settle out of the air from the space spray application and
deposit onto the indoor floor surface, there is the potential for volatilization of those residues into
the air. Therefore, an assessment for exposure to pesticide vapors should be conducted
according to algorithm #2 below; Exposure to pesticide vapors.
For surface-directed spray applications, it is assumed that there may be post-application
inhalation exposure to pesticide vapors emitted after an application to an indoor surface has been
made. Therefore, an assessment for exposure to pesticide vapors should be conducted according
to algorithm #2 below; Exposure to pesticide vapors.
Post-Application Inhalation Exposure Algorithms
The two post-application inhalation exposure algorithms outlined in this section are:
(1) Exposure to pesticide aerosols, and
(2) Exposure to pesticide vapors.
(1) Exposure to pesticide aerosols
In order to assess post-application inhalation exposure to pesticide aerosols from instantaneous
release/aerosol applications (e.g., flying insect killers), the initial air concentration must first be
calculated. If chemical-specific data are available, the initial air concentration is the air
concentration at time 0 (assuming that individuals could be exposed to the air concentration
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-10
-------
Indoor Environments
immediately after application). If data are not available, then the initial air concentration can be
calculated using the following formula:
C0 = AR * CF1 (7.3)
where:
"3
Co = initial air concentration (mg/m );
AR = application rate (lbs ai/m3); and
CF1 = conversion factor (454,000 mg/lb).
If an application rate is given on the label in terms of unit area, this should be used. The
following equation can be used to calculate the application rate if it's not provided:
AI*Vproduct*Dproduct*CF\*CF2 (7.4)
AK —
Vroom
where:
"3
AR = application rate (lbs ai/m );
A.I. = percent active ingredient in product (% ai);
V product = volume of product in 1 can (mL);
D product = density of product (g/mL);
CF1 = conversion factor (1,000 mg/g);
CF2 = conversion factor (2.2x10"6 lb/mg); and
"3
Vroom = volume of room (m ).
If the POD is based on the RfC methodology, then the calculated air concentration can be
compared directly to the reference concentration. However, if the POD is a No-Observed-
Adverse-Effect-Level (NOAEL) or Lowest-Ob served-Adverse-Effect-Lev el (LOAEL),
inhalation potential doses must be calculated in order to compare to the appropriate POD.
The Instantaneous Release Box Model for aerosols can be used to calculate exposure for this
type of application scenario. The basis for this scenario is that post-application inhalation
exposure occurs from the airborne aerosols released after an aerosol application. The well-mixed
box (WMB) model was used to develop the exposure equation for the instantaneous
release/aerosol post-application inhalation scenario.
The WMB model incorporates a number of simplifying assumptions:
(1) fresh air (having no pesticide concentration) enters the box at a constant airflow rate
(based on the number of air changes per hour),
(2) a turbulent internal airflow thoroughly mixes the fresh air with the pesticide-laden air
resulting in a uniform pesticide air concentration within the box, and
(3) the perfectly mixed air exits the box at the same constant airflow rate (i.e., the inflow rate
equals the outflow rate).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-11
-------
Indoor Environments
Thus, the indoor area where the aerosol is being applied is assumed to be in an enclosed box,
which is a reasonable assumption for a walled, indoor space. This scenario assumes
instantaneous spray release (i.e., the total amount of aerosol released is modeled to occur
instantaneously).
The evacuation of the aerosol from the box depends on airflow. For an indoor scenario, the
airflow is the product of the volume of the treated space and the number of air changes per hour,
ACH. The WMB model developed for this scenario models the pesticide air concentrations after
an instantaneous aerosol spray release. It should be noted that this calculation does not take
into account the settling of aerosol droplets. Only dissipation due to airflow into and out of
the box is modeled.
Post-application inhalation exposure for adults/children resulting from space sprays (e.g., flying
insect killers) can be calculated using the following equation (See Section D.3.5 of Appendix D
for equation description and derivation):
r * TP r
£ _ I q y/V * U_ e(~ACH*ET)
ACH L
(7.5)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
"3
C0 = initial concentration (mg/m );
IR = inhalation rate (m3/hr);
ACH = air changes per hour (hour"1); and
ET = exposure time (hr/day).
Absorbed inhalation dose normalized to body weight is calculated as:
(7.6)
BW
where:
D
E
AF
BW
dose (mg/kg-day);
exposure (mg/day);
absorption factor (inhalation); and
body weight (kg).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-12
-------
Indoor Environments
(2) Exposure to pesticide vapors
The basis for this scenario is that post-application inhalation exposure occurs from the emission
of pesticide vapors from a treated surface. The well-mixed box (WMB) model was used to
develop the exposure equation for assessing post-application inhalation exposure from vapor
emissions. The WMB model was used to model pesticide air concentrations within an enclosed,
fixed volume (i.e., a box) over time during the variable emission of a pesticide from a treated
surface.
The model incorporates a number of simplifying assumptions:
(1) fresh air (having no pesticide concentration) enters the box at a constant airflow rate
(based on the number of air changes per hour),
(2) a turbulent internal airflow thoroughly mixes the fresh air with the pesticide-laden air
resulting in a uniform pesticide air concentration within the box, and
(3) the perfectly mixed air exits the box at the same constant airflow rate (i.e., the inflow rate
equals the outflow rate).
Thus, the indoor area where the pesticide is being applied is assumed to be in an enclosed box,
which is a reasonable assumption for a walled, indoor space. The removal of the pesticide from
the box depends on airflow. For an indoor scenario, the airflow is the product of the volume of
the treated space and the number of air changes per hour, ACH. The WMB model developed for
this scenario models the pesticide air concentrations after a surface-directed spray application or
after residues have settled onto the floor surface from a fogger or space spray application. Only
dissipation due to airflow into and out of the box is modeled.
Post-application inhalation exposure to vapors for adults/children resulting from indoor spray
applications can be calculated using the following equation (See Section D.3.6 of Appendix D for
equation description and derivation):
where:
£ _ ^ ^ label *
ACH * F
1-
' (ACH * e k*ET)-(k
* e-ACH*ET ^
ACH-k
(7.7)
E
IR
Miabel
V
* room
ACH
k
ET
: exposure (mg/day);
: inhalation rate (m3/hr);
: mass of active ingredient applied, determined from product label (mg);
: volume of room (m3);
: air exchanges per hour (1/hr);
: first order decay rate (1/hr); and
: exposure time (hr).
In the above equation, a mass of pesticide is applied to a surface and the emission of the
pesticide from the surface is assumed to decline over time due to dissipation of the pesticide (i.e.,
emission from the treated surface and removal due to the air exchange rate). The mass of active
ingredient applied can be calculated using the following formula:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-13
-------
Indoor Environments
Mlabel = AR * A * CF1 (7.8)
where:
Miabei = mass of active ingredient applied, determined from product label (mg);
AR = application rate (e.g., lb ai/ft2, lb ai/gal);
A = area treated or amount handled (e.g., ft2/day, gal/day); and
CF1 = conversion factor (4.54xl05 mg/lb).
The exposure equation models an emission rate that decreases over time, which is based on a
first-order decay rate constant (k). Evans (1994) proposed calculating such a decay rate based on
work done by Chinn (1981). Chinn developed the following relationship between the volatility,
or saturation concentration (Csat), of a chemical and the time required for 90% of the chemical to
evaporate (EvapT):
EvapT=10l73698-(x9546^1(jcJ (7.9)
where:
EvapT = evaporation time (sec); and
C
sat
= saturation concentration (mg/m ).
Evans proposed the following equation to calculate the decay rate (or dissipation rate) that
defines the change in the emission rate based on the evaporation time described by Chinn:
where:
E =
ln(lO)*CFl
EvapT
(7.10)
k
CF1
EvapT
first order decay rate (1/hr),
conversion factor (sec/hr), and
evaporation time (sec).
**Saturation concentration verification**
In the vapor emission assessment, post-application inhalation exposure occurs from the release
of vapors following a surface treatment indoors. The concentration of pesticide in the air is
modeled over time to calculate exposure. The maximum concentration allowed in the air
should be the saturation concentration, calculated as a function of the pesticide's molecular
weight and vapor pressure. The equation used to model the air concentration is not bound
by the saturation concentration; therefore, the reviewer must perform a check to make
sure the exposures being calculated are valid.
The exposure equation above is based on the mass of pesticide applied, not the concentration of
the pesticide in the air; therefore, the reviewer must check that the input for mass applied (Miabei)
is predicting an air concentration less than or equal to the saturation concentration. The
following equation can be used to calculate the theoretical mass applied that would result in an
air concentration that reaches the saturation concentration for a pesticide (MCsat):
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-14
-------
Indoor Environments
MCsat =
k
Csat * (ACH - kyv
(7.11)
Mcsat should be compared to Miabei.
• If Miabei > Mcsat Miabei will predict an air concentration higher than the saturation
concentration. Use MCsat in the exposure calculation.
• If Miabei < Mcsat, Miabei will not predict an air concentration higher than the saturation
concentration. Use Miabei in the exposure calculation.
Once the post-application inhalation exposure is calculated, the inhalation dose normalized to
body weight is calculated as:
AF = absorption factor (inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
If not enough information is available to assess post-application inhalation exposure to pesticide
vapors from indoor sprays using the approach described above, a screening level assessment can
be performed using the saturation concentration (See Section D.3.7 of Appendix D).
7.2.1.3 Termiticide Applications (Foundation and Soil Injection)
The basis for this scenario is that post-application inhalation exposure occurs while occupying
living spaces within a residence during and after a termiticide treatment. This scenario is
specific to foundation and soil injection termiticide treatments as it assumes that only a
percentage of the pesticide applied penetrates into a home and is available for inhalation
exposure. The scenario is considered a long-term scenario. When possible, chemical-specific air
monitoring data should be used to calculate an air concentration; however, if data are not
available, MCCEM can be used.
Inputs for MCCEM for calculating air concentrations following termiticide applications are as
follows:
House: Select House Code "GN001" which represents a house with two zones (the bedroom
and the rest of the house), and an air exchange rate of 0.18/hr to represent summer conditions.
p_E* AF
BW
(7.12)
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-15
-------
Indoor Environments
Run Time: Input the length of the model run as 364 days to represent a long-term exposure
duration and reporting interval of 1 day steps.
Emissions: The type of emission representative of termiticides is the Chinn-type or long-term
emission (e.g., a termiticide treatment is completed, and the pesticide off-gasses from the treated
surfaces for several weeks). As described above for surface-directed sprays, the off-gassing
emission rate is calculated based on an empirical relationship between evaporation time, vapor
pressure, and molecular weight (Chinn, 1981). An additional assumption for foundation/soil
injection termiticides is that only 5% of the applied chemical penetrates the home and is
available for post-application inhalation exposure. The equations necessary to calculate an
emission rate for the model are presented below.
Calculation of Emission Rate for Termiticides
1. Calculate the mass of active ingredient applied in grams during a single application event.
2. Calculate the mass of chemical that penetrates the home (m).
• Assume 5% penetration into home from treatment area. This is based on the experience
and professional judgment of the OPP staff based on the review of company-submitted
3. Calculate the Chinn evaporation time using the following formula based on the relationship
between a chemical's molecular weight and vapor pressure and the time for evaporation (Chinn,
1981):
data.
CET = ——
(MW * VP)0'9546
(7.13)
where:
CET
MW
VP
Chinn evaporation time (hr);
molecular weight of pesticide active ingredient (g/mol); and
vapor pressure (mmHg).
4. Calculate the emission rate (g/hr) using the following formula:
(7.14)
where:
ER
M
CET
emission rate (g/hr);
mass of chemical that penetrates house; and
Chinn evaporation time (hr).
Example:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-16
-------
Indoor Environments
Application rate = 5 lb ai/gal
"3
Vapor pressure of 5x10" mmHg
Molecular weight of 500 g/mol
Amount applied = 5 lb ai/gal * 100 gal/day = 500 lb ai/day * 454 g/lb = 227,000 g ai/day
Amount penetrates home = 227,000 g * 0.05 = 11,350 g
CET = 145/((500 * (5x10"3))0-9546) = 60.5 hours
and
ER = 11,350/60.5 = 188 grams/hour
This emission rate should be input into the model as a constant rate with an end time of 364 days.
Sinks/Activities/Dose/Monte Carlo: Not used for high-end assessments.
Options: Choose to run a single-chamber model. Other options should stay as defaults.
After all of the inputs have been entered into the model, the assessor should run the model and
save the output files for review purposes. The concentration applicable to long-term termiticide
applications is the average daily concentration (ADC). This value should be used in the dose
equation below.
Post-application inhalation dose normalized to body weight is calculated as:
_ ADC * IR* ET * AF (7.15)
~ BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
"3
ADC = average daily concentration (mg/m );
IR = inhalation rate (m3/hr);
ET = exposure time (hr);
AF = absorption factor (inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application Inhalation Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application inhalation exposure assessments are provided in Table
7-3 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions, ii) data sources used to derive
recommended input values, and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed when
characterizing exposure.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-17
-------
Indoor Environments
l iihk* n-S: Indoor l.n\ ironinc'iKs - Recommended Posl-iippliciKion lnh;il;ilion l.xposinv l-'iiclor Point
I'lMiniiik's
Algorithm
Noliiiion
llxposuiv l";iclor
(units)
I'oinl I.N(ini;ik'(s)
Generic Variables Used in Calculating Post-application Inhalation Exposure
IR
Inhalation rate
Adult
0.64
(m3/hour)
Children 1 < 2 years old
0.33
ACH
Air changes per hour
(hr1)
0.45
BW
Body weight
Adult
80
(kg)
Children 1 < 2 years old
11
Vr0om
Volume of room
(m3)
33
Variables Specific to Post-application Inhalation Exposure to Pesticide Aerosols
C0
Initial air concentration
Calculated; concentration at
(mg/m3)
time "0"
AR
Application rate
(lb ai/ ft3)
Product-specific
A.I.
Percent ai in product
(%)
Product-specific
Vproduct
Volume of product
(mL)
Product-specific
-^product
Product density
Water-based products
1
(g/mL)
Solvent-based products
0.8
ET
Exposure time
(hr/day)
2
Variables Specific to Post-application Inhalation Exposure to Pesticide Vapors
Csat
Saturation concentration
Calculated
(mg/m)
VP
Vapor pressure
(mmHg)
Chemical-specific
MW
Molecular weight
(g/mol)
Chemical-specific
R
Gas constant
0.0821
(L-atm/mol-K)
T
Temperature of the air
(kelvin, K)
298
Miabel
Mass of active ingredient applied
(mg)
Product-specific
k
First order decay rate
Calculated
ET
Exposure time
Adult
16
(hr/day)
Children 1 < 2 years old
18
The following provides a general discussion for each post-application inhalation exposure factor
and derivation of recommended distributions and point estimates for use in exposure assessment.
Note that recommended body weight and inhalation rate distributions are included under
Sections 2.1 and 2.2, respectively, since they are not specific to any particular exposure
scenarios.
Inhalation Rate (IR)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-18
-------
Indoor Environments
See Section 2.2 for discussion of inhalation rates. The recommended point estimates for use
in post-application inhalation exposure assessments are 0.64 m3/hr for adults and 0.33
m /hr for children 1 < 2 years old.
Air Changes per Hour (ACH)
Air changes per hour is the rate that air within an indoor environment is replaced by outdoor air.
An empirical distribution for typical house air changes per hour from the Exposure Factors
Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011; Table 19-24) should be used for post-application
inhalation assessment. The distribution is provided in Table 7-4. These values are representative
of all seasons and all regions. The recommended point estimate for use in post-application
inhalation exposure assessments is 0.45 ACH.
1 "sihie "M: Air ( h unties per Hour i.\( II)
Sliiiislie
AC "11 (1/linn r)
10th percentile
0.18
50th percentile
0.45
90 th percentile
1.26
AM(SD)
0.63 (0.65)
GM (SD)
0.46 (2.25)
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (SD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
Volume of a Room (Vroom)
The volume of a room is based on typical dimensions of residential rooms from Exposure
Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011; Table 19-11). For a 12 foot by 12 foot room,
-2
with an 8 foot high ceiling, the typical volume is 33 m .
Saturation Concentration (Cm)
The saturation concentration is a chemical's theoretical maximum air concentration. It
represents what would occur if a large amount of chemical were spilled in a non-ventilated room
and allowed to evaporate until equilibrium is reached. Calculating post-application inhalation
exposure and risk using the saturation concentration should be considered a health protective
approach.
Vapor Pressure (VP)
The vapor pressure is a chemical-specific value in units of mmHg.
Molecular weight (MW)
The molecular weight is a chemical-specific value in units of g/mol.
Gas constant (R)
A constant with units of L-atm/mol-K.
Temperature (T)
The temperature of the air in units of Kelvin (K).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-19
-------
Indoor Environments
Mass of active ingredient applied (Miabd)
The mass of active ingredient applied can be determined from the application rate and the
amount handled or area treated assumed for a residential handler (e.g., lb ai/gallon * gallons = lb
applied).
First Order Decay Rate (k)
The decay rate, k, defines the change in the emission rate from the treated surface. As proposed
by Evans (1994), the decay rate constant is based on the 90% drying time. The 90% drying
time, in turn, is calculated based on the evaporation time and volatility of the chemical using
13
equations from Chinn (1981)
Exposure Time (ET)
For space sprays (e.g., flying insect killers), it is assumed that after application, the aerosol
droplets will settle out of the air and will be dispersed due to air exchange within the house;
therefore, based on information regarding particle size and settling time, a point estimate of 2
hours is used in the SOP.
For vapor emissions from indoor applications and termiticides, it is assumed that the vapors can
continue to emit over time; therefore, exposure time is related to time spent in a residence.
Empirical distributions for adults and children are provided in the Exposure Factors Handbook
2011 Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011; Adults — Tables 16-16 and 16-26; Children - Tables 16-15 and
16-25). The distribution for exposure time for adults and for children 1 < 2 years old is provided
in Table 7-5. The recommended point estimates for use in post-application inhalation
exposure assessments are 16 hours for adults and 18 hours for children 1 < 2 years old.
l iihk* 7-5: llxnosuiv Time' (I I . hours)
Sliilislic
Atlu lis
1 lo <2 jesirs
5th percentile
9
11
25th percentile
13
15
50th percentile
15
18
75 th percentile
19
21
90th percentile
23
24
95th percentile
24
24
AM(SD)
16(5)
18 (SD not listed)
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
13 Based on information in Guo (2002; Part 2), one method to estimate first order decay rate constants was proposed by Evans (1994). Evans
proposed estimating the decay rate constant (k) for solvent emissions (i.e., total volatile organic compounds) from coating materials (i.e., solvent
based paint) based on the 90% drying time of the solvent (to.9). This relationship is represented by the following equation: k = (lnlO) /109. The
90% drying time of a chemical can be calculated based on the volatility (or saturation concentration) of a chemical using the following equation:
logio t0.9 = 7.3698 - 0.9546 logi0C„. This relationship was determined by Chinn (1981) by measuring the time for 90% evaporation of a number
of chemicals and graphing that against the volatility of those chemicals.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-20
-------
Indoor Environments
Air Concentration (( '„)
The initial concentration is based upon instantaneous release of diluted product and complete
mixing into an enclosed space.
Application Rate (AR)
The application rate is the amount of spray applied. The application rate can be determined from
product specific factors that are listed on the label.
Percent A.I. in product (A.I.)
The percent of active ingredient (ai) in the product is a product-specific value and should be
stated on the label.
Volume of product (Vproduct)
The volume of product (mL/can) is a product-specific value and should be stated on the label.
Product Density (Dproduct)
The density should represent the product being assessed. If the product is water-based, the
assessor should use the density of water (1.0 g/mL). If the product is solvent-based, the assessor
should use 0.8 g/mL, an average based on an informal survey of various organic solvents
described in CRC (Lide, 1981).
Future Research/Data Needs
Information that would refine post-application inhalation exposure assessments for indoor
pesticide applications include:
• Air concentration data collected after space spray and surface-directed applications, both
immediately after and over time. Measurements should include differentiation between
aerosols, vapors and dusts/resuspension.
• For surface-directed spray applications, air concentration data for various types of
application methods, including broadcast, perimeter and crack and crevice.
• More information on fogger particle sizes and settling time.
• Resuspension of pesticide particles after initial application and potential for inhalation
exposure.
• More information on the percent of the applied chemical that penetrates a house
following a termiticide application.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Air concentration
• The indoor post-application inhalation SOP makes the health protective assumption that
all of the applied pesticide is in the air available for inhalation exposure, and then that all
of the applied pesticide settles onto the floor and is available for dermal exposure. In
addition, dissipation of pesticides indoors is not taken into account for post-application
inhalation exposure.
• The well-mixed box model for the instantaneous release/aerosol scenario does not take
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-21
-------
Indoor Environments
into account the settling of aerosol droplets. Only dissipation due to airflow into and out
of the box is modeled. In addition, sinks and resuspension activities are not accounted
for in the WMB model calculations.
Vapor emission decay rate constant
• The vapor emission from surface sprays model includes an input for a decay rate
constant, k, based on work by Chinn (1981) examining the relationship between the
volatility, or saturation concentration, of a chemical and the time required for 90% of the
chemical to evaporate. Chinn's experiments represent evaporation from a glass plate of
pure substances under conditions of mechanical ventilation. Substances in mixtures may
behave differently. In addition, the indoor environment features numerous surfaces to
which pesticides can partition, possibly leading to slower evaporation. Despite these
limitations, the data are considered useful for estimation of decay rate because all of the
required inputs are easily obtainable (e.g., molecular weight, vapor pressure and
temperature).
7.2.2 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment
Post-application dermal exposure can result from pesticide residue transfer to the skin of
individuals who contact previously treated indoor surfaces (e.g., carpets, floors, furniture,
mattresses and other surfaces) during activities such as recreation, housework or other occupant
activities. While exposure may occur for people of all ages, adults and children 1 < 2 years old
have been chosen as the index lifestages to assess based on behavioral characteristics and the
strengths and limitations of the available data. The indoor post-application dermal SOP is
divided into 2 sections: dermal exposure resulting from application to hard surfaces and carpets
(Section 7.2.2.1) and dermal exposure resulting from application to mattresses (e.g., bedbug
treatment) {Section 7.2.2.2).
7.2.2.1 Post-Application Dermal Exposure Algorithm (hard surfaces and
Post-application dermal exposure is expected to result from contact with treated indoor surfaces,
which, for the purposes of this SOP, are separated into two categories: hard surfaces (e.g., floors)
and carpets. Post-application dermal exposure resulting from contact with treated indoor
surfaces is dependent on three exposure factors: transferable residue (TR), transfer coefficient
(TC), and exposure time (ET). The algorithm to calculate exposure is as follows:
carpets)
E = TR * CF1 * TC * ET
(7.16)
where:
E
TR
TC
exposure (mg/day);
indoor surface transferable residue (|ig/cm2);
transfer coefficient (cm /hr);
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-22
-------
Indoor Environments
ET = exposure time (hr/day); and
CF1 = conversion factor (0.001 mg/|ig).
If chemical-specific TR data are available, this is preferred and should be used to calculate
exposure. However, if chemical-specific TR data are not available, then TR can be calculated
using the following formula:
TR = DepR * Fai (7.17)
where:
2
TR = indoor surface transferable residue (|ig/cm );
2
DepR = deposited residue (ng/cm ), based on (in order of preference):
(1) Chemical-specific residue deposition data (ng/cm ),
(2) Application rate (lb ai/area), or
(3) Default residue based on type of application (ng/cm ); and
Fai = fraction of ai available for transfer from carpet or hard surface (unitless).
Absorbed dermal dose, normalized to body weight, are calculated as:
d_E*AF (7.18)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor; and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application dermal exposure following applications indoors is generally considered short-
term in duration, but is dependent on the use pattern of the specific product being assessed and
the dissipation/degradation properties of the active ingredient. Refinement of this dose estimate
to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by
accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4, such as residue
dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term
assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, similar
refinements to more accurately reflect the exposure profile are recommended.
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions (hard
surfaces and carpets)
Recommended values for post-application dermal exposure assessments for hard surfaces (e.g.,
floors) and carpets are provided in Table 7-6 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific
input parameter is described in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key
assumptions; ii) data sources used to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of
limitations that should be addressed when characterizing exposure.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-23
-------
Indoor Environments
Tiihlc "7-(>: Indoor l-'n\ iron men Is (Ihirri Siirl';iccs ;iihI Ciirpcls) - Recommended Doriiuil l-lxposure l';ic(or
Point I.Nlini;ik'N
Algorithm
Noiiiiion
I'1\|)omiiv l";iclor
(¦¦nils)
Poim l'.sliniiile(s)
TR
Transferable residue
((j.g/cm2)
(1) Chemical-specific transferable
residue data OR
(2) Estimated: DepR * F,n
DepR
Deposited residue
((j.g/cm2)
(1) Chemical-specific residue
deposition data,
(2) Estimated based on application
rate, or
(3) Estimated based on default
residue related to type of application
Fai
Fraction of DepR as TR
following application
Carpets
0.06a
Hard surfaces
0.08a
TC
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
Adult
6,800
Children 1 < 2 years old
1,800
ET
Exposure Time (hrs/day)
Adults
Carpets
8
Hard
Surfaces
2
Children 1 < 2
years old
Carpets
4
Hard
Surfaces
2
BW
Body weight (kg)
Adult
80
Children 1 < 2 years old
11
a. These values are screening level point estimates to be used when chemical-specific data are not available. Data are available for
certain chemicals; see text and associated tables for chemical-specific data for pyrethrin, permethrin, PBO, chlorpyrifos, and
deltamethrin.
Transferable Residue (TR)
Following an application, pesticide residue, which remains on indoor surfaces, can be contacted
by an individual and removed. The residue available for transfer is referred to as transferable
residue (TR) and is assumed to be the most significant source for dermal exposure in this
scenario. If chemical-specific transferable residue data are available for a specific chemical, this
is preferred and should be used for the estimation of exposure. The assessor should take into
consideration the application rate used in the chemical-specific study and how it compares to the
application rate of the proposed use; adjustments should be made, if necessary. If data are not
available, the TR can be calculated as a fraction (Fa;) of the deposited residue (DepR).
Deposited Residue (DepR)
The deposited residue is the residue that is deposited onto indoor surfaces following an
application. It can be based on (1) chemical-specific deposition data (i.e., actual measured
residue data), (2) the application rate of the product (e.g., assume that everything that is applied
is deposited onto the indoor surface), or (3) default values based on the type of application (e.g.,
broadcast, crack and crevice, etc). These options should be prioritized as follows, based on the
data available for a particular chemical:
1. Chemical-specific deposition data are preferred, if available.
2. If chemical-specific deposition data are not available, then the deposited residue should
be estimated based on the label-specified application rate.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-24
-------
Indoor Environments
3. If neither chemical-specific data nor an application rate is available, default deposited
residues should be used based on the type of application.
Figure 7-1 provides a summary of these three options and also shows the approaches for the
different types of application methods [e.g., broadcast, perimeter/spot/bedbug (coarse
application), perimeter/spot/bedbug (pinstream application), and crack and crevice], which are
discussed in more detail below.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-25
-------
Indoor Environments
Figure 7-1: Summary of approaches for calculating the deposited residue for use in the dermal post-
application exposure calculation.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-26
-------
Indoor Environments
Approach 1 for calculating deposited residue:
(1) Chemical-specific deposition data — use residue measurements collected from a study.
For some chemicals, a study may be available in which the pesticide was applied to a room and
residue data were collected from the floor using deposition coupons. It should be noted that in
October of 2007, the Agency revised the data requirements that pertain to conventional
pesticides. As part of these revisions, indoor surface residue studies were classified as required
under 40 CFR 158, subpart K (158.1070; post-application exposure data requirements table).
Deposition studies provide not only the magnitude of the deposited residue in a room, but also
the distribution of residue in a room. The distribution of residue in a room will differ depending
on the type of application made (i.e., broadcast, perimeter, or crack and crevice). For example, it
is expected that residues will be evenly distributed throughout a room after a broadcast
application, whereas after a perimeter application, residues will be higher near the outer edges of
a room than in the center of a room. Both the magnitude and distribution of residues in a room
will impact a person's exposure.
An indoor deposition study should collect residue data after an application for a particular
pesticide is made. As with chemical-specific transferable residue data, the assessor should take
into consideration the application rate used in the chemical-specific study and how it compares to
the application rate of the proposed use; adjustments should be made, if necessary. The assessor
should also take into consideration the application method used in the study and make sure that it
is representative of the proposed use being assessed.
Once the data are analyzed, the following deposited residue values should be calculated using the
available data. A discussion of these values is provided below.
(la) Broadcast (liquid and fogger formulations'): Use the average residue of all the coupons in the
study room.
DepR = Average of residues measured on all coupons in room
(lb) Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug (Coarse application'): Use a weighted average residue of 70%
of the residue in the untreated area of the room and 30% of the residue in the treated area of the
room.
DepR = (70% * average residue untreated area) + (30% * average residue treated area)
(lc) Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug (Pin Stream application): Use a weighted average residue of 70% of the
residue in the untreated area of the room and 30% of the residue in the treated area of the room.
DepR = (70% * average residue untreated area) + (30% * average residue treated area)
(Id) Crack and crevice: Use a weighted average residue of 90% of the residue in the untreated area
of the room and 10% of the residue in the treated area of the room.
DepR = (90% * average residue untreated area) + (10% * average residue treated area)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-27
-------
Indoor Environments
After a broadcast application, the residues in a room should be evenly distributed throughout the
room. Therefore, the deposited residue value for use in the exposure assessment should be
calculated as the average residue for the entire treated area. Perimeter and crack and crevice
applications typically focus on the outer edges of rooms (e.g., along baseboards) and, therefore,
result in a distribution of residues with higher levels along the outer edges of a room ("treated
area") compared to the center of a room ("untreated area") (Selim, 2008 and U.S. EPA, 1993). It
is assumed that a person spends more time in the center of a room than along the outer edges
and, thus, is exposed less often to higher levels of residues in the treated area compared to lower
levels of residues in the untreated area. An assumption as to how much time a person would
come in contact with treated versus untreated areas of the room is used to adjust the estimate of
deposited residue. Based on this assumption, a weighted residue value is calculated.
For perimeter/spot/bedbug (coarse and pin stream) applications, it is assumed that a person
would come in contact with treated areas 30% of the time and untreated areas 70% of the time
(see diagram below). This is based on preliminary information for surface contact probabilities
(Brinkman et al., 1999; SHEDS-Multimedia). The average deposited residue for the treated area
and untreated area should be calculated separately. Then, the deposited residue for the whole
room should be calculated as the sum of 70% of the average deposited residue for the untreated
area of the room and 30% of the average deposited residue for the treated area of the room (see
equation below).
DepR = (70% * average residue untreated area) + (30% * average residue treated area)
For crack and crevice applications, a similar approach is taken; however, it is assumed that a
person would come in contact with treated areas 10% of the time and untreated areas 90% of the
time (see diagram below). Again, this is based on preliminary information for surface contact
probabilities (Brinkman et al., 1999; SHEDS-Multimedia). The average deposited residue for
the treated area and untreated area should be calculated separately. Then, the deposited residue
for the whole room should be calculated as the sum of 90% of the average deposited residue for
the untreated area of the room and 10% of the average deposited residue for the treated area of
the room (see equation below).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-28
-------
Indoor Environments
90% of untreated area
10% of treated area
DepR = (90% * average residue untreated area) + (10% * average residue treated area)
Approach 2 for calculating deposited residue:
(2) Application Rate — use rate provided on label and convert to ng/cm .
.9
When the application rate is in terms of mass active ingredient per area (e.g., lb ai/ft ), the
deposited residue can be estimated using the application rate (assuming everything that is applied
is deposited onto the floor of the room). A unit conversion can be performed in order to obtain a
residue value in terms of ng/cm .
If the label provides an application rate, the recommended deposited residue values are provided
below.
(2a) Broadcast (liquid and fogger fonnulations): Use the application rate on the label.
DepR = Application rate (|ag/cm2)
(2b) Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug (Coarse application): Use 50% of the application rate on the label.
DepR = 50% * Broadcast-equivalent Application rate
(2c) Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug (Pin Stream application): Use 50% of the application rate on the label.
DepR = 50% * Broadcast-equivalent Application rate
(2d) Crack and crevice: Use 10% of the application rate on the label.
DepR = 10% * Broadcast-equivalent Application rate
It is assumed that broadcast applications (liquid and fogger formulations) evenly distribute the
pesticide across the floor of a room; therefore, the deposited residue for the whole room is
assumed to be equivalent to the application rate. For fogger formulations, the application rate is
not always provided in terms of mass active ingredient per area, but can be calculated from the
amount of active ingredient (ai) in the fogger, the volume that the fogger is intended to treat and
an assumed ceiling height of 8 feet. If, for example, a six ounce fogger containing 1% ai is used
in a 33 cubic meter (1165 cubic foot) room with an eight foot ceiling, the surface residue would
be calculated as follows:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-29
-------
Indoor Environments
Step 1 - Calculate amount of ai applied in jug.
ai applied (|ag) = (fogger weight (ounces) * (percent ai/100) * 454,000,000 p-g/lb) /16 ounces/lb = 1,700,000 |.ig
Step 2 - Calculate Area Treated in cm2.
Area Treated (cm2) = 1165 ft 78 ft ceiling = 146 ft2 * 929 cm2/ft2 = 135,000 cm2
Step 3 - Calculate fig/cm2.
1,700,000 jag/135,000 cm2 = 12.6 |ag/cm2
For perimeter/spot/bedbug (coarse and pinstream) and crack and crevice applications, it is
assumed that the pesticide product will not be evenly distributed across the room, but will be
directed towards the outer edges of the room. As noted above, for these types of applications,
both the magnitude and distribution of residues in a room impact a person's exposure. If it is
assumed that broadcast applications result in an average deposited residue for a room that is
equivalent to the application rate, then for perimeter/spot/bedbug (coarse and pinstream) and
crack and crevice applications, the average deposited residue for a room is expected to be a
percentage of the application rate. These percentages were estimated using available residue
deposition data from Agency submitted studies and literature studies. For more information on
the calculations and further analysis, refer to Section D.5 of Appendix D.
For perimeter/spot/bedbug (coarse and pinstream) applications, it is assumed that the deposited
residue is equivalent to 50% of the application rate (Selim, 2008, U.S. EPA, 1993). For more
information and further analysis, refer to Section D.5 of Appendix D.
For crack and crevice applications, it is assumed that the deposited residue is equivalent to 10%
of the application rate (Selim, 2008). For more information and further analysis, refer to Section
D. 5 of Appendix D.
Approach 3 for calculating deposited residue:
(3) Default values: use default residue values based on type of application.
If chemical-specific deposition data are not available and no application rate is provided on the
product label, then default deposited residue values should be used based on the type of
application to be made. The default values provided below are based on an analysis of available
residue deposition data from Agency submitted studies and literature studies.
A summary of the recommended values for default residues for broadcast, perimeter and crack
and crevice applications is provided in Table 7-7 and a discussion of these values is provided
below.
1 iihlc "7-"7: Recommended Delimit Residue C oncen I r:i I ions |};ised on T\ik' ol° Application
T\ |)c of Application
IVrcenl Spr;i\
Residue concen(r;ilion
Broadcast3
Liquids
0.5%
15
Foggers
5.4
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug (Coarse application)b
N/A
4.5
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-30
-------
Indoor Environments
1 iihlc "7-"7: Recommended Delimit Residue C oncen I r:i I ions |};ised on T\pc ol' \pplic;ilion
T\ |)c of Application
Percent Spr;i\
Residue concent nil ion
(|j.
-------
Indoor Environments
specific data. Fraction transferred values are provided for both carpets and hard surfaces since
the type of surface can influence the fraction of deposited residue that can be transferred.
The values for fraction of residue transferred from carpets and hard surfaces are based on
information provided from two sources, which examine transferability of a variety of chemicals
from both surfaces.
1) Beamer et. al (2009): performed an extensive analysis of numerous transfer efficiency
studies which covered various methods (including the cloth roller, drag sled, PUF roller,
and bare hand press), surfaces (hard surfaces/sheet vinyl and carpets) and various
chemicals (chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin and piperonyl butoxide (PBO)).
Sources included: Camann, 1996; Fortune, 1997; Krieger, 2000; Ross, 1991; Clothier,
2000.
2) Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force (NDETF): examined transferability for bare hand-
presses on carpets and vinyl/hard surfaces for deltamethrin, permethrin, PBO and
pyrethrin.
Complete datasets (using data from all available sources) were compiled for five chemicals:
pyrethrin, permethrin, piperonyl butoxide (PBO), chlorpyrifos and deltamethrin. These datasets
were analyzed and the results are provided in Table 7-8 and Table 7-9, for carpets and hard
surfaces, respectively. For the chemicals in Table 7-8 and Table 7-9, that have chemical-
specific data available, the arithmetic means should be used in post-application dermal
exposure assessments.
For chemicals not included in those tables, chemical-specific data are preferred, but if not
available, a screening level value is recommended based on the available data. For chemicals
that do not have chemical-specific data available, the recommended screening level point
estimates for use in post-application dermal exposure assessments are 0.06 for carpets and
0.08 for hard surfaces.
For further information on the fraction transferred factor, see Section D. 6 of Appendix D.
l ;ihk' "'-X: ( lu'iniciil-snccilic l r;ic(ion tr;iiisl'errod i for ( ;in>e(s
Sliiiislic
l'\ ivlhrin
PcniK'lhi'in
PBO
( hlorp> ril'os
Dolliiinolhriii
50 pei'cenule
0 0"'
0 0"'
0 ()"'
0.01
0.01
75th percentile
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
90th percentile
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.02
95th percentile
0.07
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.03
99th percentile
0.11
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.04
99.9th percentile
0.19
0.05
0.10
0.08
0.05
AM(SD)
0.03 (0.12)
0.02 (0.06)
0.02 (0.08)
0.02 (0.06)
0.01 (0.05)
GM (GSD)
0.02 (2.00)
0.02 (1.38)
0.02 (1.70)
0.01 (1.72)
0.01 (1.56)
Range
0.002 - 0.086
0.010-0.032
0.007 - 0.065
0.003 - 0.045
0.005 - 0.020
N
91
14
105
155
10
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-32
-------
Indoor Environments
l ;il)lo "7-'>: ( lu'inic;il-N|K'cific l-'nicliun Ii*;iiislVrre(l lor lliirri Surl'iicos
SialNic
lJ\ ivilimi
IVrmcllirin
\'\'A)
('hkirp\ I I I lls
Dcllamclliriii
50 percentile
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.04
75 th percentile
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.13
0.06
90th percentile
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.28
0.08
95th percentile
0.20
0.07
0.15
0.45
0.10
99th percentile
0.37
0.11
0.32
1.08
0.15
99.9th percentile
0.75
0.19
0.76
2.85
0.24
Arithmetic mean
0.07 (0.42)
0.03 (0.12)
0.05 (0.42)
0.13 (1.73)
0.05 (0.18)
Geometric Mean
0.04 (2.49)
0.02 (2.06)
0.02 (3.03)
0.06 (3.57)
0.04 (1.80)
Range
0.002 - 0.449
0.006 - 0.049
0.004-0.571
0.005 -0.601
0.017-0.124
N
60
14
74
24
10
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
Transfer Coefficient (TC)
The transfer coefficient (TC) provides a measure of surface-to-skin residue transfer and is
derived from concurrent measurements of exposure and surface residue. Specifically, the TC is
the ratio of exposure rate, measured in mass of chemical per time (i.e., ng/hr), to residue,
measured in mass of chemical per surface area (i.e., |ag/cm ).
Table 7-10 provides the distribution for the transfer coefficient factor for indoor surfaces.
T.ihle 7-IO: Tnmsler cuiTI'k'icnls ( 1 ( : ciir/hr)
Si;iiisiic
Ariull
Childron 1 < 2 u';irs old
50th percentile
4,700
1,300
75th percentile
7,800
2,100
95th percentile
17,000
4,600
99th percentile
28,000
7,600
99.9th percentile
50,000
14,000
AM (SD)
6,800 (8,200)
1,800 (2,200)
GM (GSD)
4,700 (2.16)
1,300(2.16)
Range
1,200 - 49,000
330- 13,000
a. A 73% reduction in the adult transfer coefficient is recommended because of the differences of body surface areas between adults and
children (1 < 2 years old).
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
There are no studies available that measure both exposure and surface residue while subjects are
performing typical indoor activities. Therefore, the transfer coefficients used for indoor
scenarios are derived from information provided in three different studies: (1) two studies which
measured exposure and surface residues while subjects performed a Jazzercise™ routine
(Krieger, 2000 and Selim, 2004) and (2) a study which measured biomonitoring doses while
adults performed scripted activities for 4 hours on carpet (Vaccaro, 1991).
In the Krieger and Selim studies, a Jazzercise™ routine was performed to achieve maximum
contact of the entire body with a surface using low impact aerobic movements. All body
surfaces (dorsal, ventral, and lateral) contacted the treated surface. The potential dermal
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-33
-------
Indoor Environments
exposure was measured by using whole-body dosimetry. The dosimeters were expected to
normalize differences in surface contact and to increase the total sample area relative to patches.
The assumption is that the dosimeter represents the skin and that the dose retained by the
dosimeter is equivalent to dermal exposure.
In the Vaccaro study, adult males, dressed in bathing suits only, performed different activities
over a 4-hour activity period. These activities included: sitting-playing with blocks, on hands
and knees crawling, walking on carpet, laying on back, and laying on abdomen. Although
activity was minimal during the last 2 activities, considerable surface area was in contact with
the carpets during these times.
Using information from these studies on residue transfer, exposure and dose provides an
estimated transfer coefficient for indoor activities. It is assumed that the shorter duration of high
contact activity (i.e., Jazzercise™) can be used to estimate exposure during longer durations of
low contact activity. For more information and full analysis of the transfer coefficient factor, see
Section D. 7.3 of Appendix D.
For adults, the recommended TC point estimate for post-application dermal exposure
assessments is 6,800 cm2/hr.
The transfer coefficient for children 1 < 2 years old is calculated based on an adjustment of the
adult transfer coefficient for differences in body surface area outlined in Section 2.3. A factor of
0.27 (i.e., a 73% TC reduction) is used for this lifestage. For children 1 < 2 years old, the
recommended TC point estimate for post-application dermal exposure assessments is 1,800
cm2/hr.
Exposure Time (ET)
An empirical distribution based on values from the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition
(U.S. EPA, 2011; Adults — Tables 16-16 and 16-26; Children - Tables 16-15 and 16-25) should
be used for indoor post-application dermal assessments. The distributions for exposure time for
adults and for children 1 < 2 years old are provided in Table 7-11.
A study which provides information specific to time spent on different types of surfaces indoors
is not available. The Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition provides information on total
time spent in a residence and time spent in various rooms within a residence. In order to develop
inputs for exposure time on carpets and hard surfaces, two assumptions were made: (1) kitchens
and bathrooms would represent time spent on hard surfaces and (2) time spent in a residence,
less time spent sleeping and napping, would represent time spent on carpets.
For adults, the recommended ET point estimates for post-application dermal exposure
assessments are 8 and 2 hours on carpets and hard surfaces, respectively.
For children 1 < 2 years old, the recommended ET point estimate for post-application
dermal exposure assessments are 4 and 2 hours on carpets and hard surfaces, respectively.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-34
-------
Indoor Environments
Tsihle n-\ 1: r.xnosure Time (I I : hours)
Siiiiisiic
Ciirpel
ll;i rd surl'iiees
Adult
Children 1 < 2 jesirs
old
Adull
Children 1 < 2
h'iii's old
5th percentile
4
2
0.25
0
25th percentile
6
4
1
1
50th percentile
7
5
1
2
75th percentile
10
5
3
3
90 th percentile
12
6
4
3
95th percentile
12
6
6
4
AM(SD)
8(3)
4 (-")
2(2)
2(~a)
a. The Exposure Factor Handbook did not provide these values for children.
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
7.2.2.2 Post-Application Dermal Exposure Algorithm (mattresses)
Post-application dermal exposure can occur as a result of pesticide applications to mattresses,
such as those directed for the control of bedbugs. Exposure to treated mattresses is dependent on
a number of exposure factors. The algorithm to calculate absorbed dose is as follows:
ej n 19^
D = DR* —— *F*F*PF*AF* CF\ v' '
BW
where:
D
Dermal dose (mg/kg-day);
DR
Deposited residue (mg/cm2);
SA/BW =
Surface area / Body Weight Ratio (cm2/kg);
F
Fraction of body that contacts residue;
CF1
Conversion factor (mg/|.ig):
AF
Absorption factor;
Fal
fraction of ai available for transfer from treated mattress; and
PF
Protection factor to account for the presence of a single layer of fabric (e.g. bed sheet)
between the treated material and individual.
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions (mattresses)
Recommended values for post-application dermal exposure assessments for mattresses are
provided in Table 7-12 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is
described in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data
sources used to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should
be addressed when characterizing exposure.
1 "sihie "7-12: Indoor l'.n\ ironmenls (111 ;idresses) - Keeom mended Derniid r.xnosure l-';ielor I'oinl llsliniiiles
Algorithm
Noliiiion
llxposiire l";ielor
(iinils)
I'oinl l'.sliniiile(s)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-35
-------
Indoor Environments
1 "sihie "7-12: Indoor l.n\ ironnienls (in illnesses) - Recommended l)ei in;d l.xnosnre l-;ie(or Point l.s(ini;i(es
Algorithm
Noliilion
l.\|)osiire l-iieloi-
(¦¦nils)
Poiiil l'.sliniiile(s)
DR
Deposited residue
((j.g/cm2)
(1) Calculated based on information provided on
label
OR
(2) based on default residue values
SA/BW
Surface area / Body Weight
Ratio
(cm2/kg)
Adult
280
Children 1 < 2
years old
640
F
Fraction of body that contacts residue
0.5
Fal
Fraction of DR available for transfer
0.06
PF
Protection Factor
0.5
Deposited Residue (DR)
Following an application to a mattress, pesticide residue deposited onto the surface of the
mattress could be contacted by an individual and removed. This residue can be estimated based
on information on the product label and high end assumptions or by using default residue values.
If an application rate is provided on the label assumptions can be made in terms of the size of
the mattress and the amount of product applied. It is assumed that an adult or child sleeps on a
twin-sized mattress, since it is believed that this scenario would result in the greatest body
surface area to treated surface area ratio and, therefore, the highest exposure. The following
assumptions can be made to determine a deposited residue:
Percent of mattress treated:
• If the product label includes use directions that indicate the product should be applied to
"tufts, seams, folds and edges" of the mattress, a reasonable assumption is that this
equates to 20% of the total surface area. This value should be adjusted according to the
specific instructions on the label (i.e., if the label use directions indicate application to the
entire mattress, the assumption should be 100% of the total surface area).
Volume of product applied to mattress:
• A typical twin-sized mattress has dimensions of 39" x 75"14, resulting in a total surface
2 2
area of approximately 3,000 in or 19,000 cm .
• To calculate the total treated surface area:
Total treated surface area (cm2) = Percent of mattress treated (%) * total surface area (19,000 cm2)
• Unless specific information is provided on the product label, assume that a reasonable
estimate for amount of product used for a twin mattress application is 5 gallons of
solution for 1000 square feet (0.005 gal/ft2).
• To calculate the volume of product applied (gallons) to the mattress:
14 http://www.mattresssizes.info/
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-36
-------
Indoor Environments
Volume of product applied (gal) = Total treated surface area (cm2) * 0.005 gal/ft2 *conversion factor (1.08E-03 ft2/cm2)
Using the calculated volume of product applied along with the application rate on the label (in
terms of pounds active ingredient per gallon), calculate the pounds active ingredient applied:
Pounds active ingredient applied (lb ai) = Volume of product applied (gallons) * application rate (lb ai/gal)
To estimate the deposited residue for a treated mattress, it is assumed that the pounds of active
ingredient applied are applied to the entire surface area of the mattress:
Deposited residue (|_ig/cm2) = Pounds of active ingredient applied (lb ai) / total surface area (19,000 cm2) * 4.5E+08 |ig/lb
If an application rate is not provided on the label the default residue value provided in the Post-
application Dermal Exposure section for hard surfaces and carpets for Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug
(Coarse application) can be used (4.5 |j,g/cm ).
Surface area /Body Weight Ratio (SA /BW)
The surface area to body weight ratio is 280 cm2/kg for adults and 640 cm2/kg for children
1 < 2 years old. These values represent the mean of the distributions from the U.S. EPA
Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (2011; Table 7-15).
Fraction of body that contacts residue (F)
It is assumed that only half of the body is in contact with the mattress at any one time (0.5).
Fraction of Residue Available For Transfer (Fai)
The fraction of residue available for transfer from mattresses is assumed to be similar to that for
carpets (0.06).
Protection Factor (PF)
A protection factor is included to account for the presence of a single layer of fabric (e.g., bed
sheet) between the treated material and the individual (0.5).
Future Research/Data Needs
Information that would refine post-application dermal exposure assessments for indoor pesticide
applications include:
• Transferable residue data for a wider variety of chemicals and formulations.
• Further research into the various transfer efficiency methods and linkage to the transfer
coefficient factor.
• Distinction between broadcast, perimeter and crack and crevice applications including
surface contact probabilities to differentiate exposure potential based on application
methods.
• Exposure data representative of participants doing "typical" activities indoors (on both
hard surfaces as well as carpets), along with measurements of surface residue that enable
calculation of a dermal transfer coefficient.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-37
-------
Indoor Environments
• For longer-term assessments, chemical-specific information on removal/degradation
processes that would allow for better characterization of potential exposure. In the indoor
environment, dissipation due to chemical processes (e.g., sunlight) is not expected for
most chemicals, although this is chemical dependent; however, there are removal
processes that can decrease the amount of residue found. Some factors that can influence
a chemical's persistence in the indoor environment include: loss of solvent inerts (which
maintain the pesticide in a transferable thin film solution), absorption of the pesticide into
the carpet fiber and matting, chemical or electrostatic binding of the pesticide onto the
carpet fiber surface, physical removal due to human activity (such as vacuuming), and
degradation of the pesticide into non-detectable products.
• Amount of time spent indoors on various surfaces.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Residue
• Reviewers should recognize that factors such as vacuuming, transfer to clothing, re-
suspension and impaction into carpet can greatly impact the dissipation rate of pesticides
on indoor surfaces when conducting dermal post-application exposure assessments.
• Reviewers should characterize the use of the default residue values for deposited residue
(DepR). These defaults are used when no other chemical- or product-specific
information is available.
Transfer Coefficient
• Because there are no studies available that measure both exposure and surface residue
while subjects are performing typical indoor activities, the indoor transfer coefficient was
derived from information provided in three different studies (two Jazzercise™ studies
and a biomonitoring study where participants performed "typical" indoor activities). This
makes use of the best available data and provides reasonable exposure estimate by
utilizing high contact activities and low contact activities in two separate situations.
Fraction Transferred
• In instances where chemical-specific data are not available, estimates of the fraction of
residue available for transfer are used genetically based on existing data for a wide
variety of chemicals. Use of this data generically, including using high-end estimates,
may overestimate exposure for some chemicals, but because of the limited data available,
there is the possibility of underestimating availability of residues for other chemicals.
Additionally, assessors need to be cognizant of using data collected from various
methods and linking to a transfer coefficient derived from one specific method.
Exposure Time
• Information on the amount of time spent on carpets and hard surfaces, specifically, is not
available. Distributions were available for time spent inside a residence, time spent
sleeping, time spent in kitchens, and time spent in bathrooms. The values for different
percentiles of each distribution were either added together or subtracted to represent the
correct exposure time for a particular surface (e.g., time spent on carpet = time spent in a
residence - time spent sleeping) - a reasonable approach given the limitations of the data.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-38
-------
Indoor Environments
7.2.3 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Hand-
to-Mouth
This SOP provides a standard method for estimating the dose for children 1 < 2 years old from
incidental ingestion of pesticide residues from previously treated indoor areas. This scenario
assumes that pesticide residues are transferred to the skin of children playing on treated indoor
surfaces and are subsequently ingested as a result of hand-to-mouth transfer.
Incidental oral exposures resulting from treated mattresses (e.g., treatment for bedbugs) should
only be assessed if there are no other indoor uses. Incidental oral exposures from indoor hard
surface or carpet applications are considered to be protective of mattress applications for the
following reasons: (1) typically a lower application rate is allowed for the mattress application
compared to indoor hard surface/carpet applications, (2) a protection factor of 0.5 is assumed for
the mattress exposures due to the presence of a bed sheet over the mattress, and (3) the
replenishment interval for hand-to-mouth activity is assumed to be less while a child is sleeping
than while they are awake.
Post-application Hand-to-Mouth Exposure Algorithm
Exposure from hand-to-mouth activity is calculated as follows (based on algorithm utilized in
SHEDS-Multimedia):
E =
HR * (Fm * SAh ) * (ET * N _ Replen) * 1 - (l - SE) N _ Replen
Freq _ HtM
(7.20)
where:
and
E = exposure (mg/day);
HR = hand residue loading (mg/cm2);
Fm = fraction hand surface area mouthed / event (fraction/event);
ET = exposure time (hr/day);
SAh = surface area of one hand (cm );
N Replen = number of replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour);
SE = saliva extraction factor (i.e., mouthing removal efficiency); and
FreqHtM = number of hand-to-mouth contacts events per hour (events/hour).
RR _ Fai hands * DE
SAh* 2
(7.21)
where:
HR = hand residue loading (mg/cm );
Faihands = fraction ai on hands compared to total surface residue from jazzercise
study (unitless);
DE = dermal exposure (mg); and
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-39
-------
Indoor Environments
2
SAh = typical surface area of one hand (cm ).
and
Dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:
d = _E_ (7.22)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application hand-to-mouth exposure following indoor applications is generally considered
short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term
multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in
Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4, such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals, and
activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime
exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the exposure
profile are recommended.
Post-application Hand-to-Mouth Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application hand-to-mouth exposure assessments are provided in
Table 7-13 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in
more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to
derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed
when characterizing exposure.
l iihlc "7-13: Indoor Mii\ ironinoiils - Kccommciuk-ri Iliiiul-lo-Moiilh llxnosmv l";ic(or Point l.s(iiii;i(cs
Algorithm
Noliilion
r.xpoMiiv l";iclor
( ii nils)
Point l.s(iiii;ik'(N)
f Slhands
Fraction of ai on hands from jazzercise study
(unitless)
0.15
DE
Dermal exposure calculated in Section 7.2.2
(mg)
Calculated
HR
Residue available on the hands
(mg/cm2)
Calculated
SAh
Surface area of one hand ,,
^cm2^ Children 1 < 2 years old
150
AR
Application rate
(mass active ingredient per unit area)
Maximum labeled rate
Fm
Fraction of hand mouthed per event
(fraction/event)
0.13
NReplen
Replenishment intervals per hour
(intervals/hr)
4
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-40
-------
Indoor Environments
l iihlc "7-13: Indoor Mii\ ironinoiils - Kccommciuk-ri Iliiiul-lo-Moiilh llxnosmv l";ic(or Point l.s(iiii;i(cs
Algorithm
Noliilion
r.xpoMiiv l";iclor
( ii nils)
I'oinl l.s(iiii;ik'(N)
ET
Exposure time
(hours per day)
Children 1 < 2
years old
Carpets
4
Hard Surfaces
2
SE
Saliva extraction factor
(fraction)
0.48
Freq_HtM
Hand-to-mouth events
per hour
(events/hr)
Children 1 < 2 years old
20
BW
Body Weight
(kg)
Children 1 < 2 years old
11.4
Hand Residue (HR)
Hand residue is linked to dermal exposure and it is assumed that the fraction of residue on the
hands is equal to the fraction of the residue on the hands from the jazzercise studies used to
develop the indoor transfer coefficient.
Fraction of ai on hands from jazzercise study (Fai hands)
The fraction of active ingredient available on the hands was based on the jazzercise studies used
to calculate the indoor transfer coefficient (Krieger, 2000 and Selim, 2004). This value was
determined by taking the average residue measured on the hands (gloves) and comparing that
value to the average residue on the entire body. This analysis resulted in a value of 0.15.
Fraction ofHand Mouthed per Event (Fm)
See Section 2.4 of this SOP for discussion of the fraction of hand mouthed. The recommended
point estimate for use in post-application incidental oral exposure assessments is 0.13.
Hand Surface Area (SAH)
The hand surface area for children 1 < 2 years old was based on values from the Exposure
Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011; Table 7-2). This value is 150 cm2 for one
hand.
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva (SE)
See Section 2.6 of this SOP for discussion of the fraction of pesticide extracted by saliva
distribution. The recommended point estimate for use in post-application incidental oral
exposure assessments is 0.48.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-41
-------
Indoor Environments
Exposure Time (ET)
An empirical distribution based on values from Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S.
EPA, 2011; Tables 16-15 and 16-25) should be used for indoor post-application hand-to-mouth
assessments. The distribution for exposure time for children 1 < 2 years old is provided in Table
7-14 A study which provides information specific to time spent on different types of surfaces
indoors is not available for children; therefore, information in the Exposure Factors Handbook
2011 Edition was used which includes total time spent in a residence and time spent in various
rooms within a residence. In order to develop inputs for exposure time on carpets and hard
surfaces, two assumptions were made: (1) kitchens and bathrooms would represent time spent
on hard surfaces and (2) time spent in a residence, less time spent sleeping and napping, would
represent time spent on carpets.
For children 1 < 2 years old, the recommended ET point estimates for post-application
incidental oral exposure assessments are 4 and 2 hours on carpets and hard surfaces,
respectively.
I'iihlo "7-l4: l-Anosure Time (I-1T: hours) for Children 1 <2 \e;irsold
Sliilislic
Ciirpel
ll;i rd surfiices
5th percentile
2
0
25th percentile
4
1
50th percentile
5
2
75th percentile
5
3
90 th percentile
6
3
95th percentile
6
4
AM(SD)
4 (-")
2(~a)
a. The Exposure Factor Handbook (U.S. EPA, 2011) did not provide these values for children.
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
Replenishment Intervals per Hour (N Replen)
This SOP assumes an estimate of 4 replenishment intervals per hour (i.e., residues on the hand
will be replenished every 15 minutes). This value was selected as a conservative assumption
based on the use of 30 minutes in the SHEDS model to coincide with the CHAD diaries.
Hand-to-Mouth Events per Hour (Freq HtM)
Frequency of hand-to-mouth events is an important variable for hand-to-mouth post-application
exposure assessments. The estimates for frequency of hand-to-mouth events in indoor
environments are based on the Xue et al. (2007) meta-analysis. Table 7-15 provides distributions
and point estimates of hand to mouth events for use in residential pesticide exposure assessment
and Appendix D.9.2 provides additional analysis.
The recommended point estimate for use in post-application incidental oral exposure
assessments is 20 events/hr.
Tsihie "'-15:
l-'renueno of ll;ind-lo-Moiilh l'.\en(s (e\en(s/hr)
S(;ilislic
Children 1 < 2 \e;irs old
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-42
-------
Indoor Environments
Tiihlc "7-15: l-'ivniicno of ll;ind-lo-Moiiih I-', ten Is (o\i'ii(s/hr)
Slnlislic
Children 1 < 2 \c;u s old
5th percentile
0
25th percentile
6
50th percentile
14
75th percentile
27
95th percentile
63
AM(SD)
20 (20)
GM (GSD)
a
Range
a
N
245
Weibull distribution - Scale: 18.79 and Shape: 0.91
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
a Not provided
Future Research/Data Needs
Information that would refine post-application incidental oral hand-to-mouth exposure
assessments for indoor pesticide applications include:
• Application intervals (i.e., how often products are applied indoor) - either chemical-
specific or generic intervals.
• Survey information (preferably longitudinal) detailing:
o General pesticide use to obtain, on a per capita basis, the probability of treating
indoor surfaces with pesticides;
o Product-specific application rates to obtain the likelihood that the maximum rate
is used; and,
o Daily activity patterns specific to hand-to-mouth activities indoors (e.g.,
replenishment interval, hand-to-surface contacts).
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Residue
• Reviewers should recognize that factors such as vacuuming, transfer to clothing, re-
suspension and impaction into carpet can greatly impact the dissipation rate of pesticides
on indoor surfaces when conducting dermal post-application exposure assessments.
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva
• Though based on limited data, the determination of the fraction of pesticide extracted by
saliva from the hand is considered reasonable.
7.2.4 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Object-
to-Mouth
This SOP provides a standard method for estimating the dose for children 1 < 2 years old from
incidental ingestion of pesticide residues from previously treated indoor surfaces. This scenario
assumes that pesticide residues are transferred to a child's toy and are subsequently ingested as a
result of object-to-mouth transfer.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-43
-------
Indoor Environments
Post-application Object-to-Mouth Exposure Algorithm
Exposure from object-to-mouth activity is calculated as follows (based on algorithm utilized in
SHEDS-Multimedia):
E =
OR * CFl * SAMa * (ET *N _Replen)*\ 1 - (l - SE)
Freq _ OtM
} N _Replen
(7.23)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
OR = chemical residue loading on an object (ng/cm );
CFl = weight unit conversion factor (0.001 mg/(ig);
SAM0 = area of the object surface that is mouthed (cm2/event);
ET = exposure time (hr/day);
N Replen = number of replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour);
SE = saliva extraction factor (i.e., mouthing removal efficiency); and
FreqOtM = number of object-to-mouth contact events per hour (events/hour).
and
OR = DepR * F0 (7.24)
where:
2
OR = chemical residue loading on the object (ng/cm );
DepR = deposited residue ([j,g/cm2); and
Fo = fraction of residue transferred to an object (unitless).
Oral dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:
E (7.25)
D = -
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application object-to-mouth exposure following indoor applications is generally considered
short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term
multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in
Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4, such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals, and
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-44
-------
Indoor Environments
activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime
exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the exposure
profile are recommended.
Post-application Object-to-Mouth Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application object-to-mouth exposure assessments are provided in
Table 7-16 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in
more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to
derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed
when characterizing exposure.
l iihlo "7-l(>: Indoor l.n\ ironnunlN - Rcconinu'inkd ObjocMo-Moiilh l.\
xisiiit l';ic(or Point I'lsiiniiiios
Algorithm
Noliilion
l.\|)osuiv l";ic(or
(units)
Point l.s(ini;ik'(s)
AR
Application rate
(mass active ingredient per unit area)
Maximum labeled rate
F0
Fraction of residue
Carpets
0.06a
transferred to an object
Hard surfaces
0.08a
SAM0
Surface area of object mouthed
(cm2/event)
10
NReplen
Replenishment intervals per hour
(intervals/hour)
4
SE
Saliva extraction factor
0.48
ET
Exposure Time
(hours per day)
Children 1 <
2 years old
Carpets
4
Hard Surfaces
2
Freq_OtM
Object-to-mouth events
per hour
(events/hour)
Children 1 < 2 years old
14
BW
Body Weight
(kg)
Children 1 < 2 years old
11.4
a. These values are screening level point estimates to be used when chemical-specific data are not available. Data are available for
certain chemicals; see text and associated tables for chemical-specific data for pyrethrin, permethrin, PBO, chlorpyrifos, and
deltamethrin.
Fraction of Residue to an Object (Fq)
Following an application, some pesticide residue remains on indoor surfaces. Some of this
residue may be transferred to a child's toy and subsequently ingested via object-to-mouth
activities. For this SOP, it is assumed that the residue that could be transferred to the object is
the same as what is available for dermal transfer. As a result, the fraction of residue available for
transfer assumed for dermal exposure for both carpets and hard surfaces (see discussion above in
Section 7.2.2 for more detail) should be used as a conservative estimate for the fraction of
residue transferred to an object.
For carpets and hard surfaces, the recommended point estimates for use in post-
application incidental oral exposure assessments are 0.06 and 0.08, respectively.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-45
-------
Indoor Environments
Surface Area of Object Mouthed (SAM0)
See Section 2.5 of this SOP for discussion of surface area of object mouthed. The
recommended value for use in exposure assessments is 10 cm2/event.
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva (SE)
See Section 2.6 of this SOP for discussion of fraction of pesticide extracted by saliva
distribution. The recommended point estimate for use in post-application incidental oral
exposure assessments is 0.48.
Exposure Time (ET)
An empirical distribution based on values from the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition
(U.S. EPA, 2011; Tables 16-15 and 16-25) should be used for indoor post-application object-to-
mouth assessments. The distribution for exposure time for children 1 < 2 years old is provided
in Table 7-17. A study which provides information specific to time spent on different types of
surfaces indoors is not available for children; therefore, information in the Exposure Factors
Handbook 2011 Edition was used which includes total time spent in a residence and time spent
in various rooms within a residence. In order to develop inputs for exposure time on carpets and
hard surfaces, two assumptions were made: (1) kitchens and bathrooms would represent time
spent on hard surfaces and (2) time spent in a residence, less time spent sleeping and napping,
would represent time spent on carpets.
For children 1 < 2 years old, the recommended point estimates for use in post-application
incidental oral exposure assessments are 4 and 2 hours on carpets and hard surfaces,
respectively.
"I'iihlo "7-1 "'i I-aimisuiv Time i l-'.T: hours) for Children 1 <2 \e;irsold
Siiiiisiic
( iirpel
1 l;i rd suii'iices
5th percentile
2
0
25th percentile
4
1
50th percentile
5
2
75th percentile
5
3
90 th percentile
6
3
95th percentile
6
4
AM(SD)
4 (-")
2(~a)
a. The Exposure Factor Handbook (U.S. EPA, 2011) did not provide these values for children.
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
Replenishment Intervals per Hour (N Replen)
This SOP assumes an estimate of 4 replenishment intervals per hour (i.e., residues on the hand
will be replenished every 15 minutes). This value was selected as a conservative assumption
based on the use of 30 minutes in the SHEDS model to coincide with the CHAD diaries.
Object-to-Mouth Events per Hour (Freq OtM)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-46
-------
Indoor Environments
Frequency of object-to-mouth events is an important variable for object-to-mouth post-
application exposure assessments. The estimates for frequency of object-to-mouth events in
indoor environments are based on the Xue et al. (2010) meta-analysis. Table 7-18 provides
distributions and point estimates of object-to-mouth events for use in residential pesticide
exposure assessment.
The recommended point estimate for use in post-application incidental oral exposure
assessments is 14 events/hr.
Tsihlc "MX: I-'iv(|ik*iio of Oh.
ecMo-.Moiiih r.\en(s (o\on(s/hr)
Sinlislic
Children 1 < 2 \c;ii's old
5th percentile
2
25th percentile
7
50th percentile
12
75th percentile
19
95th percentile
34
AM(SD)
14 (10)
GM (GSD)
a
Range
a
N
137
Weibull distribution - Scale: 15.5 and Shape: 1.4
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
a Not provided
Future Research/Data Needs
Information that would refine post-application incidental oral object-to-mouth exposure
assessments for indoor pesticide applications include:
• Application intervals (i.e., how often chemicals are applied indoors) - either chemical-
specific or generic intervals.
• Survey information (preferably longitudinal) detailing:
o General pesticide use to obtain, on a per capita basis, the probability of treating
indoor surfaces with pesticides;
o Product-specific application rates to obtain the likelihood that the maximum rate
is used; and,
o Daily activity patterns specific to object-to-mouth activities indoors (e.g., typical
surface area of object that is mouthed).
• Data on the amount of residue transferred from treated indoor surfaces to both hard and
soft children's toys.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Residue
• Reviewers should recognize that factors such as vacuuming, transfer to clothing, re-
suspension and impaction into carpet can greatly impact the dissipation rate of pesticides
on indoor surfaces when conducting dermal post-application exposure assessments. The
assumption that the entire available indoor transferable residue is transferred to the object
should be considered very conservative.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-47
-------
Indoor Environments
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva
• Though based on limited data, the determination of the fraction of pesticide extracted by
saliva from the hand is considered reasonable.
7.2.5 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Dust
Ingestion
House dust is a heterogeneous mixture of various particles with varying sizes, shapes, and
densities. The basic composition of house dust varies throughout a home as well as between
homes, across seasons, and across regions. In the indoor environment, it is known that pesticides
can partition into house dust and persist for periods of time, but assessing exposure to house dust
from a particular application of a pesticide product is difficult for several reasons.
In order to do an assessment of incidental oral ingestion exposure to house dust, information on
the pesticide concentration in dust is needed. There is uncertainty surrounding the ability to
estimate pesticide concentrations in dust from a single application. Pesticide concentrations in
house dust reported in the literature are not typically related to a single application event.
Pesticide residues in house dust can originate from either recent or historical applications and
from either indoor or outdoor sources; therefore, available measurements of dust concentrations
in house dust are unlikely to be representative of concentrations resulting from a particular
application.
Additionally, for measured concentrations in dust, there is difficulty in ensuring that the
sampling method utilized would be able to collect dust material that would be available for
human exposure. Most vacuum methods employed for the collection of household dust collect
the material from all depths of the carpet; whereas, incidental oral exposure to house dust would
primarily be to dust located on the surface of the carpet.
At this point in time, knowledge of dust ingestion patterns is somewhat limited due to the fact
that only a few researchers have attempted to quantify dust ingestion patterns in children. Values
are available in the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (EFH, 2011); however, the dust
ingestion recommendations include treated soil from the outdoor environment tracked into the
indoor setting, indoor settled dust and air-suspended particulate matter that is inhaled and
swallowed. The EFH notes that the confidence rating for the dust ingestion recommendation is
low due to limitations in the studies available.
A SOP for assessing incidental oral exposure to indoor house dust is not being proposed at this
time due to the issues discussed above; however, HED believes that the current method of hand-
to-mouth exposure assessment for indoor pesticide residues is protective of exposure to indoor
house dust. The current approach accounts for exposure to residues immediately after
application, which are assumed to be available in much higher concentrations than
concentrations found in house dust. Therefore, this approach is considered a conservative
measure of incidental oral exposure to a pesticide after application indoors and would be
protective of exposure to any partitioning of the pesticide into house dust.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-48
-------
Indoor Environments
Future Research/Data Needs
Information that would useful for understanding the potential for exposure to house dust would
include:
• Identifying best practices for house dust collection; and
• Collection of longitudinal measurements of surface residues and house dust
concentrations after a pesticide application.
7.2.6 Combining Post-application Scenarios
Risks resulting from different exposure scenarios are combined when it is likely that they can
occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and when the toxicological effects across different
routes of exposure are the same. When combining scenarios, it is important to fully characterize
the potential for co-occurrence as well as characterizing the risk inputs and estimates. Risks
should be combined even if any one scenario or route of exposure exceeds the level of concern
because this allows for better risk characterization for risk managers. The following issues
should be considered when combining scenarios for the residential indoor SOP:
• There are a number of non-dietary ingestion exposure scenarios that could potentially be
combined with the dermal exposure scenario. These non-dietary ingestion scenarios
should be considered inter-related and it is likely that they occur interspersed amongst
each other across time. For example, a child may place his hand in his mouth "X"
number of times as well as place an object in his mouth "Y" number of times during a
certain period of time. The potential combinations of co-occurrence of the hand-to-
mouth/object-to-mouth scenarios across a particular period of time are limitless.
Combining both of these scenarios with the dermal exposure scenario would be overly-
conservative because of the conservative nature of each individual assessment. Based on
this discussion, it is recommended that the dermal and hand-to-mouth scenarios be
combined for short-term exposure durations and this combination should be considered a
protective estimate of children's exposure to pesticides used on indoor surfaces.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
7-49
-------
Treated Pets
Section 8 Treated Pets
This section provides the methods for estimating potential exposure that individuals may receive
from dermal, inhalation and/or hand-to-mouth exposure resulting from the treatment of pets with
a pesticide product. Products in this marketplace include liquid concentrates (dips, shampoos
and sponges), liquid ready-to-use (RTU) formulations (aerosol cans, collars, spot-ons and trigger
pump sprayers) and solid RTU formulations (dusts and powders). Exposure from treated pets is
anticipated to occur through dermal and inhalation routes when handling or applying the
treatment (adults). Further, exposure is anticipated to occur from the dermal (adults and
children) and hand-to-mouth routes (children only) from contact with treated pets.
This SOP updates the algorithms and inputs previously used to estimate handler and post-
application dermal and post-application hand-to-mouth exposure. While the SOP builds on
methods previously developed by the Agency, it relies mainly upon review of data submitted to
EPA in support of specific pet pesticide product registrations. The submitted data were used to
estimate potential exposure from 1) the application of pet pesticide treatments and 2) post-
application activity with treated pets. The Agency also used data from open literature when
available, though few sources were identified.
The exposure assessor should check the label language for directions on pet use. Look for
statements describing or limiting the use of the product (e.g., some dust/powder products
marketed for use indoors also allow for use on pets). These statements may be on the front panel
of the label associated with the brand or trade name or in the use-directions section of the
labeling. Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP) classification indicates that the product cannot be
bought or applied by pet owners and, therefore, a residential handler exposure assessment is not
applicable. However, because pets often return to residential sites following professional
treatments, a residential post-application exposure assessment is required. Label language such
as such as "for use by veterinarians or veterinary assistants only" or "only available from
veterinarians" is considered unenforceable and does not preclude use in residential settings. In
this case, therefore, both a residential handler and post-application exposure assessment is
required.
The following definitions of common pet product formulations should be applied for use of the
Treated Pet SOP:
Liquid Formulations -
An aerosol product is a can formulation packaged under pressure for the dispersion of pesticide
to the hair coat of the treated animal.
A pet collar is a product formulated to be worn around the neck of a treated pet. Collars are
designed so that the pesticide is impregnated into the material of the collar and acts by slowly
releasing over the product active lifetime onto the hair coat of the pet.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-1
-------
Treated Pets
A dig is a product that is applied to pets via dipping or immersion in a concentrated liquid
solution.
A shampoo is a product formulation that is applied to the wetted coat of the animal to be lathered
or shampooed into the hair coat of the treated pet.
A spot-on is a product formulated for application to pets via tube or vial to one or more small,
localized areas on the body of the animal. The products work by means of spreading from the
application site over the dermal surface of the treated pet.
A trigger pump sprayer is a product formulated to be distributed onto the hair coat of the treated
animal by means of pump spray applicator.
Solid Product Formulations -
Dust and powder formulations are RTU products applied to the treated pet by means of direct
application to the hair coat of the animal.
8.1 Handler Exposure Assessment
As described in Section 1.3.3, handler exposure refers to an adult individual exposed during
mixing, loading, and applying of a pesticide. The Agency assumes that dermal and inhalation
pesticide handler exposure can occur while applying pesticides to pets. This SOP provides unit
exposures for each formulation/application equipment combination that are relevant to
calculating handler exposure to pet pesticide products in the absence of chemical-specific
handler data.
The unit exposures in this section are based on a review of 6 studies of varying formulations
which provided information on the amount of active ingredient applied and resulting exposure to
the handler. Formulations for which data have been identified include dips, dusts, trigger-pump
spray, shampoo and spot-on. No formulation-specific data were identified for pet collar, powder
or aerosol spray formulations; however, surrogate unit exposures that closely approximate these
types of exposures have been recommended for the assessment of these formulations. More
information can be found in Section C. 1 of Appendix C.
Label information is important for selecting appropriate data inputs for the handler exposure
assessment. The maximum application rate specified on the label should be used. Additional
information provided by the label such as use directions, application-specific animal weight
ranges and re-treatment intervals should be considered as a part of the exposure assessment.
Prior to the development of a handler exposure assessment for a pet treatment scenario, the
assessor should review the pesticide label to determine whether the scenario is appropriate based
upon the pesticide formulation and usage characteristics of the product. Specific labeling
considerations for pet treatment products are as follows:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-2
-------
Treated Pets
• Determine whether the labeling contains directions for use on pets.
• Identify from product labeling the formulation of the pet pesticide.
• Determine maximum rate(s) of application for differing ranges of animal weight.
• For formulations of pet pesticides which specify application rate as it corresponds to
animal weight (i.e., spot-ons), labeled weight ranges should be used to determine
application rate. The weight range which corresponds to the greatest amount of active
ingredient applied should be used for the assessment of handler exposure. Many
application methods of pet products (i.e., dips, shampoos and aerosol/trigger-pump
sprays) do not specify application rate as it corresponds to pet weight ranges. When not
specified it should be assumed that 1/2 of the contents of the can or bottle of product is
applied per animal treated based on best professional judgment. The majority of pet
collar formulations are registered as a single collar for use on all animal weight ranges
with directions to fit the collar to the treated animal and trim off the excess length.
Because the trimmed length and corresponding active ingredient loss cannot be
determined, the maximum application rate of the collar as labeled should be assumed for
assessment of applicator risk.
• Only adults (individuals 16 years and older) are assumed to handle/apply pesticides to
pets.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm
Daily dermal and inhalation exposure (mg/day) for residential pesticide handlers, for a given
formulation-application method combination, is estimated by multiplying the formula-
application method-specific unit exposure by an estimate of the amount of active ingredient
handled in a day, using the equation below:
E = UE * AR * A (8.1)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
UE = unit exposure (mg/lb ai);
AR = application rate (lb ai/pet); and
A = number of animals treated per day.
Absorbed dermal and/or inhalation dose normalized to body weight is calculated as:
ZT * A 17
D= (8.2)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Handler exposure for applications to pets is generally considered short-term in duration.
Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term, multi-day exposure
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-3
-------
Treated Pets
profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and
1.3.3 such as the product-specific application regimen.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for handler exposure (inhalation and dermal) assessments are provided in
Table 8-1. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to derive
recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed when
characterizing exposure.
1 "sihie X-l: Pel Tresi(men(s - Recommended I nil Kxposiirc (inii/ll) ;ii) Point Msiiniiiies
l-'onun hi (ion
l.(|ii i p men 1/
Application
Mel hod
Derniiil
Inhiiliilion
Appendix Page
Reference
Point l-'sliniiile
Point I'.siiniiile
Liquid-
Concentrate
Dip
100
0.027
C-71
Sponge
1,600
0.21
C-75
Ready-to-Use
(RTU) -
Liquid
Trigger-pump
sprayers
820
3.3
C-113
Shampoo
2,000
0.29
C-124
Spot-on
120
Inhalation exposure is
considered negligible.
C-130
Collar
No exposure data available for this application scenario. Exposure data for
spot-on applications recommended as surrogate data.
Aerosol Can
No exposure data available for this application scenario. Exposure data for
trigger sprayer applications recommended as surrogate data.
Dusts/Powder
Shaker Can
4,300
18
C-36
Unit Exposures
As described in Section 1.3.3, the unit exposure is the ratio of exposure and the amount of active
ingredient handled for a given formulation/application method combination, with units of mass
exposure per mass active ingredient handled (e.g., mg exposure/lb ai handled). The
recommended point estimates shown in Table 8-1 represent the arithmetic mean. Data
summaries for all UE inputs can be found in Section C.l of Appendix C.
Number of Animals Treated
It is assumed that residential handlers of pet treatment products will treat 2 animals per
application (N). This estimate is based upon information available from The Humane Society
of the United States15 which references data from the American Pet Products Manufacturers
Association (APPA) 2011-2012 National Pet Owners Survey that reports pet owners have an
average of 1.7 dogs and 2.2 cats.
15 http://www.humanesocietv.org/issues/pet overpopulation/facts/pet ownership statistics.html
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-4
-------
Treated Pets
8.2 Post-application Exposure Assessment
Post-application exposure can result from conducting physical activities such as petting or
otherwise interacting with pets following pesticide applications. While exposure may occur for
people of all ages, adults and children 1 < 2 years old are considered the index lifestage for this
exposure scenario based on behavioral characteristics and the strengths and limitations of
available data. An analysis of index lifestages for the Treated Pet section can be found in
Appendix A.
It is assumed that individuals contact previously treated pets on the same day the pesticide
treatment is applied. Therefore, the assessment of post-application exposure must be
representative of the day of application residues (i.e., Day 0). However, the assessment can be
refined to reflect exposure over longer periods of time (e.g., several months) if post-application
exposure (transferable residue) data, toxicological endpoint, or activity information is available
to allow for such calculations.
This section addresses standard methods for estimating exposure and dose for three individual
post-application scenarios resulting from exposure to pesticides that have been used to treat pets:
• Section 8.2.1 - Post-application inhalation exposures;
• Section 8.2.2 - Post-application dermal exposures; and
• Section 8.2.3 - Non-dietary ingestion via hand-to-mouth activity.
8.2.1 Post-application Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Post-application inhalation exposure is generally not assessed for pets and should be handled on
a case-by-case basis. The combination of low vapor pressure for chemicals typically used as
active ingredients in pet pesticide products and the small amounts of pesticide applied to pets is
expected to result in negligible inhalation exposure.
8.2.2 Post-application Dermal Exposure Assessment
This SOP provides a revised standard method for estimating potential dermal pesticide exposure
among adults and/or children that contact pets previously treated with pesticide products. The
method for determining post-application dermal exposure is based on the relationship between
the amount of pesticide applied and contact activities. It was developed to incorporate chemical-
specific data; however, standard values and assumptions are included that can be used in the
absence of data as described below in the sub-Section, Post-application Dermal Exposure
Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-5
-------
Treated Pets
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm
The following method is used to calculate dermal exposures that are attributable to an adult or
child contacting a treated companion pet:
E = TC * TR* ET (8.3)
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
TC = transfer coefficient (cm2/hr);
TR = transferable residue (mg/cm ); and
ET = exposure time (hours/day).
where:
AR * F
TR = ^aR ^
SA
TR = transferable residue (mg/cm2);
AR = application rate or amount applied to animal (mg);
Far = fraction of the application rate available as transferable residue; and
SA = surface area of the pet (cm2).
Absorbed dermal dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:
J7 * A 17
D= (8.5)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal); and
BW = body weight (kg).
As described previously, post-application exposure must include an estimated dose based on day
of application residues (i.e., Day 0). However, due to temperate climates in some parts of the
country, the potential exists for pet pest pressures and resulting treatment to extend beyond a
short-term duration (i.e., to intermediate- and long-term). Post-application exposure estimates
can be refined to reflect a multi-day exposure profile by accounting for the various factors
outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals
(i.e., monthly, bi-monthly), and activity patterns. A description of the methodology
recommended for refinement of longer term post-application exposure to treated pets can be
found in Appendix D.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-6
-------
Treated Pets
Post-application Dermal Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application dermal exposure assessments are provided in Table
8-2 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in more
detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to derive
recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed when
characterizing exposure.
Tiil>lcX-2: Kcsiricnlhil Posl-;ipplic;ilion Scenario- Pol 1 iviiliiionl SOP lkrm;il llxposmv I iicKm s:
Recommended Point l.s(iiii;i(cs
Algorithm
Noliilion
llxposmv l-iicloi-
I nils
Poinl l.sliiiiiik'N
AR
Application rale
(mg)
Labeled Rale for Lach Weighi Range
Specified (Small, Medium, Large)
SA
Surface Area of Animal
(cm2)
Small Cat, Dog
Cat - 1,500
Dog - 3,000
Medium Cat, Dog
Cat-2,500
Dog - 7,000
Large Cat, Dog
Cat-4,000
Dog - 11,000
Far
Fraction of AR Available for Transfer
0.02
TC
Transfer Coefficient -
Liquids
(cm2/hr)
Adult
5,200
Children 1 < 2 years old
1,400
Transfer Coefficient -
Solids
(cm2/hr)
Adult
140,000
Children 1 < 2 years old
38,000
ET
Exposure Time
(hours per day)
Adult
0.77
Children 1 < 2 years old
1.0
BW
Body weight
(kg)
Adult
80
Children 1 < 2 years old
11
Transfer Coefficient (TC)
Post-application dermal exposure can be predicted using estimates for residue transfer to
individuals contacting treated pets during certain activities and exposure times. Exposure rates
resulting from residue transfer associated with a given formulation and activity is an empirical
value, known as the transfer coefficient (TC). For the purpose of determining exposure to
treated pets, TC can be defined as animal surface area contact per unit time (cm /hr). It is the
ratio of exposure rate, measured in mass of chemical per time (e.g., |ig/hr), to residue, measured
in mass of active ingredient per surface area of the animal (e.g., |ig/cm ).
The transfer coefficients used for pet exposure were derived from two studies representing
application and grooming activities with dogs, one using a carbaryl shampoo product (Mester,
1998) and the other using a carbaryl dust product (Merricks, 1997); these are used to represent
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-7
-------
Treated Pets
TCs for liquid and solid formulations, respectively. Data were gathered while human volunteers
applied pet pesticide products to various dogs of differing sizes and fur lengths. The information
identified best approximates the exposures that could occur from interactions with treated pets
because these studies included the direct measurement of exposures to applicators or pet
groomers. Since these individuals directly handled pesticide products and had direct contact
with treated pets, it is expected that their resulting exposures are a reasonable approximation of
upper bound estimates of contact with a treated animal. In the absence of direct exposure data
for this scenario (e.g., homeowner activity with a treated pet), the Agency assumes that the
application and grooming activities are likely to result in a protective estimate of exposure than
just the evaluation of petting, hugging or sleeping with a pet.
Because TCs were established from studies using adult volunteers, they have been scaled to
adjust for assessment of children 1 < 2 years old exposure as outlined in Section 2.3 using a
factor of 0.27 (i.e., a 73% reduction in the adult TC).
2 2
A TC of 5,200 cm /hr for adults and 1,400 cm /hr for children (based on the arithmetic mean) is
recommended for addressing all durations of post-application exposure for all liquid
formulations (or formulations that behave as liquids) including RTU liquid formulations (i.e.,
aerosol/trigger sprays, dips, pet collars, shampoos and spot-ons). Table 8-3 provides a statistical
summary of dermal exposure TCs derived for liquid formulations. A transfer coefficient of
2 2
140,000 cm /hr for adults and 38,000 cm /hr for children (based on the arithmetic mean) is
recommended for assessing post-application exposure for RTU solid formulations (i.e., dust and
powder). Table 8-4 provides a statistical summary of dermal exposure TCs derived for solid
formulations. A description of these studies and statistical derivations can be found in Section
D. 7.4 of Appendix D.
Tsi hie X-3: Deriiuil l-lxnosiire Tmiisler CoelTieienls - l.imiid l-'o nun l;i I ions
Sliiiislie
Transfer ( oelTieienl (enr/lin ' h
l.iiiiiids (Dins. Shiimnoos. Aerosol/'Trigger Snr;i\s. Colliirs ;iihI Snol-Ons)
Children 1 < 2 \esirs old
Adnll
50th Percentile
980
3,600
75th Percentile
1,700
6,400
95th Percentile
3,900
15,000
99th Percentile
7,000
26,000
AM(SD)
1,400 (1,400)
5,200 (5,300)
GM (GSD)
980 (2.3)
3,600 (2.3)
Range
NA°
522-12,846
N
NA0
16
a. Representative of individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, and no gloves
b. Dermal liquid formulation TC based on a lognormal distribution fit with data from MRID 46658401
(See Section D. 7.4 of Appendix D).
c. NA = Not applicable. Child values were derived by scaling adult data.
Tiihle X-4: Deriiuil l-lxnosure Tr;insl'er CoelTieienls -
Solid l-'oriniiliilions
Shiiislie
rriinsler ( oelTieienl (em'/lin
Solids (Dusls/Powriers)
Children 1 < 2 \esirs old
Adnll
50th Percentile
31,000
120,000
75th Percentile
47,000
170,000
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-8
-------
Treated Pets
Tiihk* K-4: l)crm;il r.xnnsuiv I'mnslcr ( oiTfick'nls -
Solid l-'onunl;i 1 ions
Si;iiislic
11'iinslVr ( oclTicicni (cur/hi )
95th Percentile
84,000
310,000
99th Percentile
130,000
470,000
AM(SD)
38,000 (25,000)
140,000 (92,000)
GM (GSD)
31,000 (1.8)
120,000 (1.8)
Range
NA0
28,754-318,503
N
NA0
20
a. Representative of individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, and no gloves
b. Dermal solid formulation TC based on a lognormal distribution fit with data from MRID 44439901
(See Section D. 7.4 of Appendix D).
c. NA = Not applicable. Child values were derived by scaling adult data.
Transferable Residue (TR)
Transferable residue (TR) is a measure of the concentration of pesticide active ingredient per
surface area of the treated pet that is anticipated to transfer to the exposed person. The
concentration of pesticide residue per surface area of animal is determined by normalizing the
maximum amount of residue deposited on the pet from a single treatment to the surface area
(SA) of the treated animal and multiplying by the fraction of application rate (Far) anticipated to
transfer from the hair coat of the treated animal to the exposed individual. The following
selection criteria should be used to determine TR.
1) Use the measure of TR by means of a chemical-specific exposure study (e.g., pet wipe
study), if submitted. Notably, the Agency recently revised the data requirements that
pertain to conventional pesticides. As part of these revisions, residue studies were
classified as required for residential uses under 40 CFR 158, subpart K (158.1070; post-
application exposure data requirements table).
2) In the absence of a chemical-specific study, the fraction of the application rate (Far)
should be used.
Fraction Application Rate (F Ui)
If chemical specific TR measurements are not available, then a standard value for the fraction of
active ingredient available (Far) for transfer is used. In this SOP, a screening level Far was
recommended based on the review of 8 pet residue transfer, or "petting," studies (9 data sets
total) submitted to the Agency. Measurements of residue transfer were derived by taking the
ratio of the amount of active ingredient on a bare or gloved hand (on the day of highest observed
transfer) to the amount of active ingredient applied. Five residue transfer studies were performed
by means of volunteers "petting" or "stroking" animals treated with a known amount of active
ingredient. Three additional residue transfer studies were conducted using a gloved mannequin
hand. For each study the amount of residue transferred to the hands was determined. Far studies
varied in the number, location and intensity of petting/stroking actions. All 8 pet residue transfer
studies were reviewed for ethical conduct and no barriers were identified in law or regulation for
their being relied upon by the Agency. Appendix D. 6.2 provides more detailed analysis.
Based on the available pet residue transfer studies, the recommended screening level FAr point
estimate for use in post-application dermal exposure assessment is 0.02 (equivalent to 2%).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-9
-------
Treated Pets
Exposure Time (ET)
The exposure time (ET) for adults and children were derived from Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (as
presented in 1997 Exposure Factors Handbook Table 15-77). Animal care is defined in the 1997
Exposure Factors Handbook as "care of household pets including activities with pets, playing
with the dog, walking the dog and caring for pets of relatives, and friends." The data identified
the time spent with an animal while performing household activities as recorded in 24 hour
diaries by study volunteers. While the activities defined do not necessarily represent the time
volunteers were actively engaged in constant contact with the animal as is implicit in the post-
application dermal and incidental oral algorithms, the data are the most accurate representation
of time spent with pets available and, therefore, it is assumed that contact is continual throughout
the timed activity. The distribution for exposure time for children 1 < 2 years old is provided in
Table 8-5 and adults in Table 8-6. The recommended point estimate for use in post-
application dermal exposure assessments, 1.0, represents approximately the arithmetic mean.
A description of the input and study can be found in Section D. 7.4 Appendix D.
