UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
DC
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES,
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
April
4,
2006
MEMORANDUM:

Subject:
Revised
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Chapter
for
Orthophenylphenol
&
Ortho­
phenylphenol
Salts
To:
Rebecca
Miller,
Chemical
Review
Manager,
Reregistration
Team
36
Regulatory
Management
Branch
II
Antimicrobials
Division
(
7510C)

AND
Najm
Shamim,
Risk
Assessor
Regulatory
Management
Branch
II
Antimicrobials
Division
(
7510C)

From:
Talia
Milano,
Chemist
Cassi
Walls,
Ph.
D.,
Chemist
Risk
Assessment
and
Science
Support
Branch
(
RASSB)
Antimicrobials
Division
(
7510C)

Thru:
Norm
Cook,
Branch
Chief
Risk
Assessment
and
Science
Support
Branch
(
RASSB)
Antimicrobials
Division
(
7510C)

DP
Barcode:
320537
Chemical
Name:
PC
Codes:
CAS
Registry
No.
Abbreviation
Ortho­
phenylphenol
064103
90­
43­
7
OPP
Sodium
ortho­
phenylphenate
064104
132­
27­
4
OPP
(
Na)
Salt
Potassium
ortho­
phenylphenol
064108
13707­
65­
8
OPP
(
K)
Salt
2
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY....................................................................................................
3
1.0
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................
7
1.1
Purpose
...........................................................................................................................
7
1.2
Criteria
for
Conducting
Assessments
...............................................................................
7
1.3
Chemical
Identification....................................................................................................
9
1.4
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
...........................................................................................
9
2.0
USE
INFORMATION
...................................................................................................
10
2.1
Formulation
Types
and
Percent
Active
Ingredient
..........................................................
10
2.2
Summary
of
Use
Pattern
and
Formulations
....................................................................
10
3.0
SUMMARY
OF
TOXICITY
DATA
.............................................................................
13
3.1
Acute
Toxicity...............................................................................................................
13
3.2
Summary
of
Toxicity
Endpoints.....................................................................................
14
3.3
FQPA
Considerations
....................................................................................................
17
4.0
RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT..............................................................
18
4.1
Summary
of
Registered
Uses
.........................................................................................
18
4.2
Dietary
Exposure...........................................................................................................
18
4.3
Drinking
Water
Exposure
..............................................................................................
18
4.4
Residential
Exposure
.....................................................................................................
18
4.4.1
Residential
Handler
Exposures.................................................................................
20
4.4.1.1
Residential
Painter
Inhalation
(
vapor)
Exposure
.................................................
23
4.4.2
Residential
Post­
application
Exposure......................................................................
24
4.4.2.1
Hard
Surface/
Floor
Cleaners
..............................................................................
24
4.4.2.2
Textiles..............................................................................................................
28
4.4.2.3
Plastics
(
Toys)
...................................................................................................
32
4.4.2.4
Air
Deodorizers
.................................................................................................
34
4.4.2.5
Paints.................................................................................................................
36
4.4.2.6
Foggers
.............................................................................................................
37
4.4.3
Data
Limitations/
Uncertainties.................................................................................
39
5.0
RESIDENTIAL
AGGREGATE
RISK
ASSESSMENT
AND
CHARACTERIZATION.....................................................................................................
39
5.1
Acute
and
Chronic
Dietary
Aggregate
Risk....................................................................
39
5.2
Short
and
Intermediate
Term
Aggregate
Risk
................................................................
39
6.0
OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT.........................................................
44
6.1
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
...................................................................................
47
6.1.1
Professional
Painter
Inhalation
(
vapor)
Exposure
.....................................................
55
6.1.2
Industrial
Bystander
Inhalation
Exposure
.................................................................
56
6.2
Occupational
Post­
application
Exposures
......................................................................
56
6.2.1
Fogging                 .................       . 
56
6.3
Metalworking
Fluids:
Machinist.....................................................................................
57
6.4
Wood
Preservation........................................................................................................
60
6.5
Data
Limitations/
Uncertainties.......................................................................................
66
7.0
REFERENCES...............................................................................................................
67
APPENDIX
A:
Summary
of
CMA
and
PHED
Data...............................................................
68
APPENDIX
B:
Input/
Output
from
Residential
MCCEM
Modeling........................................
71
APPENDIX
C:
Conversion
of
DDAC
Exposure
Values
to
OPP
Exposure
Values.................
78
APPENDIX
D:
Input/
Output
from
Occupational
MCCEM
Modeling....................................
81
3
APPENDIX
E:
Wallpaint
Exposure
Model
(
WPEM)
Outputs
...............................................
84
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This
document
is
the
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Chapter
of
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
(
RED)
for
ortho­
phenylphenol
(
OPP)
and
the
OPP
salts,
which
is
representative
of
both
sodium
o­
phenylphenate
(
OPP
Na
salt)
and
potassium
o­
phenylphenate
(
OPP
K
salt).
It
addresses
the
potential
risks
to
humans
that
result
from
the
use
of
these
chemicals
in
occupational
and
residential
settings.

At
this
time
OPP
and
OPP
salts
are
active
ingredients
in
products
such
as
disinfectants
and
deodorizers
used
in
agricultural,
food
handling,
commercial/
institutional/
industrial,
residential
and
public
access,
and
medical
settings
(
Use
Site
Categories
I,
II,
III,
IV,
and
V
respectively).
There
are
also
OPP
and
OPP
salt
containing
products
that
are
used
for
materials
preservation
(
Use
Site
Category
VII)
and
wood
preservation
(
Use
Site
Category
X).
Examples
of
registered
uses
for
OPP
and
salts
include
application
to
indoor
and
outdoor
hard
surfaces
(
e.
g.,
walls,
floors,
tables,
and
fixtures),
textiles
(
e.
g.,
clothing,
diapers,
mattresses,
bedding),
carpets,
air
conditioner
coils,
agricultural
tools,
medical
instruments,
and
fruits
and
vegetables
(
post­
harvest).
Additionally,
there
are
registered
uses
for
fogging
and
air
deodorization
in
both
occupational
and
residential
settings.
As
a
materials
preservative,
the
products
are
used
in
items
such
as
metalworking
fluids,
stains
and
paints,
cleaning
solutions,
glues,
building
materials,
glazes,
paper,
polymers,
and
leather.
The
percentage
of
OPP
and
OPP
salts
in
various
products
can
range
from
0.0137%
to
99.5%.
Products
containing
OPP
and
its
salts
are
formulated
as
ready­
to­
use
solutions,
pressurized
sprays,
soluble
concentrates,
impregnated
wipes
or
as
emulsifiable
concentrates.

The
routes
of
exposure
evaluated
in
this
assessment
include:
short­
term
(
ST),
intermediate­
term
(
IT),
and
long­
term
(
LT)
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
as
well
as
ST
and
IT
oral
exposures.
For
all
exposure
routes,
the
ST
NOAEL
is
100
mg/
kg/
day
and
the
IT/
LT
NOAEL
is
39
mg/
kg/
day.
A
human
dermal
absorption
factor
of
43%
was
used
in
the
IT
and
LT
dermal
exposures
calculations
because
the
dermal
MOE
calculations
were
based
on
an
oral
endpoint.
An
inhalation
absorption
factor
of
100%
was
used
(
default
value,
assuming
oral
and
inhalation
absorption
are
equivalent)
in
all
exposure
calculations
since
the
inhalation
MOE
calculations
were
based
on
an
oral
endpoint.

The
uncertainty
factor
or
"
target"
margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
for
all
routes
of
exposure
and
all
durations
is
100
for
both
occupational
and
residential
scenarios.
Although
the
target
MOE
is
also
100
for
inhalation
occupational
and
residential
scenarios,
the
Agency
may
request
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
in
cases
where
the
inhalation
MOEs
are
below
a
value
of
1,000
since
the
inhalation
endpoint
is
based
on
an
oral
study.
In
the
occupational
assessment,
intermediate­
term
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
were
combined
together
to
estimate
Total
MOEs
since
the
toxicity
effects
from
the
intermediate­
term
dermal
and
inhalation
routes
are
the
same
while,
the
oral,
dermal,
and
inhalation
exposures
were
combined
together
in
the
residential
assessment.
Additionally,
since
the
toxicological
endpoints
selected
for
both
OPP
and
the
OPP
salts
are
identical,
a
separate
assessment
was
not
conducted
for
each
active
ingredient.

Based
on
examination
of
product
labels
describing
uses
for
the
product,
it
has
been
determined
that
exposure
to
handlers
can
occur
in
a
variety
of
occupational
and
residential
environments.
Additionally,
postapplication
exposures
are
likely
to
occur
in
these
settings.
4
The
representative
scenarios
selected
by
the
Antimicrobials
Division
(
AD)
for
assessment
were
evaluated
using
maximum
application
rates
as
stated
on
the
product
labels.
The
maximum
application
rates
were
from
products
containing
either
OPP
or
OPP
Na
salt.

To
assess
the
handler
risks,
AD
used
surrogate
unit
exposure
data
from
the
following
proprietary
resources:
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study,
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(
PHED),
and
the
proprietary
sapstain
study
(
task
force
#
73154),
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III)
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999,
MRID
455243­
04).
Additionally,
EPA's
Health
Effects
Division's
(
HED)
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments,
MCCEM
(
Multi­
Chamber
Concentration
and
Exposure
Model),
and
WPEM
(
Wall
Paints
Exposure
Model)
were
used
to
estimate
postapplication/
bystander
exposures.

Handler
Risk
Summary
For
the
residential
handler
dermal
and
inhalation
risk
assessment,
the
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios.
Furthermore,
all
of
the
inhalation
MOEs
were
above
1,000
therefore
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
is
not
warranted
based
on
the
results
from
these
scenarios.

For
the
occupational
handler
dermal
and
inhalation
risk
assessment,
the
MOEs
were
above
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios
except
the
following:

 
IT
exposure
from
fogging
(
mixing
and
loading):
IT
Total
MOE
=
98.
 
ST
and
IT
dermal
exposure
from
wiping
without
gloves
in
the
commercial/
institutional
premises
category:
ST
MOE
=
74,
IT
dermal
MOE
=
68,
and
IT
Total
MOE
=
64.
 
ST
and
IT
dermal
exposure
from
mopping
without
gloves
in
the
medical
use
site
category:
ST
dermal
MOE
=
93,
IT
dermal
MOE
=
84,
and
IT
Total
MOE
=
78.
 
ST
and
IT
dermal
exposure
resulting
from
the
gloved
liquid
pour
of
the
material
into
textiles
in
the
materials
preservatives
category:
ST
dermal
MOE=
92,
IT
dermal
MOE
=
83
and
IT
Total
MOE
=
78.
 
ST
dermal
exposures
without
gloves
from
painting
through
the
use
of
an
airless
sprayer:
Without
gloves,
the
ST
dermal
MOE
=
66.
With
gloves,
however,
the
dermal
ST
MOE
=
180
and
is
not
of
a
concern.
 
ST
inhalation
exposure
from
vapors
of
paint:
ST
MOE
=
43.

A
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
may
be
warranted
because
inhalation
MOEs
were
below
1,000
for
the
following
scenarios:

 
IT
inhalation
exposure
from
fogging
(
mixing
and
loading):
IT
inhalation
MOE
=
880
 
IT
inhalation
exposure
as
a
result
of
the
blender/
spray
operators
adding
the
chemical
via
closed­
liquid
pumping
for
wood
preservation.
The
IT
inhalation
MOE
=
840.

Post­
application/
Bystander
Risk
Summary
For
the
residential
postapplication
risk
assessment,
MOEs
are
above
the
respective
target
MOEs
(
ST/
IT/
LT
Dermal
and
Inhalation
=
100)
for
all
scenarios
except
for
the
following:
5
 
ST
dermal
exposure
from
children
wearing
treated
clothing:
The
ST
dermal
MOE
using
100%
residue
transfer
<
1
and
using
5%
residue
transfer
=
16
 
ST
dermal
exposure
for
adults
wearing
treated
clothing:
ST
MOE
using
100%
residue
transfer
=
1
and
using
5%
residue
transfer
=
25.
 
ST/
IT/
LT
dermal
exposure
for
infants
wearing
treated
diapers:
ST/
IT/
LT
MOE
using
100%
residue
transfer
<
1;
ST
MOE
using
5%
residue
transfer
=
11;
IT/
LT
MOE
using
5%
residue
transfer
=
10.

A
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
is
may
be
warranted
because
inhalation
MOEs
were
below
1,000
for
the
following
scenarios:

 
ST
vapor
inhalation
exposure
to
adult
and
children
in
the
home
of
a
house
being
painted
by
a
professional:
adult
ST
MOE
=
600
and
child
ST
inhalation
MOE
=
120.
 
The
ST
vapor
inhalation
exposures
to
adults
that
result
from
fogging
applications
in
residential
homes
where
MOEs
were
estimated
for
a
0­
hr
REI
and
a
4­
and
24­
hour
exposure
duration.
 
The
ST
vapor
inhalation
exposure
to
adults
that
results
from
fogging
applications
in
residential
homes
where
the
MOE
was
estimated
for
a
4­
hr
REI
and
24
hour
exposure
duration.
 
All
ST
vapor
inhalation
exposures
to
children
that
result
from
fogging
applications
in
residential
homes
where
MOEs
were
estimated
for
a
0­
hr
and
a
4­
hr
REI
and
2­,
4­,
and
24­
hr
exposure
durations.