1 "sihie K-5: D;iil\ l.xnosurc' l ime (111) willi Pels (Children 1 < 2 \e;irs old)
Sliiiislie
l ime (hours)
5th percentile
0.05
25th percentile
0.5
50th percentile
1.0
75th percentile
1.5
90 th percentile
2.3
95th percentile
2.3
AM(SD)
1.0 (0.74)
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
Data presented for children 1 < 4 years old from Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (as presented in the 1997 Exposure
Factors Handbook).
T;ihleX-(>: l);iil\ l-Anosiire l ime (!¦'.T) willi Pels (Adulls)
Sliiiislie
Time (hours)
5th percentile
0.05
25th percentile
0.17
50th percentile
0.5
75th percentile
1.0
90 th percentile
1.8
95th percentile
2.5
AM (SD)
0.77(1.1)
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
Data presented for adults 18-64 years old from Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (as presented in the 1997 Exposure
Factors Handbook).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-10
-------
Treated Pets
Application Rate (AR)
The pesticide label should be used to determine the amount of active ingredient used during each
treatment. The maximum application rates allowed by labels are always considered in risk
assessments. For pet pesticide formulations which specify application rate in relation to animal
weight (i.e., spot-ons), a rate should be quantified for small, medium and large weight
classifications as assigned by the Agency. The weight ranges are as follow:
• Cats - Small (up to 5 lbs), Medium (6 to 12 lbs), Large (13 lbs and up).
• Dogs - Small (up to 20 pounds), Medium (21 to 50 lbs) and Large (51 lbs and up).
Many application methods of pet pesticides (i.e., dips, shampoos and aerosol/trigger sprays) are
not specific about application rate in relation to pet weight. If not specified, then it should be
assumed that 1/2 of the contents of the can or bottle of product is applied to the pet based on
professional judgment. The majority of pet collar formulations are registered as a single collar
for use on all animal weight ranges with directions to fit the collar to the treated animal and trim
off the excess length. Because the trimmed length and corresponding active ingredient loss
cannot be determined, the maximum application rate of the collar as labeled should be assumed
for assessment of post-application risk.
Surface Area (SA)
Animal surface area (SA) is determined by inputting animal weight (lbs) into an algorithm
(12.3*((animal body weight (lbs)*454)A0.65)) as referenced from U.S. EPA (1993) Wildlife
Exposure Factors Handbook. Representative surface areas have been calculated for the assigned
cat and dog weight ranges. The surface areas for assessment are as follows:
• Cats - Small (1500 cm2), Medium (2500 cm2) and Large (4000 cm2).
• Dogs - Small (3000 cm2), Medium (7000 cm2) and Large (11000 cm2).
Future Research/Data Needs
Areas of research and data needs for the assessment of post-application dermal exposure from
treated pets include:
• Product survey data could be useful in refinement of the Agency's current, high-end
assumptions for use patterns of particular pet pesticide application methods.
• Studies conducted to determine residue transfer occurring from actual adult and child
activities with treated pets could provide a more realistic estimate of transfer (TC)
• Activity durations and pet contacts (either video or reported recordings) would help the
Agency to refine its exposure time assumption.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
• Information on the amount of product applied to the animal for particular application
methods (e.g., aerosol and trigger sprays, powders/dusts and shampoos) is largely
unavailable. Due to the lack of specific product labeling and the lack of data to inform
typical application method use patterns, the Agency assumes that V2 of the can or bottle
can be applied for each animal based on best professional judgment. This estimate is
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-11
-------
Treated Pets
considered a high-end assumption resulting in a health-protective exposure estimate.
• The Agency did not identify any studies which were conducted to capture the range of
exposures which could occur as a result of normal residential interactions with a treated
pet. While studies were conducted to determine the fraction of the application rate
transferred from the treated pet to an exposed person, these data are limited in that they
used scripted activity patterns (i.e., petting) and only measured exposure to the hands of
the study participants. Thus, these studies are limited for assessing exposure from actual
activities to the whole body of people contacting treated pets. As a result of these
limitations, EPA recommended the use of applicator and groomer studies that are
assumed to represent vigorous contact with an animal. These activities are likely to result
in higher, more consistent and reliable contact factors than petting, hugging or sleeping
with a pet and, therefore, were used to derive a TC assumed to be health-protective.
• The exposure time (ET) assumed by the Agency represents daily contact associated with
pet care (i.e., feeding, playing, walking, etc.). The NCEA data include the entirety of
time spent daily, including high, as well as low contact activities. Therefore, the Agency
believes that the recommended point estimates for children and adults (1.0 and 0.77 hours
per day of continual exposure, respectively) in conjunction with high-end TCs derived
from groomer studies, represents a health-protective estimate of adult and child exposure
to a treated pet. Furthermore, the study was the only identified by the Agency which
specifically monitored human activity duration, as well as contact with pets and is
therefore the best available source of data.
8.2.3 Post-application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Hand-
This SOP provides a standard method for estimating the potential dose from incidental ingestion
of pesticide residues from previously treated pets. Considering the strengths and limitations of
available data and behavioral characteristics of potentially exposed lifestages, exposure for
children is calculated in this scenario. This scenario assumes that pesticide residues are
transferred to the skin of children contacting treated pets and are subsequently ingested as a
result of hand-to-mouth transfer.
Post-application Hand-to-Mouth Exposure Algorithm
Exposure from hand-to-mouth activity is calculated as follows (based on algorithm utilized in
SHEDS-Multimedia):
to-Mouth
Freq _HtM
where:
E
HR
SAh
Fm
ET
= exposure (mg/day);
= hand residue loading (mg/cm2);
= surface area of one child hand (cm );
= fraction hand surface area mouthed /event (fraction/event);
= exposure time (hr/day);
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-12
-------
Treated Pets
and
N Replen = number of replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour);
SE = saliva extraction factor (i.e., mouthing removal efficiency); and
Freq HtM = number of hand-to-mouth contacts events per hour (events/hour).
J7aj * DF
HR= /m"a (8.7)
SAh * 2
where:
2
HR = hand residue loading (mg/cm );
DE = dermal exposure (mg);
Faihands = fraction of a.i. on hands compared to total residue from dermal transfer
coefficient study (unitless); and
SAh = surface area of one child hand (cm ).
Oral dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:
Z> = — (8.8)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application Hand-to-Mouth Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application hand-to-mouth exposure assessments are provided in
Table 8-7 below. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described in
more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used to
derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed
when characterizing exposure.
Table X-"7: Pol 1 iviiliiicnls- Keeom mended Ihinri-lo-.Moiiih llxnosuiv l";ie(or Point
Algorithm
Nuliilion
r.\|)osiiiv l";ielor
( ii nils)
Poinl l.s(iiii;iK'(s)
Fai hands
Fraction of a.i. on hands from transfer coefficient
studies (unitless)
Solid = 0.37
Liquid = 0.040
Fm
Fraction hand surface area mouthed /event
(fraction/event)
0.13
NReplen
Replenishment intervals per hour
(intervals/hr)
4
ET
Exposure time
(hours/day)
Children 1 < 2 years
old
1.0
SE
Saliva extraction factor
0.48
Freq_HtM
Hand-to-mouth events per
hour
(events/hr)
Children 1 < 2 years
old
Mean = 20
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-13
-------
Treated Pets
Table X-"7: Pol 1 iviiliiicnls- Keeom mended Ihinri-lo-.Moiiih llxposmv l";ie(or Point
SAh
Typical surface area of one
child hand
(cm2)
Children 1 < 2 years
old
150
BW
Body Weight
(kg)
Children 1 < 2 years
old
11.4
Fraction Active Ingredient on the Hands (Faihands)
The fraction of active ingredient available on the hands was based on the two dermal pet transfer
coefficient studies that represent application and grooming activities with dogs and used to
derive dermal TCs. One study used a carbaryl shampoo product (Mester, 1998) and the other a
carbaryl dust product (Merricks, 1997). These values were determined for liquid and solid
formulations, respectively, by taking the average fraction of active ingredient on the hands and
comparing that value to the average fraction of active ingredient on the entire body. This
analysis resulted in values of 4% for liquid formulations and 37% for solid formulations.
Hand Residue Loading (HR)
Link hand loading to dermal exposure and assume the percent on the hands is equal to the
percent of the residue on the hands from dermal transfer coefficient studies.
Fraction Hand Surface Area Mouthed (F^)
See Section 2.4 for discussion of fraction hand surface area mouthed. The recommended FM
value for use in post-application non-dietary ingestion exposure assessments, 0.13,
represents approximately the arithmetic mean.
Hand Surface Area (SAH)
The hand surface area for children 1 < 2 years old of 150 cm , for one hand, was based on
values from the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011).
Exposure Time (ET)
The exposure time (ET) for children exposed to pesticide treated pets is assumed to be the same
as described in Section 8.2.2 for post-application dermal exposure. The recommended point
estimate for use in post-application non-dietary ingestion exposure assessment 1.0
represents approximately the arithmetic mean.
Replenishment Intervals per Hour (N Replen)
This SOP assumes an estimate of 4 replenishment intervals per hour (i.e., residues on the hand
will be replenished every 15 minutes). This value was selected as a conservative assumption
based on the use of 30 minutes in the SHEDS model to coincide with the CHAD diaries.
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva (SE)
See Section 2.6 of this SOP for discussion of fraction of pesticide extracted by saliva
distribution. The recommended value for use in post-application non-dietary ingestion
exposure assessments, 0.48, represents approximately the arithmetic mean.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-14
-------
Treated Pets
Hand-to-Mouth Events per Hour (Freq HtM)
Frequency of hand-to-mouth events is an important variable for post-application non-dietary
ingestion exposure assessments. However, there are currently no data available that specifically
address the number of hand-to-mouth events that occur relative to the amount of time a child
spends with a pet. As a result, the estimates for frequency of hand-to-mouth events in indoor
environments from the Xue et al. (2007) meta-analysis were used as a surrogate. The indoor data
were selected, even though child exposure to treated pets can occur either indoors or outdoors,
because the indoor data result in a greater frequency of contacts. Therefore, using these data are
the most conservative and thus the most health protective estimate of exposure. The pet SOP
uses hand-to-mouth frequency data for the children 1 < 2 years old lifestage. Table 8-8 provides
distributions and point estimates of hand to mouth events for use in residential pesticide exposure
assessment and Appendix D. 10.1. The recommended point estimate for use in post-
application non-dietary exposure assessments, 20, represents the arithmetic mean for children
1 < 2 years old.
I'iihlo S-S: I-'ivuikwio of lliiii(l-l(i-Mouih l'\oiils (o\eiils/hr)
Siiiiisiic
( hildivn 1 < 2 M-iirs old
5th percentile
0
25th percentile
6
50th percentile
14
75th percentile
27
95th percentile
63
AM(SD)
20 (20)
GM (GSD)
a
Range
a
N
245
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
1 Not provided
Future Research/Data Needs
Information that would help refine the incidental ingestion scenario includes
• Additional videography data could be collected focusing on the number of hand-to-mouth
events which occur in relationship to the amount of time a child spends with a pet.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
• While not specific to child activity with treated pets, the inputs used for incidental oral
exposure estimates from contact with pets are reasonable. The inputs identified for the
estimation of child incidental ingestion of pesticides from exposure to a treated pet reflect
general activity and behavior patterns exhibited by children and are unlikely to vary
based on the object being contacted (i.e., frequency of hand to mouth events per hour and
the surface area of the hand mouthed).
• The Agency currently assumes that children are exposed to a treated pet for 1.0 hours per
day based on a study conducted to analyze the behaviors of adults and children in
residential, household settings. As described in Section 8.2.2, the Agency believes that
this represents a health-protective estimate of child exposure to a treated pet since it is
based upon assumptions of continual contact and is paired with high-end TCs from
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-15
-------
Treated Pets
applicator and groomer studies.
8.2.4 Combining Post-application Scenarios
Risks resulting from different exposure scenarios are combined when it is likely that they can
occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and when the toxicological effects across different
routes of exposure are the same. When combining scenarios, it is important to fully characterize
the potential for co-occurrence as well as characterizing the risk inputs and estimates. Risks
should be combined even if any one scenario or route of exposure exceeds the level of concern
because this allows for better risk characterization for risk managers.
It is likely that children could be exposed to a treated pet via post-application dermal and non-
dietary ingestion (hand-to-mouth) routes and that these scenarios could occur simultaneously.
Therefore, these exposure scenarios should be combined when toxicological effects are the same
across these routes of exposure.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
8-16
-------
Impregnated Materials
Section 9 Impregnated Materials
This section provides methodologies for assessing pesticide exposures from pesticide
impregnated materials, including textiles (e.g. clothing, mattress linings, upholstery, etc.),
carpets, flooring, and plastic materials. The exposure assessment methodologies provide a
general approach and conceptual framework for evaluating a broad range of impregnated
materials. Therefore, it is recommended that exposure assessors evaluate whether the methods
outlined in this section represent the specific type of impregnated materials under assessment and
review exposure assessment methodologies established by the World Health Organization's
International Programme on Chemical Safety for treated bednets and other appropriate
regulatory agencies (WHO/IPCS, 2004).
When assessing pesticide exposure from impregnated materials, the primary exposure routes that
may need to be addressed include post-application dermal absorption and non-dietary ingestion.
Exposure from these routes may result in pesticide exposures in the general population.
However, some population groups, such as military personnel, outdoor workers, and children,
may display activity patterns that have the potential to result in higher levels of exposure (e.g.,
military personnel and outdoor workers who wear impregnated clothing for extended periods of
time, children who display hand-to-mouth activity), which may need to be addressed more
explicitly when performing exposure assessments.
Before developing an exposure assessment for an impregnated material, the appropriate exposure
scenarios should be identified using information on the product's pesticide label. Specific label
information that should be considered is described below.
• Impregnated Materials with Pesticidal Claims: Some impregnated materials contain
conventional pesticides and have a pesticide label. The labels of such products make
claims about pest control, such as "repels fleas and ticks" or "repels flying insects."
These labels contain information on the active ingredient and should be used when
performing exposure assessments using the methods described in this chapter.
• Impregnated Materials with No Pesticidal Claims: Many impregnated materials (e.g.,
mattress covers, shower curtains, paper, and adhesives) contain biocide pesticides and do
not require a pesticide label. The pesticide in these products is present as a biocide,
which is added during the manufacturing process. Biocides are more routinely assessed
by OPP's Antimicrobial Division (OPP/AD) and are not addressed in this chapter.
• Limiting and Descriptive Statements: It should be assumed that impregnated products
may be used in non-occupational settings, unless otherwise indicated on the label.
Examples of labels that may appear on products that are intended for non-occupational
settings include:
o Insect repellent apparel;
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-1
-------
Impregnated Materials
o For treatment of nets, tents, sleeping bags; and
o For fabric product on and around beds.
9.1 Handler Exposure Assessment
For impregnated materials treated with non-biocide pesticides (e.g. insecticides and repellents),
exposure during the manufacturing process is not typically assessed by EPA.16 There are some
situations following the treatment process, however, where individuals may contact large
volumes of impregnated material. The handling of impregnated materials following the
treatment process is addressed in the post-application dermal exposure scenario described in
Section 9.2.3.
9.2 Post-Application Exposure Assessment
Post-application exposure can result from contacting impregnated materials, such as wearing
pesticide impregnated clothing and hand- or object-to-mouth behavior. Depending on the
application of the impregnated material, potential exposed populations include both adults and
children. While exposure may occur for people of all ages, adults and children 1 < 2 years old
are considered the index lifestages based on behavioral characteristics and the strengths and
limitations of available data.
This section addresses standard methods for estimating exposure and dose for four post-
application scenarios resulting from pesticide impregnated materials:
• Section 9.2.1 - inhalation exposures;
• Section 9.2.3 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old dermal exposures;
• Section 9.2.4 - children 1 < 2 years old non-dietary ingestion via object-to-mouth
activity; and
• Section 9.2.5 - children 1 < 2 years old non-dietary ingestion via hand-to-mouth activity.
9.2.1 Post-Application Inhalation Exposure Assessment
In most cases inhalation exposure from impregnated materials is expected to be negligible, since
many pesticides that are used in impregnated materials have relatively low vapor pressures. As a
result, inhalation exposure is not expected to result in appreciable exposure when compared with
dermal and non-dietary ingestion exposure, and is not explicitly addressed in these SOPs.
9.2.2 Post-Application Surface Residue Concentration
When assessing dermal and non-dietary ingestion scenarios, the product label and registrant
should be consulted to obtain information on the surface residue concentration in terms of active
16 Safety issues associated with potential chemical exposure during the manufacturing process are more typically
addressed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, but may also be addressed in the occupational
pesticide exposure assessment.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-2
-------
Impregnated Materials
2
ingredient (a.i.) that is present on the surface area of the impregnated material (e.g. mg a.i./ cm ).
In some cases, however, information on surface residue concentration may only be available in
terms of percent a.i. in terms of total product mass (e.g. Fraction of a.i. in treated material). In
these cases, surface residue concentration can be estimated by finding the product of the weight
fraction of a.i. in treated material and the material's weight:surface area density (See Table 9-1),
as illustrated in the equation below.
SR=WF*MD (9.1)
where:
SR = Surface residue concentration (mg a.i./cm );
WF = Weight fraction of a.i. in treated material (% a.i. w/w); and
MD = Material weight:surface area density (mg material/cm ).
Tsihlr'-M: Krcommrmlrri nrighl-lo-surfsirr sirr.i \;ilurs for srlrclrd l';il)iics/m;i(ci i;ils
Miiloriiil
Miiloriiil \\ right :Surf:irr Arrst
Sourer
textiles
Cotton3
20 mg/cm2
Unpublished Henkel data from HERA
(2005)
Light Cotton/Synthetic Mixa
10 mg/cm2
Unpublished Proctor & Gamble data
from HERA (2005)
Heavy Cotton/Synthetic Mix
24 mg/cm2
Nylon/cotton battle dress uniform data
published in Snodgrass (1987)
All Synthetics
1 mg/cm2
Unpublished Proctor & Gamble data
from HERA (2005)
Carpets
Household Carpels
120 mg/cnr
USAF (2003)
Hard Surfaces and Plastics
Plastic Polymers
100 mg/cm2
OPP/AD information on a polyethylene
highchair
Vinyl Flooring
390 mg/cm2
OPP/AD information on the density
(1300 mg/cm3) and thickness (0.3 cm)
of polyvinyl chloride tiling
1 Comparable weight: surface area ratio values are also reported for cotton and cotton/synthetic sheets analyzed in a
submitted study (Rudenko, L. (2000), EPA MRID 45256001).
Regardless of how residue concentration is reported, the value used in post-application exposure
assessments should always be based on the maximum concentration reported on a product's
label. This approach may overestimate potential exposure since the concentration of pesticide
residue is expected to decrease over time due to laundering (textiles only) and dissipation over
time. With regard to textiles, for example, it has been demonstrated that 20-30 percent of
pesticide can be removed after first laundering (Snodgrass, 1992) and as high as 90 percent of
pesticide residue is removed after twenty launderings (Faulde et al., 2003). 7 Similarly, some
pesticide residue in impregnated materials, including both textiles and hard surfaces (e.g.
flooring, linings, and plastics), may dissipate through decay and weathering over time. Since
laundering and dissipation are not specifically incorporated, or otherwise accounted for, in the
post-application exposure assessment methods, the approach used to estimate surface residue
17 These percent changes were approximated from a graphical chart presented in Faulde et al. (2003).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-3
-------
Impregnated Materials
concentration is believed to be health protective because it is assumed that no pesticide residue is
lost due to laundering or dissipation and individuals are always exposed to the maximum
concentration listed on the label.
9.2.3 Post-Application Dermal Exposure Assessment
This SOP provides methods for estimating adult and children 1 < 2 years old post-application
dermal exposure. In contrast to the SOPs for other exposure scenarios, the method for
determining post-application dermal dose is based on the amount of pesticide that may be
transferred to the skin during continuous contact with an impregnated material, such as wearing
impregnated clothing or sleeping on a bed with an impregnated mattress liner.
Post-Application Dermal Exposure Algorithm
Post-application dermal exposure is calculated as follows:
E=SR*SA/BW*FBody*TE*PF (9.2)
where:
E = Daily exposure rate (mg/kg-day);
SR = Surface residue concentration (mg/cm );
SA/BW = total body surface area to body weight ratio (cm2/kg);
FBody = clothing-dependent fraction of body exposed (fraction exposed);
TE = Daily material-to-skin transfer efficiency (fraction/day); and
PF = Protection factor to account for the presence of a single layer of fabric (e.g.
clothing, bed sheet, etc.) between the impregnated material and individual
(unitless).
Absorbed dermal dose, normalized to body weight, is then calculated as:
D=E* AF (9.3)
where:
D = Dose rate (mg/kg-day);
E = Daily exposure rate (mg/kg-day); and
AF = Dermal absorption factor.
Post-application dermal exposure from impregnated materials is generally considered short-term
in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day
exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections
1.3.2 and 1.3.4, such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals, and activity
patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime exposures) are
deemed necessary, such as in cases where the impregnated material may be routinely replaced or
re-treated, or used on a continuous basis, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the
exposure profile are recommended.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-4
-------
Impregnated Materials
Post-Application Dermal Exposure Assessment Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for post-application dermal exposure assessments of impregnated
materials are provided in Table 9-2. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter
is described in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data
sources used to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should
be addressed when characterizing exposure.
I'iihk* *>-2: Siiniin;ir\ of reeoniniended \nines lor post-;ipplie;ilion derni;il exposure ;issessmen(.
Algorithm
Solution
l.xposure l;ie(or(l nils)
Ki'CommciHk'ri
Input Yiilues
SR
Residue Coiiceiiiralion (nig a.i.. cm )
Label
WF
Percent A.I. by Weight (% w/w)
Label
MD
Material weight: surface area density
(mg/cm2)
Textile: Cotton
20
Textile: Light
Cotton/Synthetic Mix
10
Textile: Heavy
Cotton/Synthetic Mix
24
Textile: All Synthetics
1
Household Carpets
120
Plastic Polymers
100
Vinyl Flooring
390
SA/BW
total body surface area to body weight
ratio (cm2/kg)
Adult
280
Children 1 to < 2 years old
640
F"liody
Fraction of body exposed
Pants, Jacket, or Shirts
0.50
Total Body Coverage
1.0
Mattresses, Carpets, or
Flooring
0.50
Handlers
0.11
TE
Daily Material-to-Skin Transfer
Efficiency (fraction/day)
Textiles or Carpeting
0.06
Flooring or Hard Surfaces
0.08
PF
Protection Factor
Protective layer present
(Mattresses)
0.50
Protective layer not present
1.0
Surface Residue Concentration (SR)
Surface residue concentration is the concentration of pesticide residue on the surface of an
impregnated material. Product-specific information, such as weight fraction of a.i., should be
used to estimate the residue concentration. This information may be found on labels or other
information provided by the registrant/manufacturer. After obtaining this information, the
surface residue concentration can be estimated using the methods described in Section 9.2.2.
Fraction of Body Exposed (F)
Fraction of body that contacts residue should be representative of the parts of the body that are
expected to frequently contact the impregnated material. Table 9-3 provides the recommended
inputs for assessing exposures from impregnated textiles, including jackets/shirts, total body
coverage, and garment workers who may handle large volumes of clothing during their workday,
and exposures from impregnated carpets, flooring, and hard surfaces. The recommended values
are based on the surface area of different parts of the body and judgment about the fraction of the
body that could potentially be exposed to different garments and surfaces. An impregnated shirt
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-5
-------
Impregnated Materials
or pants, for example, contacts roughly half of the body. Similarly, it is assumed that no more
than half of the body contacts a mattress, carpet, or flooring. This assumption recognizes that the
entire surface of the body has the potential to contact an impregnated surface. It is believed to be
a reasonable assumption because it is unlikely that more half the body can contact a surface at a
given time (e.g. roughly half of the body is in contact with a mattress when sleeping).
1 "sihie ''-3: Recommended inniil \ nines lor IV;ic(ion of hod\ snrfnee sire.i lh;il conl;ic(s residue.
l'.\|iosiii e Scen;iri» (s)
Kepresenl:ili\e limit l\ir(
l-'i'iielion of liodt
Pants, Jacket, or Shirts
50 percent of total body
0.50
Mattresses, Carpets, or Flooring
50 percent of total body
0.50
Total Body Coverage
Complete upper and lower torso
1.0
Handlers
Hands and Forearmsa
0.11
a Derived using percent of body surface area exposed for hands and forearms from Table 6- 7.
Daily Material-to-Skin Transfer Efficiency (TE)
Daily material-to-skin transfer efficiency is the percent of pesticide residue that is transferred
from an impregnated material to an individual's skin during a one-day period. There is currently
only limited data available to characterize the daily material-to-skin pesticide transfer efficiency
for impregnated materials. In the absence of application-specific data, the amount of material-to-
skin transfer can be determined using a worst-case screening where it is assumed that all of the
a.i. that is available on the surface of an impregnated material is transferred to the skin.
For refinement a lower fraction of residue is assume transferred, based on data on the fraction of
a.i. that is available for transfer after carpet or hard surface pesticide treatment. Based on this
approach, daily material-to-skin transfer efficiency values have been estimated using more recent
data on the fraction of a.i. that is available for transfer from carpets and hard surfaces, which is
described in the indoor exposure assessment SOPs provided in Section 7.2.2 of the Indoor
Environments Section. Based on the data, the recommended values for textiles/carpets and
hard surfaces are 0.06 and 0.08 per day, respectively.
T.ihle ^-4: Recommended d:iil\ m;i(cri;il-lo-skin (ninsfcr cfficicncv \ nines for textiles ;ind luird snrfnccs.
Miileriiil
l);iil\ Miileriiil-ln-Skin Transfer l-lfficicno
Textiles or Carpeting
0.06/day
Flooring or Hard Surfaces
0.08/day
While this approach has its limitations, it is expected to overestimate dermal exposure to
impregnated materials. This is because the default material-to-skin transfer efficiency rates are
based on data from carpets and hard surfaces that have had a pesticide applied to their external
surface only. A lower fraction of pesticide is expected to be available for transfer because the
pesticide compound is impregnated to the material and believed to have a lower potential for
transfer. Additionally, the limited data that are available suggest that the material-to-skin transfer
rate may more typically be an order of magnitude lower than the recommended values.
Specifically, data that are available to characterize material-to-skin transfer efficiency from
impregnated materials are described in more detail below.
• Permethrin-Treated Clothing: Snodgrass (1992) characterized the material-to-skin
transfer rate for permethrin-treated battle-dress uniforms (BDUs). In this study, which
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-6
-------
Impregnated Materials
was subsequently incorporated into the National Research Council's assessment of
permethrin-impregnated BDUs (National Research Council, 1994), radiolabeled (14C)
permethrin-treated fabric patches were applied to the backs of 22 male New Zealand
white rabbits in four treatment groups based on environment (temperate vs. subtropical)
and fabric type (cotton vs. 50:50 nylon/cotton blend). After seven days, the average
percent migration to skin for each treatment group was estimated using the recovery of
14C from excreta and skin. Based on this approach, the overall fraction of a.i transferred
per day was 0.005 and ranged from an average ± standard deviation of 0.004 ± 0.09
fraction a.i. transferred per day in the subtropical/NYCO group to 0.0065 ± 0.10 fraction
of a.i. transferred per day in the subtropical/cotton treatment group.
• TBTM-Treated Carpets: In a leaching study (MRID 45746802), tri-n-butyltin maleate
(TBTM)-treated carpets swatches were immersed in alkaline and acidic simulated sweat
solutions to determine the maximum amount of TBTM that may leach from treated
carpets in 2-hour and 24-hour periods. In the study, the highest percent leaching was
observed in saline and alkaline (pH 9.2) simulated sweat solutions and the overall
average leaching during the 24-hour period (9.0%) was approximately 1.8 times greater
than the overall average leaching during the 2-hour period (5.1%). However, the
continuous 24-hour immersion method used in the study is likely to overestimate
exposure from dermal contact with an impregnated material, since it represents the
amount of residue that leaches from a material when placed in solution (Evans, 2005).
Tiihlc '>-5: Summ;u\\ sliilislics for 24-hour ni;i(ci i;il-(o-skiii iriinsfcr r;i(cs for Impiviiiiiik'd (lolhinii
(Siiodiiniss. iiiid M;illrcsscs/lic(l(linu (MKII) 4525(>!!OI).
Source
1 IVillllKMII
Croup
ii
24-hour iiiiiloriiil-lo-skiu miiislcr efficiency
(IV;ic(ioii/d;i\)
Mciin ± SI)
Pcrccnlilc
Kiin^c
50"'
-7-ih
95"'
Permethrin BDUs
(Snodgrass, 1992)
All Groups
18
0.005±
0.006
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.003 -
0.008
TBTM Carpets
(MRID 45746802)
2-Hour
12
0.05± 0.02
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.02-0.10
24-Hour
12
0.09 ±0.04
0.09
0.11
0.14
0.15
0.05-0.15
When compared to the limited available transfer data, the recommended generic inputs result in
conservative estimates of exposure. The range of 24-hour transfer efficiency values from
Snodgrass (1992), for example, ranged from 0.003 - 0.008 fraction a.i. transferred per day and
18
are around an order of magnitude lower than values recommended in Table 9-4. Therefore, in
the absence of chemical-specific data, it is believed that the recommended approach provides a
conservative estimate of transfer efficiency.19
Exposure assessors should note that the recommended default values may not be appropriate for
all type of impregnated materials. If it is determined that the default values may not be
18 The study on TBTM-treated carpets found an average 24-hour leaching fraction of 9.0%. As previously indicated,
however, the study was an extraction study which is likely to overestimate exposure from dermal contact (Evans,
2005).
19 While it is emphasized that the available data are not sufficient to derive a generic transfer fraction for all possible
chemicals, it is also acknowledged that it may be appropriate to derive transfer efficiency values from the
summarized data sources when assessing materials impregnated with permethrin.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-7
-------
Impregnated Materials
appropriate and underestimate exposure, additional data may need to be requested to refine the
estimate of the transfer efficiency value.
Body Weight and Surface Area
The exposure algorithm uses surface area (SA) and body weight (BW) as a ratio instead of as
two separate factors. The recommended point estimate ratio for adults is 280 cm /kg and
640 cm2/kg for children 1 < 2, from the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition, Table 7-15
(U.S. EPA, 2011).
Protection Factor (PF)
Bed sheets and other fabrics can act as a protective barrier when placed between an impregnated
surface and an exposed individual's skin. The protection factor, therefore, accounts for a
decrease in pesticide residue transfer that is expected when bed sheets or other protective barriers
are present. In these cases, the recommended input value is 0.50- meaning that it is assumed that
only 50% of the available pesticide residue is transferred from the material to the potentially
exposed individual's skin. This default value is based on the PHED protection factor for a single
layer of clothing and is also used by OPP/AD when conducting biocide exposure assessments
involving mattresses. In cases other than mattresses, it should generally be assumed that no
protective barrier is present. When no protective barrier is present, the recommended input value
is 1.0.
Future Research/Data Needs
• There is currently only limited data available to characterize the daily material-to-skin
pesticide transfer efficiency for impregnated materials. While recommended methods are
believed to provide health-protective estimates of exposure, additional research is needed
to more fully characterize the dermal transfer of pesticide residue from impregnated
materials.
• Survey data on the use patterns of impregnated materials could also help further
characterize exposure.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
• Due to insufficient exposure data on impregnated materials, the exposure assessment
scenarios presented in this chapter are based on data on externally treated surfaces that
may not be completely representative of impregnated materials. As a consequence, the
methods rely on conservative assumptions that cannot be completely characterized
quantitatively. These assumptions include: 1) laundering and dissipation are not
accounted for in the algorithm, so it is assumed that individuals are continually exposed
to the maximum surface residue concentration; and 2) daily material-to-skin transfer
efficiency was characterized using data on residue transfer from treated surfaces, rather
than impregnated materials.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-8
-------
Impregnated Materials
9.2.4 Post-Application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Object-
to-Mouth (Textiles Only)
This SOP provides the methods for assessing non-dietary object-to-mouth ingestion of pesticide
residues from impregnated materials by children. In general, object-to-mouth exposure
assessments should be used to assess non-dietary exposure to impregnated textiles (e.g. clothing
and other impregnated fabrics), but not other impregnated materials, such as carpeting and
flooring, which are less likely to be mouthed.
Non-Dietary Object-to-Mouth Ingestion Algorithm
Exposure from object-to-mouth activity is calculated as follows (based on algorithm utilized in
SHEDS-Multi media):
E = OR * CF\ * SAMa * (ET *N _Replen)*\ 1 - (l
where:
SAMo
ET
N_Replen
SE
FreqOtM
E
OR
CF1
= exposure (mg/day);
9
= chemical residue loading on an object ((J,g/cm );
= weight unit conversion factor (0.001 mg/|ig);
= area of the object surface that is mouthed (cm /event);
= exposure time (hr/day);
= number of replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour);
= saliva extraction factor (i.e., mouthing removal efficiency); and
= number of object-to-mouth contact events per hour (events/hour).
and
OR = SR *F0
(9.5)
where:
OR
SR
Fo
2
chemical residue loading on the object ((J,g/cm );
surface residue ([j,g/cm2); and
fraction of residue available on the object (unitless).
Non-dietary oral dose, normalized to body weight, is then calculated as:
(9.6)
BW
where:
D
E
AF
BW
dose rate (mg/kg-day);
exposure (mg/day);
oral absorption factor; and
body weight (kg).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-9
-------
Impregnated Materials
Post-application object-to-mouth exposure from impregnated materials is generally considered
short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term
multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in
Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4, such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals, and
activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime
exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the exposure
profile are recommended.
Non-Dietary Object-to-Mouth Exposure Assessment Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for non-dietary object-to-mouth ingestion exposure assessments are
provided in Table 9-6. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described
in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used
to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed
when characterizing exposure.
T;ihle 'M>: Siimm;ir\ of reeommended \nines lor non-diel;ir\ objeeMo-inoiidi ingestion exposure
iissessinenl.
Alliorilhin
\o(;i(ion
l.xposure l";ie(»r
( ii nils)
Keeom mended
Yiilne
SR
Residue Concentration
(lig/cm2)
Maximum
labeled rate
WF
Percent A.I. by Weight (WF)
(% w/w)
Maximum
labeled rate
MD
Material weight: surface area density
(mg/cm2)
Cotton
20
Light Cotton/Synthetic Mix
10
Heavy Cotton/Synthetic Mix
24
All Synthetics
1
F0
Fraction of AR as OR following application
Carpets
0.06
Hard surfaces
0.08
SAM0
Surface area of object mouthed per event
(cm2/event)
10
NReplen
Replenishment intervals per hour
(intervals/hour)
4
SE
Saliva extraction factor
0.48
ET
Exposure Time
(hours per day)
Indoor Environments
(Children 1 < 2 years old)
4
Outdoor Environments
(Children 1 < 2 years old)
1.5
Freq_OtM
Object-to-mouth events per hour (events/
hour)
Indoor Environments
(Children 1 < 2 years old)
14
Outdoor Environments
(Children 1 < 2 years old)
8.8
BW
Body Weight (kg)
Children 1 < 2 years old
11.4
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-10
-------
Impregnated Materials
Surface Residue Concentration (SR)
Surface residue concentration is the concentration of pesticide residue on the surface of an
impregnated material. Product-specific information, such as weight fraction of a.i., should be
used to estimate the residue concentration. This information may be found on labels or other
information provided by the manufacturer. After obtaining this information, the surface residue
concentration can be estimated using the methods described in Section 9.2.2.
Fraction of Residue Available on the Object (Fq)
For this SOP, it is assumed that the residue that could be transferred to the object is the same as
what is available for dermal transfer. As a result, the fraction of residue available for transfer
assumed for dermal exposure for both carpets and hard surfaces should be used, which is
provided in Section 7.2.2.
Surface area of object mouthed (SAMo)
Surface area of object mouthed (SAMo) is the area of an impregnated object that may contact a
child's mouth during mouthing behavior. SAM0 is a universal exposure factor that is described
in more detail in Section 2.5. The recommended value for use in exposure assessments is 10
cm2/event.
Replenishment interval (N Replen)
This SOP assumes an estimate of 4 replenishment intervals per hour (i.e., residues on the hand
will be replenished every 15 minutes). This value was selected as a conservative assumption
based on the use of 30 minutes in the SHEDS model to coincide with the CHAD diaries.
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva (SE)
See Section 2.6 of this SOP for discussion of the fraction of pesticide extracted by saliva
distribution. The recommended point estimate for use in post-application incidental oral
exposure assessments is 0.48.
Exposure Time (FT)
Exposure time is the amount of time that a child is an environment where they may contact a
surface containing an impregnated material. There is currently no data available to characterize
the amount of time that children spend in indoor and outdoor environments where they may
contact impregnated materials. In the absence of scenario-specific data, recommended exposure
time value for exposures that may occur in indoor environments is based on the children 1 < 2
years old exposure time values discussed in Section 7.2.4 of the Indoor Environment SOPs.
Similarly, the recommended exposure time for outdoor environments is based on the children 1 <
2 years old exposure time values discussed in Section 3.2.4 of the Lawn/Turf SOP.
Object-to-Mouth Events (Freq OtM)
Frequency of object-to-mouth events is the number of mouthing events that occur per hour.
There is currently no data available that specifically address the number of object-to-mouth
events that occur relative to the amount of time a child is in contact with an impregnated
material. As a result, the estimate for frequency of object-to-mouth events in outdoor
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-11
-------
Impregnated Materials
environments is based on the Xue et al. (2007) meta-analysis of object-to-mouth behavior that
has previously been summarized in Section 3.2.4 of the Lawns/Turf SOPs. Similarly, the
estimate for frequency of object-to-mouth events in indoor environments is based on the Xue et
al. (2010) meta-analysis of object-to-mouth behavior that is summarized in Section 7.2.4 of the
Indoor Environment SOPs.
Future Research/Data Needs
Future research priorities should include:
• Developing a database of studies which characterize pesticide transfer from impregnated
materials to skin and objects that could mouthed by toddlers. An important focus should
be on charactering the transfer of pesticide residue from impregnated materials following
mouthing behavior by young children and toddlers. Collecting this transfer data is
important because mouthing behavior and saliva extraction is believed to be the most
important drivers of non-dietary ingestion from object-to-mouth exposure.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
• Due to insufficient exposure data on impregnated materials, the exposure assessment
scenarios presented in this chapter are based on data on externally treated surfaces that
may not be completely representative of impregnated materials. As a consequence, the
methods rely on conservative assumptions that cannot be completely characterized
quantitatively. These assumptions include: 1) laundering and dissipation are not
accounted for in the algorithm, so it is assumed that individuals are always exposed to the
maximum surface residue concentration; and 2) daily material-to-skin transfer efficiency
was characterized using data on residue transfer from treated surfaces, rather than
impregnated materials.
9.2.5 Post-Application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure: Hand-to-Mouth
(Carpets, Flooring, and Hard Surfaces Only)
This SOP provides the methods for assessing non-dietary hand-to-mouth ingestion of pesticide
residues from impregnated materials by toddlers. In general, hand-to-mouth exposure
assessment should be performed when assessing impregnated carpets, flooring, and hard
surfaces, since infants may routinely contact these objects with their hands.
Non-Dietary Hand-to-Mouth Ingestion Exposure Algorithm
Exposure from hand-to-mouth activity is calculated as follows (based on algorithm utilized in
SHEDS-Multimedia):
E =
HR * (Fm * SAh ) * (ET * N _ Replen) * 1 - (l - SE) N _Replen
Freq _ HtM
(9.7)
where:
E
HR
Fm
= exposure (mg/day);
= hand residue loading (mg/cm2);
= fraction hand surface area mouthed / event (fraction/event);
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-12
-------
Impregnated Materials
2
SAh = surface area of one hand (cm );
ET = exposure time (hr/day);
N Replen = number of replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour);
SE = saliva extraction factor (ie, mouthing removal efficiency); and
FreqHtM = number of hand-to-mouth contacts events per hour (events/hour).
In this algorithm, hand residue concentration is calculated as:
HR = SR*Fh (9.8)
where:
HR = hand residue concentration (mg/cm );
SR = surface residue ([j,g/cm2); and
Fh = fraction ai transferred to hands.
After calculating exposure, oral dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:
r, E
D = (9.9)
BW V 7
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application hand-to-mouth exposure from impregnated materials is generally considered
short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term
multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in
Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4, such as residue dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals, and
activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime
exposures) are deemed necessary, such as in cases where the impregnated material may be
routinely replaced or re-treated, similar refinements to more accurately reflect the exposure
profile are recommended.
Non-Dietary Hand-to-Mouth Exposure Assessment Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for non-dietary hand-to-mouth ingestion exposure assessments are
provided in Table 9-7. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described
in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used
to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed
when characterizing exposure.
I'iihlo V-"7: Siimniiin of rccoiinm-mlcd \nines lor non-dioliin liiind-lo-moiiih iniioslinn exposure
ilSSOSSIlH'lK.
Algorithm
Noliiliun
llxposiiiv l";ic(or
( ii nils)
Point l.s(iin;ik'(s)
SR
Surface Residue Concentration (mg a.i. /cm2)
Product-Specific
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-13
-------
Impregnated Materials
Tsihle i)-n: Siimniiin of reeom mended \ nines lor non-diel;ir\ h;ind-(o-iiiou(h ingestion expo suit
iissessiiienl.
Label
WF
Percent A.I. by Weight (WF) (% w/w)
MD
Material weight: surface area
density
(mg/cm2)
Cotton
20
Light Cotton/ Synthetic Mix
10
Heavy Cotton/ Synthetic Mix
24
All Synthetics
1
Fh
Fraction ai transferred to hands
Carpets
0.06
Hard Surfaces
0.08
Fm
Fraction of hand mouthed per event (fraction/event)
0.13
SAh
Typical surface area of one toddler hand (cm2)
150
N Replen
Replenishment intervals (intervals/hr)
4
ET
Exposure Time
(hours per day)
Children 1 <
2 years old
Carpets
4
Hard Surfaces
2
SE
Saliva extraction factor
(fraction)
0.48
Freq_HtM
Hand-to-mouth events per hour
(events/hour)
Children 1 < 2 years old
20
BW
Body Weight (kg)
Children 1 < 2 years old
11.4
Surface Residue Concentration (SR)
Surface residue concentration is the concentration of pesticide residue on the surface of an
impregnated material. Product-specific information, such as weight fraction of a.i., should be
used to estimate the residue concentration. This information may be found on labels or other
information provided by the manufacturer. After obtaining this information, the surface residue
concentration can be estimated using the methods described in Section 9.2.2.
Fraction ai transferred to hands (FH)
For this SOP, it is assumed that the residue that could be transferred to the object is the same as
what is available for dermal transfer. As a result, the fraction of residue available for transfer
assumed for dermal exposure for both carpets and hard surfaces should be used, which are
provided in Section 7.2.2 of the Indoor Environments Section.
Fraction ofHand Mouthed per Event (Fm)
See Section 2.4 of this SOP for discussion of the fraction of hand mouthed. The recommended
point estimate for use in post-application incidental oral exposure assessments is 0.13.
Hand Surface Area (SAH)
The hand surface area for children 1 < 2 years old was based on values from the Exposure
Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011; Table 7-2). This value is 150 cm2 for one
hand.
Replenishment Intervals per Hour (N Replen)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-14
-------
Impregnated Materials
This SOP assumes an estimate of 4 replenishment intervals per hour (i.e., residues on the hand
will be replenished every 15 minutes). This value was selected as a conservative assumption
based on the use of 30 minutes in the SHEDS model to coincide with the CHAD diaries.
Exposure Time (ET)
Exposure time is the amount of time that a child is an environment where they may contact a
surface containing an impregnated material. There is currently no data available to characterize
the amount of time that children spend in environments where they may contact impregnated
materials. In the absence of scenario-specific data, recommended exposure time values are
based on Section 7.2.4 of the Indoor Environment SOPs. For children 1 < 2 years old on
carpets and hard surfaces, the recommended ET point estimates for post-application
incidental oral exposure assessments are 4 and 2 hours, respectively.
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva (SE)
See Section 2.6 of this SOP for discussion of the fraction of pesticide extracted by saliva
distribution. The recommended point estimate for use in post-application incidental oral
exposure assessments is 0.48.
Hand-to-mouth events (Freq HtM)
Frequency of hand-to-mouth events refers to the number of hand-to-mouth events per hour.
There is currently no data available to characterize children's hand-to-mouth behavior that is
associated with impregnated materials. In the absence of scenario-specific data, recommended
frequency of hand-to-mouth events is based on Section 7.2.4 of the Indoor Environment SOPs.
The estimates for frequency of hand-to-mouth events in indoor environments from the Xue et al.
(2007) meta-analysis were used as a surrogate. The recommended point estimate for use in
post-application incidental oral exposure assessments is 20 events/hr.
Future Research/Data Needs
Future research priorities should include:
• Developing a database of studies which characterize pesticide transfer from impregnated
materials to skin and objects that could mouthed by toddlers. An important focus should
be on charactering the transfer of pesticide residue from impregnated materials following
mouthing behavior by young children and toddlers. Collecting this transfer data are
important because mouthing behavior and saliva extraction is believed to be the most
important drivers of non-dietary ingestion from object-to-mouth exposure.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
• Due to insufficient exposure data on impregnated materials, the exposure assessment
scenarios presented in this chapter are based on data on externally treated surfaces that
may not be completely representative of impregnated materials. As a consequence, the
methods rely on conservative assumptions that cannot be completely characterized
quantitatively. These assumptions include: 1) laundering and dissipation are not
accounted for in the algorithm, so it is assumed that individuals are always exposed to the
maximum surface residue concentration; and 2) daily material-to-skin transfer efficiency
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-15
-------
Impregnated Materials
was characterized using data on residue transfer from treated surfaces, rather than
impregnated materials.
9.2.6 Combining Post-application Scenarios
Risks resulting from different exposure scenarios are combined when it is likely that they can
occur simultaneously based on the use pattern and when the toxicological effects across different
routes of exposure are the same. When combining scenarios, it is important to fully characterize
the potential for co-occurrence as well as characterizing the risk inputs and estimates. Risks
should be combined even if any one scenario or route of exposure exceeds the level of concern
because this allows for better risk characterization for risk managers.
For impregnated materials, there is potential for exposure from both dermal and non-dietary
ingestion exposure assessment pathways. When assessing impregnated textiles, including
impregnated clothing and other textiles, exposure assessments should only combine dermal and
non-dietary object-to-mouth ingestion exposure pathways. Similarly, when assessing
impregnated surfaces, including carpets and flooring, exposure assessments should only combine
dermal and non-dietary hand-to-mouth ingestion exposure pathways.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
9-16
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
Section 10 Treated Paints & Preservatives
This chapter provides the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for assessing pesticide
exposures from pesticide-treated paints and wood preservatives. The sources of pesticide
exposure that are addressed in this chapter include pesticide-treated paints and wood
preservatives and materials containing pesticide-treated paints and preservatives. Exposure
assessment scenarios that are addressed in this chapter include residential handler exposure
during mixing and application activities, post-application dermal and non-dietary incidental
20
ingestion exposure, and potential inhalation of volatile pesticide compounds.
Before the development of an exposure assessment of a paint/preservative, the appropriate
exposure scenarios should be identified using information on the product's pesticide label.
Specific label information that should be considered is described below.
• Paints/Preservatives with Pesticide Claims: Paints/preservatives may be treated with
conventional pesticides and contain a pesticide label that makes claims, such as "kills
mildew," "prevents wood rot," or "kills algae." These labels contain information on the
active ingredient and should be used when performing exposure assessments using the
methods described in this chapter.
• Paints/Preservatives without Pesticide Claims: Many paints/preservatives do not have
a pesticide label on their container and their labels do not make claims about pest control.
The pesticide in these paints/preservatives is present as a biocide, which is added during
the manufacturing process. Biocides are more routinely assessed by OPP's Antimicrobial
Division (OPP/AD) and are not addressed in this chapter.
• Limiting and Descriptive Statements: Assume that a pesticide-containing
paint/preservative is used in residential settings and/or applied by homeowners, unless
specific label language indicates otherwise. Examples include labels that specify
paints/preservatives for commercial use only (e.g., warehouses, shipyards, etc.).
Additionally, "Restricted Use Pesticide" classification indicates that the product cannot
be bought or applied by homeowners (i.e., no residential handler exposure/risk
assessment required), but it may be applied by commercial applicators to residential sites;
therefore, a post-application risk assessment may be required.
10.1 Residential Handler Exposure Assessment
This SOP provides the standard methods for assessing dermal and inhalation exposures that can
result from mixing and applying treated paints and preservatives by residential handlers. There
20 In the past, exposure assessment procedures have been provided for ingestion of paint chips. There procedures
are no longer provided, since it is believed that children would have to ingest an unreasonably high quantity of
pesticide-containing paint chips to have an exposure that represents an unacceptable risk.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-1
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
are currently limited exposure data on treated paint and preservative activities, so it is assumed
that they are similar to other handler activities as described below:
• Aerosol spray cans handler activities are represented by pesticide aerosol data;
• Paints brush handler activities are represented by paint brush data;
• Roller painting handler activities are represented by paint roller data;
• Painting/staining with a manually-pressurized sprayer handler activities are represented
by mixer/loader/applicator manually-pressurized sprayer data; and
• Painting/staining with an airless sprayer handler activities are represented by
mixer/loader/applicator airless sprayer data.
When assessing risks associated with dermal exposure, the methods described in the remainder
of this section are recommended. Since this approach relies on surrogate data, it is
recommended that it should only be used in the absence of, or as a supplement to adequate
existing chemical-specific data.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm
Residue concentration is most commonly reported as percent a.i. in terms of total
paint/preservative mass (e.g. Weight fraction of a.i. in treated paint/preservative). In these cases,
residue concentration can be estimated and subsequently used to determine the potential daily
dose rate, as shown below.
AR=V*p*WF*CFl (10.1)
where:
AR
V
P
WF
CF1
where:
E
UE
AR
N
= Mass of active ingredient applied per paint can (lbs a.i./can);
= Volume of paint contained in each can (mL/can);
= Paint density (g/mL);
= Weight fraction of a.i. in treated paint/preservative (% a.i. w/w); and
"3
= Gram-to-pound conversion factor (2.2*10" lbs/g).
E=UE* AR*N (10.2)
= Daily exposure rate (mg/day);
= unit exposure (mg/lb a.i. applied);
= Mass of active ingredient applied per paint can (lbs a.i./can); and
= number of cans paint used per exposure day (cans/day).
After calculating exposure, absorbed dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:
^ E*AF
D = (10.3)
BW
where:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-2
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
D = Dose (mg/kg-day);
E = Exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal and/or inhalation); and
BW = Body weight (kg).
Handler exposure for paint or wood preservative applications is generally considered short-term
in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day
exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections
1.3.2 and 1.3.3 such as the product-specific application regimen. If longer-term assessments
(i.e., intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, similar refinements
to more accurately reflect the exposure profile are recommended.
Dermal and Inhalation Handler Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
Recommended values for handler exposure (inhalation and dermal) assessments are provided in
Table 10-1 and Table 10-2. Following these tables, each scenario-specific input parameter is
described in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data
sources used to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should
be addressed when characterizing exposure.
Tsihle 10-1: Piiinis ;ind Stuiiis — Recommended I nil I-aiximiiv (m^/lh ;ii) Dislrihu(ions ;ind Point Ksiiin;iic*s
l-'o riiiu hi lion
l-'(|ii ipmoiit/
Application Mel hod
Doi'iiiiil I nil
l'l\pOMII'C
Iiihiiliilion I nil
l'l\pOMII'C
Appendix Page
Reference
Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Aerosol can
370
3.0
C-134
Paints and Stains
Airless Sprayer
160
0.56
C-42
Brush
450
0.20
C-48
Manually-pressurized
sprayer
63
0.018
C-48
Roller
No exposure data available for this application scenario.
Exposure data for brush applications of paints/stains
recommended as surrogate data.
l iihle 10-2: P;iin(s ;ind Sliiins- Recommended Ihindlcr ll\posiire l";ic(ors Distributions ;ind Point
llsliniiiles
lixposiire l-'iiclor (I nils)
Recommended Value
Application Rate mass ai per unit area
Maximum labeled rate
Amount of active ingredient (AR) (lbs a.i./can)
Maximum labeled rate
Number of cans applied per day (N)
Aerosol Spray Cans
3 twelve-ounce cans
Paints with Brush
2 one-gallon cans
Roller Painting
2 one-gallon cans
Manually-pressurized sprayer
3 one-gallon cans
Airless sprayer
3 five-gallon cans
Body Weight (BW) (kg)
Adult
80
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-3
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
Unit Exposure (UE)
Unit exposure values for paints/preservatives are summarized in Appendix B. As indicated, there
are some exposure data on painting with a brush or roller, but limited exposure data on
paint/preservative exposure scenarios involving aerosols, manually-pressurized sprayers, and
airless sprayers. In these cases, data for conventional pesticide application activities are assumed
to be reasonable surrogates of exposure.
Amount of Active Ingredient (AR)
The amount of a.i. applied per paint/preservative container should be determined using label
information on the maximum concentration of a.i. that is mixed with a paint/preservative. In
some cases, this information may not be directly reported on the label. When this information is
not directly available, however, data on the volume of paint per container, specific gravity of
paint/preservative solution, and weight fraction of a.i. in paint/preservative can be used to
estimate the amount of active ingredient applied per container
Number of Paint Cans (N)
The number of paint cans is the amount of paint that is handled during a residential application.
The recommended input values for each handler exposure scenario are based on data presented
in U.S. EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook (2011) and summarized in Table 10-3.
Tiihlc 10-3: Ueeommended number of •Dillon input \nines I'm' p;iinl ;iihI wood preser\;i(i\e exposure
seennrios.
r.xposure Seennrio
Piiinl ( iins Number
.Juslifk'iilion
Aerosol Spray Cans
3 twelve-ounce cans
Upper-percentile assumption for the amount handled
is 3 cans (12 ounces each) used per event (the 90th
percentile amount of spray paint used per event is
36.11 oz/use (U.S. EPA Exposure Factors Handbook
,2011, Table 17-18).
Paints with Brush
2 one-gallon cans
90th percentile value of 8 gallons of latex paint used
per year divided by the mean frequency of 4 painting
events per year (U.S. EPA Exposure Factors
Handbook, 2011, Table 17-6).
Roller Painting
2 one-gallon cans
90th percentile value of 8 gallons of latex paint used
per year divided by the mean frequency of 4 painting
events per year (U.S. EPA's Exposure Factors
Handbook, 2011, Table 17-6).
Manually-pressurized sprayer
painting/staining
3 one-gallon cans
Professional judgment assuming that more products
would be used with a manually-pressurized sprayer
than with a roller or brush, but less than that used
with a high pressure sprayer.
Airless sprayer
painting/staining
3 five-gallon cans
A homeowner is assumed to use three 5-gallon cans
of ready-to-use product or of finished spray prepared
from a concentrated product and water. This is based
on a coverage rate of 200 ft2/gallon and a house size
with a surface area of 2,800 ft2.
Future Research/Data Needs
Iinformation that could refine the handler exposure assessment methods include:
• General use information on treated paints;
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-4
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
• Frequency of treated paint/preservative applications;
• Location of treated paint/preservatives in residential environments; and
• Typical surface of area of treated areas.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
Unit Exposures
• The exposure data underlying unit exposures are considered reasonable for the purposes
of establishing distributions and estimating exposure. The data are from actual
applications using standardized exposure sampling methodologies and laboratory
analyses.
• The underlying assumption of the use of exposure data as unit exposures -
proportionality between the amount of active ingredient handled and exposure - is
uncertain, though potentially conservative. However, as a prediction mechanism, it is
considered practical and useful for the purposes of handler exposure assessment in a
regulatory context. It provides a straightforward handler exposure calculation method
and enables risk mitigation in the form of formulation comparison and decreased
application rates.
• The extent to which an individual's exposure (expressed via unit exposures) varies day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
Amount of active ingredient handled
• Information on the amount of product/formulation (thus, active ingredient) handled per
application is largely unavailable. The approach used is believed to provide conservative
estimates of exposure because the amount of paint/preservative handled is based on
information on the use of non-treated painted that is more commonly used. The
recommended point estimates are, therefore, intended to be conservative to ensure an
appropriately health protective exposure estimate.
• The extent to which the amount an individual will handle per application varies from day-
to-day or application-to-application is unknown; therefore, the assumption that there is no
variation when assessing longer-term exposure durations is considered conservative.
10.2 Post-Application Exposure Assessment
Post-application exposure can result from contacting surfaces that have been painted with treated
paint or wood preservative. Potential exposed populations include both adults and children.
While exposure may occur for people of all ages, adults and children 1 < 2 years old are
considered index lifestages based on behavioral characteristics and the strengths and limitations
of available data.
This section addresses standard methods for estimating exposure and dose for three individual
post-application scenarios resulting from exposure to pesticide-containing paints, stains, or wood
preservatives:
• Section 10.2.1 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old dermal exposures;
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-5
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
• Section 10.2.2 - children 1 < 2 years old non-dietary ingestion via hand-to-mouth
activity; and
• Section 10.2.3 - adult/children 1 < 2 years old inhalation exposures.
10.2.1 Post-Application Dermal Exposure Assessment
This SOP provides the standard methods for assessing dermal exposure scenarios following the
application of pesticide-treated paint or wood preservatives on indoor and outdoor surfaces, such
as home walls, outdoor decks, and play-sets. The exposure assessment methods presented in this
section are based primarily on the approach developed for an exposure assessment of children
who contact chromated copper arsenate treated playsets using the EPA/ORD Stochastic Human
Exposure and Dose Simulation Model for the Wood Preservative Scenario (SHEDS-WOOD)
(U.S. EPA, 2005).
Post-Application Dermal Exposure Algorithm
The algorithm to calculate post-application dermal exposure is calculated as follows:
E=SR*SA/BW*FBody*TE*PF (10.4)
where:
E = Daily exposure rate (mg/kg-day);
SR = Surface residue concentration (mg/cm2);
SA/BW = total body surface area to body weight ratio (cm /kg);
FBody = Fraction of total body skin surface area that is unclothed (unitless); and
TE = Daily material-to-skin transfer efficiency (fraction/day).
Absorbed dermal dose, normalized to body weight, is then calculated as:
D=E* AF (10.5)
where:
D = Dose rate (mg/kg-day);
E = Daily Exposure (mg/kg-day); and
AF = Dermal absorption factor.
Post-application dermal exposure from paints or wood preservatives containing pesticides is
generally considered short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more
accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the
various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4, such as residue dissipation, product-specific
re-treatment intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-
term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, such as in cases where the impregnated
material may be routinely replaced or re-treated, similar refinements to more accurately reflect
the exposure profile are recommended.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-6
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
Post-Application Dermal Exposure Assessment Assumptions and
Recommendations
A summary table of the recommended values for post-application dermal exposure assessment of
paints/preservatives is provided in Table 10-4. Following this summary table, each scenario-
specific input parameter, excluding the universal body surface area and bodyweight inputs, is
described in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data
sources used to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should
be addressed when characterizing exposure.
Tsihle 10-4: Siimniiin of recommended \ nines for nosl-smnlicsilion (k-rmsil sihsornlion.
Algorithm
Nolsilion
l.\|)osuiv l-'sicloril nils)
KocomiiKMidod Input
\ 'sillies
SR
Surface Residue Concentration (mg a.i. /cm2)
Maximum Labeled Rate
WF
Percent A.I. by Weight (% w/w)
Label
fbody
Fraction of body that contacts residue
0.31
TE
Material-to-skin transfer efficiency (fraction/day)
0.14
SA/BW
total body surface area to
body weight ratio (cm2/kg)
Adult
280
Children 1 < 2 years old
640
Surface Residue Concentration (SR)
Surface residue concentration is the concentration of pesticide residue on the surface of a
painted/treated surface. Whenever possible, product-specific information should be used to
estimate the surface residue concentration. This information may be found on labels or other
information provided by the manufacturer.
Material-to-Skin Transfer Efficiency (TE)
Surface-to-skin transfer efficiency is the fraction of pesticide residue that is transferred from a
painted/treated surface to the skin. Whenever possible, product -specific information should be
used to estimate the surface-to-skin transfer efficiency. In the absence of product-specific
information, the recommended transfer efficiency is based on warm weather data on the transfer
of arsenic from chromated copper arsenate treated wood (American Chemistry Council, 2003).
This data was incorporated into the SHEDS-CCA assessment and used to obtain a lognormal
distribution with a geometric mean and geometric standard deviation of 0.143 and 2.33,
respectively.
Fraction of Total Body Exposed (Fbody)
This term refers to the fraction of the body that is unclothed. The recommended default value for
this input was derived using information presented previously in Table 6-7. Specifically, the
recommended input value of 0.31 represents the fraction of surface area of the torso and arms,
lower thighs, shins, feet, hands, and neck. This value is believed to be representative of the
fraction of the body that may be exposed in warm weather.
Future Research/Data Needs
Specific information that could help refine the exposure assessment methods include:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-7
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
• Additional research/ data on the transfer of non-preservative pesticide additives, as
available data are limited to transfer of arsenic from chromated copper arsenate.
• Information on how treated paints/preservatives are used by residential home owners
could help improve the exposure assessment methods.
• General use information on treated paints;
• Frequency of treated paint/preservative applications;
• Location of treated paint/preservatives in residential environments; and
• Typical surface of area of treated areas.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
• Many of the methods presented in this section are based on the approach used to assess
chromated copper arsenate treated playsets. Therefore, an important limitation of the
exposure assessment methods presented is that they are based on a single chemical that is
used a wood preservative, rather than conventional pesticide (e.g. insecticide, herbicide,
fungicide, etc.).
10.2.2 Post-Application Non-Dietary Ingestion Exposure Assessment: Hand-
to-Mouth
This SOP provides the dose estimation methods for assessing incidental ingestion from hand-to-
mouth behavior following contact with treated paint/preservative surfaces.
Non-Dietary Hand-to-Mouth Ingestion Exposure Algorithm
Exposure from hand-to-mouth activity is calculated as follows (based on algorithm utilized in
SHEDS-Multimedia):
E
where:
E
HR
Fm
SAh
ET
N_Replen
SE
FreqHtM
In this algorithm, hand residue concentration is calculated as:
HR = SR * TE (10.7)
where:
HR * (Fm * SAh ) * (ET * N _ Replen) * [ 1 - (l - SE) N _Replen
= exposure (mg/day);
= hand residue loading (mg/cm );
= fraction hand surface area mouthed / event (fraction/event);
= surface area of one hand (cm2);
= exposure time (hr/day);
= number of replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour);
= saliva extraction factor (ie, mouthing removal efficiency); and
= number of hand-to-mouth contacts events per hour (events/hour).
(10.6)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-8
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
2
HR = hand residue concentration (mg/cm );
SR = surface residue ([j,g/cm2); and
TE = transfer Efficiency.
After calculating exposure, oral dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:
r, E
D= (10.8)
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day); and
BW = body weight (kg).
Post-application hand-to-mouth exposure from paints or wood preservatives containing
pesticides is generally considered short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to
reflect a more accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting
for the various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4, such as residue dissipation, product-
specific re-treatment intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e.,
intermediate-, long-term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, such as in cases where the
impregnated material may be routinely replaced or re-treated, similar refinements to more
accurately reflect the exposure profile are recommended.
Non-dietary Hand-to-Mouth Ingestion Exposure Assessment Assumptions and
Recommendations
Recommended values for non-dietary hand-to-mouth ingestion exposure assessments are
provided in Table 10-5. Following this table, each scenario-specific input parameter is described
in more detail. This description includes a summary of i) key assumptions; ii) data sources used
to derive recommended input values; and iii) discussion of limitations that should be addressed
when characterizing exposure.
Table 10-5: Summary of recommended values for post-application hand-to-mouth incidental ingestion.
Algorithm
Notation
Exposure Factor
(units)
Point
Estimate(s)
SR
Surface Residue Concentration
(mg a.i. /cm2)
Maximum
Labeled Rate
TE
Material-to-skin transfer efficiency
0.14
Fm
Fraction of hand mouthed per event (fraction/event)
0.13
sah
Typical surface area of one hand, children 1 < 2 years old
(cm2)
150
NReplen
Replenishment intervals
(intervals/hr)
4
ET
Exposure Time
(hours per day)
Indoor Enviromnents (Children 1 < 2 years old)
4
Outdoor Enviromnents (Children 1 < 2 years old)
1.5
SE
Saliva extraction factor
(fraction)
0.48
Freq_HtM
Hand-to-mouth events
(events/hour)
Indoor Enviromnents
(Children 1 < 2 years old)
20
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-9
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
l iihlc 10-5: Suiniiiiin of ivcommi'ink-ri \ nines for poM-;ipplk';ilion hiiiul-lo-iiioiiih inciricnliil iniicslion.
Outdoor Environments
(Children 1 < 2 years old)
13.9
BW
Body Weight
(kg)
Children 1 < 2 years old
11.4
Surface Residue Concentration (SR)
Surface residue concentration is the concentration of pesticide residue on the surface of an
impregnated material. Product-specific information, such as weight fraction of a.i., should be
used to estimate the residue concentration. This information may be found on labels or other
information provided by the manufacturer. After obtaining this information, the surface residue
concentration can be estimated using the methods described in Section 9.2.2.
Material-to-Skin Transfer Efficiency (TE)
Surface-to-skin transfer efficiency is the fraction of pesticide residue that is transferred from a
painted/treated surface to the skin. Whenever possible, product -specific information should be
used to estimate the surface-to-skin transfer efficiency. In the absence of product-specific
information, the recommended transfer efficiency is based on warm weather data on the transfer
of arsenic from chromated copper arsenate treated wood (American Chemistry Council, 2003).
This data was incorporated into the SHEDS-CCA assessment and used to obtain a lognormal
distribution with a geometric mean and geometric standard deviation of 0.143 and 2.33,
respectively.
Fraction of Hand Mouthed per Event (F^)
See Section 2.4 of this SOP for discussion of the fraction of hand mouthed. The recommended
point estimate for use in post-application incidental oral exposure assessments is 0.13.
Hand Surface Area (SAH)
The hand surface area for children 1 < 2 years old of 150 cm , for one hand, was based on
values from the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011).
Replenishment Intervals (N Replen)
This SOP assumes an estimate of 4 replenishment intervals per hour (i.e., residues on the hand
will be replenished every 15 minutes). This value was selected as a conservative assumption
based on the use of 30 minutes in the SHEDS model to coincide with the CHAD diaries.
Exposure Time (ET)
Exposure time is the amount of time that a child is an environment where they may contact a
surface containing an impregnated material. There is currently no data available to characterize
the amount of time that children spend in environments where they may contact surfaces with
treated paints and preservatives. In the absence of scenario-specific data, recommended
exposure time value for exposures that may occur in indoor environments is based on the
children 1 < 2 years old exposure time values discussed in Section 7.2.4 of the Indoor
Environment SOPs. Similarly, the recommended exposure time for outdoor environments is
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-10
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
based on the children 1 < 2 years old exposure time values discussed in Section 3.2.2 of the
Lawns/Turf SOPs.
Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva (SE)
See Section 2.6 of this SOP for discussion of the fraction of pesticide extracted by saliva
distribution. The recommended point estimate for use in post-application incidental oral
exposure assessments is 0.48.
Hand-to-mouth events per hour (Freq HtM)
Frequency of hand-to-mouth events refers to the number of hand-to-mouth events per hour.
There is currently no data available that specifically address the number of hand-to-mouth events
that occur relative to the amount of time a child is in contact surfaces containing treated
paints/preservatives. In the absence of scenario-specific data, the frequency of hand-to-mouth
events in indoor environments is based on Section 7.2.4 of the Indoor Environment SOPs, which
provides a summary of data from a meta-analysis performed by Xue et al. (2007). Similarly, the
frequency of hand-to-mouth events in outdoor environments is based on Section 3.2.3 of the
Lawns/Turf SOPs, which provides a summary of the outdoor hand-to-mouth data from the same
Xue et al. (2007) meta-analysis.
Future Research/Data Needs
Specific information that could help refine the exposure assessment methods include:
• Additional research/ data on the transfer of non-preservative pesticide additives, as
available data are limited to transfer of arsenic from chromated copper arsenate.
• Information on how treated paints/preservatives are used by residential home owners
could help improve the exposure assessment methods.
• General use information on treated paints;
• Frequency of treated paint/preservative applications;
• Location of treated paint/preservatives in residential environments; and
• Typical surface of area of treated areas.
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
• Many of the methods presented in this section are based on the approach used to assess
chromated copper arsenate treated playsets. Therefore, an important limitation of the
exposure assessment methods presented is that they are based on a single chemical that is
used a wood preservative, rather than conventional pesticide (e.g. insecticide, herbicide,
fungicide, etc.).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-11
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
10.2.3 Post-Application Inhalation Exposure Assessment
In many cases, inhalation exposure from impregnated paints is expected to be negligible, since
many non-preservative pesticides have low vapor pressures and would be designed to be
incorporated into the treated surface. When treated paints/wood preservatives contain more
volatile pesticide chemicals, however, it may be necessary to assess post-application inhalation
exposures. The recommended methodology is described in the remainder of this section.
Wall Paint Exposure Model
EPA's Wall Paint Exposure Model (WPEM) version 3.2 is used estimate post-application air
concentrations resulting from the use of paint preserved with volatile chemicals (2001). WPEM
was developed under a contract by Geomet Technologies for EPA OPPT to provide estimates of
potential air concentrations and consumer/worker exposures to chemicals emitted from wall
paint which is applied using a roller or a brush. WPEM uses mathematical models developed
from small chamber data to estimate the emissions of chemicals from oil-based (alkyd) and latex
wall paint. The emission data can then be combined with detailed use, workload and occupancy
data (e.g., amount of time spent in the painted room, etc,) to estimate exposure. Specific input
parameters include: the type of paint (latex or alkyd) being assessed, density of the paint (default
values available), and the chemical weight fraction, molecular weight, and vapor pressure.
Detailed information and the executable model can be downloaded from
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/wpem.htm.
It should be noted that WPEM's emission models are based on a limited set of chemicals and an
associated range of molecular weights and vapor pressures. The models may not be valid for
chemicals outside of these ranges. The valid vapor pressure ranges are 0.4 to 18.7 torr (or
mmHg) for chemicals in alkyd paint and 0.002 to 0.2 torr (or mmHg) for chemicals in latex
paint.
For volatile chemicals, use WPEM and chemical specific data (i.e., vapor pressure and molecular
weight) to determine air concentrations. For the do-it-yourself residential painter, use the default
WPEM scenario "RESDIY" to estimate chemical specific air concentrations. This WPEM
default scenario assumes that a do-it-yourself painter is exposed to a chemical in paint while
applying one coat paint to the bedroom of a house. For a detailed description of the default
RESDIY scenario, see the WPEM User's Guide.
The model provides several dose measures (i.e., LADD, ADD), air concentration measures (i.e.,
peak, 15-min, 8hr), and a comma-separated (.csv) file as outputs. The comma-separated file
contains details on time-varying concentrations within the modeled building (i.e., cone in zone 1,
cone in zone 2) as well as concentrations to which the individual is exposed (i.e., Conc@person).
This file can be read directly into spreadsheet software (e.g., Excel) for calculating additional
summary statistics. The output data in comma-separated file should be used to estimate air
concentrations over time durations that are in comparable time-durations to the toxicity
endpoints. For the adult DIY painter, a 4-hr average air concentration (i.e., the time it takes to
paint the bedroom) should be used in the following equation used for calculating the absorbed
inhalation dose:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-12
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
r * JR*FT*AF
D = (10.9)
BW
where:
D = Potential Daily Dose (mg/kg-day);
"3
C = 4-Hour Average Air concentration (mg a.i./m );
IR = Inhalation rate (Standard Value= m /hour);
ET = Exposure time (Standard Value= hours/day);
AF = Absorption Factor; and
BW = Bodyweight (kg).
For the adult and child bystander and post-application exposure scenario, use the default WPEM
scenario "RESADULT" to estimate chemical specific air concentrations. This WPEM default
scenario assumes that a resident located in the non-painted part of the house (i.e., zone 2) is
exposed to the chemical in the paint while a bedroom is painted with one coat of primer and one
coat of paint by a professional. This resident then moves in, out, and throughout the house
following the paint application. For a detailed description of the default RESADULT scenario,
see the WPEM User's Guide. The "RESCHILD"scenario should be used to assess child
exposure even though the application scenario is the same as in the adult assessment because
WPEM moves the person around in the home (i.e., in the painted room, in non-painted rooms,
and outdoors) based on activity patterns and the activity patterns for the child and adult are
different.
The output data in comma-separated file should be used to estimate air concentrations over time
durations that are in comparable time-durations to the toxicity endpoints. For the bystander/post-
application exposure the data in the "Conc@person" column of the output file should be used to
estimate 24-hr average and subsequently used in the following equation for calculating the post-
application absorbed inhalation dose is:
C * IR* FT* AF
D = (10.10)
BW
where:
D = Potential Daily Dose (mg/kg-day);
C = 24-Hour Average Air concentration (mg a.i./m3);
"3
IR = Inhalation rate (m /hour);
ET = Exposure time (hours/day);
AF = Absorption Factor; and
BW = Bodyweight (kg).
Post-application inhalation exposure from paints or wood preservatives containing pesticides is
generally considered short-term in duration. Refinement of this dose estimate to reflect a more
accurate short-term multi-day exposure profile can be accomplished by accounting for the
various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4, such as residue dissipation, product-specific
re-treatment intervals, and activity patterns. If longer-term assessments (i.e., intermediate-, long-
term, or lifetime exposures) are deemed necessary, such as in cases where the impregnated
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-13
-------
Treated Paints & Preservatives
material may be routinely replaced or re-treated, similar refinements to more accurately reflect
the exposure profile are recommended.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
10-14
-------
References
Section 11 References
American Chemistry Council (ACC). (2003). CCA fixation and its implications on availability
of hexavalent chromium (CrVI) for dislodgeability and leaching. Prepared by Paul A. Cooper,
University of Toronto. Submitted for publication.
Bach, T. (2002). Stroking Test in Dogs after Topical Application of Imidacloprid 10% (w/v) +
Permethrin 50% (w/v) Spot-On. Lab Project Number: V 02-004. Unpublished study prepared
by Bayer AG. EPA MRID 46594103
Baugher, D.; Klonne, D.; Mihlan, G.; et. al. (2004) The ORETF Algorithm for Defining the
Relationship of Transferable Turf Residues to Post-Application Dermal Exposure. Project
Number: ORF030, ML02/1003/ORE. Unpublished study prepared by EXP Corp., Toxicology &
Exposure Assessment and Bayer Crop Science LP. 835 p. (MRID 46190501).
Beamer, P; Canales, RA; Leckie, JO. (2009). Developing probability distributions for transfer
efficiencies for dermal exposure. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental
Epidemiology. 19: 274-283.
Bidlingmayer, W.L., J.F. Day and D.G. Evans. (1995). Effect of Wind Velocity on Suction Trap
Catches of Some Florida Mosquitoes. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association
11(3): 295-301.
Brickel, P. (1997). Dislodgeable Residues of Fipronil Following Topical Application of
Frontline® Spot-on Treatment to Dogs. Lab Project Number: MET416. Unpublished study
prepared by Merial Limited. EPA MRID 44531203.
Brinkman S., Gialamas A., Jones L., Edwards P., and Maynard E. (1999). Child Activity Patterns
for Environmental Exposure Assessment in the Home, National Environmental Health Forum
Monographs Exposure Series No. 1 Department of Human Services, Adelaide.
Bureau of Labor Statistics American Time Use Survey. 2007.
(http://www.bls.gov/tus/datafiles 2007.htm).
Byrne SL, Shurdut BA, Saunders DG. (1998). Potential Chlorpyrifos Exposure to Residents
Following Standard Crack-and-Crevice Treatment. Environmental Health Perspectives 106:725-
731.
Camann, D. E., Majumadar, T. K., and Geno, P. (1989). Determination of Pesticide Removal
Efficiency from Human hands Wiped with Gauze Moistened with Three Salivary Fluids. Final
Report to EPA by ManTech under Contract 68-D5-0049.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
11-1
-------
References
Camann, D.; Harding, H.; Geno, P.; and Agrawl S. (1996). Comparison of Methods to
Determine Dislodgeable Residue Transfer from Floors (EPA/600/R96/089) United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Carroll, S. P. (2007a). Test of an Oil of Lemon Eucalyptus-based Personal Insect Repellent.
Laboratory Project ID WPC-001. Unpublished study; Performing Laboratory: Carroll-Loye
Biological Research, Davis, CA 95616; 225 pp. EPAMRID 47217601.
Carroll, S. P. (2007b). Test of Coulston's Duranon Personal Insect Repellent. Laboratory Project
ID SCI-001-5. Unpublished study; Performing Laboratory: Carroll-Loye Biological Research,
Davis, CA 95616; 180 pp. EPAMRID 47322401.
Carroll, S. P. (2007c). Test of Dermaegis Lipodeet 302 Personal Insect Repellent. Laboratory
Project ID SCI-001-4. Unpublished study; Performing Laboratory: Carroll-Loye Biological
Research, Davis, CA 95616; 180 pp. EPA MRID 47322501.
Carroll, S. (2007d). Test of Personal Insect Repellents (Revised). Project Number: EMD/003.3
(Aerosol), EMD/003. Unpublished study prepared by Carroll-Loye Biological Research. 143 p..
EPA MRID 47049501.
Carroll, S. (2007e). Test of Personal Insect Repellents (Revised). Project Number: EMD 004.3
(Aerosol), EMD/004. Unpublished study prepared by Carroll-Loye Biological Research. 147 p.
EPA MRID 47049502.
Carroll, S. P. (2008a). Efficacy Test of Picaridin-based Personal Repellents with Mosquitoes
under Filed Conditions. Laboratory Project ID SPC-001. Unpublished study; Performing
Laboratory: Carroll-Loye Biological Research, Davis, CA 95616; 336 pp. EPA MRID
47535201.
Carroll, S. P. (2008b). Efficacy Test of Picari din-based Personal Tick Repellents. Laboratory
Project ID SPC-002. Unpublished study; Performing Laboratory: Carroll-Loye Biological
Research, Davis, CA 95616; 295 pp. MRID 47535202.
Center for Golf Course Management. (1992). Golf Course Operations: Cost of Doing
Business/Profitability. Library of Congress GV975.G56.
Chinn, K.S.K. (1981) A Simple Method for Predicting Chemical Agent Evaporation. September
1981. Dugway, UT: U.S. Army Proving Ground. DPG Document No. DPG-TR-401.
Cilek, J.E., C.F. Hallmon, and R. Johnson. (2008). Evaluation of Automatic Spray Systems for
the Control of Backyard Mosquitoes. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association
24(4): 560-565.
Clothier, J. (2000). Dermal Transfer Efficiency of Pesticides from New Vinyl Sheet Flooring to
Dry and Wetted Palms. (EPA/600/R00/029). United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
11-2
-------
References
Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA). (2005). Pyrethrin Steering Committee/Joint
Venture and Piperonyl Butoxide Task Force II. Discussion Paper: Intermittent Aerosols,
Residential Mosquito Misters, and Dairy Barn Misters.
Cowell, J. and Johnson, D. (1999). Evaluation of Transferable Turf Residue Techniques:
Evaluation Study of Transferable Residue Techniques (OMDOOl) and Transferable Residue
Technique Modification Study: An Evaluation of Three Turf Sampling Techniques (OMD002).
October 7, 1999. Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force. EPA MRID 44972203.
Eastern Research Group. (1998). Multi-Chamber Concentration and Exposure Model Peer
Review Summary. EPA Contract No. 68-W6-0022.
Eastin, I.; Ganguly, I.; Shook, S.; Brackley, A. (2005). Material use in the US deck market: an
assessment of the market potential for Alaska yellow cedar. Working Paper 98. Seattle, WA:
Center for International Trade in Forest Products (CINTRAFOR), University of Washington,
College of Forest Resource: 87 p.
Evans, J. (2005). Tributyltin maleate (TBTM): Non-Dietary Residential Exposure
Considerations for Proposed Registration of Ultra-Fresh® DM-50 as a New Indoor Use Pattern
for TBTM. DP Barcode 314711. Sent from Jeff Evans to Meta Bonner. March 30, 2005.
Evans, WC. (1994). Development of Continuous-application Source Terms and Analytical
Solution for One- and Two-Compartment System. In: Tichenor, B.A. (Ed.), Characterizing
sources of Indoor Air Pollution and Related Sink Effects, ASTM STP 1287. American Society
of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 279-293.
Fan, C., Zhang J. (2001). Characterization of Emissions from Portable Household Combustion
Devices: Particle Size Distributions, Emission Rates and Factors, and Potential Exposures.
Atmospheric Environment 35: 1281-1290.
Faulde MK, Uedelhoven WM, and Robbins RG (2003). Contact Toxicity and Residual Activity
of Different Permethrin-Based Fabric Impregnation Methods for Aedes aegypti (Diptera:
Culicidae), Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae), and Lepisma saccharina (Thysanura: Lepismatidae).
Journal of Medical Entomology, 40(6): 935-941.
Federal Register Notice. (1973) 38 FR 21685, 1973
Fenske, R.A.; Black, K.G.; Elkner, K.P.; Lee, C.; Methner, M.N.; Soto, R. (1990). Potential
Exposure and Health Risks of Infants Following Indoor Residential Pesticide Applications.
Amer. Jour. Publ. Health. 80:689-693.
Fortune, C. (1997). Round-Robin Testing of Methods for Collecting Dislodgeable Residues
from Carpets. (EPA/600/R97/107). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
11-3
-------
References
Fradin, M.S, and Day, J.F. (2002). Comparative Efficacy of Insect Repellents Against Mosquito
Bites. N Engl J Med, Vol. 347, No. 1.
Freeman, N. C., M. Jimenez, K. J. Reed, S. Gurunathan, R. D. Edwards, A. Roy, J. L. Adgate, E.
D. Pellizzari, J. Quackenboss, K. Sexton, and P. J. Lioy. (2001). Quantitative Analysis of
Children's Microactivity Patterns: The Minnesota Children's Pesticide Exposure Study. Journal
of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, (2001) 11, 501 - 509.
Guo, Z. (2002) Review of indoor emission source models - part 2. Parameter estimation.
Environmental Pollution. 120: 551-564.
Gurunathan, S; Robson, M; Freeman, N; Buckley, B; Roy, A; Meyer, R; Bukowski, J; and Lioy,
P. (1998). Accumulation of Chlorpyrifos on Residential Surfaces and Toys Accessible to
Children. Environmental Health Perspectives. 106:9-16.
Horse Stable Ventilation Publication. (2003) College of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural
Research and Cooperative Extension, Pennsylvania State University, 2003. Available online at:
http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/ub039.pdf
Horse Stable Ventilation. Eileen Fabian Wheeler. Agricultural and Biological Engineering. The
Pennsylvania State University. Available online at:
http://web.nfba.org/html/files/programs/Wheeler%20-%20Horse%20Barn%20Ventilation.pps
Hughes, D.L. (1997a). Dislodgeable Residues of Fipronil Following Application of Frontline®
Spray Treatment to Dogs. Lab Project Number: 6848-100. Unpublished study prepared by
Covance Laboratory for Merial Limited. EPA MRID 44433306.
Hughes, D.L. (1997b). Dislodgeable Residues of Fipronil Following Application of Frontline®
Spray Treatment to Cats. Lab Project Number: 6848-100. Unpublished study prepared by
Covance Laboratory for Merial Limited. EPA MRID 44433307.
Human & Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA). (2005). Human & Environmental Risk
Assessment on Ingredients of Household Cleaning Products.
Iwata, Y.; Knaak, J.B.; Spear, R.C.; Foster, R.J. (1977). Worker Reentry into Pesticide Treated
Crops. Procedure For The Determination of Dislodgeable Residues on Foliage, Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 18:649-655.
Johnson, D.; Thompson, R.; Butterfield, B. (1999). Outdoor Residential Pesticide Use and Usage
Survey and National Gardening Association Survey. Unpublished study prepared by Doane
Marketing Research, Inc. EPA MRID 46883825 (also EPA MRID 44972202).
Keenan, J. (2007). Potential Exposures of Children and Adults to Cypermethrin and other
Pyrethroid Insecticides Following Treatment and Control of Indoor Pests. (Doctoral
Dissertation, University of California, Riverside, June 2007).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
11-4
-------
References
Klein, D (2002). Leaching of TBTM from Nylon Carpet Sample Treated with Ultra-Fresh DM-
50 Using Acidic, Neutral and Alkaline Artificial Sweat. MRID 45746802.
Klepeis NE, Nelson WC, Ott WR et al. (2001). The National Human Activity Pattern Survey
(NHAPS): A Resource for Assessing Exposure to Environmental Pollutants. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 11(3):231-252.
Klonne, D.; Artz, S.; Bruce, E. (1999). Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers During Scouting in Grapes (Chlorothalonil): Lab Project Number: ARF023:
ERS98011: 44835. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc., and Excel Research
Services, Inc. EPA MRID 45005910.
Klonne, D.; Artz, S.; Prochaska, C. et al. (1999). Determination of Dermal and Inhalation
Exposure to Reentry Workers During Scouting in Cauliflower (Chlorothalonil): Lab Project
Number: 97-296: ARF012: 98-0005. Unpublished study prepared by Grayson Research LLC,
and Ricerca, Inc. EPA MRID 45005907.
Klonne, D.; Artz, S.; Rotondaro, A. (1999). Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers During Scouting in Cauliflower (Chlorothalonil): Lab Project Number:
ARF011: 97-295: 7443-98-0027-CR-001. Unpublished study prepared by Grayson Research
LLC, and Ricerca, Inc. EPA MRID 45005906.
Klonne, D.; Artz, S.; Prochaska, C. et al. (1999). Determination of Dermal and Inhalation
Exposure to Reentry Workers During Scouting in Tobacco (Chlorothalonil): Lab Project
Number: ARF024: 98-327: ML98-0739-ART. Unpublished study prepared by Grayson
Research, LLC. and Morse Laboratories, Inc. EPA MRID 45005911.
Klonne, D.; Fuller, R.; Honeycutt, R. (1999). Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure
to Reentry Workers During Scouting in Sweet Corn (Chlorothalonil): Lab Project Number:
ARF009: 97-708HE: 017-03. Unpublished study prepared by H.E.R.A.C., Inc., and Centre
Analytical Laboratories, Inc. EPA MRID 45005904.
Klonne, D.; Artz, S.; Rotondaro, A. (1999) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers During Scouting in Dry Peas (Chlorothalonil): Lab Project Number: ARF021:
98-326: 7608-98-011 l-CR-001. Unpublished study prepared by Grayson Research LLC, and
Ricerca, Inc. EPA MRID 45005908.
Klonne, D.; Artz, S.; Rotondaro, A. (1999) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers During Scouting in Dry Peas (Chlorothalonil): Lab Project Number: ARF021:
98-326: 7608-98-011 l-CR-001. Unpublished study prepared by Grayson Research LLC, and
Ricerca, Inc. EPA MRID 45005905.
Klonne, D.; Bruce, E.; Artz, S. (1999) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers During Scouting in Sunflower (Chlorothalonil): Lab Project Number: ARF022:
44500: A048.007. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. and Maxim
Technologies, Inc. EPA MRID 45005909.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
11-5
-------
References
Klonne, D.; Fuller, R.; Merricks, D. (2000) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers During Harvesting in Apples: (Malathion): Lab Project Number: ARF025:
3901: 44868. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Incorporated and ABC Laboratories,
Inc. EPAMRID 45138202.
Klonne, D.; Fuller, R.; Belcher, T. (2000) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers During Hand Harvesting in Oranges: Lab Project Number: ARF028:
ERS99004: 10231. Unpublished study prepared by Excel Research Services, Inc. and Horizon
Laboratories, Inc. EPAMRID 45175101.
Klonne, D.; Merricks, D. (2000) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Reentry
Workers During Harvesting in Juice Oranges: Study Number ARF041: Lab Project Number:
ARF041: 3903. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Incorporated and Morse
Laboratories. EPAMRID 45432301.
Klonne, D.; Merricks, D.; Fuller, R. (2000) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers During Harvesting in Juice Grapefruit Study Number ARF042: Lab Project
Number: ARF042: 3904. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Incorporated and Maxim
Technologies, Inc. EPA MRID 45432302.
Klonne, D.; Fuller, R.; Rotondaro, A. (2000) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure
to Reentry Workers During Chrysanthemum Pinching in a Greenhouse: Lab Project Number:
ARF039: 45647. Unpublished study prepared by Grayson Research, LLC. and ABC
Laboratories, Inc. EPA MRID 45344501.
Klonne, D.; Fuller, R.; Howell, C. (2000) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers during Pruning in Nursery Stock: Lab Project Number: ARF043: 45949: HL
10258. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. EPA MRID 45469501.
Klonne, D.; Fuller, R.; Howell, C. (2000) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers during Harvesting in Nursery Stock: Lab Project Number: 45950: ARF044.
Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. EPA MRID 45469502
Klonne, D.; Fuller, R.; Belcher, T. (2000) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers During Weeding in Cabbage: (Carbaryl): Lab Project Number: ARF037:
ERS99007: A048. 008. Unpublished study prepared by Excel Research services, Inc. and Maxim
Technologies, Inc. EPAMRID 45191701.
Klonne, D.; Fuller, R.; Rotondaro, A. (2001) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure
to Reentry Workers During Harvesting in Summer Squash: Lab Project Number: AFR049:
46083. Unpublished study prepared by Grayson Research LLC., and ABC Laboratories. EPA
MRID 45491902.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
11-6
-------
References
Klonne, D.; Fuller, R.; Merricks, D. (2001) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers During Tying in Tomatoes: Lab Project Number: 3905: HL10267: ARF051.
Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc. EPA MRID 45530103.
Klonne, D.; Fuller, R.; Belcher, T. (2001) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Reentry Workers During Harvesting in Wine Grapes: Lab Project Number: ARF048: ERS20019:
HL10259. Unpublished study prepared by Excel Research Service, Inc., and Horizon
Laboratories, Inc. EPA MRID 45491901.
Klonne, D. and Johnson, D. (2004) Determination of Potential Dermal Exposure to Adults and
Children Reentering a Pesticide-Treated Turf Area Study Number: 0RF030. Unpublished
study prepared by Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force, LLC. 56 p. (MRID 47292001).
Klonne, D. and Bruce, E. (2005). Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Reentry
Workers During Maintenance Activities in Golf Courses: (Chlorothalonil). Project Number:
ARTF/ARF057, ARF057/MG, ARF057/CC. Unpublished study prepared by Agricultural
Reentry Task Force and Ricerca Biosciences, LLC. 485 p. (MRID 46734001).
Krieger, R. I., C. E. Bernard, T. M. Dinoff, L. Fell, T. Osimitz, J. H. Ross, and T.
Thongsinthusak. (2000). Biomonitoring and Whole Body Cotton Dosimetry to Estimate Potential
Human Dermal Exposure to Semivolatile Chemicals. J. Exposure Analysis & Environ.
Epidemiol. 10: 50-57.
Krieger, RI; Bernard, CE; Dinoff, TM; Ross, JH; and Williams, RL. (2001). Biomonitoring of
Persons Exposed to Insecticides used in Residences. Annals of Occupational Hygiene.
45(1001): S143-S153.
Leckie, J. O., Naylor, K. A., Canales, R. A., Ferguson, A. C., Cabrera, N. L., Hurtado, A. L.,
Lee, K., Lin, A. Y., Ramirez, J.D.,& Vieira, V. M. (2000). Quantifying Children's Microlevel
Activity Data from Existing Videotapes. Contract Report Submitted to U.S. EPA, ORD, NERL,
Reference No. U2F1120T-RT.
Leidy R.B., Wright C.G., Dupree H.E. (1996) Distribution of Chlorpyrifos in Air and on
Surfaces Following Crack and Crevice Application to Rooms. Environ. Monit. Assess. 42:253-
263.
Lide D.R. (1981). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61th Edition. Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC Press Inc.
Lucas, John. (2003). "The Allethrins: Chemistry and Formulations" SMART Meeting. Valent
Bioscience Corporation Environmental Science Division. U.S. EPA Arlington, VA. 10/7/03.
Mazan, M.R., Svatek, J., Maranda, L., Christiani, D., Ghio, A., Nadeau, J. and Hoffman A.M.
(2009). Questionnaire Assessment of Airway Disease Symptoms in Equine Barn Personnel.
Occupational Medicine.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
11-7
-------
References
McKeown, K. (2001). Determination of the Dislodgeability of Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) from
the Fur of Dogs Following the Application of an Insecticide Powder, Pump Spray or Aerosol.
Lab Project Number: Hartz Test No. 1555. Unpublished study prepared by The Hartz Mountain
Corporation. EPA MRID 45485501.
Merricks, D. L. (1997). Carbaryl Applicator Exposure Study During Application of Sevin®
Dust To Dogs By the Non-Professional. Lab Project Number: 1517. Unpublished study
prepared by Agrisearch Incorporated for Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. EPA MRID 44439901.
Merricks, D.L. (1998). Carbaryl Mixer/Loader/Applicator Exposure Study During Application
of RP-2 Liquid (21%) to Fruit Trees and Ornamental Plants : Lab Project Number: 1518.
Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc., Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co., and Morse
Laboratories, Inc. 320 p. EPA MRID 44518501.
Mester, T.C. (1998). Dermal Exposure and Inhalation Exposure to Carbaryl by Commercial Pet
Groomers During Applications of Adams ™ Carbaryl Flea and Tick Shampoo. Lab Project
Number: 97649. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories California for Pfizer
Animal Health. EPA MRID 44658401.
NAFTA - Dept. of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), California EPA, HSM-98014, April 24, 1998.
National Research Council. (1994). Health Effects of Permethrin-Impregnated Army Battle-
Dress Uniforms. Subcommittee to Review Permethrin Toxicity from Military Uniforms,
Committee on Toxicology, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on
Life Sciences. Washington, DC: NRC.
National Research Council, Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the
U.S. EPA (2009). Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. National Academies
Press. 500 Fifth St. N.W. Washington, DC 20001.
Pesticide Regulation Notice 98-6. (1998). Flammability Labeling Requirements for Total
Release Fogger Pesticides.
Putnam, R.A., Doherty, J. J., and Clark, J. M. (2008). Golfer Exposure to Chlorpyrifos and
Carbaryl Following Application to Turfgrass. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
Reiss, R. and Griffin, J. A. (2004). Probabilistic Exposure and Risk Model for Fumigant
Bystander Exposures Using Iodomethane as a Case Study. Sponsored by Arvesta Corporation.
July 28, 2004.
Residential Exposure Joint Venture (REJV) Survey. Consumer Specialty Products Association:
2002.03-REJV-12M-002.
Ross, J; Fong, HR; Thongsinthusak, T; Margetich, S; Krieger, R. (1991). Measuring Potential
Dermal Transfer of Surface Pesticide Residue Generated From Indoor Fogger Use: using the
CDFA roller methods. Chemosphere 22: 975 - 984.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
11-8
-------
References
Rudenko, L. (2000). Supplemental Submission to the US Environmental Protection Agency:
Permethrin Rub-Off Trial from Astex Mattress Liners. Prepared for Protec Health International
Ltd. by The Life Sciences Consultancy, LLC. October 31, 2000. EPAMRID 45256001.
Selim, S. (2000a) Measurement of Transfer of Pyrethrin and Piperonyl Butoxide Residues from
Vinyl Flooring Treated with a Fogger Formulation. Unpublished study prepared by Non-Dietary
Exposure Task Force. (MRID 46188605).
Selim, S. (2000b) Post-Application Deposition Measurements for Pyrethrins and Piperonyl
Butoxide Following Use of a Total Release Indoor Fogger. Unpublished study prepared by Non-
Dietary Exposure Task Force. (MRID 46188602).
Selim, S. (2000c) Post Application Measurements for Deltamethrin Following Use of a Total
Release Fogger. Unpublished study prepared by Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force. (MRID
46609901).
Selim, S. (2002a) Determination of Pyrethrin (PY) and Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) Residue on
the Hand from Treated Vinyl Flooring Sections Following Hand Press on Untreated Surfaces.
Unpublished study prepared by Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force. (MRID 46188614).
Selim, S. (2002b) Determination of Pyrethrin (PY) and Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) Residue on
the Hand following Hand Press on Treated and Untreated Carpet. Unpublished study prepared
by Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force. (MRID 46188620).
Selim, S. (2003a) Measurement of Transfer of Permethrin and Piperonyl Butoxide Residues from
Vinyl and Carpet Flooring Treated with a Fogger Formulation Following a Single Hand Press.
Unpublished study prepared by Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force. (MRID 46188625).
Selim, S. (2003b) Determination of Permethrin (PER) and Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) Residue on
the Hand Following Hand Press on Treated and Untreated Vinyl and Carpet. Unpublished study
prepared by Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force. (MRID 46188628).
Selim, S. (2003c) Post-Application Deposition Measurements For Permethrin and Piperonyl
Butoxide Following Use of a Total Release Indoor Fogger. Unpublished study prepared by Non-
Dietary Exposure Task Force. (MRID 46188623).
Selim, S. (2004) Measurement of Transfer of Deltamethrin Residues from Vinyl and Carpet
flooring Treated with a Fogger Formulation Following a Single Hand Press. Unpublished study
prepared by Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force. (MRID 46297602).
Selim, S. (2008). Determination of Floor Residues of Esfenvalerate Following a Crack and
Crevice or Broadcast Application of EVERCIDE® Residual Ant and Roach Spray 27523.
MRID: 47547701
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
11-9
-------
References
SHEDS-Multimedia: ORD/NERL's Model to Estimate Aggregate and Cumulative Exposures to
Chemicals. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/heasd/products/sheds_multimedia/sheds_mm.html
Smith, C. (2011). Review of ORD Test House Study, D390098.
Snodgrass (1987). PERMETHRIN: Fabric/Skin Contact From Wearing The Army Battle Dress
Uniform. (MRID No. 407668-12)
Snodgrass (1992). Permethrin Transfer from Treated Cloth to the Skin Surface: Potential for
Exposure in Humans. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 35: 91-105.
Stout II, D. M. and Mason, M.A. (2003). The Distribution of Chlorpyrifos Following a Crack
and Crevice Type Application in the U.S. EPA Indoor Air Quality Research House. Atmospheric
Environment, 37, 5539-5549.
Tsang, A.M.; Klepeis, N.E. (1996). Results tables from a detailed analysis of the National
Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) responses. Draft Report prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency by Lockheed Martin, Contract No. 68-W6-001, Delivery
Order No. 13.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. (2006). Insecticide Applications. Cockroach
Control Manual. Second Edition. Lincoln: Nebraska. 53-57.
U.S. Air Force (USAF). (2003). Department of The Air Force - Headquarters Air Force Civil
Engineer Support Agency, April 16, 2003 memo with the subject "Engineering Technical Letter
(ETL) 03-3: Air Force Carpet Standard."
U.S. EPA. (1992). Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, Federal Register Notice. Vol. 57. No. 104, pp. 22888-22938.
U.S. EPA. (1993). Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-93/187a.
U.S. EPA. (1993) Protocol for Dermal Exposure Assessment: A Technical Report.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. EPA/600/X-93/005.
U.S. EPA. (1995). Data Call-In Notice for Post-Application Exposure Data. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. (1995) Multi-Chamber Concentration and Exposure Model (MCCEM): User's Guide,
Version 2.4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, Exposure Assessment Branch, Washington D.C.
U.S. EPA. (1996). Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines: OPPTS 860.1460 - Food Handling.
EPA 712-C-96-181.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
11-10
-------
References
U.S. EPA. (1997). Exposure Factors Handbook. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. (1997). Series 875 - Occupational and Residential Exposure Test Guidelines, Group B
- Post-application Exposure Monitoring Test Guidelines. Draft Document (Version 5.2). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. (2001). Wall Paint Exposure Assessment Model (WPEM) Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/wpem.htm.
U.S. EPA. (2001). General Principles for Performing Aggregate Exposure and Risk
Assessments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. (2002). Determination of the Appropriate FQPA Safety Factor(s) in Tolerance
Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. February 28, 2002.
U.S. EPA. (2005). Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood
Exposures to Environmental Contaminants (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/630/P-03/003F.
U.S. EPA. (2005). Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/630/P-03/001F.
U.S. EPA. (2005). Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life
Exposure to Carcinogens. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/630/R-
03/003F.
U.S. EPA. (2009). Metabolically Derived Human Ventilation Rates: A Revised Approach Based
Upon Oxygen Consumption Rates. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-06/129F.
U.S. EPA. (2011). Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/052F.
Vaccaro (1991). Evaluation of Dislodgeable Residues and Absorbed Doses of Chlorpyrifos to
Crawling Infants following of a Chlorpyrifos Based Emulsifiable Concentrate Indoor Broadcast
Applications. MRID 42008401. Reviewed by EPA: D168824 8/18/1995
World Health Organization (2004). A Generic Risk Assessment Model for Insecticide
Treatment and Subsequent Use of Mosquito Nets. World Health Organization Communicable
Disease Control, Prevention and Eradication WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) &
Protection of the Human Environment Programme on Chemical Safety (PCS). Available at:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
11-11
-------
References
Wright, CG and Jackson MD. (1975). Insecticide residues in non-target areas of rooms after two
methods of crack-and-crevice application. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 13:123-128.
Wrzesinski, C. (2009). Dislodgeable Residue Study of SCH 783460 from Spot-On Treated
Beagle Dogs. Lab Project Number: N09-039-01. Unpublished study prepared by Intervet Inc.
EPA MRID 47834502.
Wrzesinski, C. (2010). One-Month Dislodgeable Residue Study of SCH 783460 from Spot-On
Treated Cats. Lab Project Number: N09-110-01. Unpublished study prepared by Intervet Inc.
EPA MRID 48010801.
Wrzesinski, C. (2010). One-Month Dislodgeable Residue Study of Indoxacarb and Permethrin
from Spot-On Treated Beagle Dogs. Lab Project Number: N09-064-01. Unpublished study
prepared by Intervet Inc. EPA MRID 48135326.
Wong, et al (2000). Adult proxy responses to a survey of children's dermal soil contact
activities. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 10:509-517.
Xue, J., Zartarian, V., Moya, J., Freeman, N., Beamer, P., Black, K., Tulve, N., Shalat, S.
(2007), A Meta-Analysis of Children's Hand-to-Mouth Frequency Data for Estimating
Nondietary Ingestion Exposure. Risk Analysis, 27(2):411-420.
Xue, J; Zartarian, V; Tulve, N; Moya, J; Freeman, N; AuYeung, W; Beamer, P. (2010). A Meta-
Analysis of Children's Object-to-Mouth Frequency Data for Estimating Non-Dietary Ingestion
Exposure. 20: 536-545.
Zartarian V.G., J. Xue, H. A. Ozkaynak, W. Dang, G. Glen, L. Smith, and C. Stallings. (2005). A
Probabilistic Exposure Assessment for Children Who Contact CCA-treated Playsets and Decks
Using the Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation Model for the Wood Preservative
Scenario (SHEDS-WOOD). Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/X-05/009.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
11-12
-------
Appendix A
Appendix A Health Effects Division Residential Standard Operating
Procedures "Index Lifestage" White Paper
Introduction
In the beginning phase of an exposure and risk assessment, exposure assessors must first identify
the relevant lifestages for each exposure scenario (i.e., adults, children 1 < 2 years old, children 3
< 6 years old, etc.). In most cases, there are multiple lifestages that could be potentially exposed
within a particular exposure scenario. To simplify the exposure and risk assessment process, an
exposure assessor generally focuses the exposure assessment towards the lifestage (or lifestages)
of highest concern due to unique behavioral characteristics that may lead to higher levels of
exposure. This process is referred to as "selecting an index lifestage". The index lifestage
approach utilizes quantitative assessments of the index lifestage to protect for the exposures and
risks for all potentially exposed lifestages. This approach simplifies and streamlines the
assessment process and allows risk managers to focus on the area(s) of highest concern.
Children engage in behaviors and consumption that can increase their risk of pesticide exposures
compared to adults. In the 1997 version of the Health Effects Division's (HED's) Residential
Standard Operating Procedures (ResSOPs), the children 3 < 6 years old lifestage was used to
represent children's exposure to pesticides in residential environments. At the time, the Agency
believed that this lifestage was the appropriate index lifestage for children based mainly on
behavioral aspects (e.g., mobility, mouthing characteristics). In the 2011 revised version of
HED's ResSOPs, different index lifestage were selected for each individual SOP based on
behavioral aspects (e.g., mobility, mouthing characteristics) as well as the types and quality of
data used in the individual SOPs.
In October 2009, the Agency presented the revised ResSOPs to the Federal Insecticide Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Science Advisory Panel (SAP). The FIFRA SAP provided a
number of comments on the revised ResSOPs specifically related to the issue of the selection of
index lifestages for children. The SAP agreed with the Agency's use of the index lifestage
approach but recommended that additional explanation be included in the ResSOPs regarding the
selection of the specific index lifestage for the individual SOPs.
Based on the FIFRA SAP's comments, the Agency decided to further analyze the index lifestage
issue. The Agency analyzed this issue using both quantitative exposure assessments as well as
qualitative considerations. Quantitative exposure assessments were performed for a variety of
younger lifestages as defined in the Agency's Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring
and Assessing Childhood Exposures for Environmental Contaminants1 . This analysis was
performed for each individual SOP and it includes the following lifestages: 6 < 12 months, 1 < 2
years, 2 < 3 years, and 3 < 6 years. While children younger than 6 months may potentially have
exposure in the residential setting, it is believed that exposure for children older than 6 months
will be equivalent, if not greater, due to behavioral and anatomical/physiological development;
therefore, the focus of the quantitative assessment was on children older than 6 months.
21 http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/guidance-on-selecting-age-groups.htm
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-l
-------
Appendix A
Where appropriate, dermal, inhalation, and non-dietary exposures (e.g., hand-to-mouth, object-
to-mouth) were considered for all individual SOPs. The results of this analysis can be found in
Attachment 1, Table AA-1 to Table AA-14 which can be found at the end of this document.
Selection of an index lifestage for an individual SOP cannot solely be based on this quantitative
analysis. The selection requires a holistic examination and discussion of the underlying data
utilized in these assessments, which is critical to this selection. Further discussion of the issues
to consider in the selection of an index lifestage is included below.
Exposure Data Considerations
• Exposure data based on monitoring of children are not typically available. The exposure
data used in all of the individual SOPs were developed via monitoring of adults and not
children. In order to use this data to more accurately represent children, the data were
adjusted to take into account the differences in body surface area between adults and
children. It is unclear how exposure studies performed with children would compare to
the available adjusted adult exposure data. However, the Agency does believe factors
such as force of contact (adults vs. children) and scripted vs. unscripted play could impact
the study results. Table A-l below presents the adjustment factors utilized in the
ResSOPs.
Tsihie A-l: Surface Area Atljiislmeiil l-'sidors
l.ifes(;i»e
Surface Area (in")
|Mc«iii: Combined Mules ;iiul l em;iles'|
Adjustment l";ic(»r
6 < 12 months
0.45
0.23
1 < 2 years
0.53
0.27
2 < 3 years
0.61
0.31
3 < 6 years
0.76
0.39
6 < 11 years
1.08
0.55
11 < 16 years
1.59
0.82
1 U.S. EPA, 2011; Table 7-9
2 Derived as ratio of adult surface area (1.95 m2; average of male and female means) to combined male and
female mean surface area for specified lifestage (e.g., 0.76 m2 1.95 m2 = 0.39)
• In some cases, the dermal exposure studies represent activities that younger lifestages do
not perform or are unable to perform. In addition, the dermal exposure studies may
represent activities that involve a more vigorous or consistent contact with treated
surfaces than would be expected for young children. For example, the outdoor Turf SOP
is based on exposure data representing a combined routine of various outdoor turf
activities (some of which are relevant to the younger lifestages and some of which are
not). These exposure data can be considered a reasonable representation of younger
lifestage behaviors; however, it does not represent an exact match. One example of this
issue can be seen if the activities in the turf exposure study are examined. Many of these
activities (e.g., playing Frisbee, playing football) are unlikely to be performed by younger
lifestages, such as the 6 < 12 month old, the 1 < 2 year old, and the 2 < 3 year old
lifestages. These activities are also performed with older individuals and represent a
higher intensity contact with the treated surfaces (e.g., an adult being tackled on the lawn
versus a child crawling on the lawn). In another example, interaction with treated pets is
based on exposure monitoring of professional pet grooming activities. Groomers in the
study exhibited a more consistent and vigorous contact with the treated dogs than is
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-2
-------
Appendix A
expected from a child's casual contact with a pet. These exposure data may not be a
good representation of younger lifestage behaviors related to pets; however, the data have
been used in the Pet SOP as a surrogate for a child's contact with a treated pet in lieu of a
more representative pet exposure study. In general, using these exposure studies to
represent younger lifestages who wouldn't be performing those activities is not expected
to underestimate exposure for younger lifestages.
• For some scenarios, assessment of some of the younger lifestages is not appropriate
because it is not expected that these lifestages will engage in the activities represented in
the scenario. For example, in the Outdoor Fogger SOP, the 6 < 12 month old, the 1 < 2
year old, and the 2 < 3 year old lifestages are not expected to spend any significant length
of time in horse or animal barns. As a result, these lifestages are not assessed for this
exposure scenario.
• When selecting an index lifestage, developmental milestones for different lifestages need
to be considered. Table A-2 below clearly shows that from 6 months to 2 years, floor
mobility increases, which increases the likelihood of contacting different surfaces.
Among the younger lifestages, the 1 < 2 year old lifestage is likely the youngest lifestage
that is highly mobile and can potentially cover a large area indoors and outdoors.
Tabic A-2: Developmental Milestones Relevant to Oral and Dermal Exposure
Lifestage
Milestones
Birth < 3 months
Breast and bottle feeding. Hand-to-mouth activities.
3 < 6 months
Solid food may be introduced. Contact with surfaces increases. Object/hand-to-
mouth activities increase.
6 < 12 months
Food consumption expands. Children's floor mobility increases (surface
contact). Children are increasingly likely to mouth nonfood items.
12 < 24 months
Children consume full range of foods. They participate in increased play
activities, are extremely curious, and exercise poor judgment. Breast and bottle
feeding cease.
2 < 6 years
Children begin wearing adult-style clothing. Hand-to-mouth activities begin to
moderate.
6 < 11 years
There is decreased oral contact with hands and objects as well as decreased
dermal contact with surfaces.
• Developmental milestones, in particular floor mobility, are important because the
underlying assumption used in the dermal and incidental oral scenario equations is that
children are continuously contacting areas of with fresh (i.e., untouched) residue. The
SOPs do not take into account the fact that touching the same treated area over and over
again results in less total residue being transferred than if each touch is to a previously
uncontacted treated area. The Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force (NDETF) has
performed multiple studies examining the impacts on the amount of residue transferred to
the hand resulting from these two very different surface contact patterns (i.e., contacting
the same piece of flooring for every hand-to-surface contact versus contacting a new
piece of flooring for each hand-to-surface contact). For example, a study performed with
permethrin showed that approximately 17% of the deposited residue was transferred to
the hand after four hand-to-surface contacts were made, with each contact occurring on a
new piece of treated flooring (i.e., fresh residue for every contact). In contrast,
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-3
-------
Appendix A
approximately 6% of the total deposited residue was transferred to the hand after four
hand-to-surface contacts were made, with each contact occurring on the same piece of
treated flooring. The NDETF data clearly show that, all other things being equal (e.g.,
exposure time, hand-to-mouth frequency, etc), repeated exposure to the same treated
surface will result in a lower overall exposure than repeated exposure to uncontacted
treated surfaces. Based on this data, assuming repeated contact with areas of fresh
residue is not expected to underestimate exposure.
Activity Data Considerations
• The data available describing exposure time for young children in various environments
do not typically distinguish between the specific younger lifestages. The data are
typically presented for all children or subsets of children (e.g., 3-12 years old or 1-4 and
5-11 years old). As a result, the exposure times used as an input in the individual SOPs
are identical across many lifestages. This is likely a health protective use of these data as
it is unlikely the exposure time to treated turf or a treated pet would be the same for the 6
< 12 month old lifestage vs. the 1 < 2 year old lifestage vs. the 2 < 3 year old lifestage.
• Frequency of hand-to-mouth events is an important variable for hand-to-mouth post-
application exposure assessments. Data on the frequency of hand-to-mouth events are
limited and difficult to collect. The meta-analysis presented in Xue et al. (2007)
examined hand-to-mouth frequency data from 9 studies representing 429 subjects and
more than 2,000 hours of behavior observation. This meta-analysis shows that mouthing
activity across the younger lifestages is very similar (see Table A-3); particularly for the 6
<12 months and 1 < 2 years old lifestages.
Tabic A-3: Hand-to-Mouth Activitv Data Summarv
Scenario
Lifestage
Mean HTM events
95th percentile HTM
events
Indoor
6< 12 months (N=l 19)
18.9
52
1 < 2 year old (N=245)
19.6
63
2 < 3 year old (N=160)
12.8
37.5
3 < 6 year old (N=160)
14.3
56.5
Outdoor
6 < 12 months (N=10)
14.5
46.7
1 <2yearold(N=32)
13.9
42.2
2 < 3 year old (N=46)
5.3
20
3 < 6 year old (N=55)
8.5
36
It is believed that a majority of the hand-to-mouth activity observed in the studies
included in the Xue, et al. 2007 meta-analysis occurred during eating intervals. Some
research supporting this belief has already been performed (AuYeung et. al, Poster
presented at 15th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Exposure Analysis;
2005) but more work needs to be done. Thus, the use of these hand-to-mouth activity
data is unlikely to underestimate exposure because hand contact with treated surfaces
(and thus transfer of residues) is likely limited during the time a child is eating.
In addition, it should be noted that hand-to-mouth events in these studies are defined as
when a child's hand touches anywhere near the mouth (i.e., each event did not
necessarily result in the hand entering the mouth). For example, if a child brought their
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-4
-------
Appendix A
hand up to their mouth and only touched the outside of the mouth, this was counted as a
hand-to-mouth event. In the ResSOPs, all hand-to-mouth events are assumed to be
mouthing events, where part of the hand is mouthed and residues are transferred via
saliva extraction. Using the data in this manner is not expected to underestimate
exposure.
It should also be acknowledged that the SOPs assume even spacing of the hand-to-mouth
events across replenishment intervals; however, in actuality, the hand-to-mouth events
observed in the studies are not evenly spaced out over the observation period. The
assumption of evenly spaced hand-to-mouth events is also unlikely to underestimate
exposure as it assumes a certain amount of hand-to-mouth events occur during each
replenishment interval, resulting in greater total exposure than if all the hand-to-mouth
events occurred after a single replenishment of residues.
• Frequency of object-to-mouth events is an important variable for object-to-mouth post-
application exposure assessments. Data on the frequency of object-to-mouth events are
limited and difficult to collect. The meta-analysis presented in Xue et al. (2009)
examined object-to-mouth frequency data from 7 studies representing 438 subjects and
-1500 hours of behavior observation. The object-to-mouth activity data available from
the Xue, et al. 2009 meta-analysis show that mouthing activity across the younger
lifestages is very similar (see Table A-4). It is acknowledged that object mouthing does
occur for children younger than 6 months of age; however, data are not available for
these younger lifestages.
Tabic A-4: Object-to-Mouth Activitv Data Summarv
Scenario
Lifestajjc
Mean OTIM events
95th percentile OTIM
events
Indoor
6 < 12 months (N=82)
20.3
37.9
1 <2yearold(N=137)
14.2
34.0
2 < 3 year old (N=94)
10.0
24.4
3 < 6 year old (N=158)
10.2
40.0
Outdoor
6 < 12 months
No data available.
1 <2yearold(N=21)
8.8
21.3
2<3 year old (N=29)
8.1
40.0
3 < 6 year old (N=53)
8.3
30.3
Similar to the hand-to-mouth scenario, the SOPs assume even spacing of the object-to-
mouth events across replenishment intervals; however, in actuality, the object-to-mouth
events observed in the studies are not evenly spaced out over the observation period. The
assumption of evenly spaced object-to-mouth events is unlikely to underestimate
exposure as it assumes a certain amount of obj ect-to-mouth events occur during each
replenishment interval, resulting in greater total exposure than if all the object-to-mouth
events occurred after a single replenishment of residues.
Also similar to the hand-to-mouth scenario, it should be noted that object-to-mouth
events in these studies are defined as whenever an object touched anywhere near the
mouth (i.e., each event did not necessarily result in the object entering the mouth). For
example, if a child brought an object up to their mouth and only touched the outside of
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-5
-------
Appendix A
the mouth, this was counted as a object-to-mouth event. In the ResSOPs, all object-to-
mouth events are assumed to be mouthing events where part of the object is mouthed and
residues are transferred via saliva extraction. Using the data in this manner is not
expected to underestimate exposure.
• Body weights outlined in the EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S.
EPA, 2011) show that mean male/female combined body weights for the younger
lifestages are similar (see Table A-5).
Tabic A-5: Bodv Weight Summarv
Lifestage
Mean Body Weight (kg)
95th percentile Body
Weight (kg)
6 < 12 months
9.2
11.3
1 < 2 year old
11.4
14.0
2 < 3 year old
13.8
17.1
3 < 6 year old
18.6
26.2
• Inhalation rates outlined in the EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S.
EPA, 2011) show that rates for the younger lifestages are very similar (see Table A-6).
Table A-6: Inhalation Rate Summarv
Lifestage
Mean Inhalation Rate
(m3/hr)
95th percentile Inhalation
Rate (m3/hr)
6 < 12 months
0.23
0.33
1 < 2 year old
0.33
0.53
2 < 3 year old
0.37
0.57
3 < 6 year old
0.42
0.58
Aggregate Exposure Considerations
As a result of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), exposures from food, drinking water and
residential uses of a single pesticide are combined when completing an aggregate exposure
assessment. For pesticides with residential uses, residential exposures to children are an
important part of the Agency's consideration of aggregate exposure. As described above, in the
past the Agency has focused on assessing the 3 < 6 year old lifestage for residential exposures.
These residential assessments were then combined with the most sensitive lifestage from the
dietary assessment (food + water). For example, an aggregate assessment might combine dietary
exposure for infants less than 1 year old with the residential exposure for the 3< 6 year old
lifestage. As the Agency has analyzed the index lifestage issue for the ResSOPs, it was
determined that aggregating dietary and residential exposures from the same lifestage is most
appropriate. Aggregating exposures from the same lifestage will result in aggregate assessments
more reflective of real world exposures.
Selection of an Index Lifestage
As described above, there are a number of factors to consider in the selection of an index
lifestage for the ResSOPs. The Agency's quantitative analysis (see Table AA-1 to Table AA-14
in Attachment 1) showed that, for the most part, either the 6 < 12 month old lifestage or the 1 < 2
year old lifestage results in the highest quantitative estimate of exposure/dose for the younger
lifestages. However, as noted above, this quantitative analysis cannot be considered alone, as
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-6
-------
Appendix A
there are also a number of qualitative factors that impact the selection of an index lifestage for
the ResSOPs. Based on the combined quantitative and qualitative analysis of the index lifestage
issue, the Agency has determined that the 1 < 2 year old lifestage represents the most appropriate
index lifestage for children for most of the exposure scenarios. There are some exceptions to this
selection within the ResSOPs. For example, as mentioned above, in some of the individual
SOPs, selecting some of the younger lifestages (e.g., the 6 <12 month old lifestage in horse or
animal barns) is inappropriate because children in that age range are not expected to engage in
the activities represented in the scenario.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-7
-------
Appendix B
Attachment 1: Quantitative Sensitivity Analysis
Turf SOP
I'iihk* AA-I: Turf l)crm;il Index l.iloslii^c \n;il>sis
TTR Calculations when Chemical Specific TTR Data are Not Available
Application Rate
(lb ai/acre)
F a
Fd
t
Weight unit
conversion
factor
Area unit
conversion
factor
TTRt (ug/cm2)
Liquid Product
0.87
0.01
0.1
0
450000000
0.0000000247
0.097
Granular Product
0.67
0.002
0.1
0
450000000
0.0000000247
0.015
Dermal Exposure for High Contact Lawn Activities
Exposure Scenario
Lifestage
TTRt (ug/cm2)
Weight unit
conversion
factor
Transfer
Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
Hours of
Exposure (hr)
Exposure
(mg/day)
Average Daily
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
High Contact Lawn Activities (Liquids)
Adult
0.097
0.001
180,000
1.5
26.11
0.33
11 <16 years
0.097
0.001
150,000
1.5
21.76
0.38
6 <11 years
0.097
0.001
99,000
1.5
14.36
0.45
3 <6 years
0.097
0.001
70,000
1.5
10.15
0.55
2 <3 years
0.097
0.001
56,000
1.5
8.12
0.59
1 <2 years
0.097
0.001
49,000
1.5
7.11
0.62
6 <12 months
0.097
0.001
41,000
1.5
5.95
0.65
High Contact Lawn Activities (Granulars)
Adult
0.015
0.001
200,000
1.5
4.47
0.06
11 <16 years
0.015
0.001
160,000
1.5
3.57
0.06
6 <11 years
0.015
0.001
110,000
1.5
2.46
0.08
3 <6 years
0.015
0.001
78,000
1.5
1.74
0.09
2 <3 years
0.015
0.001
62,000
1.5
1.39
0.10
1 <2 years
0.015
0.001
54,000
1.5
1.21
0.11
6 <12 months
0.015
0.001
46,000
1.5
1.03
0.11
a. The screening level value was selected for the F value in this example. This value would be refined if chemical specific turf transferable residue data
are available.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-l
-------
Appendix B
liihlo \.\-2:
I'llrl' ll;iii(l-lo-Moiilh l.ifcshiiii' An;il\sis
Hand Residue Calculations
Exposure Scenario
Lifestage
Fclihands
Children Dermal
Exposure
SAh (cm2)
HRt
(mg/cm2)
3 <6 years
0.06
10.154
225
0.0014
Hand Residue
2 <3 years
0.06
8.123
160
0.0015
Liquid Product
1 <2 years
0.06
7.107
150
0.0014
6 <12 months
0.06
5.947
120
0.0015
3 <6 years
0.027
1.743
225
0.00010
Hand Residue
2 <3 years
0.027
1.385
160
0.00012
Granular Product
1 <2 years
0.027
1.206
150
0.00011
6 <12 months
0.027
1.028
120
0.00012
Hand-to-Mouth Exposure for Lawn Activities
HRt
Fm
N Replen
SE
Freq_HtM
Exposure Scenario
Lifestage
Hand
Residue
(mg/cm2)
Fraction of Hand
Surface Area
Mouthed / Event
SAh (cm2)
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
Number of
replenishment
intervals per hr
(intervals/hr)
Extraction
by Saliva
H-t-M events
per hour
Exposure
(mg/day)
Average
Daily Dose
(mg/kg/day)
3 <6 years
0.00135
0.127
225
1.5
4
0.5
8.5
0.18
0.0096
HtM Exposure
2 <3 years
0.00152
0.127
160
1.5
4
0.5
5.3
0.11
0.0081
Liquid Product
1 <2 years
0.00142
0.127
150
1.5
4
0.5
13.9
0.15
0.013
6 <12 months
0.00149
0.127
120
1.5
4
0.5
14.5
0.12
0.014
3 <6 years
0.00010
0.127
150
1.5
4
0.5
8.5
0.0092
0.0005
HtM Exposure
2 <3 years
0.00012
0.127
150
1.5
4
0.5
5.3
0.0080
0.0006
Granular Product
1 <2 years
0.00011
0.127
150
1.5
4
0.5
13.9
0.011
0.0010
6 <12 months
0.00012
0.127
150
1.5
4
0.5
14.5
0.012
0.0013
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-2
-------
Appendix B
I'iihlo AA-3: Turf Ohjccl-lo-Mouih l.il'esl.iiic \n;il>sis
Object Residue Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
Application Rate
(lb ai/acre)
F0
Weight unit
conversion factor
Area unit
conversion factor
ORt (ug/cm2)
Object Residue
Liquid Product
0.87
0.0
450000000
0.0000000247
0.097
Object Residue
Granular Product
0.67
0.0
450000000
0.0000000247
0.074
Object-to-Mouth Exposure for Lawn Activities
Exposure Scenario
Lifestage
ORt
Weight
unit
conversion
factor
SAM0
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
NReplen
SE
Freq_OtM
Average
Daily Dose
(mg/kg/day
)
Object
Residue
(mg/cm2
)
Object
Surface Area
Mouthed /
Event
(cm2/event)
Number of
replenishment
intervals per
hr
(intervals/hr)
Extraction
by Saliva
O-t-M
events per
hour
Exposure
(mg/day)
OtM Exposure Liquid Product
3 <6 years
0.097
0.001
10
1.5
4
0.5
8.3
0.0044
0.00024
2 <3 years
0.097
0.001
10
1.5
4
0.5
8.1
0.0044
0.00032
1 <2 years
0.097
0.001
10
1.5
4
0.5
8.8
0.0045
0.00040
6 <12
months
Data on outdoor object-to-mouth event per hour are not available for this lifestage.
OtM Exposure Granular Product
3 <6 years
0.074
0.001
10
1.5
4
0.5
8.8
0.0035
0.00019
2 <3 years
0.074
0.001
10
1.5
4
0.5
8.8
0.0035
0.00025
1 <2 years
0.074
0.001
10
1.5
4
0.5
8.8
0.0035
0.00031
6 <12
months
Data on outdoor object-to-mouth event per hour are not available for this lifestage.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-3
-------
Appendix B
Indoor SOP
Tiihlc AA-4: Indoor Dcrniiil An;il\sis
Indoor Surface Residue Calculations when Chemical Specific Data are Not Available
Type of
Application
Application
Rate (lb
ai/acre)
Conversion
Factor (ug/lb)
Conversion
Factor (ft2 to
cm2)
Percent of
application rate
deposited
Deposited
residue
(ug/cm2)
Broadcast
0.0001
4.5E+08
1.08E-03
100%
49.03
Dermal Exposure for Indoor Activities
Exposure
Scenario
Lifestage
Deposited
Residue
(ug/cm2)
Conversion
Factor (mg/ug)
Fraction
transferred
Transfer
Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
Hours of
Exposure
(hr)
Exposure
(mg/day)
Body
Weight
(kg)
Average Daily
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
Carpet
Adult
49.03
0.001
0.06
6,800
8
160.0
79.5
2.0
11 <16 years
49.03
0.001
0.06
5,500
5
80.9
56.8
1.4
6 <11 years
49.03
0.001
0.06
3,800
5
55.9
31.8
1.8
3 <6 years
49.03
0.001
0.06
2,700
5
39.7
18.6
2.1
2 <3 years
49.03
0.001
0.06
2,200
4
25.9
13.8
1.9
1 <2 years
49.03
0.001
0.06
1,800
4
21.2
11.4
1.9
6 <12 months
49.03
0.001
0.06
1,600
5
23.5
9.2
2.6
Hard
surfaces
Adult
49.03
0.001
0.08
6,800
2
53.3
79.5
0.7
11 <16 years
49.03
0.001
0.08
5,500
1
21.6
56.8
0.4
6 <11 years
49.03
0.001
0.08
3,800
2
29.8
31.8
0.9
3 <6 years
49.03
0.001
0.08
2,700
2
21.2
18.6
1.1
2 <3 years
49.03
0.001
0.08
2,200
2
17.3
13.8
1.3
1 <2 years
49.03
0.001
0.08
1,800
2
14.1
11.4
1.2
6 <12 months
49.03
0.001
0.08
1,600
2
12.6
9.2
1.4
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-4
-------
Appendix B
Tiihlc \.\-5: Indoor 111 h;ihi 1 ion (Aerosols) l.ilcslsigi* .\n;il\sis
Lifestage
Application rate
(lb ai/m3)
CF
(mg/lb)
Co (mg/m3)
IR (m3/hr)
ACH
(1/hr)
ET(hr)
Exposure
(mg/day)
Body
Weight (kg)
Inhalation Dose
(mg/kg/day)
Adult
0.000158
4.54E+05
71.58
0.64
0.45
2
60.41
79.5
0.8
11 <16 years
0.000158
4.54E+05
71.58
0.63
0.45
2
59.47
56.8
1.0
6 <11 years
0.000158
4.54E+05
71.58
0.5
0.45
2
47.20
31.8
1.5
3 <6 years
0.000158
4.54E+05
71.58
0.42
0.45
2
39.65
18.6
2.1
2 <3 years
0.000158
4.54E+05
71.58
0.37
0.45
2
34.93
13.8
2.5
1 <2 years
0.000158
4.54E+05
71.58
0.33
0.45
2
31.15
11.4
2.7
6 <12 months
0.000158
4.54E+05
71.58
0.23
0.45
2
21.71
9.2
2.4
Tiihk* AA-(»: Indoor lnh;il;iiion (Yiipors) l.ileslsigi* An;il\sis
Lifestage
Inhalation
Rate (m3/hr)
Mass of active
ingredient
applied
(mg)
Hours of
Exposure
(hr)
k (first
order decay
rate)
Air
exchange
rate
(1/hr)
Volume of room (m3)
Exposure
(mg/day)
Body
Weight
(kg)
Inhalation
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
Adult
0.64
454
16
2.08E-05
0.45
33
0.006
79.5
0.00007
11 <16 years
0.63
454
15
2.08E-05
0.45
33
0.005
56.8
0.00009
6 <11 years
0.5
454
15
2.08E-05
0.45
33
0.004
31.8
0.00012
3 <6 years
0.42
454
16
2.08E-05
0.45
33
0.004
18.6
0.00020
2 <3 years
0.37
454
16
2.08E-05
0.45
33
0.003
13.8
0.00024
1 <2 years
0.33
454
18
2.08E-05
0.45
33
0.003
11.4
0.00029
6 <12 months
0.23
454
18
2.08E-05
0.45
33
0.002
9.2
0.00025
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-5
-------
Appendix B
T;ihk- AA-"7: Indoor ll;iii(l-lo-Moiilh l.ilcsl.iuc An;il\sis
Hand Residue Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
Lifestage
Fai|l(m,is
Children
Dermal
Exposure
SAh (cm2)
Surface area
of one hand
HRt (mg/cm2)
Carpets
3 <6 years
0.15
39.7
225
0.0132
2 <3 years
0.15
25.9
160
0.0121
1 <2 years
0.15
21.2
150
0.0106
6 <12 months
0.15
23.5
120
0.0147
Hard surfaces
3 <6 years
0.15
21.2
225
0.0071
2 <3 years
0.15
17.3
160
0.0081
1 <2 years
0.15
14.1
150
0.0071
6 <12 months
0.15
12.6
120
0.0078
Hand-to-Mouth E?q
posure for Indoor Activities
Exposure
Scenario
Lifestage
HRt
(mg/c
m2)
Fm
SAh (cm2)
Exposure
Time
(hours/da
y)
NReplen
SE
Freq_Ht
M
Exposur
e
(mg/day
)
Body
Weig
ht
(kg)
Average
Daily
Dose
(mg/kg/da
y)
Fraction of
Hand
Surface
Area
Mouthed /
Event
Surface area of
one hand
Number of
replenishme
nt intervals
perhr
(intervals/hr)
Extracti
on by
Saliva
H-t-M
events
per hour
Carpets
3 <6 years
0.0132
0.13
225
5
4
0.5
14
7.1
18.6
0.38
2 <3 years
0.0121
0.13
160
4
4
0.5
13
3.6
13.8
0.26
1 <2 years
0.0106
0.13
150
4
4
0.5
20
3.2
11.4
0.28
6 <12
months
0.0147
0.13
120
5
4
0.5
19
4.4
9.2
0.48
Hard surfaces
3 <6 years
0.0071
0.13
225
2
4
0.5
14
1.5
18.6
0.08
2 <3 years
0.0081
0.13
160
2
4
0.5
13
1.2
13.8
0.09
1 <2 years
0.0071
0.13
150
2
4
0.5
20
1.1
11.4
0.09
6 <12
months
0.0078
0.13
120
2
4
0.5
19
0.9
9.2
0.10
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-6
-------
Appendix B
I'iihlo AA-X: Indoor ObjccMo-Moudi l.ilVshiiii' An;il\sis
Object Residue Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
Lifestage
Application
Rate (lb
ai/acre)
F0 (fraction
transferred to
object)
Conversion Factor
(ug/lb)
Conversion Factor
(ft2 to cm2)
Conversion
Factor (mg/ug)
Object
residue
loading
(mg/cm2)
3 <6 years
0.003
Carpet
2 <3 years
0.06
0.003
1 <2 years
0.003
6 <12 months
0.0001
4.50E+08
1.08E-03
0.001
0.003
3 <6 years
0.004
Hard
2 <3 years
0.08
0.004
surface
1 <2 years
0.004
6 <12 months
0.004
Object-to-Mouth Exposure for Indoor Activities
SAM
NReplen
SE
Freq_OtM
Exposure
Scenario
Lifestage
Object
residue
loading
(mg/cm2)
Surface Area
of Object
Mouthed /
Event
(cm2/event)
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
Number of
replenishment
intervals per hr
(intervals/hr)
Extraction
by Saliva
O-t-M
events per
hour
Exposure
(mg/day)
Body
Weight
(kg)
Average
Daily Dose
(mg/kg/day)
3 <6 years
0.003
5
4
0.5
10
0.48
18.6
0.03
Carpet
2 <3 years
0.003
4
4
0.5
10
0.38
13.8
0.03
1 <2 years
0.003
4
4
0.5
14
0.43
11.4
0.04
6 <12 months
0.003
10
5
4
0.5
20
0.56
9.2
0.06
3 <6 years
0.004
2
4
0.5
10
0.26
18.6
0.01
Hard
2 <3 years
0.004
2
4
0.5
10
0.26
13.8
0.02
surface
1 <2 years
0.004
2
4
0.5
14
0.28
11.4
0.02
6 <12 months
0.004
2
4
0.5
20
0.30
9.2
0.03
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-7
-------
Appendix B
Pet SOP
Tsihlc AA-'J: Pel l)oi in;il lilVshiiicAniilvsis
Dermal Exposure for High Contact Pet Activities
Exposure Scenario
Lifestage
Application
Rate (mg)
Surface area
of pet (cm2)
Far3
Transfer
Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
Hours of
Exposure
(hr)
Exposure
(mg/day)
Body
Weight (kg)
Average Daily
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
Pet Post-application
(Liquids) Medium Dog
Adult
300
7000
0.02
5,200
0.77
3.432
79.5
0.0432
3 <6 years
300
7000
0.02
2,000
1.0
1.714
18.6
0.092
2 <3 years
300
7000
0.02
1,600
1.0
1.372
13.8
0.0994
1 <2 years
300
7000
0.02
1,400
1.0
1.2
11.4
0.1052
6 <12 months
300
7000
0.02
1,200
1.0
1.028
9.2
0.1118
Pet Post-application
(Solids) Medium Dogs
Adult
300
7000
0.02
140,000
0.77
92.4
79.5
1.162
3 <6 years
300
7000
0.02
55,000
1.0
47.14
18.6
2.534
2 <3 years
300
7000
0.02
43,000
1.0
36.86
13.8
2.67
1 <2 years
300
7000
0.02
38,000
1.0
32.572
11.4
2.858
6 <12 months
300
7000
0.02
32,000
1.0
27.428
9.2
2.982
b. The screening level value was selected for the FAR value in this example. This value would be refined if chemical specific pet residue data are
available.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-8
-------
Appendix B
Tsihk' AA-IO: Pol Ihiml-lo-Moiiih l.ifcslsigi' Ansihsis
Hand Residue Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
Lifestage
Fai|l(m,is
Children
Dermal
Exposure
SAh (cm2)
HRt (mg/cm2)
Hand Residue
3 <6 years
0.04
1.714
225
0.000152
Liquid
2 <3 years
0.04
1.372
160
0.000172
Product
1 <2 years
0.04
1.2
150
0.00016
Medium Dog
6 <12 months
0.04
1.028
120
0.000171
Hand Residue
Solid Product
Medium Dog
3 <6 years
0.37
47.14
225
0.03876
2 <3 years
0.37
36.86
160
0.042619
1 <2 years
0.37
32.572
150
0.04017
6 <12 months
0.37
27.428
120
0.04229
Hand-to-Mouth Exposure for Pet Activities
HRt
Fm
N Replen
SE
Freq_HtM
Exposure
Scenario
Lifestage
Hand
Residue
(mg/cm2)
Fraction of
Hand
Surface
Area
Mouthed /
Event
SAh (cm2)
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
Number of
replenishment
intervals per
hr
(intervals/hr)
Extraction by
Saliva
H-t-M events
per houra
Body Weight
(kg)
Average
Daily Dose
(mg/kg/day)
HtM
3 <6 years
0.000152
0.13
225
1.0
4
0.48
14
18.6
0.00086
Exposure
2 <3 years
0.000172
0.13
160
1.0
4
0.48
13
13.8
0.000911
Liquid
1 <2 years
0.00016
0.13
150
1.0
4
0.48
20
11.4
0.001053
Product
Medium Dog
6 <12 months
0.000171
0.13
120
1.0
4
0.48
19
9.2
0.00111
HtM
3 <6 years
0.03876
0.13
225
1.0
4
0.48
14
18.6
0.219
Exposure
2 <3 years
0.042619
0.13
160
1.0
4
0.48
13
13.8
0.2263
Solid Product
1 <2 years
0.04017
0.13
150
1.0
4
0.48
20
11.4
0.2644
Medium Dog
6 <12 months
0.04229
0.13
120
1.0
4
0.48
19
9.2
0.2740
a. HTM event frequency is not available for the pet scenario specifically; therefore, data for indoor environments was used as a surrogate.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-9
-------
Appendix B
Outdoor Fogger SOP
Tiihk* AA-11: Aerosol C;in liih;il;ilion l.ileslsigc An;il\sis
lnli;il;ilK)ii 1 Aposurc One l<>o/.spia\ can
1 Aposurc Scenario
l.il'esiaue
\pplicaliou kale
(nil. cam
\iniihei' ill" cans
Volume <\ ) (in i
Xiillou (O)
(in lin
Ik (in lin
\\eiaue l)ail>
1 )ose ( iiiu ku das)
Inhalation -
Aerosol Can
Adult
473
1
15
5400
0.64
0.705
3 <6 years
473
1
15
5400
0.42
1.98
2 <3 years
473
1
15
5400
0.37
2.35
1 <2 years
473
1
15
5400
0.33
2.53
6 <12 months
473
1
15
5400
0.23
2.19
"I'iihlo AA-12: ( andlcs. Coils. Torches, and Mills Inhiiliilion l.il'oslaiio \nal\sis
1 nlialalkiii 1 Aposurc- l-ouro 25 iiiince slicks
lAposnie
Sceiiai'iii
l.ifesiaue
XpplicalKin
kale
mm product)
Niiinheiiif
kruducls
\ uliiiiie (\ i
mi i
1 lours of
1 Aposlll'C
din
\iillow (O)
(ill lin
I selnl Life
(Ill's)
\cs (111 )
Ik (111 III)
A\ eraue
l)ail> Dose
(mu ku das i
Inhalation -
Candles, Coils,
Torches and
Mats
Adult
7087
4
51
2.3
3960
4
11
0.64
0.032
3 <6 years
7087
4
51
2.5
3960
4
11
0.42
0.099
2 <3 years
7087
4
51
2.3
3960
4
11
0.37
0.106
1 <2 years
7087
4
51
2.3
3960
4
11
0.33
0.115
6 <12
months
7087
4
51
2.3
3960
4
11
0.23
0.079
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-10
-------
Appendix B
Tiihlc AA-13: Rosiden 1 i;i 1 Misting S\stems 1 nh;il;i 1 icin \n;il> sis
Inhalation lAposure- ()ue ounce spra\ no//les
1 Aposiiie
Scenario
l.il'esiaue
Application
kale
(o/ 1 IT')
hilse Rale
(spra> 111 )
Volume <\ )
(m )
1 loins of
1 Aposure (lin
\irllou
1 )ose
( iiiiz ku das)
Inhalation -
Outdoor
Residential
Misting
System
Adult
1
1
91
2.3
5400
15
0.64
0.32
3 <6 years
1
1
91
2.5
5400
15
0.42
0.99
2 <3 years
1
1
91
2.3
5400
15
0.37
1.08
1 <2 years
1
1
91
2.3
5400
15
0.33
1.2
6 <12 months
1
1
91
2.3
5400
15
0.23
1.01
1 iihlo AA-14: Animal IS;irn Misting Svsk'ins Inhalation l.ilVslaiic\nal>sis'
Inhalation 1 Aposure- ()ne ouuee spni\ no//les
1 Aposiiie Scenario
Lilesiaue
\ppliealion kale
(O/ 1 1'l ')
Pulse kale
ispni\ lin
ACM
1 loins ii|" 1 Aposure
(lin
Ik mi lin
\\eraue l)ail>
Dose (nm ku das i
Inhalation -
Animal Barn
Adult
1
1
4
4
0.64
8.4
11<16 group
1
1
4
2
0.63
5.8
6 <11 years
1
1
4
2
0.50
8.2
3 <6 years
1
1
4
2
0.42
11.8
2 <3 years
1
1
4
2
0.37
13.9
1 <2 years
1
1
4
2
0.33
15.1
6 <12 months
1
1
4
2
0.23
13.1
a. The 6 <12 month old, the 1 < 2 year old, and the 2 < 3 year old lifestages are not expected to be present in horse or animal barns for any significant length of time. For this scenario, HED
believes that the 3 < 6 year old lifestage is the youngest lifestage viable for the exposure scenario and the younger lifestages will not be assessed. However, the other lifestages have been
included here for illustrative purposes.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
A-ll
-------
Appendix B
Appendix B Supporting Data Analysis and Documentation for Universal
Exposure Factors for Residential Exposure Assessment
B.l Generic Estimates of Fraction Hand Surface Area Mouthed
The generic estimates of fraction hand surface area mouthed are based on an analysis presented
in Zartarian et al. (2005). Based on this analysis, it was determined that a beta distribution (3.7,
25) best fits the observed data. Table B- 1: Fraction Hand Surface Area Mouthed Data
provides the raw data from this study.
liihlo IS- 1: l-'i'iiclion Ihinri Surl'iicc Aivsi Mouthed l);K;i
\UmiIhiiiu ( \
lTa|iieiic\
\uc of Child
(hi Id
II)
I'raclKin of
Hand
1'iimcr
partial fingers
5
1
453F01
3
1
partial fingers
1
1
453F01
5
2
partial fingers
0
1
453F01
7
3
partial fingers
1
1
453F01
9
4
partial fingers
0
1
453F01
11
5
Ml fingers
1
1
453F01
15
1
Ml fingers
0
1
453F01
29
2
Ml fingers
0
1
453F01
43
3
Ml fingers
0
1
453F01
57
4
Ml fingers
0
1
453F01
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
1
453F01
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
1
453F01
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
1
453F01
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
1
453F01
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
1
453F01
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
1
453F01
41
0
partial fingers
2
1
248M01
3
1
partial fingers
0
1
248M01
5
2
partial fingers
2
1
248M01
7
3
partial fingers
0
1
248M01
9
4
partial fingers
0
1
248M01
11
5
Ml fingers
26
1
248M01
15
1
Ml fingers
3
1
248M01
29
2
Ml fingers
0
1
248M01
43
3
Ml fingers
0
1
248M01
57
4
Ml fingers
0
1
248M01
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
1
248M01
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
1
248M01
78
2
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
B-l
-------
Appendix B
liihlo IS- 1: I'riiclion Ihnul Siirl';ice Ami Mouthed l);il;i
\KmiIInnu ( alcuois
l;ra|iiciic\
\ue of ( hi Id
Child
II)
lYaclioii of
Hand
I'limer
palm w/ fingers
0
1
248M01
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
1
248M01
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
1
248M01
163
5
palm w/out fingers
2
1
248M01
41
0
partial fingers
3
1
958F01
3
1
partial fingers
60
1
958F01
5
2
partial fingers
4
1
958F01
7
3
partial fingers
14
1
958F01
9
4
partial fingers
3
1
958F01
11
5
full fingers
0
1
958F01
15
1
full fingers
14
1
958F01
29
2
full fingers
0
1
958F01
43
3
full fingers
0
1
958F01
57
4
full fingers
0
1
958F01
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
1
958F01
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
1
958F01
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
1
958F01
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
1
958F01
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
1
958F01
163
5
palm w/out fingers
1
1
958F01
41
0
partial fingers
0
1
550M01
3
1
partial fingers
3
1
550M01
5
2
partial fingers
0
1
550M01
7
3
partial fingers
0
1
550M01
9
4
partial fingers
0
1
550M01
11
5
full fingers
0
1
550M01
15
1
full fingers
0
1
550M01
29
2
full fingers
0
1
550M01
43
3
full fingers
0
1
550M01
57
4
full fingers
0
1
550M01
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
1
550M01
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
1
550M01
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
1
550M01
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
1
550M01
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
1
550M01
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
1
550M01
41
0
partial fingers
0
2
420M02
3
1
partial fingers
0
2
420M02
5
2
partial fingers
0
2
420M02
7
3
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
B-2
-------
Appendix B
1 iihlo l$-
1: I'riiclion Ihnul Siirl';ioo A
v:i M nil (hod Diilii
Miiiithiim ( ;ik'Ui)i\
\ue of ( hi Id
Child
l iacliiin ol
1 ivqueiiL>
II)
Hand
linuei'
partial fingers
0
2
420M02
9
4
partial fingers
0
2
420M02
11
5
Ml fingers
0
2
420M02
15
1
Ml fingers
0
2
420M02
29
2
Ml fingers
0
2
420M02
43
3
Ml fingers
0
2
420M02
57
4
Ml fingers
0
2
420M02
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
2
420M02
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
2
420M02
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
2
420M02
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
2
420M02
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
2
420M02
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
2
420M02
41
0
partial fingers
2
2
638F02
3
1
partial fingers
1
2
638F02
5
2
partial fingers
0
2
638F02
7
3
partial fingers
1
2
638F02
9
4
partial fingers
0
2
638F02
11
5
Ml fingers
0
2
638F02
15
1
Ml fingers
0
2
638F02
29
2
Ml fingers
0
2
638F02
43
3
Ml fingers
0
2
638F02
57
4
Ml fingers
0
2
638F02
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
2
638F02
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
2
638F02
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
2
638F02
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
2
638F02
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
2
638F02
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
2
638F02
41
0
partial fingers
0
2
587F02
3
1
partial fingers
0
2
587F02
5
2
partial fingers
1
2
587F02
7
3
partial fingers
0
2
587F02
9
4
partial fingers
0
2
587F02
11
5
Ml fingers
6
2
587F02
15
1
Ml fingers
0
2
587F02
29
2
Ml fingers
0
2
587F02
43
3
Ml fingers
0
2
587F02
57
4
Ml fingers
0
2
587F02
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
2
587F02
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
2
587F02
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
2
587F02
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
2
587F02
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
2
587F02
163
5
palm w/out fingers
1
2
587F02
41
0
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
B-3
-------
Appendix B
liihlo IS- 1: I'riiclion Ihnul Siirl';ice Ami Mouthed l);il;i
\KmiIInnu ( ;ik'Ui)i \
l;ra|iiciic\
\ue of ( hi Id
Child
II)
I Vacliiiii of
Hand
I'limer
partial fingers
5
2
806M02
3
1
partial fingers
0
2
806M02
5
2
partial fingers
0
2
806M02
7
3
partial fingers
1
2
806M02
9
4
partial fingers
0
2
806M02
11
5
Ml fingers
0
2
806M02
15
1
Ml fingers
0
2
806M02
29
2
Ml fingers
0
2
806M02
43
3
Ml fingers
0
2
806M02
57
4
Ml fingers
0
2
806M02
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
2
806M02
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
2
806M02
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
2
806M02
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
2
806M02
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
2
806M02
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
2
806M02
41
0
partial fingers
1
3
165M03
3
1
partial fingers
7
3
165M03
5
2
partial fingers
1
3
165M03
7
3
partial fingers
1
3
165M03
9
4
partial fingers
0
3
165M03
11
5
Ml fingers
0
3
165M03
15
1
Ml fingers
0
3
165M03
29
2
Ml fingers
0
3
165M03
43
3
Ml fingers
0
3
165M03
57
4
Ml fingers
0
3
165M03
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
3
165M03
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
3
165M03
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
3
165M03
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
3
165M03
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
3
165M03
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
3
165M03
41
0
partial fingers
0
3
129M03
3
1
partial fingers
0
3
129M03
5
2
partial fingers
0
3
129M03
7
3
partial fingers
1
3
129M03
9
4
partial fingers
0
3
129M03
11
5
Ml fingers
0
3
129M03
15
1
Ml fingers
2
3
129M03
29
2
Ml fingers
0
3
129M03
43
3
Ml fingers
0
3
129M03
57
4
Ml fingers
1
3
129M03
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
3
129M03
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
3
129M03
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
3
129M03
106
3
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
B-4
-------
Appendix B
1 iihlo l$-
1: I'riiclion Ihnul Siirl';ioo A
v:i M nil (hod Diilii
Miiiithiim ( ;ik'Ui)i\
\ue of ( hi Id
Child
l iacliiin of
1 ivqueiiL>
II)
Hand
linuei'
palm w/ fingers
0
3
129M03
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
3
129M03
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
3
129M03
41
0
partial fingers
0
3
317F03
3
1
partial fingers
0
3
317F03
5
2
partial fingers
0
3
317F03
7
3
partial fingers
0
3
317F03
9
4
partial fingers
0
3
317F03
11
5
Ml fingers
0
3
317F03
15
1
Ml fingers
0
3
317F03
29
2
Ml fingers
0
3
317F03
43
3
Ml fingers
0
3
317F03
57
4
Ml fingers
0
3
317F03
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
3
317F03
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
3
317F03
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
3
317F03
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
3
317F03
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
3
317F03
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
3
317F03
41
0
partial fingers
7
4
422F04
3
1
partial fingers
3
4
422F04
5
2
partial fingers
5
4
422F04
7
3
partial fingers
1
4
422F04
9
4
partial fingers
0
4
422F04
11
5
Ml fingers
3
4
422F04
15
1
Ml fingers
0
4
422F04
29
2
Ml fingers
0
4
422F04
43
3
Ml fingers
0
4
422F04
57
4
Ml fingers
0
4
422F04
71
5
palm w/ fingers
1
4
422F04
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
4
422F04
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
4
422F04
106
3
palm w/ fingers
1
4
422F04
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
4
422F04
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
4
422F04
41
0
partial fingers
0
4
772M04
3
1
partial fingers
0
4
772M04
5
2
partial fingers
0
4
772M04
7
3
partial fingers
0
4
772M04
9
4
partial fingers
0
4
772M04
11
5
Ml fingers
0
4
772M04
15
1
Ml fingers
0
4
772M04
29
2
Ml fingers
0
4
772M04
43
3
Ml fingers
0
4
772M04
57
4
Ml fingers
0
4
772M04
71
5
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
B-5
-------
Appendix B
1 iihlo l$-
1: I'riiclion Ihnul Siirl';ioo A
v:i M nil (hod Diilii
Mouthiim ( 'alcuois
\ue iif ( hi Id
Child
liaclion of
1 ivqueiiL>
II)
Hand
linuei'
palm w/ fingers
0
4
772M04
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
4
772M04
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
4
772M04
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
4
772M04
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
4
772M04
163
5
palm w/out fingers
2
4
772M04
41
0
partial fingers
0
4
575F04
3
1
partial fingers
0
4
575F04
5
2
partial fingers
0
4
575F04
7
3
partial fingers
0
4
575F04
9
4
partial fingers
0
4
575F04
11
5
full fingers
0
4
575F04
15
1
full fingers
0
4
575F04
29
2
full fingers
0
4
575F04
43
3
full fingers
0
4
575F04
57
4
full fingers
0
4
575F04
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
4
575F04
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
4
575F04
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
4
575F04
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
4
575F04
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
4
575F04
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
4
575F04
41
0
partial fingers
0
5
919F05
3
1
partial fingers
1
5
919F05
5
2
partial fingers
0
5
919F05
7
3
partial fingers
0
5
919F05
9
4
partial fingers
0
5
919F05
11
5
full fingers
0
5
919F05
15
1
full fingers
1
5
919F05
29
2
full fingers
0
5
919F05
43
3
full fingers
0
5
919F05
57
4
full fingers
0
5
919F05
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
5
919F05
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
5
919F05
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
5
919F05
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
5
919F05
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
5
919F05
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
5
919F05
41
0
partial fingers
0
5
280M05
3
1
partial fingers
1
5
280M05
5
2
partial fingers
1
5
280M05
7
3
partial fingers
0
5
280M05
9
4
partial fingers
0
5
280M05
11
5
full fingers
0
5
280M05
15
1
full fingers
0
5
280M05
29
2
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
B-6
-------
Appendix B
liihlo IS- 1: I'riiclion Ihnul Siirl';ice Ami Mouthed l);il;i
\KmiIInnu ( ;ik'Ui)i \
l;ra|iiciic\
\ue of ( hi Id
Child
II)
I Vacliiiii of
Hand
I'limei'
Ml fingers
0
5
280M05
43
3
Ml fingers
0
5
280M05
57
4
Ml fingers
0
5
280M05
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
5
280M05
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
5
280M05
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
5
280M05
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
5
280M05
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
5
280M05
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
5
280M05
41
0
partial fingers
0
5
557F05
3
1
partial fingers
0
5
557F05
5
2
partial fingers
0
5
557F05
7
3
partial fingers
0
5
557F05
9
4
partial fingers
0
5
557F05
11
5
Ml fingers
0
5
557F05
15
1
Ml fingers
0
5
557F05
29
2
Ml fingers
0
5
557F05
43
3
Ml fingers
0
5
557F05
57
4
Ml fingers
0
5
557F05
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
5
557F05
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
5
557F05
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
5
557F05
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
5
557F05
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
5
557F05
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
5
557F05
41
0
partial fingers
1
6
257F06
3
1
partial fingers
0
6
257F06
5
2
partial fingers
0
6
257F06
7
3
partial fingers
0
6
257F06
9
4
partial fingers
0
6
257F06
11
5
Ml fingers
0
6
257F06
15
1
Ml fingers
0
6
257F06
29
2
Ml fingers
0
6
257F06
43
3
Ml fingers
0
6
257F06
57
4
Ml fingers
0
6
257F06
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
6
257F06
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
6
257F06
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
6
257F06
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
6
257F06
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
6
257F06
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
6
257F06
41
0
partial fingers
2
6
338F06
3
1
partial fingers
2
6
338F06
5
2
partial fingers
1
6
338F06
7
3
partial fingers
0
6
338F06
9
4
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
B-7
-------
Appendix B
liihlo IS- 1: l-nidion Ihnul Siirl';ice Ami Mouthed l);il;i
Miiiithiim ( ;ik'Ui)i\
l;ra|iiciic\
\ue ill ( In Id
Child
II)
I Vacliiiii of
Hand
I'limei'
partial fingers
0
6
338F06
11
5
Ml fingers
0
6
338F06
15
1
Ml fingers
0
6
338F06
29
2
Ml fingers
0
6
338F06
43
3
Ml fingers
0
6
338F06
57
4
Ml fingers
0
6
338F06
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
6
338F06
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
6
338F06
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
6
338F06
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
6
338F06
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
6
338F06
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
6
338F06
41
0
partial fingers
1
6
331F06
3
1
partial fingers
5
6
331F06
5
2
partial fingers
2
6
331F06
7
3
partial fingers
4
6
331F06
9
4
partial fingers
0
6
331F06
11
5
Ml fingers
2
6
331F06
15
1
Ml fingers
0
6
331F06
29
2
Ml fingers
0
6
331F06
43
3
Ml fingers
0
6
331F06
57
4
Ml fingers
0
6
331F06
71
5
palm w/ fingers
0
6
331F06
49
1
palm w/ fingers
0
6
331F06
78
2
palm w/ fingers
0
6
331F06
106
3
palm w/ fingers
0
6
331F06
134
4
palm w/ fingers
0
6
331F06
163
5
palm w/out fingers
0
6
331F06
41
0
Statistics such as standard deviations and select percentiles are presented in Table B- 2 below.
liihlc li- 2: I'riiclion Ihinri Surl';ico Aiv;i Mouthed
Sliiiisiic
I'riiclion Ihnul Surl'mr Aiv;i Mouthed
50th percentile
0.118
75th percentile
0.164
95th percentile
0.243
AM(SD)
0.127 (0.0614)
GM (GSD)
0.114(1.58)
Range
0.05-0.4
N
220
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
B.2 Generic Estimates of Object Surface Area Mouthed
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
B-8
-------
Appendix B
A factor used in object-to-mouth post-application assessments is the surface area of the object
that a child puts in its mouth. This value (expressed in cm ) is utilized in a number of the SOPs
in this document. Based on the area of hand mouthed by 2-5 years old as reported by Leckie et
al. (2000), and the assumption that children mouth a smaller area of an object than their hand, an
exponential distribution with a minimum of 1 cm2, a mean of 10 cm2, and a maximum of 50 cm2
was chosen. The maximum is comparable to the surface area of a ping-pong ball. Figure B-l
presents the Monte Carlo simulation based on the distribution derived from Leckie et al. (2000).
10,000 Trials
.039 1
03
-a
o
t_
CL
.029
.020
.010
.000
Forecast: Object Surface Area Mouthed
Frequency Chart
~
0.00
256 Outliers
392
llllllllllllllllllllllllllll I..I
- 294
196
CD
J=)
CD
3
8.75
17.50
26.25
i
35.00
Figure B-l: Monte Carlo Simulation for Object Surface Area Mouthed (cm2) Assuming an Exponential
Distribution (Minimum= 1 cm2, Mean= 10 cm2, Maximim= 50 cm2)
B.3 Generic Estimates of Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva
The fraction of pesticide extracted by saliva is an important variable for hand-to-mouth and
object-to-mouth post-application exposure assessments. The fraction of pesticide extracted by
saliva has historically been referred to as the saliva extraction factor or mouthing removal
efficiency. It is used in hand-to-mouth and object-to-mouth assessments to account for removal
of pesticides from hands or objects via saliva. Data to adequately characterize the fraction of
pesticide extracted by saliva are limited and difficult to collect. However, one study, Camann et
al. (1996), is available to determine generic values for the fraction of pesticide extracted by
saliva.
The Camann et al. study examined the removal efficiencies from hands with gauze moistened
with artificial and human saliva. This activity was meant to simulate removal of pesticides
resulting from placement of a hand into the mouth. Only the data collected with human saliva
are presented here. Triplicate samples were collected three times for three different pesticides
(chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin, and PBO). This resulted in a total of twenty-seven samples (nine for
each pesticide). All data were compiled and it was determined that the distribution of saliva
extraction values was best approximated by a beta distribution (a = 7.0, p = 7.6). Table B- 3
provides the raw data for the study. Following this table, Figure B-2 provides a comparison of
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
B-9
-------
Appendix B
the recommended beta distribution and actual observed values and Figure B-3 provides the
results of a Monte Carlo simulation using this distribution. Based on the recommended
distribution, the summary statistics presented in Table B- 4 were derived for fraction of pesticide
extracted by saliva. Note: This study focused specifically on fraction of pesticide extracted by
saliva from hands; not objects. However, there are currently no data available to address the
removal of residues from objects by saliva during mouthing events so this study is being used for
both hands and objects.
l iihlo IS-3: l-'i'iicliftn ol'Pesticide l.\(r;ick'd In S;ili\;i l);il;i
Subject
l);i>
1 l;md
\ IIKMI lit
Ti'iiiisl'ci'ivd lii
1 hind dim
AiikmiiiI
Rciirin cd h\
S;ili\;n\ W ipe
dim
S;ili\ ;ii'\ W ipe
1 Tliciencs
Chlorpyrifos
Subject A
1
RIGHT
5.58
2.01
0.360
Subject A
3
LEFT
6.63
2.13
0.321
Subject A
4
RIGHT
7.29
3.21
0.440
Subject B
2
LEFT
5.36
3.59
0.670
Subject B
3
RIGHT
6.47
3.16
0.488
Subject B
5
LEFT
4.7
2.74
0.583
Subject C
1
LEFT
7.46
3.75
0.503
Subject C
2
RIGHT
7.17
5.11
0.713
Subject C
4
LEFT
7.78
4.7
0.604
PyretMn
Subject A
1
RIGHT
24.8
10.6
0.427
Subject A
3
LEFT
26.8
10
0.373
Subject A
4
RIGHT
31.3
13.6
0.435
Subject B
2
LEFT
20.8
12.4
0.596
Subject B
3
RIGHT
26
15.5
0.596
Subject B
5
LEFT
19.4
9.6
0.495
Subject C
1
LEFT
32.2
19
0.590
Subject C
2
RIGHT
29.1
18.6
0.639
Subject C
4
LEFT
33.3
18.2
0.547
PBO
Subject A
1
RIGHT
28.1
11.9
0.423
Subject A
3
LEFT
43.1
11.1
0.258
Subject A
4
RIGHT
53.3
15.1
0.283
Subject B
2
LEFT
20.5
10.7
0.522
Subject B
3
RIGHT
40.4
8.9
0.220
Subject B
5
LEFT
19.6
10.8
0.551
Subject C
1
LEFT
51.2
22.6
0.441
Subject C
2
RIGHT
51.9
31.1
0.599
Subject C
4
LEFT
58.7
21.1
0.359
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
B-10
-------
Appendix B
Beta Percentiles (Alpha=7.0. Beta= 7.6)
—
- Fitted Beta Distribution
+
- Observed Data Points
Figure B-2: Comparison of the Recommended Beta Distribution (a = 7.0, p = 7.6) and the observed data
points from Camann et al. (1995).
Forecast: Fraction of Pesticide Removed BySaliva
IQOOOTrials FrequencyChart
.026
.020
-O .013
<9
O
k_
CL
.007
.000
~
0.10
0.30
0.50
0.70
2 Outliers
264
•- 132
66
i
0.90
<"D
CD
3
Figure B-3: Monte Carlo Simulation for Fraction of Pesticide Extracted by Saliva Using a Beta Distribution
(a = 7.0, p = 7.6)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
B-ll
-------
Appendix B
1 "sihie IS- 4: l-'nielion of Pesticide l.\(r;iclcd l)\ S;di\;i
SlalNic
I VaclKiii of IVsiiade lAiracled In S;ili\;i
50th percentile
0.50
75th percentile
0.57
90th percentile
0.64
95th percentile
0.68
99th percentile
0.80
Arithmetic Mean
0.48
Arithmetic Standard Deviation
0.13
Geometric Mean
0.46
Geometric Mean Standard Deviation
1.35
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
B-12
-------
Appendix C
Appendix C Supporting Data Analysis and Documentation for
Residential Handler Exposure Assessment
C.l Summary of Exposure Data Used to Generate Residential Unit
Exposures
Throughout the Residential SOPs, references are made to formulation- and application method-
specific unit exposures for use in various handler exposure assessment scenarios. The following
appendix provides summary information on the exposure studies that serve as the basis for those
unit exposures. It includes:
• Scenario summaries organized by formulation, equipment/application methods, and
application site(s);
• References for all available studies that could potentially be used for residential exposure
assessment (note: for confidentiality reasons, PHED studies are referenced by their PHED
code);
• Brief study descriptions;
• Tables outlining relevant characteristics for each study with respect to its potential use in
residential handler exposure assessments; and,
• Study-specific data summaries, including limitations and uncertainties.
Analytical commonalities for all studies include:
• Statistics for all exposure studies are based on fitting lognormal distributions. Given that
environmental data routinely follow a lognormal distribution and many of the exposure
studies display this trend, this is not an unreasonable assumption - including for scenarios
based on small datasets or those that may not exhibit an exact match with a lognormal
distribution with the data available;
• Lognormal probability plots are presented, providing a visual demonstration of the
lognormal fit (or lack thereof) for the dataset. Additionally, plots that incorporate
multiple datasets included study-specific coding (different shapes) to provide visual
reference of the distribution of data points within studies and the studies within the
overall distribution.
• Means and standard deviations are calculated using the minimum variance unbiased
estimator for lognormal distributions:
o AM = GM * exp {0.5* ((lnGSD)A2) };
o SD = AM * SQRT(exp((lnGSD)A2)-1); and
o Where: AM = arithmetic mean; GM = geometric mean; GSD = geometric
standard deviation.
• Unit exposures are representative of individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts; shorts,
shoes/socks, and no other protective equipment including chemical resistant gloves or
respirators;
• Using '/2 the limit of detection or limit of quantification for non-detect samples as is
standard practice;
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-l
-------
Appendix C
• 90% protection is assumed when back-calculating gloved hand exposure to bare hand
exposure;
• 50% protection is assumed when back-calculating covered forearm and shin exposure to
bare forearm and shin exposure;
• Corrections for field fortification recoveries as appropriate; and,
• Using a breathing rate of 16.7 liters per minute, representing light activities (NAFTA-
CDPR, 1998), to extrapolate air samples to residential handler inhalation exposure.
Note that the exposure studies recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment
inform only the default unit exposure data for each scenario and does not mean that a study not
recommended for use cannot ever be used. Should a non-recommended study in this appendix
be deemed useful given a unique situation, the assessment should provide justification for its use
and deviation from the default data.
Tsihlc C-l: l.isl of 11 ;in«llor Smiiirins
I'nrmuhilion
r.(|iii|>iiK*iil/.\|>|>lic;ilioii
Method
Application Siio(s)
Psific
Nil in her
(franules
Push-type Spreader
outdoors (lawn, gardens)
C-4
Belly grinder
outdoors (lawn, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests, aquatic areas)
C-ll
Spoon
outdoors (lawn, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests, aquatic areas)
C-20
Cup
outdoors (lawn, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests, aquatic areas)
C-24
Hand dispersal
outdoors (lawn, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests, aquatic areas)
C-28
Dusts/Powders
Plunger duster
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests), indoors (general broadcast
treatments)
C-32
Shaker can
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests), indoors (general broadcast
treatments), pets/animals
C-36
Paints and
Stains
Airless sprayer
outdoors and indoors (general paint and stain
applications)
C-42
Brush
outdoors and indoors (general paint and stain
applications)
C-48
Mothballs
Hand placement
cabinets, sheds, closets
C-52
Liquids
(emulsifiable
concentrates,
soluble
concentrates,
etc.)
Manually-pressurized
handwand
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests, aquatic areas), indoors (general
broadcast treatments, baseboards, cracks and
crevices)
C-56
Handheld Fogger
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests)
C-68
Dipping
pets/animals
C-71
Sponge
pets/animals
C-75
Hose-end sprayer
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests, aquatic areas)
C-79
Backpack sprayer
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests, aquatic areas)
C-91
Ready-to-use
(RTU)
Hose-end sprayer
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests, aquatic areas)
C-107
Trigger-pump sprayer
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
C-113
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-2
-------
Appendix C
mounds/nests, aquatic areas), indoors (plants, cracks
and crevices), pets/animals
Shampoo
pets/animals, children
C-124
Spot-on
pets/animals
C-130
Aerosol can
outdoors (gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests, aquatic areas), indoors (general
broadcast treatments, baseboards, cracks and
crevices), pets/animals
C-134
Wettable
Powder (WP)
Manually-pressurized
handwand
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests, aquatic areas), indoors (general
broadcast treatments, baseboards, cracks and
crevices)
C-141
Backpack sprayer
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter,
mounds/nests, aquatic areas), indoors (general
broadcast treatments, baseboards, cracks and
crevices)
C-148
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-3
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Push-type Spreader
Scenario Summary
I'iihlo ( -2: Scciiiii'io Description iind A\;iil;il>lc l-'\|>«isnre Studios
Formulation
Granules
Equipment/Application
Method
Push-type Spreader (also: rotary spreader, cyclone spreader, "Scotts"
spreader)
Application Site(s)
Outdoors (lawn, gardens)
Available Exposure Studies
Klonne, D. (1999); MRID 44972201
PHED 1027
Solomon, K. R., Harris, S. A, Stephenson, G. R. (1993)
l iihlo ( -3: I nil llxnosuivs (mii/ll) ;ii) - (>r;iniilc Push-lvnc Sniv;i(k'r Annlicnlioiis
Siiilisiic
IK-rniiil
liihiiliilion
50 pei'cenule
o.oo
0.0014
75th percentile
1.0
0.0029
95th percentile
1.9
0.0089
99th percentile
2.9
0.019
99.9th percentile
4.7
0.047
AM(SD)
0.81 (0.57)
0.0026 (0.0043)
GM (GSD)
0.66(1.9)
0.0014(3.1)
Range
0.25-7.0
0.00013-0.019
N
30
45
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for push-type
spreader applications of granule pesticide formulations is based on a lognormal distribution fit
with exposure monitoring data from Klonne, D. (1999) [EPA MRID 44972201], This study
monitored 30 applications of a granule formulation for approximately 20 minutes to
approximately 10,000 square feet of turf in North Carolina using a rotary spreader. While other
studies were available to potentially represent homeowner exposure potential, this study was the
most reliable to represent the type of clothing a homeowner or amateur applicator would wear
(i.e., shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no chemical-resistant gloves).
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for push-
type spreader applications of granule pesticide formulations is based on a lognormal distribution
fit with exposure monitoring data from Klonne, D. (1999) [EPA MRID 44972201] and PHED
1027. Klonne, D. (1999) monitored 30 individuals while applying a granule formulation for
approximately 20 minutes to approximately 10,000 square feet of turf in North Carolina using a
rotary spreader. PHED 1027 monitored 15 applications of a granule formulation for
approximately 30-40 minutes to turf in North Carolina using a push cyclone spreader. Since
both available studies were accurate representations of homeowner or amatueur applicator
inhalation exposure, and were generally of the same magnitude, they were combined and
recommended for use as one dataset.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-4
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Push-type Spreader
Lognormal Probability Plots
Legend: X = Klonne, D. (1999)
.05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95
X
v ___ .
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: X = Klonne. D. (1999); O = PHED 1027
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-5
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Push-type Spreader
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Tahle (-4: S(ii(l\ Idenlificalion 111 IVinn;i(ion
Citation
Klonne, D. (1999). Integrated Report on Evaluation of Potential Exposure to
Homeowners and Professional Lawn Care Operators Mixing, Loading, and Applying
Granular and Liquid Pesticides to Residential Lawns. Sponsor/Submitter: Outdoor
Residential Exposure Task Force.
EPA MRID
449722201
ORETF Code
OMA003
EPA Review
D261948
EPA Memo from G. Bangs to D. Fuller (3/5/03)
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: A total of 30 individuals were monitored using passive dosimetry (inner
and outer whole body dosimeters, hand washes, face/neck wipes, and personal inhalation
monitors). Each test subject carried, loaded, and applied two 25-lb bags of a granule pesticide (a
0.89% dacthal, weed-and-feed fertilizer) with a rotary-type spreader to a lawn (a turf farm in
North Carolina) covering 10,000 ft2 (one bag to each of the two 5000 ft2 test plots). The target
application rate was approximately 2 lb ai/acre, with each individual handling approximately
0.45 lb of active ingredient. The average application time was 22 minutes, including loading the
rotary push-spreader and disposing of empty bags.
Dermal exposure was measured using inner and outer whole body dosimeters, hand washes, and
face/neck washes, such that exposure could be constructed for various clothing scenarios
(including a short-sleeve shirt and shorts). Inhalation exposure was measured using standard
personal air monitoring devices set at 1.5 liters per minute. All fortified samples and field
samples collected on the same study day were stored frozen and analyzed together, eliminating
the need for storage stability determination. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of the face and neck
washes were below the level of quantification (LOQ) for dacthal, and 10% of the air samples
were also at or below the LOQ. Where results were less than the reported LOQ, V2 LOQ value
was used for calculations, and no recovery corrections were applied. Lab spike recoveries for all
matrices were in the range of 83-99%. Mean field fortification recoveries over the four study
days for each fortification level ranged from 83 to 97%.
1 "sihie ( -5: MKII) 44')"'22111 - ( heeklisl iiiid I se Keco 111 meiithi 1 ion
Smd\ ( I'llei'ia
1 Apiisuiv (iimpiiiieiil
Dermal
liihalalkiii
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-6
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Push-type Spreader
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Tiihlc ( -(>: MRU) 44^22!II - Diilii Summ;in
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 Apiisiiiv i mm
1 mi 1 Aposiiiv ( iiiu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
1
0.45
0.24
II UIIIIII^X
II V,
0.00013
2
0.45
0.18
0.000311
0.39
0.00071
3
0.45
0.30
0.000449
0.67
0.00102
4
0.45
0.31
0.001113
0.69
0.00253
5
0.45
0.15
0.000056
0.33
0.00013
6
0.45
0.17
0.000278
0.37
0.00063
7
0.45
0.16
0.000286
0.36
0.00065
8
0.45
0.27
0.000585
0.60
0.00133
9
0.45
0.15
0.000298
0.34
0.00068
10
0.45
0.25
0.000564
0.56
0.00128
11
0.45
0.32
0.001048
0.71
0.00238
12
0.45
0.11
0.000242
0.25
0.00055
13
0.45
0.35
0.001436
0.79
0.00326
14
0.45
0.23
0.001324
0.51
0.00301
15
0.45
0.45
0.000601
1.00
0.00137
16
0.45
0.19
0.000311
0.41
0.00071
17
0.45
0.19
0.000289
0.43
0.00066
18
0.45
0.41
0.000438
0.92
0.00099
19
0.45
0.34
0.000423
0.76
0.00096
20
0.45
0.37
0.000334
0.83
0.00076
21
0.45
0.28
0.000253
0.62
0.00058
22
0.45
0.33
0.000115
0.73
0.00026
23
0.45
0.25
0.000251
0.55
0.00057
24
0.45
0.95
0.000461
2.10
0.00105
25
0.45
0.61
0.001290
1.36
0.00293
26
0.45
0.41
0.001025
0.91
0.00233
27
0.45
0.23
0.000265
0.52
0.00060
28
0.45
3.14
0.000322
6.98
0.00073
29
0.45
0.21
0.000276
0.46
0.00063
30
0.45
0.46
0.000138
1.02
0.00031
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of granule pesticide formulations using a push-type spreader, the following
limitations are noted:
• Each individual handled the same amount of active ingredient, making analysis of the
relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled (the
underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-7
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Push-type Spreader
T;ibk'C-"7: S(ud\ Idenlificalion 1 nIVinn;i(ion
Citation
PHED 1027
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
None
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: A total of 15 application events were monitored using 8 volunteers loading
and applying granules to turf sites in North Carolina using a "push cyclone spreader". Each
individual handled approximately 110 lbs of granule formulation (1.02% active ingredient; 1.1
lbs active ingredient) and spent approximately 30-40 minutes per application. Dermal exposure
was measured using whole body dosimetry underneath work clothing - a long-sleeve shirt, pants,
socks and shoes - and hand washes were used to collect exposure to bare hands (no chemical-
resistant gloves were worn). Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 1.5
liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Percent recovery (mean ± SD) for laboratory
fortifications is as follows: 97.2 ± 19.2% for glass fiber filter, 96.3 ± 29.4% for handwash, 107 ±
12.1% for facial swipe, and 105 ± 32.3% for whole-body dosimeter. With the exception of one
low average recovery, 42.4% for handwashes at site 1, average field fortification recoveries
ranged from 61.5% to 98.2%. The majority of the individual fortification recoveries fell within
the 50% to 120%) range with the noted exception of the high-level fortification of the handwash
solutions, facial swabs, and whole-body dosimeters at Site 1, which averaged from 61.6% to
68.2%.
TsihleC-H: Plll.l) I02"7 - (hcckliM iiiid I so Keccimmoil«l;i 1 ion
Suid> ( iilciia
1 ApiislllV ( 'iimpiillCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only inhalation exposure data are included since the dermal
exposure data are not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further
information.
l ahle ('-'): Plll.l) 1027 - Dala Siimman
1 Visum II)
Villi
( Ills)
1 Apiismv (mm
1 ml 1 Apusiirc (mu lb ai i
Dermal
liilialalkiii
Dermal
Inhalation
A
1.1100
--
0.0006
--
0.0005
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-8
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Push-type Spreader
l iihlo ('-*>: Plll.l) 1027 - Diilii Siiiiiin;ir\
1 Visum II)
Villi
( Ills)
1 \piiMiic (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiiv ( nm Ih ai i
Dermal
liilialalkiii
Dermal
Inhalation
A
l.lluu
--
0.0024
—
0.0022
A
1.1100
--
0.0032
—
0.0029
A
1.1100
--
0.0056
—
0.0050
A
1.1100
--
0.0046
—
0.0041
A
1.1100
--
0.0055
—
0.0050
B
1.1100
--
0.0206
—
0.0186
B
1.1100
--
0.0032
—
0.0029
B
1.1100
--
0.0032
—
0.0028
B
1.1100
--
0.0027
—
0.0024
C
1.1100
--
0.0068
—
0.0061
C
1.1100
--
0.0165
—
0.0149
C
1.3900
--
0.0042
—
0.0030
C
1.3900
--
0.0006
—
0.0004
C
1.0500
--
0.0175
—
0.0167
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of granule pesticide formulations using a push-type spreader, the following
limitations are noted:
• Each individual handled practically the same amount of active ingredient, making
analysis of the relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient
handled (the underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
1 iihlo ( -10: SliKh Identification Information
Citation
Solomon, K. R., Harris, S. A, Stephenson, G. R. (1993). Applicator And Bystander
Exposure To Home Garden And Landscape Pesticides. American Chemical Society,
1993, pp. 262-273
EPA MRID
none
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: A total of 20 application events were monitored using volunteers loading
and applying granules using a "drop spreader". Eleven of the applications were conducted while
wearing "protective" clothing, while 9 applications were conducted while wearing "normal"
clothing. The exact nature of the clothing worn was not provided. Each individual handled
approximately 0.3 - 2.6 lbs of 2, 4-D per application. Exposure was measured using
biomonitoring with passive monitoring only conducted for inhalation exposure using standard
pumps (set at 1 liter per minute), cassettes, and tubing. All except one inhalation exposure
sample was a non-detect (limit of detection = 0.0001 |_ig/L), Recoveries from field fortifications
of exposure sampling matrices were generally above 85% with little variation (standard deviation
approximately 3%).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-9
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Push-type Spreader
Tal>lc('-ll: Solomon, el ;il. (— ( hocklisl ;iihI I so RocomnieiKhi 1 ion
Siud> ( I'ilci'ia
1 !\posiiie ('iimpiiiicnl
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-10
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Belly Grinder
Scenario Summary
1 "sihie ( -12: Seeiiiirio Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihle llxposiire Studies
Formulation
Granules
Equipment/Application
Method
Belly grinder (also: hand cyclone spreader, whirly-bird spreader)
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawn, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic
areas)
Available Exposure Studies
PHED 1027
PHED 419
PHED 459
PHED 504
Spencer, et al. (1997)
Tiihle ( -13: I nil r.xpoMires (m^/lh ;ii) - (.rnnule Bell\ Grinder Applications
Statistic
Dermal
Inhalation
50th percentile
240
0.016
75th percentile
440
0.039
95th percentile
1100
0.142
99th percentile
2000
0.351
99.9th percentile
3900
0.966
AM(SD)
360 (405)
0.039 (0.085)
GM (GSD)
240 (2.5)
0.016 (3.76)
Range
49 - 992
0.0017-0.29
N
16
28
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for belly
grinder applications of granule pesticide formulations is based on a lognormal distribution fit
with exposure monitoring data from PHED 459. PHED 459 monitored 16 applications of a
granule formulation foundations, patios, driveways, and sidewalks of houses using a "whirly-bird
spreader". While other available studies were reasonable representations of residential exposure,
this study best represented a residential homeowner application while also providing a reliable
representation of the type of clothing a homeowner or amateur applicator would wear (i.e.,
shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no chemical-resistant gloves).
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for belly
grinder applications of granule pesticide formulations is based on a lognormal distribution fit
with exposure monitoring data from PHED 1027, PHED 419, and PHED 504. PHED 1027
monitored 15 applications of a granule formulation for approximately 30-40 minutes to turf in
North Carolina using a hand cyclone spreader. PHED 419 monitored 5 applications of a granule
formulation to approximately 2 acres of container ornamentals in California using chest-mounted
application equipment. PHED 504 monitored 9 applications of a granule formulation for
approximately 4 hours to approximately 1 acre of turf in Michigan using a "hand cyclone
spreader". These studies all provided a reasonable representation of residential exposure,
including representing individuals without respiratory protection. As they were generally of
similar magnitudes, the studies are utilized as a composite dataset.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-ll
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Belly Grinder
Log-normal Probability Plots
Legend: ¦ = PHED 459
1100-
1000
900'
800'
700'
TO ___
_q 600'
500
LU
1 400'
E
(Sj 300'
200'
100'
0-
.0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: X = PHED 419; 0 = PHED 1027; O = PHED 504
0.3
0.25
0.2
'ro
]? 0.15
LU
z>
¦I 0.1
ro
0.05
0
01 23456789 10 11 12
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-12
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Belly Grinder
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Table (-14: l.xpnsurc' Sliulj 1 (Ion 1 lion In To nil ill inn
Citation
PHED 1027
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: A total 15 application events were monitored using 8 volunteers loading
and applying granules to turf sites in North Carolina using a "hand cyclone spreader" (i.e., a
belly grinder). Each individual handled approximately 170 lbs granule formulation (1.02%
active ingredient; 1.7 lbs active ingredient) and spent approximately 30-40 minutes per
application. Dermal exposure monitoring represented an individual wearing a long-sleeve shirt,
pants, shoes, socks, and no chemical-resistant gloves. Inhalation exposure was measured using
standard pumps (set at 1.5 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Percent recovery (mean ±
SD) for laboratory fortifications is as follows: 97.2 ± 19.2% for glass fiber filter, 96.3 ± 29.4%
for handwash, 107 ± 12.1% for facial swipe, and 105 ± 32.3% for whole-body dosimeter. With
the exception of one low average recovery, 42.4% for handwashes at site 1, average field
fortification recoveries ranged from 61.5% to 98.2%. The majority of the individual fortification
recoveries fell within the 50% to 120% range with the noted exception of the high-level
fortification of the handwash solutions, facial swabs, and whole-body dosimeters at Site 1, which
averaged from 61.6% to 68.2%.