For
the
occupational
postapplication
risk
assessment,
MOEs
are
above
the
respective
target
MOEs
(
ST/
IT/
LT
Dermal
and
Inhalation
=
100)
for
all
scenarios
except
for
the
following:

 
ST
dermal
exposure
from
a
machinist
using
metalworking
fluid:
The
ST
dermal
MOE
=
54.

A
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
is
may
be
warranted
because
inhalation
MOEs
were
below
1,000
for
the
following
scenarios:

 
IT
vapor
inhalation
exposure
from
fogging
a
poultry
barn:
The
IT
inhalation
MOE
=
270,
and
ST
inhalation
MOE
=
690.

Aggregate
exposure
risk
summary
Short­
and
intermediate­
term
aggregate
exposures
and
risks
were
assessed
for
adults
and
children
that
could
be
exposed
to
OPP
and
OPP
salt
residues
from
the
use
of
products
in
nonoccupational
environments.
The
short­
term
dermal
toxicity
endpoint
was
based
on
skin
irritation.
This
study
is
different
from
what
the
oral
and
inhalation
endpoints
were
based
on,
such
that
the
short­
term
dermal
exposures
were
aggregated
in
a
separate
analysis
from
the
short­
term
inhalation
and
oral
exposures.
However,
the
intermediate­
term
toxicity
endpoints
for
all
of
the
routes
of
exposure
(
oral,
dermal
and
inhalation)
are
based
on
the
same
study
and
same
toxic
effect
therefore,
all
intermediate­
term
routes
were
aggregated
together.
The
target
MOE
for
all
routes
of
exposure
is
100,
and
all
of
the
calculated
aggregate
MOEs
are
not
of
concern,
as
further
discussed
in
Section
5.2,
"
Short
and
Intermediate
Term
Aggregate
Risk."
6
Data
Limitations
and
Uncertainties:

There
are
a
number
of
uncertainties
associated
with
this
assessment
and
these
have
been
reiterated
from
Sections
4.4.3
(
residential)
and
6.3
(
occupational)
respectively.

The
data
limitations
and
uncertainties
associated
with
the
residential
handler
and
postapplication
exposure
assessments
include
the
following:

 
Surrogate
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA,
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
USEPA,
1998)
(
See
Appendix
A
for
summaries
of
these
data
sources).
Most
of
the
CMA
data
are
of
poor
quality
therefore,
AD
requests
that
confirmatory
monitoring
data
be
generated
to
support
the
values
used
in
these
assessments.
 
The
quantities
handled/
treated
were
estimated
based
on
information
from
various
sources,
including
HED's
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(
USEPA
2000,
and
2001)
and
standard
AD
assumptions
that
can
be
further
refined
from
input
from
registrants.
 
The
low
pressure
spray
unit
exposure
data
from
PHED
were
used
to
assess
outdoor
applications
to
hard
surfaces
(
exterior
of
homes).
As
the
low
pressure
spray
data
are
representative
of
treating
low
to
mid
level
shrubs
and
the
scenario
assessed
in
this
document
represents
treatments
above
the
waist,
the
unit
exposure
value
may
underestimate
exposure
to
the
head
and
the
upper
body.
 
The
method
used
to
estimate
exposure
from
mouthing
treated
plastic
toys
is
conservative
because
it
does
not
account
for
washing
of
the
toy
or
depletion
of
residue
after
each
toy­
to­
mouth
episode.
 
The
textile
exposure
methods
were
very
conservative
because
they
assumed
that
the
textiles
were
saturated
with
the
product,
dried,
and
worn.
No
laundering
was
accounted
for
because
the
labels
did
not
provide
specific
use
instructions
pertaining
to
washing
of
the
clothing/
diapers.
 
A
confirmatory
study
is
needed
to
verify
the
5%
transfer
factor
for
clothing
and
diapers.
 
The
Wall
Paint
Exposure
Model
is
designed
to
estimate
indoor­
air
concentrations
and
associated
inhalation
exposures
for
interior
applications
involving
alkyd
or
latex
primer/
paint.
The
chamber
tests
on
which
the
emission
algorithms
are
based
involve
a
limited
set
of
chemicals
with
a
correspondingly
limited
range
of
properties
(
molecular
weight
and
vapor
pressure).
Further,
the
emission
algorithms
are
valid
only
for
chemicals
that
are
formulated
into
alkyd/
latex
primers
or
paints.
Actual
monitoring
data
could
be
used
to
refine
the
exposures
and
risks
estimated
in
this
assessment.

The
data
limitations
and
uncertainties
associated
with
the
occupational
handler
and
postapplication
exposure
assessments
include:

 
Surrogate
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA,
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
USEPA,
1998)
(
See
Appendix
A
for
summaries
of
these
data
sources).
Since
the
CMA
data
are
of
poor
7
quality,
the
Agency
requests
that
confirmatory
data
be
submitted
to
support
the
occupational
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document.
 
Although
the
data
libraries
contained
in
MCCEM
are
limited
to
residential
settings,
the
model
can
be
used
to
assess
other
indoor
environments.
For
this
assessment,
assumptions
were
made
regarding
barn
dimensions
and
air
changes
per
hour.
The
results
could
be
refined
with
actual
ventilation
rates.
Also
the
half­
life
for
the
chemical
would
useful
to
refine
the
results.
 
Currently,
no
exposure
data
are
available
to
assess
the
bystanders'
inhalation
exposure
to
OPP
vapors
in
industrial
settings.
Appropriate
air
monitoring
data
in
the
manufacturing
setting
are
needed
to
support
the
preservative
uses.

1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Purpose
In
this
document,
the
Antimicrobials
Division
(
AD)
presents
the
results
of
its
review
of
the
potential
human
health
effects
of
occupational
and
residential
exposure
to
OPP
and
OPP
salts.
This
information
is
for
use
in
EPA's
development
of
the
OPP
and
OPP
salts
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
(
RED).

1.2
Criteria
for
Conducting
Exposure
Assessments
An
occupational
and/
or
residential
exposure
assessment
is
required
for
an
active
ingredient
if
(
1)
certain
toxicological
criteria
are
triggered
and
(
2)
there
is
potential
exposure
to
handlers
(
mixers,
loaders,
applicators,
etc.)
during
use
or
to
persons
entering
treated
sites
after
application
is
complete.
For
OPP
and
OPP
salts,
both
criteria
are
met.

In
this
document,
scenarios
were
assessed
by
using
unit
exposure
data
to
estimate
occupational
and
residential
handlers'
exposures.
Unit
exposures
are
estimates
of
the
amount
of
exposure
to
an
active
ingredient
a
handler
receives
while
performing
various
handler
tasks
and
are
expressed
in
terms
of
micrograms
or
milligrams
(
1mg
=
1,000
µ
g)
of
active
ingredient
per
pounds
of
active
ingredient
handled.
A
series
of
unit
exposures
have
been
developed
that
are
unique
for
each
scenario
typically
considered
in
assessments
(
i.
e.,
there
are
different
unit
exposures
for
different
types
of
application
equipment,
job
functions,
and
levels
of
protection).
The
unit
exposure
concept
has
been
established
in
the
scientific
literature
and
also
through
various
exposure
monitoring
guidelines
published
by
the
USEPA
and
international
organizations
such
as
Health
Canada
and
OECD
(
Organization
for
Economic
Cooperation
and
Development).

Using
surrogate
unit
exposure
data,
maximum
application
rates
from
labels,
and
EPA
estimates
of
daily
amount
handled,
exposures
and
risks
to
handlers
were
assessed.
The
exposure/
risks
were
calculated
using
the
following
equations:

Daily
Exposure:
Daily
dermal
or
inhalation
handler
exposures
are
estimated
for
each
applicable
handler
task
with
the
application
rate,
quantity
treated/
handled
in
a
day,
and
the
applicable
dermal
or
inhalation
unit
exposure
using
the
following
formula:

Daily
Exposure:
E
=
UE
x
AR
x
AT
(
Eq.
1)
8
Where:
E
=
Amount
(
mg
or
Fg
ai/
day)
deposited
on
the
surface
of
the
skin
that
is
available
for
dermal
absorption
or
amount
inhaled
that
is
available
for
inhalation
absorption;
UE
=
Unit
exposure
value
(
mg
ai/
lb
ai)
derived
from
August
1998
PHED
data
or
from
1992
CMA
data;
AR
=
Maximum
application
rate
based
on
a
logical
unit
treatment,
such
as
acres
(
A),
square
feet
(
sq.
ft.),
gallons
(
gal),
or
cubic
feet
(
cu.
ft).
Maximum
values
are
generally
used
(
lb
ai/
A,
lb
ai/
sq
ft,
lb
ai/
gal,
lb
ai/
cu
ft);
and
AT
=
Normalized
application
area
based
on
a
logical
unit
treatment
such
as
acres
(
A/
day),
square
feet
(
sq
ft/
day),
gallons
(
gal/
day),
or
cubic
feet
(
cu
ft/
day).

Daily
Dose:
The
daily
dermal
or
inhalation
dose
is
calculated
by
normalizing
the
daily
exposure
by
body
weight
and
adjusting,
if
necessary,
with
an
appropriate
absorption
factor.
An
oral
endpoint
was
used
for
dermal
exposures
of
intermediate­
and
long­
term
duration
and
inhalation
exposures
of
all
durations,
therefore,
an
absorption
factor
of
43%
was
necessary
for
the
intermediate­
and
long­
term
dermal
exposures
and
an
absorption
factor
of
100%
was
necessary
for
all
inhalation
exposures.
A
dermal
absorption
factor
was
not
necessary
for
the
short­
term
exposures
because
the
short­
term
endpoint
is
based
on
a
dermal
study.
Daily
dose
was
calculated
using
the
following
formula:

Daily
Dose:
ADD
=
E
x
ABS
(
Eq.
2)
BW
Where:
ADD
=
Absorbed
dose
received
from
exposure
to
a
chemical
in
a
given
scenario
(
mg
active
ingredient/
kg
body
weight/
day);
E
=
Amount
(
mg
ai/
day)
deposited
on
the
surface
of
the
skin
that
is
available
for
dermal
absorption
or
amount
inhaled
that
is
available
for
inhalation
absorption;
ABS
=
A
measure
of
the
amount
of
chemical
that
crosses
a
biological
boundary
such
as
lungs
(%
of
the
total
available
absorbed);
and
BW
=
Body
weight
determined
to
represent
the
population
of
interest
in
a
risk
assessment
(
kg).

Margins
of
Exposure:
Non­
cancer
inhalation
and
dermal
risks
for
each
applicable
handler
scenario
are
calculated
using
a
Margin
of
Exposure
(
MOE),
which
is
a
ratio
of
the
daily
dose
to
the
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern.

Margins
of
Exposure:
MOE
=
NOAEL
or
LOAEL
(
Eq.
3)
ADD
Where:
MOE
=
Margin
of
exposure,
value
used
to
represent
risk
or
how
close
a
chemical
exposure
is
to
being
a
concern
(
unitless);
NOAEL
or
LOAEL
=
Dose
level
in
a
toxicity
study,
where
no
observed
adverse
effects
(
NOAEL)
or
where
the
lowest
observed
adverse
effects
(
LOAEL)
occurred
in
the
study;
and
ADD
=
Average
daily
dose
or
the
absorbed
dose
received
from
exposure
to
a
chemical
in
a
given
scenario
(
mg
ai/
kg
body
weight/
day).

In
addition
to
the
target
MOEs
from
Table
3.2
that
were
used
for
the
analysis,
a
series
of
assumptions
and
exposure
factors
served
as
the
basis
for
completing
the
handler
risk
assessment.
Each
general
assumption
and
factor
for
both
residential
and
occupational
assessments
is
detailed
below.
Assumptions
specific
to
the
use
site
category
are
listed
in
each
separate
section
of
this
document.
The
general
assumptions
and
factors
include:
9
 
OPP
and
OPP
salt
products
are
widely
used
disinfectants
and
have
a
large
number
of
use
patterns
that
are
difficult
to
completely
capture
in
this
document.
As
such,
AD
has
patterned
this
risk
assessment
on
a
series
of
likely
representative
scenarios
for
each
use
site
that
are
believed
by
AD
to
represent
the
vast
majority
of
OPP
and
OPP
salt
uses.
 
Based
on
the
adverse
effects
for
the
endpoints,
the
average
body
weight
of
an
adult
handler
of
70
kg
was
used
to
complete
the
non­
cancer
risk
assessment.
 
Exposure
factors
used
to
calculate
daily
exposures
to
handlers
were
based
on
applicable
data,
if
available.
When
appropriate
data
were
lacking,
values
from
a
scenario
deemed
similar
were
used.
 
The
maximum
application
rates
allowed
by
labels
were
assumed.

1.3
Chemical
Identification
Three
chemicals
are
considered
in
this
document:
ortho­
phenylphenol,
sodium
ophenylphenate
and
potassium
o­
phenylphenate.
Table
1.1
shows
chemical
identification
information
for
the
three
chemicals.