Table ( -15: PI 1 l-'l) I02"7 - ( lu'cklisl ;iikI I so Kecoinmoiithilion
Siud> ( rilci'ia
1 ApiislllV ( 'iimpiillCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only inhalation exposure data are included since the dermal
exposure data are not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further
information.
Table (-16: I'll F.I) I02"7- Dala Siimman
IVl'SOIl II)
Villi
(Ills)
1 \piiMiic (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic imu Ih an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
D
1.84
--
0.008
--
0.0043
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-13
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Belly Grinder
D
1.49
--
0.013
--
0.0087
D
1.67
--
0.021
--
0.0126
D
1.67
--
0.009
--
0.0054
D
1.67
--
0.031
--
0.0186
E
1.67
--
0.072
--
0.0431
E
1.67
--
0.032
--
0.0192
E
1.67
--
0.116
--
0.0695
E
1.67
--
0.104
--
0.0623
E
1.67
--
0.103
--
0.0617
E
1.67
--
0.140
--
0.0838
F
1.65
--
0.486
--
0.2945
F
1.65
--
0.227
--
0.1376
F
1.67
--
0.003
--
0.0018
F
1.67
--
0.006
--
0.0036
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-
resistant gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of granule pesticide formulations using a belly grinder, the following limitations are
noted:
• Each individual handled practically the same amount of active ingredient, making
analysis of the relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient
handled (the underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
1 "sihie C-l"7: r.xposure Siiulj Irieiilifieiilion Inl'tn-miilion
Citation
PHED419
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Three workers were monitored over the course of three days (totaling 5
monitored application events) while applying a granule formulation using "chest-mounted
application equipment" to container ornamentals in California. Each application consisted of
applying approximately 174 lbs product/acre (3.5 lbs ai/acre) to approximately 2 acres of
container ornamentals. Dermal exposure was measured using gauze patches placed strategically
across the workers' bodies (inside and outside the work clothing) as well as hand washes
underneath chemical-resistant gloves. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps
(4-7 liters of air collected per application; flow rate unknown), cassettes, and tubing. Recoveries
from field fortifications of exposure sampling matrices were generally above 90%, though
inhalation sampling varied widely from 68 to 97% recovery.
l iihle ( -IN: PI 1 I'D 41*)- ( heeklisl iiiid I se Recommend;! lion
Smd\ ( I'ikTia
1 ApiislllC ( 'limpiillCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-14
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Belly Grinder
Tahle ( -IN: PI 1 I'D 4I*>- ( hocklisl iiiid I so Recommendation
Siud\ ( lileria
1 ApoMiie (onipoueui
Dermal
Inhalation
Does ihc slud\ pi'o\ ide detailed cliaiacleiislics on the acli\ il\, equipment l\pe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
No
No
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only inhalation exposure data are included since the dermal
exposure data are not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further
information.
Tsihie C-I'J:
Plli:i) 41«J — l)ala Siimman
IVi'son ID
Villi
1 \posuie (mm
1 ml 1 Aposure (mu lb an
(Ills)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
A
6.0000
--
0.833
--
0.139
A
8.1200
--
—
--
—
B
6.0000
--
0.116
--
0.019
B
7.5200
--
0.358
--
0.048
C
7.2000
--
0.028
--
0.004
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of granule pesticide formulations using a belly grinder, the following limitations are
noted:
The study monitored workers in a California nursery; therefore, using this study for
residential assessments introduces uncertainty.
The second application for Worker A was not used as the collection pump reportedly
malfunctioned.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-15
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Belly Grinder
1 "sihie ( -20: I'xposure Siiulj Idenlificalion InToi-malion
Citation
PHED 459
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: A total of 16 applications were monitored using 3 volunteers loading and
applying 2% active ingredient granules around foundations, patios, driveways, and sidewalks of
houses using a "whirly-bird spreader" (i.e., belly grinder). Each worker applied approximately
5.7 oz of the bait formulation per 1000 ft resulting in a range of 0.0069 to 0.0425 lbs of active
ingredient per application. The sampling time ranged from 4 to 11 minutes. Dermal exposure
was monitored using gauze patches strategically placed on each body part both inside and
outside the individuals clothing. This methodology allows for representation of individuals
wearing shorts, a short-sleeve shirt, shoes and socks. Chemical-resistant gloves were worn so
exposure values to bare hands had to be back-calculated assuming 90% protection from
chemical-resistant gloves. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 1 liter
per minute), cassettes, and tubing. All air samples were below the limit of quantification.
Average laboratory recovery values are as follows, 103% with a standard deviation of 1.9% for
air filters, 117%> with a standard deviation of 7.7% for gauze pads, 116% with a standard
deviation of 1.5% for low-level hand rinse and 122% with a standard deviation of 3.8% for high-
level hand rinse. Average field recovery values are as follows, 95% with a standard deviation of
4.4% for air filters, 105% with a standard deviation of 2.9% for gauze pads (outside clothing),
90% with a standard deviation of 4.5% for gauze pads (outside clothing), 103% with a standard
deviation of 3.5% for gauze pads (inside clothing), and 102% with a standard deviation of 1.4%
for hand rinses.
l iihle ( -21: Plll'.l) 45V-Checklist ;iihI I se Kecommenthition
Siud\ ( 1'ilcria
1 ApiislllC ( 'limpiillCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
No
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only dermal exposure is included, as inhalation exposure data
was not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study
itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-16
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Belly Grinder
Tsihk* ( -22: Plll-il) 45'J - l);il;i Suinm;ir\
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 Aposiiiv (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic i iiiu lb an
Dermal
liilialalkiii
Dermal
Inhalation
A
0.0288
1.40
—
49
—
A
0.0425
4.31
—
101
—
A
0.0106
3.17
—
299
—
A
0.01
5.33
—
533
—
B
0.0125
1.65
—
132
—
B
0.0088
0.74
—
84
—
B
0.0125
4.31
—
345
—
B
0.0169
8.51
—
503
—
B
0.0119
4.74
—
398
—
B
0.015
14.89
—
992
—
C
0.0075
1.40
—
186
—
C
0.0088
6.03
—
685
—
C
0.0081
2.22
—
274
—
C
0.0069
3.48
—
504
—
C
0.0138
0.78
—
56
—
C
0.0081
1.50
—
186
—
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of granule pesticide formulations using a belly grinder, the following limitations are
noted:
• The individuals monitored in the study wore chemical-resistant gloves. Because
residential handler exposure assessments representative of individuals wearing chemical-
resistant gloves are not typically conducted, a back-calculation (i.e., increasing hand
exposures by 90%) to represent "bare hand" exposure was necessary, adding uncertainty
to the unit exposures.
• All inhalation samples were non-detects. One-half the limit of detection (0.2 |Lxg) was
used in exposure calculations.
Table (-23: l.xposurc' Siuclj l(lenlirie;ilion Inlm-miilion
Citation
PHED 504
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: A total of 9 application events were monitored while loading and applying
granules using a "hand cyclone spreader" to approximately 0.9 acres (six 0.15 acre plots) of turf
in Michigan over the course of a 4 hour period. Each individual handled a total of approximately
400 lbs of formulation (1.4 lbs active ingredient), equivalent to approximately 1.5 lb ai per acre.
Dermal exposure was monitored using gauze patches, though the placement only allows for
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-17
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Belly Grinder
representation of individuals wearing a long-sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes and socks. Chemical-
resistant gloves were not worn. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at
1 liter per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Average laboratory recoveries were as follows: 99.0 ±
10.2% for air filters and 98.0 ± 9.9% for tubes; 118.4 ± 6.5% for hand washes; and 100.3 ± 6.9%
for the gauze patches. Travel spike average recoveries for the tube, filter, hand rinse, and gauze
patch travel spikes were 104%, 112%, 101%, and 112%, respectively. Since the results were all
equal to or greater than 100%, no corrections to the data were applied based on these spikes.
Field fortification recoveries for the filter, hand rinse, and gauze patch field spikes were 104%,
98%), and 90%, respectively.
Table ( -24: Pill-ID 504- ( hccklisl iiiid I so Recommendation
Smd\ ( rileria
1 ApoMiie (onipoiieni
Dermal
Inhalation
Does ihc siud\ pi'o\ ide detailed chaiacleiisiics on the acli\ il\, equipment l\pe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only inhalation exposure data are included since the dermal
exposure data are not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further
information.
Table ( -25: P11II1) 504 — Dala Siimman
IVi'son ID
Villi
(lbs)
1 ApoMiie (mm
1 ml 1 ApoMire (mu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
DS
1.33
--
0.009
--
0.007
DV
0.82
--
0.006
--
0.008
IC
1.29
--
0.006
--
0.005
JC
1.00
--
0.011
--
0.011
JJ
1.26
--
0.012
--
0.009
JM
1.24
--
0.009
--
0.007
MD
1.36
--
0.007
--
0.005
MS
1.28
--
0.012
--
0.010
NB
1.37
--
0.010
--
0.007
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-18
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Belly Grinder
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of granule pesticide formulations using a belly grinder, the following limitations are
noted:
• Based on the amount of product applied and the application duration, the study was
meant to simulate a professional lawn care operator, so using this study for residential
assessments introduces uncertainty.
Tahlc C-2(»: l-'.\posuro Simlj Idemiric;ilion InToi'malion
Citation
Spencer, et al. (1997). Exposure of Hand Applicators to Granular Hexazinone in
Forest Settings, 1993-1995.
EPA MRID
none
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Twenty-nine workers were monitored on 11 days at 4 different sites over
the course of 3 years, totaling 129 monitored worker-days, while applying 10% hexazinone
granules to forestry areas using a belly grinder. Applying approximately 3-4 lbs/acre, each
worker handled from 15 - 35 lbs of hexazinone per workday (150 - 350 lbs formulation).
Dermal exposure was monitored using whole body dosimetry underneath normal work clothing
and hand wipes used at various intervals throughout the workday. Workers wore various types
of clothing and personal protective equipment. Inhalation exposure was measured using
standard pumps (set at 2 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Recoveries from field
fortifications of exposure sampling matrices were generally above 90%.
Tahlc ( -2"7: Spencer. el ;il. (PW7) - ( hccklisl ;iihI I so Kocominoiithition
Sllld\ ( I'lkTKI
1 ApiislllV ( 'iimpiillCMl
Dermal
liihalalkiii
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-19
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Cup
Scenario Summary
I'iihk* ( -2N: Scciiiirio Description ;iihI A\;iil;il>lc l-lxposmv Studies
Formulation
Granules
Equipment/Application
Method
Spoon
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawn, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic
areas)
Available Exposure Studies
Pontal, P.G. (1996); MRID 45250702
1 iihlc ( -2*>: I nil llxnosuros (mg/lh ;ii) - (.l iiiiulc Spoon Applications
Statistic
Dermal
Inhalation
50 percentile
3.7
0.024
75th percentile
7.3
0.071
95th percentile
20
0.34
99th percentile
39
1.0
99.9th percentile
83
3.4
AM(SD)
6.2 (8.2)
0.087 (0.30)
GM (GSD)
3.7 (2.7)
0.024 (5.0)
Range
1-16
0.0024-0.33
N
10
10
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for
applications of granule pesticide formulations using a spoon is based on a lognormal distribution
fit with exposure monitoring data from Pontal, P.G. (1996) [EPA MRID 45250702], Pontal,
P.G. (1996) monitored 10 applications of a granule formulation to a 1 acre banana plantation in
Cameroon using a spoon. Despite being an occupational exposure monitoring study, and thus
potentially an inaccurate representation of residential exposure, this is the only available study
for this application pattern.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
applications of granule pesticide formulations using a spoon is based on a lognormal distribution
fit with exposure monitoring data from Pontal, P.G. (1996) [EPA MRID 45250702], Pontal,
P.G. (1996) monitored 10 applications of a granule formulation to a 1 acre banana plantation in
Cameroon using a spoon. Despite being an occupational exposure monitoring study, and thus
potentially an inaccurate representation of residential exposure, this is the only available study
for this application pattern.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-20
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Cup
Log-normal Probability Plots
Legend: ¦ = Pontal, P.G. (1996)
XBH0510 .25 .50
15-
ro 10-
LU
Z>
-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: ¦ = Pontal, P.G. (1996)
0.35-
0.3-
0.25-
0.2-
O)
E,
w 0.15-
c
o
0.05-
—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-21
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Cup
Available Handler Exposure Studies:
T;il)k'( -30: l-lxposuiv Siud> Idemiric;ilion Inr«irin;iii«ui
Citation
Pontal, P.G. (1996). Worker Exposure Study During Application Of Regent 20GR In
Banana Plantation, (RP Study 94/136 - Amended)
EPA MRID
45250702
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D270065
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: A total of 10 applications were monitored on two days for workers applying
a granule formulation of ftpronil with a spoon in banana plantations in Cameroon. The workers
covered approximately 1 acre per application-event, applying granules to approximately 800
plants at a rate of 0.15 gms active ingredient per plant (13 lbs product; 0.26 lbs fipronil). Dermal
exposure was monitored using whole body dosimetry - which served as the workers normal
clothing (i.e., measurements would be representative of workers without clothing). Clothing
protection factors were required to estimate exposure for workers while wearing clothing.
Workers wore chemical-resistant gloves with cotton gloves underneath serving as the hand
exposure measurement method. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at
1 liter per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Overall recovery levels from field spiked samples were
between 64% and 99% (average 87%) with only one recovery below 80%. Overall recovery
levels from samples spiked in the laboratory were between 92 and 117.5%.
Tahle ( -31: MRU) 45250"702 - ( heckliM iind I so Recummendalion
Siiids ( rilcria
1 ApiislllV ( 'iimpoilCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Tahle ( -32: MRU) 4525IP02 - Dala Siimman
IVrsim II)
\aill
(Ills)
1 ApoMII'C (IIIUI
1 ml 1 Aposiiic i mu Hi ai i
Dermal
liilialalioii
Dermal
liilialalioii
1
0.368
1.13
0.0010
3.06
0.0027
2
0.368
3.84
0.0009
10.42
0.0024
3
0.368
5.06
0.1198
13.76
0.3255
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-22
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Cup
4
0.368
1.71
0.0731
4.64
0.1986
5
0.368
0.62
0.0037
1.70
0.0101
6
0.368
6.07
0.0109
16.50
0.0296
7
—
--
--
—
—
8
0.247
0.94
0.0114
3.82
0.0462
9
0.247
0.45
0.0057
1.83
0.0231
10
0.247
0.23
0.0034
0.94
0.0138
11
0.247
0.33
0.0094
1.36
0.0381
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of granule pesticide formulations using a spoon, the following limitations are noted:
• Dermal exposure was measured using clothing the individuals wore, thus representing
applicators not wearing any clothing. To estimate exposure representative of applicators
wearing shorts, short-sleeve shirt, shoes, and socks, a penetration factor of 50% was used
for exposure measurements to the torso, upper arms, and upper legs.
• For hand exposure, since chemical-resistant gloves were worn, a protection factor of 90%
was used to back-calculate "bare" hand exposure.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-23
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Cup
Scenario Summary
T;il>lc (-33: Scenario Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihlc l-lxposurc Studies
1 simulation
Granules
Equipment/Application
Method
Cup
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawn, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic
areas)
Available Exposure Studies
Merricks, L. (2001); MRID 45333401
Table (-34: I nil r.xposurcs img/lh ;ii) - (.mimic Cup Applications
Siaiisiic
Dermal
Inhalation
50th percentile
0.05
0.013
75th percentile
0.12
0.013
95th percentile
0.40
0.013
99th percentile
0.91
0.013
99.9th percentile
2.3
0.013
AM(SD)
0.11 (0.21)
0.013 (0)
GM (GSD)
0.05 (3.4)
0.013 (1)
Range
0.0075 -0.36
0.013-0.013
N
30
30
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for
applications of granule pesticide formulations using a cup is based on a lognormal distribution fit
with exposure monitoring data from Merricks, L. (2001) [EPA MRID 45333401], Merricks, L.
(2001) monitored 60 applications of a granule formulation for approximately 20-40 minutes to
shrubs and flower beds using a cup. Despite certain limitations (e.g., the lower body was not
measured), this study is a fair representation of residential exposure and is the only available
study for this application pattern.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
applications of granule pesticide formulations using a cup is based on a lognormal distribution fit
with exposure monitoring data from Merricks, L. (2001) [EPA MRID 45333401], Merricks, L.
(2001) monitored 60 applications of a granule formulation for approximately 20-40 minutes to
shrubs and flower beds using a cup. Despite certain limitations (e.g., all inhalation samples were
non-detects), this study is a fair representation of residential exposure and is the only available
study for this application pattern.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-24
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Cup
Log-normal Probability Plots
Log Normal Quantile
Note: Inhalation unit exposure lognormal probability plot not shown as all unit exposures were identical - all inhalation samples were non-
detects and all individuals handled the same amount of active ingredient.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-25
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Cup
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Tahle ( -35: llxposuiv Siuclj Idemiric;ilion InTni'malion
Citation
Merricks, L. (2001) Determination of Dermal (Hand and Forearm) and Inhalation
Exposure to Disulfoton Resulting from Residential Application of Bayer Advanced
Garden 2-in-l Systematic Rose and Flower Care to Shrubs and Flower Beds: Lab
Project Number: 4201. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc. 178 p.
EPA MRID
45333401
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D273144
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Fifteen individuals were monitored during 4 applications (for a total of 60
application-events) of 1.04% disulfoton granules to shrubs and flower beds using a cup. An
application consisted of pouring the product into the measuring cup/lid attached to the product
package, then distributing the granules onto the soil around the base of the shrub or flower bed.
Each application lasted between 20 and 40 minutes to apply approximately 10 pounds of
formulation (0.1 lbs of disulfoton). Dermal exposure was measured for the hands and forearms
only using detergent washes. Half of the applications were with chemical-resistant gloves and
half were without (i.e., 30 applications with and 30 applications without chemical-resistant
gloves). Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 1 liter per minute),
cassettes, and tubing. All inhalation samples were non-detects. The overall mean percent
recovery of concurrent laboratory fortifications from air sampling tubes was 99.9 ± 6.42%. The
overall mean percent recovery from hand/forearm wash solution was 99.5 ± 9.15%. For air
samples, the overall average fortified field recovery was 98.2 ± 6.32% with no apparent
differences in mean recoveries between days or fortification levels. Overall field fortified
recovery for hand/forearm wash samples collected from volunteers who did not wear gloves was
99.4 ± 7.95%) with no apparent differences in recovery values between days.
Tahle (-36: MRU) 45333401 - Checklist ;iihI I so Kccummcndalion
Siud> ( iilei'ia
1 Aposiue (onipoiieul
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the slud\ pivn ide detailed cliaiacleiisiics on llie ach\ il\, equipment l\pe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-26
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Cup
T;ihk- ( -r: MRU) 45333401 - Suiiiin;ir\
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 Apiisiiiv (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiiv ( iiiu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
1
0.1
0.013
0.0013
0.13
0.013
2
0.1
0.030
0.0013
0.30
0.013
3
0.1
0.019
0.0013
0.19
0.013
4
0.1
0.015
0.0013
0.15
0.013
5
0.1
0.004
0.0013
0.04
0.013
6
0.1
0.017
0.0013
0.17
0.013
7
0.1
0.005
0.0013
0.05
0.013
8
0.1
0.002
0.0013
0.02
0.013
9
0.1
0.009
0.0013
0.09
0.013
10
0.1
0.036
0.0013
0.36
0.013
11
0.1
0.004
0.0013
0.04
0.013
12
0.1
0.025
0.0013
0.25
0.013
13
0.1
0.001
0.0013
0.01
0.013
14
0.1
0.007
0.0013
0.07
0.013
15
0.1
0.016
0.0013
0.16
0.013
1
0.1
0.001
0.0013
0.01
0.013
2
0.1
0.003
0.0013
0.03
0.013
3
0.1
0.002
0.0013
0.02
0.013
4
0.1
0.021
0.0013
0.21
0.013
5
0.1
0.008
0.0013
0.08
0.013
6
0.1
0.001
0.0013
0.01
0.013
7
0.1
0.001
0.0013
0.01
0.013
8
0.1
0.001
0.0013
0.01
0.013
9
0.1
0.004
0.0013
0.04
0.013
10
0.1
0.005
0.0013
0.05
0.013
11
0.1
0.012
0.0013
0.12
0.013
12
0.1
0.003
0.0013
0.03
0.013
13
0.1
0.012
0.0013
0.12
0.013
14
0.1
0.001
0.0013
0.01
0.013
15
0.1
0.008
0.0013
0.08
0.013
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of granule pesticide formulations using a cup, the following limitations are noted:
• Dermal exposure was measured only on the hands and forearms. To the extent that this
type of application would result in significant exposure to the lower body, the use of this
data may underestimate exposure.
• Each individual handled the same amount of active ingredient making analysis of the
relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled (the
underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
• All inhalation samples were non-detects. One-half the limit of quantification (0.30) was
used.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-27
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Hand
Scenario Summary
I'iihk* (-3N: Scoiiiirio Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihlc l-lxposmv Studies
Formulation
Granules
Equipment/Application
Method
Hand dispersal
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawn, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic
areas)
Available Exposure Studies
PHED 520
1 "sihie ( -3*>: I nil r.\nosinvs (mg/lh ;ii) - (ii'iiniile An
)liciili(ins h> Ihinri
Siaiisiic
Dermal
Inhalation
50 percentile
120
0.28
75th percentile
205
0.47
95th percentile
430
1.0
99th percentile
740
1.7
99.9th percentile
1300
3.1
AM(SD)
160 (150)
0.38 (0.35)
GM (GSD)
120 (2.2)
0.28 (2.2)
Range
24 - 370
0.064-0.95
N
16
16
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for
applications of granule pesticide formulations by hand is based on a lognormal distribution fit
with exposure monitoring data from PHED 520. PHED 520 monitored 16 applications of a
granule formulation to driveways, sidewalks, patios, foundations, and flower beds around private
residences in Florida. Despite certain limitations (e.g., back-calculations were necessary to
represent individuals wearing shorts, short-sleeve shirt and no chemical-resistant gloves), this
study is a good respresentation of residential exposure and is the only available study for this
application pattern.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
applications of granule pesticide formulations by hand is based on a lognormal distribution fit
with exposure monitoring data from PHED 520. PHED 520 monitored 16 applications of a
granule formulation to driveways, sidewalks, patios, foundations, and flower beds around private
residences in Florida. Despite certain limitations (e.g., all inhalation samples were non-detects),
this study is a good respresentation of residential exposure and is the only available study for this
application pattern.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-28
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Hand
Log-normal Probability Plots
Legend: ¦ = PHED 520
400-
350-
300-
250-
200-
ro
_Q
"3)
E
3 150-
"ro
E
Q
100-
50-
¦—i—i—i—
.00131 .05.10
.25
.50
.75
.90
.95
.0
Legend: ¦ = PHED 520
T
.5
T
T
T
1.0
1.5 2.0 2.5
Log Normal Quantile
3.0
3.5
4.
.00131 .05.10 .25
.50
.75
.90
0.9-
.95
0.8-
0.7-
m 0.6"
"Bj
LLI
3
0.5-
0.4-
^ 0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
.0
~r
.5
T
T
T
1.0
1.5 2.0 2.5
Log Normal Quantile
—T~
3.0
3.5
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-29
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Hand
Available Handler Exposure Studies
1 "sihie ( -40: llxposiiiv Siud> Idemil'iciilion Inl'tn-malion
Citation
PHED 520
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Three commercial applicators were each monitored 5 times (for a total of
16 application-events) while applying 2% active ingredient granules by hand to driveways,
sidewalks, patios, foundations, and flower beds around private residences in Florida. Each
application consisted of treating one residences using less than 1 lb of product with gloved hands
at a rate of approximately 4 ounces per 1000 ft2 (0.005 lb ai/1000 ft2). Dermal exposure was
measured using gauze patches both inside and outside the normal work clothing (long-sleeve
shirt, long pants, shoes, socks) as well as hand washes to measure exposure to hands underneath
chemical-resistant gloves. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 1 liter
per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Recoveries from field fortifications of exposure sampling
matrices were generally above 90%.
Tahle ( -41: Plllll) 520 - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Kecci in men «l;i 1 ion
SiiuK ( nieria
1 !\posiue (iinipiiiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )ocs ilie slikls pi'o\ ide detailed characteristics on llie acli\ il\, equipment l\pe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Tahle ( -42: PIII-:I) 520 - Data Siimman
Person
AaiH1
Exposure (mg)
Unit Exposure (mg/lb ai)4
ID
(lbs)
Dermal2
Inhalation3
Dermal
Inhalation
A
0.026
0.635
0.0017
24
0.0654
A
0.003
0.635
0.0016
205
0.5333
A
0.003
0.635
0.0016
235
0.5333
A
0.005
0.970
0.0016
206
0.3200
A
0.005
0.970
0.0016
216
0.3200
B
0.013
0.635
0.0016
51
0.1231
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-30
-------
Formulation: Granules
Equipment/Application Method: Hand
B
0.003
0.635
0.0016
212
0.5333
B
0.002
0.635
0.0016
374
0.8000
B
0.003
0.635
0.0016
199
0.5333
B
0.006
0.635
0.0016
102
0.2667
C
0.010
0.635
0.0016
64
0.1600
C
0.007
0.635
0.0016
88
0.2286
C
0.003
0.635
0.0016
187
0.5333
C
0.004
0.635
0.0016
148
0.4000
C
0.010
1.034
0.0016
103
0.1600
C
0.024
0.780
0.0016
33
0.0667
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-
resistant gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of granule pesticide formulations by hand, the following limitations are noted:
• The individuals monitored in the study wore chemical-resistant gloves and nearly all
dermal measurements (hands and body) were non-detects. Exposure was therefore
calculated using V2 of the limit of quantification (0.41 ug for body exposure; 41 ug for
hand exposure) and hand measurements required a back-calculation using a 90%
protection factor to represent "bare" hand exposure.
• All inhalation samples were non-detects. One-half the limit of detection (0.2 |Lxg) was
used.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-31
-------
Formulation: Dusts/Powders
Equipment/Application Method: Plunger duster
Scenario Summary
Tiihlc ( -43: Scciiiirio Description iind A\;iil;il)k' l-lxposiiiv Studios
Formulation
Dusts/Powders
Equipment/Application
Method
Plunger duster
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests),
indoors (general broadcast treatments)
Available Exposure Studies
Merricks, D.L. (1997); MRID 44459801
l iihlo ( -44: I nil l.\
insures (inii/ll) :ii) - Dust/Powder Plunder Duskr Annliciilions
SiaiiMic
Dermal
Inhalation
50 percentile
150
0.50
75th percentile
290
1.4
95th percentile
790
6.5
99th percentile
1600
19
99.9th percentile
3400
62
AM(SD)
250 (330)
1.7 (5.4)
GM (GSD)
150 (2.8)
0.50 (4.8)
Range
36 - 1400
0.0045 - 8.2
N
20
20
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for
applications of dust or powder pesticide formulations using a plunger duster is based on a
lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from Merricks, D.L. (1997) [EPA
MRID 44459801], Merricks, D.L. (1997) monitored 20 applications of a dust formulation for
approximately 20 minutes to garden plants using a hand-operated plunger duster. As well as
being the only available data for this scenario, this study well represents the type of clothing a
homeowner or amateur applicator would wear (i.e., shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no chemical-
resistant gloves).
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
applications of dust or powder pesticide formulations using a plunger duster is based on a
lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from Merricks, D.L. (1997) [EPA
MRID 44459801], Merricks, D.L. (1997) monitored 20 applications of a dust formulation for
approximately 20 minutes to garden plants using a hand-operated plunger duster. As well as
being the only available data for this scenario, this study well represents residential applications
in terms of the clothing representation and activities.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-32
-------
Formulation: Dusts/Powders
Equipment/Application Method: Plunger duster
Lognormal Probability Plots
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: ¦ = Merricks, D.L. (1997)
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-33
-------
Formulation: Dusts/Powders
Equipment/Application Method: Plunger duster
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Table (-45: l.xpnsurc' Smd> 1 don 1 lion InToi-malion
Citation
Merricks, D.L. (1997). Carbaryl Mixer/Loader/Applicator Exposure Study during
Application of RP-2 Liquid (21%), Sevin® Ready to Use Insect Spray or Sevin® 10
Dust to Home Garden Vegetables
EPA MRID
44459801
ORETF Code
OMA006
EPA Review
EPA Memo from G. Bangs to D. Fuller (3/5/03)
D287251
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Twenty individuals were monitored while applying a dust formulation
(10% carbaryl) to gardens using a hand-operated plunger duster (The Spritzer™). Each
application was approximately 20 minutes and consisted of loading the duster and applying
approximately 0.16 lbs formulation (0.017 lbs carbaryl) to garden plants. Dermal exposure was
measured using inner and outer whole body dosimetry and hand washes (without chemical-
resistant gloves worn). Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters
per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field fortification recoveries for passive dosimeters averaged
84.3% for inner dosimeters and 77.7% for outer dosimeters. Face and neck wipe field
fortifications averaged 84.8%. Both handwash and inhalation tube field fortification averaged
>90%. Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable range of 70 to
120%). The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 |ig/sample for all media except the inhalation
monitors where the LOQ was 0.01 |ig/sample. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.5 |ig/sample
for all media except the inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.005 |ig/sample.
1 "sihie C-4(»: MKII) 44459X01 - CheckliM ;iihI I so Kccommendalion
SiikK ( rileiia
1 Aposuiv (onipoiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment
type, and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler
exposure assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Table ( -J"7: MRU) 4445<)SIII - Data Siimman
Person II)
\aill
(Ills)
1 \poMiie i mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic i mu Hi an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-34
-------
Formulation: Dusts/Powders
Equipment/Application Method: Plunger duster
E
0.003
2.22
0.0043
661
1.43
F
0.025
14.70
0.0087
590
0.35
I
0.007
1.99
0.0058
275
0.83
H
0.012
1.55
0.0154
132
1.28
K
0.012
2.11
0.0021
172
0.18
L
0.013
1.22
0.0046
97
0.35
0
0.005
1.06
0.0126
234
2.52
P
0.009
2.13
0.0000
228
0.00
S
0.013
1.09
0.0158
82
1.22
T
0.015
1.03
0.0033
70
0.22
W
0.019
1.55
0.0235
84
1.24
X
0.012
3.10
0.0045
252
0.38
A2
0.029
1.48
0.0332
51
1.14
B2
0.003
3.61
0.0214
1375
7.13
E2
0.020
0.80
0.0014
40
0.07
F2
0.009
2.41
0.0053
280
0.59
12
0.030
1.28
0.0242
42
0.81
J2
0.044
1.58
0.0144
36
0.33
M2
0.013
2.85
0.0171
227
1.32
02
0.026
1.54
0.0039
60
0.15
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of dust/powder formulations using a plunger duster, the following limitations are
noted:
• Though the study was strictly conducted outdoors, it is recommended for indoor use as
well since no indoor plunger duster study is available. Such use introduces uncertainty.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-35
-------
Formulation: Dusts/Powders
Equipment/Application Method: Shaker can
Scenario Summary
T;il>lc (-4X: Scenario Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihlc l-lxposmv Studies
1 simulation
Dusts/Powders
Equipment/Application
Method
Shaker can
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests),
indoors (general broadcast treatments), pets/animals
Available Exposure Studies
Merricks, D. (1997); MRID 44439901
McKeown, K. (2001); MRID 45519601
Tiihlc (-4'J: I nil r.xposiircs (mg/lh ;ii) - Dnsl/Powdcr Stalker c;in Applications
Sialisiic
Dermal
liihalalkin
50Ql percentile
3600
9.4
75 th percentile
5300
20
95th percentile
9200
59
99th percentile
14000
130
99.9th percentile
21000
290
AM(SD)
4300 (2600)
18 (28)
GM (GSD)
3600 (1.8)
9.4(3.1)
Range
1400 - 10000
0.36-74
N
20
55
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for
applications of dust or powder pesticide formulations using a shaker can is based on a lognormal
distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from Merricks, D. (1997) [EPA MRID 44439901],
Merricks, D. (1997) monitored 40 applications of a dust formulation to dogs for approximately 7
minutes using a 1 lb shaker can. While another study was also available and reasonably
representative of residential applications, Merricks, D., (1997) employed monitoring methods
that best represented the type of clothing a homeowner or amateur applicator would wear (i.e.,
shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no chemical-resistant gloves).
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
applications of dust or powder pesticide formulations using a shaker can is based on a lognormal
distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from Merricks, D. (1997) [EPA MRID 44439901]
and McKeown, K. (2001) [MRID 45519601], Merricks, D. (1997) monitored 40 applications of
a dust formulation to dogs for approximately 7 minutes using a 1 lb shaker can. McKeown, K.
(2001) monitored 15 applications of approximately 1 ounce of a dust formulation for
approximately 2-3 minutes to dogs using a shaker can. Both studies were reasonably
representative of residential applications with inhalation exposures of the same general
magnitude, thus a composite dataset was utilized.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-36
-------
Formulation: Dusts/Powders
Equipment/Application Method: Shaker can
Lognormal Probability Plots
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: X= McKeown. K. (2001); O = Merricks. D.L. (1997)
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-37
-------
Formulation: Dusts/Powders
Equipment/Application Method: Shaker can
Available Handler Exposure Studies
1 "sihie ( -50: llxposiiiv Siud> Idemil'iciilion lnl'onii;i(ion
Citation
Merricks, D. (1997) Carbaryl Applicator Exposure Study During Application of Sevin
5 Dust to Dogs by the Nonprofessional: Lab Project Number: 1517: 10565: ML96
0662 RHP. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc., Rhone Poulenc Ag Co.
and Morse Laboratories, Inc. 212 p.
EPA MRID
44439901
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D287251
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: A total of 40 individuals - 20 with and 20 without chemical-resistant gloves
- were monitored while applying a dust formulation (5% carbaryl) to dogs. Each application,
lasting approximately 7 minutes, consisted of an individual using a 1 lb shaker can to apply an
average of 0.15 lbs of dust (0.008 lbs carbaryl) to 3 dogs, then rubbing the dust into the dog's
coat. Dermal exposure was measured using inner and outer whole body dosimetry and hand
washes. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per minute),
cassettes, and tubing. Field fortification recoveries for passive dosimeters averaged >90% for
inner and outer dosimeters. Face and neck wipe field fortifications average 87.6%. Inhalation
tube field fortification averaged 100. Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within
the acceptable range of 70 to 120%.
Tahlc('-5I: MRU) 4443'),)0I -( heeklisl iiiid I se Kecom meiKhi 1 ion
Siud\ ( rileiia
1 !\posiiie ('ompiiiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does ilie siud\ pi'o\ ide detailed cliaiaclensiics on llie ach\ il\, equipment l\pe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal (individuals without chemical-resistant gloves only) and
inhalation exposure are included since both are recommended for use in residential handler
exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should
be reviewed for further information.
lahle ( -52: MRU) 4443'mi - l)ala Siimman
IVi'son ID
Villi
dbsi
1 Aposuie (iiiui
1 ml 1 ApuMire (mu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
1
0.005
--
0.036
--
7.20
2
0.015
--
0.307
--
20.47
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-38
-------
Formulation: Dusts/Powders
Equipment/Application Method: Shaker can
T;ihk- ( -52: MRU) 4443'mi - l);ii;i Siimniiin
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 Apiisiiiv (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiiv ( iiiu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
0.0034
34.15
(1 """Ml
10044
o4.~l
4
0.016
82.94
0.134
5184
8.38
5
0.005
--
0.016
--
3.20
6
0.008
--
0.100
--
12.50
7
0.0079
10.84
0.145
1372
18.35
8
0.0042
25.84
0.140
6152
33.33
9
0.01
--
0.120
--
12.00
10
0.0083
64.13
0.086
7726
10.36
11
0.002
--
0.029
--
14.50
12
0.007
--
0.137
--
19.57
13
0.0025
10.19
0.022
4076
8.80
14
0.003
10.76
0.038
3586
12.67
15
0.008
--
0.062
--
7.75
16
0.0068
18.19
0.098
2676
14.41
17
0.009
--
0.094
--
10.44
18
0.011
--
0.221
--
20.09
19
0.0068
15.49
0.091
2278
13.38
20
0.012
104.75
0.302
8729
25.17
21
0.008
--
0.225
--
28.13
22
0.017
--
0.280
--
16.47
23
0.0047
20.82
0.140
4431
29.79
24
0.022
84.35
0.280
3834
12.73
25
0.004
--
0.048
--
12.00
26
0.009
15.91
0.099
1711
11.00
27
0.002
--
0.024
--
12.00
28
0.008
--
0.591
--
73.88
29
0.0014
8.28
0.048
5914
34.29
30
0.0093
13.59
0.124
1599
13.33
31
0.005
--
0.072
--
14.40
32
0.005
--
0.044
--
8.80
33
0.014
29.36
0.293
2097
20.93
34
0.0069
23.17
0.120
3359
17.39
35
0.007
--
0.043
--
6.14
36
0.0064
24.96
0.039
3900
6.09
37
0.006
--
0.027
--
4.50
38
0.011
--
0.269
--
24.45
39
0.006
13.65
0.021
2275
3.50
40
0.004
13.86
0.098
3465
24.50
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of dust/powder formulations using a shaker can, the following limitations are noted:
• Though the study was strictly conducted on dogs, it is recommended for all other uses as
well since studies measuring exposure during shaker can applications of dust/powders to
other sites are available. Such use introduces uncertainty.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-39
-------
Formulation: Dusts/Powders
Equipment/Application Method: Shaker can
Tahlc ( -53: I'xposn re Siiulj 1 don I lion In lorm a lion
Citation
McKeown, K. (2001). Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposures to
Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) During the Application of an Insecticide Powder to a Dog:
Lab Project Number: 1556. Unpublished study prepared by The Hartz Mountain
Corp. 215 p.
EPA MRID
45519601
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D278626
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Five different applicators applied insecticidal powder (3.29% TCVP) using
a shaker can to 3 different dogs for a total of 15 application events. Each application of
approximately 1 ounce of product (approximately 0.0017 lbs TCVP) ranged between 2 and 3
minutes. Dermal exposure was measured using inner dosimetry underneath shorts and a short-
sleeve shirt and hand washes (face/neck exposure was not measured). Inhalation exposure was
measured using standard pumps (set at 15 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Recoveries
from field fortifications of exposure sampling matrices were variable. Field fortification
recoveries averaged 96.9% ± 12.1 for handwipes, 82.12% ± 2.3 for inhalation samples, and
64. P/o ± 12.4 for whole body dosimeters. For the whole body dosimeters, recoveries were low
(48%) ± 2 at the low fortification level of 10 jag and 12.2% ± 3.2 at the higher fortification levels
of 500 and 3000 |ig). Laboratory recoveries averaged 104.8%> ±7.1 for handwipes, 100.2%> ±
9.3 for inhalation samples for the air filter/PUF plug, and 91.9% ± 9.2 whole body dosimeters.
Tahlc (-54: MRU) 455 I'M! I — ( hecklisl ;iihI I so Kecom iiioikI;i I ion
Studs ( iilei'ia
1 ApoMiie (iinipiiiieul
Dermal
liihalalkiu
Dues i lie studs pan ide detailed characteristics mi I lie acli\ il\, equipment tspe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
No
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only inhalation exposure data are presented as the dermal
exposure data are not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further
information.
Tahlc ( -55: MRU) 455!')(>!II Dala Siimman
IVrsou ID
. Villi
( Ills)
1 Aposiire ( iiiui
1 ml 1 ApoMire i mu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
A
0.0017
--
0.0040
--
2.35
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-40
-------
Formulation: Dusts/Powders
Equipment/Application Method: Shaker can
Tiihlc (-55: MRU) 455!')(>!II l);il;i Suinni;ir\
IVl'SOIl II)
Aaill
( Ills)
1 \poMirc (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiiv i iiiu 111 an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
A
0.0015
—
0.0105
--
7.00
A
0.0016
—
0.0008
--
0.50
B
0.0019
—
0.0105
--
5.53
B
0.0019
—
0.0076
--
4.00
B
0.0017
—
0.0340
--
20.00
C
0.0019
—
0.0177
--
9.32
C
0.0018
—
0.0036
--
2.00
C
0.0019
—
0.0082
--
4.32
D
0.0019
—
0.0168
--
8.84
D
0.0017
—
0.0037
--
2.18
D
0.0019
—
0.0354
--
18.63
E
0.0017
—
0.0018
--
1.06
E
0.0019
—
0.0007
--
0.37
E
0.0018
—
0.0011
--
0.61
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations:
• Each individual handled the same amount of active ingredient making analysis of the
relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled (the
underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
• The use of 15 liters per minute is much higher than the standard setting of 1- 2 liters per
minute and could complicate air sampling.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-41
-------
Formulation: Paints and Stains
Scenario Summary
Equipment/Application Method: Airless sprayer
I'iihk* C-5(»: Scoiiiirio Description ;iihI A\;iil;il>lc l-lxposmv Studies
Formulation
Paints and Stains
Equipment/Application
Method
Airless sprayer
Application Site(s)
outdoors and indoors (general paint and stain applications)
Available Exposure Studies
Formella, T. (1995); MRID 43600102
PHED 467
"I'sihlo < -5-7: I nil llxnosuivs (m*i/ll> ;ii) - Pninl/Siiiin Airless Spr;i\er Applic;ilions
Statistic
Dermal
Inhalation
50th percentile
88
0.38
75th percentile
190
0.69
95th percentile
540
1.6
99th percentile
1100
2.9
99.9th percentile
2700
5.7
AM(SD)
160 (250)
0.56 (0.60)
GM (GSD)
88 (3.01)
0.38 (2.4)
Range
12-480
0.078- 1.6
N
15
51
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for
applications of pesticide-containing paints or stains using an airless sprayer is based on a
lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from PHED 467. PHED 467 monitored
15 applications of approximately 5 gallons of pesticide-containing stain with an airless sprayer.
While another study was available that was also reasonably representative of residential
applications, PHED 467 employed exposure monitoring methods that best represented the type
of clothing a homeowner or amateur applicator would wear (i.e., shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no
chemical-resistant gloves).
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
applications of pesticide-containing paints or stains using an airless sprayer is based on a
lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from Formella, T. (1995) [EPA MRID
43600102] and PHED 467. Formella, T. (1995) monitored 36 applications of approximately 5
gallons of pesticide-containing paint inside and outside houses for approximately 22-81 minutes
using an airless sprayer. PHED 467 monitored 15 applications of approximately 5 gallons of
pesticide-containing stain with an airless sprayer. Both studies were reasonably representative of
residential applications with inhalation exposures of the same general magnitude, thus a
composite dataset was utilized.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-42
-------
Formulation: Paints and Stains Equipment/Application Method: Airless sprayer
Lognormal Probability Plots
Legend: ¦ = PHED 467
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: X= Formella. T. (1995); O = PHED 467
X010510 .25
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-43
-------
Formulation: Paints and Stains
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Equipment/Application Method: Airless sprayer
Tahlc (-5X: I'.\|)osiiiv Siudj 1 tlon I lion Inform;! I ion
Citation
Formella, T. (1995) Potential Exposure of Workers to Chlorothalonil when Handling
and Applying Paint Containing Chlorothalonil: Lab Project Number: 94 0204: ISKB
1894 002 02: 5227 94 0204 CR 001. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc.
272 p.
EPA MRID
43600102
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Four individuals were monitored while applying chlorothalonil-containing
paint with an airless sprayer. Each individual was monitored 3 times for each of 3 paint-types
(interior latex-based, exterior latex-based, and exterior alkyd-based) - for a total of 36
application-events - while spraying 5 gallons of paint (< 1 lb chlorothalonil). Each application-
event ranged from 22 to 81 minutes. Dermal exposure was measured using whole body
dosimetry underneath a long-sleeve shirt, long pants, socks, and shoes. Hand exposure was
measured using inner and outer gloves. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps
(set at 1.5 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field fortification samples fortified with
exterior latex paint containing had a mean recovery of 96% with a standard deviation of 10.1%.
Those samples fortified with interior latex paint had a mean recovery of 96% with a standard
deviation of 6.5% and those fortified with exterior alkyd paint had a mean recovery of 97% with
a standard deviation of 10.4%. Overall laboratory concurrent recovery samples had a mean
recovery of 101% with a standard deviation of 11%.
Tahlc C-5'J: MRU) 43(>lllll02 — ( hecklisl ;iihI I so Kecom iiioikI;i I ion
Siud\ ( rilciia
1 !\posiiie ( timpiiiiciil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only inhalation exposure data are presented as the dermal
exposure data are not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further
information.
Tahlc C-WI: MRU) 43(>II0I02 Dala Siimman
IVl'SOIl II)
\aill
1 Apiisuiv (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic i mu Ih an
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-44
-------
Formulation: Paints and Stains
Equipment/Application Method: Airless sprayer
(Ills)
Dermal
lnlialalK
-------
Formulation: Paints and Stains
Equipment/Application Method: Airless sprayer
Study Description: Eight different individuals were monitored at 3 different sites (for a total of
15 application-events) while apply stain with an airless sprayer. Each application consisted of an
individual applying a 5 gallon container of stain to approximately 1000 ft . Dermal exposure
was measured using gauze patches outside and inside standard cotton clothing. Hand exposure
was measured using cotton gloves on the outside of protective latex gloves. Inhalation exposure
was measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field
fortification recoveries averaged 80.3% for the patches, 90.7% for the filters, and 82.4% for the
cotton gloves. The average recovery from laboratory fortified control samples that were
analyzed with each set of test samples was 90.0% for white cotton gloves and 108.2% for
polyurethane foam filters.
1 "si hie (-(>2: Plllll) 4(i'7 - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Kecci in men «l;i 1 ion
Siiids ( rilciia
1 ApoMII'C ( 'iimpiillCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Tahle ( -(>3: PI 1 l-'l) 4(>7 Dnin Siimman
IVi'son ID
\aill
dbsi
1 Aposiiiv (mm
1 ml 1 ApuMirc i mu lb an
Dermal
Inlialalkiii
Dermal
Inhalation
A
0.1667
80.16
0.073
481
0.441
A
0.1667
22.17
0.168
133
1.007
B
0.1667
5.15
0.036
31
0.215
C
0.1667
23.31
0.140
140
0.842
B
0.1667
25.11
0.114
151
0.681
D
0.1667
1.95
0.045
12
0.270
C
0.1667
16.88
0.084
101
0.501
D
0.1667
2.27
0.046
14
0.275
E
0.1667
43.29
0.120
260
0.721
E
0.1667
14.45
0.107
87
0.641
F
0.1667
24.01
0.114
144
0.686
G
0.1667
24.23
0.060
145
0.361
F
0.1667
44.72
0.037
268
0.220
G
0.1667
3.72
0.073
22
0.436
H
0.1667
12.94
0.114
78
0.686
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-46
-------
Formulation: Paints and Stains
Equipment/Application Method: Airless sprayer
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of paint/stain
applications using an airless sprayer, the following limitations are noted:
• Cotton gloves were used to measure hand exposure which, though used in the past as a
frequent collection method for hand exposure may result in an overestimate.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-47
-------
Formulation: Paints and Stains
Scenario Summary
Equipment/Application Method: Brush
Tsihle ( -(>4: Scenario Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihlc l-lxposuiv Studies
1 simulation
Paints and Stains
Equipment/Application
Method
Brush
Application Site(s)
outdoors and indoors (general paint and stain applications)
Available Exposure Studies
PHED 467
1 "sihie ( -(>5: I nil r.xposiircs (mg/lh ;ii) - I'iiinl/Miiin linish Applications
Statistic
Dermal
Inhalation
5()" percentile
3yu
o.ly
75th percentile
570
0.23
95th percentile
970
0.30
99th percentile
1400
0.37
99.9th percentile
2200
0.46
AM(SD)
450 (270)
0.20 (0.058)
GM (GSD)
390 (1.7)
0.19 (1.3)
Range
180 - 900
0.16-0.33
N
15
15
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for
applications of pesticide-containing paints or stains using a brush is based on a lognormal
distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from PHED 467. PHED 467 monitored 15
applications of approximately 1 gallon of pesticide-containing paint to an interior bathroom for
approximately 34-94 minutes with 2- or 4-inch brushes. This was the only available study for
this exposure scenario.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
applications of pesticide-containing paints or stains using a brush is based on a lognormal
distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from PHED 467. PHED 467 monitored 15
applications of approximately 1 gallon of pesticide-containing paint to an interior bathroom for
approximately 34-94 minutes with 2- or 4-inch brushes. This was the only available study for
this exposure scenario.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-48
-------
Formulation: Paints and Stains
Equipment/Application Method: Brush
Lognormal Probability Plots
Legend: ¦ = PHED 467
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: ¦ = PHED 467
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-49
-------
Formulation: Paints and Stains
Available Exposure Studies
Equipment/Application Method: Brush
Tahlc ('-(>(>: l-'.\posure Siiulj 1 tloiili(ion Information
Citation
PHED 467
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Ten different individuals were monitored at 3 different sites (for a total of
15 application-events) while applying approximately 1 gallon of paint with 2- or 4-inch brushes
to an interior bathroom. Each application ranged from 34-94 minutes. Dermal exposure was
measured using gauze patches outside and inside standard cotton clothing. Hand exposure was
measured using cotton gloves on the outside of protective latex gloves. Inhalation exposure was
measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field
fortification recoveries average 82.5% for patches, 87.5% for filters, and 14.1% for gloves. A
laboratory storage stability study was initiated with each type of matrix. Patch samples had a
recovery of 75.6%, gloves had 81.5%, and filters had a recovery of 94.6% after 89 days storage.
The average recovery from laboratory fortified control samples averaged 87.5% for white cotton
gloves and 99.0% for polyurethane foam air filters.
Tahlc i -W: PI 1 l-'l) - ( hccklisl iiiid I so Recommendation
Studs ( riteria
1 Apiisiire (iiinpiiiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the siud\ pro\ ide detailed characteristics on (lie acti\ its, equipment t\pe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Tahlc ( -(>X: I'lll-il) -Ki"7 - Dala Siimman
IVi'son ID
Villi
dbsi
1 Aposiiie (mm
1 ml 1 Apiisiire i mu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
AA
0.0253
5.82
0.00835
230
0.330
BB
0.0253
4.87
0.00835
193
0.330
CC
0.051
18.32
0.00835
359
0.164
DD
0.051
12.35
0.00835
488
0.164
EE
0.051
4.75
0.00835
188
0.164
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-50
-------
Formulation: Paints and Stains
Equipment/Application Method: Brush
Tiihk* ( -(>X: Plll-ll) -Ki"7 - l);il;i Suinm;ir\
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 \poMiiv (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic i iiiu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
if
0.051
10.50
(HII IS i ^
415
0.1 o4
GG
0.051
21.05
0.00835
832
0.164
HH
0.051
7.59
0.00835
300
0.164
II
0.0253
13.67
0.00835
540
0.330
JJ
0.051
6.90
0.00835
273
0.164
KK
0.051
4.52
0.00835
179
0.164
LL
0.051
18.62
0.00835
736
0.164
MM
0.051
22.70
0.00835
897
0.164
NN
0.051
17.95
0.00835
710
0.164
00
0.051
19.74
0.00835
387
0.164
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of paint/stain
applications using a brush, the following limitations are noted:
• All inhalation samples were non-detects. One-half the limit of detection (2 |Lxg) was used.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-51
-------
Formulation: Mothballs
Equipment/Application Method: Hand
Scenario Summary
Tsihle ('-(>'): Seen;iri» Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihle I'xposure Studios
lormulation
Mothballs
Equipment/Application Method
Hand placement
Application Site(s)
Cabinets, sheds, closets
Available Exposure Studies
Waggoner, T. (1994); MRID 43716501
1 "sihie ( --70: I nil l-Anosures (mji/lh ;ii) — Moihhiill An
)lie:iliniis h> Ihinri
SiaiiMic
Dermal
Inhalation
50Ql percentile
0.021
Inhalation exposure while placing
mothballs in cabinets, closets, etc. is
assumed negligible. The post-
application inhalation exposure
assessment is considered protective of
handler inhalation exposure.
75 th percentile
0.060
95th percentile
0.28
99th percentile
0.81
99.9th percentile
2.7
AM(SD)
0.072 (0.24)
GM (GSD)
0.021 (4.8)
Range
0.032-0.078
N
3
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for
applications of pesticide-containing mothballs by hand is based on a lognormal distribution fit
with exposure monitoring data from Waggoner, T. (1990) [EPA MRID 43716501], Waggoner,
T. (1990) monitored 3 applications of mothballs in closets and dresser drawers in 3 residences in
Georgia by hand. This was the only study available for this exposure scenario.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary: Inhalation exposure while placing mothballs in
cabinets, closets, etc. is assumed negligible.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-52
-------
Formulation: Mothballs
Equipment/Application Method: Hand
Lognormal Probability Plots
Legend: ¦ = Waggoner, T. (1994)
25 .50
.75
2.0
4.0
.90
T
T
.95
6.0 8.0
Log Normal Quantile
10.0
12.0
14.0
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-53
-------
Formulation: Mothballs
Equipment/Application Method: Hand
Available Exposure Studies
TahleC-"7!: r.xpnsuiv Siiulj 1 don I lion InToi-malion
Citation
Waggoner, T. (1994) Estimation of Homeowner Exposure to LX1298-01
(Napthalene) Resulting from Simulated Residential Use as an Insect Repellent: Final
Report: Lab Project Number: 93-9083: 92-298-01 -21H-02: 92-298-01-21H-03.
Unpublished study prepared by Landis International, Inc. and Pharmaco LSR, Inc.
100 p.
EPA MRID
43716501
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D340008
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Three individuals were monitored while placing mothballs in closets and
dresser drawers in 3 residences in Georgia (1 person monitored in each residence for a total of 3
application-events). Each application consisted of weighing the mothballs (so as to place
approximately 1.0 lb naphthalene per 50 ft3 of space), placing mothballs in closets and/or dresser
drawers and closing the closet or dresser drawer. The amount of naphthalene used ranged from
1.34 lbs to 2.2 lbs. Dermal exposure was monitored for hands only using cotton gloves.
Inhalation exposure was monitored during the placement of the mothballs using standard pumps
(set at 0.5 liter per minute), cassettes, and tubing - but the results were not reported. Recoveries
from field fortifications of exposure sampling matrices were not reported.
1 "si hie ('-"'2: MKII) 4J"7I(»50I — ( hecklisl ;iihI I so Kecom iiioikI;i I ion
Smd\ ( iilciia
1 ApoMiic ( ompiiiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
No
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
No
No
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
No
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Table ('-"'3: M KM) 43^ 10501 - Suminan
IVi'son ID
Villi
dbsi
1 Apusiiiv (mm
1 ml 1 ApuMirc (mu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
A
2.2
0.0081
—
0.004
—
B
1.3
0.1040
--
0.078
--
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-54
-------
Formulation: Mothballs
Equipment/Application Method: Hand
C
1.5
0.0465
0.032
Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm). Since
"applicator" inhalation samples were not reported, the highest reported post-application inhalation
exposures are shown.
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations:
• The adequacy of the results is compromised due to the limited sample size.
• Inhalation exposure during application of mothballs was not reported.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-55
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Scenario Summary
1 "sihie ( --74: Seeiiiirio Description ;ind A\;iil;ihle llxposiire Studies
Formulation
Liquids (emulsifiable concentrates, soluble concentrates, etc.)
Equipment/Application
Method
Manually-pressurized handwand (also: handheld pump sprayer)
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic
areas), indoors (general broadcast treatments, baseboards, cracks and
crevices)
Available Exposure Studies
Merricks, D.L. (1997); MRID 44459801
Merricks, D.L. (1998); MRID 44518501
PHED471
PHED 1024
Stewart, P., et al. (1999)
PHED 468
Rosenheck, L. (2000); MRID 45184305
Tiihle (-'75: I nil llxnosures (m^/lh ;ii) - liquid M;iiin;ilK-pressnri/ed ll;in(l\\;iii(l Applications
SiaiMic
Indoor I ses
Outdoor I ses
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
50 percentile
Studies measuring exposure while
mixing/loading/applying liquid formulations
indoors using a manually-pressurized
handwand are unavailable. The dataset for
mixing/loading/applying wettable powder
formulations indoors should be used as a
surrogate.
Jo
I) OIKi'J
75th percentile
73
0.018
95th percentile
204
0.069
99th percentile
422
0.178
99.9th percentile
949
0.517
AM(SD)
63 (91)
0.018 (0.045)
GM (GSD)
36 (2.89)
0.0069 (4.0)
Range
1.75 - 354
0.0021 -0.742
N
50
69
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary
Outdoor Environments: The recommended dermal unit exposures for applications of
liquid pesticide formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand in outdoor
environments is based on a lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from
Merricks, D.L. (1997) [EPAMRID 44459801], Merricks, D.L. (1998) [EPAMRID
44518501], and Rosenheck, L. (2000) [EPA MRID 45184305], Merricks, D.L. (1997)
monitored 40 applications of a liquid pesticide formulation for approximately 20 minutes
to tomato and cucumber gardens using a manually-pressurized handwand. Merricks,
D.L. (1998) monitored 20 applications of a liquid pesticide formulation for
approximately 20 minutes to citrus trees and shrubs using a manually-pressurized
handwand. Rosenheck, L. (2000) monitored 10 applications of a liquid pesticide
formulation ranging from 25 to 44 minutes to lawns, gardens, ornamentals, shrubs, and
house foundations. These studies best represent outdoor residential use of this type of
equipment - while other studies are more occupational in nature - and the exposure
monitoring enables representation of the type of clothing a homeowner or amateur
applicator would wear (i.e., shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no chemical-resistant gloves). As
the results were generally of the same magnitude, they were combined into one dataset.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-56
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Indoor Environments: Dermal exposure monitoring data for applications of liquid
pesticide formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand in indoor environments is
unavailable; dermal unit exposures for applications of wettable powder pesticide
formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand in indoor environments are
recommended as surrogate data.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary
Outdoor Environments: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for applications of
liquid pesticide formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand in outdoor
environments is based on a lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from
Merricks, D.L. (1997) [EPA MRID 44459801], Merricks, D.L. (1998) [EPA MRID
44518501], and Rosenheck, L. (2000). Merricks, D.L. (1997) monitored 40 applications
of a liquid pesticide formulation for approximately 20 minutes to tomato and cucumber
gardens using a manually-pressurized handwand. Merricks, D.L. (1998) monitored 20
applications of a liquid pesticide formulation for approximately 20 minutes to citrus trees
and shrubs using a manually-pressurized handwand. Rosenheck, L. (2000) monitored 10
applications of a liquid pesticide formulation ranging from 25 to 44 minutes to lawns,
gardens, ornamentals, shrubs, and house foundations. These studies best represent
outdoor residential use of this type of equipment - other available studies are more
occupational in nature. Additionally, despite Rosenheck, L. (2000) resulting in
considerably higher inhalation exposures, the datasets were combined.
Indoor Environments: Inhalation exposure monitoring data for applications of liquid
pesticide formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand in indoor environments is
unavailable; inhalation unit exposures for applications of wettable powder pesticide
formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand in indoor environments are
recommended as surrogate data.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-57
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Lognormal Probability Plots
Legend: X = Merricks, D.L. (1997); O = Merricks, D.L. (1998); ~ = Rosenheck, L. (2000)
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: X = Merricks, D.L. (1997); O = Merricks, D.L. (1998); ~ = Rosenheck, L. (2000)
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-58
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Available Exposure Studies
Table ('-"<• 1 Aposni'c SiikI\ kleiililicaliiiii liifoinialiiiii
Citation
Merricks, D.L. (1997). Carbaryl Mixer/Loader/Applicator Exposure Study during
Application of RP-2 Liquid (21%), Sevin® Ready to Use Insect Spray or Sevin® 10
Dust to Home Garden Vegetables
EPA MRID
44459801
ORETF Code
OMA006
EPA Review
Memo from G. Bangs to D. Fuller (3/5/03)
D287251
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Forty individuals were monitored while mixing, loading, and applying a
liquid formulation (21% carbaryl) to tomato and cucumber gardens using a manually-pressurized
handwand. Each application was approximately 20 minutes and consisted of loading the
manually-pressurized handwand and applying approximately 0.07 lbs formulation
(approximately 0.01 gallons; 0.02 lbs carbaryl) in 2 gallons of water to garden plants. Dermal
exposure was measured using inner and outer whole body dosimetry and hand washes (20
individuals were monitored without gloves). Inhalation exposure was measured using standard
pumps (set at 2 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field fortification recoveries for passive
dosimeters averaged 84.3% for inner dosimeters and 77.7% for outer dosimeters. Face and neck
wipe field fortifications averaged 84.8%. Both handwash and inhalation tube field fortification
averaged >90%. Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable range
of 70 to 120%. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 |ig/sample for all media except the
inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.01 |ig/sample. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.5
|ig/sample for all media except the inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.005 |ig/sample.
Tiihlc C-"7"7: MRU) 4445'JXOI - Chccklisl ;nul I so Kccommciuliilion for
Siud\ ( iilcria
1 ApoMII'C ( 'iimpoilCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. Note that only dermal
exposure data representative of individuals wearing short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks, and
no chemical-resistant gloves are presented. The submitted study itself or corresponding
analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-59
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
T;ihk- C-"7X: MRU) 4445'JXOI - l);ii;i Siimniiin
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 \piiMiic (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiiv ( iiiu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
P 2
0.018
--
0.00017
--
0.0094
Q2
0.019
--
0.00004
--
0.0023
R2
0.015
--
0.00009
--
0.0067
S2
0.017
--
0.00008
--
0.0041
V2
0.013
--
0.00004
--
0.0041
W2
0.017
--
0.00004
--
0.0041
X2
0.019
--
0.00004
--
0.0033
Y2
0.019
--
0.00004
--
0.0022
B3
0.017
--
0.00004
--
0.0032
C3
0.019
--
0.00008
--
0.0044
D3
0.019
--
0.00004
--
0.0021
E3
0.013
--
0.00004
--
0.0027
H3
0.018
--
0.00017
--
0.0131
13
0.019
--
0.00025
~
0.0129
J3
0.019
--
0.00004
~
0.0023
K3
0.019
--
0.00004
~
0.0027
N3
0.015
--
0.00004
--
0.0027
03
0.019
--
0.00004
~
0.0027
P3
0.015
--
0.00016
~
0.0107
Q3
0.019
--
0.00017
~
0.0101
A
0.018
1.16
0.00008
65
0.0047
B
0.018
0.88
0.00004
46
0.0022
G
0.013
0.30
0.00008
20
0.0053
C
0.020
2.84
0.00026
171
0.0155
J
0.010
0.21
0.00004
17
0.0033
D
0.010
3.71
0.00008
224
0.0050
M
0.013
0.33
0.00008
17
0.0044
N
0.019
1.14
0.00025
60
0.0131
Q
0.013
0.32
0.00004
19
0.0025
R
0.019
0.65
0.00017
34
0.0087
U
0.020
0.21
0.00004
11
0.0022
V
0.015
0.59
0.00025
46
0.0197
Y
0.013
1.81
0.00004
102
0.0023
Z
0.019
0.47
0.00004
25
0.0022
C2
0.018
2.39
0.00017
125
0.0087
D2
0.015
0.69
0.00008
36
0.0044
G2
0.015
0.45
0.00004
30
0.0027
H2
0.015
0.49
0.00017
26
0.0087
K2
0.015
0.16
0.00004
10
0.0027
L2
0.017
0.72
0.00008
38
0.0044
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of liquid concentrate formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand, the
following limitations are noted:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-60
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
• Each individual handled the same amount of active ingredient, making analysis of the
relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled (the
underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
1 "sihie ("-""J: r.xposure Siudj Identification Information
Citation
Merricks, D.L. (1998). Carbaryl Mixer/Loader/Applicator Exposure Study During
Application of RP-2 Liquid (21%) to Fruit Trees and Ornamental Plants
EPA MRID
44518501
ORETF Code
OMA005
EPA Review
Memo from G. Bangs to D. Fuller (3/5/03)
D287251
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Twenty individuals were monitored while loading and applying a liquid
formulation (21% carbaryl) to citrus trees and shrubs using a manually-pressurized handwand.
Each application consisted of pouring the formulation into the tank and spraying the trees - all
lasting less than 20 minutes. The amount of carbaryl handled ranged from 0.02 to 0.09 lbs.
Dermal exposure was measured using inner and outer whole body dosimetry and hand washes
(individuals were monitored without gloves). Inhalation exposure was measured using standard
pumps (set at 2 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field fortification recoveries for passive
dosimeters averaged 88.3% for inner and 76.2% for outer dosimeters. Face and neck wipe
fortifications averaged 82.5%. Handwash fortifications averaged 93.6% and air sampler tube
fortification was 91.8%. Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable
range of 70 to 120%>. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 |ig/sample for all media except
the inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.01 |ig/sample. The limit of detection (LOD) was
0.5 |ig/sample for all media except the inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.005 |ig/sample.
Tiihle ( -SO: MKII) 4451X501 - Checklist iiiid I se Recoiiimeiithi I ion
Siud\ ( 1'ilci'ia
1 ApiislllC ( 'iimpoilCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Tahlc( -XI: MKII) 4451X501 - l)ala Siimman
IVl'SOIl II)
Villi
1 \piiMiic (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiirc (mu lb an
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-61
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
(Ills)
Dermal
liihalalkin
Dermal
Inhalation
2
0.018
0.45
0.000042
25
0.0023
4
0.015
0.79
0.000042
52
0.0027
6
0.020
2.57
0.000042
126
0.0021
8
0.019
0.51
0.000042
27
0.0022
10
0.013
4.52
0.000042
354
0.0033
12
0.014
0.78
0.000043
56
0.0031
14
0.018
2.12
0.000042
119
0.0023
16
0.020
3.52
0.000167
174
0.0083
18
0.017
0.75
0.000084
45
0.0050
20
0.015
0.61
0.000167
40
0.0109
22
0.019
0.88
0.000042
46
0.0022
24
0.018
0.27
0.000042
15
0.0023
26
0.018
0.64
0.000043
36
0.0024
28
0.020
1.66
0.000042
82
0.0021
30
0.015
1.17
0.000257
77
0.0168
32
0.018
1.34
0.000086
75
0.0048
34
0.020
0.92
0.000042
46
0.0021
36
0.017
0.61
0.000251
37
0.0151
38
0.020
0.50
0.000042
25
0.0021
40
0.018
1.13
0.000167
63
0.0094
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of liquid concentrate formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand, the
following limitations are noted:
• Each individual handled the same amount of active ingredient, making analysis of the
relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled (the
underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
Tiihlc C-X2: l.\|)osiiro Siiulj Iricnlificiilion Inl'tn-miilion
Citation
PHED471
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
None
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Four workers at 4 different sites (for a total of 16 application events) were
monitored while mixing, loading, and applying a liquid formulation to poultry litter using a
manually-pressurized handwand. Each applicator mixed and applied 3, 2-gallon solutions (equal
to approximately 0.052 lbs active ingredient), a task that lasted on average 53 minutes. Dermal
exposure was measured using gauze patches (both inside and outside normal work clothing) and
cotton gloves (underneath chemical-resistant gloves) for hand exposure. Inhalation exposure
was measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. All
inhalation samples were non-detects. An average of 84.9 ± 5.2 (n=18) was recovered from field
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-62
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
fortified patches, 79.3 ± 7.3% from gloves and 84.0 ± 16.8% from foam air filters. The overall
average recovery from laboratory fortified control samples was 87 ± 12.0% for alpha-cellulose
gauze patches, 75 ± 11.6% for cotton gloves, and 89 ± 10.5% for foam air filters.
Table ( -S3: PI 1 l-'l) 4"7I - ( hocklisl iiiid I so Recommendation
Siud\ ( nieria
1 Aposlll'e ( 'lillipiiMCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
Table C-X4: l-lxposure Siudj 1 tloiili(ion Information
Citation
PHED 1024
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
None
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Sixteen individuals were monitored while applying a liquid formulation to
greenhouse plants hanging overhead or on the floor or on benches using a manually-pressurized
handwand. A wide range of solution was applied ranging from 5 gallons to 120 gallons per
applicator, which corresponded to a range of 0.06 to 0.91 lbs of active ingredient handled. Each
application event generally lasted 1.5 hours. Dermal exposure was measured using gauze
patches (both inside and outside normal work clothing) and hand rinses (underneath chemical-
resistant gloves) for hand exposure. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps
(set at 1.5 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Recoveries from field fortifications of
exposure sampling matrices were generally above 90%.
Table ( -X5: Plll.l) 1024 - ( hcckliM and I se Recommendation lor
SiiuK ( nieria
1 \posure (onipoiicul
Dermal Inhalation
Does the studs pro\ ide detailed characteristics on (lie acti\ its, equipment l\pe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-63
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Table ( -X5: Plll.l) 1024 - ( heckliM and I so Kecom inoiuhi I ion lor
SiiuK ( riieiia
1 \posuie ( ompoiieiii
Dermal
liihalaliou
Docs dermal exposure nioiuloring allow for coiisiruclioii of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
Table C-H(»: l-lxposure Siiulj 1 tloiili(ion Information
Citation
Stewart, P., T. Fears, H.F. Nicholson, B.C. Kross, L. K. Ogilvie, S.H. Zahm, M.H.
Ward and A. Blair (1999) Exposure Received From Application Of Animal
Insecticides. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 60:208-212
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Three farmers were monitored while applying insecticides to animals using
a manually-pressurized handwand. Each application ranged from approximately 1 to 200 liters
of solution and varied among 6 active ingredients. Clothing worn varied between farmers.
Dermal exposure was measured using a fluorescent dye video-imaging technique. Inhalation
exposure was not measured.
Table ( -X"7: Sicwarl.el al. (— Checklist and I se Kccommendalion
Siud> ( iilei'ia
1 \posuie ( ompoiieiii
Dermal
liihalaliou
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
No
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
NA
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
NA
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-64
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
1 "sihie C-XX: l.xposuro S(ud\ Idenlificalion InToi-malion
Citation
PHED 468
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Nine individuals were monitored on two days (4 on the 1st day, 5 on the 2nd
day) while applying a plant growth regulator to ornamentals in a 2000 ft2 greenhouse. Each
worker was suited with sampling media separately for the mixing/loading portion of the task and
the application portion. Each application consisted of spraying 2 gallons of spray solution for
approximately 30 minutes at a rate of 1 gallon per 200 ft . The solution was 100 ppm (active
ingredient unknown) so each applicator handled approximately 0.0017 lbs of active ingredient.
Dermal exposure was measured using gauze patches (both inside and outside normal work
clothing) and cotton gloves worn over chemical-resistant gloves for hand exposure. Inhalation
exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 1.5 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing.
All inhalation samples were non-detects. The overall recovery from samples fortified in the
laboratory and analyzed with each set of field samples averaged 102% for alpha-cellulose, 106%
for gloves, and 101% for foam filters.
l iihle C-X«): I'lll.l) 46X-( heeklisl iiiid I se Recommendation
Siiids ( I'llei'ia
1 AposUIC ( 'lillipiiMCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-65
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
Tiihlc l.xpoNiiro S(ii(l> Idcnlificalion InToi-malion
Citation
Rosenheck, L. (2000) Determination of Exposure During the Mixing, Loading and
Application of Liquid Diazinon to Residential Turf Through the Use of Passive
Dosimetry and Biological Monitoring: Lab Project Number 767-98:
I024480NAU950T. Unpublished study prepared by Development
Resources/Chemical Support Department, Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. 574 p.
EPA MRID
45184305
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D268247
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Ten non-professional volunteers were monitored while making applications
of a liquid pesticide formulation (22.4% diazinon) with a manually-pressurized 2 gallon hand-
pump sprayer. Each application consisted of filling and spraying the tank twice, handling a total
of 8 teaspoons, or 0.021 lb active ingredient. Spot treatments were made to lawns, gardens,
ornamentals, shrubs, and house foundations. Dermal exposure was measured using whole body
dosimetry (100% cotton union suit) worn under shorts and a T-shirt, hand washes, and face/neck
wipes. No chemical-resistant gloves were worn. Inhalation exposure was measured using
standard pumps (set at 1.5 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field fortification recoveries
for the cotton union suit dosimeters averaged 99%, face and neck wipe fortifications averaged
89.1%), handwash fortifications averaged 75% and air sampler tube fortification was 109%.
Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable range of 70 to 120%.
The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 |ig/sample for the cotton dosimeters, 0.5 |ig/sample for
the face/neck wipes, 1.0 |ig/sample for the hand washes and 0.01 |ig/sample for the inhalation
monitors.
Tahle ( -VI: MRU) 451X4305 - ( heckliM iiiid I so Kecummendalion
Siud\ ( 1'ilcria
1 ApiislllV ( 'iimpoilCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-66
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Tiihk-( -<>2: MKII) 451X4305 - l);il;i Siimmsin
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 ApuMiic (mm
1 mi 1 ApoMirc ( iiiu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
33
0.021
0.261
0.00167
12.43
0.0795
37
0.021
0.0368
0.00189
1.75
0.0901
38
0.021
0.507
0.00356
24.14
0.1697
39
0.021
0.137
0.00278
6.52
0.1325
40
0.021
1.12
0.00445
53.33
0.2121
41
0.021
0.156
0.00267
7.43
0.1272
42
0.021
0.278
0.00445
13.24
0.2121
43
0.021
0.473
0.01559
22.52
0.7422
31
0.021
2.176
0.00200
103.62
0.0954
32
0.021
0.0423
—
2.01
—
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of liquid concentrate formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand, the
following limitations are noted:
• Each individual handled the same amount of active ingredient, making analysis of the
relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled (the
underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-67
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Handheld fogger
Scenario Summary
Tsihle C-'JJ: Scenario Description ;iihI A\;iihil>le l-lxposure Studies
Formulation
Liquids (emulsifiable concentrates, soluble concentrates, etc.)
Equipment/Application
Method
Handheld Fogger
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic
areas)
Available Exposure Studies
Nigg, et al (1987); MRID 40350501
Bergman, J. (2003); MRID 45869301
1 "sihie ( -<>4: I nil llxposures img/lh ;ii) - l.imiiri 11 ;in«lheld l;o«»«er \pplic;ilions
Siaiisiic
Dermal
Inhalation
50th percentile
Studies measuring exposure while mixing/loading/applying liquid
formulations using a handheld fogger are available, but not recommended for
residential handler exposure assessment. Therefore, the exposure studies
recommended for applying an aerosol should be used as a surrogate.
75th percentile
95th percentile
99th percentile
99.9th percentile
AM(SD)
GM (GSD)
Range
N
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-68
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Handheld fogger
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Tahle (-'>5: l.xpnsiMY Siuclj 1 tlonIlion InToi-malion
Citation
Nigg, et al (1987) Pesticide Exposure to Florida Greenhouse Applicators, Nigg, H.N.,
Stamper, J.H. andMahon, W.D., University of Florida, 1987
EPA MRID
40350501
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
None
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Four different workers were monitored while using a pulse-fogging device
in a Florida greenhouse. Four active ingredients were used at rates ranging from 0.03 lbs/hr to
0.2 lbs/hr. Dermal exposure was measured using gauze patches (both inside and outside normal
work clothing) and hand rinses were used for hand exposure (hand exposure was measured only
when gloves were not worn). Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 3
liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Recoveries from field fortifications of exposure
sampling matrices were poor, ranging from 13% to 94% depending on the chemical and matrix.
Mean recoveries (%) from 10 |ig fortifications of fluvalinate on gauze pads was 75% ± 6%, for
handwashes was 62 ± 6%, and for air sampler plugs was 51 ± 4%. Mean recoveries from 10 |ig
fortifications of the compound chlorpyrifos on gauze pads was 82 ± 3%, for handwashes was 79
± 4%, and for air sampler plugs was 73 ± 4%. Mean recoveries from 10 |ig fortifications of the
compound ethazol on gauze pads was 51 ± 7%, for handwashes was 45 ± 10%, and for air
sampler plugs was 68 ± 8%. Mean recoveries (%) from 10 |ig fortifications of the compound
dicofol on gauze pads was 89 ± 5%, for handwashes was 76 ± 4%, and for air sampler plugs was
90 ± 9%. Mean recoveries (%) from 10 |ig fortifications of the compound captan on gauze pads
was 61 ± 8%>, for handwashes was 13 ± 2%, and for air sampler plugs was 63 ± 14%. Mean
recoveries (%) from 10 |ig fortifications of the compound chlorothalonil on gauze pads was 94 ±
3%, for handwashes was 25 ± 14%, and for air sampler plugs was 67 ± 8%.
Tahle ('-')(>: MRU) 40350501 — ( hecklisl ;iihI I so Kecom iiioikI;i I ion
Sllld\ ( I'lkTia
1 Aposurc ('ompiiiiciil
Dermal
Inhalation
Docs ihc silkIn pio\ idc dolailcd diaraclciisiKs oil ihc aai\ iIn , equipment l\ |X\
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-69
-------
Formulation: Liquids Equipment/Application Method: Handheld fogger
Limitations: This study has been identified to have ethical concerns.
1 ahle ( -1)"7: r.xpnsuiv Siiulj 1 don I lion InToi-malion
Citation
Bergman, J. (2003) Applicator Exposure and Air Sampling Following Application of
ETOC Fogging Concentrate 2764 by ULV Fogging: Lab Project Number: GLP-1648.
Unpublished study prepared by McLaughlin Gormley King Company. 107 p.
{OPPTS 875.1400 and 875.2500}
EPA MRID
45869301
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D289337
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: One individual was monitored during 25 applications of a liquid
concentrate (active ingredient prallethrin) to a 5500 ft3 test chamber using a handheld ultra low-
"3
volume (ULV) fogger at the maximum application rate of 1 fl. oz. per 1000 ft (equivalent to
approximately 0.001 lb ai/1000 ft3). Dermal exposure was not monitored in this study.
Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 0.03 liter per minute), cassettes,
and tubing. One set of recovery results were provided, however, the study author did not specify
whether the recovery samples represented laboratory fortified samples or field fortified samples.
The results for these fortification recoveries are discussed in the Field Recovery section of this
study review. Three fortification samples were prepared at three concentrations (LOQ, 10 X
LOQ, and 100 X LOQ) for each application. Sample preparation and storage were not discussed.
Recoveries ranged from 76.8% to 147.3%. The average percent recovery for samples fortified at
the LOQ, at 10X LOQ and at 100X LOQ were 119.6%, 113.1%, and 92.3%, respectively. The
overall average percent recovery was 108.3 ± 14.3%.
Tahle C-')X: MRU) 45S6')3ll| -Checklist and I so Kecom iiioikI;i I ion
Siud\ ( 1'ilci'ia
1 !\posiiie ( ompiiiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
No
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: This study has been identified to have ethical concerns.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-70
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Dipping
Scenario Summary
1 "sihie ( Seeiiiirio Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihle llxposiire Studies
Formulation
Liquids (emulsifiable concentrates, soluble concentrates, etc.)
Equipment/Application
Method
Dipping
Application Site(s)
Pets/animals
Available Exposure Studies
McKeown, K. (2001); MRID 45528801
l iihle ( -1011: I nil l-Aposures (mji/lh ;ii) - l.iuuiri Dinning Applications
Siaiisiic
Dermal
liihalaliiiii
50th percentile
67
0.026
75th percentile
120
0.028
95th percentile
300
0.031
99th percentile
560
0.034
99.9th percentile
1100
0.037
AM(SD)
100 (120)
0.027 (0.0028)
GM (GSD)
67 (2.5)
0.026(1.1)
Range
17-430
0.022-0.032
N
15
15
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for dipping
pets or animals in liquid pesticide formulations is based on a lognormal distribution fit with
exposure monitoring data from McKeown, K. (2001) [EPA MRID 45528801], McKeown, K.
(2001) monitored 15 applications of dipping dogs in a tub containing a liquid pesticide solution
for approximately 4 to 5 minutes. This was the only available study for this exposure scenario.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
dipping pets or animals in liquid pesticide formulations is based on a lognormal distribution fit
with exposure monitoring data from McKeown, K. (2001) [EPA MRID 45528801], McKeown,
K. (2001) monitored 15 applications of dipping dogs in a tub containing a liquid pesticide
solution for approximately 4 to 5 minutes. This was the only available study for this exposure
scenario.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-71
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Dipping
Lognormal Probability Plots
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: ¦ = McKeown, K. (2001)
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-72
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Dipping
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Tahle('-IOI: l'l\|)osure Siudj 1 dent il'ic;i lion 1 n I'o nun lion
Citation
McKeown, K. (2001) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposures to
Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) During the Application of a Dipping Solution to a Dog:
Lab Project Number: TX 76384: 1557: ML01-0925-HMT. Unpublished study
prepared by The Hartz Mountain Corporation, Morse Laboratories, Inc. and Sharp
Veterinary Research. 258 p.
EPA MRID
45528801
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D279176
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 1/7/02
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Five individuals were monitored while dipping 3 dogs (for a total of 15
application events) in a solution with the active ingredient TCVP. Each application event,
lasting only 4 to 5 minutes, consisted of mixing the solution (8 oz of product per 4 gallons water;
3.29% TCVP) in a tub, dipping the dog in the solution and pouring the solution over those parts
not submerged, then removing the dog from the tub. Dermal exposure was measured using a
whole body dosimeter (underneath a short-sleeve shirt and shorts) and hand washes. Inhalation
exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 15 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing.
Hand wipes had field recoveries above 90% at all fortification levels. Cotton union suits had
recoveries of 48% to 73% depending upon the fortification levels. The air sampling media had a
recovery of 81% at 10X LOQ which was the lowest level tested. Laboratory recoveries were
above 90% for all the types of dosimeters, at all levels tested, including the LOQ. For dermal
dosimeters, handwipes, and air tubes, the limit of detection (LOD) was 0.5 |ig, the limit of
quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 |ig.
l iihle ( -102: MKII) 4552XXOI - Checklist ;iihI I se Recommendation
Smd\ ( menu
1 !\posiiie (timpiiiiciil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
No
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
I "si hie ( -103: MKII) 4552XXOI - l);K;i Suinni;ir\
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-73
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Dipping
IVl'SOIl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 Apiisuiv (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic iiiiu Ih ail
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
liilialalion
A
0.015
1.36
0.00041
90.7
0.0274
A
0.015
2.09
0.00048
139.3
0.0318
A
0.015
0.89
0.00043
59.3
0.0285
B
0.015
2.59
0.00034
172.7
0.0229
B
0.015
1.31
0.00037
87.3
0.0246
B
0.015
1.01
0.00033
67.3
0.0222
C
0.015
0.44
0.00043
29.3
0.0290
C
0.015
0.29
0.00041
19.3
0.0275
C
0.015
1.51
0.00039
100.7
0.0263
D
0.015
0.37
0.00039
24.7
0.0264
D
0.015
0.25
0.00038
16.7
0.0259
D
0.015
0.74
0.00037
49.3
0.0247
E
0.015
2.55
0.00039
170.0
0.0264
E
0.015
6.35
0.00036
423.3
0.0242
E
0.015
0.53
0.00047
35.3
0.0316
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm). All
samples were non-detects. Reported as Vi LOD (0.01 ug/m3).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of dipping pets or
animals in a dilute liquid pesticide solution, the following limitations are noted:
• All inhalation samples were non-detects. One-half the limit of detection (0.5 |Lxg) was
used.
• Each individual handled the same amount of active ingredient making analysis of the
relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled (the
underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
• The use of 15 liters per minute is much higher than the standard setting of 1- 2 liters per
minute and could complicate air sampling.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-74
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Sponge
Scenario Summary
Tiihlc ( -104: Scoiiiii'io Description ;iihI A\iiil;ihk- r.xpnsuiv Studies
1 simulation
Liquids (emulsifiable concentrates, soluble concentrates, etc.)
Equipment/Application
Method
Sponge
Application Site(s)
Pets/animals
Available Exposure Studies
McKeown, K. (2001); MRID 45528801
Tiihlc ( -105: I nil llxnosuivs (mii/ll) ;ii) - Liquid Sponge Applications
Siaiisiic
Dermal
Inhalation
5ir* percentile
yl7
U.2U
75th percentile
1860
0.24
95th percentile
5150
0.31
99th percentile
10500
0.37
99.9th percentile
23400
0.45
AM(SD)
1600 (2250)
0.21 (0.055)
GM (GSD)
917 (2.9)
0.20 (1.3)
Range
267 - 4842
0.143 -0.268
N
5
5
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for
applications of liquid pesticide formulations using a sponge is based on a lognormal distribution
fit with exposure monitoring data from McKeown, K. (2001) [EPA MRID 45528801],
McKeown, K. (2001) monitored 5 applications of a liquid pesticide solution for approximately 4
to 5 minutes using a sponge. This was the only available study for this exposure scenario.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for
applications of liquid pesticide formulations using a sponge is based on a lognormal distribution
fit with exposure monitoring data from McKeown, K. (2001) [EPA MRID 45528801],
McKeown, K. (2001) monitored 5 applications of a liquid pesticide solution for approximately 4
to 5 minutes using a sponge. This was the only available study for this exposure scenario.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-75
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Sponge
Lognormal Probability Plots
Legend: ¦ = McKeown, K. (2001)
5000'
4000'
'ro 30001
J2
O)
E
w 2000'
D
ro
fe 1000'
Q
0'
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: ¦ = McKeown, K. (2001)
0.28'
0.26'
0.24
TO _ _ _
s 0.22-
~6)
E,
w 0.2'
D
c
.o
I 0.18'
sz
_c
0.16'
.8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-76
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Sponge
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Table C-I0(»: r.\|)(isuiT S(ii(l\ 1 tlon((ion Information
Citation
McKeown, K. (2001) Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposures to
Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) During the Application of a Dipping Solution to a Dog:
Lab Project Number: TX 76384: 1557: ML01-0925-HMT. Unpublished study
prepared by The Hartz Mountain Corporation, Morse Laboratories, Inc. and Sharp
Veterinary Research. 258 p.
EPA MRID
45528801
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D279176
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 1/7/02
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Five individuals were monitored while applying a liquid solution (active
ingredient TCVP) using a sponge to 5 dogs (for a total of 5 application events). Each application
event, lasting only 4 to 5 minutes, consisted of mixing the solution (2 oz of product in a 1 gallon
container; 3.29% TCVP), placing the dog in a tub, applying the solution to the dog with a
sponge, then removing the dog from the tub. Dermal exposure was measured using a whole
body dosimeter (underneath a short-sleeve shirt and shorts) and hand washes. Inhalation
exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 15 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing.
Hand wipes had field recoveries above 90% at all fortification levels. Cotton union suits had
recoveries of 48% to 73% depending upon the fortification levels. The air sampling media had a
recovery of 81% at 10X LOQ which was the lowest level tested. Laboratory recoveries were
above 90% for all the types of dosimeters, at all levels tested, including the LOQ. For dermal
dosimeters, handwipes, and air tubes, the limit of detection (LOD) was 0.5 |ig, the limit of
quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 |ig.
1 "sihie ( -107; MRU) 4552SSIII - ( heeklisl iiiid I se Recummendalion lor
Siud\ ( 1'ilcria
1 Apiisuiv ('iimpiiiiciil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
No
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Table C-I0H: MRU) 4552SSOI - Siimman
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-77
-------
Formulation: Liquids Equipment/Application Method: Sponge
IVl'SOIl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 \posi
re (mm
1 ml 1 Aposii
v dim Ih ail
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
liilialalion
A
0.0024
0.63
0.00050
267
0.209735
B
0.0019
1.26
0.00058
664
0.305605
C
0.0016
7.69
0.00052
4842
0.326541
D
0.0024
2.08
0.00042
870
0.17405
E
0.0019
1.61
0.00045
868
0.240907
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
Unit Exposure
= Exposure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of applying dilute
liquid pesticide solutions to pets or animals with a sponge, the following limitations are noted:
• All inhalation samples were non-detects. One-half the limit of detection (0.5 |Lxg) was
used.
• Each individual handled approximately the same amount of active ingredient making
analysis of the relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient
handled (the underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
• The use of 15 liters per minute is much higher than the standard setting of 1- 2 liters per
minute and could complicate air sampling.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-78
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
Scenario Summary
1 iihlc ( -HI'): Scoiiiii'io Description ;iihI A\;iil;il>le l.xpnsuiv Studios
Formulation
Liquids (emulsifiable concentrates, soluble concentrates, etc.)
Equipment/Application
Method
Hose-end sprayer
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic
areas)
Available Exposure Studies
Solomon, K. R., Harris, S. A, Stephenson, G. R. (1993).
Klonne, D. (1999); MRID 44972201
Merricks, D.L. (1998); MRID 44518501
Merricks, D.L. (1997); MRID 44459801
Rosenheck, L. (2000); MRID 45184305
Tiihk* (-110: I nil llxnosuivs (iii^/ll) :ii) - l.iiiuid Mosc-cnri Snr;i\er Applications
Statistic
Lawns Mounds \ests \quatic areas
Gardens lives IVi'inieter
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
50 percentile
8.01
0.015
T /
0.0012
75 th percentile
16.2
0.027
69
0.0017
95th percentile
40.5
0.064
180
0.0029
99th percentile
76.9
0.12
340
0.0043
99.9th percentile
158
0.23
710
0.0065
AM(SD)
13.4(16)
0.022 (0.024)
58(71)
0.0014 (0.00082)
GM (GSD)
8.61 (2.56)
0.015 (2.4)
37 (2.6)
0.0012(1.7)
Range
0.874 - 49
0.003 -0.082
5.0-280
0.0004 - 0.0062
N
42
41
40
60
Dermal Unit Exposure Data Summary
Gardens, Trees, and Perimeter Treatments: The recommended dermal unit exposures for
applications of liquid pesticide formulations using a dial-type hose-end sprayer to
gardens, trees, and perimeters of houses is based on a lognormal distribution fit with
exposure monitoring data from Merricks, D.L. (1998) [EPAMRID 44518501] and
Merricks, D.L. (1997) [EPA MRID 44459801], Merricks, D.L. (1998) monitored 20
applications of a liquid formulation for approximately 20 minutes to citrus trees and
shrubs using a dial-type hose-end sprayer. Merricks, D.L. (1997) monitored 40
applications of a liquid formulation for approximately 20 minutes to tomato and
cucumber gardens using a dial-type hose-end sprayer.