Table
1.1.
Chemical
Identification
Information
for
OPP
and
salts
Ortho­
phenylphenol
OPP
Sodium
o­
phenylphenate
OPP
(
Na)
Salt
Potassium
o­
phenylphenate
OPP
(
K)
Salt
Chemical
Code
64103
64104
64108
CAS
Number
90­
43­
7
132­
27­
4
13707­
65­
8
Molecular
Formula
C12H10O
C12H9NaO
C12H9KO
1.4
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
Table
1.2
shows
physical/
chemical
characteristics
that
have
been
reported
for
ophenylphenate
sodium
o­
phenylphenate,
and
potassium
o­
phenylphenate.

Table
1.2.
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
of
OPP
and
Salts
Parameter
OPP
OPP
(
Na)
Salt
OPP
(
K)
Salt
Molecular
Weight
170.2
g/
mol
192.19
g/
mol
208.30
g/
mol
Color
Colorless
White
to
light
buff
White
Physical
State
Crystallized
as
solid
flakes
Solid
(
flake)
Solid
Specific
Gravity
1.2
0.61­
0.69
­­

Dissociation
Constant
9.9
at
25EC
10
at
20EC
­­

pH
6.1
in
aqueous
solution
at
22.7EC
12­
13.5
­­

Stability
Stable
under
normal
conditions
Stable
under
controlled
conditions
­­

Melting
Point
56­
58EC
298.5EC
230.07
EC
10
Table
1.2.
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
of
OPP
and
Salts
Boiling
Point
286EC
­­
­­

Water
Solubility
700
mg/
L
at
25EC
60.6
g/
100
mL,
53.37%
(
w/
w)
12.4g/
L
Kow
3.3
0.59
0.59
Vapor
Pressure
0.002
mm
Hg
at
25oC
1.8
x
10­
9
mm
Hg
@
.25EC
1.91
x
10­
11
mm
Hg
@
25EC
2.0
USE
INFORMATION
2.1
Formulation
Types
and
Percent
Active
Ingredient
The
products
containing
OPP
and
OPP
salts
as
the
active
ingredient
(
a.
i)
are
formulated
as
soluble
concentrates,
emulsifiable
concentrates,
ready­
to­
use
solutions,
pressurized
sprays,
and
impregnated
wipes.
Concentrations
of
OPP
and
OPP
salts
in
these
products
range
from
0.0137%
to
99.5%.

2.2
Summary
of
Use
Pattern
and
Formulations
OPP
and
OPP
salts
are
active
ingredients
in
numerous
disinfecting
and
deodorizing
products
and
are
also
used
as
a
materials
preservative
and
a
wood
preservative.
The
majority
of
the
products
are
virucidal,
fungicidal,
tuberculocidal,
bactericidal,
pseudomonacidal,
or
staphylocidal.
The
Agency
determines
potential
exposures
to
handlers
of
the
product
by
identifying
exposure
scenarios
from
the
various
application
methods
that
are
plausible,
given
the
label
uses.
These
scenarios
are
identified
in
Table
2.1.
Based
on
a
review
of
product
labels,
products
containing
OPP
and
salts
are
intended
for
use
in
agricultural,
food
handling,
commercial/
institutional/
industrial,
residential
and
public
access,
and
medical
settings
(
Use
Site
Categories
I,
II,
III,
IV
and
V,
respectively),
as
well
as
a
materials
preservative
for
a
variety
of
products
(
Use
Site
Category
VII)
and
as
a
wood
preservative
(
Use
Site
Category
X).
Examples
of
registered
uses
for
OPP
and
salts
include
application
to
indoor
and
outdoor
hard
surfaces
(
e.
g.,
walls,
floors,
tables,
and
fixtures),
textiles
(
e.
g.,
clothing,
diapers,
mattresses,
or
bedding),
carpets,
air
conditioner
coils,
and
medical
instruments.
Additionally,
there
are
registered
uses
for
fogging
and
air
deodorization.
As
a
materials
preservative,
the
products
are
used
in
metalworking
fluids,
stains
and
paints,
glues,
building
materials,
glazes,
paper,
leather,
and
polymers.

Table
2.1.
Potential
Use
Scenarios
Based
on
Product
Labels
for
Ortho­
phenylphenol
and
Ortho­
phenylphenol
salts
Use
Site
Category
Example
Use
Sites
Scenarios
Ortho­
phenylphenol
Use
Site
Category
I
Agricultural
Premises
and
Equipment
Poultry
houses;
Livestock
facilities;
Mushroom
houses;
Hatching
 
Application
to
hard
surfaces
and
equipment
through
low
pressure
handwand,
high
pressure
handwand,
trigger
pump
spray,
sponge,
mop,
and
immersion
11
Table
2.1.
Potential
Use
Scenarios
Based
on
Product
Labels
for
Ortho­
phenylphenol
and
Ortho­
phenylphenol
salts
Use
Site
Category
Example
Use
Sites
Scenarios
facilities;
Incubators
 
Application
to
hatching
eggs
through
immersion,
automatic
washing
system,
foaming
apparatus,
low
pressure
handwand
and
fogging.
 
Application
to
fruits
and
vegetables
post
harvest
as
a
wax
through
overhead
brushes
 
Shoebaths
Use
Site
Categories
II,
II,
and
V
Food
Handling,
Commercial/
Institutional/
Industrial,
Medical
Food
processing
plants;
Hospitals;
Public
places
(
e.
g.,
restaurants,
hotel/
motel
rooms);
Medical/
Dental
offices;
Nursing
home;
Schools
 
Application
to
hard
surfaces
through
trigger
pump
spray,
low
pressure
spray,
aerosol
spray,
mop,
cloth,
sponge,
and
impregnated
wipe
 
Application
to
instruments
(
e.
g.
surgical,
dental
and
salon
tools)
through
immersion
and
spray
 
Application
to
ultrasonic
machines
through
liquid
pour
 
Application
to
carpets
though
extraction
machine,
spin
bonnet,
and
immersion
 
Application
to
textiles
such
as
bedding,
linens,
and
uniforms
through
aerosol
spray,
trigger
pump
spray,
immersion
 
Fogging
 
Application
to
air
conditioning
coils
 
Application
to
conveyors
in
food
industry
as
a
lubricant,
spray
or
solid
applications
 
Air
deodorization
through
aerosol
spray
 
Application
of
paint
containing
OPP
as
a
material
preservative
Use
Site
Category
VII
Material
Preservatives
Used
in
the
production
of
various
household,
institutional
and
industrial
items
 
glues
and
adhesives
 
gaskets
 
concrete
Admixes
 
slurries
(
clay,
calcium
carbonate,
kaolin,
and
other
filler
suspensions)
 
ceramics
 
metalworking
fluids
 
leather
(
shoe
liners,
hat
bands,
gloves)
 
polishes
 
photographic
solutions
 
stains
and
paints
 
textiles
 
textile
auxiliaries
(
sizing
agents,
spinning
preparations,
wetting
agents)
 
dyes,
pigments
and
filler
suspensions
 
biopolymers
 
fire
extinguishing
medium
 
cleaning
solutions
 
wax
emulsions
and
polishes
 
paper
slurries
and
auxiliaries
 
polymers
and
plastics
 
inks
 
other
construction
applications
(
concrete,
plaster,
caulk)

Use
Site
Category
X
Used
in
preservation
of
 
Application
to
construction
woods
and
fruit
and
12
Table
2.1.
Potential
Use
Scenarios
Based
on
Product
Labels
for
Ortho­
phenylphenol
and
Ortho­
phenylphenol
salts
Use
Site
Category
Example
Use
Sites
Scenarios
Wood
Preservatives
wood
products
vegetable
pallets
by
non­
pressure
treatment
methods
Use
Site
Category
IV
Residential
and
Public
Access
Premises
Homes,
bathrooms,
laundry
rooms,
trash
cans
 
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
(
e.
g.,
floors,
walls)
through
mop,
sponge,
and
cloth
 
Application
to
indoor
household
contents
(
trash
cans,
fixtures)
through
trigger
pump
spray
and
aerosol
spray
 
Application
to
textiles
such
as
bedding,
clothing
and
upholstery
through
trigger
pump
spray
and
aerosol
spray
 
Fogging
 
Application
of
paint
containing
OPP
as
a
material
preservative
 
Air
deodorization
through
aerosol
spray
 
Application
to
carpets
and
rugs
though
extraction
machine
and
immersion
 
Application
to
laundry
machines
through
liquid
pour
OPP
(
Na)
Salt
Use
Site
Category
I
Agricultural
Premises
and
Equipment
Poultry
houses;
Livestock
facilities;
Mushroom
houses
 
Application
to
hard
surfaces
and
equipment
through
mop,
cloth,
pressure
spray,
fogger
and
immersion
 
Application
to
fruits
and
vegetables
postharvest
through
spraying
and
dipping..
 
Shoebaths
Use
Site
Categories
II,
III,
and
V
Food
Handling,
Commercial/
Institutional/
Industrial,
Medical
Hospitals;
Public
places
(
e.
g.,
restaurants,
hotel/
motel
rooms);
Medical/
Dental
offices;
Nursing
home;
Schools
 
Application
to
hard
surfaces
through
cloth,
mop
sponge,
trigger
pump
spray,
and
bowl
mop
 
Application
to
instruments
(
e.
g.
surgical,
dental
and
salon
tools)
through
immersion
and
spray
 
Application
to
exterior
hard
surfaces
using
an
airless
sprayer
 
Application
to
produce
packaging
containers
via
spray,
dip
or
brush
Use
Site
Category
IV
Residential
and
Public
Access
Premises
Homes,
bathrooms,
laundry
rooms,
trash
cans
 
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
(
e.
g.,
floors,
walls)
through
mop,
sponge,
aerosol
spray,
and
cloth
 
Application
to
exterior
hard
surfaces,
such
as
homes,
using
a
tank­
type
garden
sprayer
 
Application
of
paint
containing
OPP
Na
salt
as
a
material
preservative
Use
Site
Category
VII
Material
Preservatives
Used
in
the
production
of
for
household,
institutional
and
industrial
items
 
adhesives
and
glues
 
household
products
and
construction
products
(
caulk,
bipolymers,
cleaning
solutions,
concrete,
fire
extinguishing,
photographic
gelatins,
plasters,
rubber
systems,
wax
emulsions)
 
paper
auxiliaries
and
paper
slurries
 
leather
tanning
 
metalworking
fluids,
lubricants
and
mineral
oil
based
products
(
boring
and
cutting
oil,
cooling
fluids,
fuel
oils,
hydraulic
oils)
 
paints,
coatings,
and
stains
 
pigments
dyes,
and
filler
suspensions
13
Table
2.1.
Potential
Use
Scenarios
Based
on
Product
Labels
for
Ortho­
phenylphenol
and
Ortho­
phenylphenol
salts
Use
Site
Category
Example
Use
Sites
Scenarios
 
polymer
dispersions
and
emulsions
 
textiles
(
carpets,
felts,
awnings,
shower
curtains,
upholstery,
wool
protection)
and
textile
auxiliaries
 
laundry
starch
Use
Site
Category
X
Wood
Preservatives
Used
in
the
product
of
wood
products
 
Application
to
wood
by
non­
pressure
treatment
methods
OPP
(
K)
Salt
Use
Site
Categories
II,
II,
and
V
Food
Handling,
Commercial/
Institutional/
Industrial,
Medical
Hospitals;
Public
places
(
e.
g.,
restaurants,
hotel/
motel
rooms);
Medical/
Dental
offices;
Nursing
home;
Schools
 
Application
to
hard
surfaces
through
cloth,
mop
sponge
and
spray
 
Application
to
ultrasonic
machines
through
liquid
pour
 
Application
to
instruments
(
e.
g.
surgical,
dental
and
salon
tools)
through
immersion
and
spray
Use
Site
Category
IV
Residential
and
Public
Access
Premises
Bathrooms
 
Application
to
hard
surfaces
through
aerosol
spray
From
Table
2.1,
AD
selected
representative
exposure
scenarios
to
assess
in
this
document.
These
scenarios
were
selected
to
be
representative
of
the
vast
majority
of
uses
and
are
believed
to
provide
high­
end
degrees
of
dermal,
inhalation,
or
incidental
ingestion
exposure.
The
representative
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document
are
shown
in
Table
4.1
(
residential)
and
Table
6.1
(
occupational).

3.0
SUMMARY
OF
TOXICITY
DATA
3.1
Acute
Toxicity
Adequacy
of
database
for
Acute
Toxicity:
The
acute
toxicity
database
for
ortho­
phenylphenol
and
salts
is
considered
incomplete.
Acute
dermal
toxicity
(
870.1200),
acute
inhalation
toxicity
(
870.1300),
and
primary
eye
irritation
studies
must
be
submitted.
Ortho­
phenylphenol
has
a
moderate
order
of
acute
toxicity
via
the
oral
route
of
exposure
(
Toxicity
Category
III).
For
dermal
irritation,
ortho­
phenylphenol
and
its
sodium
salt
are
severe
(
Toxicity
Cateogry
I)
and
moderate
to
severe
(
Toxicity
Category
II)
irritants,
respectively.
Ortho­
phenylphenol
and
its
sodium
salt
are
not
dermal
sensitizers.
The
acute
toxicity
data
for
ortho­
phenylphenol
and
salts
is
summarized
below
in
Table
3.1.

Table
3.1.
Acute
Toxicity
Profile
for
Ortho
­
Phenylphenol
and
Salts
Guideline
Number
Study
Type/
Test
substance
(%
a.
i.)
MRID
Number/
Citation
Results
Toxicity
Category
14
Table
3.1.
Acute
Toxicity
Profile
for
Ortho
­
Phenylphenol
and
Salts
Guideline
Number
Study
Type/
Test
substance
(%
a.
i.)
MRID
Number/
Citation
Results
Toxicity
Category
870.1100
(
§
81­
1)
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
­
Rat
2­
phenylphenol,

purity
99.9%
43334201
LD50
=
2733
mg/
kg
III
870.1100
(
§
81­
1)
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
­
Rat
2­
phenylphenol,

sodium
salt
purity
99.1%
433342402
LD50
=
846
mg/
kg
(
male)
LD50
=
591
mg/
kg
(
female)
III
870.1200
(
§
81­
2)
Acute
Dermal
Toxicity
NS
NS
­­­

870.1300
(
§
81­
3)
Acute
Inhalation
Toxicity
NS
NS
­­­

870.2400
(
§
81­
4)
Acute
Eye
Irritation
NS
NS
­­­

870.2500
(
§
81­
5)
Acute
Dermal
Irritation­
Rabbit
2­
phenylphenol
purity
99.9%
43334202
Dermal
irritant
I
870.2600
(
§
81­
6)
Dermal
Sensitization
­
Guinea
pig
2­
phenylphenol,

purity
99.9%
43334203
Non
sensitizer.
NA
870.2600
(
§
81­
6)
Dermal
Sensitization
­
Guinea
pig
2­
phenylphenol,

sodium
salt
purity
99.1%
43334205
Non
sensitizer.
NA
3.2
Summary
of
Toxicity
Endpoints
Table
3.2
summarizes
the
toxicological
endpoints
for
OPP
and
OPP
salts
and
has
been
extracted
from
the
toxicological
chapter
of
this
RED
(
USEPA,
2006).
The
toxicological
endpoints
selected
for
OPP
and
OPP
salts
are
identical.

Table
3.2
Summary
of
Toxicological
Doses
and
Endpoints
for
Ortho­
Phenylphenol
for
Use
in
Human
Risk
Assessments
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Target
MOE,
UF,
Special
FQPA
SF,
for
Risk
Assessment
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
Dietary
Risk
Assessments
Acute
Dietary
(
general
population
and
females
13­
49)
No
appropriate
endpoints
were
identified
that
represent
a
single
dose
effect.
Therefore,
this
risk
assessment
is
not
required.

Chronic
Dietary
(
all
populations)
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
day
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
Combined
oral
toxicity/
carcinogenicity
study
in
rats
(
MRID
43954301,
44852701,
44832201)
15
Table
3.2
Summary
of
Toxicological
Doses
and
Endpoints
for
Ortho­
Phenylphenol
for
Use
in
Human
Risk
Assessments
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Target
MOE,
UF,
Special
FQPA
SF,
for
Risk
Assessment
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)

Chronic
RfD
=
0.39
mg/
kg/
day
Chronic
PAD
=
0.39
mg/
kg/
day
LOAEL
of
200
mg/
kg/
day
based
upon
decreased
body
weight,
body
weight
gain,
food
consumption
and
food
efficiency,
increased
clinical
and
gross
pathological
signs
of
toxicity.

Non­
Dietary
Risk
Assessments
Incidental
Oral
Short­
Term
(
1
­
30
days)
NOAEL
(
maternal)
=
100
mg/
kg/
day
Target
MOE
=
100
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)
Developmental
(
gavage)
toxicity
studies
in
rats
(
MRID
00067616,
92154037)
and
rabbits
(
MRID
41925003;
co­
critical
developmental
toxicity
study)

Maternal
LOAEL
of
300
mg/
kg/
day
based
upon
clinical
observations
of
toxicity,
decreased
weight
gain,
food
consumption
and
food
efficiency
observed
in
the
rat
developmental
toxicity
study.

Incidental
Oral
Intermediate­
Term
(
1
­
6
months)
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
day
Target
MOE
=
100
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)
Combined
oral
toxicity/
carcinogenicity
study
in
rats
(
MRID
43954301,
44852701,
44832201)

LOAEL
of
200
mg/
kg/
day
based
upon
decreased
body
weight,
body
weight
gain,
food
consumption
and
food
efficiency,
increased
clinical
and
gross
pathological
signs
of
toxicity.

Dermal
Short­
Term
(
1
­
30
days)

(
residential
and
occupational)
NOAEL
(
dermal)
=
100
mg/
kg/
day
(
7872
ug/
cm2)
c
Target
MOE
=
100
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)
21­
Day
Dermal
toxicity
study
in
rats
(
MRID
42881901)

LOAEL
(
dermal)
of
500
mg/
kg/
day
based
upon
dermal
irritation
(
erythema,
scaling)
at
the
site
of
test
substance
application.

Dermal
Intermediate­
and
Long­
Term
(
1
­
6
months
and
>
6
months)

(
residential
and
occupational)
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
daya
Target
MOE
=
100
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)
Combined
oral
toxicity/
carcinogenicity
study
in
rats
(
MRID
43954301,
44852701,
44832201)

LOAEL
of
200
mg/
kg/
day
based
upon
decreased
body
weight,
body
weight
gain,
food
consumption
and
food
efficiency
(
effects
observed
as
early
as
13
weeks
in
this
study),
increased
clinical
and
gross
pathological
signs
of
toxicity.

Inhalation
Short­
Term
NOAEL
(
maternal)
=
100
mg/
kg/
dayb
Target
MOE
=
100
Developmental
(
gavage)
toxicity
studies
in
rats
(
MRID
00067616,
92154037)
and
16
Table
3.2
Summary
of
Toxicological
Doses
and
Endpoints
for
Ortho­
Phenylphenol
for
Use
in
Human
Risk
Assessments
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Target
MOE,
UF,
Special
FQPA
SF,
for
Risk
Assessment
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
(
1
­
30
days)

(
residential
and
occupational)
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)
DB
UF
=
an
additional
10x
is
necessary
for
route
extrapolation.
If
results
are
below
an
MOE
of
1,000,
a
confirmatory
inhalation
study
is
warranted.
rabbits
(
MRID
41925003;
co­
critical
developmental
toxicity
study)

Maternal
LOAEL
of
300
mg/
kg/
day
based
upon
clinical
observations
of
toxicity,
decreased
weight
gain,
food
consumption
and
food
efficiency
observed
in
the
rat
developmental
toxicity
study.

Inhalation
Intermediate­
and
Long­
Term
(
1
­
6
months
and
>
6
months)

(
residential
and
occupational)
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
dayb
Target
MOE
=
100
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)
DB
UF
=
an
additional
10x
is
necessary
for
route
extrapolation.
If
results
are
below
an
MOE
of
1,000,
a
confirmatory
inhalation
study
is
warranted.
Combined
oral
toxicity/
carcinogenicity
study
in
rats
(
MRID
43954301,
44852701,
44832201)

LOAEL
of
200
mg/
kg/
day
based
upon
decreased
body
weight,
body
weight
gain,
food
consumption
and
food
efficiency
(
effects
observed
as
early
as
13
weeks
in
this
study),
increased
clinical
and
gross
pathological
signs
of
toxicity.

Cancer
(
oral,
dermal,
inhalation)
Classification:
ortho­
Phenylphenol
is
classified
as
A
Not
likely
to
be
carcinogenic
below
a
specific
dose
range
@,
without
quantification
of
risk.

UF
=
uncertainty
factor,
DB
UF
=
data
base
uncertainty
factor,
FQPA
SF
=
special
FQPA
safety
factor,
NOAEL
=
no
observed
adverse
effect
level,
LOAEL
=
lowest
observed
adverse
effect
level,
PAD
=
population
adjusted
dose
(
a
=
acute,
c
=
chronic),
RfD
=
reference
dose,
MOE
=
margin
of
exposure
a
A
human
dermal
absorption
factor
of
43%
is
used
because
an
oral
endpoint
was
selected
for
the
intermediateand
long­
term
dermal
exposure
scenarios.
b
The
inhalation
absorption
factor
of
100%
(
default
value,
assuming
oral
and
inhalation
absorption
are
equivalent)
should
be
used
since
an
oral
endpoint
was
selected
for
the
inhalation
exposure
scenarios.
c
100mg
x
200g
x
1
sq.
in
=
7874
ug/
cm2
kg
rat
2.54
sq.
cm
3.3
FQPA
Considerations
17
Developmental
Toxicity
Study
Conclusions:

Developmental
toxicity
studies
for
ortho­
phenylphenol
are
available
in
both
the
rat
and
rabbit,
as
summarized
in
this
toxicology
chapter.
Both
studies
were
well
conducted
and
considered
acceptable
by
the
Agency.
The
examination
of
these
studies
shows
that
adverse
effects
in
offspring
occurred
at
doses
higher
than
those
producing
maternal
toxicity.
In
addition,
the
effects
on
offspring
were
not
considered
more
severe
than
those
occurring
in
maternal
animals.
Therefore,
there
is
no
increased
concern
for
developmental
toxicity
of
ortho­
phenylphenol
when
comparing
effects
in
adult
animals
with
those
in
offspring.
This
conclusion
is
similar
to
that
reached
by
the
Department
for
Environment,
Food
and
Rural
Affairs
of
the
Pesticides
Safety
Directorate
in
their
1993
publication
on
the
Evaluation
of
2­
phenyl
phenol.

Reproductive
Toxicity
Study
Conclusions:

An
acceptable
two­
generation
reproduction
toxicity
study
conducted
according
to
Agency
guidelines
is
available
for
ortho­
phenylphenol.
There
were
no
toxicologically
significant
effects
on
reproductive
parameters
in
this
study.
Therefore,
there
is
no
increased
concern
for
potential
reproductive
toxicity
of
ortho­
phenylphenol.

Information
from
Literature
Sources:

Peer
reviewed
scientific
literature
is
available
on
both
the
reproductive
and
developmental
toxicity
of
ortho­
phenylphenol
(
IPCS,
1999).
None
of
these
studies
indicates
increased
concern
for
developmental
or
reproductive
toxicity
of
ortho­
phenylphenol.

Pre­
and/
or
Postnatal
Toxicity:

(
a)
Determination
of
Susceptibility
From
the
available
data
submitted
to
the
Agency
and
the
available
peer
reviewed
scientific
literature
on
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicity,
there
was
no
increased
concern
for
susceptibility
from
exposure
to
ortho­
phenylphenol.

(
b)
Degree
of
Concern
Analysis
and
Residual
Uncertainties
There
are
no
residual
uncertainties
identified
from
examination
of
the
available
data
on
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicity
of
ortho­
phenylphenol.
Available
submitted
studies
are
well­
conducted
and
identify
clear
dose­
response
relationships
for
parental
and
offspring
toxicity.
Peer
reviewed
literature
supports
the
findings
of
the
submitted
studies.

(
c)
Proposed
Hazard­
based
Special
FQPA
Safety
Factor(
s):

The
special
hazard­
based
FQPA
safety
factor
can
be
reduced
to
1x
for
ortho­
phenylphenol.

Recommendation
for
a
Developmental
Neurotoxicity
Study:

There
is
no
need
for
a
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
with
ortho­
phenylphenol
at
this
time.
18
The
available
data
show
no
significant
neurotoxic
effects
from
administration
of
the
chemical
in
experimental
animal
studies.

4.0
RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
4.1
Summary
of
Registered
Uses
Some
products
containing
OPP
and
OPP
salts
are
labeled
for
residential
uses
such
as
disinfectants
and
deodorizers.
These
products
are
for
use
on
indoor
and
outdoor
hard
surfaces
(
e.
g.,
floors,
walls,
bathroom
fixtures,
trash
cans,
household
contents),
textiles
(
e.
g.,
clothing,
diapers,
and
bedding),
and
carpets.
There
are
also
fogging
products
and
aerosol
air
deodorizing
products
which
can
be
used
in
the
home.
Additionally,
residents
may
be
exposed
to
household
items
that
have
been
treated
with
OPP
and
OPP
salts
through
material
preservation
(
i.
e.,
paints
and
plastics).
Table
2.1
presents
a
summary
of
all
exposure
scenarios
that
may
occur
from
the
residential
use
site
category
based
on
examination
of
product
labels.
Table
4.1
identifies
the
representative
exposure
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document.

4.2
Dietary
Exposure
Any
risks
pertinent
to
dietary
exposures
are
discussed
in
the
Preliminary
Risk
Assessment.

4.3
Drinking
Water
Exposure
Any
risks
pertinent
to
drinking
water
exposures
are
discussed
in
the
Preliminary
Risk
Assessment.

4.4
Residential
Exposure
The
exposure
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document
for
the
representative
uses
selected
by
AD
are
shown
in
Table
4.1.
The
table
also
shows
the
maximum
application
rate
associated
with
the
representative
use
and
the
EPA
Registration
number
for
the
corresponding
product
label.
For
handlers,
the
representative
uses
assessed
through
direct
product
application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
(
mopping,
wiping,
and
aerosol
foam
spray),
outdoor
hard
surfaces
(
tanktype
garden
sprayer),
textiles
(
trigger
pump
spray),
and
air
deodorization
(
aerosol
spray).
Additionally,
handler
exposures
were
assessed
for
the
application
of
already
treated
paint
(
paint
brush/
roller
and
airless
sprayer).
It
should
be
noted,
for
the
calculation
of
application
rates
in
which
8.34
lb
a.
i./
gal
is
noted,
the
product
was
assumed
to
have
the
density
of
water
because
no
product­
specific
density
was
available.