Lawns, Insect Mounds and Nests, and Aquatic Areas: The recommended dermal unit
exposures for applications of liquid pesticide formulations using a dial-type hose-end
sprayer to lawns, insect mounds and nests, and aquatic areas is based on a lognormal
distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from Klonne, D. (1999) [EPA MRID
44972201] andRosenheck, L. (2000) [EPAMRID 45184305], Klonne, D. (1999)
monitored 30 applications of a liquid pesticide formulation for approximately 75 minutes
to approximately 5000 ft2 of residential lawns using a dial-type hose-end sprayer.
Rosenheck, L. (2000) monitored 12 applications of a liquid pesticide formulation ranging
from 18 to 78 minutes to approximately 5000 ft2 of residential lawns using a conventional
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-79
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
hose-end sprayer. These studies best represents residential use for this scenario and the
exposure monitoring enabled representation of the type of clothing a homeowner or
amateur applicator would wear (i.e., shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no chemical-resistant
gloves).
Inhalation Unit Exposure Data Summary
Gardens, Trees, and Perimeter Treatments: The recommended inhalation unit exposures
for applications of liquid pesticide formulations using a dial-type hose-end sprayer to
gardens, trees, and perimeters of houses is based on a lognormal distribution fit with
exposure monitoring data from Merricks, D.L. (1998) [EPA MRID 44518501] and
Merricks, D.L. (1997) [EPA MRID 44459801], Merricks, D.L. (1998) monitored 20
applications of a liquid formulation for approximately 20 minutes to citrus trees and
shrubs using a dial-type hose-end sprayer. Merricks, D.L. (1997) monitored 40
applications of a liquid formulation for approximately 20 minutes to tomato and
cucumber gardens using a dial-type hose-end sprayer. Of the available studies these were
most representative of residential uses for this scenario.
Lawns, Insect Mounds and Nests, and Aquatic Areas: The recommended inhalation unit
exposures for applications of liquid pesticide formulations using a dial-type hose-end
sprayer to lawns, insect mounds and nests, and aquatic areas is based on a lognormal
distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from Klonne, D. (1999) [EPA MRID
44972201] and Rosenheck, L. (2000) [EPA MRID 45184305], Klonne, D. (1999)
monitored 30 applications of a liquid pesticide formulation for approximately 75 minutes
to approximately 5000 ft of residential lawns using a dial-type hose-end sprayer.
Rosenheck, L. (2000) monitored 12 applications of a liquid pesticide formulation ranging
from 18 to 78 minutes to approximately 5000 ft of residential lawns using a conventional
hose-end sprayer. Of the available studies these were the most representative of
residential uses for this scenario.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-80
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
Lognormal Probability Plots
Turf/Mounds/Nests/Aquatic Legend: ¦ = Klonne, D. (1999); X = Rosenheck, L. (2000)
Log Normal Quantile
Turf/Mounds/Nests/Aquatic Legend: ¦ = Klonne, D. (1999); X = Rosenheck, L. (2000)
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-81
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
Gardens & Trees/Perimeter Legend: X = Merricks, D.L. (1997); O = Merricks, D.L. (1998)
Log Normal Quantile
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-82
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
Tahle ( -111: A\ailahle l"\posuro Siudj Idenliricalion 1 nlVinn;ilion
Citation
Solomon, K. R., Harris, S. A, Stephenson, G. R. (1993). Applicator And Bystander
Exposure To Home Garden And Landscape Pesticides. American Chemical Society,
1993, pp. 262-273
EPA MRID
none
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: A total 20 application events were monitored while loading and applying a
liquid concentrate formulation (active ingredient 2, 4-D) using a hose-end sprayer. Eleven of the
applications were conducted while wearing "protective" clothing, while 9 applications were
conducted while wearing "normal" clothing. The exact nature of the clothing worn was not
provided. Each individual handled approximately 0.08 - 3 lbs of 2, 4-D per application.
Exposure was measured using biomonitoring with passive monitoring only conducted for
inhalation exposure using standard pumps (set at 1 liter per minute), cassettes, and tubing.
Recoveries from field fortifications of exposure sampling matrices were generally above 85%.
1 "sihie (-112: Solomon, el ill. (I'J'JJ) - ( heeklisl iind I se Kecoinmeiithition lor
Smd\ ( rileiia
1 ApiislllV ( 'iillipiillCIII
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
Tahle ( -113: l'l\posure Siuilj 1 tlon I il'ic;i I ion Information
Citation
Klonne, D. (1999). Integrated Report on Evaluation of Potential Exposure to
Homeowners and Professional Lawn Care Operators Mixing, Loading, and Applying
Granular and Liquid Pesticides to Residential Lawns. Sponsor/Submitter: Outdoor
Residential Exposure Task Force
EPA MRID
44972201
ORETF Code
OMA004
EPA Review
Memo from G. Bangs to D. Fuller (3/5/03)
D261948
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-83
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
D287251
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: A total of 30 application events were collected from 30 individuals using
passive dosimetry (inner and outer whole body dosimeters, hand washes, face/neck wipes, and
personal inhalation monitors). Each test subject poured a 32 fl. oz. plastic container into a dial-
type sprayer (DTS), which was then screwed onto the end of the hose. Each application
consisted of treating approximately 5000 ft2 of residential lawns and handling approximately 0.5
lb active ingredient (diazinon) over the course of 75 minutes. Dermal exposure was measured
using inner and outer whole body dosimeters, hand washes, and face/neck washes, such that
exposure can be constructed for various clothing scenarios (including a short-sleeve shirt, shorts,
and no chemical-resistant gloves). Inhalation exposure was measured using standard personal air
monitoring devices set at 1.5 liters per minute. All fortified samples and field samples collected
on the same study day were stored frozen and analyzed together, eliminating the need for storage
stability determination. Lab spike recoveries for all matrices were in the range of 87-103%.
Mean field fortification recoveries ranged from 79 to 104%.
1 "sihie ( -114: MKII) 44V22HI - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Kccommendalion
Siud\ ( iiieria
1 Aposuic ( onipoiicul
Dermal
Inhalation
Docs die silkIn pro\ ide detailed characteristics oil the acli\ iIn . equipment l\ pc.
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Table ( -115: MKII) 44')"722lll - Data Siimman
IVi'sou ID
Vull
dbsi
1 \posuiv (mm
1 ml 1 ApoMire (mu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
3
0.5
1.29
0.007
2.58
0.014
4
0.5
9.01
—
18.03
—
7
0.5
12.80
0.025
25.60
0.050
8
0.5
7.60
0.015
15.21
0.030
10
0.5
5.20
0.005
10.40
0.010
14
0.5
3.52
0.008
7.04
0.016
15
0.5
2.97
0.021
5.94
0.042
16
0.5
6.56
0.015
13.12
0.030
18
0.5
3.60
0.014
7.19
0.028
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-84
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
1 "sihie ( -115: MKII) 44')"722lll - l);ii;i Siiiiiin;ir\
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 Aposiiiv (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic ( nm lb an
Dermal
Inhalalkiii
Dermal
Inhalation
20
0.5
4.o5
0.007
9.30
0.014
24
0.5
2.25
0.010
4.49
0.020
25
0.5
24.72
0.041
49.44
0.082
27
0.5
4.70
0.028
9.40
0.056
28
0.5
8.04
0.023
16.07
0.046
30
0.5
14.78
0.005
29.57
0.010
34
0.5
4.39
0.005
8.77
0.010
35
0.5
17.55
0.002
35.10
0.004
36
0.5
11.98
0.002
23.96
0.004
39
0.5
3.40
0.007
6.81
0.014
40
0.5
7.14
0.006
14.28
0.012
43
0.5
1.74
0.002
3.48
0.004
44
0.5
3.72
0.003
7.44
0.006
47
0.5
6.32
0.007
12.65
0.014
49
0.5
11.05
0.024
22.09
0.048
50
0.5
3.94
0.013
7.88
0.026
54
0.5
9.73
0.009
19.45
0.018
55
0.5
2.65
0.002
5.29
0.004
56
0.5
1.31
0.005
2.62
0.010
59
0.5
16.03
0.010
32.06
0.020
60
0.5
3.49
0.009
6.99
0.018
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of liquid concentrate formulations using a hose-end sprayer, the following
limitations are noted:
• Each individual handled the same amount of active ingredient, making analysis of the
relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled (the
underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
Tsihle ( -11(>: l-'.xposure Siuilj Idemil'ic:ilion lnlonii;ilioii
Citation
Merricks, D.L. (1998). Carbaryl Mixer/Loader/Applicator Exposure Study During
Application of RP-2 Liquid (21%) to Fruit Trees and Ornamental Plants
EPA MRID
44518501
ORETF Code
OMA005
EPA Review
Memo from G. Bangs to D. Fuller (3/5/03)
D287251
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Twenty individuals were monitored while loading and applying a liquid
formulation (21% carbaryl) to citrus trees and shrubs using a hose-end sprayer. Each application
consisted of pouring the formulation into a dial-type sprayer (DTS), screwing it onto the garden
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-85
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
hose and spraying the trees and shrubs. The activity lasted less than 20 minutes and the amount
of carbaryl handled ranged from 0.02 to 0.09 lbs. Dermal exposure was measured using inner
and outer whole body dosimetry and hand washes (individuals were monitored without gloves).
Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per minute), cassettes,
and tubing. Field fortification recoveries for passive dosimeters averaged 88.3% for inner and
76.2% for outer dosimeters. Face and neck wipe fortifications averaged 82.5%. Handwash
fortifications averaged 93.6% and air sampler tube fortification was 91.8%. Laboratory method
validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable range of 70 to 120%. The limit of
quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 |ig/sample for all media except the inhalation monitors where the
LOQ was 0.01 |ig/sample. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.5 |ig/sample for all media except
the inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.005 |ig/sample.
1 "sihie ( -11"7: MKII) 4451X501 - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Kccommendalion
Siud\ ( iilciia
1 Aposiiic (onipoiiciii
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Table ( -1 IS: MKII) 4451X501 - Data Siimman
IVi'son II)
Vnll
(Ills)
1 \posiii'c (mm
1 mi 1 Aposiiiv (mu Ih an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
A
0.026
0.19
0.000042
7.3
0.0016
B
0.020
2.25
0.000042
112.5
0.0021
C
0.066
8.71
0.000042
132.0
0.0006
D
0.052
14.65
0.000084
281.7
0.0016
E
0.027
1.64
0.000167
60.7
0.0062
F
0.025
0.31
0.000042
12.4
0.0017
G
0.020
1.38
0.000042
69.0
0.0021
H
0.022
0.99
0.000042
45.0
0.0019
I
0.021
0.90
0.000042
42.9
0.0020
J
0.020
0.99
0.000042
49.5
0.0021
K
0.035
0.42
0.000044
12.0
0.0013
L
0.046
0.23
0.000042
5.0
0.0009
M
0.042
2.51
0.000042
59.8
0.0010
N
0.090
3.80
0.000134
42.2
0.0015
O
0.029
0.75
0.000042
25.9
0.0015
P
0.027
3.08
0.000042
114.1
0.0016
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-86
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
1 "sihie ( -1 IS: MKII) 4451X501 - l);ii;i Siimniiin
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 ApoMII'C 1IIIU)
1 ml 1 Aposii
v dim lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
( )
111 Ki1
LoU
11111111114 ^
^ S
111 inn"
R
0.024
2.20
0.000042
91.7
0.0018
S
0.073
1.22
0.000043
16.7
0.0006
T
0.024
0.66
0.000042
27.5
0.0018
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
Unit Exposure
= Exposure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of liquid concentrate formulations using a hose-end sprayer, the following
limitations are noted:
• Seventeen of 20 inhalation exposure measurements were non-detects. Use of V2 the limit
of detection (0.01 |Lxg) was necessary, thus introducing uncertainty.
T.ihle (-11'J: Hxposure Siuclj Itlenlil'ic:ilion 111IV1 nn;ition
Citation
Merricks, D.L. (1997). Carbaryl Mixer/Loader/Applicator Exposure Study during
Application of RP-2 Liquid (21%), Sevin® Ready to Use Insect Spray or Sevin® 10
Dust to Home Garden Vegetables
EPA MRID
44459801
ORETF Code
OMA006
EPA Review
Memo from G. Bangs to D. Fuller (3/5/03)
D287251
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Forty individuals were monitored while mixing, loading, and applying a
liquid formulation (21% carbaryl) to tomato and cucumber gardens using a hose-end sprayer.
Each application consisted of pouring the formulation into a dial-type sprayer (DTS), screwing it
onto the garden hose and spraying the garden. The activity lasted less than 20 minutes and the
amount of carbaryl handled ranged from 0.02 to 0.11 lbs. Dermal exposure was measured using
inner and outer whole body dosimetry and hand washes (20 individuals were monitored without
gloves). Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per minute),
cassettes, and tubing. Field fortification recoveries for passive dosimeters averaged 84.3% for
inner dosimeters and 77.7% for outer dosimeters. Face and neck wipe field fortifications
averaged 84.8%. Both handwash and inhalation tube field fortification averaged >90%.
Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable range of 70 to 120%.
The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 |ig/sample for all media except the inhalation monitors
where the LOQ was 0.01 |ig/sample. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.5 |ig/sample for all
media except the inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.005 |ig/sample.
l iihle ( -120: MKII) 44459X01 - ( heeklisl iiiid I se Keeummenriiilion for
Smd\ ( nicria
1 Aposiirc (onipoiiciii
Dermal Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
Yes
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-87
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
1 "sihie ( -120: MRU) 44459X01 - ( heeklisl iiiid I se Rccummendalion lor
Sllld\ ( I'lkTia
1 Apiisuiv ('iimpiiiiciil
Dermal
liihalalkin
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. Note that only dermal
exposure data representative of individuals wearing short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks, and
no chemical-resistant gloves are presented. The submitted study itself or corresponding
analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
l ahle( -121: MKII) 44459S01 - l);ii;i Suinman
IVi'son II)
Villi
dbsi
1 ApiiMiic (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic ( iiiu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
P2
0.11
3.43
0.000142
31.2
0.0013
Q2
0.08
3.59
0.000042
44.9
0.0005
T2
0.05
0.96
0.000042
19.2
0.0009
U2
0.03
1.92
0.000042
64.0
0.0017
V2
0.05
2.90
0.000043
58.0
0.0009
W2
0.08
6.30
0.000146
78.8
0.0018
Z2
0.05
1.18
0.000084
23.6
0.0018
A3
0.05
1.63
0.000134
32.6
0.0026
B3
0.04
0.79
0.000041
19.8
0.0010
C3
0.05
0.92
0.000042
18.4
0.0008
F3
0.07
2.34
0.000042
33.4
0.0006
G3
0.05
4.30
0.000125
86.0
0.0025
H3
0.03
0.73
0.000043
24.3
0.0014
13
0.07
4.21
0.000042
60.1
0.0006
M3
0.03
0.20
0.000042
6.7
0.0016
L3
0.04
7.16
0.000094
179.0
0.0026
N3
0.05
8.33
0.000042
166.6
0.0008
03
0.1
1.06
0.000042
10.6
0.0004
R3
0.05
1.09
0.000134
21.8
0.0025
S3
0.02
0.18
0.000042
9.0
0.0017
A
0.05
--
0.000042
--
0.0008
B
0.04
--
0.000042
--
0.0011
G
0.04
--
0.000042
--
0.0011
C
0.05
--
0.000042
--
0.0008
J
0.04
--
0.000042
--
0.0011
D
0.07
--
0.000042
--
0.0006
M
0.02
--
0.000042
--
0.0020
N
0.08
--
0.000042
--
0.0005
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-88
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
1 ;il»lo <-121: MRU) 44459S01 - Suiiininn
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 \poMirc (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic ( iiiu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Q
0.03
--
0.000042
--
0.0013
R
0.04
--
0.000042
--
0.0010
U
0.04
--
0.000043
--
0.0010
V
0.07
--
0.000042
--
0.0006
Y
0.05
--
0.000042
--
0.0009
Z
0.04
--
0.000042
--
0.0009
C2
0.05
--
0.000042
--
0.0009
D2
0.07
--
0.000041
--
0.0006
G2
0.01
--
0.000042
--
0.0038
H2
0.07
--
0.000042
--
0.0006
K2
0.03
--
0.000042
--
0.0013
L2
0.06
--
0.000042
--
0.0006
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of liquid concentrate formulations using a hose-end sprayer, the following
limitations are noted:
• Thirty-six of 40 inhalation exposure measurements were non-detects. Use of V2 the limit
of detection (0.01 |Lxg) was necessary, thus introducing uncertainty.
1 iihlc (-122: l \|)(isuic Sluilj 1 (IonI(ion liifoniiiilion
Citation
Rosenheck, L. (2000) Determination of Exposure During the Mixing, Loading and
Application of Liquid Diazinon to Residential Turf Through the Use of Passive
Dosimetry and Biological Monitoring: Lab Project Number 767-98:
I024480NAU950T. Unpublished study prepared by Development
Resources/Chemical Support Department, Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. 574 p.
EPA MRID
45184305
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D268247
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Twelve non-professional volunteers were monitored while making
applications of a liquid pesticide formulation (22.4% diazinon) with a conventional hose-end
sprayer to approximately 5000 ft of lawn. The applications ranged from 18 to 78 minutes with
all individuals 0.5 lbs of active ingredient (diazinon). Dermal exposure was measured using
whole body dosimetry (100% cotton union suit) worn under shorts and a T-shirt, hand washes,
and face/neck wipes. No chemical-resistant gloves were worn. Inhalation exposure was
measured using standard pumps (set at 1.5 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field
fortification recoveries for the cotton union suit dosimeters averaged 99%, face and neck wipe
fortifications averaged 89.1%, handwash fortifications averaged 75% and air sampler tube
fortification was 109%. Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable
range of 70 to 120%. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 |ig/sample for the cotton
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-89
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
dosimeters, 0.5 |ig/sample for the face/neck wipes, 1.0 |ig/sample for the hand washes and 0.01
|ig/sample for the inhalation monitors.
1 "sihie ( -123: MKII) 451X4305 - Checklist iiiid I se Recommendation
Siud\ ( iilci'ia
1 Apiisuiv ('iimpiiiiciil
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Table ( -124: MKII) 451X4305 - Data Siimman
IVi'son II)
Villi
"• ~S
2.14
(1 oS"
17
0.5
16.72
0.0056
33.44
0.0111
16
0.5
4.12
0.0012
8.23
0.0024
19
0.5
4.06
0.0094
8.11
0.0187
27
0.5
1.63
0.0057
3.26
0.0114
24
0.5
1.35
0.0036
2.70
0.0071
25
0.5
2.84
0.0267
5.68
0.0534
26
0.5
11.36
0.0046
22.71
0.0091
20
0.5
3.48
0.0049
6.96
0.0098
21
0.5
0.58
0.0022
1.17
0.0045
29
0.5
0.44
0.0045
0.87
0.0089
30
0.5
1.42
—
2.84
—
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of liquid concentrate formulations using a conventional hose-end sprayer, the
following limitations are noted:
• Each individual handled the same amount of active ingredient, making analysis of the
relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled (the
underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-90
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
Scenario Summary
1 "sihie ( -125: Seeiiiiriu Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihle l-'\|>«isnre Studios
Formulation
Liquids (emulsifiable concentrates, soluble concentrates, etc.)
Equipment/Application Method
Backpack sprayer
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic
areas)
Available Exposure Studies
PHED 471
PHED 1024
Beard, K.K. (1997); MRID 44339801
PHED 9010
PHED 9011
PHED 9004
PHED 9003
Schneider et al (1999)
King, C.; Prince, P. (1995); MRID 43623202
Spencer et al (2000); MRID 46852112
Stewart, P., et al. (1999)
PHED 9012
T;ihle C-l2(»: I nil l-'.\nosures img/lh ;ii) - Liquid l$;ieki>;iek Snr;i\er Annlicnlious
Siaiisiic
Dermal
Inhalation
50Ql percentile
25
0.09
75 th percentile
85
0.17
95th percentile
490
0.43
99th percentile
1700
0.83
99.9th percentile
6600
1.7
AM(SD)
130 (630)
0.140 (0.14)
GM (GSD)
25 (6.04)
0.09 (2.63)
Range
0.72 - 540
0.0142-0.29
N
26
16
Dermal Unit Exposure Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for applications of
liquid pesticide formulations using a backpack sprayer is based on a lognormal distribution fit
with exposure monitoring data from PHED 471, PHED 1024, and Beard, K.K. (1997) [EPA
MRID 44339801], PHED 471 monitored 9 applications of 3, 2-gallon liquid pesticide solutions
for approximately 47 minutes to poultry litter using a backpack sprayer. PHED 1024 monitored
2 applications of a liquid pesticide formulation to greenhouse plants hanging overhead, on the
floor, or on benches for approximately 1.5 hours using a backpack sprayer. Beard, K.K. (1997)
monitored 15 applications of a liquid pesticide formulation to approximately 6000 ft of
Christmas tree farms in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut for approximately 4 hours
using a backpack sprayer. While no studies available were considered representative of
homeowner applications using a backpack sprayer, the exposure monitoring in these studies
enabled representation of the type of clothing a homeowner or amateur applicator would wear
(i.e., shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no chemical-resistant gloves). Additionally, a composite dataset
was used as the exposures in the studies were generally of the same magnitude.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
applications of liquid pesticide formulations using a backpack sprayer is based on a lognormal
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-91
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from King, C.; Prince, P. (1995) [EPA MRID
43623202; AH605], King, C.; Prince, P. (1995) monitored 16 applications of a liquid pesticide
formulation for approximately 63-94 minutes to greenhouse ornamentals in Florida, Maryland,
and California. No studies adequately represented homeowner applications using a backpack
sprayer. This study was therefore selected as it resulted in the highest inhalation exposure
estimates of the available studies.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-92
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
Lognormal Probability Plots
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: ¦ = King, C., Prince, P., (1995)
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-93
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
Available Handler Exposure Studies
1 ahle (-I2"7: llxposuiv Sluilj 1 (IonI(ion Information
Citation
PHED471
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Nine individuals were monitored while applying a liquid formulation to
poultry litter using a backpack sprayer. Each applicator mixed and applied 3, 2-gallon solutions
(equal to approximately 0.052 lbs active ingredient); a task that lasted on average 47 minutes.
Dermal exposure was measured using gauze patches (both inside and outside normal work
clothing) and cotton gloves (underneath chemical-resistant gloves) for hand exposure. Inhalation
exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing.
An average of 84.9 ± 5.2% (n=18) was recovered from field fortified patches, 79.3 ± 7.3% from
gloves and 84.0 ± 16.8% from foam air filters. The overall average recovery from laboratory
fortified control samples was 87 ± 12.0% for alpha-cellulose gauze patches, 75 ± 11.6% for
cotton gloves, and 89 ± 10.5% for foam air filters.
1 "sihie ( -I2X: Plllll) -I'M - ( heeklisl iind I se Kecommeiithi 1 ion lor
Siud\ ( rileiia
1 Apiisuie ('iinipoiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does ilie siud\ piv\ ide detailed characteristics on (lie acti\ its, equipment t\pe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
No
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only dermal exposure data are presented as inhalation
exposure data from this study is not recommended for the purposes of residential handler
exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should
be reviewed for further information.
Tahlc (-12'J: Plll-M) -I"71 - Dala Siimman
Person ID
AaiH1
Exposure (mg)
Unit Exposure (mg/lb ai)4
(lbs)
Dermal2
Inhalation3
Dermal
Inhalation
CC
0.048
0.362
—
7.54
--
DD
0.048
0.035
—
0.73
--
EE
0.048
0.109
—
2.27
--
FF
0.048
2.69
—
56.04
--
GG
0.048
5.65
--
117.71
--
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-94
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
1 ;ihle (-129: PI 11" 1) -I"71 - l);ii;i Siimniiin
Person ID
AaiH1
(lbs)
Exposure (mg)
Unit Exposure (mg/lb ai)4
Dermal2
Inhalation3
Dermal
Inhalation
HH
0.048
1.58
—
32.92
--
II
0.048
0.68
—
14.17
--
JJ
0.048
1.08
—
22.50
--
KK
0.048
0.18
—
3.75
--
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm). All samples
were non-detects.
4 Unit Exposure
= Exposure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of liquid concentrate formulations using a backpack sprayer, the following
limitations are noted:
• All monitored individuals wore chemical-resistant gloves, thus a back-calculation using a
90% protection factor to "bare hands" exposure was necessary.
• The study was conducted using workers in a poultry house, so use for residential handler
exposure assessments introduces uncertainty.
Tsihle ( -130: l-lxposuiv Siud> 1 tlon((ion lnlonii;ilioii
Citation
PHED 1024
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Two individuals were monitored while applying a liquid formulation to
greenhouse plants hanging overhead or on the floor or on benches using a backpack sprayer.
Each applicator sprayed over 100 gallons of solution, corresponding to 0.13 lbs of active
ingredient handled. Each application event generally lasted 1.5 hours. Dermal exposure was
measured using gauze patches (both inside and outside normal work clothing) and hand rinses
(underneath chemical-resistant gloves) for hand exposure. Inhalation exposure was measured
using standard pumps (set at 1.5 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Recoveries from field
fortifications of exposure sampling matrices were generally above 90%.
1 "sihie ( -131: I'll F.I) 1024 - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Kecommeiithilion
Suiclv ( iileria
1 Apiisuie (iinipiiiieiil
Dermal
liilialaliou
Does ilie sluils pro\ ide detailed cliaiacleiislics on (lie ach\ il\, equipment l\pe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
Yes
Yes
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-95
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
1 "sihie ( -131: I'll F.I) 1024 - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Kecommeiithilion
Suiclv ( rileria
1 !\posine ( ompiiiieiil
Dermal
liihalalkiii
recovery samples adequate)?
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
No
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only dermal exposure data are presented as inhalation
exposure data from this study is not recommended for the purposes of residential handler
exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should
be reviewed for further information.
Table ( -132: Plll l) 1024 - l)ala Siimman
IVi'son II)
Villi
dbsi
1 \piisll
iv (mm
1 mi 1 Aposn
v dim Ih an
Dermal
liihalalkiii
Dermal
Inhalation
L
0.13
0.56
—
4.30
—
N
0.13
3.39
—
26.10
—
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
Unit Exposure
= Exposure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of liquid concentrate formulations using a backpack sprayer, the following
limitations are noted:
• All monitored individuals wore chemical-resistant gloves, thus a back-calculation using a
90% protection factor to "bare hands" exposure was necessary.
• The study was conducted using workers in a greenhouse, so use for residential handler
exposure assessments introduces uncertainty.
Tahlc('-I33: Fxposure Siudj Identification Information
Citation
Beard, K.K. (1997)Evaluation of Applicator Exposures to SURFLAN® A.S. During
Mixing, Loading, and Application with Backpack Sprayers
EPA MRID
44339801
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D284121
D242325
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Fifteen individuals (14 loader/applicators, 1 mixer/loader/applicator) were
monitored while applying a liquid formulation of oryzalin to Christmas tree farms in Michigan,
Pennsylvania, and Connecticut using a backpack sprayer. Each application was at least 4 hours
and each worker treated an area of at least 6000 ft handling from 5 to 70 lbs of oryzalin.
Dermal exposure was measured using whole body dosimetry (both outside and underneath
normal work clothing) and hand exposure was measured using wipes. Inhalation exposure was
measured using standard pumps (set at 1 liter per minute), cassettes, and tubing. The average
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-96
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
recoveries for spikes prepared with the filter/tube combinations, denim, long underwear, socks
and hand wipes were 106 ± 5.1%, 113 ± 4.7%, 102 ± 7.2%, 93.3 ± 56%, and 84 ± 8.3%,
respectively. The average recovery for spikes prepared with coverall portions was 85 ± 15%, for
spikes prepared with long underwear portions was 104 ± 22%, for spikes prepared with pairs of
socks was 87 ± 17%.
1 "sihie ( -134: MKII) 4433'JXOI - ( heeklisl iiiid I se Kccommendalion
Smd\ ( rilcria
1 Apiisuiv ('iimpiiiiciil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
No
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only dermal exposure data are presented as inhalation
exposure data from this study is not recommended for the purposes of residential handler
exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should
be reviewed for further information.
Table ( -135: MKII) 4433'JXOI - Data Siimman
IVi'son II)
Villi
(lbs)
1 \posniv (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic (mu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
1
8.3
226
—
27.21
—
2
8.3
222
—
26.80
—
3
68.6
63
—
0.92
—
4
8.3
245
—
29.57
—
5
8.3
12
—
1.41
—
7
16
2957
—
184.82
—
8
16
8673
—
542.06
—
9
16
1285
—
80.32
—
10
16
2841
—
177.54
—
11
16
5171
—
323.16
—
13
4.9
770
—
157.11
—
14
4.9
419
—
85.57
—
15
4.9
376
—
76.71
—
16
4.9
203
—
41.44
—
17
23.3
359
—
15.40
—
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-97
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of liquid concentrate formulations using a backpack sprayer, the following
limitations are noted:
• All monitored individuals wore chemical-resistant gloves, thus a back-calculation using a
90% protection factor to "bare hands" exposure was necessary.
• The study was conducted using workers at a Christmas tree farm, so use for residential
handler exposure assessments introduces uncertainty.
Tahle C-I3(»: Hxposiire Sludj 1 don I (ion 1 nl'o rni;il ion
Citation
PHED 9010
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Eight workers were monitored on 5 separate days (for a total of 40
monitored application events) while applying a pesticideto grass cover in a Malaysian plantation.
Each application was approximately 3-4 hours and each applicator handled approximately 1 lb
of active ingredient. Dermal exposure was measured using whole body dosimetry (outside
normal work clothing only) and hand exposure was measured using wipes. Inhalation exposure
was measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field
recovery from all sampling materials ranged from 79% to 92%.
1 "sihie C-13"7: I'll F.I) Villi! - Cheeklisl iind I se Kccommendalion
Siud\ ( 1'ilcria
1 ApoMII'C ( 'iimpiillCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
Table ( -I3X: r.xposurc Sunl> Idoiililiciilioii Iiil'orni;ilion
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-98
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
Citation
PHED 9011
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Five workers were monitored during 4 applications of a pesticide to grass
cover in a Malaysian plantation using backpack sprayers. The application time and amount of
active ingredient handled were unclear based on the study report. Dermal exposure was
measured using gauze patches (most placed outside normal work clothing only). Hand exposure
was not measured. Inhalation exposure was measured for only 9 of the 20 application events
using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Only laboratory
recoveries were reported which averaged 59%.
1 "sihie C-13'J: I'll F.I) 'X> 11 - ( heeklisl iiiid I se Kecoinmeiithilion
Siuds ( I'ikTia
1 ApiislllV ( 'iimpiillCMl
Dermal
liihalalkiii
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
No
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
No
No
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
Table (-140: Fxposiire Siudj Idenliricalion Informalion
Citation
PHED 9004
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Six workers were monitored for a total of 12 application events during
applications of a pesticide to grassland in England using a backpack sprayer. Each application
consisted of spraying 3, 16 liter tanks over the course of 1 day. The amount of active ingredient
handled ranged from 0.5 to 5 lbs per application. The application time was not reported in the
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-99
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
study report. Dermal exposure was measured for 9 of the 12 applications using whole body
dosimetry (outside normal work clothing only) and cotton gloves. Inhalation exposure was
measured for 3 of the 12 applications using standard pumps (set at 3 liters per minute), cassettes,
and tubing. Laboratory recoveries were generally above 85%, although field recoveries were not
reported.
1 "si hie (-141: I'll F.I) «)IHI4 - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Keco in meiithil ion
Sllld\ ( I'lkTia
1 ApiislllV ( 'iimpiillCMl
Dermal
liilialalioii
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
No
No
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
TahleC-142: Fxposure Siudj Idenliricalion Informalion
Citation
PHED 9003
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Ten workers were monitored during 2 applications of a pesticide to weeds
in a Sri Lankan tea plantation using a backpack sprayer. Each application consisted of spraying
4 tank loads over the course of approximately 1 hour. Each worker handled approximately 0.05
lbs of active ingredient per application. Dermal exposure was measured using whole body
dosimetry (outside normal work clothing only) and cotton gloves. Inhalation exposure was not
measured. Field recovery summary from the light procedural recoveries are for sock 90% and
for glove 110%), and for dark procedural recoveries are for sock 94%> and for glove 85%.
Tahlc('-I43: PI 1 F.I)'>003 - Cheeklisl and I se Kecommendalion
Smd\ ( iileria
1 !\posiiie ('iimpoiieiil
Dermal liilialalioii
Does ilie siud\ piv\ ide detailed cliaiacleiisiics on llie acli\ il\, equipment l\pe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-100
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
No
No
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
Tsihle C-144: llxposuiv Siud> 1 don((ion Inl'ormsilion
Citation
Schneider et al (1999). Exposure of Hand Applicators to Glyphosate in Forest
Settings, 1995
EPA MRID
none
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Ten individuals were monitored during 2 days of glyphosate applications in
forests using backpack sprayers. Each day of applications was approximately 6 to 8 hours (with
each worker applying at least 20 tank loads) and each individual handled between 2 and 3 lbs of
glyphosate per day. Dermal exposure was measured using a long-sleeve t-shirt and knee-length
socks (underneath normal work clothing only) and hand wipes. All workers wore chemical-
resistant gloves. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per
minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field recoveries were generally above 75%.
1 'sihie ( -145: Schneider, el sil (1WJ) - ( hecklisl and I se Kccnmmcndalinn
Smd\ ( 1'ilci'ia
1 ApoMII'C ( 'iimpiillCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-101
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
Tahle C-I4(»: l-'.\posurc Sluilj 1 (IonI(ion Information
Citation
King, C.; Prince, P. (1995) Chlorothalonil Worker Exposure During Application of
Daconil 2787 Flowable Fungicide in Greenhouses: Lab Project Number: 5968-94-
0104-CR-001: 94-0104: SDS-2787. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc.
AHETF study: AH605
EPA MRID
43623202
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D393093
Contractor review (Versar, Inc.) 8/4/11
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Sixteen backpack applications in greenhouses - 6 workers in Florida, and 5
each in Maryland and California - were monitored. Each application was approximately 63 to
94 minutes and consisted of each individual mixing, loading, and applying 3 tank loads
(approximately 0.1 lbs chlorothalonil) to ornamental plants. Dermal exposure was measured
using inner whole body dosimetry (underneath normal work clothing) and hand rinses. All
workers wore chemical-resistant gloves. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard
pumps (set at 2 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Inhalation samples in Maryland were
adjusted for the average background level (0.051 |Lxg) following previous use of the product.
Field fortified travel spikes had mean recoveries greater than or equal to 77% for each site and
matrix. Weathered samples had recoveries greater than or equal to 75% at higher fortification
levels. Recoveries ranged between 30 to 70% for alpha-cellulose patches, dosimeter patches,
and air monitoring samples. Analytical laboratory generated recovery samples were analyzed
concurrently with the worker exposure samples as a check on losses due to the extraction
procedure. These samples had a mean recovery of 100% with a standard deviation of 9.7%.
Tahle C-14"7: ( hccklisl ;iihI I so KocominoiKhition lor MRU) 43(>23202
Siiich ( I'iici'ia
1 Aposiiiv (iimpoiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
Yes
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-102
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only inhalation exposure data are presented as the dermal
exposure data are not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further
information.
l :il)lo( -I4X: MKID 436232112 - l);K;i Siimniiin
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 ApiiMII'C (IIIU)
1 ml 1 Aposiiic ( iiiu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
1
0.086
--
0.0098
--
0.1145
2
0.098
--
0.0099
--
0.1009
3
0.065
--
0.0144
--
0.2218
4
0.081
--
0.0235
--
0.2896
5
0.092
--
0.0195
--
0.2121
1A
0.085
--
0.0139
--
0.1638
6
0.106
--
0.0015
--
0.0142
7A
0.063
--
0.0014
--
0.0218
8
0.064
--
0.0030
--
0.0361
9
0.094
--
0.0033
--
0.0353
10
0.065
--
0.0016
--
0.0247
11
0.071
--
0.0133
--
0.1878
12
0.057
--
0.0142
--
0.2487
13
0.053
--
0.0076
--
0.1425
14
0.099
--
0.0101
--
0.1019
15
0.076
--
0.0055
--
0.0720
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of liquid concentrate formulations using a backpack sprayer, the following
limitations are noted:
• The study was conducted using workers in a greenhouse, so use for residential handler
exposure assessments introduces uncertainty.
1 iihlc (-I4*>: I'Aposiiiv Sluil> 1 don I (ion liifoniiiilion
Citation
Spencer et al (2000). HS-1769. Exposure of Hand Applicators to Triclopyr in Foresi
Settings, 1995
EPA MRID
46852112
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 9/30/03
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Ten individuals were monitored during 2 applications of triclopyr in forests
using backpack sprayers. Each application consisted of loading and applying 3 tank loads over
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-103
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
the course of approximately 6 hours with each individual handling approximately 3 lbs of
triclopyr per application. Dermal exposure was measured using a long-sleeve t-shirt and knee-
length socks (underneath normal work clothing only) and hand wipes. All workers wore
chemical-resistant gloves. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 2
liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. The average field fortification recoveries from air filters
was 58.98% with a standard deviation of 20.95%, from wipes was 95.90% with a standard
deviation of 8.67%, from socks was 85.62%) with a standard deviation of 7.98%>, and from T-
shirt was 98.23%) with a standard deviation of 5.06%.
1 "sihie ( -150: MKII) 46X52112 - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Recommendation
Siiiclv ('menu
1 Aposnie (onipoiieni
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
No
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
TahlcC-151: llxposure Siudj Idcnliricalion Information
Citation
Stewart, P., T. Fears, H.F. Nicholson, B.C. Kross, L. K. Ogilvie, S.H. Zahm, M.H.
Ward and A. Blair (1999) Exposure Received From Application Of Animal
Insecticides. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 60:208-212
EPA MRID
none
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Two farmers were monitored while applying insecticides to animals using a
backpack sprayer. Each application ranged from approximately 1 to 200 liters of solution and
varied among 6 active ingredients. Clothing worn varied between farmers. Dermal exposure
was measured using a fluorescent dye video-imaging technique. Inhalation exposure was not
measured.
Table ( -152: Sicwarl. e( al (I'J'W) - Cheeklisl and I se Recommendation
Sind\ ('menu
1 \poMiie (onipoiieni
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-104
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
No
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
Table ( -153: Fxposiire Siudj 1 don((ion Information
Citation
PHED 9012
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Four workers were monitored during 5 applications of a pesticide to grass
cover in a Malaysian plantation using backpack sprayers. The application time and amount of
active ingredient handled were unclear based on the study report. Dermal exposure was
measured using gauze patches (most placed outside normal work clothing only). Hand exposure
was not measured. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per
minute), cassettes, and tubing. Only laboratory recoveries were reported (59%). [Note: This
data comes from the same study as PHED 9011 - monitoring conducted at different times.]
Table ( -154: I'll F.I) '>012 - ( hecklisl and I se Kccnmmendalion
Smd> ( I'ikTia
1 ApoMII'C ( 'oilipoilCIll
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
No
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
No
No
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
No
No
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-105
-------
Formulation: Liquids
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
assessments?
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-106
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Scenario Summary
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
I'iihlo (-155: Scciiiiriu Description ;iihI A\;iil;il>lc r.xpnsurc Studios
Formulation
Ready-to-use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method
Hose-end sprayer
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic
areas)
Available Exposure Studies
Klonne, D. (1999); MRID 44972201
Rosenheck, L. (2000); MRID45184305
1 ;ihk' (-I5(»: I nil llxnosuivs (iii^/ll) :ii) - K 11 Mosc-cnd Snr;i\cr \nnlic;i(ions
Sialisiic
Dermal
Inhalation
50Ql percentile
2.28
0.015
75 th percentile
5.96
0.036
95th percentile
23.6
0.121
99th percentile
62.2
0.285
99.9th percentile
184
0.745
AM(SD)
6.26 (16)
0.034 (0.066)
GM (GSD)
2.28 (4.14)
0.015 (3.52)
Range
0.078-33.0
0.00067-0.156
N
41
41
Dermal Unit Exposure Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for applications
using a RTU hose-end sprayer is based on a lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring
data from Klonne, D. (1999) [EPA MRID 44972201] and Rosenheck, L. (2000) [EPA MRID
45184305], Klonne, D. (1999) monitored 30 applications of pesticide formulations to
approximately 5000 ft2 of residential lawns for approximately 75 minutes using a RTU hose-end
sprayer. Rosenheck, L. (2000) monitored 11 applications of ready-to-use liquid formulations to
approximately 5000 ft2 of lawns for 32 to 119 minutes. These studies were representative of
homeowner or amateur applications for this scenario and the exposure monitoring enabled
representation of the type of clothing a homeowner or amateur applicator would wear (i.e.,
shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no chemical-resistant gloves). Additionally, a composite dataset was
used as the exposures in the studies were generally of the same magnitude.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
applications using a RTU hose-end sprayer is based on a lognormal distribution fit with exposure
monitoring data from Klonne, D. (1999) [EPA MRID 44972201] and Rosenheck, L. (2000)
[EPA MRID 45184305], Klonne, D. (1999) monitored 30 applications of pesticide formulations
to approximately 5000 ft2 of residential lawns for approximately 75 minutes using a RTU hose-
end sprayer. Rosenheck, L. (2000) monitored 11 applications of ready-to-use liquid
formulations to approximately 5000 ft2 of lawns for 32 to 119 minutes. These studies were
representative of homeowner or amateur applications for this scenario and a composite dataset
was formed despite Rosenheck, L. (2000) resulting in higher estimates of inhalation exposure.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-107
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Lognormal Probability Plots
Legend: ¦ = Klonne, D. (1999); X = Rosenheck, L. (2000)
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: ¦ = Klonne, D. (1999); X = Rosenheck, L. (2000)
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-108
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
Tsihle C-15"?: llxposuiv Sluilj 1 (IonI(ion liifoniiiilion
Citation
Klonne, D. (1999). Integrated Report on Evaluation of Potential Exposure to
Homeowners and Professional Lawn Care Operators Mixing, Loading, and Applying
Granular and Liquid Pesticides to Residential Lawns. Sponsor/Submitter: Outdoor
Residential Exposure Task Force.
EPA MRID
44972201
ORETF Code
OMA004
EPA Review
D261948
EPA Memo from G. Bangs to D. Fuller (3/5/03)
D287251
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: A total of 30 application events were monitored for 30 different volunteers
using passive dosimetry (inner and outer whole body dosimeters, hand washes, face/neck wipes,
and personal inhalation monitors). Each test subject screwed a ready-to-use (RTU) 32 fl. oz.
plastic container onto the end of the hose and treated approximately 5000 ft2 of residential lawns.
Each applicator handled approximately 0.5 lb active ingredient (diazinon) over the course of 75
minutes. Dermal exposure was measured using inner and outer whole body dosimeters, hand
washes, and face/neck washes, such that exposure can be constructed for various clothing
scenarios (including a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, and no chemical-resistant gloves). Inhalation
exposure was measured using standard personal air monitoring devices set at 1.5 liters per
minute. All fortified samples and field samples collected on the same study day were stored
frozen and analyzed together, eliminating the need for storage stability determination.
Concurrent lab spikes produced mean recoveries in the range of 78-125% for the various
matrices. Mean field fortification recoveries ranged from 76% to 110% for all matrices. Mean
percent field fortification recovery for outer dosimeter with a spike level of 50 |ig was 80.6%
with a standard deviation of 7.95%, of 500 |ig was 79.4% with a standard deviation of 19.3%,
and of 5000 |ig was 75.5% with a standard deviation of 5.81%. Mean percent field fortification
recovery for inner dosimeter with a spike level of 5 |ig was 99.3% with a standard deviation of
10.7%), and of 50 |ig was 89.5% with a standard deviation of 8.33%. Mean percent field
fortification recovery for hand wash with a spike level of 5 |ig was 83.7% with a standard
deviation of 9.13%, of 25 |ig was 83.9% with a standard deviation of 10.0%, and of 100 |ig was
85.6%) with a standard deviation of 11.1%. Mean percent field fortification recovery for
neck/face wash with a spike level of 5 |ig was 102% with a standard deviation of 2.81, of 10 |ig
was 101%) with a standard deviation of 13.9%, and of 25 |ig was 93.0% with a standard deviation
of 2.93%.
1 "sihie ( -I5N: MKII) 44V22HI - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Keeoinineiuliilioii
Smd\ ( iilciia
1 !\posine (iimpoiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-109
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
1 "sihie ( -I5N: MKII) 44V22HI - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Kccommendalion
Sind\ ( riieria
1 \posiire ( onipoiieni
Dermal
Inhalation
Is ihe dala of reasonable qnalils (j e , are field loriiliealioii and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Table C-I5'J: MKII) 44V220I - Data Siimman
IVrson II)
\aill
ilbsi
1 \posnre (mm
1 ml 1 \posiire (mu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
liihalalion
1
0.5
0.11
0.0090
0.21
0.0180
2
0.5
3.42
0.0120
6.84
0.0240
5
0.5
16.50
0.0303
33.00
0.0606
6
0.5
0.93
0.0059
1.86
0.0117
9
0.5
1.56
0.0142
3.12
0.0285
11
0.5
1.60
0.0173
3.20
0.0346
12
0.5
0.62
0.0126
1.23
0.0252
13
0.5
0.69
0.0141
1.37
0.0282
17
0.5
0.65
0.0016
1.30
0.0033
19
0.5
0.50
0.0091
1.00
0.0183
21
0.5
4.75
0.0159
9.49
0.0318
22
0.5
0.58
0.0030
1.17
0.0061
23
0.5
1.62
0.0101
3.23
0.0201
26
0.5
4.90
0.0209
9.80
0.0418
29
0.5
2.74
0.0288
5.49
0.0575
31
0.5
6.52
0.0026
13.05
0.0053
32
0.5
0.97
0.0010
1.94
0.0019
33
0.5
4.52
0.0019
9.04
0.0038
37
0.5
1.86
0.0077
3.72
0.0155
38
0.5
5.59
0.0037
11.17
0.0074
41
0.5
0.04
0.0003
0.08
0.0007
42
0.5
11.63
0.0006
23.26
0.0011
45
0.5
2.28
0.0016
4.56
0.0032
46
0.5
0.11
0.0071
0.22
0.0142
48
0.5
1.43
0.0138
2.86
0.0276
51
0.5
0.61
0.0017
1.22
0.0034
52
0.5
4.35
0.0033
8.71
0.0067
53
0.5
0.21
0.0013
0.41
0.0026
57
0.5
11.97
0.0066
23.94
0.0132
58
0.5
0.09
0.0021
0.17
0.0043
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-110
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of ready-to-use formulations using a hose-end sprayer, the following limitations are
noted:
• Each individual handled the same amount of active ingredient, making analysis of the
relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled (the
underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
l iihlc ( -K)ll: l-lxposuiv Siud> 1 tlon((ion Inlormalion
Citation
Rosenheck, L. (2000) Determination of Exposure During the Mixing, Loading and
Application of Liquid Diazinon to Residential Turf Through the Use of Passive
Dosimetry and Biological Monitoring: Lab Project Number 767-98:
I024480NAU950T. Unpublished study prepared by Development
Resources/Chemical Support Department, Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. 574 p.
EPA MRID
45184305
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D268247
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Eleven non-professional volunteers were monitored while making
applications of a liquid pesticide formulation (22.4% diazinon) with a ready-to-use hose-end
sprayer to approximately 5000 ft of lawn. The applications ranged from 32 to 119 minutes with
all individuals 0.5 lbs of active ingredient (diazinon). Dermal exposure was measured using
whole body dosimetry (100% cotton union suit) worn under shorts and a T-shirt, hand washes,
and face/neck wipes. No chemical-resistant gloves were worn. Inhalation exposure was
measured using standard pumps (set at 1.5 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field
fortification recoveries for the cotton union suit dosimeters averaged 99%, face and neck wipe
fortifications averaged 89.1%, handwash fortifications averaged 75% and air sampler tube
fortification was 109%. Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable
range of 70 to 120%. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 |ig/sample for the cotton
dosimeters, 0.5 |ig/sample for the face/neck wipes, 1.0 |ig/sample for the hand washes and 0.01
|ig/sample for the inhalation monitors.
Tahlc ('-!(> 1: MKII) 451X4305 - Checklist iiiid I so Recommendation
Smd\ ( I'llcna
1 \piiMiic (iimpiiiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )ocs ilic siud\ pi'o\ ide detailed dini'Mclci'isiics on ilic Mcli\ il\, equipment l\pe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-lll
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Hose-end sprayer
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
1 "sihie ( -I(i2: MKII) 451X4305 - l);ii;i Siiiiiin;ir\
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 Apiisuiv i mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic ( iiiu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
2
0.5
1.522
0.0501
3.04
0.1002
3
0.5
0.163
0.0122
0.33
0.0245
4
0.5
0.706
0.0096
1.41
0.0191
12
0.5
0.446
0.0223
0.89
0.0445
7
0.5
0.701
0.0779
1.40
0.1559
5
0.5
0.774
0.0212
1.55
0.0423
6
0.5
0.397
0.0094
0.79
0.0187
14
0.5
0.474
0.0189
0.95
0.0379
15
0.5
0.95
0.0209
1.90
0.0418
13
0.5
2.854
0.0145
17.42
0.0884
46
0.5
1.15
0.0256
2.30
0.0512
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of residential
applications of liquid concentrate formulations using a conventional hose-end sprayer, the
following limitations are noted:
• Each individual handled the same amount of active ingredient, making analysis of the
relationship between exposure and the amount of active ingredient handled (the
underlying basis of unit exposures) difficult.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-112
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Scenario Summary
Equipment/Application Method: Trigger-pump sprayer
Tsihle C-l(>3: Sceiiiiriu Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihle r.xpnsurc Studios
Formulation
Ready-to-use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method
Trigger-pump sprayer
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic
areas), indoors (plants, cracks and crevices), pets/animals
Available Exposure Studies
Merricks, D.L. (1997); MRID 44459801
Meo, N.; Gonzalez, C.; Mester, T. (1997); MRID 44433302
Knarr, R.D. (1988); MRID 41054701
Barnekow, D.E.; Cook, W.L.; Meitl, T.J.; Shurdut, B.A. (1999); MRID
44739301
1 "sihie ( -l(>4: I nil l'.\nosui'es (inii/lb ;ii) - l.iuuiri 1 ri^er-niiinn spr;i\cr Applications
Siaiisiic
( )iiuKhii's Indoors
IVls \iiimals
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
50" percentile
54
0.046
510
2.2
75 th percentile
103
0.077
990
4.0
95th percentile
260
0.16
2600
9.6
99th percentile
490
0.26
5000
18
99.9th percentile
1020
0.46
10500
36
AM(SD)
85.1 (103)
0.061 (0.053)
820 (1040)
3.3 (3.7)
GM (GSD)
54.2 (2.56)
0.046 (2.10)
510(2.7)
2.2 (2.5)
Range
11.0-253
0.016-0.21
101 -2400
0.30-8.4
N
20
70
16
16
Dermal Unit Exposure Summary
Outdoor and Indoor Environments: The recommended dermal unit exposures for
applications of liquid pesticide formulations using a trigger-pump sprayer to outdoor and
indoor environments is based on a lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring
data from Merricks, D.L. (1997) [EPAMRID 44459801], Merricks, D.L. (1997)
monitored 40 applications to tomatoes and cucumbers using a ready-to-use (RTU)
trigger-spray bottle. While other studies were available which potentially could represent
residential applications, the exposure monitoring in this study enabled the best
representation of the type of clothing a homeowner or amateur applicator would wear
(i.e., shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no chemical-resistant gloves).
Pets and Animals: The recommended dermal unit exposures for applications of liquid
pesticide formulations using a trigger-pump sprayer to pets or animals is based on a
lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from Meo, N. et al (1997) [EPA
MRID 44433302], Meo, N. et al (1997) monitored 16 applications by commercial pet
groomers treating 8 dogs for approximately 38-72 minutes using a ready-to-use (RTU)
trigger-spray bottle. This is the only study available for this exposure scenario.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-113
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Trigger-pump sprayer
Inhalation Unit Exposure Summary
Outdoor and Indoor Environments: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
applications of liquid pesticide formulations using a trigger-pump sprayer to outdoor and
indoor environments is based on a lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring
data from Merricks, D.L. (1997) [EPAMRID 44459801], Knarr, R.D. (1998) [EPA
MRID 41054701], and Barnekow, D.E., et al (1999) [EPA MRID 47739301], Merricks,
D.L. (1997) monitored 40 applications to tomatoes and cucumbers using a ready-to-use
(RTU) trigger-spray bottle. Knarr, R.D. (1998) monitored 5 applications of a liquid
pesticide formulation to door frames, screens, patios, and stoops for approximately 9-21
minutes using a trigger sprayer attached to a V2 gallon container with an 18-inch hose.
Barnekow, D.E., et al (1999) monitored 15 applications of a liquid pesticide formulation
to outdoor foundations, perimeters, and flower beds for approximately 1 hour using a 24
oz. ready-to-use trigger spray bottle. All available studies were considered reasonably
representative of residential application inhalation exposure, and, since they were
generally of the same magnitude, combined into a single dataset.
Pets and Animals: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for applications of liquid
pesticide formulations using a trigger-pump sprayer to pets or animals is based on a
lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from Meo, N. et al (1997) [EPA
MRID 44433302], Meo, N. et al (1997) monitored 16 applications by commercial pet
groomers treating 8 dogs for approximately 38-72 minutes using a ready-to-use (RTU)
trigger-spray bottle. This is the only study available for this exposure scenario.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-114
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Trigger-pump sprayer
Lognormal Probability Plots
Outdoor/Indoor Environments Legend: ¦ = Merricks, D.L. (1997)
Log Normal Quantile
Outdoor/Indoor Environments Legend: ¦ = Bamekow, D.E. et al (1997); O = Knarr, R.D. (1998); X = Merricks, D.L. (1997)
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-115
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Trigger-pump sprayer
Pets/Animals Legend: ¦ = Meo, N. etal (1997)
Log Normal Quantile
Pets/Animals Legend: ¦ = Meo, N. etal (1997)
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-116
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU) Equipment/Application Method: Trigger-pump sprayer
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Tahle C-I(i5: I'\posure Siudj Idemil'ic:ilion Inlormalion
Citation
Merricks, D.L. (1997). Carbaryl Mixer/Loader/Applicator Exposure Study during
Application of RP-2 Liquid (21%), Sevin® Ready to Use Insect Spray or Sevin® 10
Dust to Home Garden Vegetables
EPA MRID
44459801
ORETF Code
OMA006
EPA Review
EPA Memo from G. Bangs to D. Fuller (3/5/03)
D287251
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Forty individuals were monitored while spraying tomatoes and cucumbers
using a ready-to-use (RTU) trigger-spray bottle (i.e., no mixing was necessary). Each
application was approximately 20 minutes and consisted of approximately 2 lbs formulation
(approximately 0.24 gallons; 0.002 lbs carbaryl) to garden plants. Dermal exposure was
measured using inner and outer whole body dosimetry and hand washes (20 individuals were
monitored without gloves). Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 2
liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field fortification recoveries for passive dosimeters
averaged 84.3% for inner dosimeters and 77.7% for outer dosimeters. Face and neck wipe field
fortifications averaged 84.8%. Both handwash and inhalation tube field fortification averaged
>90%. Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable range of 70 to
120%). The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 |ig/sample for all media except the inhalation
monitors where the LOQ was 0.01 |ig/sample. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.5 |ig/sample
for all media except the inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.005 |ig/sample.
Tahle (-!(>(>: MKII) 44459X0I - Checklist iiml I se Kecommendalion
Smd\ ( 1'ilci'ia
1 Aposiiiv (iimpiiiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. Note that only dermal
exposure data representative of individuals wearing short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks, and
no chemical-resistant gloves are presented. The submitted study itself or corresponding
analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
I "si hie ( -l(>7: MKII) 44459X01 - Dala Siiiiiin;ir\
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-117
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Trigger-pump sprayer
IVl'SOIl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 \poMirc (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic iiiiu Ih ail
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
liilialalion
R2
0.0024
0.30
0.000418
126
0.1739
S2
0.0022
0.13
0.000334
61
0.1532
T2
0.0028
0.70
0.000163
253
0.0592
U2
0.0025
0.33
0.000251
129
0.0989
X2
0.0020
0.29
0.000167
143
0.0824
Y2
0.0022
0.20
0.000042
93
0.0191
Z2
0.0020
0.33
0.000167
165
0.0824
A3
0.0022
0.17
0.000251
76
0.1149
D3
0.0021
0.05
0.000042
24
0.0202
E3
0.0022
0.10
0.000042
47
0.0188
F3
0.0021
0.05
0.000042
24
0.0195
G3
0.0022
0.22
0.000084
98
0.0375
J3
0.0022
0.05
0.000042
25
0.0191
K3
0.0021
0.05
0.000167
21
0.0782
M3
0.0020
0.04
0.000042
20
0.0208
L3
0.0022
0.48
0.000042
219
0.0191
P3
0.0022
0.02
0.000042
11
0.0193
Q3
0.0022
0.04
0.000042
18
0.0186
R3
0.0022
0.09
0.000041
43
0.0189
S3
0.0022
0.05
0.000041
22
0.0187
E
0.0025
--
0.000042
--
0.0166
F
0.0025
--
0.000042
--
0.0169
I
0.0022
--
0.000042
--
0.0186
H
0.0028
--
0.000084
--
0.0301
K
0.0025
--
0.000042
--
0.0165
L
0.0024
--
0.000042
--
0.0177
0
0.0024
--
0.000043
--
0.0180
P
0.0020
--
0.000042
--
0.0213
S
0.0025
--
0.000042
--
0.0168
T
0.0025
--
0.000042
--
0.0165
W
0.0026
--
0.000167
--
0.0654
X
0.0025
--
0.000501
--
0.2013
A2
0.0024
--
0.000042
--
0.0177
B2
0.0026
--
0.000251
--
0.0980
E2
0.0023
--
0.000167
--
0.0736
F2
0.0022
--
0.000167
--
0.0766
12
0.0027
--
0.000086
--
0.0319
J2
0.0026
--
0.000084
--
0.0327
M2
0.0027
--
0.000167
--
0.0611
N2
0.0021
--
0.000167
--
0.0782
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of exposure during use
of ready-to-use trigger sprayers, the following limitations are noted:
• An estimated 90% of all dermal exposure samples (underneath the individuals clothing)
were non-detects. One-half the limit of detection (1.0 |Lxg) was used.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-118
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU) Equipment/Application Method: Trigger-pump sprayer
• Nineteen of 40 inhalation samples were non-detects. One-half the limit of detection (0.01
Hg) was used.
1 ahle ( -KiX: A\ailahle1-'\posuro Siudj Idenliricalion 1 nlVinn;ilion
Citation
Meo, N.; Gonzalez, C.; Mester, T. (1997) Dermal and Inhalation Exposure of
Commercial Pet Groomers During Application of Frontline Spray Treatment: Final
Report: Lab Project Number: MERIAL 445 SAFXT046: SAFX046: PDA9705.
Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., California and Animal Appeal Grooming
Shop & Case Veterinary Hospital. 1066 p.
EPA MRID
44433302
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review; 4/27/98
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Sixteen different commercial pet groomers were monitored while treating
dogs with fipronil, an active ingredient used to control fleas and ticks, using a ready-to-use
(RTU) trigger-spray bottle. Each application consisted of treating 8 dogs by holding the dog
with one hand and spraying with the other, including rubbing the spray into the dog's fur.
Application times ranged from 38 to 72 minutes and the amount of fipronil applied ranged from
approximately 0.002 to 0.007 lbs. Dermal exposure was measured using inner whole body
dosimetry (underneath pants, a short-sleeved shirt, and a smock) and cotton gloves underneath
household latex gloves. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 1.5
liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Field fortification samples of each matrix were fortified
with diluted formulated product at the test site and subjected to the same conditions as the
replicate samples. Average recoveries (triplicate samples) at each fortification level (low,
medium, high) for each matrix ranged from 81.6% to 105.9%.
1 "sihie ( -!(>'>: MKII) 44433302 - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Kccommendalion
Suid> ( menu
1 \piiMiic ('iimpiiiiciil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Table C-PO: MKII) 44433302 - l)ala Siimman
IVl'SOIl II)
Vnll
1 ApoMiic (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic (mu lb an
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-119
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Trigger-pump sprayer
(Ills)
Dermal
liihalalkin
Dermal
Inhalation
1
0.0033
0.72
0.007
218.18
2.12
2
0.0024
5.64
0.003
2350.00
1.25
3
0.0033
0.33
0.008
100.00
2.42
4
0.0035
0.94
0.011
268.57
3.14
5
0.0047
2.17
0.039
461.70
8.30
6
0.0064
3.31
0.026
517.19
4.06
7
0.0037
5.97
0.003
1613.51
0.81
8
0.0025
0.29
0.010
116.00
4.00
9
0.0036
1.74
0.001
483.33
0.28
10
0.0065
7.48
0.012
1150.8
1.8
11
0.0038
3.95
0.022
1039.5
5.8
12
0.0025
0.31
0.001
124.0
0.4
13
0.0033
1.59
0.011
481.8
3.3
14
0.0053
5.07
0.009
956.6
1.7
15
0.0019
1.49
0.011
784.2
5.8
16
0.0060
7.78
0.012
1296.7
2.0
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of exposure during use
of ready-to-use trigger sprayers, the following limitations are noted:
• The study monitored professional/commercial pet groomers and may not be
representative of the exposure an individual at home would experience while treating
their pets.
• The individuals monitored wore long pants, long-sleeve shirts, and chemical-resistant
gloves. Therefore, back-calculations using standard penetration factors to represent
exposure to people wearing shorts, a short-sleeve shirt and no chemical-resistant gloves
were necessary.
1 iihlc (-l7l: r.xposuiv Sluclj 1 (IonI(ion liifoniiiilion
Citation
Knarr, R.D. (1988). Exposure of Applicators to Propoxur During Trigger-Pump
Spray Applications of a Liquid Product
EPA MRID
41054701
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D287251
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review; 9/29/89
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Three individuals were monitored for each of 5 applications using a trigger
sprayer attached to a V2 gallon container with an 18-inch hose to treat the outside of homes (door
frames, screens, patios, stoops, etc.). Applications ranged from 9 to 21 minutes and the amount
of active ingredient (propoxur) handled ranged from 0.01 to 0.025 lbs. Dermal exposure was
measured using gauze patches (underneath normal work clothing) and hand washes. All
individuals wore chemical-resistant gloves. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard
pumps (set at 1 liter per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Average laboratory recovery for all
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-120
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Trigger-pump sprayer
media ranged from 99.2% to 109%. Patches and filters were fortified at 1 |ig/sample while hand
rinses were fortified at either 200 or 1000 |ig/sample. Average field recovery results ranged
from 90.3%) to 102.2%. Patches were fortified at levels from 1 to 50 |ig/sample, hand rinses
were fortified at 200 |ig/sample, and filters were fortified at 0.2 |ig/sample.
1 "sihie ( -172: MKII) 41054701 - ( heeklisl iiiid I se Kccommendalion
Studs ( riteria
1 \posure (onipoiieui
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the studs pro\ ide detailed characteristics on the acli\ its, equipment t\pe,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Only inhalation exposure results are presented as dermal exposure
monitoring was not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further
information.
Table ( -P3: MKII) 4I054'70I - Data Siimman
IVi'sou ID
Vull
(Ills)
1 \posure (mm
1 mi 1 Aposure (mu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
A
0.0188
--
0.0026
--
0.136
A
0.0188
--
0.0016
--
0.087
A
0.0250
--
0.0016
--
0.065
A
0.0250
--
0.0019
--
0.075
A
0.0250
--
0.0052
--
0.210
B
0.0188
--
0.0019
--
0.100
B
0.0188
--
0.0013
--
0.071
B
0.0250
--
0.0029
--
0.114
B
0.0250
--
0.0019
--
0.076
B
0.0206
--
0.0015
--
0.074
C
0.0100
--
0.0004
--
0.038
C
0.0188
--
0.0008
--
0.041
C
0.0188
--
0.0009
--
0.048
C
0.0131
--
0.0014
--
0.109
C
0.0250
--
0.0009
--
0.036
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: No limitations were identified for this study.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-121
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Trigger-pump sprayer
Tahle(-I74: r.\|)osuiv Siudj Idemiric;ilion Information
Citation
Barnekow, D.E.; Cook, W.L.; Meitl, T.J.; Shurdut, B.A. (1999). Exposure to
Chlorpyrifos While Applying a Ready to Use Formulation. January 14, 1999.
Laboratory Project Study ID: HEA 976046.
EPA MRID
44739301
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D252733
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Fifteen individuals were monitored during applications to outdoor areas of
houses (foundations, perimeters, flower beds) using a ready-to-use trigger spray bottle (24 oz.;
0.5% chlorpyrifos). Applications lasted 1 hour or until 5 bottles were exhausted, whichever was
longer. Dermal exposure was measured using whole body dosimetry (underneath long pants,
short-sleeve shirt) and hand washes (no chemical-resistant gloves were worn). Inhalation
exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 1.5 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing.
Laboratory recoveries for coveralls resulted in a mean percent recovery of 94.3% and RSD of
5.1%), while recoveries for handwash had a mean percent recovery of 107.6%) and RSD of 3.9%.
Field recoveries for coveralls resulted in a mean percent recovery of 99.1 and RSD of 4.7%,
while recoveries for handwash had a mean percent recovery of 93.6% and RSD of 5.1%>.
1 "sihie ( -175: MRU) 44"73')3UI - Checklist iiiid I se Recommendation
SiiuK ( rikTia
1 \poMiic ( onipoiiciil
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only inhalation exposure data are presented as the dermal
exposure data are not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further
information.
Table < -1 "7f»: MRU) 44"Willi - Data Siimman
IVi'son II)
Vnll
ilhsi
1 ApoMiic (mm
1 mi 1 Aposiiic ( iiiu Ih ai i
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
1
0.036
--
0.0024
--
0.066
2
0.030
--
0.0012
--
0.041
3
0.030
--
0.0016
--
0.055
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-122
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Trigger-pump sprayer
Tiihle ('-Cft: MKII) 44"73*>301 - Dnin Sumin;ir\
1 Visum II)
\aill
ilhsi
1 Apiisuiv (mm
1 mi 1 Aposiiic ( iiiu Ih ai i
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
liilialalioii
4
0.036
--
0.0022
--
0.062
5
0.038
--
0.0022
--
0.059
6
0.037
--
0.0029
~
0.079
7
0.015
--
0.0024
~
0.161
8
0.030
--
0.0018
--
0.058
9
0.035
--
0.0036
~
0.102
10
0.037
--
0.0011
~
0.030
11
0.038
--
0.0011
~
0.030
12
0.023
--
0.0016
~
0.069
13
0.038
--
0.0016
--
0.042
14
0.038
--
0.0014
~
0.037
15
0.037
--
0.0018
~
0.049
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: No limitations were identified in this study.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-123
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Scenario Summary
Equipment/Application Method: Shampoo
1 "sihie ( -I"7"7: Seeiiiiriu Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihle r.xpnsure Studios
Formulation
Ready-to-use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method
Shampoo
Application Site(s)
Pets/animals, children
Available Exposure Studies
Mester, T.C. (1998); MRID 44658401
Selim, S. (2005); MRID 46601001
l iihle (-I^S: I nil llxposures iniu/lh :ii) - K 11 Mi;impoo Applications
SiaiiMic
Dermal
Inhalation
50th percentile
1700
0.169
75 th percentile
2500
0.342
95th percentile
4700
0.942
99th percentile
7200
1.92
99.9th percentile
12000
4.26
AM(SD)
2000 (1400)
0.29 (0.41)
GM (GSD)
1700 (1.9)
0.17 (2.8)
Range
340 - 8300
0.0197-0.496
N
64
16
Dermal Unit Exposure Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for shampoo
applications of liquid pesticide formulations to pets, animals, or children is based on a lognormal
distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from Mester, T.C. (1998) [EPA MRID 44658401]
and Selim, S. (2005) [EPA MRID 46601001], Mester, T.C. (1998) monitored 16 applications by
commercial pet groomers of shampoo to 8 dogs for approximately 149-295 minutes. Selim, S.
(2005) monitored 16 shampoo applications to one dog each for approximately 30 minutes. Both
studies were considered reasonably representative of activities related to shampooing pets and
both had limitations with respect to exposure monitoring representing the type of clothing a
homeowner or amateur applicator would wear (i.e., shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no chemical-
resistant gloves). Additionally, since the exposure results were generally of the same magnitude,
the datasets were combined.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for shampoo
applications of liquid pesticide formulations to pets, animals, or children is based on a lognormal
distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from Mester, T.C. (1998) [EPA MRID 44658401],
Mester, T.C. (1998) monitored 16 applications by commercial pet groomers of shampoo to 8
dogs for approximately 149-295 minutes. Another available study did not monitor inhalation
exposure.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-124
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Shampoo
Lognormal Probability Plots
Legend: O = Mester. T.C. (1998); X = Selim. S. (2005)
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: ¦ = Mester, T.C. (1998)
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-125
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU) Equipment/Application Method: Shampoo
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Tiihlc (-l7'J: r.xposuiv Sluilj 1 (IonI(ion Inl'ormalion
Citation
Mester, T.C. (1998). Dermal Exposure and Inhalation Exposure to Carbaryl by
Commercial Pet Groomers During Applications of Adams ™ Carbaryl Shampoo
EPA MRID
44658401
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D287251
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 12/4/98
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Sixteen different commercial pet groomers were monitored while treating
dogs with carbaryl, an active ingredient used to control fleas and ticks, using a ready-to-use
(RTU) disposable shampoo bottle. Each application consisted of treating 8 dogs by soaking (2-3
minutes), treating with the shampoo, letting the shampoo sit for 5 minutes, then rinsing, drying
and combing the dog. Application times for treating all 8 dogs ranged from 149 to 295 minutes
and the amount of carbaryl applied ranged from approximately 0.0008 to 0.008 lbs. Dermal
exposure was measured using inner whole body dosimetry (underneath pants, a short-sleeved
shirt and a smock) and hand washes (no chemical-resistant gloves were worn). Inhalation
exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 1.5 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing.
Laboratory control samples for hand wash solutions were fortified with carbaryl with four rates
of concurrent recovery determination, which ranged in percent recovery from 88% to 120%, with
a mean percent recovery of 104% and a standard deviation of 8.7%. Field fortifications for hand
wash solutions were prepared at three spiking levels, with a mean of all three spiking levels at
100%) and a standard deviation of 5.9%. Laboratory control samples for whole body dosimeters
were fortified with carbaryl with two rates for concurrent recovery determination, which ranged
in percent recovery from 91% to 119%), with a mean percent recovery of 107%) and a standard
deviation of 6.9%>. Field fortification samples for whole body dosimeters were prepared at three
spiking levels with a mean of all three spiking levels at 83%> and a standard deviation of 5.0%.
1 "sihie ('-ISO: MKII) 44(>5X40I - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Kccommendalion
Siud> ( iilena
1 ApoMiic ( ompoiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-126
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Shampoo
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
1 "sihie ( -1X1: MKII) 44(>5X40I - l);ii;i Suiiiin;ir\
IVl'siHl II)
\aill
dbsi
1 \piiMiic (mm
1 ml 1 Aposiiic ( iiiu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
1
0.0050
15.36
0.00196
3072
0.3878
2
0.0015
11.72
0.00005
7813
0.0332
3
0.0020
2.61
0.00086
1305
0.4256
4
0.0044
5.51
0.00057
1252
0.1291
5
0.0036
10.40
0.00065
2889
0.1788
6
0.0027
3.99
0.00054
1478
0.2036
7
0.0015
4.49
0.00059
2993
0.4031
8
0.0008
5.13
0.00041
6413
0.4958
9
0.0013
2.20
0.00005
1692
0.0378
10
0.0039
27.88
0.00140
7149
0.3627
11
0.0021
1.76
0.00022
838
0.1066
12
0.0082
15.00
0.00097
1829
0.1185
13
0.0025
8.29
0.00118
3316
0.4732
14
0.0025
8.60
0.00005
3440
0.0197
15
0.0016
2.54
0.00076
1588
0.4865
16
0.0043
1.44
0.00048
335
0.1129
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of exposure during
shampoo applications, the following limitations are noted:
• The study monitored professional/commercial pet groomers and may not be
representative of the exposure an individual at home would experience while treating
their pets.
• The individuals monitored wore long pants, long-sleeve shirts, a smock and chemical-
resistant gloves. Therefore, back-calculations using standard penetration factors to
represent exposure to people wearing shorts, a short-sleeve shirt and no chemical-
resistant gloves were necessary.
Tsihle C-IK2: Hxposiire Siuclj Itlenlil'ic:ilion 1 nlVinn;ition
Citation
Selim, S. (2005) Human Exposure During and Following Use of a
Pyrethrins/Piperonyl Butoxide/MGK-264 Shampoo Formulation on Dogs: Final
Report. Project Number: 040154. Unpublished study prepared by Young Veterinary
Research Services and Golden Pacific Laboratories, LLC (GPL). 466 p.
EPA MRID
46601001
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D319806
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-127
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Shampoo
Study Description: Sixteen individuals were monitored while treating dogs with a shampoo
containing the active ingredients pyrethrins, piperonyl butoxide (PBO), and MGK-264. Each
application took approximately 30 minutes and consisted of shampooing, rinsing, and drying a
single dog. The amount of active ingredient ranged from 12 mg (pyrethrins) to 663 mg (PBO).
Dermal exposure was measured using a t-shirt (no inner dosimeter, so exposure represents bare
upper body) and hand washes or wipes (no chemical-resistant gloves were worn) both
immediately following the treatment and 4 hours after. Lower body exposure was not measured.
Inhalation exposure was not measured. Overall average laboratory recoveries for PYI
(pyrethrins) ranged from 83.5% (shampoo rinse) to 98.0% (paper towels), for PBO (piperonyl
butoxide) ranged from 84.2% (dog hair) to 98.6% (shampoo rinse), for MGK 264 ranged from
86.3%) (hand washes) to 98.2% (paper towels). For CDC A, the overall average recovery was
92.1%). Field fortification samples were not discussed in the Study Report.
1 "sihie ( -1X3: MKII) 4(>(>0I00I - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Kccommendalion
Smd\ ( niciia
1 Aposiiic (onipoiiciii
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
Yes
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
No
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
No
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only dermal exposure data are presented as inhalation
exposure was not measured. The submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets
should be reviewed for further information.
Tahlc('-IX4: MRU) 4(>(>01001 - Dala Siimman
IVlMHI ID
.Villi
(Ills)
1 ApoMiic (mm
1 mi 1 ApuMirc (mu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
A1 (PY;
0.000056
0.063
—
1125
—
A2 (PY)
0.000049
0.063
—
1286
—
A3 (PY)
0.000063
0.080
—
1270
—
A4 (PY)
0.000060
0.058
—
967
—
A5 (PY)
0.000027
0.031
—
1148
—
A6 (PY)
0.000039
0.063
—
1615
—
A7 (PY)
0.000039
0.255
—
6538
—
A8 (PY)
0.000048
0.048
—
1000
—
A9 (PY)
0.000049
0.124
—
2531
—
A10 (PY)
0.000052
0.105
—
2019
—
All (PY)
0.000051
0.051
—
1000
—
A12 (PY)
0.000040
0.064
—
1600
—
A13 (PY)
0.000080
0.114
—
1425
—
A14 (PY)
0.000047
0.062
--
1319
--
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-128
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Shampoo
1 iihlo C-IS4: MRU) 4(>(>01001 - l);ii;i Sunim;ir\
1 Viv.ii II)
Aaill
1 Aposll
re (mm
1 mi 1 Aposiiic ( iiiu lb an
(Ills)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
A15 (PY;
0.000051
0.045
—
882
—
A16 (PY)
0.000056
0.042
—
750
—
A1 (PBO)
0.00103
1.25
—
1214
—
A2 (PBO)
0.00089
1.20
—
1348
—
A3 (PBO)
0.00116
1.41
—
1216
—
A4 (PBO)
0.00109
1.16
—
1064
—
A5 (PBO)
0.00049
0.74
—
1510
—
A6 (PBO)
0.00071
1.48
—
2085
—
A7 (PBO)
0.00072
5.67
—
7875
—
A8 (PBO)
0.00088
1.86
—
2114
—
A9 (PBO)
0.00090
2.24
—
2489
—
A10 (PBO)
0.00095
1.74
—
1832
—
All (PBO)
0.00094
0.83
—
883
—
A12 (PBO)
0.00073
1.12
—
1534
—
A13 (PBO)
0.00146
2.07
—
1418
—
A14 (PBO)
0.00086
1.08
—
1256
—
A15 (PBO)
0.00092
0.90
—
978
—
A16 (PBO)
0.00101
0.80
—
792
—
A1 (MGK-264)
0.00035
0.646
—
1846
—
A2 (MGK-264)
0.00030
0.493
—
1643
—
A3 (MGK-264)
0.00040
0.678
—
1695
—
A4 (MGK-264)
0.00037
0.450
—
1216
—
A5 (MGK-264)
0.00017
0.273
—
1606
—
A6 (MGK-264)
0.00024
0.552
—
2300
—
A7 (MGK-264)
0.00025
2.055
—
8220
—
A8 (MGK-264)
0.00030
0.461
—
1537
—
A9 (MGK-264)
0.00031
0.786
—
2535
—
A10 (MGK-264)
0.00033
0.596
—
1806
—
All (MGK-264)
0.00032
0.288
—
900
—
A12 (MGK-264)
0.00025
0.338
—
1352
—
A13 (MGK-264)
0.00050
0.725
—
1450
—
A14 (MGK-264)
0.00029
0.331
—
1141
—
A15 (MGK-264)
0.00032
0.266
—
831
—
A16 (MGK-264)
0.00035
0.244
—
697
—
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of exposure during
shampoo applications, the following limitations are noted:
• Dermal exposure to the legs was not measured. However, since dermal exposure was
measured using the t-shirt that the individuals were wearing (i.e., measurements represent
a bare upper body), the potential overrepresentation of the upper body exposure likely
compensates for the lack of lower body measurements.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-129
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Scenario Summary
Equipment/Application Method: Spot-on
I'iihlo ( -1X5: Scciiiiriu Description ;iihI A\;iil;il>lc l-lxposuiv Studios
Formulation
Ready-to-use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method
Spot-on
Application Site(s)
Pets/animals
Available Exposure Studies
Meo, N.; Gonzalez, C.; Belcher, T. (1997); MRID 44433303
Tiihk'(-IX(>: I nil r.\nosmvs (in^/lh :ii) - K 11 Snol-nn Annliciilions
SiaiiMic
Dermal
Inhalation
50th percentile
29
Inhalation exposure data during
application of spot-on treatments is
unavailable, however is considered
negligible.
75 th percentile
91
95th percentile
460
99th percentile
1400
99.9th percentile
5100
AM(SD)
120 (470)
GM (GSD)
29 (5.3)
Range
1.1-370
N
16
Dermal Unit Exposure Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for spot-on
applications to pets or animals is based on a lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring
data from Meo, N., et al (1997) [EPA MRID 44433303], Meo, N., et al (1997) monitored 16
applications by commercial pet groomers to 8 dogs for approximately 14-32 minutes using a
ready-to-use (RTU), disposable, snap-top, plastic-backed pipette. This was the only available
monitoring study for this exposure scenario.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Summary: Inhalation exposure data during application of spot-on
treatments is unavailable, however is considered negligible.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-130
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Spot-on
Lognormal Probability Plots
Legend: ¦ = Meo, N. et al (1997)
400-
j
350-
300-
250-
QKE5 .50
.75
.90
.95
CO
^ 200-
E:
LLI
2 150-
CB
E
q 100-
50-
Z
~r
4
t
6
I-
10
—r~
12
~I
14
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-131
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Equipment/Application Method: Spot-on
1 ahle (-IX"7: l.\|)(isuiv Sludj 1 (IonI(ion Information
Citation
Meo, N.; Gonzalez, C.; Belcher, T. (1997) Dermal Exposure of Commercial Pet
Groomers During Application of Frontline Top Spot: Final Report: Lab Project
Number: MERIAL 445 SAFXT047: SAFXT047: EC 97 390. Unpublished study
prepared by ABC Labs., California and Animal Appeal Grooming Shop & Case
Veterinary Hospital. 925 p.
EPA MRID
44433303
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
DER by W. Britton (EPA); no barcode
Contractor review (Versar, Inc.) 9/9/08
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Sixteen different commercial pet groomers were monitored while treating
dogs with ftpronil, an active ingredient used to control fleas and ticks, using a ready-to-use
(RTU), disposable, snap-top, plastic-backed pipette. Each application consisted of applying 2 or
3 pre-measured unit doses with a pipette to the neck area of each of 8 dogs with some groomers
rubbing the material into the dogs' fur. Application times ranged from 14 to 32 minutes and the
amount of ftpronil applied ranged from approximately 0.001 to 0.004 lbs. Dermal exposure was
measured using inner whole body dosimetry (underneath pants, a short-sleeved shirt and a
smock) and cotton gloves underneath household latex gloves. Inhalation exposure was not
measured. Data generated in the frozen stability phase of the study indicated that ftpronil was
stable in two dermal matrices after mean recoveries from field fortification samples which fell
between 79% and 103% of theoretical concentration.
Table C-IXX: MRU) 44433303- Checklist iiiid I so Recommendation
Smd\ ( iilciia
1 Aposiiic (onipoiiciit
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
No
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
No
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only dermal exposure data are presented as inhalation
exposure was not measured. The submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets
should be reviewed for further information.
Table ( -IX'); MRU) 44433303 - Data Siimman
IVrsmi ID
\aill
(Ills)
1 Aposiiiv (mm
1 ml 1 ApoMirc (mu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-132
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Spot-on
1 "sihie ( -IS'); MKII) 44433303 - l);il;i Siimniiin
IVrsun II)
Villi
1 Aposiiiv (mm
1 ml 1 ApuMirc i iiiu lb an
(Ills)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
1
0.00236
0.033
—
13.93
--
2
0.00207
0.032
—
15.59
--
3
0.00251
0.727
—
289.35
--
4
0.00162
0.090
—
55.40
--
5
0.00325
0.031
—
9.67
--
6
0.00162
0.037
—
23.03
--
7
0.00399
0.004
—
1.12
--
8
0.00177
0.252
—
142.25
--
9
0.00251
0.013
—
5.20
--
10
0.00148
0.084
—
56.94
--
11
0.00207
0.767
—
370.84
--
12
0.00192
0.024
—
12.56
--
13
0.00192
0.009
—
4.82
--
14
0.00266
0.337
—
126.71
--
15
0.00251
0.031
—
12.50
--
16
0.00266
0.603
—
226.66
--
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of exposure during
spot-on pet treatments, the following limitations are noted:
• The study monitored professional/commercial pet groomers and may not be
representative of the exposure an individual at home would experience while treating
their pets.
• The individuals monitored wore long pants, long-sleeve shirts, a smock and chemical-
resistant gloves. Therefore, back-calculations using standard penetration factors to
represent exposure to people wearing shorts, a short-sleeve shirt and no chemical-
resistant gloves were necessary.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-133
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Scenario Summary
Equipment/Application Method: Aerosol can
1 "sihie C-I'NI: Seen;irio Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihle l-'\|>«isnre Studios
Formulation
Ready-to-use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method
Aerosol can
Application Site(s)
outdoors (gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic areas),
indoors (general broadcast treatments, baseboards, cracks and crevices),
pets/animals
Available Exposure Studies
PHED 521
PHED 456
Selim, S. (2002); MRID 46188618
T;ihle (-I'JI: I nil r.xposures img/lh ;ii) - RTl Aerosol e.in Applications
Statistic
(Jntdooi's Indoors
IVls \ninials
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
50th percentile
330
2.3
Studies measuring exposure while treating
pets or animals using an aerosol can are
unavailable. Therefore, the exposure
studies recommended for use for treating
pets or animals using RTU trigger-pump
sprayers should be used as a surrogate.
75 th percentile
450
3.7
95th percentile
720
7.4
99th percentile
990
11
99.9th percentile
1400
20
AM(SD)
370 (180)
3.0 (2.4)
GM (GSD)
330 (1.6)
2.3 (2.0)
Range
140 - 1000
0.38-4.9
N
15
15
Dermal Unit Exposure Summary
Outdoor and Indoor Environments: The recommended dermal unit exposures for aerosol
can applications to outdoor and indoor environments is based on a lognormal distribution
fit with exposure monitoring data from PHED 521. PHED 521 monitored 15 applications
to cracks, crevices, baseboards, under sinks, and behind appliances in 15 separate houses
using an entire 16 oz. aerosol can. Though another study was available this study best
represented the type of clothing a homeowner or amateur applicator would wear (i.e.,
shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no chemical-resistant gloves).
Pets and Animals: Dermal exposure monitoring data for aerosol can applications to pets
and animals are unavailable; dermal unit exposures for trigger-sprayers applications to
pets and animals are recommended as surrogate data.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Summary
Outdoor and Indoor Environments: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
aerosol can applications to outdoor and indoor environments is based on a lognormal
distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from PHED 456. PHED 456 monitored 15
applications to cracks, crevices, baseboards, under sinks, and behind appliances in 15
separate houses using an entire 16 oz. aerosol can. This study was selected for use for
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-134
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Aerosol can
inhalation exposure estimates due to its lack of non-detect samples compared with
another available study.
Pets and Animals: Inhalation exposure monitoring data for aerosol can applications to
pets and animals is unavailable; inhalation unit exposures for trigger-sprayers
applications to pets and animals is recommended as surrogate data.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-135
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Aerosol can
Lognormal Probability Plots
Outdoor/Indoor Environments Legend: ¦ = PHED 521
1100
1000
900
800
.Q
700
o) 600
LU
ro
E
(D
Q
500
400
300
200
100
Log Normal Quantile
Outdoor/Indoor Environments Legend: ¦ = PHED 456
1.5 2.0 2.5
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-136
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Available Handler Exposure Studies
Equipment/Application Method: Aerosol can
Table ( -l'>2: A\ailahle1"\posnro Siudj Idenliricalion 1 nlVinn;ilion
Citation
PHED 521
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Five different individuals were monitored on 3 consecutive days while
spraying an entire 16 oz. aerosol can (1% active ingredient) to cracks, crevices, baseboards,
under sinks, and behind appliances in 15 separate houses. Dermal exposure was measured using
gauze patches (both inside and outside normal work clothing) and hand rinses (without chemical-
resistant gloves). Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 1 liter per
minute), cassettes, and tubing. Thirteen of 15 inhalation samples were non-detects (limit of
detection = 1 |~ig per sample). Recoveries from field fortifications of exposure sampling matrices
were generally above 90%.
Table C-I'JJ: Plll-ll) 521 - ( hccklisl ;iihI I so Kecom iiioikI;i I ion
Siud> ( lilciia
1 ApoMII'C ( 'limpiillCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
No
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only dermal exposure data are presented as inhalation
exposure data from this study is not recommended for the purposes of residential handler
exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should
be reviewed for further information.
Table C-I'J4: Plll.l) 521 - Data Sum man
IVrsoii ID
Vnll
(Ills)
1 AposlllV (nim
1 mi 1 Aposiiiv i mu Ih ai i
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
A
u.ul
4.25
--
425
—
A
0.01
2.99
--
299
—
A
0.01
2.88
--
288
—
B
0.01
2.61
--
261
—
B
0.01
4.43
--
443
—
B
0.01
1.42
--
142
—
C
0.01
5.77
--
577
--
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-137
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Aerosol can
Tiihlet -I'M: PIII D52I - l);ii;i Siimmsin
IVrson ID
\aill
(Ills)
1 Aposiiiv (mm
1 mi 1 Aposiiiv i iiiu Ih ai i
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
liilialalkin
C
u.ul
4.01
--
401
—
C
0.01
10.02
--
1002
—
D
0.01
4.24
--
424
—
D
0.01
2.47
--
247
—
D
0.01
2.48
--
248
—
E
0.01
3.47
--
347
—
E
0.01
2.29
--
229
—
E
0.01
2.01
--
201
—
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of exposure during
applications using aerosol cans, the following limitations are noted:
• The study monitored individuals during applications to indoor locations which introduces
uncertainty when using the data to assess applications outdoors.
1 iihlc (-l*>5: l.\|)osiirc Sluilj 1 (IonI(ion liifoniiiilion
Citation
PHED 456
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Three different individuals were monitored during 5 applications while
spraying an entire 16 oz. aerosol can (1% active ingredient) to cracks, crevices, baseboards,
under sinks, and behind appliances in homes. Each application lasted approximately 30 minutes.
Dermal exposure was measured using gauze patches (both inside and outside normal work
clothing) and hand rinses (underneath chemical-resistant gloves). Inhalation exposure was
measured using standard pumps (set at 1 liter per minute), cassettes, and tubing. The average
laboratory recovery values are as follows, 101% with a standard deviation of 3.1% for air filters,
98.8% with a standard deviation of 3.5% for gauze pads, 103% with a standard deviation of 0.9%
for hand washes (200 |ig) and 101% with a standard deviation of 3.5% for hand washes (1000
|ig). Field recoveries of the technical active ingredient are reported for two separate sets of
gauze pads in another propoxur exposure study for method validation. In that study, gauze pads
were spiked with the technical active ingredient at a fortification level of 1.0 |ig. The spiked
pads were exposed to unspecified field conditions for 5 hours. The results of these field
recoveries are as follows: the average recovery for the first set of gauze pads is 101% with a
standard deviation of 3.5%, while for the second set of gauze pads is 84.5% with a standard
deviation of 3.6%.
1 iihlc C-l%: PI 1II) 45(> — ( hocklisl ;iihI I so Kecom iiioikI;i I ion
Siuds ( riieria
1 \poMirc ('onipoiiciii
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-138
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Aerosol can
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only inhalation exposure data are presented as dermal
exposure data from this study is not recommended for the purposes of residential handler
exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should
be reviewed for further information.
1 ahlc ('-I')"7: PI III) 45(i - Dala Siimman
IVi'son II)
Villi
dbsi
1 Apiisiiic (mm
1 ml 1 ApuMirc ( iiiu lb an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
A
0.0094
--
0.042
--
4.52
A
0.0094
--
0.031
--
3.31
A
0.0094
--
0.040
--
4.24
A
0.0094
--
0.027
--
2.88
A
0.0094
--
0.003
--
0.37
B
0.0094
--
0.040
--
4.27
B
0.0094
--
0.034
--
3.67
B
0.0094
--
0.029
--
3.05
B
0.0094
--
0.046
--
4.89
B
0.0094
--
0.021
--
2.29
C
0.0094
--
0.014
--
1.46
C
0.0094
--
0.019
--
2.06
C
0.0094
--
0.022
--
2.34
C
0.0094
--
0.009
--
0.99
C
0.0094
--
0.013
--
1.33
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of exposure during
applications using aerosol cans, the following limitations are noted:
• The study monitored individuals during applications to indoor locations which introduces
uncertainty when using the data to assess applications outdoors.