Table
4.1.
Representative
Uses
Associated
with
Residential
Exposure
Representative
Use
Exposure
Scenario
Application
Method
Registration
#
Application
Rate
19
Table
4.1.
Representative
Uses
Associated
with
Residential
Exposure
Representative
Use
Exposure
Scenario
Application
Method
Registration
#
Application
Rate
ST
Handler:
Dermal
and
Inhalation;

ST
and
IT
Post­
app1,9:
child
incidental
ingestion
and
dermal
Mopping
ST
Handler:
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Wiping
40510­
5
(
OPP
Salt)
0.126
lb
a.
i./
diluted
gal
(
8
oz.
product
/
4
gal
water
x
97%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)
Indoor
Hard
Surfaces
ST
Handler:
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Aerosol
foam
spray3
777­
27
(
OPP)
0.42%
a.
i.
by
weight
Outdoor
Hard
Surfaces
(
i.
e.
exterior
house
cleaner)
ST
Loader
and
Handler:
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Tank
type
garden
sprayer
(
i.
e.
low
pressure
sprayer)
71240­
1
(
OPP
Salt)
0.00104
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
0.25
gal
product
/
5
gal
water
x
0.25%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal:
assuming
product
has
the
density
of
water)

Textiles
(
i.
e.,
clothing
and
cloth
diapers)
ST
Handler:
Dermal
and
Inhalation
ST
Post­
app:
adult
dermal;
child
incidental
ingestion
and
dermal
IT/
LT
Post­
app:
child
dermal
(
diaper)
Trigger
pump
spray3
10088­
105
(
OPP)
0.0208
lb
ai/
gal
(
0.249%
ai
x
8.34
lb/
gal)

Air
Deodorization
ST
Handler:
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Post­
app:
adult
(
ST)
and
child
(
ST
and
IT)
1
inhalation
2
Aerosol
spray
44446­
67
(
OPP)
0.199%
a.
i.
by
weight
Fogging
ST
Post­
app:
adult
and
child
inhalation
(
vapor)
8
Fogger
70263­
3
5
(
OPP)
0.019
lb
a.
i./
6000
ft2
(
0.22%
a.
i.
x
1
gal
product/
6000
ft2
x
8.34
lb/
gal)

Using
Treated
Plastic/
polymer
products
(
i.
e.,
toys)
ST
Post­
app:
child
incidental
ingestion
NA
67869­
24
(
OPP
salt)
0.34%
a.
i.
by
weight
of
material
to
be
preserved
Using
Treated
Paint
ST
Handler:
Dermal
and
Inhalation
(
aerosol
and
vapor)
6
ST
Post­
app:
adult
and
child
inhalation
(
vapor)
7
Paint
brush,
rollers,
airless
sprayer
67869­
24
(
OPP
salt)

and
464­
126
(
OPP)
0.56%
a.
i.
by
weight
of
material
to
be
preserved
0.5%
a.
i.
by
weight
of
material
to
be
preserved
20
ST
=
Short­
term
exposure,
IT
=
Intermediate­
term
exposure
1IT
post­
application
exposures
for
children
were
assessed
because
that
this
product
could
be
used
in
a
commercial
day
care
facility.
2
Since
this
application
rate
is
for
OPP,
which
has
a
relatively
high
vapor
pressure,
it
was
necessary
to
assess
post­
application
inhalation
exposure
to
the
vapor.
OPP
salts
have
a
much
lower
vapor
pressure
and
will
not
readily
volatilize.
3
The
aerosol
spray
was
chosen
to
represent
the
aerosol
foam
product
and
trigger
pump
spray
product
because
it
is
expected
that
they
have
similar
unit
exposures.
4
The
post­
app
exposure
is
represented
by
the
post­
app
exposure
scenario
for
air
deodorization.
5
Label
Reg
#
70263­
3
can
be
used
in
household
settings
by
commercial
applicators;
therefore,
a
postapplication
scenario
was
assessed
using
the
%
ai
from
this
product.
However,
the
application
rate
from
another
label
(#
65020­
7)
for
lack
of
better
data.
Note:
Reg
#
65020­
7
also
can
be
used
in
schools.
6
Handler
dermal
and
inhalation
(
to
the
particulates)
exposure
were
assessed
for
OPP
salts
using
PHED
unit
exposures.
WPEM
(
Wall
Paint
Exposure
Model)
was
also
used
to
assess
the
vapors
of
OPP
for
residential
handlers
because
of
the
high
vapor
pressure
of
OPP.
7
Post­
application
inhalation
exposures
to
the
vapor
were
assessed
for
only
the
OPP
product
because
of
its
high
vapor
pressure.
8
For
the
fogging
scenario,
child
post­
application
incidental
ingestion
or
dermal
exposures
were
not
assessed
because
they
were
assessed
for
the
mopping
application.
The
mopping
application
has
a
much
higher
application
rate
(
in
terms
of
lb
ai/
ft2)
than
the
fogging
application.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
although
the
fogging
application
can
occur
in
child
care
facilities,
the
intermediate­
term
duration
was
not
assessed
because
it
was
assumed
that
the
fogging
application
would
be
used
primarily
in
areas
damaged
by
smoke,
fire,
floods,
or
sewage
backups
and
these
incidents
do
not
occur
on
a
continuous
basis.
97
This
label,
#
40510­
5
states
that
the
product
can
be
used
for
"
housekeeping
sanitization"
and
to
"
sanitize
latrine:
buckets,
urinals,
toilet
bowls,
walls,
shower
stalls,
garbage
cans,
and
garbage
platforms."
This
is
why
it
is
assumed
to
not
be
used
in
daycares.
It
does
not
specifically
say
"
commercial
and
institutional
premises."

4.4.1
Residential
Handler
Exposures
The
residential
handler
scenarios
described
in
Table
4.1
were
assessed
to
determine
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures.
The
majority
of
the
scenarios
were
assessed
using
CMA
data
and
Equations
1­
3
in
Section
1.2,
"
Criteria
for
Conducting
Risk
Assessment."
However,
for
handlers
using
paint,
two
approaches
were
used
to
determine
inhalation
exposure.
CMA
data
were
used
to
determine
inhalation
exposure
to
aerosolized
particles
of
paint
(
assessed
below).
To
assess
the
inhalation
exposure
to
OPP
vapor,
EPA's
Wall
Paint
Exposure
Model
(
WPEM)
was
used
(
see
Section
4.4.1.1).

The
assumptions
and
factors
used
for
those
scenarios
in
which
CMA
data
were
used
include:

Unit
Exposure
Values:
Unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA,
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
PHED
data
presented
in
HED's
Residential
SOPs
(
USEPA,
1997).

 
For
the
mopping
scenario,
the
CMA
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
ungloved
mopping
were
used
(
71.6
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
2.38
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively).
These
values
are
based
on
data
collected
from
six
replicates
mopping
floors
and
receiving
exposure
via
contact
with
the
mop
or
with
the
bucket.
 
For
the
wiping
scenario,
the
CMA
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
ungloved
wiping
were
used
(
2,870
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
67.3
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively).
These
values
are
based
on
data
collected
from
six
replicates
(
dental
technicians)
who
used
a
finger
pump
sprayer
to
apply
the
product
and
then
wiped
the
surfaces
with
a
paper
towel.
21
 
For
aerosol
foam
spray,
trigger
pump
and
air
deodorization
scenarios,
the
PHED
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
are
220
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
2.4
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively.
The
values
are
based
on
homeowners
applying
an
aerosol
insecticide
to
baseboards
in
kitchens
and
are
representative
of
a
handler
wearing
short
pants
and
a
short
sleeve
shirt,
with
no
gloves.
 
For
the
tank
type
garden
sprayer
scenario,
the
PHED
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
a
residential
handler
pouring
a
pesticide
and
applying
it
via
a
low
pressure
sprayer.
These
ungloved
unit
exposure
values
(
100
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
dermal
and
0.030
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
inhalation)
represent
a
handler
treating
low
and
mid­
level
targets
(
generally
below
the
waist)
while
wearing
short
pants
and
a
short
sleeve
shirt,
with
no
gloves.
 
For
the
airless
sprayer
scenario,
PHED
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
a
residential
handler
applying
a
pesticide
using
an
airless
sprayer
were
used.
These
unit
ungloved
exposure
values
(
79
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
dermal
and
0.83
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
inhalation)
represent
a
handler
painting
a
residential
bathroom
wearing
short
pants
and
a
short
sleeve
shirt,
with
no
gloves.
 
For
the
brush/
roller
scenario,
PHED
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
a
residential
handler
applying
a
pesticide
using
a
paint
brush
were
used.
These
unit
exposure
values
(
230
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
dermal
and
0.28
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
inhalation)
represent
a
handler
wearing
short
pants
and
a
short
sleeve
shirt,
with
no
gloves.

Quantity
handled/
treated:
The
quantities
handled/
treated
were
estimated
based
on
information
from
various
sources
and
assumptions.

 
For
the
mopping
scenarios,
it
is
assumed
that
1
gallon
of
diluted
solution
is
used.
 
For
the
wiping
and
trigger
pump
spray
scenarios,
it
is
assumed
that
0.5
liter
(
0.13
gal)
of
diluted
solution
is
used.
 
For
the
aerosol
foam
spray
and
air
deodorization
scenarios,
it
is
assumed
that
one
can
of
product
is
used.
For
the
aerosol
foam
spray
(
EPA
Registration
No.
777­
27),
the
product
contains
a
net
weight
of
14
oz
(
0.875
lbs).
For
the
air
deodorization
product
(
44446­
67),
the
product
contains
a
net
weight
of
16.5
oz
(
1.03
lbs).
 
For
the
tank
type
(
low
pressure
spray)
garden
sprayer
in
outdoor
hard
surface
applications,
it
is
assumed
that
5
gallons
of
dilute
product
will
be
used.
 
For
the
airless
sprayer
in
paint
applications,
it
is
assumed
that
150
lbs
(
approximately
15
gallons)
of
treated
paint
will
be
used.
This
is
based
on
the
coverage
of
200
ft2/
gallon
and
a
house
size
of
40
x
30
x
20
ft
(
surface
area
of
2,800
ft2).
 
For
the
brush/
roller
in
paint
applications,
it
is
assumed
that
20
lbs
(
approximately
2
gallons)
of
treated
paint
will
be
used.
This
is
based
on
the
90th
percentile
value
of
8
gallons
of
latex
paint
used
per
year
divided
by
the
mean
frequency
of
4
painting
events/
year.

Duration
of
Exposure:
The
duration
of
exposure
for
most
homeowner
applications
of
disinfectant/
deodorizing
and
paint
products
is
believed
to
be
best
represented
by
the
shortterm
duration
(
1
to
30
days).
The
reason
that
short
term
duration
was
chosen
to
be
assessed
is
because
the
different
scenarios
(
i.
e.
methods
of
application)
are
assumed
to
be
episodic,
not
daily.
In
addition,
homeowners
are
assumed
to
use
different
cleaning
products
with
varying
actives,
not
exclusively
OPP
or
OPP
Salt
treated
products.

Results
22
The
resulting
short­
term
exposures
and
MOEs
for
the
representative
residential
handler
scenarios
are
presented
in
Table
4.2.
The
calculated
MOEs
were
above
the
target
dermal
and
inhalation
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios.
Furthermore,
all
short­
term
inhalation
MOEs
exceeded
1,000
therefore,
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
is
not
warranted
based
on
the
results
of
these
exposure
scenarios.

Table
4.2
Short­
Term
OPP
&
Salts
Residential
Handlers
Exposures
and
MOEs
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
MOE
(
ST)

Exposure
Scenario
Method
of
Application
Dermala
Inhalation
Application
Rate
Quantity
Handled/
Treated
per
day
Dermalb
Inhalationc
Dermal
(
Target
=
100)
d
Inhalation
(
Target
=
100)
e
Mopping
71.6
2.38
0.126
lb
ai/
gallon
1
gallons
0.1289
0.0043
780
23,000
Wiping
2870
67.3
0.126
lb
ai/
gallon
0.13
gallons
0.6716
0.0157
150
6,300
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Aerosol
Foam
Spray
220
2.4
0.42
%
ai
by
weight
0.875
lbs
0.0116
0.0001
8,700
7.90x105
Application
to
outdoor
hard
surfaces
(
i.
e.
exterior
of
homes)
Tank
Type
Low
Pressure
Garden
Sprayer
100
0.03
0.00104
lb
ai/
gallon
5
gallons
0.01
0.00016
13,000
4.5x107
Application
to
textiles
Trigger
Pump
Spray
220
2.4
0.0208
lb
ai/
gallon
0.13
gallons
0.085
0.0065
12,000
1.10x106
Air
deodorization
Aerosol
Spray
220
2.4
0.199%
ai
by
weight
1.03
lbs
0.0064
7x10­
5
16,000
1.4x106
Brush/
roller
230
0.284
0.56%
ai
by
weight
20
lb
s
(
2
gal)
0.368
0.0005
270
220,000
Painting
Airless
sprayer
79
0.83
0.56%
ai
by
weight
150
lbs
(
15
gal)
0.948
0.01
110
10,000
a
All
dermal
unit
exposures
represent
ungloved
replicates.
The
aerosol
spray,
tank­
type
garden
sprayer
(
i.
e.,
low
pressure
sprayer),
trigger
pump
sprayer,
brush/
roller,
and
airless
sprayer
unit
exposures
represent
short
sleeve
and
short
pant
replicates.
The
mopping,
wiping,
and
liquid
pour
represent
long
pant
and
long
shirt
replicates.
b
Dermal
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
dermal
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
*
application
rate
*
quantity
handled
/
body
weight
(
70
kg).
c
Inhalation
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
inhalation
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
*
application
rate
*
quantity
handled
/
body
weight
(
70
kg).
d
Dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
100
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Daily
Dose.
Target
dermal
MOE
is
100.
e
Inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
100
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Daily
Dose.
Target
inhalation
MOE
is
100.