I al)le (-I'JX: I.\|)osuit SUi(l> ItlonIil'ic;ilion Iiil'orni;ilion
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-139
-------
Formulation: Ready-to-Use (RTU)
Equipment/Application Method: Aerosol can
Citation
Selim, S. (2002) Measurement of Air Concentration, Dermal Exposure, and
Deposition of Pyrethrin and Piperonyl Butoxide Following the Use of an Aerosol
Spray
EPA MRID
46188618
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: One individual performed a total of 4 applications (2 per day) using an
aerosol can to treat a 16 ft. x 16 ft. x 8 ft. room. Each application consisted of holding the can
upright and spraying for approximately 10 seconds in a sweeping motion. It was unclear from
the study report the amount of active ingredient handled per application. Dermal exposure was
measured for hands only, using cotton gloves. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard
pumps (set at 1 liter per minute), cassettes, and tubing. The overall average recoveries ±
standard deviation of laboratory fortified controls for air sampling tubes were 83.5 ± 11.8% and
93.5 ± 12.1 % for PYI (pyrethrin) and PBO (piperonyl butoxide) respectively. The overall
average recoveries ± standard deviation of laboratory fortified controls for cotton gloves were
83.0 ± 12.1% and 87.3 ± 9.52% for PYI (pyrethrin) and PBO (piperonyl butoxide) respectively.
The overall average recoveries ± standard deviation of field fortified controls for air sampling
tubes were 84.9 ± 8.87% for PYI (pyrethrin) and 93.6 ± 6.04% for PBO (piperonyl butoxide),
and 79.6 ± 3.07% for PYI (pyrethrin) and 83.3 ± 6.64% for PBO (piperonyl butoxide) for cotton
gloves.
1 "sihie ( -IV); MRU) 4(>IX(>(>IX - ( heeklisl iiiid I se KecommeiithiIicm
Smd\ ( 1'ilci'ia
1 Apiisuiv ('iimpiiiiciil
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
No
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-140
-------
Formulation: Wettable Powder (WP) Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Scenario Summary
1 "sihie ( -200: Seeiiiiriu Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihle l-'\|>«isnre Studios
Formulation
Wettable Powder (WP)
Equipment/Application Method
Manually-pressurized handwand (also: pump sprayer)
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic
areas), indoors (general broadcast treatments, baseboards, cracks and
crevices)
Available Exposure Studies
Merricks, L. (1987); MRID 40504823
PHED 458
PHED 416
Tsihle C-201: I nil l-Annsures (in»/lh ;ii) - \\ P M ;iiin;ill\-nressn ri/etl M;iii(I\\;iihI Annliciiliuns
Siaiisiic
Dermal
liihalalkin
50th percentile
34
0.63
75 th percentile
76
1.3
95th percentile
240
3.7
99th percentile
540
7.7
99.9th percentile
1300
18
AM(SD)
69 (120)
1.1 (1.67)
GM (GSD)
34 (3.30)
0.63 (2.9)
Range
2-320
0.17-5.1
N
33
16
Dermal Unit Exposure Summary: The recommended dermal unit exposures for applications of
wettable powder pesticide formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand to outdoor and
indoor environments is based on a lognormal distribution fit with exposure monitoring data from
Merricks, L. (1987) [EPAMRID 40504823] and PHED 458. Merricks, L. (1987) monitored 18
applications of a wettable powder formulation in homes and commercial buildings with 2, 1-
gallon "B&G stainless steel PCO sprayers" (i.e., a manually-pressurized handwand). PHED 458
monitored 16 applications of a wettable powder formulation in homes for approximately 1-2.5
hours using a 1-gallon hand compression sprayer. Both available studies were considered
reasonable representations of residential applications for this scenario and the exposure
monitoring allowed for representation of the type of clothing a homeowner or amateur applicator
would wear (i.e., shorts, short-sleeve shirt, no chemical-resistant gloves). As the exposure
results were generally of the same magnitude, the studies were combined as one dataset.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Summary: The recommended inhalation unit exposures for
applications of wettable powder pesticide formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand
to outdoor and indoor environments is based on a lognormal distribution fit with exposure
monitoring data from PHED 458. PHED 458 monitored 16 applications of a wettable powder
formulation in homes for approximately 1-2.5 hours using a 1-gallon hand compression sprayer.
Another available study consisted of non-detect samples, so PHED 458 was selected for use.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-141
-------
Formulation: Wettable Powder (WP) Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Lognormal Probability Plot
Legend: O = PHED 458; X = Merricks. L. (1987)
Log Normal Quantile
Legend: ¦ = PHED 458
Log Normal Quantile
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-142
-------
Formulation: Wettable Powder (WP) Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Available Handler Exposure Studies
1 "sihie ( -202: llxposure Siudj 1 dentil'ic;ilion 1 iiltiriiiiilion
Citation
Merricks, L. (1987). Potential Exposure to Acephate During and After Application of
Orthene PCO Spray Concentrate by Commercial Pest Control Operators
EPA MRID
40504823
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D270363
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Nine different individuals were monitored each at a home and in a
commercial building (for a total of 18 application events) while mixing and applying a liquid
solution (mixed from an acephate wettable powder formulation) using a "B&G stainless steel
PCO sprayer" (i.e., a manually-pressurized handwand). Each applicator mixed 2, 1-gallon
solutions and applied 1 quart to baseboards and cracks and crevices, handling approximately 80
gms of acephate (0.176 lbs). Dermal exposure was measured using gauze patches (both inside
and outside normal work clothing) and cotton gloves for hand exposure. Inhalation exposure
was measured using standard pumps (set at 1 liter per minute), cassettes, and tubing. All but one
inhalation exposure sample was non-detect. The overall acephate recovery from control samples
fortified in the laboratory and analyzed with field samples was 103% for alpha-cellulose, 101%
for gloves, and 96% for polyurethane foam plugs. Overall recovery from laboratory fortified
samples was 107% for gloves, 103% for alpha-cellulose, and 83% for polyurethane foam plugs.
l iihle ( -203: MKII) 40504X23 - Checklist ;iihI I se Recommendation
Smd\ ( iilcria
1 ApoMiic (timpiiiiciil
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
Yes
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
No
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Note that only the dermal exposure data are presented as the inhalation
exposure data are not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself or corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further
information.
Tahlc( -204: MKII) 40504S23 - l)ala Siimman
IVrsoii II)
Villi
( Ills)
1 ApoMII'C ( IIIUI
1 nil 1 Aposiiiv i mu Ih ai i
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
A
0.176
4.88
--
27.7
--
B
0.176
0.39
--
2.2
--
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-143
-------
Formulation: Wettable Powder (WP)
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
I ;il)k'( -2II4: MKII) 40504X23 - l);ii;i Siimniiin
IVrsoii II)
\aill
( Ills)
1 Apiisiiiv (mm
1 nil 1 Aposiiiv i iiiu lb ai i
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
C
U.17t>
2.15
--
12.2
--
D
0.176
3.37
--
19.1
--
E
0.176
2.10
--
12.0
--
F
0.176
15.87
--
90.2
--
G
0.176
16.00
--
90.9
--
H
0.176
3.47
--
19.7
--
I
0.176
3.83
--
21.7
--
A
0.176
55.91
--
317.7
--
B
0.176
0.80
--
4.6
--
C
0.176
3.97
--
22.6
--
D
0.176
4.42
--
25.1
--
E
0.176
1.06
--
6.0
--
F
0.176
6.28
--
35.7
--
G
0.176
3.99
--
22.6
--
H
0.176
2.45
--
13.9
--
I
0.176
4.00
--
22.7
--
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of exposure during
applications using a manually-pressurized handwand to mix, load, and apply wettable powder
formulations, the following limitations are noted:
• The study monitored individuals during applications to indoor locations which introduces
uncertainty when using the data to assess applications outdoors.
• An estimated 90% of (non-hand) dermal exposure measurements were non-detects (1/2
the limit of detection, 0.01 |Lxg per sample was used).
Table (-205: l \|)(isuic Sluilj 1 (IonI(ion liifoniiiilion
Citation
PHED 458
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Three separate individuals were monitored in multiple houses for a total of
16 application events while mixing, loading, and applying a wettable powder formulation (70%
active ingredient) in homes using a 1-gallon hand compression sprayer. Each application ranged
from 1 to 2.5 hours and the applicators handled from 0.1 to 0.25 lbs of active ingredient. Dermal
exposure was measured using gauze patches (both inside and outside normal work clothing) and
hand rinses to measure hand exposure. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps
(set at 1 liter per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Average laboratory recovery values for air
filters were 92.5% with a 5.4% standard deviation, for gauze pads 108% with a 3.6% standard
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-144
-------
Formulation: Wettable Powder (WP)
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
deviation, for hand washes (200 |ig) 99.2% with a 0.5% standard deviation, and for hand washes
(1,000 |ig) 97.3%) with a 0.8%> standard deviation. Field recovery experiments were not
performed for this specific study. The registrant assumed that the indoor laboratory conditions
were similar to the indoor environmental conditions of the study houses. However, temperature
and humidity were not reported for the laboratory or the study houses to allow comparison of the
indoor environments. Furthermore, the study report does not specify the length of time the gauze
pads and hand rinse solutions were exposed to the laboratory conditions.
Table ( -20(i: I'lll.l) 45S — ( hocklisl ;iihI I so Kecom iiioikI;i I ion
Siinl\ ( rilciia
1 ApoMII'C ( 'limpiillCMl
Dermal
Inhalation
Does the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
No
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
Yes
Yes
Data Summary: The following table summarizes pertinent exposure information from the
above referenced study. Both dermal and inhalation exposure are included since both are
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself or
corresponding analytical spreadsheets should be reviewed for further information.
Table ( -207; |>|11 1) 45S - Dala Siimman
IVi'son II)
Vnll
(Ills)
1 Aposniv (mm
1 ml 1 ApoMiiv i iiiu Ih an
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
A
0.09
17.78
0.296
198
3.29
A
0.08
23.82
0.413
298
5.16
A
0.13
31.63
0.306
243
2.35
A
0.09
17.75
0.035
197
0.39
B
0.16
14.09
0.251
88
1.57
B
0.09
5.17
0.132
57
1.47
B
0.22
5.94
0.083
27
0.38
B
0.22
9.49
0.071
43
0.32
B
0.24
26.21
0.095
109
0.40
B
0.13
8.52
0.135
66
1.04
C
0.11
1.94
0.022
18
0.20
C
0.09
2.39
0.038
27
0.42
C
0.13
3.48
0.032
27
0.25
C
0.11
2.02
0.022
18
0.20
C
0.13
2.35
0.023
18
0.18
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 Representative of individuals wearing a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, shoes, socks and no chemical-resistant
gloves.
3 Inhalation exposure (mg) = mg collected/pump flow rate (Lpm) * Breathing Rate (16.7 Lpm).
4 Unit Exposure = Expo sure/AaiH.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-145
-------
Formulation: Wettable Powder (WP)
Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Limitations: Though the above referenced study is useful for assessment of exposure during
applications using a manually-pressurized handwand to mix, load, and apply wettable powder
formulations, the following limitations are noted:
• The study monitored individuals during applications to indoor locations which introduces
uncertainty when using the data to assess applications outdoors.
• The individuals monitored wore chemical-resistant gloves; therefore back-calculation
using a standard penetration factor of 90% was required.
Tahle (-20X: I'Aposiiiv Slud> 1 don I (ion Informalion
Citation
PHED416
EPA MRID
NA
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
none
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Four individuals were monitored while spraying greenhouse ornamentals
using a hand pump sprayer - the loading and mixing of the wettable powder formulation into the
sprayer tank was monitored separately. Each application lasted approximately 1 hour and
consisted of spraying approximately 12 tank loads (3 gallons each) and handling approximately
1.2 lbs of active ingredient. Dermal exposure was measured using gauze patches (outside and
underneath long-sleeve shirt and long pants) and hand rinses. All workers wore chemical-
resistant gloves. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per
minute), cassettes, and tubing. Mean laboratory control and spiked samples for handwash
solutions, gauze pads, and air filters are 85.4%, 97.7%, and 119.3%, respectively. The average
recovery for field spike samples for handwash solutions, gauze pads, and air filters were 89.4%,
96.8%), and 104.5%) respectively.
Tahle C-20'): I'll 111) 4H> - Checklisl and I so Kecoin iiioikI;i 1 ion lor
Suid\ ( 1'ilci'ia
1 Aposnic ('tmipoiiciil
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
Yes
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
Yes
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-146
-------
Formulation: Wettable Powder (WP) Equipment/Application Method: Manually-pressurized handwand
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-147
-------
Formulation: Wettable Powder (WP) Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
Scenario Summary
1 "sihie ( -210: Seeiiiiriu Description ;iihI A\;iil;ihle l-'\|>«isnre Studios
Formulation
Wettable Powder (WP)
Equipment/Application Method
Backpack sprayer
Application Site(s)
outdoors (lawns, gardens, trees/bushes, perimeter, mounds/nests, aquatic
areas), indoors (general broadcast treatments, baseboards, cracks and crevices)
Find lay. ML (1998); MRID 44493001
Tiihle ( -211: I nil l-Anosures ini^/lh ;ii) - \\ P l$;ieki>;iek Snr;i\er Annliciiliuns
SialMic
Dermal
Inhalation
50th percentile
Studies measuring exposure while mixing/loading/applying wettable powder
formulations using a backpack sprayer are available, but not recommended for
residential handler exposure assessment. Therefore, the exposure studies
recommended for mixing/loading/applying wettable powder formulations
using a manually-pressurized handwand should be used as a surrogate.
75 th percentile
95th percentile
99th percentile
99.9th percentile
AM(SD)
GM (GSD)
Range
N
Dermal Unit Exposure Summary: Dermal exposure monitoring data for applications of wettable
powder formulations using backpack sprayer is available but not recommended for use in
residential exposure assessments; dermal unit exposures for applications of wettable powder
pesticide formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand are recommended as surrogate
data.
Inhalation Unit Exposure Summary: Inhalation exposure monitoring data for applications of
wettable powder formulations using backpack sprayer is available but not recommended for use
in residential exposure assessments; inhalation unit exposures for applications of wettable
powder pesticide formulations using a manually-pressurized handwand are recommended as
surrogate data.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-148
-------
Formulation: Wettable Powder (WP) Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
Available Handler Exposure Studies
1 iihlc (-212: r.\|)osuiv Sluilj 1 (IonI(ion Inl'ormalion
Citation
Findlay, M.L. (1998). Diquat: Worker Exposure During Mixing, Loading and
Application of Reglone® with Knapsack Sprayers
EPA MRID
44493001
ORETF Code
NA
EPA Review
D222970
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
Study Description: Four different workers were monitored on 5 different days while mixing,
loading, and applying a wettable powder formulation (36.4% diquat) to banana plantations in
Guatemala using backpack sprayers. Each application was approximately 6 hours and consisted
of handling approximately 0.77 lbs diquat. Dermal exposure was measured using whole body
dosimetry (the dosimeter served as the workers actual clothing; exposure representative of "no
clothing") and hand washes underneath chemical-resistant gloves. Inhalation exposure was
measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liters per minute), cassettes, and tubing. Laboratory
fortified samples of cotton material with a fortification level of 25 |ig/sample had a range of
recovery (%) of 90-110, and a mean ± SD of recovery (%) of 99.4 ± 8.0; with a fortification level
of 250 |ig/sample had a range of recovery (%) of 70-99, and a mean ± SD of Recovery (%) of
89.8 ± 9.8. Samples of handwash solution with a fortification level of 10 |ig/sample had a range
of recovery (%) of 84-95, and a mean ± SD of recovery (%) of 90.7% ± 5.9; with a fortification
level of 100 |ig/sample had a range of recovery (%) of 82-105, and a mean ± SD of recovery (%)
of 96.0 ± 9.4. Samples of air filters with a fortification level of 1.25 |ig/sample had a range of
recovery (%) of 98-98, and a mean ± SD of recovery (%) of 98.0 ±0; with a fortification level of
12.5 |ig/sample had a range of recovery (%) of 90-104 and a mean ± SD of recovery (%) of 98.0
± 7.2. The mean recovery of diquat from the clothing and handwash was 69% and 68%,
respectively. On day one, the recovery of diquat from the clothing and handwash was 90% and
89%), and on day 2 the recovery was 80% and 125%, respectively. On days 3, 4, and 5, the
recoveries were low at 59%, 56%, and 61%, respectively fro the clothing, and 54%, 45%, and
29%), respectively, for the handwash. The mean recovery of diquat from glass fibre filters
prepared under field conditions was 77% and ranged from 70 - 81%.
1 "sihie ( -213: MRU) 444'>3001 - Cheeklisl iiiid I se Kccommendalion
Siud\ ( 1'ilci'ia
1 ApoMiic ( ompoiieiil
Dermal
Inhalation
1 )oes the study provide detailed characteristics on the activity, equipment type,
and amount of active ingredient handled?
Yes
Does dermal exposure monitoring allow for construction of an exposure
estimate for individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, shoes, socks?
No
NA
Was exposure to the hands representative of bare hands?
No
NA
Was the study intended to simulate "residential" exposure via the scripted
activity, amount of active ingredient handled, volunteers used, or the setting?
No
Is the data of reasonable quality (i.e., are field fortification and laboratory
recovery samples adequate)?
No
Yes
Should this study be recommended for use in residential handler exposure
assessments?
No
No
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-149
-------
Formulation: Wettable Powder (WP)
Equipment/Application Method: Backpack sprayer
Data Summary: A summary of the data from this study is not provided since it is not
recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The submitted study itself
should be reviewed for further information.
Limitations: Any data limitations associated with the exposure data in this study are not
provided since it is not recommended for use in residential handler exposure assessment. The
submitted study itself should be reviewed for further information.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-150
-------
Appendix C
C.2 Exposure Factors Used to Calculate Amount of Active Ingredient
Handled
C.2.1 Gardens and Trees
Limited information is available for estimating the amount of active ingredient an individual will
handle during a pesticide application. Additionally, this factor is likely highly chemical- and
product-specific due to the both the application instructions and efficacy of the chemical.
Nevertheless, in the absence of chemical- and/or product-specific information, generic
information can be useful to enable an exposure assessment.
In the case of gardens and trees, both garden size and amount of volume sprayed can be used
generically to estimate the amount of active ingredient handled.
C.2.1.1 Garden Size
For application rates in terms of area (e.g., 2 lbs active ingredient per 1000 square feet), the size
of a garden can be used to estimate the amount of active ingredient handled per application. The
table below summarizes the results of a survey (Johnson, et al., 1999) which included responses
to a question regarding garden size.
Tahle ( -214: Home C>;irtlon Si/e (I'ri
N
(" ii response I
< 250
250 - "74«J
"'50 - 23«)y
> 2400
DNK
3o4
5o.2
13.2
6.9
0.2
17.5
DNK = did not know
Source: Johnson, et al., 1999. National Gardening Association Survey (EPA MRID 44972202)
Because the actual responses are unavailable, the percent response values in the table above were
adjusted based on the % "did not know" response (17.5%) and used as cumulative percentiles
shown in the table below:
Tahle ( -215: Home Carden Si/e (I'ri
("ii response)
< 250
250 - ¦'4')
"750 - 23')')
> 2400
Reported % response
56.2
13.2
6.9
6.2
Adjusted % response1
68.1
16.0
8.4
7.5
Cumulative %tile
68.1
84.1
92.5
7.5
Standard Normal Score
0.471
0.999
1.44
NA
1 Reported % response adjusted for 17.5% DNK response
The data were then fit to a lognormal distribution shown in the probability plot below:
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-151
-------
Appendix C
Garden Size (ft2)
Lognormal Probability Plot
Standard Normal Score
Summary statistics based on the above distribution area provided in the table below.
Table C-216: Statistical Summary - Garden Size (ft2)
50th percentile
80
75th percentile
385
90th percentile
1583
95th percentile
3690
99th percentile
18043
99.9th percentile
106887
AM(SD)
1205 (18109)
GM (GSD)
80(10.3)
Range
unknown
N
364
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
C.2.1.2 Hose-end Sprayer Application Volumes
An estimate for the amount of spray solution volume sprayed is necessary if the application rate
is used in terms of active ingredient per volume solution. Such a rate would be used for spraying
trees where an "area-based" approach would not be appropriate or useful. However, this factor
is likely application method-specific (i.e., one might apply more solution using a hose-end
sprayer than a sprinkler can) and explicit information on volumes sprayed in home applications
is unavailable.
For hose-end sprayers, application volume was derived from a study measuring exposure during
applications of liquid formulations to fruit trees and ornamental shrubs using a hose-end sprayer
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-152
-------
Appendix C
(Merricks, 1998). For application rates in terms of active ingredient per volume (e.g., 0.1 lbs
active ingredient per gallon spray solution), typically appropriate for assessing spray applications
to trees and shrubs, estimates for volume of solution sprayed are derived from EPA MRID
44518501 where individuals sprayed ornamental citrus trees and shrubs using a hose-end sprayer
and manually-pressurized-pressure handwand. Volumes sprayed for the hose-end sprayer were
calculated using the study-specified water flow rate of 3 gallons per minute. Each application
ranged from 2 to 7 minutes resulting in a range of spray volumes from 6 to 21 gallons. The table
below provides a summary of the relevant information.
T;il>lc ( -2I"7: Application Volume Summ;ir\ from I1PA MRU) 4451X501
AppliciKor II)
Application Time
(ininuk'N)
How I'iilo
(liiillons/niinutc)
Application \oluinc
(pillions)
A
3
3
9
B
4
3
12
C
6
3
18
D
5
3
15
E
2
3
6
F
3
3
9
G
2
3
6
H
2
3
6
I
2
3
6
J
2
3
6
K
2
3
6
L
4
3
12
M
4
3
12
N
7
3
21
0
6
3
18
P
2
3
6
Q
5
3
15
R
3
3
9
S
6
3
18
T
2
3
6
The data were fit to a normal distribution shown in the probability plot below.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-153
-------
Appendix C
Application Volume (gallons)
Normal Probability Plot
26
1 I I I I I I I I I
-2.50 -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Standard Normal Score
Summary statistics for application volume are presented in the table below.
Table C-218: Statistical Summary - Hose-end Sprayer Application Volume (gallons)
50th percentile
11
75th percentile
14
90th percentile
17
95th percentile
19
99th percentile
22
99.9th percentile
26
AM(SD)
11(5.1)
GM (GSD)
10(1.57)
Range
6-21
N
20
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
For all other applications, reliable information on the amount of product used is unavailable. For
manually-pressurized handwands, backpacks, and sprinkler cans a uniform distribution of 2 to 5
gallons is recommended. For aerosol cans and trigger-sprayers a uniform distribution of 0.5 to 2
cans/containers is recommended.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
C-154
-------
Appendix D
Appendix D Supporting Data Analysis and Documentation for
Residential Post-Application Exposure Assessment
D.l Indoor Fogger Settling Time
For indoor foggers, post-application inhalation exposure is not anticipated because the fogger
labels typically require re-entry restrictions. If necessary, the time needed for particle settling
can be calculated using Stokes law. The settling velocity (in m/s) is calculated as a function of
3 2
the droplet diameter (m), the particle density (kg/m ), the gravity constant (m/s ) and the
viscosity of air (kg/m-s). Information provided by manufacturers indicates that the particle size
distribution for most total release foggers ranges from 15 micrometers (|J,m) to 60 |j,m.
According to calculations of settling time versus droplet size, it will take 2 hours for a 15
micrometer particle to settle and 8 minutes for a 60 micrometer particle to settle from an eight-
foot ceiling height, assuming 1% non-volatile ingredients. This calculation is based on the
assumption that a 15 micrometer droplet will decrease to a 3 micrometer nuclei and a 60
micrometer droplet will decrease to a 13 micrometer nuclei due to evaporation.
1 ;ihlo D-l: Dmpk'l DhiimMcr A Tier l.\;i|)or;ilion (i.e.. nuclei (IhiiiKMcr)
Drop Diameter
(l-Llll)
Drop Radius
(1.1111)"
% Non-
volatile*1'
Drop Volume
(|.L111",)C
Nuclei Volume
(|LLm')''
Nuclei Radius
(lull)0
Nuclei Diameter
(Hiii)1
1
0.5
1%
1
0.01
0.11
0.22
5
2.5
1%
65
1
1
1
10
5
1%
523
5
1
2
15
7.5
1%
1766
18
2
3
20
10
1%
4187
42
2
4
30
15
1%
14130
141
3
6
40
20
1%
33493
335
4
9
50
25
1%
65417
654
5
11
60
30
1%
113040
1130
6
13
70
35
1%
179503
1795
8
15
80
40
1%
267947
2679
9
17
90
45
1%
381510
3815
10
19
100
50
1%
523333
5233
11
22
a. Drop radius = drop diameter / 2
b. Nuclei = non-volatile portion of droplet; assume percent non-volatiles of pesticide particle = 1%
c. Volume of sphere = 4/3 * n * (rA3)
d. Nuclei volume = drop volume * percent non-volatiles
e. Nuclei radius = (nuclei volume / (1.33 * k ))/X).333
f. Nuclei diameter = nuclei radius * 2
l iihlo l)-2: Sclllinu 1 imo
1 )rop
Diameter
(l-ini)
Nuclei Diameter
Density of
particles
(kg/nv')1'
Gravity
constant
(m/s:)
Viscosity
of air
(kg/m-s
a 25°C")
Settling
Velocity
(m/s)1'
Settling lime
(Release 1 Ieidit = 8 feet)
Hiii
m"
Seconds
d
Minutes0
1 lours1
1
0.22
2.2E-07
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
1.4E-06
178249
4
29708
495
5
1.08
1.1E-06
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
3.4E-05
71530
1192
20
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-l
-------
Appendix D
l ;il)lo l)-2: Solllinu Tiinc
1 )rop
Diameter
(|.im)
Nuclei Diameter
Density of
particles
(kg/iiv')1'
Gravity
constant
(m/s:)
Viscosity
of air
(kg/m-s
a 25"C)
Settling
Velocity
(m/s)1'
Settling Time
(Release 1 Ieidit = 8 feet)
J.L111
m'1
Seconds
d
Minutes0
1 lours1
10
2.16
2.2E-06
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
1.4E-04
17907
298
5
15
3.23
3.2E-06
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
3.1E-04
7965
133
2
20
4.31
4.3E-06
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
5.4E-04
4483
75
1
30
6.46
6.5E-06
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
1.2E-03
1994
33
1
40
8.61
8.6E-06
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
2.2E-03
1122
19
0.3
50
10.76
1.1E-05
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
3.4E-03
719
12
0.2
60
12.91
1.3E-05
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
4.9E-03
499
8
0.14
70
15.06
1.5E-05
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
6.6E-03
367
6
0.10
80
17.21
1.7E-05
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
8.7E-03
281
5
0.08
90
19.36
1.9E-05
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
1.1E-02
222
4
0.06
100
21.51
2.2E-05
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
1.4E-02
180
3
0.05
150
32.25
3.2E-05
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
3.0E-02
80
1
0.02
200
42.99
4.3E-05
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
5.4E-02
45
1
0.013
300
64.46
6.4E-05
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
1.2E-01
20
0.3
0.006
400
85.93
8.6E-05
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
2.2E-01
11
0.2
0.003
500
107.38
1.1E-04
1000
9.807
1.86E-05
3.4E-01
7
0.1
0.002
a. 1 (am = 1 x 10"6 m
b. Assumption based on literature search: (1) Bennett and Furtaw. 2004. Fugacity-Based Indoor Residential Pesticide Fate Model.
Environmental Science & Technology, 38 (7): 2142-2152. (2) Lai and Nazaroff. 2000. Modeling Indoor Particle Deposition from
Turbulent Flow onto Smooth Surfaces. J. Aerosol Sci. 31 (4): 463-476. (3) Riley et al. 2002. Indoor Particulate Matter of Outdoor
Origin: Importance of Size-Dependent Removal Mechanisms. 36:200-207.
c. Settling velocity (m/s) = [(density of particle, kg/m3) * (nuclei diameter, m)2 * (gravity constant, m/s2)] / [18 * (viscosity of air,
kg/m-s)]
d. Settling time from height of 8 feet in seconds = [8 ft * (0.3048 m/ft)] * (settling velocity, m/s)
e. Settling time in minutes = settling time in seconds / 60
f. Settling time in hours = settling time in minutes / 60
D.2 Background on Multi-Chamber Concentration and Exposure Model
(MCCEM)
Indoor air concentrations can be calculated using a computer model, Multi- Chamber
Concentration and Exposure Model {MCCEM). MCCEM is a model that is capable of
calculating indoor air concentrations for various exposure durations. MCCEM contains a
database of various default house data, such as air exchange rates, geographically based inter-
room air flows, and house/room volumes. Unique house specifications may also be created
according to the scenario being assessed.
Chemical source emission rates of pollutants are entered into the model and MCCEM can
account for removal processes and the contribution of outdoor concentrations. The model is also
capable of performing sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo analyses. However, because this
SOP is focused on high-end assessments, only the aspects of MCCEM determined to produce
high end results are addressed herein. The essential aspects of MCCEM that must be defined to
complete a high-end assessment include the following:
• type of house (selection based on number of stories and house volume),
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-2
-------
Appendix D
• definition of zones for selected house (single or multi-zone up to 4 indoor zones),
• selection of model (run time and reporting intervals),
• selection/calculation of appropriate emission rate inputs for chemical/product, and
• selection of removal processes for the chemical/product (presence of sinks).
Input parameters can be adjusted according to scenarios unique to specific assessments, however,
Table D-3 includes MCCEM parameters that are appropriate for a high-end calculation. MCCEM
requires further input to operate the model.
Tabic D-3: High-end Scenario Guidance for MCCEM
Use Scenario
House Selection
(GN001)
Chamber
Type
(Number
Zones)b
Durationc (days)
Emissions Parametersd
MCCEM
Decay
Ratee
House
Type/
Season
Air
Exchange
Ratea
(xch/hr)
Run
Time
(days)
Time Steps
(hours)
Type
Rate
Acute
Chronic
Total Release
Aerosolf
Generic/
Summer
0.18
Multi (2)
90
1
24
Instant
Release
Total/hr
0
Indoor Space
Spraysf
Generic/
Summer
0.18
Multi (2)
90
1
24
Instant
Release
Total/h
0
Broadcast
Generic/
Summer
0.18
Multi (2)
90
1
24
Chinn
Evaporation
Chinn
Rate
0
Perimeter
Generic/
Summer
0.18
Multi (2)
90
1
24
Chinn
Evaporation
Chinn
Rate
0
Crack and
Crevice
Generic/
Summer
0.18
Single(1)
90
1
24
Chinn
Evaporation
Chinn
Rate
0
Termiticides
Generic/
Summer
0.18
Single(1)
365
Chinn
Evaporation
Chinn
Rate
0
Carpet Dusting
Generic/
Summer
0.18
Multi (2)
90
1
24
Chinn
Evaporation
Chinn
Rate
0
a. The value of 0.18 ACH corresponds to the 10th percentile of the estimated national distribution for residential air exchange rates. (U.S. EPA
2011).
b. Chamber type is reflected in the house selection and must correlate with the Execution Mode (Step 8).
c. Duration refers to the length of time that the chemical exposure concentration is modeled, as well as the time steps for recording the
calculated exposure concentration.
d. Instant release represents when a chemical is "thrown up" in the air of a residence as an aerosol immediately — less than 1 hour; Chinn
Evaporation is when a pesticide offgasses from the treated surfaces for several weeks; See Step 3 and the associated Figure D-l below for
details concerning the calculation of Chinn release emission rates.
e. Decay rate is chemical specific. For high-end estimates the chemical is considered non-reactive.
f. These two use scenarios include the use of aerosol sprays for which this model may be an overestimation of air concentrations.
Step-by-step procedures for completing a high-end assessment using MCCEM Version 1.2 are
presented below.
Step 1: House Tab: Select the "Generic House" (House Code: GN001) option within the
Residence Type section. This provides a conservative air exchange rate of 0.18
ACH.
Step 2: Run Time: The long-term model is appropriate for all high-end assessments. For
the purposes of this SOP, 1-hour steps should be used for an acute endpoint while
a 24-hour step should be used for a longer-term endpoint.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-3
-------
Appendix D
Step 3: Emission Rate & Exposure Zone Inputs: For the high-end assessment
requirement, select "Constant" as the source model definition. Two emission
mechanisms may be inputted for the constant emissions rate:
¦ For instant release scenarios, the emissions rate is calculated as the mass
of product released per hour.
¦ For the Chinn type or long-term emission (e.g., offgassing from treated
surfaces for several weeks), the emission rate is calculated based on an
empirical relationship between evaporation time, vapor pressure, and
molecular weight (Chinn, 1981). The equations used to calculate a Chinn
Type emission rate and an example calculation are presented in Figure D-
1.
Step 4: Sinks: No inputs are entered in this field. Unless information regarding the
absorption rate and sink area for reversible and/or irreversible sinks are available
to characterize the sink, the chemical is considered to be nonreactive.
Step 5: Activities: No contributions of occupant activities or breathing rates are entered.
Step 6: Dose: Dose is not calculated for high end estimates for the purposes of this SOP.
No values are inputted.
Step 7: Monte Carlo Options: Ensure that "Apply Model Once" and "Randomly Select
Seed" are selected. Monte Carlo Assessments are not conducted for the purpose
of a high-end assessment.
Step 8: Options: Ensure that "Use Interzonal Airflow Rates Provided" ("Single Chamber
Model" may be run if the application is throughout all rooms in the house) and the
appropriate "Output Concentration Units" are selected. Unless initial
concentration data exists, input parameters should be "0".
Step 9: Execute the Model: Run the model and save the output and data (.csv) files for
review purposes.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-4
-------
Appendix D
Figure D-l: Calculation of Chinn Release Emission Rates
Calculate the mass of active ingredient applied (m) in grams during a single application
event. Next calculate the Chinn Evaporation time using the following formula (Chinn,
1981):
d= 145
/ j. \0.9546
[mw * vp)
where:
d
mw
vp
= Chinn evaporation time (hr);
= molecular weight of pesticide active ingredient (unitless); and
= vapor pressure (torr).
Finally, calculate the emission rate (g/hr) using the following formula
Example:
mw
er =
d
3 gallons of solution containing 500 grams of ai with a vapor pressure of 5x10~4 torr and a
molecular weight of 500 are applied in a typical crack-and-crevice scenario, then:
d = ——r = 545hours
(500*5*1CT4)
and
500 a qi
er = = 0.91 —
545 hour
Selection of the proper air concentration value (ACt) from MCCEM to be used in the exposure
assessment depends on the inhalation toxicological endpoint (i.e., acute or chronic). The
"average concentration in the Zone 1" is selected for an acute endpoint. This value is used even
if a multi-chamber model run is completed because Zone 1 will have slightly higher
concentration values as it will always be designated as the release zone. If the endpoint is
chronic, the "Time-Weighted-Average (TWA)" value is selected for Zone 1.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-5
-------
Appendix D
D.3 Background on Well-Mixed Box Model
D.3.1 Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems - Aerosol Spray Area Foggers
The well-mixed box (WMB) model was used to develop the exposure equation (5.5) for the
aerosol spray area foggers post-application inhalation scenario. The WMB was used to model
pesticide air concentrations within an enclosed, fixed volume (i.e. a box) over time after an initial
aerosol spray application of an area fogger. The WMB model incorporates a number of
simplifying assumptions: fresh air (having zero pesticide concentration) enters the box at a
constant airflow rate, a turbulent internal airflow thoroughly mixes the fresh air with the
pesticide-laden air resulting in a uniform pesticide air concentration within the box, and the
perfectly mixed air exits the box at the same constant airflow rate (i.e. the inflow rate equals the
outflow rate). Thus the outdoor area where the aerosol is being applied is assumed to be in an
enclosed box, therefore, using the WMB model is conservative for estimation of exposures for an
open patio or deck.
The removal of the aerosol from the box depends on airflow. For an outdoor scenario, the
airflow, Q, is the product of the cross-sectional area and the wind velocity. The WMB model
developed for this scenario models the pesticide air concentrations after an initial, instantaneous
release of an aerosol spray area repellant. Only dissipation due to airflow into and out of the box
is modeled. The mass balance within the box can be described by the following differential
equation:
V— = -Q-C
dt
dC Q J
— = -—dt
C V
where C is the air concentration, Q is the airflow (the product of the cross-sectional area of the
box and the wind speed), and V is the volume of the box. Integrating the differential equation
and simplifying and combining terms yields an equation describing the air concentration over
time.
J c JV
ln(C) = ——t + a
V
Q
1 fr~>\ t+a
eln(C) = e v
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-6
-------
Appendix D
where A = ea is a constant whose value is determined by the initial condition that at time t = 0,
the pesticide air concentration is equal to initial air concentration, i.e. C(0) = Co. Based on this
initial constraint, the WMB model described above for modeling pesticide air concentrations
over time can be written as follows:
C(t) = C0e^ (D1)
where C(t) is the air concentration at time t, Co is the initial air concentration (i.e. concentration
at time t=0), Q is the airflow (the product of the cross-sectional area of the box and the wind
speed), and V is the volume of the box. The air concentration equation (D. 1) is then used to
calculate the exposure, E:
ET
E = m\ C(t)dt (D 2)
0
The exposure, E is based on integrating equation (D. 1) over the exposure time, ET which is then
multiplied by an inhalation rate, IR. The final exposure equation is derived from equation (D.2)
by performing the integration and simplifying terms.
ET
E = mjc0
-Qt
>, v dt
E = IR-Cr
0/
, V
-m
E
IR-Cr
y/Vy
/
0/
-Q(et)
\-e v
(D 3)
-S-ET
The term e v in equation (D.3) represents the fraction of the initial concentration, Co present
in the treated area at the end of the exposure time, ET. To the extent that the pesticide rapidly
dissipates, this term will rapidly approach zero. For this scenario, the assumed volume of the
3 3
outdoor treated space is 20 x 20 x 8 ft and the minimum flow rate is 52.5 ft /sec, which based
2 2
on the minimum air velocity of 0.1 m/s and the cross sectional area of 20 x 8 ft (-15 m ) from
Table 5-3. Given these values for V and Q, one can determine the time after which the term
e 1 would be less than 0.001 (i.e. the time after which less than 0.1% of the original
concentration remains).
V = 20ftx20ft x8ft; Q = (20 ftx8ft) x0.1^x3.28-^/
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-7
-------
Appendix D
-e^mto.ooQ^-1"'0-00"^
Q
e v =0.001
V Q
ln(0.00l)x(20 fix 20 ftxSfi) .
t = ^ ' v ¦' J- J-J-r = 421 sec = 7.02 mm
(20fix?,ft) x0.\m/x3.28*5
s / m
The above calculation demonstrates that after an exposure time of about 7 minutes, less than
0.1% of the initial concentration would be left in the treated space. This implies that the released
pesticide fog would be almost completely dissipated for any significant exposure time.
-S-ET _
Therefore the term e v in equation (D.3) approaches zero very quickly, and the exposure
equation can be simplified to:
„ IR-C0
E=-q/- (D.4)
/V
The initial concentration, Co, can be replaced by the term application rate, AR (which is
specified to have units mg-AI/day for this scenario) divided by V, the volume of the treated
space. Thus equation (D.4) can be rewritten as:
IR-arA
E-
Q/
/V
After canceling out the volume terms, the final exposure equation can be expressed as:
E=IR'AR (D.5)
0
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-8
-------
Appendix D
D.3.2 Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems - Candles, Coils, Torches, and
Mats (CCTM)
The well-mixed box (WMB) model was used to develop exposure equation (5.12) for the
candles, coils, torches, and mats (CCTM) post-application inhalation scenario. The CCTM
scenario differs from the other exposure scenarios in this Outdoor Fogging/Misting System SOP
section in that the WMB model includes a constant emission rate term during the exposure time
and thus results in a more complicated exposure equation. The WMB was used to model
pesticide air concentrations within an enclosed, fixed volume (i.e. a box) over time during the
constant emission of a pesticide from a CCTM product. The WMB model incorporates a number
of simplifying assumptions: fresh air (having zero pesticide concentration) enters the box at a
constant airflow rate, a turbulent internal airflow thoroughly mixes the fresh air with the
pesticide-laden air resulting in a uniform pesticide air concentration within the box, and the
perfectly mixed air exits the box at the same constant airflow rate (i.e. the inflow rate equals the
outflow rate). Thus the outdoor area where the aerosol is being applied is assumed to be in an
enclosed box, therefore, using the WMB model is conservative for estimation of exposures for an
open patio or deck.
The removal of the CCTM emission from the box depends on airflow. For an outdoor scenario,
the airflow, Q is the product of the cross-sectional area and the wind velocity. The WMB model
developed for this scenario models the pesticide air concentrations during a constant emission of
pesticide from a CCTM product. Only constant emission and dissipation due to airflow into and
out of the box is modeled. The mass balance within the box can be described by the following
differential equation:
V— = Vf-ER-Q-C
dt E ^
dc _ve-er q c
dt V V'
where C is the air concentration, VE is the vaporization efficiency, ER is the emission rate, Q is
the airflow (the product of the cross-sectional area of the box and the wind speed), and V is the
volume of the box. Based on the method of undetermined coefficients, the solution to this
differential equation has the form:
v,-er
C( ')=—% A-?
V
VE -ER .
C(t) = — A-e v
Q
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-9
-------
Appendix D
where A is a constant whose value is determined by the initial condition that at time t = 0, the
pesticide air concentration is equal to zero, i.e. C(0) = 0. Based on this initial constraint, the
equation describing the air concentration over time can be written as:
. V.-ER V.-ER ,
C(t) =S- -g—e
Based on the WMB model described above, which is very similar to the box model described by
Fan and Zhang (2001), the equation for modeling pesticide air concentrations over time is as
follows:
C(t) =
v„-er(
\-e K
0
(D 7)
where C(t) is the air concentration at time t, Ve is the vaporization efficiency, ER is the
emission rate, Q is the airflow (the product of the cross-sectional area of the box and the wind
speed), and V is the volume of the box. The air concentration equation is then used to calculate
the exposure, E, which is based on integrating equation (D.7) over the exposure time, ET which
is then multiplied by an inhalation rate, IR:
ET
E = m\ C(t)dt
(D 8)
The final exposure equation is derived from equation (D.8) by performing the integration and
simplifying terms.
ET
V.-ER
E = IR
o 0
l-e~yt
dt
E =
IR-Ve-ER
Q
ET( Q \
-—t
\-e v
v
dt
E =
IR-VE-EREr . Er
E =
E =
Q
IR-Vr,- ER
11 dt- je v dt
Q
IR-Vp- ER
0 0
(ET- 0)-
( T/V JL(et) —(o)^
V /
e r -e F
0
ET-
\-e v
(D 9)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-10
-------
Appendix D
-Qet
As in equation (D.3), the term e v in equation (D.9) is less than one and approaches zero as
exposure time, ET increases. To the extent that the pesticide air concentration rapidly
approaches steady state, this term will rapidly approach zero. For this scenario, the assumed
volume of the outdoor treated space is 15 x 15 x 8 ft3 and the minimum flow rate is 39.4 ft3/sec,
which is based on the minimum air velocity of 0.1 m/s and the cross sectional area of 15 x 8 ft
(-11 m2) from Table 5-4. Given these values for V and Q, one can determine the time after
which the term e r would be less than 0.001 (i.e. the time after which the air concentration
is 99.9% of the steady-state value).
V = l5ftxl5ftx8ft; Q = (\5ftxSft) x0.1^x3.28-^/
-2,
F - 0.001 => -Q-t = ln(0.00l) =>t = - ln(Q QQ1)x V
V Q
ln(0.00l)x(l5// x\5ft x&ft)
t = ^ ' v ¦' J- j-J-t = 316 sec = 5.27 mm
(l5_/?x8ft) x0.\m/x3.28"/
s / m
The above calculation demonstrates that after an exposure time of less than 6 minutes, the air
concentration would be more than 99.9% of the steady-state value in the treated space. This
implies that the air flow would practically cease to dissipate the pesticide after any significant
-S-ET
exposure time. Therefore the term e ' in equation (D.9) approaches zero very quickly.
Thus the final exposure equation can be simplified to:
E =
IR-Ve-ER
f
ET- —
Q I 2.
(D.10)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-ll
-------
Appendix D
D.3.3 Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems - Outdoor Residential Misting
Systems (ORMS)
The well-mixed box (WMB) model was used to develop exposure equation (5.19) for the
22
outdoor residential misting systems (ORMS) post-application inhalation scenario . The WMB
model incorporates a number of simplifying assumptions: fresh air (having zero pesticide
concentration) enters the box at a constant airflow rate, a turbulent internal airflow thoroughly
mixes the fresh air with the pesticide-laden air resulting in a uniform pesticide air concentration
within the box, and the perfectly mixed air exits the box at the same constant airflow rate (i.e. the
inflow rate equals the outflow rate). Thus the outdoor area where the aerosol is being applied is
assumed to be in an enclosed box, therefore, using the WMB model is conservative for
estimation of exposures for an open patio, deck, or yard. Also, this scenario assumes
instantaneous spray releases, that is, the total amount of aerosol released at each spray event is
modeled to occur instantaneously.
The removal of the pesticide from the box depends on airflow. For an outdoor scenario, the
airflow, Q is the product of the cross-sectional area and the wind velocity. The WMB model
developed for this scenario models the pesticide air concentrations after multiple instantaneous
23
aerosol spray releases at regular time intervals . Only dissipation due to airflow into and out of
the box is modeled. The mass balance within the box can be described by the following
differential equation:
V— = -Q-C
dt
dC Q ,
— = -—dt
C V
where C is the air concentration, Q is the airflow (the product of the cross-sectional area of the
box and the wind speed), and V is the volume of the box. Integrating the differential equation
and simplifying and combining terms yields an equation describing the air concentration over
time.
J c JV
ln(C) = ——t + a
V
Q
1 /r>\ t+a
eHC) =ev
22 For the ORMS and animal barn scenarios, the WMB models describing the air concentrations over time have the
same form. The parameterization of these models is the only difference. For the ORMS scenario, the decay rate
constant is specified by the ratio of the airflow rate and the volume of the treated space; whereas for the animal barn
scenario, the decay rate constant is specified by the air changes per hour.
23 The regular spray applications are assumed to continue for the entire time spent outdoors.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-12
-------
Appendix D
-2,
C=A-e v
where A = ea is a constant whose value is determined by the initial condition that at time t = 0,
the pesticide air concentration is equal to initial air concentration, i.e. C(0) = Co. Based on this
initial constraint, A is set equal to Co. The WMB model described above for the ORMS scenario
is similar to the model used for aerosol area fogger scenario. In fact, the equation for modeling
pesticide air concentrations over time after the first spray event (but before the second spray) is
exactly the same as equation (D. 1) except for the subscript on the left-hand side denoting the
number of applications:
-2,
C/t) = C0ev (D.ll)
where C(t) is the air concentration at time t after the initial spray, Co is the initial air
concentration (i.e. concentration at time t=0), Q is the airflow (the product of the cross-sectional
area of the box and the wind speed), and V is the volume of the box.
Assuming the same amount of pesticide is released at each spray event, the equation describing
the air concentrations after the second spray event (t> TBa), but before the third spray (t <
2xTba) is:
C2(t) =
f Qr \ Q(t t
C+Cev
e V Tba
-------
Appendix D
Cn+l(t) = (l + R + R2 + R3 + ... + R"-1 + R" )c0
y(t WX^&4)
(D.14)
where the R term is the fraction of air concentration remaining from the previous spray event.
The summation of these progressively higher order R terms is referred to as a geometric series.
The resulting sum of which can be written as:
(\ i _ j?n+1
l + R + R2 +R3 +... + R"-1+R")= (D.15)
' 1 -R
By substituting equation (D.15) into (D.14), the general equation describing air concentrations
after a series of (n+1) regularly-spaced spray events can be written as:
CnJt) ¦
-—(t-nxTBA)
C0e F
(P-16)
After several spray events, the air concentration at the beginning of each dissipation period
approaches a fixed value determined by the geometric series in equation (D. 15). This value can
be determined by allowing n —» oo, which implies that Rn+1 —» 0 since R < 1. Thus after a
sufficient number of spray events, the general equation describing air concentrations after a
series of (n+1) regularly-spaced spray events can be written as:
CnJt) =
cn
y\~Rj
~-(t-nxT3A)
J V
(D.17)
Since R < 1, the term
Cn
1 -R
> Cq. In other words, after a sufficient number of spray events, the
(total) air concentration immediately after the spray event will approach a fixed value that is
larger than the (initial) concentration released during the spray event (due to the remaining air
concentration from previous spray events). Therefore, it is more health protective to calculate
inhalation exposure after the total air concentration approaches this larger, fixed value (i.e. after
a sufficient number of spray applications have occurred).
The air concentration equation (D.17) can be used to calculate the exposure, E, over the time
period (n x Tba) to ((n+1) xTba), that is, the entire time period from the (n+l)th spray event until
the time just prior to the (n+2)th spray event (i.e. the next spray event). The exposure equation is
based on integrating equation (D.17) and multiplying by an inhalation rate, IR.
(n+l)xTa
E = IR
\cn+m
ny.Tr,,
(n+\)yTB/
E = IR }
Cn BA)
n*T„.
1 -R
dt
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-14
-------
Appendix D
E = IR
f r< \(
cn
V1 -Rj
Q.
\ ^ j
~-{t-nxrBA)
(n+i)xr&
nx.T„
/
E = IR
v
1 -R
kQj
~l\(nxTBA~nxTBA) -^((n + l)xTBA-"xTBA)
V - Q V
Qi
E = IR
v
_Sl-
1 -R
V_
vQ;
-£(o) ~^-{tba)
e v -e v
E = IR
v
_Q>_
1 -R
V_
vQ;
[i-^]
e_IR-C0 -V
Q
(D.18)
Note that this exposure equation (D. 18) is for an exposure time equal to the time between
applications (Tba), that is, exposure due to one spray event. If exposure is being calculated for
an exposure time that is a whole number multiple of TBa, that is, for multiple spray events, then a
25
multiple of equation (D. 18) can be used to calculate exposure over such an exposure time .
Thus to calculate exposure due to multiple spray events when the exposure time is a whole
number multiple of the time between application, the following exposure equation can be used:
e_IR-C0-V-Ns
Q
(D.19)
where Ns is the number of spray events. The number of spray events could be calculated from
the exposure time, ET and the time between applications (Tba):
N. =
ET
T,
BA
If TBa is specified to have units hr/spray, then the inverse of this parameter could be termed the
pulse rate (PR), which would have units spray/hr. Alternatively, Ns could be calculated from ET
and PR as follows:
N=ET-PR (D.20)
Substituting equation (D.20) into equation (D.19), the exposure equation over an exposure time
equal to a whole number multiple of the time between applications becomes:
25 For example, if the time between applications is one hour (i.e. TBA = 1) and the exposure time is exactly four
hours (ET = 4), then exposure over the four-hour exposure time would be equal to four times the exposure due to
one spray event as calculated by equation (3.8).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-15
-------
Appendix D
„ IR-C0-V ¦ ET ¦ PR
E = -
0
(D.21)
Now consider exposure over some exposure time less than the time between applications.
Again, the air concentration equation (D.17) can be used to calculate the exposure, E, over the
time period (// x TBA ) to ((// + p) x where 0 < p < 1; that is, some fraction of the time period
from the (n+l)th spray event until some time prior to the (n+2)th spray event (i.e. the next spray
event). The exposure equation is based on integrating equation (D.17) and multiplying by an
inhalation rate, IR.
(n + p)xTBA
E = IR \c,Jt)dt
nxf„.
^p)xTb,
E
Cn
m I r
nxTj>4 V1
R
-%(t~nxTBA)
dt
E = IR
C
V v\
V1 -Rj
Q
v ^ J
^(t nxTBA)
(n + p)xTR
nxT„
E = IR
v
0^
1 -R
V_
vGy
\(nxTBA~nxTBA) "§(("+ P)xTBA-nxTBA)
¦? V ^
E = IR
v
0^
1 -R
V_
>) ~v{pxT*
e v - e v
E = IR
v
0^
1 -R
\
V_
Q.
E
IR-C0-V (1 -Rp)
Q
(1 -R)
(D.22)
Note that this exposure equation (D.22) is for an exposure time equal to some fraction of the time
between applications, that is, (~ x ljSA), Combining equation (D.22) and equation (D.20), the
exposure equation over an exposure time equal to a whole number multiple of Tba, a general
exposure equation for an exposure time of any duration can be expressed as:
„ IR-Cq-V • 'mt(ET ¦ PR) IR-C0-V (1 - Rf^ET'PR>)
E = b ¦
0
0
(1 -R)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-16
-------
Appendix D
e=IR-C0-V
Q
int(ET ¦ PR) +
(1 -R
frac(ET-PR)
(1 -R)
(D.23)
TTJ V
where K ~ e , int(ETPR) is the integer (i.e. whole number) part of the product of the
exposure time, ET and the pulse rate, PR (i.e. number of spray events per hour) and frac(ET-PR)
is the fractional part of the product of the exposure time and the pulse rate26. Note that according
to equation (D.19), the product of the exposure time and pulse rate is simply the numbers of
spray events, Ns for which inhalation exposure is being estimated.
D.3.4 Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems - Animal Barn Misting Systems
As with the ORMS scenario, the well-mixed box (WMB) model was used to develop exposure
equation (5.30) for the animal barn misting systems post-application inhalation scenario 7 The
WMB model incorporates a number of simplifying assumptions: fresh air (having zero pesticide
concentration) enters the box at a constant airflow rate (based on the number of air changes per
hour), a turbulent internal airflow thoroughly mixes the fresh air with the pesticide-laden air
resulting in a uniform pesticide air concentration within the box, and the perfectly mixed air exits
the box at the same constant airflow rate (i.e. the inflow rate equals the outflow rate). Thus the
indoor area where the aerosol is being applied (i.e. barn) is assumed to be in an enclosed box,
which seems a reasonable assumption for a walled, indoor space. This scenario assumes
instantaneous spray releases, that is, the total amount of aerosol released at each spray event is
modeled to occur instantaneously.
The removal of the pesticide from the box depends on airflow. The WMB model developed for
this scenario models the pesticide air concentrations after multiple instantaneous aerosol spray
28
releases at regular time intervals . Only dissipation due to airflow into and out of the box is
modeled. The mass balance within the box can be described by the following differential
equation:
V— = -Q-C
dt
dC Q ,
— = -—dt
C V
26 For example, if the time between applications is 40 minutes or 2/3 hour (i.e. TBa = 0.67) or equivalently, the pulse
rate is 3 sprays over 2 hours (i.e. PR = 1.5), and the exposure time is three hours (ET = 3), then int(ETPR) = int(3 x
1.5) = int(4.5) = 4; and frac(ETPR) = frac(4.5) = 0.5.
27 For the ORMS and animal barn scenarios, the WMB models describing the air concentrations over time have the
same form. The parameterization of these models is the only difference. For the ORMS scenario, the decay rate
constant is specified by the ratio of the airflow rate and the volume of the treated space, whereas for the animal barn
scenario, the decay rate constant is specified by the air changes per hour.
28 The regular spray applications are assumed to continue for the entire time spent inside the animal barn.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-17
-------
Appendix D
where C is the air concentration, Q is the airflow, and V is the volume of the box. Integrating
the differential equation and simplifying and combining terms yields an equation describing the
air concentration over time.
J c ¦" V
ln(C) = -—t + a
V
Q
1 fr~>\ t+a
eln(C) = e v
C=A-e v
where A = ea is a constant whose value is determined by the initial condition that at time t = 0,
the pesticide air concentration is equal to initial air concentration, i.e. C(0) = Co. Based on this
initial constraint, A is set equal to Co.
For an indoor scenario, the ratio of the airflow, Q to the volume of the treated space, V is defined
as the number of air changes per hour, ACH (i.e. ACH = Q/V). The WMB model described
above for the animal barn misting system scenario is similar to the model used for aerosol area
fogger scenario. In fact, the equation for modeling pesticide air concentrations over time after
the first spray event (but before the second spray) is exactly the same as equation (D.2) except
for the use of an air exchange rate (ACH) for the ratio of the airflow to the volume of the treated
space and the subscript on the left-hand side denoting the number of applications:
C/t) = C0e-ACH-' (D.24)
where C(t) is the air concentration at time t, Co is the initial air concentration (i.e. concentration
at time t=0), and ACH is the air changes per hour.
Assuming the same amount of pesticide is released at each spray event, the equation describing
the air concentrations after the second spray event (but before the third spray) is:
C2(t) = (C0 + C0e~ACH'Tm yACH^) (D.25)
where TBa is the time between application. The first Co term represents the (entire) air
concentration released at the second spray event; the C0 e -K'"'7/; term represents the remaining
air concentration from the first application at the time of the second spray event; and the
e 'K'"Jl //;l'term specifies that the sum of the air concentrations (from the first and second spray
events) will dissipate at the same decay rate constant, ACH, but that the dissipation will begin at
time Tba- The term (t - Tba) shifts the origin of dissipation process from zero to Tba
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-18
-------
Appendix D
The equation describing the air concentrations over time after a series of regularly-spaced spray
events can be generalized for the (n+l)th spray event as follows:
c /t) = (l + e~ACH'Tm + e-ACHi2yJBA) + e-ACH{3xTBA) + + e-ACH{(n-\)yJBA) + ACH ¦( n*TSA ACH-(t-nxTSA)
(D.26)
when (nxTBA)
-------
Appendix D
The air concentration equation (D.30) can be used to calculate the exposure, E, over the time
period (n x TBA ) to ((// +1) x TBA), that is, the entire time period from the (n+l)th spray event until
the time just prior to the (n+2) spray event (i.e. the next spray event). The exposure equation is
based on integrating equation (D.30) and multiplying by an inhalation rate, IR.
(n+i)y.TBA
E = IR \c,Jt)dt
n*Tn.
-ACH-(t-nxTBA)
]dt
E = IR
Cp
1 -R
ACH
^L~ACH^Y+^XTbA
E = IR
C0
1 -R
ACH
S]L-achWtba-^tba) _ g-^ff-((n+l)xrM-nxrM)j
E = IR
C
1 -R
ACH
|e-^Cff-(0) _e-ACH-(rBA)J
( r V 1 A
E = IR —2— [l-tfl
{\-r\achj1 1
F-IR'C0
e-HcF
(D.31)
Note that this exposure equation (D.31) is for an exposure time equal to the time between
applications (Tba), that is, exposure due to one spray event and is also same as Eqn. D.17 given
earlier. If exposure is being calculated for an exposure time that is a whole number multiple of
Tba, that is, for multiple spray events, then a multiple of equation (D.30) can be used to calculate
30
exposure over such an exposure time . Thus to calculate exposure due to multiple spray events
when the exposure time is a whole number multiple of the time between application [i.e. ET = 0
mod(TBA)], the following exposure equation can be used:
r IR-CyN, (D32)
ACH
30 For example, if the time between applications is one hour (i.e. TBA = 1) and the exposure time is exactly four
hours (ET = 4), then exposure over the four-hour exposure time would be equal to four times the exposure due to
one spray event as calculated by equation (3.8).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-20
-------
Appendix D
where Ns is the number of spray events. The number of spray events could be calculated from
the exposure time, ET and the time between applications (Tba):
N. =
ET
T,
BA
If TBa is specified to have units hr/spray, then the inverse of this parameter could be termed the
pulse rate (PR), which would have units spray/hr. Alternatively, Ns could be calculated from ET
and PR as follows:
N=ET-PR
(D.33)
Substituting equation (D.33) into equation (D.32), the exposure equation over an exposure time
equal to a whole number multiple of the time between applications becomes:
„ IR-Cr.- ET ¦ PR
E = -
ACH
(D.34)
Now consider exposure over some exposure time less than the time between applications.
Again, the air concentration equation (C.4.7) can be used to calculate the exposure, E, over the
time period (n x TBA) to ((// + p) x TBA ), where 0 < p < 1; that is, some fraction of the time period
from the (n+l/ spray event until some time prior to the (n+2)1 spray event (i.e. the next spray
event). The exposure equation is based on integrating equation (D.30) and multiplying by an
inhalation rate, IR.
(n + p)xTBA
E = IR
nxT„,
(n+p)xTBi
E
Cn
IR I 73
nxTRA X1
R
ACH-(t-nxTBA)
dt
/
E = IR
v
Co
1 -R
\
I \~ACH
ACH
E = IR
Cn
1 -R
I |g-^ff-(nxrM-nxrM) _ e-ACH-((n+p)xTBA-nxTBA) j
ACH
E = IR
Cn
y\~Rj
\ ||g-^Cff-(0) _ e-ACH-(pxTBA)J
ACH
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-21
-------
Appendix D
E = IR
Cn
1 -R
e_IR-C0 (1 -R")
ACH (1 -R)
(D.35)
Note that this exposure equation (D.35) is for an exposure time equal to some fraction of the time
between applications, that is, (~ x Combining equation (D.35) and equation (D.33), the
exposure equation over an exposure time equal to a whole number multiple of TBa, a general
exposure equation for an exposure time of any duration can be expressed as:
E
IR-C0 ¦ int(ET ¦ PR) IR ¦ C0
(1 -R
frac(ET-PR)
ACH
ACH
(1 -R)
e = ir'c°
ACH
int (ET ¦ PR) +
(1 -R
frac(ET-PR)
(1 -R)
(D.36)
where R = e
-ach-tba 9 int(ET-PR) is the integer (i.e. whole number) part of the product of the
exposure time, ET and the pulse rate, PR (i.e. number of spray events per hour) and frac(ET-PR)
is the fractional part of the product of the exposure time and the pulse rate31. Note that according
to equation (D.33), the product of the exposure time and pulse rate is simply the numbers of
spray events, Ns for which inhalation exposure is being estimated.
31 For example, if the time between applications is 40 minutes or 2/3 hour (i.e. TBA = 0.67) or equivalently, the pulse
rate is 3/2 sprays/hour (i.e. PR = 1.5); and the exposure time is three hours (ET = 3), then int(ET PR) = int(3 x 1.5) =
int(4.5) = 4; and frac(ET PR) = frac(4.5) = 0.5.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-22
-------
Appendix D
D.3.5 Indoor Environments - Instantaneous Release/Aerosol Applications
As with the outdoor aerosol spray area foggers scenario, the well-mixed box (WMB) model was
used to develop exposure equation (7.6) for the indoor instantaneous release/aerosol application
post-application inhalation scenario32. The WMB model incorporates a number of simplifying
assumptions: fresh air (having zero pesticide concentration) enters the box at a constant airflow
rate (based on the number of air changes per hour), a turbulent internal airflow thoroughly mixes
the fresh air with the pesticide-laden air resulting in a uniform pesticide air concentration within
the box, and the perfectly mixed air exits the box at the same constant airflow rate (i.e. the inflow
rate equals the outflow rate). Thus the indoor area where the aerosol is being applied (e.g., living
room) is assumed to be in an enclosed box, which seems a reasonable assumption for a walled,
indoor space. This scenario assumes an instantaneous spray release, that is, the total amount of
aerosol released during a spray event is modeled to occur instantaneously.
The removal of the pesticide from the box depends on airflow. The WMB model developed for
this scenario models the pesticide air concentrations after an initial, instantaneous release of an
aerosol spray. Only dissipation due to airflow into and out of the box is modeled. The mass
balance within the box can be described by the following differential equation:
V— = -Q-C
dt
dC Q J
— = -—dt
C V
where C is the air concentration, Q is the airflow, and V is the volume of the box. Integrating
the differential equation and simplifying and combining terms yields an equation describing the
air concentration over time.
J c ¦" V
ln(C) = -—t + a
V
Q
1 fr~>\ t+a
eln(C) = e v
C=A-ev'
32 For the outdoor aerosol spray area foggers and the indoor instantaneous release/aerosol application scenarios, the
WMB models describing the air concentrations over time have the same form. The parameterization of these
models is the only difference. For the outdoor aerosol spray area foggers scenario, the decay rate constant is
specified by the ratio of the airflow rate and the volume of the treated space; whereas for the indoor instantaneous
release/aerosol application scenario, the decay rate constant is specified by the air changes per hour.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-23
-------
Appendix D
where A = ea is a constant whose value is determined by the initial condition that at time t = 0,
the pesticide air concentration is equal to initial air concentration, i.e. C(0) = Co. Based on this
initial constraint, A is set equal to Co. Also, for an indoor scenario, the ratio of the airflow, Q to
the volume of the treated space, V is defined as the number of air changes per hour, ACH (i.e.
ACH = Q/V). Based on the initial constraint that C(0) = Co and that ACH = Q/V, the WMB
model described above for modeling pesticide air concentrations over time can be written as
follows:
C(t) = C0e-AGHt (D.37)
where C(t) is the air concentration at time t, Co is the initial air concentration (i.e. concentration
at time t=0), and ACH is the air changes per hour. The air concentration equation (D.37) is then
used to calculate the exposure, E:
ET
E = IRj C(t)dt (D 38)
0
The exposure, E is based on integrating equation (D.36) over the exposure time, ET which is
then multiplied by an inhalation rate, IR. The final exposure equation is derived from equation
(D.38) by performing the integration and simplifying terms.
ET
E = IR^ C0e~ACH4dt
E = E^±h-e-J™W)
ACH v ' (°-39)
D.3.6 Indoor Environments - Vapor Emission for Surface Sprays
As with the outdoor candles, coils, torches, and mats scenario, the well-mixed box (WMB)
model was used to develop exposure equation (7.11) for the indoor vapor emission for surface
33
sprays post-application inhalation scenario . The vapor emission for surface sprays scenario
differs from the other exposure scenarios based on the WMB model because it includes a
variable emission rate term and thus results in a more complicated exposure equation. The
WMB was used to model pesticide air concentrations within an enclosed, fixed volume (i.e. a
33 For the outdoor candles, coils, torches, and mats and the indoor vapor emission for surface sprays scenarios, the
WMB models describing the air concentrations over time have a similar form. The parameterization of these
models is one of the differences. For the outdoor candles, coils, torches, and mats scenario, the decay rate constant
is specified by the ratio of the airflow rate and the volume of the treated space, whereas for the indoor vapor
emission for surface sprays scenario, the decay rate constant is specified in part by the air changes per hour.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-24
-------
Appendix D
box) over time during the variable emission of a pesticide from a surface spray. The WMB
model incorporates a number of simplifying assumptions: fresh air (having zero pesticide
concentration) enters the box at a constant airflow rate, a turbulent internal airflow thoroughly
mixes the fresh air with the pesticide-laden air resulting in a uniform pesticide air concentration
within the box, and the perfectly mixed air exits the box at the same constant airflow rate (i.e. the
inflow rate equals the outflow rate). Thus the indoor area where the aerosol is being applied
(e.g., living room) is assumed to be in an enclosed box, which seems a reasonable assumption for
a walled, indoor space.
The removal of the surface spray emission from the box depends on airflow. The WMB model
developed for this scenario models the pesticide air concentrations during a variable emission of
pesticide from a surface spray. Only emission and dissipation due to airflow into and out of the
box is modeled. The mass balance within the box can be described by the following differential
equation:
V— = ER-Q-C + k-V-C
dt
d^=^-Q.c+k.c
dt V V
(
Q
\
— — k
V ,
c
dC ER
~dt~~V~
where C is the air concentration, ER is the emission rate, Q is the airflow, k is the decay rate
constant of the emission rate, and V is the volume of the box. Based on the method of
undetermined coefficients, the solution to this differential equation has the form:
C(t) =
ER
V
fQ-k"
-A-e
Q
-k \t
V
c(/) = -
ER
V
Q
v
¦-A-e
-k 11
-k
where A is a constant whose value is determined by the initial condition that at time t = 0, the
pesticide air concentration is equal to zero, i.e., C(0) = 0. Based on this initial constraint, the
equation describing the air concentration over time can be written as:
C(t) = -
ER
ER
-k 11
V
f
V J
V
f
fi-t]
V J
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-25
-------
Appendix D
Based on the WMB model described above, the equation for modeling pesticide air
concentrations over time is as follows:
C(t) = ER
V
rQ-k"
yV ,
\-e
—~k \t
(D.40)
where C(t) is the air concentration at time t, ER is the emission rate, Q is the airflow, k is the
decay rate constant of the emission rate, and V is the volume of the box. For an indoor scenario,
the ratio of the airflow, Q to the volume of the treated space, V is defined as the number of air
changes per hour, ACH:
ACH = — (D.41)
V
For the indoor vapor emission for surface sprays scenario, the decreasing emission rate, ER is
based on decay rate constant, k34 which can be calculated from various physical and chemical
properties of the pesticide.
ER = k-M-eht (D.42)
where M is the amount (i.e. mass) of the surface spray application. Substituting equations
(D.41) and (D.42) into equation (D.40) and yields the equation for modeling pesticide air
concentrations over time following surface spray application base on a variable emission rate:
C(t) = k-M-ek\ [l _ ]
V{ACH-k)y J
Which can be rewritten as:
C(')=?(D43)
The air concentration equation is then used to calculate the exposure, E, which is based on
integrating equation (D.43) over the exposure time, ET which is then multiplied by an inhalation
rate, IR:
ET
E = m\ C(t)dt (D.44)
o
The final exposure equation is derived from equation (D.44) by performing the integration and
simplifying terms.
E = m f , -e-ACH"]dt
{V{ACH-kf J
34 As discussed in Guo (2002), Evans (1994) proposed estimating the decay rate constant, k based on the 90% drying
time which, in turn, is estimated by a method developed by Chinn (1981).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-26
-------
Appendix D
E
IR-k-M
V{ACH -k)
-e~kt +-^—e-ACH4
k ACH
ET
E =
IR-k-M
V(ACH -k)
-e-ht-
-ACH-t
k ACH
E
IR-k-M
V(ACH-k)
Ie^<°)
Kk ACH
I e~ACH{ 0)
— e
k
-k-ET
-ACH-ET
ACH
E--
IR-k-M
V(ACH -k)
ri lHi
k ACH
-k-ET
-ACH-ET
ACH
E =
IR-k-M
V(ACH -k)
rACH -k\ (ACH -e~kET -k-e
k-ACH
-ACH-ET \
k-ACH
E =
IR-k-M
V-k-ACH
rACH-k\ (ACH -e~kET -k-e
ACH-k
-ACH-ET \
ACH-k
E =
IR-M
V-ACH
r ACH-ehET -k-e~ACH-ET^
ACH -k
(D.45)
D.3.7 Vapor Emission for Surface-directed Sprays - Using the Saturation
Concentration
If the information necessary to conduct an assessment for post-application inhalation exposure
following surface-directed sprays is not available, a screening level approach can be performed
using the saturation concentration of the chemical. This approach relies only on chemical
properties such as molecular weight and vapor pressure to estimate an air concentration.
It should be noted that using the saturation concentration to estimate inhalation exposure
is a very conservative approach. The saturation concentration is a chemical's theoretical
maximum air concentration. It represents what would occur if a large amount of chemical were
spilled in a non-ventilated room and allowed to evaporate until equilibrium is reached.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-27
-------
Appendix D
Exposure Algorithms
The following equation can be used to calculate the saturation concentration of a specific
chemical:
VP* CFl * MW * CFl* CF3
sat ~
where:
"3
Csat = Saturation concentration (mg/m );
VP = Vapor pressure (mmHg);
MW = Molecular weight (g/mol);
R = Gas constant = 0.0821 L-atm/mol-K;
T = Temperature of the air (296 K);
CFl = Conversion factor (atm/760 mm Hg);
"3
CF2 = Conversion factor (10 mg/g); and
CF3 = Conversion factor (103 L/m ).
The saturation concentration can then be used in the following exposure equation to estimate a
screening level exposure:
E = Csat * IR* ET
where:
"3
CSat = Saturation concentration (mg/m );
IR = Inhalation rate (m3/hr); and
ET = Exposure time (hr/day).
Exposure Algorithm Inputs and Assumptions
l iihlo D-4: Indoor lln\ ironim-iils - Recommended I'osi-iippliciilion 1 nh;il;ilion I xposnic I nclor Point
llsliiiiiilos
Al^orilhin
Niiliiiiiui
l".\|)osuiv I'liilur
(unils)
Piiinl l;.siiin;iii-(s)
IR
Inhalation rate
(m3/hour)
Adults
0.64
Children 1 to
<2 years old
0.33
Csat
Saturation concentration
(mg/m3)
Calculated
VP
Vapor pressure
(mmHg)
Chemical-specific
MW
Molecular weight
(g/mol)
Chemical-specific
R
Gas constant
(L-atm/mol-K)
0.0821
T
Temperature of the air
(kelvin, K)
296
ET
Exposure time
(hr/day)
Adults
16
Children 1 to <2 years old
18
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-28
-------
Appendix D
Inhalation Rate (IR)
See Section 2.2 for discussion of inhalation rates. The recommended point estimates for use
in post-application inhalation exposure assessments are 0.64 m3/hr for adults and 0.33
m /hr for children 1 to < 2 years old.
Saturation Concentration (Csat)
The saturation concentration is a chemical's theoretical maximum air concentration. It
represents what would occur if a large amount of chemical were spilled in a non-ventilated room
and allowed to evaporate until equilibrium is reached. Calculating post-application inhalation
exposure and risk using the saturation concentration should be considered a very conservative
approach.
Vapor Pressure (VP)
The vapor pressure is a chemical-specific value in units of mmHg.
Molecular weight (MW)
The molecular weight is a chemical-specific value in units of g/mol.
Gas constant (R)
A constant with units of L-atm/mol-K.
Temperature (T)
The temperature of the air in units of kelvin (K).
Exposure Time (ET)
For vapor emissions from surface-directed sprays, it is assumed that the vapors can continue to
emit over time; therefore, exposure time is related to time spent in a residence. Empirical
distributions for adults and children are provided in the Exposure Factors Handbook 2011
Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011; Adults — Table 16-16 and Children — Table 16-15). The distribution
for exposure time for adults and for children 1 to < 2 years old is provided in Table D-5. The
recommended point estimates for use in post-application inhalation exposure assessments
are 16 hours for adults and 18 hours for children 1 to < 2 years old.
I'iihlo l)-5: r.xnosurc Tiim* (11 1 . hours)
Shilislk
Aillllls
(liildmi 1 In < 2 \i-;irs
5th percentile
9
11
25th percentile
13
15
50th percentile
15
18
75th percentile
19
21
90th percentile
23
24
95th percentile
24
24
AM(SD)
16(5)
18
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
Exposure Characterization and Data Quality
When using the saturation concentration to estimate inhalation exposure, the assessor should
note that this is a very conservative approach. The saturation concentration is a chemical's
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-29
-------
Appendix D
theoretical maximum air concentration. It represents what would occur if a large amount of
chemical were spilled in a non-ventilated room and allowed to evaporate until equilibrium is
reached.
Combining Post-application Scenarios
Post-application inhalation exposure from surface-directed sprays can be calculated using the
saturation concentration as an estimate of air concentration. As was mentioned, the saturation
concentration is a highly conservative assumption of air concentration; a chemical's theoretical
maximum air concentration. It represents what would occur if a large amount of chemical were
spilled in a non-ventilated room and allowed to evaporate until equilibrium is reached.
Therefore, the exposure value calculated for this route should not be combined with the other
potential routes of exposure.
D.4 Selection of Air Velocity
Meteorological data from National Weather Service (NWS) and other appropriate meteorological
monitoring stations was considered in this SOP. Such data have been widely used for dispersion
modeling in the Agency's fumigant human health risk assessments. The six weather stations
were located around the country and recorded wind velocity (i.e., meters/second or m/s) and
other meteorological parameters. The meteorological conditions for these sites represent a broad
range of situations, including inland and coastal sites in California and Florida as well as the
Midwest and desert plain of the Pacific Northwest.
These types of weather stations typically use cup and vane anemometers to measure windspeed
and typically do not record velocities below 1 m/s. Any meteorological monitor recording
velocities less than 1 m/s are recorded as 0 m/s. Table D-6 reports the results from each weather
station considered and the percentage of hourly wind speed data that were recorded below 1 m/s
and 1.5 m/s, respectively.
Both flying pest pressure and post-application inhalation exposure will likely be highest in the
assessed scenarios for days when the air conditions are "calm" (>0.3 m/s) as defined on the
Beaufort Wind Force Scale because less mixing will occur at lower windspeeds.
Tsihle !)-(»: \\ inri Yeloeil\ from N;ilion;il \\ enllier Si ;i I ions (
Cil>
Source
Percent ol' (lie liourh wind
speed diilii below 1 m/s
Percent of (lie liourlv wind
speed diilii below 1.5 m/s
Bakersfield CA
ASOS or Automated
Surface Observing
System operated by the
FAA
18%
18%
Ventura CA
CIMIS or California
Irrigation Management
Information System
22%
29%
Bradenton FL
FAWN or Florida
Automated Weather
Network
25%
42%
Tallahassee FL
NWS or National Weather
Service
26%
42%
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-30
-------
Appendix D
Tsihle !)-(»: \\ inri Yeloeil\ from N;ilion;il \\ ciilher Si ;i I ions (
Cil>
Source
Percent ol' (lie liourh wind
speed diilii below 1 m/s
Percent of (lie hourly wind
speed diilii below 1.5 m/s
Flint MI
NWS or National Weather
Service
4%
4%
Yakima WA
NWS or National Weather
Service
9%
9%
D.5 Estimates of Deposited Residue (DepR)
For indoor environments, post-application dermal exposure resulting from contact with treated
indoor surfaces is dependent on three exposure factors: transferable residue (TR), transfer
coefficient (TC), and exposure time (ET). If chemical-specific TR data are available, this is
preferred and should be used to calculate exposure. However, if chemical-specific TR data are
not available, then TR can be calculated based on the deposited residue and the fraction of active
ingredient available for transfer. The deposited residue is the residue that is deposited onto
indoor surfaces following an application. It can be obtained either from (1) chemical-specific
deposition data, (2) the application rate of the product, or (3) default values based on the type of
application. Information on each of these methods is provided in the main body of the SOP, but
more in-depth information on the analyses for calculating residue values for each option is
provided below.
D.5.1 Deposited Residue Based on Chemical-specific Data
Deriving deposited residue values from chemical-specific deposition data is the preferred option
for determining the residue value to use in the dermal exposure calculation. These types of data
will best reflect the residue pattern and magnitude of deposition after an application. As was
discussed in the Indoor SOP, chemical-specific data can be used to calculate a residue value for
estimating dermal exposure based on the type of treatment performed (i.e., broadcast, perimeter,
or crack and crevice). It is assumed that a chemical-specific deposition study is performed using
deposition coupons, which are placed on the floor of the treated room. Coupons should be
placed throughout the room so as to capture deposition both near and away from the target
application site. A key point to remember in using chemical-specific data is to check the
application rate used in the study against the proposed rate and adjust the data if necessary for
any differences.
In the case of broadcast treatments, the product is typically applied evenly to the floor throughout
the room. Therefore, the deposited residue for the room would be calculated as the average
residue of all the coupons in the room.
In the case of perimeter/spot/bedbug (coarse and pinstream) treatments, the product is typically
applied only to the outer edges of the room (e.g., along the baseboards). This area is considered
the "treated area", while the area in the center of the room is considered the "untreated area".
The deposited residue for the room is calculated as a weighted average of the residues in the
treated area and the residues in the untreated area. Coupons placed along the outer edge of the
room are considered to be representative of the "treated area" while those placed closer to the
center of the room are considered to be representative of the "untreated area". The residues
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-31
-------
Appendix D
measured on the coupons in each area are averaged together to come up with an average residue
for the treated area and an average residue for the untreated area. Then, the following formula is
used to calculate a weighted average for the entire room:
(70% * average residue untreated area) + (30% * average residue treated area)
In the case of crack and crevice treatments, the product is typically applied only to voids and
crevices in the room. For the purposes of calculating the deposited residue, the area along the
outer edges of the room is considered the "treated area" (similar to perimeter treatments), while
the area in the center of the room is considered the "untreated area". The deposited residue for
the room is calculated similar to the perimeter treatments - a weighted average of the residues in
the treated area and the residues in the untreated area. Coupons placed along the outer edge of
the room are considered to be representative of the "treated area" while those placed closer to the
center of the room are considered to be representative of the "untreated area". The residues
measured on the coupons in each area are averaged together to come up with an average residue
for the treated area and an average residue for the untreated area. Then, the following formula is
used to calculate a weighted average for the entire room:
(90% * average residue untreated area) + (10% * average residue treated area)
D.5.2 Deposited Residue Based on Application Rate
If chemical-specific deposition data are not available, but the label provides an application rate in
terms of mass per unit area, then residue values may be estimated using the application rate.
Broadcast Treatments:
Deposited residue = application rate
¦ Assumed that application evenly distributes the pesticide across the floor of a room.
¦ Deposited residue for the whole room is assumed to be equivalent to the application rate.
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug (coarse and pinstream) Treatments:
Deposited residue = 50% of application rate
¦ Application only to outer edges of room.
¦ Residues will not be evenly distributed within room -higher residues near outer edges
than center of room.
¦ Method of application and distribution of residues in room is considered when calculating
the residue value for the whole room.
¦ Appropriate residue value to use for whole room would be a weighted average based on
distribution of residues in room and likelihood of contacting higher residues found near
outer edges (for perimeter/spot/bedbug treatments, assume a 70/30 ratio of
untreated/treated areas).
¦ Deposited residue value used for the whole room in the exposure equation will be some
percentage of the application rate.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-32
-------
Appendix D
It is assumed that the deposited residue for perimeter/spot/bedbug (coarse and pinstream)
treatments is equivalent to 50% of the application rate. This is based on studies that have
measured residues resulting from broadcast and perimeter treatments. A summary of the studies
and comparisons is provided in Table D-7 through Table D-9.
Considerations:
¦ Based on two comparisons only, one of which includes applications from different
studies which had different application and sampling schemes.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-33
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo I)-"7: ( niii|);u ison nl' IVriimMer iind Bniiidciisl 1 roiilnicnl Residues (residues from different studies
1 'erimeter 1 real men!
SOI k( i:
ki:sii)i i: iim/i-nri
U.S. EPA (1993)
0.5% Malathion
compressed
air sprayer
¦ Collection media: cotton dosimeter patches.
¦ Sampling time: 0 and 4 hours; no difference identified between 2 sampling times.
¦ Number of samples: divided floor into 16 blocks; 100 samples collected.
¦ Size of room: 12 ft x 12 ft (366 cm x 366 cm).
¦ Treated area = 0-30 cm from wall.
¦ Untreated area = >90 cm from wall.
¦ 9 ug/cm2 = (30% of average residue from treated area) + (70% of average residue
from untreated area)
9
Broadcast Treatments
SOURCE
RESIDUE Oig/cm2)
Fenske (1990)
0.5%
Chlorpyrifos
manually-
pressurized
handwand
¦ Collection media: aluminum foil samples.
¦ 5 coupons collected immediately after application.
13.6
Gurunathan et al.
(1998)
0.5%
Chlorpyrifos
manually-
pressurized
handwand
¦ Surface wipe samples collected from surface of dressers and toys placed on floor.
¦ Value reported is max concentration measured on toys 1 week following
application.
11.5
Krieger (2001)
0.5%
Chlorpyrifos
manually-
pressurized
handwand
¦ Foil samples collected in 3 treated rooms (no information on number of samples
per room).
¦ Residue value reported is average for three rooms.
15
Comparison of Residues from Perimeter and Broadcast Treatments
Broadcast residue (jig/cm2)
Perimeter residue ((xg/cm2)
Perimeter Residue =
X% of Broadcast
Residues
13.6
9
66%
11.5
78%
15
60%
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-34
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo l)-X: ( oiiipiirison of Periim-ler ;md l}ro;ide;is( 1 re;i(inen( Residues (residues IVoin (lie siimo slud\ )
1 'eriincur 1 rcnliiiciil
SOI R< i:
RI'.SIDl 1". (|_L»/inr)
Selim (2008)
0.1%
esfenvalerate
aerosol can
¦ Collection media: alpha-cellulose coupons.
¦ Sampling time: collected 30 minutes after application.
¦ Number of samples: at each sampling time, samples were collected from 61
locations on the floor.
¦ Size of room: 15ft2inxl5ft2in (462 cm x 462 cm).
¦ Treated area = based on figure in study which showed which coupons were
within treated area.
¦ Untreated area = based on figure in study which showed which coupons were
within untreated area.
¦ 0.9 |_ig/cm2 = (30% of average residue from treated area) + (70% of average
residue from untreated area).
0.9
Broadcast Treatment
SOURCE
RESIDUE (|ig/cm2)
Selim (2008)
0.1%
esfenvalerate
aerosol can
¦ Collection media: alpha-cellulose coupons.
¦ Sampling time: collected 30 minutes after application.
¦ Number of samples: at each sampling time, samples were collected from 61
locations on the floor.
¦ Size of room: 15ft2inxl5ft2in (462 cm x 462 cm).
2.901
Comparison of Residues from Perimeter and Broadcast Treatments
Broadcast residue (ug/cm2)
Perimeter residue (ug/cm2)
Perimeter Residue =
X% of Broadcast
Residue
2.901
0.9
31%
I'iihlo !)-*>: Siimniiin of Peri nick'r Residues ;is ;i Percenl of limndcnsl Residues from Two (oiiipiirisons
Minimum:
31%
Maximum:
78%
Average:
59%
Proposed in SOP:
50%
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-35
-------
Appendix D
Crack and Crevice Treatment:
Deposited residue = 10% of application rate
¦ Application only to outer edges of room in cracks and crevices.
¦ Residues will not be evenly distributed within room - higher residues near outer edges
than center of room.
¦ Method of application and distribution of residues in room is considered when calculating
the residue value for the whole room.
¦ Appropriate residue value to use for whole room would be a weighted average based on
distribution of residues in room and likelihood of contacting higher residues found near
outer edges (for crack and crevice treatments, assume a 90/10 ratio of untreated/treated
areas).
¦ Deposited residue value used for the whole room in the exposure equation will be some
percentage of the application rate.
It is assumed that the deposited residue is equivalent to 10% of the application rate. This is
based on studies that have measured deposited residues resulting from broadcast and crack and
crevice treatments. A summary of the studies and comparisons is provided in Table D-10
through Table D-12.
Considerations:
• Based on two comparisons only, one of which includes applications from different
studies which had different application and sampling schemes.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-36
-------
Appendix D
Tsihle D-IO: ( (iiii|);iris(in ol'( nick ;ind ( re\iee :iikI liro;ide;isl 1 re;iimenl Residues (residues from dilTerenl studies)
( ruck ami < n-viiv I'renlmans
soi K( i:
KKMDl I! (ji»/im:)
Keenan
(2007)
0.05%
Deltamethrin
aerosol can
with C/C tip
Application technique: applied directly into C/C. Collection media: chromatography paper
attached to foam boards located in 3 locations in room (in corner, under window and along
wall).
Number of samples: Cut paper into 5 8-cm sections from the wall/floor intersection out to 40
cm. Size of room: 10 ft x 10 ft (305 cm x 305 cm). Treated area = 0-8 cm. Untreated area =
8-40 cm. 1.5 ug/cm2 value comes from taking 10% of the residue found in the 0-8 cm area and
90%) of the residue found in the 8-40 cm area.
1.5
Selim (2008)
0.1%
Esfenvalerate
aerosol can
with C/C tip
Application technique: applied 1-inch band along baseboard (as opposed to 18 inch band
which they considered perimeter treatment). Collection media: deposition coupons. Number
of samples: 61 coupons placed along wall/floor intersection (15 cm x 5 cm) and placed in
pattern throughout room (5 cm x 5 cm). Size of room: 15 ft 2 in x 15 ft 2 in (462 cm x 462
cm). Treated area = based on figure in study which showed which coupons were within treated
area. Untreated area = based on figure in study which showed which coupons were within
untreated area. 0.2 |_ig/cm2 value comes from taking 10% of residue found along edges of
room (coupons picked based on diagram in study of what coupons fell in area treated) and 90%)
of residue found on coupons in center of room.
0.2
Stout and
Mason (2003)
0.5%
Chlorpyrifos
compressed
air applied by
certified appl
w/ pin-stream
spray tip
Application technique: dilute solution is systematically placed into the potential cockroach
harborages such as the cracks and crevices of the cabinetry, and around and behind the stove,
refrigerator and dishwasher. Collection media: deposition coupons. 12 coupons placed in
rows in kitchen (application site) and den. Collected prior to, immediately following the
application (the sample collection process was initiated after the application and required about
1 h to complete), and at days 3, 7,14 and 21 days post-application. Individual coupons in
kitchen ranged from 0.0015 to 0.23 |ig/cm2. Average of all coupons = 0.04 |ig/cm2. 90/10
weighted average for room = 0.01 |_ig/cm2.
0.01
Wright and
Jackson
(1975)
0.5%
Chlorpyrifos
aerosol-type
sprayer with
injection tube
Collection media: aluminum pie plates (22.9 cm diameter). 1 row of 6 plates centered in room
starting 91 cm from wall, with each successive plate 2.5 cm from lip of preceding plate. At
each sampling time, 1 plate analyzed from 3 replicate rooms. Residue values reported are
average of 3 replicates. Meant to collect residues from non-target areas in room — did not
collect residues near application sites.
0.0006
compressed
air sprayer
0.0023
Byrne et. al
(1998)
0.5%
Chlorpyrifos
compressed
air sprayer
A crack and crevice injector tip was used to apply the test material to where two surfaces met
inside cabinets, pantry, vanity, and drawers (e.g., side and back, back and top, side and bottom,
etc.); to the crack between the baseboard and wall; along the countertop backsplash-wall
interface; under eating table(s); and around the toilet base. The fine fan tip was used to apply
test material in a band approximately one-third meter wide under sinks, to the underside of
shelves and tables, under large appliances such as a refrigerator, and to the underside of
drawers (while drawers were removed). The pin stream tip was used only intermittently to
spray behind large appliances such as a washing machine. To measure total chlorpyrifos
deposition onto nontarget horizontal surfaces, 100-cm2 denim cloth pads were placed on
horizontal surfaces. Measured 10 day cumulative deposition pads — reporting day 10 average
0.0085
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-37
-------
Appendix D
Tsihle D-IO: ( (iiii|);iris(in «•!*C"rack iiiid ( re\iee :iikI liro;ide;isl 1 re;iimenl Residues (residues from dilTerenl studies)
values for 2 rooms for each house.
Leidy et. al
(1996)
0.5%
Chlorpyrifos
aerosol can w/
C&C tip
(residue at
floor/wall
interface)
Collection media = 2.5 cm x 30.2 cm aluminum template (plate). Samples collected in 3
rooms at wall/floor interface and in center of room. Residues reported from pre-application to
84 days post application. Residues reported here are Day 0 residues.
0.008
aerosol can w/
C&C tip
(residue from
center of
room)
0.01
Wright and
Jackson
(1975)
1%
Chlorpyrifos
aerosol-type
sprayer with
injection tube
Collection media: aluminum pie plates (22.9 cm diameter). 1 row of 6 plates centered in room
starting 91 cm from wall, with each successive plate 2.5 cm from lip of preceding plate. At
each sampling time, 1 plate analyzed from 3 replicate rooms. Residue values reported are
average of 3 replicates. Meant to collect residues from non-target areas in room — did not
collect residues near application sites.
0.0012
compressed
air sprayer
0.011
1% Diazinon
aerosol-type
sprayer with
injection tube
0.0011
compressed
air sprayer
0.0053
2% Diazinon
aerosol-type
sprayer with
injection tube
0.001
compressed
air sprayer
0.016
H10<1
-------
Appendix D
Tsihle D-IO: ( (iiii|);iris(in «•!*C"rack iiiid ( re\iee :iikI liro;ide;isl 1 re;iimenl Residues (residues from dilTerenl studies)
1.5
10%
0.2
1%
0.01
0.07%
0.0006
0.004%
0.0023
0.02%
0.0085
0.06%
15
0.008
0.05%
0.01
0.07%
0.0012
0.01%
0.011
0.07%
0.0011
0.01%
0.0053
0.04%
0.001
0.01%
0.016
0.11%
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-39
-------
Appendix D
Tsihle D-l 1: ( oinp;irison of (r;iek ;ind Crevice :iikI lim;ide;isl 1 re;ilmenl Residues (residues from (lie s;ime s(ud\)
< 'rack mid < ivvice treatment
SOI k( i:
RKSIDl I! (n»/cnr)
Selim (2008)
0.1%
Esfenvalerate
aerosol can
with C/C tip
Application technique: applied 1-inch band along baseboard (as opposed to 18 inch band
which they considered perimeter treatment). Collection media: deposition coupons. Number
of samples: 61 coupons placed along wall/floor intersection (15 cm x 5 cm) and placed in
pattern throughout room (5 cm x 5 cm). Size of room: 15ft2inxl5ft2in (462 cm x 462
cm). Treated area = based on figure in study which showed which coupons were within treated
area. Untreated area = based on figure in study which showed which coupons were within
untreated area. 0.2 ug/cm2 value comes from taking 10% of residue found along edges of room
(coupons picked based on diagram in study of what coupons fell in area treated) and 90% of
residue found on coupons in center of room.
0.2
Broadcast Treatment
SOURCE
RESIDUE (|ig/cm2)
Selim (2008)
0.1%
Esfenvalerate
aerosol can
Collection media: alpha-cellulose coupons. Sampling time: collected 30 minutes after
application. Number of samples: at each sampling time, samples were collected from 61
locations on the floor. Size of room: 15 ft 2 in x 15 ft 2 in (462 cm x 462 cm)
2.901
Comparison of Residues from Crack and Crevice and Broadcast Treatments
Broadcast residue (jig/cm2)
Crack and Crevice residue (jig/cm2)
Crack and Crevice Residue
= X% of Broadcast Residue
2.901
0.2
7%
Tsihle I)-12: Siimniiin of (r;ick ;nul Cre\ice Residues ;is ;i Percent of l$m;idc;isl Residues from Two Comparisons
MINIMUM:
0.004%
MAXIMUM:
10%
AVERAGE:
1%
Proposed in SOP:
10%
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-40
-------
Appendix D
D.5.3 Default residue values based on type of application
If chemical-specific deposition data are not available and the label does not provide an
application rate in terms of mass per unit area, then default residue values may be used based on
the percent spray of the product. These values are meant to be high-end conservative values
to use when little to no other information is available to calculate a product-specific residue
value.
Broadcast Treatment (liquids and foggers):
Recommended default residue value: 15 |j,g/cm for a 0.5% liquid spray
5.4 |j,g/cm for a 0.5% fogger
The default residue value proposed for broadcast liquid formulation treatments is based on a
review of four literature studies which measured deposition following application of 0.5% spray
pesticide products to indoor residences. The maximum residue value measured was chosen as
the default residue value as a conservative approach. The following table provides a summary of
the studies considered and further details about each study are provided after the table. It is
assumed that the more active ingredient applied (i.e., higher percent spray), the higher the
measured residue value would be; therefore, it is proposed in the Indoor SOP that the residue
value be adjusted depending on the percent spray.
liihlo I)-13: Su iiiin;ir\ IKTiiull Residue An;il\sis
Active
Ingredient
and Percent
Solution
Applied
Source
Application
Equipment
Residue
(Hg/cnr)
Notes on Study
Average residue:
10
Minimum:
2.9
Maximum:
15
0.10%
esfenvalerate
Selim (2008)
aerosol can
2.901
Application technique: The test substance was applied as
a broadcast spray across an 8 ft by 8 ft area in the center of
the room. Application was performed from a distance of
approximately 18 inches, in one foot wide swaths,
sweeping across the area in one foot wide rows, while
moving backwards, to evenly cover the area, as if applying
to a carpet. Sample Collection: Collection media: alpha-
cellulose coupons. Sampling time: collected 30 minutes
after application. Number of samples: at each sampling
time, samples were collected from 61 locations on the
floor. Size of room: 15ft2inxl5ft2in (462 cm x 462
cm)
0.50%
chlorpyrifos
Vaccaro
(1991)
manually-
pressurized
handwand
7.19
Application technique: Pesticide product diluted with
water and applied as an emulsion using a manually-
pressurized handwand. Sample collection: Collection
media: gauze coupons. Placed randomly on floor in
treated room. 4 coupons sampled in room w/o activity and
2 coupons sampled in rooms w/activity (3 rooms). Value
reported is average coupon residue for all 4 rooms
sampled.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-41
-------
Appendix D
liihlo I)-13: Su iiiin;ir\ of lim;i(k';isl IKTiiull Kosi(luo\n;il\sis
Active
Ingredient
and Percent
Solution
Applied
Source
Application
Equipment
Residue
(Hg/cnr)
Notes on Study
0.50%
chlorpyrifos
Fenske et
al.(1990)
manually-
pressurized
handwand
13.6
Application technique: formulation applied
approximately 40 cm above the carpet with a handheld fan
broadcast nozzle attached to a C02 pressurized tank.
Sample collection: Collection media: aluminum foil
samples. 5 coupons collected immediately after
application.
0.50%
chlorpyrifos
Krieger et
al.(2001)
manually-
pressurized
handwand
15
Application technique: formulation applied with a
handheld pressurized tank and wand. Sample collection:
Foil samples collected in 3 treated rooms (no information
on number of samples per room). Residue value reported
is average for three rooms.
The default residue value proposed for broadcast fogger treatments is based on a review of three
NDETF studies which measured deposition following application of 0.2% deltamethrin (Selim,
2000c), 0.5% permethrin (Selim, 2003c) and 0.5% pyrethrin (Selim, 2000b). The average
residue for each study was adjusted to account for the differences in percent spray and then
averaged across the three studies. In the case of foggers, the average residue was used, rather
than the maximum from the three studies, since the residues were all very close (0.5%
2 2 2
deltamethrin: 5.6 |j,g/cm ; 0.5% permethrin: 4.8 |j,g/cm ; 0.5% pyrethrin: 5.8 (j,g/cm ). It is
assumed that the more active ingredient applied (i.e., higher percent spray), the higher the
measured residue value would be; therefore, it is proposed in the Indoor SOP that the residue
value be adjusted depending on the percent spray.
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug (Coarse) Treatment:
Recommended default residue value: 4.5 ng/cm
For perimeter/spot/bedbug (coarse) treatments, deposition data from three studies were available
for five chemicals. The table below presents the residue values obtained from the available
chemical-specific studies. The available data did not seem to indicate any trend with percent
spray (i.e., a higher percent spray did not necessarily result in a higher residue value for a room).
Therefore, for these application methods, a weighted average was calculated for each study and
an average residue value based on all the available studies was used as the default for each
particular application method. These values should be used as is and should not be adjusted for
percent spray.
l iihlo I)-14: Siimniiin of IVriiiK'k'r/Spoi/lh'dbuii (( o;irse) IKTiiull Residue An;il\sis
Active
Ingredient
and Percent
Solution
Applied
Source
Application
Equipment
Residue
(|.tg/cm:)
Notes on Study
Average residue:
4.5
Minimum:
0.9
Maximum:
8.8
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-42
-------
Appendix D
T;il>k' I)-14: Siimniiin of IVriiiKMor/Spoi/licdhuu (( o;irse) IKTiiull Residue \n;il>sis
Active
Ingredient
and Percent
Solution
Applied
Source
Application
Equipment
Residue
(|ig/cnr)
Notes on Study
0.50%
malathion
U.S. EPA
(1993)
compressed
air sprayer
8.8
Application technique: Report states that crack and
crevice application was made but defines crack and
crevice as treatment "around the perimeter or baseboard
area of a room". Application made with a compressed air
sprayer. Sample collection: Collection media: cotton
dosimeter patches. Sampling time: 0 and 4 hours; no
difference identified between 2 sampling times. Number
of samples: divided floor into 16 blocks; 100 samples
collected. Size of room: 12 ft x 12 ft (366 cm x 366 cm).
Treated area = 0-30 cm from wall. Untreated area = >90
cm from wall. Weighted average residue = (30% of
average residue from treated area) + (70% of average
residue from untreated area).
0.17%
chlorpyrifos
(heavy)
5.2
Application technique: perimeter application directed at
the baseboards but spreading for as much as half a meter
ud the wall and alona the floor, chlorovrifos: applied as a
"heavy" and a "light" level. PCA described the heavy
application as "good coverage, what I would use in my
0.17%
chlorpyrifos
(light)
Keenan
(2007)
compressed
air sprayer
4.9
house". PCA described the light application as a "fine
spray, what I would use in somebody else's house". Study
personnel could not visually distinguish between the two
applications, deltamethrin and cvfluthrin: applied as
0.03%
deltamethrin
5.5
"light" perimeter application. Sample Collection:
Collection media: chromatography paper attached to foam
boards located in 3 locations in room (in corner, under
window and along wall). Number of samples: Cut paper
into 5 8-cm sections from the wall/floor intersection out to
40 cm. Size of room: 10 ft x 10 ft (305 cm x 305 cm).
Treated area = 0-8 cm. Untreated area = 8-40 cm.
Weighted average residue = (30%) of average residue from
treated area) + (70%) of average residue from untreated
area).
0.02%
cyfluthrin
1.5
0.10%
esfenvalerate
Selim (2008)
aerosol can
with typical
nozzle
0.9
Application technique: The applicator applied the test
substance to the entire baseboard, moving at a speed of 1
linear foot per second. The test container was held 18
inches above the baseboard to achieve an approximate one
foot spray band (6 inches up the wall and six inches on the
floor). Sample Collection: Collection media: alpha-
cellulose coupons. Sampling time: collected 30 minutes
after application. Number of samples: at each sampling
time, samples were collected from 61 locations on the
floor. Size of room: 15ft2inxl5ft2in (462 cm x 462
cm). Treated area and untreated area = based on
information in study which indicated which coupons were
within treated area. Weighted average residue = (30%) of
average residue from treated area) + (70%o of average
residue from untreated area).
Perimeter/Spot/Bedbug (Pinstream) Treatment:
Recommended default residue value: 1.1 |ag/cm
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-43
-------
Appendix D
For perimeter/spot/bedbug (pinstream) treatments, deposition data from two studies were
available for four chemicals. The table below presents the residue values obtained from the
available chemical-specific studies. The available data did not seem to indicate any trend with
percent spray (i.e., a higher percent spray did not necessarily result in a higher residue value for a
room). Therefore, for these application methods, a weighted average was calculated for each
study and an average residue value based on all the available studies was used as the default for
each particular application method. These values should be used as is and should not be adjusted
for percent spray.
1 iihlo I)-15: Siimniiin «f Periineler/Spni/lk'dbuii (|)ins(renin) Delimit Residue \n;il>sis
Active
Ingredient
and Percent
Solution
Applied
Source
Application
Equipment
Residue
(ug/cnr)
Notes on Study
Av erage residue:
1.1
Minimum:
0.027
Maximum:
4.4
1%
propoxur
aerosol can
with C/C tip
0.0866
Annlication techniaue: dtodoxut: annlied with aerosol
can into simulated cracks and crevices (SCC) constructed
in a test house. Dermethrin and cvDermethrin: aDDlied
using compressed air sprayer with c/c tip. The SCCs were
constructed by placing paneling on three walls in living
room and affixing wood strips to the paneling to create
cracks and crevices from the floor to the ceiling. Each of
the six panels consisted of 1536 lineal inches (3901 lineal
cm) for a total of 9216 lineal inches. Sample collection:
Surface residues of all four chemicals were collected using
deposition coupons and floor wipes in the room of
application (the living room) and two other rooms in the
test house (the den and master bedroom) during the
application, immediately after, and 1,2, 3, 7, 14, 21,28,
and 35 days after application. Treated area and untreated
area = based on information in study which indicated
which coupons were within treated area. Weighted
average residue = (30% of average residue from treated
area) + (70% of average residue from untreated area).
0.5%
permethrin
Smith (2011)
- Review of
unpublished
study from
ORD
compressed
air sprayer
with C/C tip
0.0552
0.2%
cypermethrin
compressed
air sprayer
with C/C tip
0.0273
0.05%
deltamethrin
Keenan
(2007)
aerosol can
with C/C tip
4.4
Application technique: aerosol can applied as a crack
and crevice spray in the test room using an applicator
wand supplied at purchase by the manufacturer. Sample
collection: Collection media: chromatography paper
attached to foam boards located in 3 locations in room (in
corner, under window and along wall). Number of
samples: Cut paper into 5 8-cm sections from the
wall/floor intersection out to 40 cm. Size of room: 10 ft x
10 ft (305 cm x 305 cm). Treated area = 0-8 cm.
Untreated area = 8-40 cm. Weighted average residue =
(30%) of average residue from treated area) + (70%) of
average residue from untreated area).
Crack and crevice Treatment:
Recommended default residue value: 0.3 |j,g/cm
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-44
-------
Appendix D
For crack and crevice treatments, deposition data from two studies were available for four
chemicals. The table below presents the residue values obtained from the available chemical-
specific studies. The available data did not seem to indicate any trend with percent spray (i.e., a
higher percent spray did not necessarily result in a higher residue value for a room). Therefore,
for these application methods, a weighted average was calculated for each study and an average
residue value based on all the available studies was used as the default for each particular
application method. These values should be used as is and should not be adjusted for percent
spray.
I'iihlo l)-l(>: Siimm;ir\ of Crsick ;inri ('iv\icc l)cf;iull Residue An;il\sis
Active
Ingredient
and Percent
Solution
Applied
Source
Application
Equipment
Residue
(|.ig/cm:)
Notes on Study
Av erage residue:
0.3
Minimum:
0.00956
Maximum:
1.5
1%
propoxur
aerosol can
with C/C tip
0.0319
AnDlication techniaue: dtodoxut: annlied with aerosol
can into simulated cracks and crevices (SCC) constructed
in a test house. Dermethrin and cvDermethrin: aDDlied
using compressed air sprayer with c/c tip. The SCCs were
constructed by placing paneling on three walls in living
room and affixing wood strips to the paneling to create
cracks and crevices from the floor to the ceiling. Each of
the six panels consisted of 1536 lineal inches (3901 lineal
cm) for a total of 9216 lineal inches. Sample collection:
Surface residues of all four chemicals were collected using
deposition coupons and floor wipes in the room of
application (the living room) and two other rooms in the
test house (the den and master bedroom) during the
application, immediately after, and 1,2, 3, 7, 14, 21,28,
and 35 days after application. Treated area and untreated
area = based on information in study which indicated
which coupons were within treated area. Weighted
average residue = (10% of average residue from treated
area) + (90% of average residue from untreated area).
0.5%
permethrin
Smith (2011)
- Review of
unpublished
study from
ORD
compressed
air sprayer
with C/C tip
0.019
0.2%
cypermethrin
compressed
air sprayer
with C/C tip
0.00956
0.5%
chlorpyrifos
Stout and
Mason
(2003)
compressed
air applied
by certified
appl w/ pin-
stream spray
tip
0.01
Application technique: dilute solution is systematically
placed into the potential cockroach harborages such as the
cracks and crevices of the cabinetry, and around and
behind the stove, refrigerator and dishwasher. Sample
collection: Collection media: deposition coupons. 12
coupons placed in rows in kitchen (application site) and
den. Collected prior to, immediately following the
application (the sample collection process was initiated
after the application and required about 1 h to complete),
and at days 3, 7, 14 and 21 days post-application.
Individual coupons in kitchen ranged from 0.0015 to 0.23
ug/cm2. Weighted average residue = (10% of average
residue from treated area) + (90% of average residue from
untreated area).
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-45
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo l)-l(>: Siimni;ir\ ol'( nick ;inri ( iv\icc l)cT;ml( Residue An;il\sis
Active
Ingredient
and Percent
Solution
Applied
Source
Application
Equipment
Residue
(|.ig/cnr)
Notes on Study
0.1%
esfenvalerate
Selim (2008)
aerosol can
with C/C tip
0.2
Application technique: The applicator applied the test
substance to the entire baseboard (corner), moving at a
speed of 1 linear foot per second. The test container was
held 12 to 18 inches above the baseboard to achieve an
approximate one inch spray band at the floor/wall
interface. Sample Collection: Collection media:
deposition coupons. Number of samples: 61 coupons
placed along wall/floor intersection (15 cm x 5 cm) and
placed in pattern throughout room (5 cm x 5 cm). Size of
room: 15 ft 2 in x 15 ft 2 in (462 cm x 462 cm). Treated
area = based on figure in study which showed which
coupons were within treated area. Untreated area = based
on figure in study which showed which coupons were
within untreated area. Weighted average residue = (10%
of average residue from treated area) + (90% of average
residue from untreated area)
0.05%
deltamethrin
Keenan
(2007)
aerosol can
with C/C tip
1.5
Application technique: applied directly into C/C.
Sample collection: Collection media: chromatography
paper attached to foam boards located in 3 locations in
room (in corner, under window and along wall). Number
of samples: Cut paper into 5 8-cm sections from the
wall/floor intersection out to 40 cm. Size of room: 10 ft x
10 ft (305 cm x 305 cm). Treated area = 0-8 cm.
Untreated area = 8-40 cm. Weighted average residue =
(10%) of average residue from treated area) + (90% of
average residue from untreated area)
D.6 Generic Estimates of Transferable Residue
Following an application, pesticide residue that remains on target surfaces (e.g., carpets, leaves,
turf, etc.) and thus available for surface-to-skin transfer is referred to as transferable residue.
Examples of non-transferable residue would be residue that evaporates, adheres to carpet fibers,
or absorbs into plant surfaces. Typically, chemical-specific studies are submitted quantifying
transferable residue using standardized and replicable methodologies on the day of application
(i.e., "day 0") and subsequent days (i.e., 1, 3, 5, 7 days) following application. This data can
then be directly used in mathematical models to estimate daily residue.
When a chemical-specific study is unavailable, however, transferable residue on the day of
application (i.e., "day 0") can be estimated as a fraction of the application rate (e.g., 10% of the
application rate as transferable residue on the day of application) and transferable residue on
subsequent days can be calculated using a daily dissipation rate (e.g., 15% of the transferable
residue on the day of application is present on the day after application).
Existing transferable residue studies for a variety of chemicals can provide a basis for generic
approximations of the "day 0" transferable residue and daily dissipation when chemical-specific
studies are unavailable to assess post-application exposure in outdoor and indoor residential
settings. "Day 0" transferable residue, as a fraction of the application rate, is derived as the ratio
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-46
-------
Appendix D
of the application rate as a mass per area target surface concentration (e.g., lbs active ingredient
per acre) to the measured mass per area "day 0" concentration. Converting each value to the
same units provides a unitless ratio which can also be considered as a percentage (i.e., 10% of
the application is transferable residue on the day of application). Daily residue dissipation is
typically derived using a first-order exponential decay model. Each day's measured transferable
residue is log-transformed and regressed against the day of application using ordinary least
squares (OLS). The resulting slope represents a constant fraction, or percentage, of residue that
dissipates per day. The following sections present analyses of existing studies for various
residential settings.
D.6.1 Turf
Transferable residue on turf has historically been referred to as transferable turf residue (TTR),
and can be measured using a number of different techniques. The industry-based Occupational
and Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF) tested five techniques in 1996: the California
roller method, the shoe method, the polyurethane foam (PUF) roller method, the drag sled
method, and the foliar wash method. A follow-up study was conducted on a turf farm in 1997
using three modified techniques: the modified California roller method, the modified shoe
method, and the ORETF roller method. The data from both of these studies is summarized and
analyzed in a 1999 ORETF report (Cowell, J., and Johnson, D., 1999). Ultimately - based on the
information provided by ORETF and working in conjunction with the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) - a
TTR collection method (the Modified California Roller Method) was agreed upon for all future
TTR studies. The Modified California Roller was selected because it produced the most
consistent results across individuals, active ingredients, formulation types, and time than the
other techniques. It also was sensitive enough to detect low levels of residues and was one of the
easier techniques to use.
In a typical TTR study, triplicate samples are collected using the Modified California Roller
Method before the day of application, on the day of application, and for several days following
the application (e.g., 1, 3, 5, 7 days after application). Each sample is then extracted in solution
to yield a mass of chemical which can be expressed as a turf residue concentration (e.g., [X] |Lxg
per [X] cm2). This data can then be directly used in mathematical models to estimate daily
residue.
TTR studies can also be used as surrogates in the event chemical-specific information is
unavailable for a particular pesticide. The Agency analyzed 36 TTR studies using liquid
formulations, 11 TTR studies using wettable powders/water dispersible granular (WP/WDG)
formulations, and 12 studies using granular formulations for the purposes of establishing generic
transferable residue factors. Since they are applied as sprays, residue data resulting from
applications with the liquid/wettable powder/water dispersible granular formulation were
combined while residues from applications of granular formulations were treated separately.
Table D-17 and Table D-18 present the "day 0" transferable residue as a fraction of the
application rate (F) for each of the 47 liquid/wettable powder/water dispersible granular studies
and each of the 12 granular studies, respectively.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-47
-------
Appendix D
1 iihk' I)-1"7: Kosi(kii(i;il Turf- l.i(|iiid/\\ P/W l)(. Tr;inslVr;il)k' Residue l);il;i
MRU) Number
Ac(i\e Ingredient
Siic
l-'ormiiliilion
l-'i'iiclion of
Application
Riilo A\;iil;iblc
lor Tr;insl'cr
(1)
45040701
Isoxaban
CA
DF
0.015
IN
DF
0.011
MS
DF
0.0070
44901001
Chlorothalonil
GA
DF
0.010
NY
DF
0.0042
OR
DF
0.006
44955501
Permethrin
GA
EC
0.0064
CA
EC
0.0085
PA
EC
0.0061
45288601
Propiconazole
IN
EC
0.0016
CA
EC
0.0097
PA
EC
0.0045
45361602
Fluroxypyr
CA
EC
0.0043
MS
EC
0.0035
PA
EC
0.0074
45118725
Pyraclostrobin
NC
EC
0.0018
CA
EC
0.0062
PA
EC
0.0022
46684102
Pendimethalin
PA
EC
0.0019
GA
EC
0.0016
CA
EC
0.0021
45260201
Trinexapac-methyl
GA
EC
0.0047
CA
EC
0.0031
IN
EC
0.0069
44958501
Mancozeb
NC
F
0.00077
PA
F
0.00041
CA
F
0.00097
44958701
Simazine
CA
L
0.0027
FL
L
0.0032
44958901
Monosodium
Methanearsonate
NY
L
0.0029
NC
L
0.0014
CA
L
0.015
45067201
Trichlorfon
GA
L
0.00015
MO
L
0.000033
NY
L
0.0000050
44687101
Pentachloro nitrobenzene
CA
L
0.011
OR
L
0.0081
MO
L
0.0067
45251501
Propamocarb
CA
L
0.0043
MO
L
0.0035
VA
L
0.0090
45894314
Propamocarb
hydrochloride
CA
L
0.013
PA
L
0.011
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-48
-------
Appendix D
1 iihk' I)-1"7: Kosi(kii(i;il Turf- l.i(|iiid/\\ P/W l)(. Tr;inslVr;il)k' Residue l);il;i
MRU) Number
Ac(i\e Ingredient
Siic
l-'ormiiliilion
l-'i'iiclion of
Application
Riilo A\;iil;iblc
lor Tr;insl'cr
(1)
45249601
Triclopyr (Amine)
CA
L
0.0050
IN
L
0.0046
MS
L
0.0036
Triclopyr (Ester)
CA
L
0.0031
IN
L
0.0037
MS
L
0.0050
45250001
Fenarimol
CA
L
0.061
IN
L
0.0084
MS
L
0.0058
45214201
Paclobutrazol
CA
L
0.010
NY
L
0.0029
NC
L
0.0053
45114301
Carbaryl
CA
L
0.030
GA
L
0.015
PA
L
0.011
44799001
Bensulide
NY
L
0.0040
44828401
Spinosad
CA
L
0.013
MS
L
0.023
PA
L
0.0087
44951901
Siduron
NY
L
0.0051
44959101
Diazinon
GA
L
0.00012
CA
L
0.00050
PA
L
0.00035
44968001
Iprodion
GA
L
0.0068
CA
L
0.0094
NY
L
0.0073
45111501
Cypermethrin
CA
L
0.0053
MO
L
0.0014
PA
L
0.0051
Chlorothalonil
CA
L
0.013
GA
L
0.0081
NY
L
0.014
45033101
2,4-D
CA
L
0.013
WI
L
0.011
45251401
Glufo sinate - Ammo nium
NY
LC
0.0040
CA
LC
0.0070
GA
LC
0.0028
4507150
Oryzalin
CA
SC
0.0049
IN
SC
0.0046
MS
SC
0.010
44959001
Dicamba
FL
SC
0.0078
CA
SC
0.012
PA
SC
0.010
46571104
Cyanzofamid
NC
SC
0.0037
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-49
-------
Appendix D
1 iihk' I)-1"7: Kosi(kii(i;il Turf- l.i(|iii(l/\\ P/W l)(. Tr;inslVr;il)k' Residue l);il;i
MRU) Number
\cli\c Ingredient
Siic
l-'ormiiliilion
l-'i'iiclion of
Application
Riilo A\;iil;iblc
lor Tr;insl'cr
(1)
45576801
Triticonazole
GA
SC
0.0060
CA
sc
0.0032
NY
SC
0.0017
46703508
Penoxsulam
GA
sc
0.043
FL
sc
0.0068
47172301
Mesotrione
NY
sc
0.00096
CA
sc
0.0032
GA
sc
0.0017
45251201
Deltamethrin
NY
sc
0.0058
GA
sc
0.0086
CA
sc
0.014
Oryzalin
CA
sc
0.061
IN
sc
0.011
MS
sc
0.013
45640010
Dinotefuran
CA
SG
0.0061
PA
SG
0.0066
GA
SG
0.0047
44969901
Pendimethalin
CA
WDG
0.030
45071501
Chlorothalonil (Daconil,
Ultrex)
CA
WDG
0.0049
GA
WDG
0.0046
NY
WDG
0.010
45405301
Nicotinamide
PA
WDG
0.011
GA
WDG
0.0044
CA
WDG
0.0090
45102911
methyl 2,4-[o-
(methylphenoxymethyl)ph
enyl] -2-methoxyimino)
acetamide
NC
WDG
0.0043
CA
WDG
0.014
PA
WDG
0.017
45260401
Prodimaine
GA
WDG
0.0098
CA
WDG
0.0012
PA
WDG
0.00091
45149001
Cyfluthrin
GA
WP
0.011
MS
WP
0.015
NY
WP
0.0034
CA
WP
0.012
MO
WP
0.0069
PA
WP
0.017
44952501
Pronamide
NC
WP
0.027
44952901
Myclobutanil
NC
WP
0.012
CA
WP
0.024
44806401
Acephate
F1
WSP
0.0052
44995502
Oxadiazon
GA
WSP
0.026
F = Fraction of residue available on day 0
Range of Data = 0.000005 - 0.061 (n= 131)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-50
-------
Appendix D
I'iihlc I)-IS: Rcsiricnlhil TimT- (>r;iiiiil;ir Tr;msfer;il)le Residue' l);il;i
MRU) Number
\cli\c Ingredient
Silo
l-'ormiil;ilion
I'nielion of
A|)|)lie;ilion
Rule
A\iiiliihlo lor
liiiusler (I")
44958801
Atrazine
GA
G
0.0021
FL
G
0.0069
45260401
Prodimaine
GA
G
0.00021
CA
G
0.00022
PA
G
0.00039
44829601
Chlorpyrifos
CA
G
0.0013
IN
G
0.00075
MS
G
0.00075
44959101
Diazinon
GA
G
0.000039
CA
G
0.000012
PA
G
0.000028
45067201
Trichlorfon
GA
G
0.000006
MO
G
0.000032
44998301
Benefin
CA
G
0.000109
IN
G
0.000087
MS
G
0.000047
Trifluralin
CA
G
0.00012
IN
G
0.000094
MS
G
0.000067
46673901
Carbaryl
FL
G
0.0062
KS
G
0.0019
CA
G
0.0051
47172301
Mesotrione
NY
G
0.00077
CA
G
0.0016
GA
G
0.0017
45249601
Triclopyr, Clopyralid
CA
G
0.0051
IN
G
0.0025
MS
G
0.0023
45040701
Isoxaben (Gallery)
CA
G
0.00080
IN
G
0.0020
MS
G
0.00030
Isoxaben (Gallery plus
Surflan)
CA
G
0.0059
IN
G
0.0027
MS
G
0.00030
Oryzalin (Gallery plus
Surflan)
CA
G
0.0060
IN
G
0.0030
MS
G
0.00020
F = Fraction of residue available on day 0
Range of Data = 0.0000064 - 0.0069 (n = 37)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-51
-------
Appendix D
D.6.2 Gardens, Trees, and "Pick-your-own" Farms
Transferable residue in vegetable, fruit, and flower gardens, trees, shrubs, bushes, and "pick-
your-own" farms has historically been referred to as dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR). In
chemical-specific studies, DFR is measured using a "leaf-punch" technique. Three (3) samples,
each containing 40 leaf punches equal to approximately 400 square centimeters (cm ) of 2-sided
foliar surface area, are collected on the day of application and for several days following the
application (e.g., 1, 3, 5, 7 days after application). Each of the 3 samples is then "dislodged" in
solution to yield a mass of chemical which can be expressed as a foliar concentration (e.g., [X]
Hg per 400 cm2).
DFR studies can also be used as surrogates in the event chemical-specific information is
unavailable for a particular pesticide. Nineteen (19) studies conducted by the Agricultural
Reentry Task Force (ARTF) were analyzed for the purposes of establishing generic transferable
residue factors. Table D-19 below presents the "day 0" transferable residue as a fraction of the
application rate (Far) and the fraction per day daily dissipation (Fd) for each of the 19 studies.
l;il)lo I)-11): (iiirdcns. 1 ivo
s. iiiid "Pick-Miii
r-iiwn" l-'iirins - I riinsloriihlc Residue l);il;i
Sunk keleiviicc
\pplicalioii
Das 0 Dl 'k
1 raiislerahle
kesidue as
IVaelKiii
per 1 )a\
Crop
Chemical
kale
(measured.
fraction ol
DaiK
\RTI;
\1kll)
(Ih ai acre)
Liu ai cm )
\pplicalion
kale d ' )
1 )issipaiK
-------
Appendix D
l;il)lo I)-11): (iiirdcns. 1 ivo
s. iiiid "Pick-Miii
r-iiwn" l-'iirins - I riinsloriihlc Residue l);il;i
Sunk kcfcrciicc
\pplicalion
Das 0 Dl'k
Transferable
kesidue as
fraction
per 1 )a\
Crop
Chemical
kale
(measured.
fraction of
l);nl\
\kll;
\1kll)
(Ih ai acre)
Liu ai cm )
\pplicalK
-------
Appendix D
Figure D-2: Fraction of Transferable Residue, By Chemical
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-54
-------
Appendix D
Figure D-3: Fraction of Transferable Residue, By Crop Type
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-55
-------
Appendix D
Lognormal Probability Plot
Gardens and Trees: FflR
+
+ +
+
+ +
X A
~
CP
<0
00*
X
~
X
A
A
5.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Standard Normal Score
AOranges_cyfluthrin (ARF028)
+ Mums_diazinon (ARF039)
~Cabbage_carbaryl (ARF037)
El Orange_carbaryl (ARF041)
XGrapefruit_carbary (ARF042)I
-Tobacco_carbaryl (ARF024)
ASunflower_carbaryl (ARF022)
• Tomato_chlorothalonil (ARF051)
^Peas_chlorothalonil (ARF021)
OSwCorn_chlorothalonil (ARF009)
¦ SwCorn_chlorothalonil (ARF010)
O Cauliflower_chlorothalonil
(ARF012)
Cau I ifl ower_ch I orothal oni I
(ARF011)
XGrape_malathion (ARF048)
XGrape_malathion (ARF023)
-Apple_malathion (ARF025)
XOmCtirus_malathion (ARF043)
— Squash_malathion (ARF049)
~ OmCitrus_malathion (ARF044)
Figure D-4: Gardens and Trees - Fraction of Available Residue Lognormal Probability Plot
It is not clear from the data whether any broad categories can be defined for Far values. For
example, Figure D-4 shows that while malathion demonstrates relatively high Far values (0.31 -
0.47; ARF049) it also demonstrates some of the lowest (0.04 - 0.07; ARF048). The same
appears to be the case for specific crops with oranges, as one example, demonstrating fairly high
Far values (0.31 - 0.38; ARF041) and low Far values (0.02 - 0.04; ARF028).
Due to the the lack of meaningful trends or patterns in these datasets, the FAr values (as well as
residue dissipation values) are pooled into composite datasets for the purposes of providing
generic transferable residue factors for exposure assessment. Lognormal probability plots for
these composite datasets are presented below in Figure D-5 and Figure D-6.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-56
-------
Appendix D
Figure D-5: Gardens and Trees - Fraction of Available Residue Lognormal Probability Plot
Figure D-6: Gardens and Trees - Residue Dissipation Lognormal Probability Plot
Because both datasets reasonably fit lognormal distributions, statistics, such as standard
deviations and percentiles can be estimated based on characteristics of the lognormal
distribution. Table D-20 and Table D-21 below present select summary statistics for each factor.
[Note: it is recognized that treating each data point independently is technically incorrect due to
the "nested" structure of the data set (i.e., Far values within crops, which are within chemicals,
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-57
-------
Appendix D
etc.); however, resulting statistics are nonetheless reasonable and useful for exposure assessment
purposes.]
l iihk* D-2H: (.unions, l ives. ;iihI "Pick-vour-own" hirms S(;i(is(ic;il Suinni;ir\
Sliiiislic
1 r;insl'cr;il)lc Residue ;is 1- i';iclion ol' Application K;i(c(I\n)
50th percentile
0.18
75 th percentile
0.31
90th percentile
0.50
95th percentile
0.66
99th percentile
> 1.0
99.9th percentile
> 1.0
AM(SD)
0.25 (0.23)
GM (GSD)
0.18(2.2)
Range
0.02-0.89
N
60
Statistics based on a lognormal distribution.
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
l iihk* D-21: (.unions, l ives. ;ind "Pick-vonr-own" hirms Si;iiislic
-------
Appendix D
different methods. Most of the transfer efficiencies were measured relatively soon after application (i.e., within 24
hours). Data sets were compared using a non-parametric analysis of variance method and the Kruskal-Wallis test to
determine whether different combinations of data sets arise from the same distribution. The data sets were initially
separated by chemical and surface type. The Kruskall-Wallis test was used to determine whether data sets from
different sampling methods, but for the same chemical and surface could be combined. All data sets for a specific
chemical and surface type were evaluated and data sets were eliminated one by one, with the attempt being to
maximize the number of data points until the p-valuc was greater than 0.05. The experimental methods of the
combined data sets were assessed to determine whether there were any consistent trends related to the
inclusion/exclusion of data sets. No consistent trends were observed with respect to different transfer efficiency
methods, dry versus wet hand presses, different application concentrations and formulations and different sampling
time points after application. The combined data set was assessed to determine which distribution was a best fit and
it was determined to be the lognormal distribution. The Kruskal-Wallis p-valuc for all surface and chemical
combinations was less than 0.0001, indicating that distributions are statistically different. A trend for pesticide
transfer was observed for surface type with transfer from vinyl being higher than from carpet.
Full data sets were provided for 5 studies which were utilized for this SOP and included the following studies:
Camann, D.; Harding, H.; Geno, P.; and Agrawl S. (1996). Comparison of Methods to Determine Dislodgeable
Residue Transfer from Floors (EPA/600/R96/089) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
Three methods were evaluated for measurement of freshly-applied pesticide residues on carpeted and vinyl
floors. Tests were conducted to determine the relative performance of the three methods for removal of
dislodgeable residues and to compare them with human skin. The Dow drag sled and the Southwest
Research Institute polyurethane foam (PUF) roller performed better than the California cloth roller.
Moistening the sampling media increased the transfer by the drag sled and the PUF roller, but substantially
increased measurement variability. An isopropanol handwipe method efficiently removed dried pesticide
residues from the hands of volunteers (104% of chlorpyrifos, 92% of pyrethrin I). Both the drag sled and
the PUF roller were found to be acceptable dislodgeable residue methods on the basis of these studies. The
transfer efficiency of the drag sled consistently exceeded the transfer efficiency of the PUF roller, which
consistently exceeded the transfer efficiency of human hand presses. This relationship was observed for a
variety of pesticides, loadings, application methods, and surfaces. The pliable polyurethane foam sampling
surface of the PUF roller with its rolling action is likely to better simulate human skin in its transfer via
contact with surfaces than is the denim cloth of the Dow sled with its drag action. Either memanical
method can be used to estimate dermal transfer of pesticide residues from recently treated floors. Round-
robin testing of the drag sled and PUF roller by potential registrants under strict QA/QC guidance from
EPA is recommended.
Fortune, C. (1997). Round-Robin Testing of Methods for Collecting Dislodgeable Residues from Carpets.
(EPA/600/R97/107). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
A round-robin test was conducted using six volunteers to evaluate three dislodgeable residue methods
sampling new carpets treated with a commercial pesticide formulation. Seven separate tests were
performed, each using a formulation containing three target pesticides (chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I, and
piperonyl butoxide). Strict QA/QC guidelines were followed as each participant collected three replicate
samples each with the polyurethane foam (PUF) roller, the California roller, and the Dow drag sled
methods. Sampling precision was high for all three methods for measurements of this type. The overall
results (mean % RSD, relative standard deviation, N=21) show the Dow sled with the best sampling
precision (25.4% RSD), followed by the California roller (30.7%), and then the PUF roller (37.9%). Mean
transfer efficiency, the ratio of the method transfer rate to the pesticide deposition rate, was highest for the
California roller (5.0%), followed by the Dow sled (2.1%) and the PUF roller (1.7%). The mean transfer
efficiency rates in this study were substantially higher than those reported in earlier studies of this type.
Information relating to ease of use, simplicity, time requirements, and other criteria for each of the test
methods was obtained from written subjective evaluation and critique by each volunteer. A compilation of
that information revealed that both the Dow sled and PUF roller methods were rated highly and equal to
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-59
-------
Appendix D
one another, while the California roller was rated lower. Further testing is recommended to determine the
effect on transfer efficiency rates due to carpet age, type and prior cleaning or chemical treatment.
Krieger, R. I., C. E. Bernard, T. M. Dinoff, L. Fell, T. Osimitz, J. H. Ross, and T. Thongsinthusak. (2000).
Biomonitoring and whole body cotton dosimetry to estimate potential human dermal exposure to semivolatile
chemicals. J. Exposure Analysis & Environ. Epidemiol. 10: 50-57.
Current methods of estimating absorbed dosage (AD) of chemicals were evaluated to determine residue
transfer from a carpet treated with chlorpyrifos (CP) to humans who performed a structured exercise
routine. To determine the dislodgeability of residue, a California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA) roller was applied to a flat cotton cloth upon a treated carpet. Levels ranged from 0.06 to 0.99 |.ig
CP/cm2. Cotton whole body dosimeters (WBD) were also used to assess residue transfer. The dosimeters
retained 1.5 to 38 mg CP/person. Urine biomonitoring (3 days) for 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol(TCP) of
persons who wore only swimsuits revealed a mean AD of 176 |.ig CP equivalents/person. The results show
that the AD depends on the extent of contact transfer and dermal absorption of the residue. Default
exposure assessments based upon environmental levels of chemicals and hypothetical transport pathways
predict excessive exposure. The cotton WBD retains chemical residues and may be effectively used to
predict dermal dose under experimental conditions.
Ross, J; Fong, HR; Thongsinthusak, T; Margetich, S; Krieger, R. (1991). Measuring potential dermal transfer of
surface pesticide residue generated from indoor fogger use: using the CDFA roller methods. Chemosphere 22: 975
-984.
A standardized, reproducible method of surrogate dermal monitoring was devised to supplement
knowledge of the potential transfer of pesticide residues from floor surfaces to persons in contact with the
floor. This device was a 12 kg foam-covered rolling cylinder equipped with stationary handles. The device
was rolled over a cotton cloth (the actual collection media) placed over carpet to be sampled. This method
transfers between 1 and 3 percent of the potential available pesticide material from nylon carpeting to the
collection media. Transfer from carpet to cotton cloth correlates highly with transfer to cotton clothing
worn by persons exercising on the carpet.
Clothier, J. (2000). Dermal Transfer Efficiency of Pesticides from New Vinyl Sheet Flooring to Dry and Wetted
Palms. (EPA/600/R00/029). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
This report presents results of a study to determine the transfer efficiencies from carpet to human skin of
four pesticides commonly used for residential indoor insect control. Formulations of the insecticides
chlorpyrifos, pyrethrin I and piperonyl butoxide were applied to new, cut-pile nylon carpeting by broadcast
spray and allowed to dry for 4 hours. Deposition coupons were used to estimate initial surface loadings and
the PUF Roller was to measure dislodgeable residues. After the 4-hour drying period, adult volunteers
performed hand presses (left and right hands, palm only) with either dry or wetted skin. Water, an aqueous
dioctylsulfo succinate (DSS) surfactant solution, and the participant's own saliva were used as wetting
agents. Transfer efficiencies for wetted palms were two to six higher than those for dry palms. The mean
(six presses) transfer efficiencies for chlorpyrifos were 1.64% for water-wetted (W), 0.90% for saliva-
wetted (S), 1.21% for DSS-wetted, and 0.48% for dry skin (D). Transfer efficiencies for the other two
freshly-applied pesticides were higher in most cases (W = 2.50%, S = 1.87%, DSS = 1.39%, and D =
0.32% for pyrethrin I and W = 2.58%, S = 2.03%, DSS = 1.72%, and D = 0.44% for piperonyl butoxide).
Transfer efficiencies for aged permethrin residues in used carpet of similar composition were on the same
order as those observed for freshly-applied residues: 2.45% for palms moistened with water, 2.3% with
saliva, and 0.6% for dry palms.
2) An analysis of data provided by the Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force (NDETF) was conducted. This
analysis included data for bare hand presses on carpets and vinyl surfaces for deltamethrin, permethrin,
piperonyl butoxide and pyrethrin.
2a) MR1D 46188605: Measurement of Transfer of Pyrethrin and Piperonyl Butoxide Residues from Vinyl
Flooring Treated with a Fogger Formulation.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-60
-------
Appendix D
The purpose of the study was to determine the degree of transfer of pyrethrin (PY) and piperonyl butoxide
(PBO) residue from treated vinyl flooring to dry bare hands after a single application of a fogger
formulation containing 0.778% PY and 1.55% PBO. A total release aerosol fogger product was applied
using a sprayboom apparatus in the center of four 16 ft. x 16 ft. x 8 ft. test rooms. Additionally, the study
compared residue transfer from bare hands using alternate methods (indoor roller and drag sled) for
measuring residue transfer from the application of an indoor aerosol fogger. Total deposition was
measured using coupons, collected after the product application and drying period, respectively. During
the application, and for three hours thereafter, the ventilation system in the room was turned off with the
dampers closed to allow for deposition of the spray onto the test surfaces. After the three hours, the
dampers were opened for a 30 minute drying period and then the flooring sections were transferred to a
hand press test room. Residues remaining on bare and gloved hands, percale from indoor roller, and
denium from a drag sled following contact with treated vinyl surfaces were determined. The analysis of the
alpha cellulose deposition coupons for the roller, drag samples and first and second hand presses (bare and
gloved) show that the mean deposition rate of PY and PBO is consistent from application to application and
is reproducible. A comparison of the percent transfer of PY and PBO residues from the roller, drag sled,
bare and gloved hands shows that for all procedures the percent transferability of PY is higher than that of
PBO.
2b) MRID 46188614: Determination of Pyrethrin (PY) and Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) Residue on the Hand
from Treated Vinyl Flooring Sections Following Hand Press on Untreated Surfaces.
The purpose of the study was to determine the amount of residue left on a hand exposed to vinyl flooring
treated with a formulation containing pyrethrin (PY) and piperonyl butoxide (PBO) following hand contact
with untreated vinyl flooring surfaces. In this study, three test rooms were used, with one containing the
application equipment (the sprayboom). Sixty-six vinyl flooring sections were pinned onto a sheet of
plastic-covered plywood attached to the top of six 40 in x 40 in wooden platforms. Total deposition was
measured using deposition coupons, which were collected after application of the test material, followed by
a drying period. After collection of the deposition coupons, four vinyl flooring sections were removed and
moved to a hand press room. Two male test subjects performed one hand press on the treated surface and 4
separate hand presses on untreated pieces of vinyl flooring. Each subject performed hand presses with each
hand, for a total of four replicates. The subjects' hands were then cleaned with isopropyl alcohol dressing
sponges to remove any remaining residues. Hand residues averaged 34.3 ng/cm2 for PY and 38.4 ng/cm2
for PBO. Corrected deposition coupon residues averaged 5.91 ± 1.68 ng/cm2 for PY and 14.52 ± 3.54
Hg/cm2 for PBO. PY and PBO residues on the hand were estimated to be 0.58% and 0.26% of the PY and
PBO applied to the vinyl flooring, as determined from the deposition coupons.
2c) MRID 46297602: Measurement of Transfer of Deltamethrin Residue from Vinyl and Carpet Flooring
Treated with a Fogger Formulation Following a Single Hand Press.
The purpose of the study was two-fold. The first objective was to determine the amount of deltamethrin
residue transferred from treated vinyl and carpet flooring to dry hands using both a hand press and roller
technique. The second objective was to compare the degree of residue transferred for each collection
methodology: isopropyl alcohol (IPA) hand wipes and cotton gloves used for the hand press technique and
cotton percale cloth used for the modified California indoor roller technique. The test formulation
contained a target weight percentage of 0.15% deltamethrin (DTM) (wt/wt). It was applied via a
sprayboom that was meant to simulate a fogger spray. Total deposition was monitored using alpha
cellulose deposition coupons placed at various randomly selected locations on the platforms. Residues
resulting from a single, dry hand press approximately 3.5 hours following application were measured on
vinyl and carpet flooring using the following sampling techniques and collection methodologies: IPA hand
wipes and cotton gloves for the hand press, and percale cloth for the indoor modified California roller.
Calculation of the percent transferability is a function of the measured hand residue and the DTM
deposition on the corresponding flooring. Residue transfer using the modified indoor California roller
appears to be higher for carpets than vinyl (2.8% to 1.5%, respectively). Residue transfer using cotton
gloves appears to be higher for carpets than vinyl (2.7% to 1.9%, respectively). Residue transfer using IPA
wipes appears to be higher for vinyl flooring than carpet (4.7% to 1.4%, respectively). Overall, after
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-61
-------
Appendix D
combining % transferability across residue collection methodologies, transfer from vinyl flooring appears
to be higher than carpet (2.6% to 2.1%, respectively). It should be noted that this is likely because of the
relatively high % transferability from vinyl measured using IPA wipes (4.7%) compared with all the other
methodologies (range of 1.4% to 2.8%).
2d) MRID 46188625: Measurement of Transfer of Permethrin and Piperonyl Butoxide Residues from Vinyl
and Carpet Flooring Treated with a Fogger Formulation Following a Single Hand Press.
The purpose of the study was twofold. The first objective was to determine the amount of permethrin
(PER) and piperonyl butoxide (PBO) residue transferred from treated vinyl and carpet flooring to bare and
gloved adult hands utilizing a single hand press collection technique. The second objective was to compare
the degree of residue transferred via two sampling strategies, i.e., (1) transfer from the single hand press
technique versus (2) transfer to cotton percale cloth using the modified California indoor roller method.
The test formulation contained a target weight percentage of 0.77% permethrin (PER) (wt/wt) and 0.77%
piperonyl butoxide (PBO) (wt/wt). It was applied via a sprayboom that was meant to simulate the use of a
ready-to-use fogger. Total deposition was monitored using alpha cellulose deposition coupons placed at
various randomly selected locations on the platforms. Residues resulting from a single, dry hand press
approximately 3.5 hours following application were measured on vinyl and carpet flooring using the
following sampling techniques and collection methodologies: IPA hand wipes and cotton gloves for the
hand press, and percale cloth for the indoor modified California roller. Calculation of the percent
transferability is a function of the measured hand residue and the DTM deposition on the corresponding
flooring. For the indoor California roller, the findings illustrate that the percentage of PBO and PER
residue transferred from carpet flooring sections to percale was higher than the percentage transferred from
vinyl flooring sections. Also, the percentage of PBO transferred from vinyl to percale was less than half
the percentage of PER transferred, while for carpet flooring surfaces, the percentage of PBO and PER
transferred was similar. For treated vinyl surfaces, the percent of PER transferred to the percale, gloved or
bare hands, was always higher than the percent of PBO transferred. For carpet treated samples, the percent
of PER and PBO residues transferred onto bare or gloved hands, are similar.
2e) MRID 46188628: Determination of Permethrin (PER) and Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) Residue on the Hand
Following Hand Press on Treated and Untreated Vinyl and Carpet.
The purpose of the study was to determine residue concentrations of permethrin (PER) and piperonyl
butoxide (PBO) on bare hands following: 1) contact with either a treated vinyl tile or carpet swatch and
then 2) contact with respective untreated vinyl tiles or carpet swatches. The study was conducted in two
climate controlled test rooms. One room was outfitted with a fixed overhead sprayboom system. The
carpet swatches and vinyl tiles were arranged beneath the spray boom for treatment in the first room while
the hand procedures were performed in the second room. The formulation applied was meant to simulate a
single application of a total release fogger product containing 0.77% PER and 0.77% PBO. During the
spray application, and for three hours thereafter, the ventilation system in the room was turned off with the
dampers closed to allow for deposition of the spray onto the test surfaces. After the three hours, the
dampers were opened for a 30 minute drying period and then the carpet swatches and vinyl tiles were
transferred to the second room to perform the hand press procedures. For the bare hand presses, two
subjects were recruited to press their hands on a single treated swatch or vinyl tile followed by four
separate presses (one each) on untreated carpet swatches or vinyl tiles respectively. Four samples were
collected (two subjects times two hands). The residues remaining on the hands following this procedure
were collected via isopropanol moistened dressing sponges. The mean percent of the application rate
(deposition) collected from the hands was 0.83% (PER) and 0.48% (PBO) for the vinyl tiles and 1.55%
(PER) and 1.49% (PBO) for the carpet swatches.
2f) MRID 46188620: Determination of Pyrethrin (PY) and Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) Residue on the Hand
Following Hand Press on Treated and Untreated Carpet.
The purpose of the study was to determine residue concentrations of pyrethrin (PY) and piperonyl butoxide
(PBO) on bare hands following: 1) contact with a treated carpet swatch and then 2) contact with untreated
carpet swatches. The study was conducted in two climate controlled test rooms. One room was outfitted
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-62
-------
Appendix D
with a fixed overhead sprayboom system. The carpet swatches were arranged beneath the spray boom for
treatment in the first room while the hand procedures were performed in the second room. The formulation
applied was meant to simulate a single application of a total release fogger product containing 0.77% PY
and 1.55% PBO. During the spray application, and for three hours thereafter, the ventilation system in the
room was turned off with the dampers closed to allow for deposition of the spray onto the test surfaces.
After the three hours, the dampers were opened for a 30 minute drying period and then the carpet swatches
were transferred to the second room to perform the hand press procedures. For the bare hand presses, two
subjects were recruited to press their hands on a single treated swatch and then to make an additional four
separate presses (one each) on untreated carpet swatches. Four samples were collected (two subjects times
two hands). The residues remaining on the hands following this procedure were collected via isopropanol
moistened dressing sponges. The mean percent of the application rate (deposition) collected from the
hands was 4.43% (PY) and 4.57% (PBO).
Carpets
l iihlo D-22: Indoor l.n\ ironiiunls - l-'mclion Tninsfcnvri l);il;i for ( iirpols (l ;ii)
(lumk;il
liili>rm;ilhiii Souixi'
SliuK
Mi'lhod
I'mnsli-mMi- Ki'sidui' ;is
l-'niilion of Application K;iu-
Deltamethrin
NDETF
46297602
handpress
0.0204
Deltamethrin
NDETF
46297602
handpress
0.0167
Deltamethrin
NDETF
46297602
handpress
0.0204
Deltamethrin
NDETF
46297602
handpress
0.0185
Deltamethrin
NDETF
46297602
handpress
0.0130
Deltamethrin
NDETF
46297602
handpress
0.0139
Deltamethrin
NDETF
46297602
handpress
0.0130
Deltamethrin
NDETF
46297602
handpress
0.0046
Deltamethrin
NDETF
46297602
handpress
0.0093
Deltamethrin
NDETF
46297602
handpress
0.0157
Permethrin
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0170
Permethrin
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0312
Permethrin
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0188
Permethrin
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0098
Permethrin
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0186
Permethrin
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0146
Permethrin
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0158
Permethrin
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0172
Permethrin
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0230
Permethrin
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0324
Permethrin
NDETF
46188628
handpress
0.0188
Permethrin
NDETF
46188628
handpress
0.0137
Permethrin
NDETF
46188628
handpress
0.0167
Permethrin
NDETF
46188628
handpress
0.0128
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188620
handpress
0.0591
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188620
handpress
0.0615
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188620
handpress
0.0568
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188620
handpress
0.0418
PBO
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0192
PBO
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0359
PBO
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0205
PBO
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0107
PBO
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0214
PBO
NDETF
46188625
handpress
0.0178
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-63
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo D-22: Indoor Hn\ iroiiinciils - l ion l i iinslci ivd l);il;i lor ( iirpols (l ;ii)
C'lK'lllii;il
llir
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo D-22: Indoor Hn\ iroiiinciils - l ion l i iinslci ivd l);il;i lor ( iirpols (l ;ii)
C'lK'lllii;il
llir
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo D-22: Indoor Hn\ iroiiinciils - l ion l i iinslci ivd l);il;i lor ( iirpols (l ;ii)
C'lK'lllii;il
llir
-------
Appendix D
Tiihlo D-22: Indoor l.in iioiniHiils - li;iclion l i iinsloi ivd l);il;i lor C :irpots (l ;ii)
(lumk;il
llir
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo D-22: Indoor Hn\ iroiiinciils - l ion l i iinslci ivd l);il;i lor ( iirpols (l ;ii)
C'lK'lllii;il
llir
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo D-22: Indoor Hn\ iroiiinciils - l ion l i iinslci ivd l);il;i lor ( iirpols (l ;ii)
C'lK'lllii;il
llir
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo D-22: Indoor Hn\ iroiiinciils - l ion l i iinslci ivd l);il;i lor ( iirpols (l ;ii)
C'lK'lllii;il
llir
-------
Appendix D
Tsihle D-22: Indoor l.n\ iroiinu'iHs - l-'melion Tr;insferred l);il;i for ( iirpels (l ;ii)
('lli-lllii;il
liili>rm;ilion Souixi'
Slud\
Mi-diod
Tniiisli-mMi- Ki-sidui- :is
l-'niiiion ill' Application R:iu-
C'hloipyrifos
Banner el al. (2009)
Ross el al. (1991)
cloth roller
0.011
Chlorpyrifos
Beamer et al. (2009)
Ross et al. (1991)
cloth roller
0.024
Chlorpyrifos
Beamer et al. (2009)
Ross et al. (1991)
cloth roller
0.008
Chlorpyrifos
Beamer et al. (2009)
Ross et al. (1991)
cloth roller
0.006
Chlorpyrifos
Beamer et al. (2009)
Ross et al. (1991)
cloth roller
0.007
1 "sihie D-23: Indoor l'.n\ ii-oiimeiils Siimni;ir\ of l-'melion Transferred (l ;ii) for ( iirpels
Sliiiislie
l-'i'iielion Transferred
Arithmetic Mean
0.04
Standard Deviation
0.58
Range
0.0001 -0.258
N
375
Hard Surfaces
liihle D-24: Indoor l'.n\iroiiineiils- l-'r;ielion Tr;insferred l);il;i lor lliii'd Sui'fiiees (l ;ii)
lnl(inn;ilioii Souni-
Slud\
Mi-Mind
Tr;insli-r;il>li-
ki'sidui' ;is I'l iiilion
ol' Application Riili-
Pyretluin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0140
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0316
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0365
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0411
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0134
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0776
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.1509
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0657
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0640
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0684
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0186
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0258
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0664
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.1610
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0597
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0496
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0739
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0336
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0336
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0217
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0453
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0313
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0623
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0306
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0080
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0109
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0386
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0440
Pyrethrin
NDETF
46188605
handpress
0.0526
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-71
-------
Appendix D
liihlc D-24: Indoor F.n\iroiiinoiils- ion l ijiiislVrrocI l);K;i IVir Ihirri Surfaces (l-'iii)
(lumk;il
liir
-------
Appendix D
liihlc D-24: Indoor F.n\iroiiinoiils- ion l ijiiislVrrocI l);K;i IVir Ihird Surfaces (l-'iii)
(lumk;il
liir
-------
Appendix D
liihlc D-24: Indoor F.n\iroiiinoiils- ion l ijiiislVrrocI l);K;i IVir Ihird Surfaces (l-'iii)
(lumk;il
liir
-------
Appendix D
liihlc D-24: Indoor F.n\iroiiinoiils- l-'mclion Transferred l);il;i lor Ihirri Surfaces (l ;ii)
liir
-------
Appendix D
formulation application methods combined consist of a sample size of 171 (N = 171).
Furthermore, the average Far values resulting for the solid and combined liquid formulations are
0.00031 and 0.0096, respectively. The Agency recognizes that the physical differences between
the solid and liquid formulations may account for the observed comparison; however, the small
sample size of the solid formulation data and the large difference observed in anticipated Far
(order of magnitude), limit the reliability of the data set. Therefore, the Agency has identified
the liquid formulation Far data set as the most reliable for the assessment of post-application
exposure from treated pets for all formulations assessed.
Based on the available studies, the recommended screening level Far point estimate for use in
post-application dermal exposure assessment is 0.02 (equivalent to 2%).
Description of Available Studies Used for Dermal Exposure Fraction of Application Rate
(Far)
Below is a description of the available studies used to determine the input values for Far.
liihk* l)-2(>: A\;iil;ihk- I'xposuro Siuclj Itlculil'iciilion lnl'nrin;i(ion
Citation
Hughes, D.L. (1997a). Dislodgeable Residues of Fipronil Following Application of
Frontline® Spray Treatment to Dogs
EPA MRID
44433306
EPA Review
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 4/30/98
MRID = Master Record Identification
ORETF = Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
l iihk* D-27; \\;iil;ibk' I'xposuro Sliid> 1 dent il'k;il ion liildi'iiiiilion
Citation
Hughes, D.L. (1997b). Dislodgeable Residues of Fipronil Following Application of
Frontline® Spray Treatment to Cats
EPA MRID
44433307
EPA Review
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 4/30/98
MRID = Master Record Identification
Two post-application studies, the "Dislodgeable Residues of Fipronil Following Application of
Frontline Spray Treatment to Dogs" (MRID 44433306), and the "Dislodgeable Residues of
Fipronil Following Application of Frontline Spray Treatment to Cats" (MRID 44433307) were
conducted to examine dislodgeable residues of fipronil, the active ingredient of Frontline®, on
the hair coats of dogs and cats, respectively, following their treatment with the pesticide.
The dislodgeability residues of fipronil was studied in 10 female dogs (5 short-haired dogs and 5
long-haired dogs) weighing 9.5 to 19.2 kg and 5 female cats (varying hair lengths) weighing 2.8
to 3.5 kg after a topical application of Frontline® Spray Treatment. Dogs and cats were topically
treated with the Frontline® spray treatment. Each animal received one treatment on Day 1 with
the maximum label rate of 6 mL of product per kg of body weight.
Dye free 100 percent cotton gloves were used for collecting residues at the following sampling
time intervals: before dosing; 2, 4, and 12 hours after dosing; and 2, 3, 5, 8, 15, 22, and 29 days
after dosing. A total of five strokes were applied which uniform medium pressure to each dog
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-76
-------
Appendix D
and a total of four strokes were applied to each cat to cover the whole body surface at each
sampling interval. One glove was used for each test animal at each of the sampling intervals.
The residue levels of fipronil in each glove were reported and used for calculating the percent of
dislodgeable residues. The percent of dislodgeable residues was calculated based on the total
residues levels divided by the actual amount of fipronil sprayed for each treatment. Most of the
laboratory recoveries for both studies fell within the range of 70 -120%.
l iihk* D-2N: \\;iil;il)k I'xposuro Siiid> Itlculil'iciilion lnl'nriii;i(ion
Citation
McKeown, K. (2001). Determination of the Dislodgeability of Tetrachlorvinphos
(TCVP) from the Fur of Dogs Following the Application of an Insecticide Powder,
Pump Spray or Aerosol
EPA MRID
45485501
EPA Review
D277543
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 11/19/2001
MRID = Master Record Identification
The study, "Determination of the Dislodgeability of Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) from the Fur of
Dogs Following the Application of an Insecticide Powder, Pump Spray or Aerosol," was
conducted to determine the potential for TCVP to become dislodged from an animal and be
available for human exposure. This study provides data on the amount of TCVP dislodged by
the human hand when stroking a dog following the application onto the dog of an aerosol, spray,
or powder product.
The study determined the total amount of TCVP on the fur of 5 dogs after a single treatment by
one of three types of product (aerosol, powder and pump spray) applied according to label
direction. The study concurrently determined the amount of TCVP which was dislodged onto
the hand from 5 strokes of the full length of the animals' body. Both of these parameters were
measured at baseline and at 4 hours, 1 day, 2 days, 4 days, 8 days, 16 days and 32 days after
treatment (DAT). The study used three types of products, each with different delivery systems,
the application by 5 different applicators, and the use of 5 different dogs.
The study used a "split-back" methodology. In this methodology, one side of the dog's back is
stroked by a human hand to determine dislodgeability residues of TCVP, and samples of fur are
taken from the opposite side of the dog's back to determine total residues of TCVP. This study
uses the bare human hand to model the dislodgeability rather than a cotton glove. Fortified
sample recoveries were in an acceptable range and no significant QA/QC problems were
identified. The study results are similar or lower to the findings found in the earlier study where
a cotton glove was used.
l iihk* l)-2*>: A\;iil;il)k' I'xposuro Sliulj 1 (Ionttion liildi'iiiiilion
Citation
Brickel, P. et al. (1997). Dislodgeable Residues of Fipronil Following Topical
Application of Frontline® Spot-on Treatment to Dogs
EPA MRID
44531203
EPA Review
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 1/9/2008
MRID = Master Record Identification
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-77
-------
Appendix D
The study, "Dislodgeable Residues of Fipronil Following Topical Application of Frontline®
Spot-on Treatment to Dogs, was conducted to measure the dislodgeability of the test substance,
Frontline®", over time from the hair coat of dogs treated with a spot-on formulation containing
fipronil as the active ingredient. The test substance was administered to six Beagle dogs by
topical application to the back (between the shoulders) using ready-to-use pipettes intended for
commercial application. Each dog received a maximum label specified application dose of 1.34
mL (131,722 |ig ai) of the test product on Day 0. The subsequent field sampling consisted of
stroking the entire body surface of the dog by taking 5 strokes along the body of the dog using
the palmar surface of one hand, while wearing cotton gloves to collect the residues. Glove
samples were collected from each dog prior to treatment and at 10 intervals following treatment
(1 hr to 28 days).
The cotton gloves were analyzed for fipronil and the results were reported as |ig/glove fipronil
per glove. None of the residues were corrected since average recoveries of fipronil were greater
than 90%. In addition, the Registrant reported the percent of the applied dose that was
dislodgeable at each sampling period after application.
liihk* D-3H: A\;iil;ihk- I'xposuro Siuclj Itlculil'iciilion lnl'nriii;i(ion
Citation
Bach, T. (2002). Stroking Test in Dogs After Topical Application of Imidacloprid
10% (w/v) + Permethrin 50% (w/v) Spot-On
EPA MRID
46594103
EPA Review
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 9/12/2005
MRID = Master Record Identification
The purpose of this study was to measure the dislodgeability of the test substance (imidacloprid
and permethrin) from the hair coat of dogs treated with a spot-on formulation. The substance
was applied to beagle dogs by topical application to the back (spine) using pipettes intended for
commercial application. The test substance was applied in a quantity of 2.5 ml to each animal in
the study, with each receiving a dose equivalent to 250 mg imidacloprid and 1250 mg
permethrin. Residues were collected to assess post-application exposure to the treated dogs by
stroking the dogs 3 times from head to tail over the application areas while wearing absorbent
cotton gloves. "Medium" pressure was applied for each stroking procedure. Samples were
collected at intervals of 30 minutes, 2 hours, 12 hours, and 24 hours after application. Four
groups of 5 beagle dogs were established, and each group was sampled for one of the 4 sampling
intervals only. Dog weights ranged between 10 and 25 kg. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for
imidacloprid was determined to be 0.25 mg/glove and 1.25 mg/glove for permethrin. If
individual sample results were below the LOQ, 1/2 the LOQ for the chemical was used for
quantitative purposes.
l iihlc D-31: A\;iil;il)k' I'xposu re Sliid> Idonliriciilion liifnniiiilion
Citation
Wrzesinski, C. (2009). Dislodgeable Residue Study of SCH 783460 from Spot-On
Treated Beagle Dogs
EPA MRID
47834502
EPA Review
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 2/22/2010
MRID = Master Record Identification
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-78
-------
Appendix D
l iihlc D-32: A\;iil;il>le l.xposuro Siudj Iriciilificiilioii 1 iiltiriiiiiii«ui
Citation
Wrzesinski, C. (2010). One-Month Dislodgeable Residue Study of SCH 783460
from Spot-On Treated Cats
EPA MRID
48010801
EPA Review
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 4/09/2010
MRID = Master Record Identification
Two post-application pre-registration studies, the "Dislodgeable Residue Study of SCH 783460
from Spot-On Treated Beagle Dogs" (MRID 47834502), and the "One-Month Dislodgeable
Residue Study of SCH 783460 from Spot-On Treated Cats" (MRID 48010801)
were conducted to measure the transferability of the test substance SCH 783460, a spot-on
formulation of indoxacarb, over time from the hair coat of treated pets to a gloved mannequin
hand.
The dislodgeability residues of indoxacarb were studied in 10 beagle dogs (5 female and 5 male),
weighing 10.7 to 19.08 kg at dose administration, and 10 cats (5 female and 5 male) weighing
3.24 to 7.7 kg after a topical application of an indoxacarb spot-on treatment. Dogs and cats were
topically treated with the indoxacarb spot-on formulation by parting the hair at the base of the
skull and applying the test substance directly onto the skin. Each animal received one treatment
on Day 0 with the maximum label rate of 1.5 mL of product per kg of body weight for dogs and
1.0 mL of product per kg for cats.
On each study the test substance, SCH 783460, was administered to 10 pets (10 beagle dogs for
the dog study and 10 cats for the cat study), by topical application to the back using plastic
syringes. Indoxacarb residues were measured on treated pets after stroking the pets three times
per simulation, for 10 simulations (30 strokes total) with a mannequin hand fitted with two
cotton gloves over top of a nitrile glove. Residues were extracted from the nitrile and cotton
gloves. Samples were collected from each pet at the following intervals: prior to treatment, at 4,
and 8 hours after treatment and at 1, 2, 4, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days after treatment. The cotton and
nitrile glove samples were analyzed for indoxacarb (SCH 783460) and the active metabolite
JT333. No detectable residues of the metabolite, JT333, were determined in the inner glove or
nitrile glove samples, on either study, therefore only outer glove results were presented.
The residue levels of indoxacarb in each glove were reported and used for calculating the percent
of dislodgeable residues. Residues were calculated in |ig/glove, |ig/cm2 of dog/cat surface area,
and percent of applied dose transferred.
For the dog study, indoxacarb average residues from all three gloves combined increased from
4,037 |ig/glove (1.78% of applied dose and 0.65 |ig/cm2) at 4 hours after application to a
maximum of 5,690 |ig/glove (2.55% of applied dose and 0.926 |ig/cm ) at 1 day after
application. Residues then declined to 177 |ig/glove (0.078% of applied dose and 0.028 |ig/cm2)
by Day 28 after application.
For the cat study, indoxacarb average residues from all three gloves combined decreased from
1,941 |ig/glove (1.24% of applied dose and 0.56 |ig/cm2) at 4 hours after application to 227
|ig/glove (0.141%) of applied dose and 0.064 |ig/cm ) by Day 28 after application.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-79
-------
Appendix D
I'iihk* D-33: .\\;iil;il>lc I'xposuro Slmlj 1 don 1 ion 1 nTorm;ilion
Citation
Wrzesinski, C., (2010). One-Month Dislodgeable Residue Study of Indoxacarb and
Permethrin from Spot-On Treated Beagle Dogs
EPA MRID
48135326
EPA Review
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 12/14/2010
MRID = Master Record Identification
A post-application pre-regi strati on study, "One-Month Dislodgeable Residue Study of
Indoxacarb and Permethrin from Spot-On Treated Beagle Dogs" (MRID 48135326), was
conducted to measure the transferability of the test substance SCH 900560, a spot-on formulation
of indoxacarb and permethrin, over time from the hair coat of treated dogs to a gloved
mannequin hand.
The dislodgeability residues of indoxacarb and permethrin were studied in 10 beagle dogs (5
female and 5 male), weighing 9.54 to 13.62 kg at dose administration. Dogs were topically
treated with the indoxacarb-permethrin spot-on formulation by parting the hair at the base of the
skull and applying the test substance directly onto the skin. Each animal received one treatment
and actual doses ranged from 1.0 to 1.4 mL formulated product/dog (150 to 210 mg
indoxacarb/dog and 480 to 672 permethrin/dog).
The test substance, SCH 900560, was administered to 10 beagle dogs by topical application to
the skin on the back shoulder blade area using plastic syringes in a spot-on procedure.
Indoxacarb and permethrin residues were measured on treated dogs after 25 petting simulations,
with each simulation consisting of three strokes (75 strokes total). The strokes were conducted
using a mannequin hand fitted with two cotton gloves over top of a nitrile glove. Residues were
extracted from the nitrile and cotton gloves. Samples were collected from each dog at the
following intervals: prior to treatment, at 4, and 8 hours after treatment and at 1, 2, 4, 7, 14, 21,
and 28 days after treatment. The cotton and nitrile glove samples were analyzed for indoxacarb
(SCH 783460) and for permethrin (SCH 169937). The cis and trans isomers of permethrin were
analyzed separately and the results summed to provide total permethrin values.
The residue levels of indoxacarb and permethrin in each glove were reported and used for
calculating the percent of dislodgeable residues. Residues were calculated in |ig/glove, |ig/cm
of dog surface area, and percent of applied dose transferred.
For indoxacarb, average residues from all three gloves combined increased from 2,842 |ig/gloves
(1.56% of applied dose and 0.87 |ig/cm ) at 4 hours after application to a maximum of 3,212
|ig/gloves (1.77% of applied dose and 0.99 |ig/cm2) at 8 hours after application. Residues then
declined to 247 |ig/gloves (0.14% of applied dose and 0.078 |ig/cm2) by Day 28 after
application.
For total permethrin, average residues from all three gloves combined increased from 9,686
|ig/gloves (1.67%) of applied dose and 2.98 |ig/cm ) at 4 hours after application to a maximum of
11,125 |ig/gloves (1.93%) of applied dose and 3.43 |ig/cm2) at 8 hours after application.
Residues then declined to 821 |ig/gloves (0.15% of applied dose and 0.26 |ig/cm ) by Day 28
after application.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-80
-------
Appendix D
Data Summary for Available Studies for Far
Summary: Table D-34 summarizes pertinent exposure information from the above referenced
petting/transfer study data sets identified for use in development of the Far input presented
individually and combined, respectively.
I'iihlo D-34: l-'r;iclion Application R;ilc (l-WR) Tmnslonvri
Siuclj
MRU)
N
l-'r;iclion Application R;i(c
Tninsl'crrcd
Dislodgeable Residues
of Fipronil Following
Application of
Frontline® Spray
Treatment to Dogs
44433306
30
0.0041
0.0052
0.0053
0.0088
0.011
0.012
0.0067
0.0076
0.0081
0.0043
0.0049
0.0047
0.0076
0.0099
0.015
0.0061
0.0069
0.0047
0.0070
0.0072
0.0058
0.0045
0.0038
0.0045
0.0055
0.0077
0.0071
0.0056
0.0088
0.0076
A verage
0.0069
Dislodgeable Residues
of Fipronil Following
Application of
Frontline® Spray
Treatment to Cats
44433307
15
0.0021
0.0036
0.0030
0.0034
0.0047
0.0021
0.0046
0.0055
0.0044
0.0056
0.0020
0.0036
0.0049
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-81
-------
Appendix D
I'iihlo D-34: I'mdion Application R;i(e (I'AK) l iMiisloi'ivd
0.0028
0.0059
¦ 1 venire
0.003')
Aerosol/ Pump Spray
Determination of the
Dislodgeability of
Tetrachlorvinphos
(TCVP) from the Fur
of Dogs Following the
Application of an
Insecticide Powder,
0.0056
0.0029
0.0035
0.0084
45485501
10
0.0035
0.0034
0.0038
0.0028
Pump Spray or Aerosol
0.0025
0.0022
A verage
0.0030
0.0018
0.0068
0.0044
0.0021
0.0061
0.0047
0.0010
0.0039
0.0022
Dislodgeable Residues
0.031
of Fipronil Following
0.021
Topical Application of
0.0069
Frontline® Spot-on
44531203
18
0.0092
Treatment to Dogs
0.011
0.0046
0.0032
0.013
0.0043
A verage
0.0076
0.0016
0.0016
0.0010
0.0062
0.0010
0.0018
Stroking Test in Dogs
0.0040
After Topical
0.0033
Application of
46594103
18
0.0024
Imidacloprid 10%
0.0042
(w/v) + Permethrin
0.0013
50% (w/v) Spot-On
0.0015
0.0070
0.0016
0.0032
0.0023
0.0024
0.0026
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-82
-------
Appendix D
I'iihlo D-34: I'mdion Application R;i(e (I'AK) l iMiisloi'ivd
¦ 1 vcru^c
0.002"7
Dislodgeable Residue
Study of SCH 783460
(Indoxacarb) from
Spot-On Treated
Beagle Dogs
47834502
20
0.015
0.018
0.014
0.014
0.028
0.011
0.018
0.019
0.013
0.027
0.016
0.019
0.019
0.031
0.043
0.01
0.026
0.023
0.015
0.037
¦ 1 veruxe
0.020X
One-Month
Dislodgeable Residue
Study of SCH 783460
(Indoxacarb) from
Spot-On Treated Cats
48010801
20
0.0072
0.0370
0.0035
0.0140
0.019
0.0072
0.01
0.0061
0.0053
0.015
0.0047
0.014
0.0016
0.0051
0.01
0.0065
0.0059
0.013
0.0056
0.0084
¦ 1 venire
0.0100
0.0085
0.0053
0.0032
0.0088
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-83
-------
Appendix D
I'iihlo D-34: I'mdion Application R;i(e (I'AK) l iMiisloi'ivd
One-Month
Dislodgeable Residue
Study of Indoxacarb
from Spot-On Treated
Beagle Dogs
48135326
20
0.0076
0.011
0.0144
0.0147
0.0049
0.0094
0.0113
0.0063
0.0056
0.0079
0.0092
0.01
0.016
0.0149
0.0081
0.0099
¦ 1 venire
0.00«)4
One-Month
Dislodgeable Residue
Study of Permethrin
from Spot-On Treated
Beagle Dogs
48135326
20
0.0155
0.0106
0.0051
0.0174
0.017
0.0197
0.0268
0.0285
0.0096
0.0169
0.0119
0.0119
0.0119
0.0164
0.0199
0.0196
0.0294
0.0271
0.0166
0.0197
¦livri/;'!'
0.01 ¦'(i
( ombincd Average oj All Studies
0.00%
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-84
-------
Appendix D
Accounting for Transferable Residue Dissipation (Treated Pets)
Short-term post-application exposure is typically assessed on the same day the pesticide is
applied (day 0) since it is assumed that individuals could be exposed to pets immediately after
application; however, exposure is also likely to occur for longer (intermediate-/long-term)
durations. Post-application exposure estimates can be refined/characterized to reflect a multi-day
exposure profile by accounting for the various factors outlined in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 such as
dissipation, product-specific re-treatment intervals (i.e., monthly, bi-monthly), and activity
patterns.
A pesticide dissipation rate (d) can be used to estimate a range of anticipated risk for the
treatment period. If no chemical-specific dissipation data are available, a default value should be
used. A default of 13% (0.13) dissipation per day was determined for all liquid pet product
formulations based upon the review of the same dermal post-application exposure studies
identified to determine Far.
The study, "Stroking Test in Dogs After Topical Application of Imidacloprid 10% (w/v) +
Permethrin 50% (w/v) Spot-On (MRID 46594103)" was not included, however, since the
sampling period did not exceed one day and, therefore, is not an adequate period of time to fully
analyze dissipation. All other studies measured pesticide residues from 16 to 32 days after
application. A description of each study is included in the previous section, Fraction of
Application Rate (Far).
No studies were identified for collars for which dissipation data could be derived. Unlike the
other pet product formulations which have shorter treatment intervals and dissipate rapidly,
collars are intended to be effective for longer intervals and, likewise, are believed to emit at
slower, more constant rate. Due to the lack of formulation specific data, no dissipation is
assumed for pet collars and should not be accounted for when assessing longer term durations of
exposure.
In order to estimate the daily dissipation rate for residue values resulting from each study, an
average value was derived from all data points for each time point sampled. Table D-35
provides a summary of daily dissipation values resulting from all post-application exposure
studies reviewed.
l iihlo D-35: D;iil\ Dissipation Kiilo ((I) - IVl Products
Sludj
MKID
1 i mo
(dsijs)
A\cr;i»c
Residue
(inii)
D;ii It
Dissipation
Kiilo
Dislodgeable Residues of Fipronil Following
Application of Frontline® Spray Treatment to Dogs
44433306
0.083
1.2
0.11
0.167
1.4
0.5
1.4
2
1.1
3
0.79
5
0.55
8
0.33
15
0.21
22
0.084
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-85
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo D-35: l);iil\ Dissipation Kiilo ((I) - IVl Products
Sludj
MKID
1 i mo
(dsijs)
A\cr;i»c
Residue
(niii)
l);ii It
Dissipation
Kiilo
29
0.044
Dislodgeable Residues of Fipronil Following
Application of Frontline® Spray Treatment to Cats
44433307
0.083
0.17
0.13
0.167
0.23
0.5
0.20
2
0.19
3
0.082
5
0.030
8
0.010
15
0.0057
22
0.0057
29
0.0057
Determination of the Dislodgeability of
Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) from the Fur of Dogs
Following the Application of an Insecticide Powder,
Pump Spray or Aerosol - Pump Spray
45485501
0.17
1.7
0.19
1
0.87
2
0.32
4
0.071
8
0.019
16
0.002
32
0.002
Determination of the Dislodgeability of
Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) from the Fur of Dogs
Following the Application of an Insecticide Powder,
Pump Spray or Aerosol - Aerosol
45485501
0.17
1.3
0.18
1
0.83
2
0.70
4
0.19
8
0.026
16
0.038
32
0.033
Dislodgeable Residues of Fipronil Following Topical
Application of Frontline® Spot-on Treatment to
Dogs
44531203
0.04
1.1
0.17
1.17
1.4
0.33
0.60
1
0.63
2
0.59
4
0.29
7
0.21
14
0.047
21
0.021
28
0.0047
Dislodgeable Residue Study of SCH 783460
(Indoxacarb) from Spot-On Treated Beagle Dogs
47834502
0.17
4.04
0.12
0.33
5.29
1
5.69
2
4.39
4
3.46
7
2.24
14
0.71
28
0.18
One-Month Dislodgeable Residue Study of SCH
783460 (Indoxacarb) from Spot-On Treated Cats
48010801
0.17
1.94
0.056
0.33
1.21
1
0.87
2
0.93
4
1.0
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-86
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo D-35: l);iil\ Dissipation R;ik'(d) - Pel Products
Sludj
MRU)
1 i mo
(dsijs)
A\cr;i»c
Residue
(mii)
l);ii It
Dissipation
Kiilo
7
0.85
14
0.75
28
0.23
One-Month Dislodgeable Residue Study of
Indoxacarb from Spot-On Treated Beagle Dogs
48135326
0.17
2.8
0.090
0.33
3.2
1
3.2
2
2.8
4
2.1
7
1.4
14
0.70
28
0.25
One-Month Dislodgeable Residue Study of
Permethrin from Spot-On Treated Beagle Dogs
48135326
0.17
9.7
0.090
0.33
11
1
11
2
9.2
4
7.0
7
4.5
14
2.7
28
0.82
Average
0.13
The following algorithm should be used for the purpose of refining/characterizing estimated
post-application dermal exposures attributable to an adult or child 1 < 2 years old contacting a
treated companion pet [Note: When d=0 (i.e., when one assumes no dissipation), the integration
equation used to derive the exposure equation below reduces to Equation 8.3.]:
E = TC * TR * (1 - e"ET * Kn) * (1 - (1 - df)
n * K d
where:
E = exposure (mg/day);
TC = transfer coefficient (cm2/hr);
TR = transferable residue (mg/cm2);
d = daily dissipation rate (unitless);
ET = exposure time (hours/day);
n = number of days of exposure; and
K = decay constant.
and
K = In (\ - d)
-24
TR = AR*Fat?
SA
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-87
-------
Appendix D
where:
TR = transferable residue (mg/cm2);
AR = application rate or amount applied to animal (mg);
Far = fraction of the application rate available as transferable residue; and
SA = surface area of the pet (cm ).
Dermal dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:
D = E * AF
BW
where:
D = dose (mg/kg-day);
E = exposure (mg/day);
AF = absorption factor (dermal); and
BW = body weight (kg).
D.7 Generic Estimates of Residential Transfer Coefficients
A transfer coefficient is a measure of surface-to-skin residue transfer dependent on factors such
as surface type and contact intensity. It is derived from concurrent measurements of exposure
and foliar residue, and is the ratio of exposure, measured in mass of chemical per time (e.g.,
Hg/hr), to residue, measured in mass of chemical per foliar surface area (e.g., |ag/cm ), with
resulting units cm2/hr. It follows that the use of this ratio precludes the necessity to measure
exposure because it can be reasonably predicted from measured residue using a scenario-specific
transfer coefficient. Additionally, based on analysis of various studies, it is apparent that transfer
coefficients differ based on different activities and scenarios. For example, the transfer of
residues while harvesting apples is different than while weeding cabbage; or a child playing on a
treated carpet experiences a different level of residue transfer than a child playing on a treated
lawn.
Chemical- and scenario-specific exposure measurements are preferable to predicting exposure
using residue and transfer coefficients. However, in the event chemical- and scenario-specific
exposure data are unavailable, generic transfer coefficients have been derived for use in specific
residential situations.
D.7.1 Turf
Residential Turf Exposure
Data to adequately characterize exposure for individuals who contact previously treated
residential turf are scarce. However, a residential re-entry exposure study is available to
establish reliable transfer coefficients for representative activities in residential settings. This
study (D. Klonne and D. Johnson, MRID 47292001) was conducted by the Outdoor Residential
Exposure Task Force (ORETF) to determine dermal exposure to residents re-entering a treated
turf plot after granular and liquid applications.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-88
-------
Appendix D
Two types of re-entry activities were monitored in the study. The first activity was an
approximate 20-minute Jazzercise routine (represented by JAZZ) and the second activity was an
approximate 2-hour composite routine consisting of many typical children's activities
(represented by CHAPS). The Jazzercise routine is a highly choreographed routine of exercises
performed to music. The CHAPS routine is a series of 12 sequential activities that simulated
activities in which children routinely engage on residential turf. The activities were selected
from activities listed in the National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) for children aged
1 to 12 years (Klepeis, et. al., 2001). Table D-36 summarizes the activities and the time allotted
for each activity.
1 "sihie l)-3(>: Suinni;ir\ of (lie Ac(i\ ilies iiiid (lie Dursilion lor I nch Acli\ i(\
Ac(i\i(> (.roup
Ac(i\ i(\
l>ii rsilion ( miini(es)
Passive
Walking/Jogging
12
Playing catch
12
Crawling
12
Picnicking
12
Resting
12
Active
Playing with toys
8
Playing Frisbee
8
Playing soccer
8
Playing games (spud)
8
Playing tag (steal the bacon)
8
Hard Direct
Football
10
Tumbling
10
A total of 40 participants were used in this study. For each formulation, 20 participants (10
participants each during a morning and afternoon session) performed the JAZZ routine and 20
participants (10 participants each during a morning and afternoon session) performed the
CHAPS routine. A two hour duration was chosen for the CHAPS routine because the NHAPS
indicated that the upper-bound estimate of time children spend playing on turf is two hours per
day. The potential dermal exposure during re-entry was assessed by using whole-body
dosimetry (inner and outer dosimeters), socks (JAZZ only), foot washes (CHAPS only), hand
washes, and face/neck wipes.
Dermal transfer coefficients in cm /hr were calculated by dividing the corrected residue value
([j,g) by the replicate duration (hr) and by the formulation-specific turf transferable residue value
([j,g/cm2). Within a given activity, total dermal dose (|ig) was always lower for the granular
formulation than the liquid formulation. Across each formulation, the normalized transfer
coefficients (|ig/hr) for the CHAPS routine were consistently higher than the JAZZ routine.
Table D-37 presents the raw transfer coefficient data for both the liquid and granular
formulation.
Tsihlc D-3"7: l.i(|iiid ;nul C ¦ r;i mi hi r l-'ormiihilion T( l);il;i I sod lor Dcrmsil Sccnsirios (shoos)
1 ifrsl:i»r
l-'ormiilsilion
1 ( \'sillies (cnr/lin
l-'ormiilsilion
T( \ sillies (cur/In )
Adult
Liquid
195,858
Granular
199,490
139,625
114,286
138,525
272,194
220,767
163,520
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-89
-------
Appendix D
Table D-37: Liquid and Granular Formulation TC Data Used for Dermal Scenarios (shoes)
I ifcstiiw
Formulation
TC Values (cm2/hr)
Formulation
TC Values (cm2/hr)
148,625
218,367
224,417
180,867
174,375
157,398
219,742
154,337
112,133
186,735
261,175
139,541
184,262
298,457
137,342
182,099
230,253
196,296
124,241
239,506
198,882
190,741
219,873
230,556
195,802
240,432
174,156
211,111
160,802
166,049
198,819
231,173
2
All transfer coefficient values are expressed as square centimeters per hour (cm /hr). Each adult
transfer coefficient was log-transformed and plotted to evaluate its fit to a lognormal distribution.
The data appears to reasonably fit a lognormal distribution as shown in the figure below. This
analysis also allowed for the assessment of the statistical differences between the transfer
coefficients calculated using the liquid data vs. the granular data. It was determined that these
two distributions should not be combined because the upper percentile values were 25% higher
for the granular transfer coefficients vs. the liquid transfer coefficients even though the central
tendency values of the two distributions were similar.
1.2.8
1Z.D
MA
¦ ~
¦1 1j
mUU ^
" ~
¦ ~~~ „ n
~
~ Liquids
¦ Granulars
11 .to
—i— —i 11.4
-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Standard Normal Score
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-90
-------
Appendix D
Figure D-7: Residential Turf Transfer Coefficient Lognormal Probability Plot
Statistics such as standard deviations and select percentiles are presented in Table D-38 below.
The transfer coefficients presented above represent adults only. For children, the Agency
adjusted the transfer coefficient for body surface area. A 73% reduction in the adult transfer
coefficient is recommended because of the differences of body surface areas between adults and
children 1 < 2 years old. Table D-38 provides some summary statistical information about the
turf dermal transfer coefficients for both adults and children.
Tabic D-3X: Dermal r.xposurc Transfer Coefficients (T-shirt and Sliorls) lor lndi\ iduals Performing
CHAPS Acli\ ilies
Statistic
Liquid Transfer Coefficient (cnr/lin
(iranular Transfer Coefficient (cnr/lir)
Children 1 < 2
>cars old 1
Adult
Children 1 < 2
jears old 1
Adult
50th percentile
48,000
180,000
52,000
190,000
75 th percentile
56,000
210,000
61,000
230,000
95th percentile
71,000
260,000
77,000
290,000
99th percentile
83,000
310,0002
91,000
340,000
AM(SD)
49,000 (NA)
180,000 (41,000)
54,000 (NA)
200,000 (45,000)
GM (GSD)
48,000 (NA)
1890,000 (1.26)
52,000 (NA)
190,000 (1.26)
Range
NA
110,000-260,000
NA
110,000-300,000
N
NA
20
NA
20
1A 73% reduction in the adult transfer coefficient is recommended because of the differences of body
surface areas between adults and children 1 < 2 years old.
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
Golf Course Exposure
Data to adequately characterize exposure for individuals who contact previously treated turf
while golfing are unavailable. However, an occupational re-entry exposure study is available to
establish reliable transfer coefficients for representative golfing activities. This study (D. Klonne
and E. Bruce, MRID 46734001) was conducted by the Agricultural Reentry Task Force (ARTF)
to determine dermal exposure to golf course maintenance workers re-entering a treated turf plot
after liquid applications. The cup changing component of this study was used to represent
dermal exposure to previously treated turf while golfing.
The cup changing activity consisted of using a hand operated cup cutter to make a new hole,
taking the plastic cup liner from the old hole and putting it into the new hole, and filling the old
hole with sand and the plug from the new hole. A total of 6 participants were used in this study.
Most workers performed the cup changing while bending over and not contacting the turf with
anything, but their shoes and hands; however, one worker routinely kneeled on one knee and two
other workers kneeled for a few holes. Some cup changers also repaired ball marks on the
greens with a hand tool similar to those used by golfers but only one individual performed
significant ball mark repair (79 instances). Cup changing occurred first thing in the morning and
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-91
-------
Appendix D
a monitoring event consisted of changing 18 cups. This task took approximately 1.5 to 2.5
hours, including 33 to 110 minutes changing the cups, 43 to 52 minutes traveling between holes,
and 0 to 20 minutes spent resting, talking to other workers, or performing tasks other than cup
changing.