4.4.1.1
Residential
Painter
Inhalation
(
vapor)
Exposure
The
residential
painter
inhalation
exposure
to
aerosolized
paint
was
assessed
in
the
previous
section,
4.4.1.
In
this
section,
the
painter
inhalation
exposure
to
chemical
vapor
from
the
paint
is
assessed.
AD
utilized
EPA's
Wall
Paint
Exposure
Model
(
WPEM)
version
3.2
to
estimate
air
concentrations
resulting
from
the
use
of
paint
preserved
with
OPP.
WPEM
was
23
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/
docs/
wpem.
htm.

For
this
exposure
assessment,
the
WPEM
default
scenario
for
the
homeowner
painter
(
RESDIY)
was
used.
This
WPEM
default
scenario
assumes
that
the
homeowner
is
exposed
to
the
chemical
in
paint
when
painting
the
bedroom
of
a
house.
For
a
detailed
description
of
the
default
RESDIY
scenario,
see
the
WPEM
User
=

s
Guide.
The
following
chemical­
specific
inputs
were
used
in
the
model:

 
OPP's
molecular
weight
(
170.19
amu)
and
vapor
pressure
(
0.002
mm
Hg)
 
The
weight
fraction
of
OPP
in
paint
(
product
#
464­
126
contains
0.5%
OPP)

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
commaseparated
file
contains
details
on
time­
varying
concentrations
within
the
modeled
building
as
well
as
concentrations
to
which
the
individual
is
exposed.
This
file
can
be
read
directly
into
spreadsheet
software
(
e.
g.,
Excel)
for
calculating
additional
summary
statistics.
The
air
concentrations
outputted
by
the
model
were
used
by
AD
to
estimate
inhalation
exposure
doses
and
MOEs.
The
model
results
and
exposure
calculations
are
summarized
in
Table
4.3.

Since
a
homeowner
or
do­
it­
yourself
painter
typically
paints
on
an
intermittent
basis
(
i.
e.,
once
or
twice
a
year),
it
was
necessary
to
assess
exposure
for
only
the
short­
term
duration.
The
inhalation
(
vapor)
MOE
for
the
short­
term
exposure
for
the
DIY
painter
is
above
the
target
MOE
of
100.
24
Table
4.3.
Short­
Term
Inhalation
(
vapor)
Exposure
and
MOE
for
Residential
Painters
Exposure
Duration
(
hrs)
Average
Air
Conc.
(
mg/
m3)
a
Inhal.
Rate
(
m3/
hr)
b
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
c
ST
Inhal.
MOE
3
1.15
1.00
0.0493
2,000
a
The
average
air
concentration
for
3
hours
of
exposure
(
during
the
painting
activities
only)
(
see
Appendix
E,
Table
for
Air
Conc
for
DIY)
b
Inhalation
rate
for
light
activity
in
the
Exposures
Factor
Handbook
(
USEPA,
1997)
c
Inhalation
Dose
=
Exposure
Duration
x
Air
Concentration
x
Inhalation
Rate/
Body
Weight
(
70
kg
for
adults)
d
Short­
Term
Inhalation
MOE
=
Short­
Term
Inhalation
NOAEL
(
100
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Inhal.
Dose
where
Target
MOE
=
100
4.4.2
Residential
Post­
application
Exposures
For
the
purposes
of
this
screening
level
assessment,
postapplication
scenarios
have
been
developed
that
encompass
multiple
products,
but
still
represent
a
high
end
exposure
scenario
for
all
products
represented.
As
shown
in
Table
4.1,
representative
postapplication
scenarios
assessed
include
contacting
treated
hard
surfaces/
floors
(
dermal
and
incidental
oral
exposure
to
children),
wearing
treated
clothing
(
dermal
exposure
to
adults
and
children),
wearing
treated
diapers
(
dermal
exposure
to
infants),
mouthing
treated
textiles
such
as
clothing
and
blankets
(
incidental
oral
exposure
to
children),
and
mouthing
treated
plastic
toys
(
incidental
oral
exposure
to
infants).
Additionally,
postapplication/
bystander
inhalation
exposures
were
assessed
for
use
of
the
disinfecting/
deodorizing
products
(
vapor
exposure
to
adults
and
children)
and
paints
(
vapor
exposure
to
adults
and
children).

Typically,
most
products
used
in
a
residential
setting
result
in
exposures
occurring
over
a
short­
term
time
duration
(
1
to
30
days).
This
assumption
is
supplemented
with
the
idea
that
the
different
scenarios
(
i.
e.
methods
of
application)
are
episodic,
not
daily.
In
addition,
homeowners
are
assumed
to
use
different
cleaning
products
with
varying
actives,
not
exclusively
OPP
or
OPP
Salt
treated
products.
If
the
products
are
used
on
a
routine
basis
(
i.
e.,
once
a
week)
and
the
active
ingredient
has
a
long
indoor
half­
life,
exposures
may
occur
over
an
intermediate­
term
time
duration
(
30
days
 
6
months).
At
this
time,
AD
does
not
have
residue
dissipation
data
or
reliable
use
pattern
data,
including
the
frequency
and
duration
of
use
of
antimicrobial
products
in
the
residential
setting.
AD
does
not
believe
that
the
use
patterns
of
many
residential
products
result
in
intermediate­
term
exposure.
However,
AD
does
believe
that
intermediate­
term
exposure
to
children
may
occur
in
day
care
centers
where
disinfecting
products
are
used
more
frequently.
Additionally,
AD
also
believes
that
exposures
will
occur
on
a
continuous
basis
for
infants
wearing
treated
diapers
therefore,
short­,
intermediate­
and
long­
term
(
greater
than
6
months)
exposures
were
necessary
to
assess
for
this
scenario.

4.4.2.1
Hard
Surface/
Floor
Cleaners
Dermal
Exposure
to
Children
from
Treated
Floors
Exposure
Calculations
There
is
the
potential
for
dermal
exposure
to
toddlers
crawling
on
hard
floors
after
mopping
with
OPP
and
OPP
salts
products.
Exposures
and
MOEs
were
calculated
for
25
children
contacting
treated
hard
surface
floors
in
residential
homes
(
short­
term
exposure)
and
in
commercial
daycare
centers
(
intermediate­
term
exposure).
To
determine
toddler
exposure
to
floor
residues
(
mopping),
the
following
equation
was
used:

PDD
=
AR
x
DTF
x
DRF
x
CF1
x
CF2
x
SA
BW
where,
PDD
=
Potential
daily
dose;
AR
=
Application
Rate
(
lb/
ft2);
DTF
=
Dermal
transfer
factor
(
fraction,
unitless);
DRF
=
Disinfectant
fraction
remaining
on
floor
(
unitless);
CF1
=
Conversion
factor
(
4.54x105
mg/
lb);
CF2
=
Conversion
factor
(
10.8
ft2/
m2);
SA
=
Surface
area
of
the
body
which
is
in
contact
with
floor
(
m2);
and
BW
=
Body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions
 
Toddlers
(
3
years
old)
were
used
to
represent
the
1
to
6
year
old
age
group.
A
body
surface
area
of
0.657
m2
and
a
body
weight
of
15
kg
was
been
assumed,
which
are
the
median
values
for
3
year
olds
(
USEPA,
1997).
 
The
labels
did
not
provide
information
on
the
volume
of
disinfectant
to
be
used
for
cleaning
surfaces
such
as
floors.
It
was
assumed
that
the
diluted
treatment
solution
is
applied
at
a
rate
of
1
gallon
per
1,000
sq.
ft.
The
maximum
application
rate
on
the
product
labels
for
application
to
hard
surfaces
is
0.126
lb
ai/
gal
(
see
Table
4.1)
for
a
residential
setting
and
0.0183
lb
ai/
gal
(
see
Table
6.1)
in
an
institutional
setting
(
i.
e.
daycare
center).
Therefore,
the
application
rates
used
in
the
postapplication
scenarios
were
0.000126
lb
ai/
ft2
and
0.0000183
lb
ai/
ft2.
 
No
transferable
residue
data
were
available
that
could
be
used
to
estimate
the
transfer
of
OPP
and
salts
from
the
floor
to
skin.
Therefore,
it
is
assumed
that
10%
of
the
deposition
rate
is
available
for
dermal
transfer
(
USEPA,
2000,
and
2001).
 
No
data
could
be
found
regarding
the
quantity
of
solution
residue
left
on
the
floor
after
treatment.
As
a
conservative
measure,
it
has
been
assumed
that
25%
of
the
cleaner
remains
after
the
final
mopping.
 
It
was
assumed
that
the
exposed
toddler
plays
regularly
on
the
treated
floor.
In
a
residential
home,
a
short­
term
exposure
duration
is
most
likely
since
homeowners
are
expected
to
clean
the
floor
only
intermittently.
In
a
commercial
daycare
center,
an
intermediate­
term
exposure
duration
is
likely
since
it
is
expected
that
the
floors
are
cleaned
on
a
routine
basis.

Results
The
calculations
of
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
doses
and
MOEs
are
shown
in
Table
4.4.
The
dermal
MOEs
for
the
residential
settings
(
short­
term
MOE)
and
institutional
settings
(
intermediate­
term
MOE)
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100.
26
Table
4.4.
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Post­
application
Dermal
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Children
Contacting
Treated
Floors
Exposure
Scenario
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
sq
ft)
Product
remaining
after
mopping
Percent
Trans.
Residue
Body
Area
in
contact
with
floor
(
m2)
Absorbed
potential
daily
dosea
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEb
Hard
surfaces
­
residential
setting
1.26x10­
4
25%
10%
0.657
0.674
150
(
ST)

Hard
surfaces
­
daycare
center
1.83x10­
5
25%
10%
0.657
0.0421
930
(
IT)

a
Absorbed
Potential
Daily
Dose(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[(
Application
rate,
lb
ai/
ft2)*(
conversion
factor,
454
g/
lb)*
(
conversion
factor,
1,000
mg/
g)
*
(
conversion
factor,
1
ft2/
0.093
m2)
*
(
product
remaining
after
mopping,
25%)
*
(
dermal
transfer
factor,
10%)
*
(
body
surface
area
in
contact
with
floor,
0.657
m2)
*
(
dermal
absorption
,
0.43
for
IT
exposure
and
not
applicable
for
ST
exposures)
]
/
(
body
weight,
15
kg)
b
Dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Absorbed
Potential
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
[
Where
short­
term
dermal
NOAEL
=
100
mg/
kg/
day
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
=
100.

Child
Incidental
Ingestion
Exposure
to
Treated
Floors
Exposure
Calculations
In
addition
to
dermal
exposure,
toddlers
crawling
on
treated
hard
floors
will
also
be
exposed
to
OPP
and
OPP
salts
residues
via
incidental
oral
exposure
through
hand­
to­
mouth
activity.
To
calculate
incidental
ingestion
exposure
to
these
chemicals
due
to
hand­
to­
mouth
transfer,
the
methodologies
established
in
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(
USEPA
2000
and,
2001)
were
used.
These
use
assumptions
that
are
similar
to
those
used
in
calculating
dermal
exposures
for
toddlers
crawling
on
treated
hard
floors.
Exposures
were
calculated
for
children
contacting
treated
floors
in
residential
homes
and
in
commercial
day
care
centers
using
the
following
equations
for
hand­
to­
mouth
transfer
of
pesticide
residues
to
toddlers:

PDD
=
SR
x
DTF
x
SA
x
EF
x
ET
x
SE
x
CF1
BW
where:
PDD
=
Potential
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day);
SR
=
Indoor
surface
residue
(
µ
g/
cm2);
DTF
=
Dermal
transfer
factor
(
unitless
fraction);
SA
=
Surface
area
of
the
hands
that
contact
both
the
treated
area,
and
the
individuals
mouth
(
cm2/
event);
FQ
=
Frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
(
events/
hr);
SE
=
Saliva
extraction
efficiency
(
unitless
fraction);
ET
=
Exposure
Time
(
4
hrs/
day);
CF1
=
Unit
conversion
factor
(
0.001
mg/
µ
g);
and
BW
=
Body
weight
(
15
kg)

And
27
SR=
AR
x
DRF
x
CF2
x
CF3
where:
SR
=
Surface
residue
(
µ
g/
cm2);
AR
=
Application
rate
(
lb
ai/
ft2);
DRF
=
Disinfection
fraction
remaining
on
floor
(
unitless);
CF2
=
Unit
conversion
factor
(
4.54x108
µ
g/
lb);
and
CF3
=
Unit
conversion
factor
(
1.08x10­
3
ft2/
cm2)

Assumptions
 
Toddlers
(
3
years
old)
were
used
to
represent
the
1
to
6
year
old
age
group
and
are
assumed
to
weigh
15
kg,
the
median
for
male
and
female
toddlers
(
USEPA,
2000
and
2001).
 