Dermal transfer coefficients in cm /hr were calculated by dividing the corrected residue value
([j,g) by the replicate duration (hr) and by the worker-specific turf transferable residue value
([j,g/cm2). Total dermal transfer coefficients were calculated for three clothing scenarios: (1)
wearing long pants and a long sleeved shirt, (2) wearing long pants and a t-shirt, and (3) wearing
shorts and a t-shirt. Table D-39 presents the transfer coefficient data for the shorts and t-shirt
clothing scenario.
Table D-39: Dermal Exposure Transfer Coefficients (T-shirt and
Shorts) for Individuals Golfing
Lifestage
TC Values (cm2/hr)
Adult
988
1,097
1,253
2,667
7,165
18,863
2
All transfer coefficient values are expressed as square centimeters per hour (cm /hr). Each adult
transfer coefficient was log-transformed and plotted to evaluate its fit to a lognormal distribution.
The data appears to reasonably fit a lognormal distribution as shown in the figure below.
Figure D-8: Golfing Turf Transfer Coefficient Lognormal Probability Plot
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-92
-------
Appendix D
The transfer coefficients presented above represent adults only. For children 11 < 16 years old,
the transfer coefficient is adjusted for body surface area using a factor of 0.87 (i.e., a 13%
reduction in the TC) as outlined in Section 2.3. For children 6 < 11 years old, the transfer
coefficient is adjusted for body surface area using a factor of 0.59 (i.e., a 41% reduction in the
TC) as outlined in Section 2.3. Table D-40 provides some summary statistical information about
the turf dermal transfer coefficients for both adults and children.
1 "sihie D-40: l)eriii;il Kxposnre Tmnsfer CoelTieienls (T-shirt ;iihI Shorts) lor lmli\ idiiiils Colling
Ariull Tr;insl'er ( oelTieienl
(cur/hi)
Children 11 < 16 \e;irs old
Children (> < 11 \e;irs old
Sliiiislie
Triiiisfer (oelTieienl
Triiiisfer (oelTieienl
(enr/hr) 1
(enr/hn"
50th percentile
2,800
2,300
1,500
75th percentile
6,400
5,300
3,500
95th percentile
21,000
17,000
12,000
99th percentile
49,000
40,000
27,000
AM(SD)
5,300 (7,000)
4,400 (NA)
2,900 (NA)
GM (GSD)
2,800 (3.3)
2,300 (NA)
1,500 (NA)
Range
988-18,863
NA
NA
N
6
NA
NA
1 An 18% reduction in the adult transfer coefficient is recommended to account for the differences of body
surface areas between adults and children 11 < 16 years old.
2 An 45% reduction in the adult transfer coefficient is recommended to account for the differences of body
surface areas between adults and children 6 < 11 years old.
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
Lawn Mowers Exposure
Data to adequately characterize exposure for individuals who contact previously treated turf
while mowing are unavailable. However, an occupational re-entry exposure study is available to
establish reliable transfer coefficients for representative mowing activities. This study (D.
Klonne and E. Bruce, MRID 46734001) was conducted by the Agricultural Reentry Task Force
(ARTF) to determine dermal exposure to golf course maintenance workers re-entering a treated
turf plot after liquid applications. The mowing component of this study was used to represent
dermal exposure to previously treated turf while mowing a residential lawn. The mowing
activity consisted of two distinct types of mowing: mowing greens and mowing fairways.
The mowing greens activity consisted of using a walk-behind reel mower with a grass catcher to
make two perpendicular passes to cut the green to 7/32-inch height. A total of 8 participants
performed this activity in the study. This activity included emptying the grass catchers and
spreading clippings in the rough areas around the golf course as well as hosing off the mower
with water at the conclusion of mowing. Greens mowing occurred in the morning (after cups
had been changed) and a monitoring event consisted of mowing 4 to 5 greens. This task took
approximately 2 to 3 hours, including 89 to 140 minutes mowing or emptying baskets, 23 to 43
minutes traveling between holes, and 0 to 29 minutes spent resting, talking to other workers, or
performing tasks other than mowing. When the mower was engaged, the workers walked briskly
behind the mower to keep up. At the end of each pass, the worker pushed down on the mower
handle to the lift the reel off the ground and quickly turned the mower around to make the next
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-93
-------
Appendix D
pass adjacent to the previous pass. Workers generally mowed in one direction, then the other,
and then made a pass around the perimeter of the green to finish off the mowing process.
The mowing fairways activity consisted of using either a 5-reel riding mower to mow fairways to
3/4 inch height or a 3-reel riding mower to mow tee boxes and surrounds (areas around the greens)
to '/2-inch height. A total of 8 participants performed these activities in the study. This activity
included emptying the grass catchers of the mower and spreading clippings in the rough areas
around the golf course as well as hosing off the mower with water at the conclusion of mowing.
Fairway mowing occurred in the morning and a monitoring event consisted of mowing either 5
to 6 fairways or surrounds for 9 holes. This task took approximately 2 to 4.5 hours, including 96
to 253 minutes mowing fairway or surrounds, 11 to 30 minutes traveling, and 0 to 4 minutes
talking to other workers or repairing motor. The workers generally mowed the fairways and
surrounds in one of two patterns: 1) mow the perimeter, then back-and-forth or 2) in a "spiral"
pattern, from the outside to inside. The mowers were operated at a low speed (3.5 miles per
hour) since it was found that moist grass clippings were not efficiently "thrown" into the grass
catchers if the speed was higher. When the grass was wet, the 5-reel mower would frequently
get clumps of turf caught in the reel mechanisms, which would require the operator to lift the
reels, stop the mower, get off, and clear the clipping from the reels with his hands and/or a stick.
The workers would also occasionally dismount to remove debris or to move 150-yard markers.
Dermal transfer coefficients in cm /hr were calculated by dividing the corrected residue value
([j,g) by the replicate duration (hr) and by the worker-specific turf transferable residue value
([j,g/cm ). Total dermal transfer coefficients were calculated for three clothing scenarios: (1)
wearing long pants and a long sleeved shirt, (2) wearing long pants and a t-shirt, and (3) wearing
shorts and a t-shirt. Table D-41 presents the transfer coefficient data for the shorts and t-shirt
clothing scenario.
l iihlo D-41: Doi'iiiiil llxposmv
11'iiiislVi'( oolTiciouls ( 1-sliii'l iiiid Short s) lor IihN\idiuils Mowing
l.ifesliijie
Ac(i\ i(\
1 ( YhIiics (cnr/lir)
661
1,035
2,245
Mowing Greens
6,913
1,982
319
25,860
Adult
18,875
648
6,616
1,874
Mowing Fairways
2,369
2,951
1,109
11,387
3,031
2
All transfer coefficient values are expressed as square centimeters per hour (cm /hr). Each adult
transfer coefficient was log-transformed and plotted to evaluate its fit to a lognormal distribution.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-94
-------
Appendix D
The data appears to reasonably fit a lognormal distribution as shown in the figure below. This
analysis also allowed for the assessment of the statistical differences between the transfer
coefficients calculated using the mowing greens data vs. the mowing fairways data. Based on
this analysis, it was determined that there was no statistical difference between these datasets and
thus, in calculating the adult dermal mowing transfer coefficient the data were combined.
Mowing Turf Transfer Coefficient Lognormal Probability
12—
A 4
lu
~
¦ ~
o ,
~
¦
¦
~
~
¦
¦ ¦ ¦
~
A—
~ Mowing Greens
¦ Mowing Fairways
1 1
Z
T T T 0
-2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Standard Normal Score
Figure D-9: Mowing Turf Transfer Coefficient Lognormal Probability Plot
The transfer coefficients presented above represent adults only. For youths/teens, the transfer
coefficient is adjusted for body surface area by a factor of 0.82 (i.e., an 18% TC reduction) as
outlined in Section 2.3. Table D-42 provides some summary statistical information about the turf
dermal transfer coefficients for both adults and children.
Table D-42: Dermal Exposure Transfer Coefficients (T-shirt and Shorts) for Individuals Performing
Mowing Activities
Statistic
Adult Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)1
Youth/Teen Transfer
Coefficient (cm2/hr)2
50th percentile
2,700
2,200
75th percentile
6,300
5,200
95th percentile
22,000
18,000
99th percentile
54,000
44,000
99.9th percentile
140,000
4,500 (NA)
Arithmetic Mean
5,500
2,200 (NA)
Arithmetic Standard Deviation
7,300
NA
Geometric Mean
2,700
NA
Geometric Mean Standard Deviation
3.5
NA
Range
319-25,860
NA
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-95
-------
Appendix D
D.7.2 Gardens, Trees, and "Pick-your-own" Farms
Data to adequately characterize exposure for individuals who contact previously treated
residential gardens and trees and in "pick-your-own" farms is unavailable. Therefore,
occupational re-entry exposure studies, all conducted by the Agricultural Reentry Task Force
(ARTF), were used to establish transfer coefficients for representative crops and activities in
residential settings.
Unlike occupational settings where individuals generally perform one task (or, at most a few
tasks) on a single crop throughout the day (e.g., harvesting apples), individuals in residential
settings are likely to conduct various activities. Therefore, transfer coefficients from
occupational reentry studies were used to establish composite transfer coefficients for distinct
activities likely to occur in residential settings. Additionally, also unlike occupational settings,
the transfer coefficients represent individuals wearing shorts and short-sleeve shirts, a standard
assumption in residential exposure assessment.
Activities are divided between those that would occur in gardens (vegetables, fruit, and flowers),
those that would occur with trees (fruit and nut trees and ornamental shrubs and bushes), and
those that would occur for indoor plants. Transfer coefficients for each category are then derived
from select occupational reentry exposure studies considered to be representative of "residential-
like" activities. Table D-43 below lists the occupational field reentry studies used to derive
transfer coefficients for each of these scenarios.
I'iihlc D-43: (>;irdcns. l ives, iiiid "Pick-vour-own" rms - I'mnslcr CoiTficicnl Studies
Kcsidcnlhil Posl-iippliciilion Ac(i\i(\
Rep resell l;ili\c Crop/Adit i(\
( onihiii;i 1 ions
S(ud\ Cock*
MRU)
Aim'#
Gardens
(vegetables and flowers)
Cabbage weeding
45191701
ARF037
Tomato tying
45530103
ARF051
Squash harvesting
45491902
ARF049
Chrysanthemum pinching
45344501
ARF039
Trees and Retail Plants
(fruits, nuts, ornamentals, shrubs,
bushes)
Ornamental citrus tree pruning
45469501
ARF043
Apple harvesting
45138202
ARF025
Orange harvesting
45432302
ARF041
Grapefruit harvesting
45432302
ARF042
Indoor Plants
Ornamental citrus tree pruning
45469501
ARF043
Despite the uncertainty of using occupational reentry monitoring studies, where workers likely
conduct activities in a much different fashion than those in residential settings, the transfer
coefficients outlined are considered reasonable for use in risk assessment. Note that use of these
transfer coefficients for youths should be used in combination with an adjustment factor of 0.55
for body surface area.
Vegetable, Fruit, and Flower Gardening Activities at Home and at "Pick-your-
own" Farms
Transfer coefficients for residential gardening and picking vegetables, fruits, and flowers at
"pick-your-own" farms were derived using studies considered adequately representative of
activities in these settings such as weeding and picking vegetables and flowers. The studies used
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-96
-------
Appendix D
measured exposure for workers during four different studies: cabbage weeding, tomato tying,
squash harvesting, and chrysanthemum pinching. Table D-44 below presents the raw data for
these studies.
Tsihlc D-44: (iiirdciiiii^ ;il 1 Ionic ;ind ;il "
Pick-*onr-ow n" V
ciic(;il>lc l-iirms
Tr;mslir ( oclTicicnl l);il;i
S(iul\ UiTcmuv
( l'(l|)
Ac(i\ il\
Poi son II)
l)\\
liiinsli'i-
AKM#
MRU)
( oclTicicnl
1
29,612
A
2
41,329
3
31,947
1
19,910
B
2
28,428
3
24,226
ARF037
45191701
Cabbage
Weeding
C
1
21,134
D
1
24,149
2
28,601
E
2
16,482
3
23,976
F
2
29,683
3
20,604
A
2
1,812
3
3,999
2
2,807
B
3
5,040
4
3,161
2
2,349
C
3
4,425
ARF051
45530103
Tomato
Tying
4
2,292
2
3,236
D
3
6,810
4
4,506
2
2,448
E
3
6,132
4
3,479
F
4
4,431
2
1,395
A
3
4,747
4
3,043
2
1,426
B
3
6,800
4
3,178
2
1,121
C
3
5,130
ARF049
45491902
Squash
Harvesting
4
3,195
2
1,546
D
3
5,042
4
3,897
2
887
E
3
3,846
4
2,550
2
1,163
F
3
7,411
4
2,667
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-97
-------
Appendix D
T.ihle D-44: (.iirdcninii ;il 1 Ionic ;ind ;il "
Pick-*onr-ow n" V
eiicliihle I'iirms
Tr;mslir ( oclTicicnl l);K;i
Sind\ Rd'emice
( l'(l|)
Ac(i\ il\
Person II)
l)AA
liiinsli'i-
Aim'#
MKii)
( oclTicicnl
2
1,326
G
3
4,686
4
3,642
2
1,298
H
3
5,466
4
3,864
2
424
D
3
214
4
177
2
328
E
3
299
4
134
1
164
A
2
253
3
223
1
264
B
2
422
3
314
1
250
ARF039
45344501
Chrysanthemum
Pinching
C
2
218
3
241
1
321
D
2
492
3
301
1
218
E
2
436
3
201
Tree Activities at Home and at "Pick-your-own" Farms
Transfer coefficients for activities associated with fruit and nut trees and ornamental shrubs and
bushes (including potential exposure from those purchased at retail locations) were derived using
exposure studies for workers during four different studies: apple harvesting, orange harvesting,
grapefruit harvesting, and ornamental citrus tree pruning. Table D-45 below presents the raw
data for these studies.
T.ihle D-45: Tree Ac(i\ilics ;il Nome ;ind ;il "Pick-\our-o«n" hu ms: Ti
•iinsl'er ( oelTicienl l);il;i
Sind\ Reference
( rop
Acli\ il\
Person II)
l)AA
rninsler
AR'IT' #
MRU)
( oelTicienl
1
3132
A
2
3207
3
3033
1
2596
B
2
2741
ARF025
45138202
Apple
Harvesting
3
1931
1
2547
C
2
3323
3
1927
D
1
2865
2
3161
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-98
-------
Appendix D
l iihlc D-45: Ti\t Acli\ ities ;ii Nome ;iihI ;ii "Pick-wiur-own" rms: 11
•;insl'er ( oclTicicnl
S(ii
-------
Appendix D
Indoor Plant Activities
Transfer coefficients from the study measuring exposure while pruning ornamental citrus trees
are recommended for use for activities associated with indoor plants. The data for this study is
presented above in Table D-45.
Transfer Coefficient Data Analysis
Each transfer coefficient was log-transformed and plotted to evaluate its fit to a lognormal
distribution. Each study appears to reasonably fit a lognormal distribution as shown in the figure
below.
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
E
O
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
-3.00
Residential Transfer Coefficients:
Lognormal Probability Plot of Individual Studies
X
i ~ 4
A ******** X X X
* * x * * x * * x x x
¦> r* * * * *
~ t X *
-±-
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + -
-4" +
-2.00
-1.00 0.00
Standard Normal Score
1.00
2.00
3.00
iWeed Cabbage ATieTomato ~ Harvest Squash XHarvest Apple XC Harvest Orange • Harvest Grapefruit -HPinch OrnMums -Prune OrnCitrus
Figure D-10: Residential Transfer Coefficients: Lognormal Probability Plot of Individual Studies
As previously stated, unlike these occupational studies where workers conducted a single activity
for the duration of their workday, homeowners tending to their outdoor gardens and trees and
individuals attending "pick-your-own" are likely to conduct various activities. For example, it is
likely that individuals would weed both their gardens on the same day or trim their bushes and
apple trees on the same day. In fact, it is likely that individuals would conduct some
configuration of all outdoor activities on the same day. Note that in the case of indoor plants
these activities are reasonably represented by ornamental citrus tree pruning alone.
For the purposes of pesticide assessment, however, for which certain chemicals may only be
used on gardens and trees composite transfer coefficient distributions have been developed to
represent activities in gardens and trees. These were derived by constructing, via a 5000 trial
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-100
-------
Appendix D
Monte Carlo simulation using Crystal Ball 4.0 (Microsoft Excel add-on), custom distributions
using the lognormal distributions for each individual activity (See Figure D-10), but assigning
equal probabilities of 25% for each activity. Essentially just a weighting mechanism, it assumes,
for example that an individual while gardening conducts "cabbage weeding-like," "squash
harvesting-like," "tomato tying-like," and "chrysanthemum pinching-like" activities in equal
proportions (i.e., 25% of the time spent conducting each). Additional data on specific gardening
activities (or an exposure study representing actual homeowner gardening work) could confirm
this assumption or inform a more accurate weight to each activity. Thus, absent exposure studies
specific for activities in residential settings (e.g., a study in which individuals perform various
activities following pesticides applications in various locations on their property), the approach
outlined is considered reasonable.
Parameters for each lognormal distribution are outlined in Table D-46 below.
Tiihle (>;ink*ns. l ives, iiiid "I'ick-tour-ow if" l-";irms - Tr;insl'cr CoclTicicnl Studies
Kcsi(k-nli;il Posl-iippliciiliun Acli\ il>
Kcpivsi-nl;ili\i- Crop/Adit il\
( oinhiiiiiiions
l.o^norniiil 1 (
Distribution P;iminders
c;m
c;sd
Gardening (vegetables, fruits, and
flowers)
Cabbage w ceding
25,4o3
1.2"
Tomato tying
3,547
1.47
Squash harvesting
2,774
1.89
Chrysanthemum pinching
275
1.36
Tree maintenance (fruits, nuts, shrubs,
bushes)
Ornamental citrus tree pruning
197
1.63
Apple harvesting
2,591
1.24
Orange harvesting
1,440
1.31
Grapefruit harvesting
2,513
1.21
As previously stated, a composite distribution for activities in gardens and trees was simulated
by assigning equal probabilities (i.e., 25% for each representative activity) to each single
activity's distribution. The figures below present probability and cumulative density function for
each of the resulting simulated distributions.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-101
-------
Appendix D
5,000 Trials
.224 -
.168 -
J3 .112
W
n
o
.056
.000
Forecast: Gardening_Composite
FrequencyChait
36 Outliers
1119
839.2
CD
559.5 .O
279.7
CD
3
3
,..|.|.H|||j)>l||l|l|.|||lltnl', I.,,- J
0.00
10,000.00 20,000.00 30,000.00
40,000.00
Figure D-ll: Gardening Transfer Coefficient- Composite Probability Density Function Simulation
5,000 Trials
1.000 -
.750 -
A .500 J
A
O
> .250 ¦¦¦¦
.000
Forecast: TC Garden ing_Composite
Cumulative Chart
~
0.00
36 Outliers
5000
ft
n
c
CD
10,000.0 0 2 0,000.0 0 3 0.000.00
i
40,000.00
- 0
Figure D-12: Gardening Transfer Coefficient - Composite Cumulative Distribution Function Simulation
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-102
-------
Appendix D
5,000 Trials
.058
.043
.Q .029
a
Forecast: TreesjComposite
FrequencyChart
JD
O
.014
.000
~
0.00
1Outlier
288
216
- 144
- 72
ro
c
O)
I
1,250.00
2,500.00
3,750.00
5,000,00
Figure D-13: Trees Transfer Coefficient - Composite Probability Density Function Simulation
5,000 Trials
1.000
.750 -
.O .500
a
Forecast: TCTrees_Composite
Cumulative Chart
A
O
.250
.000
~
0.00
10utlier
5000
rD
n
c
CD
1,250.00
2,500 00
3,750.00
5,000.00
Figure D-14: Trees Transfer Coefficient - Composite Cumulative Distribution Function Simulation
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-103
-------
Appendix D
Summary statistics for each composite distribution are provided below in Table /J--/7[Note: it is
recognized that treating each data point independently is technically incorrect due to the "nested"
structure of the data set (i.e., transfer coefficients "within" workers, "within" crops, "within"
chemicals, etc.), however, resulting statistics are nonetheless reasonable and useful for exposure
assessment purposes.]
1 iihlc D-47; Shiiisiiciil Sumiiiiin - Kcsiricnlhil Tr;insl'cr ( oiTficicnls (cin2/hi )
Sinlislic
(.unions
lives
Indoor Pliinls
Mean
8413
1741
223
50th percentile
3243
1911
197
75th percentile
13035
2583
274
90th percentile
27367
3056
370
95th percentile
31082
3332
443
99th percentile
37777
3949
617
99.9th percentile
47087
4575
901
Range
164-41329
85 -3357
85 - 505
N
67
60
15
D.7.3 Indoor Areas
There are no studies available that measure both exposure and surface residue while subjects are
performing typical indoor activities. Therefore, the transfer coefficients used for indoor
scenarios are derived from information provided in three different studies: (1) two studies which
measured exposure and surface residues while subjects performed a Jazzercise™ routine
(Krieger et al., 2000 and Selim, 2004) and (2) a study which measured biomonitoring doses
while adults performed scripted activities for 4 hours on carpet (Vaccaro, 1991).
In the Krieger and Selim studies, a Jazzercise™ routine was performed to achieve maximum
contact of the entire body with a surface using low impact aerobic movements. All body
surfaces (dorsal, ventral, and lateral) contact the treated surface. The potential dermal exposure
was measured by using whole-body dosimetry. The dosimeters were expected to normalize
differences in surface contact and to increase the total sample area relative to patches. The
assumption is that the dosimeter represents the skin and that the dose retained by the dosimeter is
equivalent to dermal exposure.
In the Krieger study, adult males performed two 20-minute Jazzercise routines, which yielded a
transfer coefficient of 50,953 cm 10.61 hr for chlorpyrifos. In the Selim study, adult males
performed one 20-minute Jazzercise routine, which yielded transfer coefficients of 18,736
cm2/0.33 hr for pyrethrin, 20,354 cm2/0.33 hr for PBO and 21,572 cm2/0.33 hr for MGK-264.
T;il>k' D-4X: Tninslcr codTicicnls hiised on .Isiz/nvisc
Krieger (201)1))" — ( hlormrifos
Subject
Total exposure
(|.ig/4() mill)
Average transferable residue from
study (|.ig/cm:)
Transfer Coefficient
(cnr/40 mill)
1
2,524
0.27
9,348
2
1,466
0.27
5,430
3
28,980
0.27
107,333
4
3,294
0.27
12,200
5
52,590
0.27
194,778
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-104
-------
Appendix D
I'iihlc D-4X: I'mnslcr coefficients h.ised on .Isi/zcivisi*
6
22,950
0.27
85,000
7
2,081
0.27
7,707
8
14,730
0.27
54,556
9
4,541
0.27
16,819
10
5,012
0.27
18,563
11
1,328
0.27
4,919
12
1,579
0.27
5,848
13
37,770
0.27
139,889
Arithmetic Mean
50,953
Standard Deviation
62,242
Geometric Mean
23 2^4
Sclim (200-1) -
l\rclhriii
Subject
Total exposure
(im/20 min i
Average transferable residue from
study (Tm/cnr)
Transfer Coefficient
(cnr/20 min i
5078
2900
0.34
8,543
1976
3100
0.34
9,133
1966
3400
0.34
10,016
1342
3600
0.34
10,606
8401
4600
0.34
13,552
7219
5000
0.34
14,730
1719
4600
0.34
13,552
6026
4900
0.34
14,435
3454
6300
0.34
18,560
1463
5800
0.34
17,087
7678
7200
0.34
21,211
7777
8500
0.34
25,041
17
9500
0.34
27,987
3714
13000
0.34
38,298
1253
13000
0.34
38,298
Arithmetic Mean
18,736
Standard Deviation
9,732
Geometric Mean
16,723
Sclim (200-1) —
PIU)
Subject
Total exposure
(us/20 min i
Average transferable residue from
studv (Tm/cnr)
Transfer Coefficient
(cnr/20 min i
5078
4100
0.61
6,673
1976
6100
0.61
9,928
1966
7100
0.61
11,555
1342
7800
0.61
12,694
8401
8300
0.61
13,508
7219
8200
0.61
13,345
1719
8600
0.61
13,996
6026
9400
0.61
15,298
3454
13000
0.61
21,157
1463
14000
0.61
22,785
7678
14000
0.61
22,785
7777
16000
0.61
26,040
17
18000
0.61
29,295
3714
25000
0.61
40,687
1253
28000
0.61
45,570
Arithmetic Mean
20,354
Standard Deviation
11,237
Geometric Mean
17,825
Sclim (200-1) —
M(,h-2(,-l
Subject
Total exposure
(usi/20 min i
Average transferable residue from
studv (Tm/cnr)
Transfer Coefficient
(cnr/20 min i
5078
7300
0.92
7,935
1976
7400
0.92
8,043
1966
12000
0.92
13,043
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-105
-------
Appendix D
Tahlc D-4X: Transfer coelTicicnls bused on .la//crcise
1342
11000
0.92
11,957
8401
13000
0.92
14,130
7219
14000
0.92
15,217
1719
15000
0.92
16,304
6026
16000
0.92
17,391
3454
18000
0.92
19,565
1463
19000
0.92
20,652
7678
21000
0.92
22,826
7777
26000
0.92
28,261
17
29000
0.92
31,522
3714
44000
0.92
47,826
1253
45000
0.92
48,913
Arithmetic Mean
21,572
Standard Deviation
12,712
Geometric Mean
18,669
a. From table 2 of Krieger (2000)
In the Vaccaro study, adult males, dressed in bathing suits only, performed different activities
over a 4 hour activity period. These activities included: sitting-playing with blocks, on hands
and knees crawling, walking on carpet, laying on back, and laying on abdomen. Although
activity was minimal during the last 2 activities, considerable surface area was in contact with
the carpets during these times. An estimated dermal dose from the Vaccaro (1991)
biomonitoring study was estimated to be 10.02 |_ig/kg (based on biomonitoring and inhalation
monitoring results reported in study).
A comparison can be made using the Krieger study (Jazzercise activity) and the Vaccaro study
(scripted activity) since both studies used the same chemical, chlorpyrifos, and both included
biomonitoring aspects. If the biomonitoring doses from both studies are normalized to the
activity time, the values are similar. In the Krieger study, the average biomonitoring dose was
3.3 ng/kg for 40 minutes of activity, or 0.08 |j,g/kg-min. In the Vaccaro study, the average
biomonitoring dose was 12 |_ig/kg for 4 hours of activity, or 0.05 |j,g/kg-min. Therefore, it is
assumed that the shorter duration of high contact activity (i.e., Jazzercise) can be used to estimate
exposure during longer durations of low contact activity (in this case, 4 hours of activity) and the
Jazzercise transfer coefficients can be applied to 4 hours of typical indoor activity.
Tabic D-49: Transfer coefficients adjusted for Activity Time
Krieger (2000) - Chlorpyrifos
Adult TC from study
(cm2/40 min)
Adults
children 1 < 2 years old
Jazzercise TC applied to 4 hours of
typical indoor activity (cm /hr)
Jazzercise TC applied to 4 hours of typical indoor
activity and adjusted for surface area1 (cm2/hr)
9,348
2,337
635
5,430
1,357
369
107,333
26,833
7,293
12,200
3,050
829
194,778
48,694
13,235
85,000
21,250
5,776
7,707
1,927
524
54,556
13,639
3,707
16,819
4,205
1,143
18,563
4,641
1,261
4,919
1,230
334
5,848
1,462
397
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-106
-------
Appendix D
Tabic D-49: Transfer coefficients adjusted for Activity Time
139,889
34,972
9,505
Arithmetic mean
50,953
12,738
3,462
Standard Deviation
62,242
15,561
4,229
Geometric mean
23.254
5.813
1.580
Sclim (2004) - Pyietlir'm
Adult 1C from study
(cnr/20 mill)
Adults
children 1 < 2 \ ears old
Jazzercise TC applied to 4 hours of
typical indoor activity (cm:/lir)
Ja/./ercise TC applied to 4 hours oflypical indoor
activity and adjusted for surface area'1 (cnr/lir)
8,543
2,136
581
9,133
2,283
621
10,016
2,504
681
10,606
2,651
721
13,552
3,388
921
14,730
3,682
1,001
13,552
3,388
921
14,435
3,609
981
18,560
4,640
1,261
17,087
4,272
1,161
21,211
5,303
1,441
25,041
6,260
1,701
27,987
6,997
1,902
38,298
9,574
2,602
38,298
9,574
2,602
Arithmetic mean
18,736
4,684
1,273
Standard Deviation
9,732
2,433
661
Geometric mean
16,723
4,181
1,136
Sclim (200-1) - MO
Adult 1C from study
(cnr/20 mill)
Adults
children 1 < 2 \ ears old
Ja/./ercise TC applied to 4 hours of
typical indoor activity (cnr/lir)
Ja/./ercise TC applied to 4 hours oflypical indoor
activity and adjusted for surface area'1 (cm:/lir)
6,673
1,668
453
9,928
2,482
675
11,555
2,889
785
12,694
3,174
863
13,508
3,377
918
13,345
3,336
907
13,996
3,499
951
15,298
3,825
1,040
21,157
5,289
1,438
22,785
5,696
1,548
22,785
5,696
1,548
26,040
6,510
1,769
29,295
7,324
1,991
40,687
10,172
2,765
45,570
11,392
3,096
Arithmetic mean
20,354
5,089
1,383
Standard Deviation
11,237
2,809
764
Geometric mean
17.825
4,456
1,211
Sclim (2004) - M(,K-2(>4
Adult 1C from study
(cnr/20 mill)
Adults
children 1 < 2 \ ears old
Ja/./ercise TC applied to 4 hours of
typical indoor activity (cnr/lir)
Jazzercise TC applied to 4 hours oflypical indoor
activity and adjusted for surface area'1 (cnr/lir)
7,935
1,984
539
8,043
2,011
547
13,043
3,261
886
11,957
2,989
812
14,130
3,533
960
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-107
-------
Appendix D
Table D-49: Transfer coefficients adjusted for Activity Time
15,217
3,804
1,034
16,304
4,076
1,108
17,391
4,348
1,182
19,565
4,891
1,329
20,652
5,163
1,403
22,826
5,707
1,551
28,261
7,065
1,920
31,522
7,880
2,142
47,826
11,957
3,250
48,913
12,228
3,324
Arithmetic mean
21,572
5,393
1,466
Standard Deviation
12,712
3,178
864
Geometric mean
18,669
4,667
1,269
a. 73% reduction factor (0.53m2/ 1.95 m2).
Lognormal Probability Plot
Transfer Coefficient for Adults (cm2/hr)
, Ln (Transfer coefficient, cm2/hr)
u>
~
30
00 -2.00 -1.00 0.
Standard No
30 1.00 2.00 3.
•mal Score
Figure D-15: Indoor Environments - Adult Transfer Coefficient Lognormal Probability Plot
Table D-50: Indoor Environments Statistical Summary - Transfer Coefficient (cm2/hr)
Statistic
Adults
children 1 <2 years old3
50th percentile
4,700
1,300
75th percentile
7,800
2,100
95th percentile
17,000
4,600
99th percentile
28,000
7,600
99.9th percentile
50,000
14,000
AM(SD)
6,800 (8,200)
1,800 (2,200)
GM(GSD)
4,700 (2.16)
1,300 (2.16)
Range
1,200-49,000
330- 13,000
a A 73% reduction in the adult transfer coefficient is recommended because of the differences of body surface areas between adults and
children (1 < 2 years old).
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-108
-------
Appendix D
D.7.4 Treated Pets
Post-application dermal exposure can be predicted using estimates for residue transfer to
individuals contacting treated pets during certain activities and exposure durations. Residue
transfer from a given formulation and activity is an empirical value, known as the transfer
coefficient (TC). Dermal TCs were developed for liquid and solid pet product formulations.
The following is a summary of the exposure studies used in the quantification of pet treatment
TCs and the corresponding data sets of each exposure study.
The Agency did not identify any studies which were conducted to observe homeowner activities
with a treated pet. While studies were conducted to determine the fraction of application rate
transferred from the treated pet to a human or artificial (mannequin) hand, these data are limited
in that the scripted activity patterns employed (i.e., a pre-determined number of wipes to the
animal's coat) and hand only exposure measurements, limit their utility for the estimation of
actual activities, contact and resulting exposure to the whole body of exposed individuals.
An applicator and groomer study were reviewed and identified as the best measure of exposure
that could occur from interactions with treated pets because these studies included the direct
measurement of exposures to applicators or pet groomers. Since these individuals directly
handled pesticide products and had direct contact with treated pets it is expected that their
resulting exposures are a reasonable approximation of upper bound estimates of contact with a
treated animal. In the absence of direct exposure data for this scenario (e.g., homeowner activity
with a treated pet), the Agency assumes that the application and grooming activities are likely to
result in a protective estimate of exposure than just the evaluation of petting, hugging or sleeping
with a pet.
The TCs used to assess dermal post-application pet exposure were developed from two studies
representing application and grooming activities with dogs, one using carbaryl shampoo and the
other using carbaryl dust; which represent TCs liquid and solid formulations, respectively. Data
were gathered while human volunteers applied pesticide products to various dogs of differing
sizes and fur lengths. Volunteers in the carbaryl shampoo study groomed the animals as well as
applying the product. Pet exposure TCs can be defined as animal surface area contact per unit
time (cm2/hr), or the ratio of exposure rate, measured in mass of chemical per time (e.g., |ig/hr),
to residue, measured in mass of active ingredient per surface area of the animal (e.g., |ig/cm ).
The mass of active ingredient per surface area of the animal (|ig/cm ) used to determine the TCs
were adjusted for the dust and shampoo studies. The applicator/groomer studies were not
performed in a manner which measured active ingredient per surface area of the animal.
Therefore, the residue available on the animal for transfer was predicted by multiplying an
average fraction of application rate (Far) value (0.0096) by the active ingredient per surface area
(|ig/cm2) estimated from the studies. This adjustment has the effect of increasing TC estimates,
thus resulting in value which is more protective of human health. Furthermore, the selection of
the arithmetic mean Far value, in lieu of recommended screening level Far value (0.020) further
increases TC estimates for the dust and shampoo studies. A full description of the Far input is
detailed in the next section.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-109
-------
Appendix D
Since TCs were established from studies using adult volunteers, they have been scaled to adjust
for assessment of child exposure. The Agency assumes that the surface area of a child 1 < 2
years old is 73% less than that of an average adult. The adjustment is based upon a ratio of the
mean surface area of 1 < 2 year lifestage, 0.53 m2, and the value of the combined average of
mean total surface area for males and females, 1.95 m2, from the Exposure Factors Handbook
2011 Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011).
Formulation: Liquid
Application Method: Aerosols, Collars, Dips, Pump Sprays, Shampoos, Sponges and Spot-Ons
T;il)k' D-51: Ariull ;iihI Child 1 r;i iisl'ei* ( oolTicionls lor l.iuuiri l-o rmii hit ions
Siiiiisiic
11'iinslVr ( dolTicoiil (ciir/lmur)'1'
Ariull
1 < 2 jcsirs old
50th percentile
3,600
980
75th percentile
6,400
1,700
95th percentile
15,000
3,900
99th percentile
26,000
7,000
99.9th percentile
49,000
13,000
AM(SD)
5,200 (5,300)
1,400 (1,400)
GM
3,600
980
GSD
2.33
2.33
Range
522-12,846
NA°
N
16
NA°
Notes:
a. Representative of individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, and no chemical-resistant gloves.
b. Dermal liquid formulation TC based on a lognormal distribution fit with data from MRID 46658401.
c. NA = Not applicable. Child values were derived by scaling adult data.
Each adult transfer coefficient was log-transformed and plotted to evaluate its fit to a lognormal
distribution. The data appears to reasonably fit a lognormal distribution as shown in the Figure
D-16 below.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-110
-------
Appendix D
Lognormal Prob - Liquid TC
Standard Normal Score
Figure D-16: Liquid Formulation Transfer Coefficient Lognormal Probability Plot
Table D-52: Available Exposure Study Identification Information
Citation
Mester, T.C. (1998). Dermal Exposure and Inhalation Exposure to Carbaryl by
Commercial Pet Groomers During Applications of Adams ™ Carbaryl Shampoo
EPA MRID
44658401
EPA Review
D287251
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review 12/4/98
MRID = Master Record Identification
Study Description: 16 different commercial pet groomers were monitored while treating dogs
with carbaryl, an active ingredient used to control fleas and ticks, using a ready-to-use (RTU)
disposable shampoo bottle. Each application consisted of treating 8 dogs by soaking (2-3
minutes), treating with the shampoo, letting the shampoo sit for 5 minutes, then rinsing, drying
and combing the dog. Application times for treating all 8 dogs ranged from 149 to 295 minutes
and the amount of carbaryl applied ranged from approximately 0.0008 to 0.008 lbs. Dermal
exposure was measured using inner whole body dosimetry (underneath pants, a short-sleeved
shirt and a smock) and hand washes (no chemical-resistant gloves were worn). Inhalation
exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 1.5 liter per minute), cassettes, and tubing.
Recoveries from field fortifications of exposure sampling matrices were generally above 80%.
Table D-53: MRID 44658401 TC Data Summary
Person
ID
AaiH1
(mg)
Total Dermal
Exposure
(mg)
Duration
(hr)
Animal
Surface Area
(cm2)
ai on Dog Available
for Transfer2
(mg/cm2)
TC
Adult3
(cm2/hr)
TC
Child4
(cm2/hr)
1
2,290
15.4
2.88
31,603
0.00070
7,646
2,065
2
684
11.7
2.58
12,313
0.00053
8,498
2,294
3
916
2.6
3.07
28,726
0.00031
2,775
750
4
2,004
5.5
2.48
17,002
0.00113
1,959
530
5
1,641
10.4
3.08
26,067
0.00061
5,574
1,505
6
1,205
4.0
3.18
25,148
0.00046
2,722
735
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-lll
-------
Appendix D
1 iihlo l)-53: \1RII)44(.5X40I TC
Diilii Siimniiin
Person
II)
Aiiill1
(inii)
Toliil Doi'iiiiil
r.xpoNurc
(mii)
Dui'iilion
(hr)
Aniniiil
Surface Area
(cnri
:ii on l)o» A\ailal>lc
lor Transfer
(Illli/CIll")
TC
Adult'
(cnr/lin
TC
Child4
(cur/In)
7
659
4.5
2.93
19,937
0.00032
4,810
1,299
8
373
5.1
2.72
24,210
0.00015
12,749
3,442
9
600
2.2
4.03
19,665
0.00029
1,861
503
10
1,747
27.9
3.88
30,047
0.00056
12,846
3,468
11
945
1.8
3.17
20,140
0.00045
1,230
332
12
3,720
15.0
4.05
31,231
0.00114
3,234
873
13
1,132
8.3
4.92
22,305
0.00049
3,456
933
14
1,148
8.6
3.45
15,911
0.00069
3,594
970
15
706
2.5
3.03
35,946
0.00019
4,430
1,196
16
1,929
1.4
3.00
20,140
0.00092
522
141
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 The total ai deposited on the dog (mg/cm2) = AaiH (mg)/ Surface Area Animals (cm2) * 0.0096 (0.96% is the
arithmetic mean Far value which is applied to adjust the total amount of ai per surface area (mg/cm2) on the dog to
an amount estimated to be available for transfer).
3 Adult TC = Total Dermal Exposure (mg) / (Duration (hr) * (ai on Dog Available for Transfer (mg/cm2)).
4 Child TC = Adult TC adjusted by 71% for reduction from adult to child mean surface areas.
Formulation: Solids
Application Method: Dusts and Powders
Tahlc D-54: Ariull :iikI Child 1 r;iiisl'ei* ( oclTicicnls lor Solid l-'ormulalions
Sialislic
Transfer ( oclTiccni (cnr/hour) '1'
Adult
1-2 jears old
50th percentile
120,000
31,000
75th percentile
170,000
47,000
95th percentile
310,000
84,000
99th percentile
470,000
130,000
99.9th percentile
740,000
200,000
AM(SD)
140,000 (92,000)
38,000 (25,000)
GM
120,000
31,000
GSD
1.82
1.82
Range
28,754-318,503
NA°
N
20
NA°
Notes:
a. Representative of individuals wearing short-sleeve shirts, shorts, and no chemical-resistant gloves.
b. Dermal solid formulation TC based on a lognormal distribution fit with data from MRID 44439901.
c. NA = Not applicable. Child values were derived by scaling adult data.
Each adult transfer coefficient was log-transformed and plotted to evaluate its fit to a lognormal
distribution. The data appears to reasonably fit a lognormal distribution as shown in the figure
below.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-112
-------
Appendix D
Lognormal Prob - Solid TC
Figure D-17: Solid Formulation Transfer Coefficient Probability Plot
Table D-55: Available Exposure Study Identification Information
Citation
Merricks, D. (1997) Carbaryl Applicator Exposure Study During Application of
Sevin 5 Dust to Dogs by the Non Professional
EPA MRID
44439901
EPA Review
Contractor (Versar, Inc.) review
MRID = Master Record Identification
Study Description: A total of 40 individuals - 20 with and 20 without chemical-resistant gloves
- were monitored while applying a dust formulation (5% carbaryl) to dogs. Each application,
lasting approximately 7 minutes, consisted of an individual using a 1 lb shaker can to apply an
average of 0.15 lbs of dust (0.008 lbs carbaryl) to 3 dogs, then rubbing the dust into the dog's
coat. Dermal exposure was measured using inner and outer whole body dosimetry and hand
washes. Inhalation exposure was measured using standard pumps (set at 2 liter per minute),
cassettes, and tubing. Recoveries from field fortifications of exposure sampling matrices were
generally above 90%.
Table D-56: MRID 44439901 TC Data Summary
Person
ID
AaiH1
(mg)
Total Dermal
Exposure
(mg)
Duration
(hr)
Animal
Surface
Area
(cm2)
ai on Dog
Available for
Transfer2
(mg/cm2)
TC Adult3
(cm2/hr)
TC
Child4
(cm2/hr)
3
1,361
30.1
0.13
12,921
0.0010
223,241
60,275
4
7,257
82.9
0.12
12,313
0.0057
125,492
33,883
7
3,629
10.9
0.22
19,801
0.0017
28,754
7,764
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-113
-------
Appendix D
Tiihle l)-5(>: MUM) 4443'J'JOI TC l);K;i Siimniiin
Person
II)
Aiiill1
(ni»)
loliil Do nil ;il
l'A|)OMIIV
(111}*)
Duration
(111)
Aniniiil
Sii rl'iiee
Area
ii'iin
iii on l)o«
A\iiihihle lor
Transfer
(nig/cnri
TC Adult'
(enr/hri
TC
Child4
lenr/hr)
8
1,814
24.b
U.12
lu,t>7u
U.UUlb
12y,u42
34,841
10
3,629
61.8
0.08
14,977
0.0023
318,503
85,996
13
907
8.15
0.12
15,526
0.00056
124,425
33,595
14
1,361
10.76
0.10
16,443
0.00079
135,237
36,514
16
3,175
18.73
0.13
19,044
0.0016
87,652
23,666
19
3,175
15.95
0.13
20,005
0.0015
78,403
21,169
20
5,443
104.8
0.17
11,598
0.0045
139,336
37,620
23
2,268
22.2
0.08
17,113
0.0013
208,691
56,347
24
9,979
84.4
0.08
18,342
0.0052
193,564
52,262
26
4,082
15.4
0.12
20,275
0.0019
68,208
18,416
29
454
5.9
0.08
11,416
0.00038
185,812
50,169
30
4,082
14.4
0.13
11,324
0.0035
31,148
8,410
33
6,804
31.5
0.12
26,680
0.0025
109,985
29,696
34
3,175
23.5
0.13
20,743
0.0015
119,847
32,359
36
2,722
23.4
0.08
14,255
0.0018
153,037
41,320
39
2,722
13.6
0.12
17,841
0.0015
79,794
21,544
40
1,814
13.9
0.08
15,911
0.0011
151,735
40,968
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled.
2 The total ai deposited on the dog (mg/cm2) = AaiH (mg)/ Surface Area Animals (cm2) * 0.0096 (0.96% is the
arithmetic mean Far value which is applied to adjust the total amount of ai per surface area (mg/cm2) on the dog to
an amount estimated to be available for transfer).
3 Adult TC = Total Dermal Exposure (mg) / (Duration (hr) * (ai on Dog Available for Transfer (mg/cm2)).
4 Child TC = Adult TC adjusted by 71% for reduction from adult to child mean surface areas.
Fraction of TC from Hands (Faihands)
The TCs used to estimate post-application dermal exposure were developed using data from two
studies representing application and grooming activities with dogs, as described in Section 8.2.2,
Post-Application Dermal Exposure Assessment, of the Treated Pet Section. The TCs for solid
and liquid pet pesticide formulations are based upon whole body exposure (mg a.i.) of the
volunteers involved in the studies. In order to adjust dermal exposure (DE) to a value which is
more representative of that anticipated for the children hands, a ratio of hand exposure to total
body exposure (as measured in both studies) was performed. In addition, since child surface area
is less than adults, hand surface area was adjusted using the method described in Section 2.3.
The resulting values represent the fraction of a.i. from hands for solid and liquid formulations.
Table D-57 and Table D-58 provide a summary Fai hands liquid and solid formulation data values
for use in child post-application incidental ingestion exposure assessment, respectively.
Tiihle D-5"7: MRU) 44(>5X40I l-AI liiinds l);K;i Siiiiiin;ir\ - l.inuid l-o nun hi 1 ion
Person II)
Aiiill1
(niu>
loliil Derniiil
l'l\|)osure dnii)
lliind llxposiire
(111 u»
l-'raelion l oliil Derniiil llxposiire I'roin
Hands2 (l-\
1
2,290
15.4
n J")
0.019
2
684
11.7
0.18
0.015
3
916
2.6
0.13
0.051
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-114
-------
Appendix D
4
2,004
5.5
0.25
0.045
5
1,641
10.4
0.12
0.012
6
1,205
4.0
0.16
0.041
7
659
4.5
0.082
0.018
8
373
5.1
0.11
0.020
9
600
2.2
0.062
0.028
10
1,747
27.9
0.47
0.017
11
945
1.8
0.29
0.17
12
3,720
15.0
0.15
0.0097
13
1,132
8.3
0.12
0.014
14
1,148
8.6
0.14
0.016
15
706
2.5
0.24
0.094
16
1,929
1.4
0.11
0.074
Average
0.040
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled
2 Fraction Total Dermal Exposure from Hands (FAI hands) = Hand Exposure/ Total Dermal Exposure
liihlo D-5X: MRU) 4443V')II| |;ii |);K;i Siiiiiin;ir\ - Solid l-o rmii l;i I ion
Person
ID
Aiiill1
(mii)
l oliil Doi'iiiiil
r.xpoMiiv
lliind l.\|)osuiv
(inii)
l-'i'iiclion Tohil lk*rm;il l-lxposuro I'm in
llsincls2 (l";ii
3
1361
30.1
5.8
0.19
4
7257
82.9
12.5
0.15
7
3629
10.9
3.9
0.35
8
1814
24.6
5.4
0.22
10
3629
61.8
8.1
0.13
13
907
8.15
4.9
0.61
14
1361
10.76
4.5
0.42
16
3175
18.73
10.5
0.56
19
3175
15.95
11.6
0.73
20
5443
104.8
11.9
0.11
23
2268
22.2
7.3
0.33
24
9979
84.4
24.6
0.29
26
4082
15.4
4.4
0.28
29
454
5.9
3.9
0.65
30
4082
14.4
6.0
0.42
33
6804
31.5
5.1
0.16
34
3175
23.5
4.6
0.19
36
2722
23.4
6.8
0.29
39
2722
13.6
9.1
0.67
40
1814
13.9
7.7
0.55
Average
0.37
1 Amount of active ingredient Handled
2 Fraction Total Dermal Exposure from Hands (Fai hands) = Hand Exposure/ Total Dermal Exposure
D.8 Estimates for Residential Activity Duration
D.8.1 Gardens, Trees, and "Pick-your-own" Farms
Based on analysis of a residential survey (Johnson, et al., 1999) and the U.S. EPA's Exposure
Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (U.S. EPA, 2011), considered the best available data sources for
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-115
-------
Appendix D
this information, activity duration is presented below for similar activities conducted at home and
at "pick-your-own" farms.
Home Activities
Activity durations for activities associated with gardens and trees at home were derived from a
survey (Johnson, et al., 1999) and Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (presented in 1997 EPA Exposure
Factors Handbook; Vol. Ill, Table 15-62). While Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 includes information
information on "time spent working with soil in a garden or other circumstances working" for all
lifestages including youths, the data are presented as hours/month, thus difficult to interpret daily
exposure times necessary for exposure assessments of short duration. The survey, on the other
hand, asked about specific types of residential landscaping and maintenance activities and the
amount of time an individual spends conducting such activities quantified in "hours per week"
and "days per week". However, because this survey only included individuals 18 years or older,
Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 was used to adjust these results for those under 18 years.
Johnson, et al., 1999 surveyed households regarding types of residential landscaping and
maintenance activities and the amount of time an individual spends conducting such activities
quantified in "hours per week" and "days per week". Though the survey did not ask for specific
crop/activity durations (i.e., how long do you pick apples per day?) - which could potentially
correspond to transfer coefficients from specific reentry exposure studies - the information on
general activities can be used in conjunction with the composite transfer coefficients derived to
represent broad categories of residential garden and tree activities. Table D-59 and Table D-60
below present a summary of the survey data.
Tsihle l)-5<>: Residential (.unions ;nul l ives-Ae(i\i(\ Diinilion (Vii response)
Aeli\ i(\
N
Hours noi' week
< 1
1
¦>
3
4-5
X-IO
11-15
K.-20
> 20
DNK
Vegetable Garden
364
0.1
15.1
13.5
11.9
14.7
00
00
6.7
4.2
2.6
2.1
20.2
Flower Garden
519
0.8
20.9
17.4
8.0
10.9
7.5
4.0
2.1
—
--
27.9
Roses
252
1.4
34.2
22.8
5.5
9.4
2.6
0.8
0.5
—
--
21.7
Shrubs/bushes
456
0.8
32.8
14.7
4.3
8.2
1.2
2.5
0.3
—
--
34.9
Fruit/Nut trees
123
0.8
24.9
6.5
3.8
12.7
3.0
3.4
1.3
—
--
41.9
Source: National Gardening Association Survey (Johnson, et al., 1999).
DNK = did not know
Tsihle !)-(»»: Kesidenlisil (.unions ;ind l ives - Aeli\i(\ l)ur;i(ion response)
Ae(i\ il\
N
Dsns per week
< 1
1
*)
A
3
4
5
(.
7
DNK
Ycgcuiblc (i.iiilcn
'<>4
0:
1 "4
:::
15
in
y<>
III.'
1 1
Flower Garden
519
1.2
26.7
17.1
15.5
5.5
6.9
3.1
8.2
15.5
Roses
252
1.6
28.5
17.5
10.9
2.9
4.4
1.9
10.0
21.0
Shrubs/bushes
456
2.8
35.8
16.8
5.2
0.7
1.1
0.1
3.9
32.2
Fruit/Nut trees
123
2.4
22.8
13.0
5.2
1.0
1.7
2.3
6.7
43.7
Source: National Gardening Association Survey (Johnson, et al., 1999).
DNK = did not know
Exposure assessment values for "hours per day" had to be implicitly derived from the survey
since responses were given only in "hours per week" and "days per week". To derive "hours per
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-116
-------
Appendix D
day", the "hours per week" values were divided by 2 (i.e., 2 days per week). The survey showed
that greater than 60% of respondents for most activities reported 1-3 days performing that
activity per week. Therefore, normalizing the "hours per week" responses by a factor of 2 is not
an unreasonable assumption to derive daily exposure times for the purposes of exposure
assessment. Additionally, the responses were adjusted proportionally to the fraction who
responded "did not know" (i.e., 21% of "did not know" responses were distributed equally
amongst the other responses). The results for "hours per day" are shown in Table D-61 below:
I n hie D-61:
Kesirienlhil (.unions ;nul Titos - Ae(i\il\ l)i
nilinii ('
'/» response)1
Ae(i\ i(\
Hours nor d;i\"
< 0.5
0.5
1
1.5
2-2.5
3-3.5
4-5
5.5-7.5
S-IO
> 10
Vegetable Garden
0.13
18.9
16.9
14.9
18.4
11.0
8.4
5.3
3.3
2.6
Flower Garden
1.1
29.2
24.3
11.2
15.2
10.5
5.6
2.9
--
—
Roses
1.8
44.3
29.5
7.1
12.2
3.4
1.0
0.65
--
—
Shrubs/bushes
1.2
50.6
22.7
6.6
12.7
1.9
3.9
0.46
--
—
Fruit/Nut trees
1.4
44.1
11.5
6.7
22.5
5.3
6.0
2.3
--
—
1 Percent responses adjusted proportionally per activity's "did not know".
2 Hours per day derived by dividing "hours per week" values by 2.
Source: National Gardening Association Survey (Johnson, et al., 1999).
DNK = did not know
After calculating "hours per day", the responses, given as percentages, were used in conjunction
with the upper bound of each range to derive cumulative percentile distributions. The
distributions were truncated at 16 hours per day to subtract for 8 hours of sleep. Also, note that
vegetable gardening was the only activity with results reported for "8-10" and "> 10" hours per
week (derived from 16-20 and > 20 hours per week). Table D-62 below presents the cumulative
percentiles for each activity.
Tsihle l)-(>2: C ii mil hit i\ o Pereenlile Distributions lor Aeli\ i(\ Diirnlions lor (iiirdons ;nul lives
Ae(i\ i(\
l)ii nilinn
(hrs/d;i\)
( ii inn hi 1 i\e "Miles
\ ejiel;il>le (jiirdcninii
l-'lnwer C^irdeninii
Roses
Shriihs/liushes
l-'riiil/Nul l ives
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
19
30
46
52
46
1
36
55
76
75
57
1.5
51
66
83
81
64
2.5
69
81
95
94
86
3.5
80
91
98
96
92
5
89
97
99
99.5
97
7.5
94
99
99.5
99.9
99
10
97
--
--
—
—
16
100
100
100
100
100
Note: Vegetable gardening was the only activity with results reported for "8-10" and "> 10" hours per week
(derived from 16-20 and > 20 hours per week), thus the upper bound reported value for all activities except for
vegetable gardening is 7.5 hours per day.
Next, custom cumulative distributions were constructed for gardens and trees, respectively. The
distribution for activities in gardens was constructed by combining, via a 5000 trial Monte Carlo
simulation, the cumulative distributions for each vegetable gardening and flower gardening in
equal proportion (i.e., 50% each). The distribution for activities in trees was derived similarly
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-117
-------
Appendix D
with the cumulative distributions for each roses, shrubs/bushes, and fruit/nut trees used in equal
33% proportions.
Probability and cumulative density functions are provided in the figures below. A statistical
summary follows in Table D-63.
5,000 Trials
.053
.040
J3
-------
Appendix D
5,000 Trials
1.000
.750
.a
a
A
O
L.
d
.500
.250 -
.000
~
0.00
Forecast: Hrs/day_Gardening_Composite
CumulativeChait
2.25
4.50
153 Outliers
- 5000
6.75
9.00
CD
n
c
n
Figure D-17: Gardening Exposure Duration - Composite Cumulative Density Function Simulation
5,000 Trials
.053 f
Forecast: Hrs/day_Trees_Composite
FrequencyChatt
77 Outliers
T 266
.040
199.5
A .027
A3
A
O
L.
0.
.013
.000
~
0.00
llllllllllll.llllllll.il.I.I I.I.
1.25
2.50
3.75
CD
A
133
C
rD
S
66.5
i
5.00
Figure D-20: Trees Exposure Duration - Composite Probability Density Function Simulation
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-U9
-------
Appendix D
5,000 Trials
1.000 --
.750
Forecast: Hrs/day_Trees_Composite
Cumulative Chart
-O .500
(Q
o
L.
CL
.250
.000
77 Outliers
5000
CD
JZ)
c
ro
0.00
1.25
2.50
3.75
5.00
Figure D-21: Trees Exposure Duration - Composite Cumulative Density Function Simulation
Next, because the survey included only those older than 18, Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (presented
in 1997 EPA Exposure Factors Handbook; Vol. Ill, Table 15-62) was used to adjust this data for
youths conducting similar activities. Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (presented in 1997 EPA Exposure
Factors Handbook; Vol. Ill, Table 15-62) provides distributions for "time spent working with
soil in a garden or other circumstances" in hours per month. Comparing the distributions, it is
apparent that adults spend approximately twice the amount of time as youths for this scenario.
Table D-63 below presents these datasets.
Table D-63: Adult to Youth Activity Duration Ratios from Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (presented in 1997 EPA
Exposure Factors Handbook; Vol. Ill, Table 15-62)
Percentile
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
98
99
Adults
(18-64 yrs.)
0
0
0
0
3
16
40
90
200
Youths
(5-11 yrs.)
0
0
0
0
2
10
20
50
60
AdultYouth
Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.6
2
1.8
3.3
Using the survey information from Johnson, et al., 1999 and Tsang and Klepeis, 1996, a
statistical summary of activity durations associated with gardens and trees at home are presented
below.
Table D-64: Home Gardens and Trees - Activity Duration (hrs/day) Statistical Summary
Statistic
Vegetable and Flower Gardens
Fruit, Nut, and Ornamental
Trees/Bushes/Shrubs and Indoor Plants
Adults
Youths
Adults
Youths
Mean
2.2
1.1
1.0
0.5
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-120
-------
Appendix D
Tsihle l)-(>4: lloiiK' (>;irdeiis ;md Trees-Ac(i\i(\ l)ur;ilion (hrs/d;i\) Si;iiislie;il Suniin;ir\
Siiiiisiic
Yegel.ihle iiiid Ho\ut C;irdens
l-'ruil. Nul. iind ()rn;imenl;d
1 rees/IJiislies/Slinihs ;ind Indoor Phinls
Adults
Youllis
Adults
Youllis
50th percentile
1.4
0.7
0.5
0.25
75th percentile
2.9
1.5
1.4
0.7
90th percentile
4.5
2.3
2.4
1.2
95th percentile
6.9
3.5
3.4
1.7
99th percentile
13
6.5
6.3
3.2
99.9th percentile
16
8
15
7.5
Notes:
- Distributions are truncated at 16 hours per day.
- Durations for youths derived as Vi that of adult activity durations.
"Pick-your-own" Farms
Activities at "pick-your-own" farms are likely to be similar to those conducted at home (e.g.,
picking fruits), however the duration of the activities are likely to be different since people and
families are away from their home and likely at the farm for recreation. Tsang and Klepeis, 1996
(presented in the 1997 EPA Exposure Factors Handbook; Vol. Ill Table 15-112) includes data
for the amount of time "spent outdoors at a farm" and is considered a reasonable surrogate for
time spent at a "pick-your-own" farm. The data indicates that adults ages 18-64 ranged from 5
minutes to 16 hours per day while youths aged 5-11 ranged from 25 minutes to 4.4 hours per
day. Unlike the survey for home activities, it is possible to differentiate between adults and
youths. The summary statistics are provided below in Table D-65.
l iihle l)-(i5: Time Snenl ;il "Piek-tour-ottn" l";i
-ins (hrs/dii\) Siiiiislie:il Suiiiin;ir\
l.ifesl;i}ie
\»e
Sliiiisiies
(\e;irs)
N
Mesin
Siimm;in Percentiles
5
25
50
75
«)0
<)5
')>)
Adults
18-64
91
5.0
0.3
1.3
3.8
8.3
10.6
13.0
15.6
15.9
Youths
5-11
7
1.9
0.4
0.8
1.7
2.2
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Source: Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (presented in the 1997 EPA Exposure Factors Handbook; Vol. Ill Table 15-112)
D.8.2 Treated Pets
Exposure Time (ET)
The exposure time (ET) for adults and children were derived from Tsang and Klepeis, 1996 (as
presented in 1997 Exposure Factors Handbook Table 15-77) and summarized in Tables D-67 and
D-68 below. Animal care is defined in the 1997 Exposure Factors Handbook as "care of
household pets including activities with pets, playing with the dog, walking the dog and caring
for pets of relatives, and friends." The data identified the time spent with an animal while
performing household activities as recorded in 24 hour diaries by study volunteers. The defined
activities may not necessarily represent the time volunteers were actively engaged in constant
contact with the animal. However, HED conservatively assumes that the exposure times
recorded represent continual contact. This assumption is implicit in the formulas used to assess
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-121
-------
Appendix D
post-application dermal and incidental oral routes of exposure for children 1 < 2 and adults 16 <
80 years old.
1 "sihie !)-(>(>: I);iil\ r.xnosiire l ime (111) w illi Pels (Children 1 < 2 \e.irs old)
Sliiiislie
l ime (hours)
5th percentile
0.05
25th percentile
0.5
50th percentile
1.0
75th percentile
1.5
90th percentile
2.3
95th percentile
2.3
AM(SD)
1.0 (0.74)
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
T;ihle D-ft"7: l);iil\ l-lxnosure l ime (11 1 ) with Pels (Adulls)
Sliiiislie
l ime (hours)
5th percentile
0.05
25th percentile
0.17
50th percentile
0.5
75th percentile
1.0
90 th percentile
1.8
95th percentile
2.5
AM (SD)
0.77(1.1)
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
D.9 Estimates of Hand-to-Mouth Events per Hour
Frequency of hand-to-mouth events is an important variable for hand-to-mouth Post-application
exposure assessments. Data on the frequency of hand-to-mouth events are limited and difficult
to collect. The generic estimates for frequency of hand-to-mouth events are based on the Xue et
al. (2007) meta-analysis. This article examined hand-to-mouth frequency data from 9 available
studies representing 429 subjects and more than 2,000 hours of behavior observation. Results of
this analysis indicate that age and location are important for hand-to-mouth frequency, but study
and gender are not. In fact, hand-to-mouth frequency is significantly greater indoors than
outdoors. As a result, hand-to-mouth frequency for outdoor environments is presented in this
Appendix separately from hand-to-mouth frequency for indoor environments.
D.9.1 Outdoors - Turf
The index lifestage assessed for hand-to-mouth activity for the outdoor environment is the
children 1 < 2 years old lifestage. The estimates of hand mouthing frequency (events/hour) for
children 1 < 2 years old were derived from 4 studies representing 32 participants. Table D-68
provides the raw data.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-122
-------
Appendix D
Tsihk' l)-(iX: OiiKlfioi-- 1 ui-r 1 I;iikI-Io-Moii1 h l-'ivuiicno l):il:i
II)
S(u (C\ (.Mils/Ill')
315M12
Beamer et al.,
20081
1
1
081F13
1.13
18
764M20
1.666667
22
328F22
1.833333
2
768M23
1.916667
7
681M23
1.916667
26
453F01
Leckie, 20022
1
2
550M01
1
2
248M01
1
23
958F01
1
57
id 104
Tulve et al., 20023
1.166667
0
id 104
1.166667
6
id 104
1.166667
12
id 194
1.25
8
id 120
1.75
17
id 190
1.75
20
id 190
1.75
35
id764
1.833333
8
idl50
1.833333
10
id764
1.833333
17
id012
Black etal.,20054
1
3
id014
1
7
idO 15
1
42
id020
1.166667
5
idO 19
1.166667
7
id023
1.333333
1
id024
1.416667
39
id025
1.5
4
id026
1.583333
15
id027
1.666667
8
id029
1.75
5
id030
1.833333
16
1 Beamer, P., Key, M.E., Ferguson, A.C., Canales, R.A., Auyeung, W., Leckie, J.O.
(2008). Time Activity Assessment of Young Farmworker Children in California. In
revision, Journal of Environmental Research.
2 Greene, M. A. (2002). Mouthing times among young children from observational
data. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD.
3 Tulve, N., Suggs, J., McCurdy, T., Cohen Hubal, E., & Moya, J. (2002). Frequency
of mouthing behavior in young children. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology, 12(4), 259-264.
4 Black, K., Shalat, S. L., Freeman, N. C. G., Jimenez, M., Donnelly, K. C., & Calvin,
J. A. (2005). Children's mouthing and food handling behavior in an agricultural
community on the U.S./Mexico border. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
EnvironmentalEpidemiology, 15, 244-251.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-123
-------
Appendix D
D.9.2 Indoor
The index lifestage assessed for hand-to-mouth activity for the indoor environment is the
children 1 < 2 years old lifestage. The estimates of hand mouthing frequency (events/hour) for
children 1 < 2 years old were derived from 5 studies representing 243 participants. Table D-69
provides the raw data.
Tsihle !)-(»'): Indoor Ihiiiri-ln-Moiilh l-"requene\ l);il;i
... ... . 1 I;iikI-Io-M on 111
II) Slud\ Ai»e (u'sirs) .. „
I- requeue^ (e\ enls/lir)
Children 1 < 2 \e;u s old
315M12
Beamer et. al, in prep1
1
15
081F13
1
48
764M20
2
63
674F22
2
14
328F22
2
35
768M23
2
29
681M23
2
30
00201136
Greene, 20022
1
50
00201136
1
82
00206446
1
13
00206446
1
20
TXK16769
1
20
TXK16769
1
31
00206443
1
4
TXK31661
1
15
00206443
1
17
TXK31661
1
31
ILK34447
1
24
ILK34447
1
24
ILK67031
1
5
ILK67031
1
13
ILK66422
1
36
ILK66422
1
63
TXK24860
1
7
TXK24860
1
22
ILK37758
1
10
ILK37758
1
40
ILK51607
1
5
ILK51607
1
13
ILK92729
1
22
ILK92729
1
68
TXK37439
1
4
TXK37439
1
11
00204534
1
7
00204534
1
10
ILK98213
1
32
ILK98213
1
43
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-124
-------
Appendix D
II)
I'iihlo !)-(»'): Indoor Ihind-lo-Moiiili l-'ivquono
Siiulj Age (u'sirs)
Diilii
1 l;iil(l-lo-Mon 111
I-"iv(iik'iio (c\cn(s/hr)
ILK83625
1
7
ILK83625
1
11
ILK93446
1
14
ILK93446
1
23
ILK44904
1
9
ILK44904
1
32
TXK12275
1
24
TXK12275
1
63
00203429
1
0
00203429
1
2
ILK63757
1
4
ILK63757
1
15
TXK10932
1
4
TXK10932
1
24
ILK92658
1
3
ILK92658
1
15
ILK64770
1
0
ILK64770
1
25
IL106650
1
3
IL106650
1
5
TXK47553
1
21
TXK47553
1
35
TXK15447
1
16
TXK15447
1
22
TXK57344
1
12
TXK57344
1
47
TXK39510
1
34
TXK39510
1
53
TXK03500
1
22
TXK03500
1
27
TXK15315
1
7
TXK15315
1
23
TXK34418
1
7
TXK34418
1
21
TXK14690
1
6
TXK14690
1
27
ILK39523
1
5
ILK39523
1
10
ILK88461
1
4
ILK88461
1
5
ILK43787
1
12
ILK43787
1
28
ILK91233
1
0
ILK91233
1
0
TXK02791
1
12
TXK02791
1
43
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-125
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo !)-(»'): Indoor Ihmd-ln-Moiilh l-'ivquono l);il;i
II)
Sluclj
A}»c (> o;i rs t
1 l;iil(l-lo-Mon 111
I"iv(|iiciio K'\oiils/hr)
00200973
2
1
00200973
2
6
TXK04568
2
39
TXK04568
2
78
TXK36066
2
14
TXK36066
2
17
IL105497
2
27
IL105497
2
65
ILK55650
2
4
ILK55650
2
6
TXK54694
2
18
TXK54694
2
33
ILK96974
2
6
ILK96974
2
17
ILK90093
2
4
ILK90093
2
9
ILK41454
2
2
ILK41454
2
8
TXK49183
2
4
TXK49183
2
8
ILK95130
2
3
ILK95130
2
29
ILK48848
2
1
ILK48848
2
3
TXK29304
2
17
TXK29304
2
31
ILK75432
2
0
ILK75432
2
0
ILK86318
2
11
ILK86318
2
36
ILK83808
2
107
ILK83808
2
113
IL104760
2
0
IL104760
2
8
ILK82433
2
3
ILK82433
2
21
ILK87131
2
15
ILK87131
2
23
ILK81166
2
2
ILK81166
2
8
00200925
2
17
00200925
2
24
TXK57947
2
1
TXK57947
2
15
ILK52051
2
0
ILK52051
2
10
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-126
-------
Appendix D
Tsihle !)-(»'): Indoor Ihmd-ln-Moiilh l-'ivquono l);il;i
II)
Sluclj
A}»c (> o;i rs t
1 l;iil(l-lo-Mon 111
I"iv(|iiciio K'\oiils/hr)
ILK49347
2
7
ILK49347
2
21
TXK36720
2
11
TXK36720
2
24
TXK28972
2
11
TXK28972
2
37
ILK52599
2
56
ILK52599
2
80
id890
1
0
id876
1
2
id876
1
3
id876
1
4
id932
1
5
id932
1
8
id 187
1
9
id932
1
10
id975
1
10
id876
1
15
id890
1
18
id890
1
24
id932
1
24
id975
1
30
id975
1
30
id 187
1
38
id975
1
41
id 187
1
87
id 126
Tulve et al., 20023
1
5
id 126
1
14
id 126
1
19
id 126
1
23
id 167
1
0
id711
1
5
id 104
1
7
id711
1
10
id711
1
18
id 167
1
19
id711
1
20
id 167
1
32
id 167
1
32
id705
1
10
id 162
1
12
id705
1
14
id705
1
18
id705
1
20
id 162
1
24
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-127
-------
Appendix D
l iihlo !)-(»'): Indoor Ihmd-lo-Moiilh l-'ivquono l);il;i
II)
Sluclj
A}»c (> o;i rs t
1 l;iil(l-lo-Mon 111
I-"iv(iik'iio (c\cn(s/hr)
id 194
1
28
id 194
1
29
id 162
1
32
id 194
1
37
id 162
1
72
idlOl
1
0
idlOl
1
0
id 122
1
0
idlOl
1
2
idlOl
1
3
id837
1
3
id837
1
5
id723
1
6
id837
1
8
id723
1
11
id 122
1
14
id 122
1
16
id 122
1
24
id837
1
24
idl32
2
37
idl32
2
54
id768
2
38
id768
2
62
id768
2
108
idl08
2
2
idl08
2
3
idl08
2
4
idl08
2
4
id 190
2
9
id 120
2
10
id 190
2
11
id 120
2
24
idl50
2
0
idl50
2
0
idl03
2
12
idl03
2
24
idl03
2
27
idl50
2
27
id764
2
29
idl03
2
30
idllO
2
0
id748
2
0
id748
2
4
id748
2
6
id748
2
7
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-128
-------
Appendix D
T;ihlc !)-(»'): Indoor
Ihind-lo-Moudi l-'ivquoiio l);il;i
II)
Siuclj
Alii' (u'.irs)
1 l;iil(l-lo-Mon 111
I-"iv(iik'iio (c\cn(s/hr)
idllO
2
16
idllO
2
32
id012
1
5
id015
1
11
id013
1
21
id014
1
35
id018
1
4
id017
1
16
id016
1
29
id019
1
23
id020
1
26
id022
Black et al., 20054
1
9
id021
1
13
id023
1
7
id024
1
21
id025
2
36
id026
2
14
id027
2
12
id028
2
8
id029
2
18
id030
2
24
id031
2
10
r208
Reedetal., 19995
2
11
r201
2
0
1 Beamer, P., Key, M. E., Ferguson, A. C., Canales, R. A., Auyeung, W., & Leckie, J. O. (in
preparation). Time activity assessment of young farmworker children in California.
2 Greene, M.A. (2002). Mouthing times among young children from observational data. U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD.
3 Tulve, N., Suggs, J., McCurdy, T., Cohen Hubal, E., & Moya, J. (2002). Frequency of mouthing
behavior in young children. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 12(4),
259-264.
4 Black, K., Shalat, S. L., Freeman, N. C. G., Jimenez, M., Donnelly, K. C., & Calvin, J. A. (2005).
Children's mouthing and food handling behavior in an agricultural community on the U.S./Mexico
border. Journal of Exposure Analysis and EnvironmentalEpidemiology, 15, 244-251.
5 Reed, K. J., Jimenez, M., Freeman, N. C. G., & Lioy, P. J. (1999). Quantification of children's
hand and mouthing activities through a videotaping methodology. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology, 9, 513-520.
D.9.3 Pets
There are currently no data available that specifically address the number of hand-to-mouth
events that occur relative to the amount of time a child spends with a pet. As a result, the
estimates for frequency of hand-to-mouth events in indoor environments from the Xue et al.
(2007) meta-analysis were used as a surrogate. This article examined hand-to-mouth frequency
data from 9 available studies representing 429 subjects and more than 2,000 hours of behavior
observation. Results of this analysis indicate that age and location are important for hand-to-
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-129
-------
Appendix D
mouth frequency, but study and gender are not. In fact, hand-to-mouth frequency is significantly
greater indoors than outdoors. As a result, hand-to-mouth frequency for indoor environments
was selected for risk analysis of children indoor ingestion from treated pets.
Since the indoor environment data used are not specific to the pet SOP, raw data from the studies
and resulting statistical analysis can be found in D.9.2 of the Appendix.
D.10 Estimates of Object-to-Mouth Events per Hour
Frequency of object-to-mouth events is an important variable for object-to-mouth post-
application exposure assessments. Data on the frequency of object-to-mouth events are limited
and difficult to collect. The generic estimates for frequency of hand-to-mouth events are based
on the Xue et al. (2010) meta-analysis. This article examined object-to-mouth frequency data
from 7 available studies representing 438 participants and -1500 hours of behavior observation.
Results of this analysis indicate that age and location are important for object-to-mouth
frequency. In fact, object-to-mouth frequency is significantly greater indoors than outdoors. As
a result, object-to-mouth frequency for outdoor environments is presented in this Appendix
separately from object-to-mouth frequency for indoor environments.
D.10.1 Outdoors - Turf
The index lifestage assessed for object-to-mouth activity for the outdoor environment is the
children 1 < 2 years old lifestage. The estimates of object mouthing frequency (events/hour) for
children 1 < 2 years old were derived from 3 studies representing 21 participants. Table D-70
provides the raw data.
Tabic D-70: Outdoor-Tu rf Ob jcct-to-Mouth Frequency Data
ID
Study
Age (years)
Objccl-lo-Moulh Frequency
(evenls/hr)
id021
AuYeung et al., 20041
1.2
10
id022
1.3
4
id012
1.4
17
id004
1.5
1
idOOl
1.5
8
id013
1.6
4
id023
1.6
9
315M12
Beamer et al., 2008
1
11
328F22
1.833333
3
681M23
1.916667
5
768M23
1.916667
21
104
Tulve et al., 20023
1.166667
0
104
1.166667
0
104
1.166667
14
194
1.25
5
190
1.75
6
120
1.75
8
190
1.75
14
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-130
-------
Appendix D
150
1.833333
3
764
1.833333
4
764
1.833333
38
AuYeung, W., Canales, R.A., Beamer, P., Ferguson, A.C., Leckie, J.O. (2004). Young
Children's Mouthing Behavior: An Observational Study via Videotaping in a Primarily
Outdoor Residential Setting. Journal of Children's Health, 2(3-4), 271-295.
2 Beamer, P., Key, M.E., Ferguson, A.C., Canales, R.A., Auyeung, W., Leckie, J.O. (2008).
Time Activity Assessment of Young Farmworker Children in California. In revision, Journal of
Environmental Research.
3 Tulve, N., Suggs, J., McCurdy, T., Cohen Hubal, E., & Moya, J. (2002). Frequency of
mouthing behavior in young children. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental
Epidemiology, 12(4), 259-264.
D.10.2 Indoors
The index lifestage assessed for object-to-mouth activity for the indoor environment is the
children 1 < 2 years old lifestage. The estimates of object mouthing frequency (events/hour) for
children 1 < 2 years old were derived from 4 studies representing 137 participants. Table D-71
provides the raw data.
lahle I)-"7!:
Indoor Ohjecl-lo-Monlh l-'renneno Dalii
II)
Si lid\
\ue (\e;ii'si
()hjecl-Ui-\Kiiiih l'i'a|iieiic>
-------
Appendix D
liihlo I)-"7!:
Indoor Ohjccl-lo-Moiiih l-'ivniicno l);K;i
II)
Si i id \
\uc (\e;irsi
()h|ccl-li»-\k»uili l'i'a|Mciic> (onciils hi )
ILK92729
1
9
TXK31661
1
10
TXK24860
1
10
TXK31661
1
11
ILK51607
1
12
TXK16769
1
14
ILK67031
1
14
ILK66422
1
16
ILK51607
1
16
ILK92729
1
18
TXK37439
1
18
00206443
1
19
TXK37439
1
19
TXK16769
1
22
ILK34447
1
22
ILK37758
1
25
TXK24860
1
26
ILK34447
1
33
00206443
1
38
ILK37758
1
41
00203429
1
6
ILK98213
1
6
00203429
1
6
ILK98213
1
7
ILK63757
1
8
ILK63757
1
8
00204534
1
11
TXK12275
1
11
00204534
1
14
ILK83625
1
16
ILK83625
1
16
ILK44904
1
17
ILK44904
1
19
TXK10932
1
19
ILK93446
1
21
TXK10932
1
21
ILK93446
1
27
TXK12275
1
32
ILK92658
1
2
TXK47553
1
3
ILK92658
1
5
IL106650
1
6
IL106650
1
6
TXK47553
1
7
TXK57344
1
11
TXK15447
1
12
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-132
-------
Appendix D
liihlo I)-"7!:
Indoor Ohjccl-lo-Moiiih l-'ivniicno l);K;i
II)
Si i id \
\uc (\e;irsi
()h|ccl-li»-\k»uili l'i'a|Mciic> (onciils hi )
TXK57344
1
12
ILK64770
1
12
TXK15447
1
13
ILK64770
1
15
TXK39510
1
18
TXK39510
1
19
ILK88461
1
1
TXK15315
1
3
TXK15315
1
3
ILK88461
1
5
ILK39523
1
6
TXK34418
1
9
TXK03500
1
11
TXK14690
1
12
TXK34418
1
13
ILK39523
1
14
TXK14690
1
18
TXK03500
1
18
ILK43787
1
21
ILK43787
1
23
ILK91233
2
1
ILK91233
2
4
00200973
2
10
00200973
2
10
TXK04568
2
10
TXK02791
2
15
TXK04568
2
16
TXK02791
2
26
ILK90093
2
2
ILK95130
2
3
ILK95130
2
5
TXK49183
2
5
TXK49183
2
6
TXK36066
2
7
ILK96974
2
8
IL105497
2
8
ILK90093
2
9
ILK41454
2
10
ILK55650
2
12
TXK36066
2
12
ILK41454
2
14
ILK96974
2
14
TXK54694
2
16
TXK54694
2
17
IL105497
2
34
ILK55650
2
38
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-133
-------
Appendix D
liihlo I)-"7!:
Indoor Ohjccl-lo-Moiiih l-'ivniicno l);K;i
II)
Si i id \
\uc (\c;irsi
()h|ccl-li»-\k»uili l'i'a|Mciic> (onciils hi )
IL104760
2
1
ILK75432
2
2
ILK75432
2
2
IL104760
2
3
TXK29304
2
5
TXK29304
2
7
ILK86318
2
10
ILK48848
2
14
ILK83808
2
17
ILK48848
2
19
ILK83808
2
23
ILK86318
2
28
00200925
2
2
ILK81166
2
5
TXK57947
2
8
ILK82433
2
15
TXK57947
2
15
00200925
2
17
ILK87131
2
17
ILK82433
2
20
ILK81166
2
21
ILK87131
2
25
ILK52051
2
7
ILK52051
2
15
ILK49347
2
19
ILK49347
2
31
r208
2
2
r201
2
0
890
1
9
876
1
18
932
1
19
876
1
21
932
1
24
876
1
33
932
1
34
187
Tulve et al., 20024
1
41
975
1
45
975
1
50
890
1
58
890
1
58
876
1
69
187
1
84
187
1
84
932
1
89
975
1
90
975
1
112
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-134
-------
Appendix D
liihlo I)-"7!:
Indoor Ohjccl-lo-Moiiih l-'ivniicno l);Kii
II)
Si i id \
\uc (\e;irsi
()h|ccl-li»-\k»uili l'i'a|Mciic> (onciils hi )
126
1
36
126
1
38
126
1
62
126
1
73
711
1
12
104
1
17
711
1
32
167
1
37
167
1
51
711
1
54
167
1
67
167
1
72
711
1
87
705
1
17
194
1
24
705
1
30
194
1
31
162
1
43
162
1
45
194
1
47
705
1
48
705
1
72
162
1
98
162
1
204
101
1
0
101
1
0
122
1
0
101
1
10
837
1
10
101
1
24
837
1
27
122
1
28
837
1
36
723
1
38
122
1
50
837
1
54
122
1
62
723
1
72
132
2
32
132
2
59
768
2
22
768
2
24
768
2
53
108
2
7
190
2
18
108
2
19
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-135
-------
Appendix D
liihlo I)-"7!:
Indoor Ohjccl-lo-Moiiih l-'ivniicno
II)
Si lid\
\ue (\e;irsi
()h|ccl-li»-\k»uili l'i'a|iieiic>
-------
Appendix D
efficacy under laboratory and field conditions. For an insect repellent to perform as claimed on
the label, a certain concentration of the chemical and thorough coverage of the exposed area is
essential. Dosimetry is conducted using 10-12 adult subjects, both males and females. The
process starts by designating an area to treat (cm2) by measuring the length and circumference of
the forearm and/or lower leg. Then the test subjects are given a copy of the instructions (part of
the label of the proposed product) along with a product sample. After they become familiar with
the instructions and the product's formulation and package they will practice treating themselves.
During the practice session, a technician will show each test subject how to treat the forearm or
leg with the test product to thoroughly and evenly cover the measured area without wasting the
product and each test subject practices the treatment the way he/she would use the product under
the actual use conditions. Then each subject performs three applications of the product which is
measured and reported in mass product per skin surface area.
Because there is large variation in the applied rate of repellent products by the consumers,
dosimetry is used to capture that variability - a rate based on these consumer applications is then
used as the amount applied during the efficacy trial portion of the study. Besides determining a
rate to use in an efficacy trial however, the dosimetry aspect provides an estimate of the actual
amount of product applied to a treatment area and also permits statistical analysis to capture the
range of application rates individuals will apply for certain types of products. As previously
stated, a product-specific estimate of the total amount of repellent applied to the entire body
(e.g., total mass per application) would be the most accurate measure of repellent applications.
However, absent this kind of information, an extrapolation to the whole body from the dosimetry
estimates in these efficacy studies provide the most reliable available application estimates.
The following sections provide an analysis of the dosimetry determination components of
various efficacy studies for the purposes of generating product-specific application rates for use
in estimating exposure to insect repellents.
Variable ARf: Formulation-specific application rate (mg product/cm2skin)
Several efficacy studies on insect repellents of different formulations have been submitted to the
Agency and are available for analysis. These studies have been reviewed by OPP and the
Human Studies Review Board. Each study used in the creation of this SOP has been found to be
acceptable under both GLP and HSRB guidelines.
Aerosols
When aerosol (or pump spray) formulations are tested, the delivered quantity of spray is
measured using dosimeter patches (i.e., four 1-inch wide strips of 3M Brand Nexcare Holdfast
self adhesive roll gauze) placed strategically on the forearm or leg to intercept a portion of the
spray applied which is then extrapolated to the rest of the treated area. Before each spray trial, a
technician custom fits the four narrow rings of plastic-backed gauze patches around each
person's forearm or leg. The dosimeters are narrow to minimize the extent to which the
sensation of the spray falling on the bare skin is altered. For each treatment, there are 4
dosimeters per limb totaling 24 if both limbs are used.
The amount of product captured by each dosimeter patch is determined by the weight difference
before and after application. The total captured by all 4 patches (1 inch wide) per trial is added
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-137
-------
Appendix D
and then any weight gain or loss in the paired control dosimeters is corrected to obtain a net total
weight gain. The total weight of applied product per treated area was calculated by the following
algorithm:
DW
Alt = S,)
LT
AT
where:
AR = Application rate of spray product (g /cm );
AT = Area treated, leg or forearm (cm2);
DW = Weight of product captured by 4 dosimeters (g);
LT = Length of treated area, leg or forearm (cm); and
SD = Total width of 4 dosimeter patches (10.16 cm).
Application rate data from two efficacy studies (EPA MRID 47049501 and 47049502), both
measuring the repellent product IR 3535 which contains 20% ai in aerosol form, were available
for analysis. Application rates, as measured using the dosimetry determination outlined above,
ranged from 0.17 to 3.5 mg aerosol per cm2 of skin. A lognormal probability plot is presented
below.
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1.5
-2 4
-3.00
Lognormal Probability Plot
Aerosol Application Rates
~ ~
«~-
r.
~~~~* •*
•••
-2.00
-1.00 0.00
Standard Normal Score
1.00
2.00
3.00
~ Aerosol arm 47049501 20%
~ Aerosol_leg_47049502_20%
Figure D-22: Lognormal Probability Plot for Aerosol Application Rates
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-138
-------
Appendix D
Statistics following combination of the two application rate datasets and analysis as a lognormal
distribution are presented in Table /J-72below.
l iihlo l)-"72: Sliilisliciil Siiiiiin;ir\ - Kcpcllcnl Aerosol Applic;ilion K;iu* (mji nr«i(lncl/cin2)
Siiiiisiic
Application R;Me
50th percentile
0.92
75th percentile
1.48
95th percentile
2.91
99th percentile
4.68
99.9th percentile
7.98
AM(SD)
1.12 (0.93)
GM (GSD)
0.92 (2.01)
Range
0.17-3.54
N
144
Based on MRID 47049501 and 47049502
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
Pump Sprays
Similar to the studies for aerosols, efficacy studies for pump sprays were available from three
MRIDs (47217601, 47535201, and 47535202). MRID 47217601 tested oil of lemon (30% pump
spray) and MRIDs 47535201 and 47532502 both tested 7% and 15% picaridin pump sprays. A
total of 5 sets of dosimetry samples, conducted as described above, were available from these
three studies (two MRIDs each had two sets of dosimetry samples from two different products).
Across all pump spray studies the application rates ranged from 0.06 to 2.3 mg spray per cm of
skin. A lognormal probability plot showing the distribution of each study is presented below.
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-139
-------
Appendix D
XPump_leg_47535201_7% Pic
¦ Pump_leg_47535201_15% Pic
~ Pump_leg_47535201_15% Pic+SS
¦ Pump_arm_47535202_7% Pic
Pump_arm_47535202_15% Pic
• Pump_arm_47535202_15% Pic+SS
+ Pump_ieg_47217601_OLE
-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 '
Standard Normal Score
Figure D-23: Pump Spray Application Rate Lognormal Probability Plots
Statistics following combination of the datasets and analysis as a lognormal distribution are
presented in Table D-73 below.
Table D-73: Statistical Summary - Repellent Pump Spray Application Rate (mg product/cm2)
Summary Statistic
Application Rate
50th percentile
0.50
75th percentile
0.78
95th percentile
1.47
99th percentile
2.29
99.9th percentile
3.78
AM(SD)
0.62 (0.45)
GM (GSD)
0.50 (1.93)
Range
0.06-2.29
N
420
Based on MRID 47535201, 47535202, and 47217601
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
Lotions
Two studies (EPA MRID 47322401 and 47322501) measuring the efficacy of repellents
formulated as lotions are available to estimate application rates based on dosimetry
determination. The studies tested the efficacy of Coulston's Duranon Personal Insect Repellent
(30% DEET) and Dermaegis Lipo DEET (20% DEET). As previously described, each test
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-140
-------
Appendix D
subject applied the lotions three times to designated areas on each of their forearms for a total of
120 applications. The application rate (in mg lotion per cm2 forearm) is determined simply by
weighing the product (bottle) before and after each application and dividing by the surface area
of the arm treated.
Overall the application rates in these studies ranged from 0.68 to 4.51 mg lotion per cm of skin.
The application rates for each study were plotted on a lognormal probability plot, shown in the
figure below, to evaluate the distributions of the datasets.
Standard Normal Score
~ Lotion_f-arm_47322401 • Lotion_f-arm_47322501
Figure D-24: Lotion Application Rate Lognormal Probability Plots
It is not unexpected that there are differences between the two applications, though at the upper
end of each distribution they appear to be fairly similar. Because the intention of this exercise is
to yield a distribution of application rates for a future lotion repellent, the datasets were
combined. Statistics of this distribution are summarized in Table D-74 below.
Table D-74: Statistical Summary - Repellent Lotion Application Rate (mg product/cm2)
Statistic
Application Rate
50th percentile
1.89
75th percentile
2.43
95th percentile
3.52
99th percentile
4.55
99.9th percentile
6.08
AM(SD)
2.03 (0.80)
GM (GSD)
1.89 (1.46)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-141
-------
Appendix D
Range
0.68-4.51
N
120
Based onMRID 47322401 and 47322501
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
Towelettes
The amount of repellent applied for towelettes is similarly quantified in three replicates and like
lotions, dosimeter patches are not required for determining the application - it is simply derived
as the weight difference before and after application according to the label. An estimation of
loss of active ingredient via evaporation is determined by a exposing a pre-weighed towelette to
the air for the same duration the test subject takes to apply the repellent (i.e., a control towelette).
Any weight difference of the towelette used for treatment is corrected for loss due to evaporation
of the control towelette. The application rate was calculated based on the weight loss of
towelette and the applied skin area.
Two available studies (MRIDs 47535201 and 47535202) testing the efficacy of 12% and 6%
picaridin towelettes are available to determine towelette application rates. For both towelette
studies the application rates ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 mg per cm2 of skin. A lognormal probability
plot showing the distribution of each study is presented below.
Figure D-25: Towelette Application Rate Lognormal Probability Plots
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-142
-------
Appendix D
Statistics following combination of the datasets and analysis as a lognormal distribution are
presented in Table /J-75b el ow.
1 iihlo I)-"7?: Sliiiisiiciil Sunim;u\ - Kcpcllcnl TowclclK' Sni;i\ .\pplic;ilioii K;ito (nisi proriiicl/cnr)
Siiiiisiic
Application Rule
50th percentile
1.09
75th percentile
1.34
95th percentile
1.82
99th percentile
2.25
99.9th percentile
2.85
AM(SD)
1.14(0.36)
GM (GSD)
1.09 (1.36)
Range
0.46-2.54
N
240
Based onMRID 47535201, 47535202
AM (SD) = arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
GM (GSD) = geometric mean (geometric standard deviation)
U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs - Standard Operating Procedures for Assessing Residential Pesticide Exposure
D-143
------- |