Based
on
HED's
Residential
SOP,
it
was
assumed
that
the
surface
area
used
for
each
hand­
to­
mouth
event
is
20
cm2.
For
short­
term
exposures,
it
is
assumed
that
there
were
20
events
per
hour
(
90th
percentile,
according
to
the
SOP)
and
for
intermediateterm
exposures,
it
was
assumed
that
there
were
9.5
event/
hour
(
mean
value).
 
The
exposure
time
was
4
hours
a
day
(
USEPA,
2000
and
2001).
 
The
saliva
extraction
efficiency
was
50%
(
USEPA,
2000
and
2001).
 
The
labels
did
not
provide
information
on
the
volume
of
disinfectant
to
be
used
for
cleaning
surfaces
such
as
floors.
It
was
assumed
that
the
diluted
treatment
solution
was
applied
at
a
rate
of
1
gallon
per
1,000
sq.
ft.
The
maximum
application
rate
on
the
product
labels
for
application
to
hard
surfaces
is
0.126
lb
ai/
gal
(
see
Table
4.1)
for
a
residential
setting
and
0.0183
lb
ai/
gal
(
see
Table
6.1)
in
an
institutional
setting
(
i.
e.
daycare
center).
Therefore,
the
application
rates
used
in
the
postapplication
scenarios
were
0.000126
lb
ai/
ft2
and
0.0000183
lb
ai/
ft2.
 
No
data
could
be
found
regarding
the
quantity
of
solution
residue
left
on
the
floor
after
treatment.
As
a
conservative
measure,
it
was
assumed
that
25%
of
the
cleaner
remains
after
the
final
mopping.
 
No
transferable
residue
data
were
available
that
could
be
used
to
estimate
the
transfer
of
OPP
and
salts
from
the
floor
to
skin.
Therefore,
it
was
assumed
that
10%
of
the
deposition
rate
is
available
for
dermal
transfer
(
USEPA,
2000
and
2001).

Results
The
calculation
of
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
oral
doses
and
the
oral
MOEs
are
shown
in
Table
4.5.
The
oral
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
residential
settings
and
institutional
settings.

For
the
intermediate­
term
exposures,
it
was
necessary
to
determine
Total
MOEs
since
the
toxicity
effects
are
the
same
for
the
dermal
and
oral
routes.
The
intermediate­
term
Total
MOE
for
children
contacting
treated
floors
in
day
care
facilities
was
820
and
is
greater
than
the
target
MOE
of
100.
The
Total
MOE
was
estimated
using
the
following
equation:
Total
MOE
=
1
/
((
1/
MOEdermal)
+
(
1/
MOEoral))
where,
MOEdermal
=
930
and
MOEoral
=
6,900.
28
Table
4.5.
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Incidental
Oral
Post­
application
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Children
Contacting
Treated
Floors
Exposure
Scenario
Appl.
Rate
(
lb
ai/
sq
ft)
Product
remaining
after
mopping
Surface
Residuea
(
µ
g/
cm2)
Percent
transferable
residue
Surface
area
mouthed
(
cm2/
event)
Exposure
Frequency
(
events/
hr)
Saliva
Extraction
Factor
Exp.
Time
(
hrs/
day)
Absorbed
Potential
Daily
Doseb
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Oral
MOEc
Hard
surfaces
­
residential
setting
1.26x10­
4
25%
15.45
10%
20
20
50%
4
0.0824
1,200
(
ST)

Hard
surfaces
­
daycare
center
1.83x10­
5
25%
2.24
10%
20
9.5
50%
4
0.0057
6,900
(
IT)

a
Surface
residue
(
µ
g/
cm2)
=
(
application
rate,
lb
ai/
ft2)*(
Disinfectant
fraction
remaining
on
floor,
0.25)*(
conversion
factor
to
convert
lb
to
µ
g,
4.54E+
08
µ
g/
lb)*(
conversion
factor
to
convert
ft2
to
cm2,
1.08E­
03
ft2/
cm2)
b
Absorbed
Potential
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[(
Surface
residue,
µ
g/
cm2)*(
transferable
residue,
0.10)*(
exposure
time,
4
hrs/
day)*(
surface
area
of
hands,
20
cm2/
event)*(
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
activity,
20
events/
hr,
and
9.5
event
for
intermediate
term)*(
extraction
by
saliva,
50
%)*(
conversion
factor
to
convert
µ
g
to
mg,
0.001
mg/
µ
g)]/(
body
weight,
15
kg)
c
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
absorbed
potential
daily
dose(
mg/
kg/
day)
[
Where
short­
term
oral
NOAEL
=
100
mg/
kg/
day
and
intermediate­
term
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
=
100.

4.4.2.2
Textiles
Dermal
Exposure
to
Adults
and
Children
from
Wearing
Treated
Clothing
Exposure
Calculations
There
is
the
potential
for
dermal
exposure
to
adults
and
children
from
wearing
clothing
treated
with
a
trigger­
pump
spray
product
containing
OPP
or
treatment
via
factory
impregnation
of
the
chemical
as
a
preservative.
Even
as
there
is
anticipated
exposure
to
result
from
an
already
preserved
textile,
the
trigger­
pump
use
was
identified
to
be
the
worst
case,
and
ultimately
was
the
one
assessed
in
this
document.
Though
it
is
likely
that
the
clothing
treated
with
this
product
would
be
washed
prior
to
use,
the
label
does
not
provide
specific
use
instructions
pertaining
to
washing.
Therefore,
a
post­
application
assessment
assuming
no
laundering
was
conducted
as
a
conservative
measure.
It
should
be
noted
that
it
was
assumed
that
not
all
articles
of
clothing
are
treated
with
the
OPP
products
or
worn
on
a
continuous
basis
therefore,
only
short­
term
duration
exposures
were
assessed
for
the
clothing
scenarios.

Potential
doses
are
calculated
as
follows:

PDD
=
C
x
SA
x
ET
x
TR
x
CF1
BW
where:
PDD
=
potential
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day);
C
=
concentration
on
clothing
(
mg
ai/
cm2);
SA
=
surface
area
of
skin
covered
by
clothing
(
cm2/
day);
ET
=
exposure
time
(
hours/
day);
TR
=
transferable
residue
from
clothing
to
skin
(%);
CF1
=
conversion
factor
from
hour
to
day
(
1
day/
24
hours);
and
29
BW
=
body
weight
(
kg).

And
C
=
A
x
WF
where:
C
=
Concentration
on
clothing
(
mg
ai/
cm2)
A
=
Product
absorption
rate
(
198
mg/
cm2);
and
WF
=
Weight
fraction
of
product
(%
ai).

Assumptions
 
There
is
one
product
labeled
for
use
on
clothing:
#
10088­
00105
for
trigger
pump
spray.
The
instructions
state:
"
hold
spray
opening
about
6
to
8
inches
away
from
surface
and
spray
until
its
[
sic]
thoroughly
wetted.
For
proper
disinfection,
apply
at
approximately
20
E
C,
then
allow
10
minutes
for
it
to
act".
Because
the
label
does
not
state
otherwise,
it
was
assumed
that
the
clothing
is
to
be
worn
after
spraying,
without
any
subsequent
washing.
Because
no
specific
application
rate
information
is
available
from
the
label,
surrogate
data
were
used.
Whatman,
Inc.
sells
"
absorbent
sinks",
reels
of
absorbent
materials
for
use
in
laboratories
(
Whatman,
2005).
One
of
their
products,
CF7,
is
composed
of
100%
cotton
and
is
1.9
mm­
thick.
This
product
has
a
stated
water
absorption
rate
of
198
mg/
cm2.
Since
1.9
mm
seems
a
reasonable
thickness
for
clothing,
and
the
product
label
states
that
the
clothing
is
to
be
thoroughly
wetted,
an
application
rate
of
198
mg
product/
cm2
was
used
for
this
assessment.
Because
the
product
contains
0.249%
OPP,
this
corresponds
to
an
application
rate
of
0.493
mg
a.
i./
cm2.
 
The
median
surface
area
of
clothing
contacting
skin
for
a
3­
year­
old
toddler
is
5,670
cm2
(
total
body
surface
area
minus
the
head)
(
USEPA,
1997a).
For
adults,
the
median
surface
area
is
16,900
cm2
(
total
body
surface
area
minus
the
head)
(
USEPA,
1997a).
 
No
data
were
available
from
which
a
transfer
factor
could
be
estimated.
Potential
doses
were
calculated
using
a
conservative
transfer
factor
of
100%,
which
assumes
that
all
residues
are
transferable
from
clothing
surfaces
to
the
skin.
In
cases
where
the
MOEs
did
not
meet
the
Agency's
target
MOE,
potential
doses
were
also
calculated
using
a
less
conservative
transfer
factor
of
5%,
which
is
based
on
the
amount
of
residue
assumed
to
be
transferable
from
carpeted
surfaces
(
USEPA,
2000
and
2001).
In
these
cases,
confirmatory
data
are
needed
to
support
the
use
of
the
lower
transfer
factor.
 
An
exposure
time
of
16
hours
has
been
used
(
waking
hours).
 
Toddlers
(
3
years
old)
are
assumed
to
weigh
15
kg.
This
is
the
mean
of
the
median
values
for
male
and
female
toddlers
(
USEPA,
1997).
For
adults,
a
body
weight
of
70
kg
has
been
assumed.

Results
The
calculations
of
the
short­
term
dermal
doses
and
MOEs
for
adults
and
children
wearing
treated
clothing
are
shown
in
Table
4.6.
The
dermal
MOEs
for
children
are
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
using
the
100%
transfer
factor
(
MOE
<
1)
and
using
the
5%
transfer
30
factor
(
MOE
=
16).
For
adults,
the
dermal
MOEs
are
also
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
using
both
the
100%
transfer
factor
(
MOE
=
1)
and
the
5%
transfer
factor
(
MOE
=
25).

Dermal
Exposure
to
Infants
Wearing
Treated
Cloth
Diapers
There
is
the
potential
for
dermal
exposure
to
infants
wearing
cloth
diapers
treated
with
a
trigger­
pump
spray
product
containing
OPP.
Though
it
is
likely
that
the
diapers
treated
with
this
product
would
be
washed
prior
to
use,
the
label
does
not
provide
specific
use
instructions
pertaining
to
washing.
Therefore,
a
post­
application
assessment
assuming
no
laundering
was
conducted
as
a
conservative
measure.
Furthermore,
since
infants
typically
wear
diapers
on
a
continuous
basis,
short­,
intermediate­,
and
long­
term
exposure
durations
were
necessary
to
assess.
The
exposures
were
calculated
using
the
following
equations
and
assumptions:

PDD
=
C
x
SA
x
EF
x
TR
BW
where:
PDD
=
potential
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day);
C
=
concentration
on
clothing
(
mg
ai/
cm2);
SA
=
surface
area
of
skin
covered
by
the
diaper
(
cm2/
diaper);
EF
=
exposure
frequency
(
diapers/
day);
TR
=
transferable
residue
from
diaper
to
skin
(%);
BW
=
body
weight
(
kg).

And
C
=
A
x
WF
where:
C
=
Concentration
on
clothing
(
mg
ai/
cm2)
A
=
Product
absorption
rate
(
198
mg/
cm2);
and
WF
=
Weight
fraction
of
product
(%
ai).

Assumptions
 
The
application
rate
of
the
product
is
0.493
mg
a.
i./
cm2,
which
is
based
on
the
product
containing
0.249%
a.
i.
and
the
diaper
having
a
product
absorption
rate
of
198
mg
product
/
cm2
(
see
discussion
above).
 
The
median
surface
area
of
the
body
area
covered
by
a
diaper
is
462
cm2/
diaper.
This
was
calculated
for
a
<
1
year
old,
assuming
that
a
diaper
covers
1/
3
of
the
trunk
area
(
professional
judgment)
and
the
trunk
area
is
35.7%
of
the
body
surface
area
(
USEPA
1997a).
The
total
body
surface
area
was
assumed
to
be
3,925
cm2.
 
It
was
assumed
that
a
child
<
1
year
old
wears
8
diapers
per
day
(
Professional
judgment).
 
Potential
doses
were
calculated
using
a
transfer
factor
of
100
and
5%.
 
A
child
under
1
year
old
was
assumed
to
weigh
10
kg.
31
Results
Table
4.6
shows
the
calculations
of
the
short­,
intermediate­,
and
long­
term
dermal
doses
and
MOE
for
infants
wearing
treated
cloth
diapers.
When
using
a
transfer
factor
of
100%
and
5%,
all
MOEs
were
below
the
target
MOE
of
100.

Table
4.6.
Dermal
Post­
application
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Children
and
Adults
Contacting
Treated
Textiles
%
a.
i.
Product
absorption
rate
(
mg/
cm2)
Conc.
on
clothinga
(
mg
ai/
cm2)
Surface
area
covered
by
textile
(
cm2/
day)
Percent
transferred
Exposure
time
Potential
daily
doseb
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEc
Short­
Term
Wearing
Treated
Clothing
­
Children
100%
16
(
hours/
day)
124.24
<
1
0.249
198
0.493
5,670
5%
16
(
hours/
day)
6.21
16
Short­
Term
Wearing
Treated
Clothing
 
Adults
100%
16
(
hours/
day)
79.34
1
0.249
198
0.493
16,900
5%
16
(
hours/
day)
3.97
25
Wearing
Treated
Diapers
­
<
1
year
old
100%
8
diapers/
day
182.2
(
ST)
78.35
(
IT/
LT)
<
1
(
ST)
<
1
(
IT/
LT)
0.249
198
0.493
462
5%
8
diapers/
day
9.11
(
ST)
3.92
(
IT/
LT)
11
(
ST)
10
(
IT/
LT)

a
Concentration
on
clothing
(
mg/
cm2)
=
%
active
ingredient
/
100
*
Product
absorption
rate
(
198
mg/
cm2)
b
Potential
Daily
Dose
for
clothing
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[(
concentration
on
clothing,
mg/
cm2)
*
(
surface
area
of
skin
covered
by
clothing,
cm2/
day)
*
(
percent
transferable
residue
from
textile)
*
(
exposure
time,
hrs/
day)
*
(
conversion
factor,
1
day/
24
hours)]
/
(
body
weight,
kg).
Potential
Daily
Dose
for
diapers
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[(
concentration
on
diapers,
mg/
cm2)
*
(
surface
area
covered
by
diaper,
cm2/
diaper)
*
(
exposure
frequency,
diapers/
day)
*
(
dermal
absorption
factor,
0.43
for
IT,
not
applicable
for
ST)
*
(
percent
transferable
residue
from
diapers)]
/
(
body
weight,
kg)
c
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
absorbed
potential
daily
dose
[
Where
short­
term
dermal
NOAEL
=
100
mg/
kg/
day
and
IT/
LT
dermal
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOEs
=
100.

Incidental
Oral
Exposure
to
Children
Mouthing
Treated
Textiles
Exposure
Calculations
There
is
the
potential
for
incidental
oral
exposure
to
children
from
mouthing
textiles
treated
with
a
trigger­
pump
spray
product
containing
OPP.

Potential
doses
are
calculated
as
follows:

PDD
=
C
x
SA
x
SE
BW
where:
32
PDD
=
potential
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
C
=
concentration
on
clothing
(
mg/
cm2)
SE
=
saliva
extraction
efficiency
(%)
SA
=
Surface
area
mouthed
(
cm2/
day)
BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions
 
The
concentration
of
the
chemical
on
clothing
was
determined
using
same
methodology
as
discussed
in
the
previous
section,
post­
application
dermal
exposure
to
textiles.
 
The
surface
area
of
textiles
mouthed
by
children
is
20
cm2
(
professional
judgment).
 
The
saliva
extraction
efficiency
is
50%
(
USEPA,
2000
and
2001).
 
Toddlers
(
3
years
old)
are
used
to
represent
the
1
to
6
year
old
age
group.
For
threeyear
olds,
the
median
body
weight
is
15
kg
(
USEPA,
1997).

Results
Table
4.7
shows
the
calculation
of
the
oral
dose
and
oral
MOE
for
children
mouthing
treated
textiles.
The
MOE
value
is
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
MOE
=
300).

Table
4.7.
Short­
term
Post­
application
Incidental
Oral
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Children
Contacting
Treated
Textiles
%
a.
i.
Product
absorption
rate
(
mg/
cm2)
Concentration
on
clothinga
(
mg/
cm2)
Area
mouthed
(
cm2/
day)
Saliva
Extraction
Factor
Potential
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOEc
0.249
198
0.493
20
50%
0.329
300
a
Concentration
on
clothing
(
mg
ai/
cm2)
=
%
active
ingredient
*
Product
absorption
rate
(
198
mg/
cm2)
b
Potential
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
(
Concentration
on
clothing,
mg/
cm2)
*
(
area
mouthed,
cm2/
day)
*
(
saliva
extraction
factor,
unitless
fraction)
/
(
body
weight,
kg).
c
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
absorbed
potential
daily
dose
[
Where
short­
term
oral
NOAEL
=
100
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
=
100.

4.4.2.3
Plastics
(
Toys)

There
is
the
potential
for
incidental
oral
exposure
to
children
from
mouthing
plastic
toys
impregnated
with
products
containing
OPP
and
OPP
salt
preservatives.

Oral
Exposure
to
Children
from
Mouthing
Treated
Plastic
Toys
The
exposure
estimates
for
children
mouthing
treated
toys
are
based
on
the
methodology
used
for
Microban
Additive
"
B"
assessment
(
USEPA
1997b),
which
assessed
risks
to
12
month
old
infants
playing
with
treated
toys,
and
exposure
assumptions
from
HED's
Residential
SOPs
(
USEPA,
2000
and
2001).
33
Exposure
Calculations
Potential
doses
are
calculated
as
follows:

PDD
=
SR
x
SE
x
SA
BW
where:
PDD
=
potential
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day);
SR
=
surface
residue
(
mg/
cm2);
SE
=
saliva
extraction
efficiency
(
unitless
fraction)
SA
=
surface
area
of
toy
mouthed
(
cm2/
day)
BW
=
body
weight
of
a
12
month
old
infant
(
kg).

And
SR
=
%
a.
i
x
W
x
CF
x
F
SA
where:
SR
=
surface
residue
(
mg
a.
i./
cm2)
%
a.
i.
=
fraction
active
ingredient
in
toy
by
total
weight
(
unitless)
W
=
weight
of
toy
(
g)
CF
=
conversion
factor
(
1,000
mg/
g)
F
=
fraction
additive
available
at
the
surface
of
the
toy
(
unitless)
SA
=
surface
area
of
toy
(
cm2)

Assumptions
 
Since
chemical
specific
leaching
data
were
not
available,
the
actual
amount
of
active
ingredient
at
the
surface
of
the
toy
which
is
available
for
mouthing
is
based
on
the
following
assumptions:
o
the
toy
is
manufactured
from
ABS
or
polystyrene
plastic;
o
the
diffusion
of
the
active
ingredient
available
at
the
surface
of
the
toy
to
the
child's
mouth
is
allowed
to
reach
equilibrium;
and
o
no
more
then
0.5%
of
the
additive
is
available
on
the
surface
of
the
toy
for
each
mouthing
event.
 
The
total
surface
area
of
a
treated
toy
is
500
cm2
(
Dang
1997).
 
The
weight
of
a
500
cm2
toy
is
50
g,
which
is
based
on
data
that
show
a
polyethylene
highchair
sample
with
a
surface
area
of
12.7
cm2
weighs
1.3072
g
(
i.
e.,
0.1
g/
cm2)
(
Dang,
1997).
 
50%
of
the
surface
residue
is
ingested
(
saliva
extraction
efficiency).
 
The
body
weight
of
a
12
month
old
infant
is
10
kg.
 
A
child
mouths
500
cm2
of
treated
toy
surface
per
day.

Results
Table
4.8
presents
the
calculations
of
the
oral
dose
and
MOE
for
children
mouthing
treated
toys.
The
MOE
value
is
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
MOE
=
2400).
34
Table
4.8
Short­
term
Post­
application
Incidental
Oral
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Infants
Mouthing
Treated
Toys
%
ai
Weight
of
toy
(
g)
Percent
additive
available
at
surface
of
the
toy
(%)
Surface
area
of
toy
(
cm2)
Surface
Residue
a
(
mg
ai/
cm2)
Saliva
Extraction
Factor
Surface
area
of
toy
mouthed
(
cm2/
day)
Absorbed
potential
Daily
Dose
b
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
c
0.34%
50
0.5%
500
0.0017
50%
500
0.0425
2400
a
Surface
Reside
(
mg
ai
for
a
500
cm2
toy)
=
(%
ai)
*
(
Weight
of
toy,
50
g)
*
(
Conversion
factor,
1000
mg/
g)
*
(
Additive
available
at
surface
of
toy,
0.5%)
/
(
Surface
area
of
toy,
500
cm2)
b
Potential
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
Surface
residue
(
0.0017
mg
ai/
cm2)
*
(
toy
area
mouthed,
500
cm2/
day)
*
(
saliva
extraction)
/(
body
weight,
15
kg)
c
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
potential
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
[
Where
short­
term
oral
NOAEL
=
100
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
=
100.

4.4.2.4
Air
Deodorizers
No
post­
application
air
concentration
data
have
been
submitted
for
OPP
products
to
determine
potential
vapor
inhalation
risk.
Therefore,
the
Multi­
Chamber
Concentration
and
Exposure
Model
(
MCCEM
v1.2)
was
used
to
present
a
screening­
level
estimate
of
the
potential
inhalation
risk
to
adults
and
children.
MCCEM
estimates
average
and
peak
indoor
air
concentrations
of
chemicals
released
from
products
or
materials
in
houses,
apartments,
townhouses,
or
other
residences.
The
data
libraries
in
MCCEM
contain
information
about
residential
settings.
MCCEM
estimates
inhalation
exposures
to
chemicals,
calculated
as
single
day
doses,
chronic
average
daily
doses,
or
lifetime
average
daily
doses.
It
should
be
noted
that
all
dose
estimates
are
potential
doses;
they
do
not
account
for
actual
absorption
into
the
body.

Assumptions
 
The
area
being
deodorized
is
a
bedroom
in
a
generic
house.
The
product
is
deployed
just
before
bedtime
(
i.
e.,
8­
hr
exposure
while
sleeping).
 
Deodorization
occurs
instantaneously,
so
that
the
entire
mass
of
product
is
mixed
homogeneously
with
the
indoor
air
as
soon
the
product
is
deployed.
It
was
assumed
that
100%
of
the
product
is
available
as
inhalable
vapor.
 
The
label
for
product
#
44446­
67
states
that
one
can
(
168
g,
0.199%
OPP)
can
be
used
to
deodorize
one
6,000
ft3
(
170
m3)
area
for
30
days.
Based
on
this
rate
of
use,
the
amount
used
in
one
bedroom
(
35
m3
in
the
MCCEM
generic
house)
per
day
is
assumed
to
be
1.15
g
(
168
g
x
35
m3
/
170
m3
/
30
days).
 
The
product
#
44446­
67
can
be
used
in
both
residential
and
institutional
settings
(
i.
e.,
day
care
facilities).
Therefore,
short­
term
duration
exposures
were
assessed
for
adults
and
children
in
residential
settings
since
this
type
of
product
was
assumed
to
be
used
on
an
intermittent
basis.
However,
short­
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures
were
assessed
for
children
in
day
care
facilities
since
this
type
of
product
was
assumed
to
be
used
on
a
routine
basis.
35
Results
Details
of
the
MCCEM
modeling
can
be
found
in
Appendix
B.
Results
of
the
MCCEM
calculation
are
shown
in
Table
4.9.
For
both
adults
and
children,
the
calculated
inhalation
MOEs
are
greater
than
the
target
MOE
of
100.
Furthermore,
these
MOEs
are
also
greater
than
1,000
therefore;
an
additional
inhalation
toxicity
study
is
not
warranted
based
on
the
results
of
this
scenario.

Table
4.9.
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Post­
application
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Adults
and
Children
in
Areas
Treated
with
Air
Deodorizers
Value
Parameter
Adult
Child
Rationale
House*
Generic
House
(
2­
chambers:
35
m3
bedroom,
373
m3
other
rooms)
MCCEM
default
Activity
Schedule*
In
bedroom
at
start
of
modeling,
out
after
8
hours
EPA
Assumption
Concentration
of
product
0.199%
OPP
by
weight
Product
label
#
44446­
67
Quantity
in
Can
168
g
product
Product
label
#
44446­
67
Quantity
Used
per
Day
1.15
g
product
(
2.54x10­
3
lb
product)
Based
on
rate
of
1
can
per
6,000
m3
for
30
days,
and
a
bedroom
size
of
35
m3
Quantity
ai
Used
per
Day
5.06x10­
6
lb
ai/
day
(
2.30x10­
3
g/
day)
(
Quantity
per
day)
*
(
Concentration)

Concentration
in
Bedroom
after
spraying
(
Initial
Concentration
in
Bedroom)*
6.56x10­
5
g
a.
i./
m3
(
65.6
µ
g
a.
i./
m3)
(
Quantity
ai
per
day)
/
(
Bedroom
volume)

Body
Weight*
70
kg
15
kg
Average
body
weights
for
adults
and
young
children
Inhalation
Rate*
11.6
m3/
day
8.88
m3/
day
Average
resting
rate
for
adults
and
young
children
(
USEPA,
1997)

MCCEM
Outputs
Dose
2.67x10­
4
mg/
kg/
day
9.53x10­
4
mg/
kg/
day
MCCEM
Output
Inhalation
short­
term
MOE
370,000
100,000
NOAEL
(
100
mg/
kg/
day)/
Dose
Inhalation
intermediate­
term
MOE
(
day
care
facilities)
NA
41,000
NOAEL
(
39
mg/
kg/
day)/
Dose
*
Used
as
MCCEM
input.
Default
values
from
MCCEM
were
used
for
all
inputs
not
listed
in
the
table
above.
36
4.4.2.5
Paints
AD
utilized
EPA's
Wall
Paint
Exposure
Model
(
WPEM)
version
3.2
to
estimate
air
concentrations
resulting
from
the
use
of
paint
preserved
with
OPP.
For
this
exposure
assessment,
a
WPEM
default
scenarios
were
used
to
determine
exposure
to
adults
(
RESADULT)
and
children
(
RESCHILD).
In
these
scenarios,
an
adult
and
child
are
located
in
a
non­
painted
part
of
the
house
while
a
bedroom
is
being
painted
by
a
professional
painter.
For
a
detailed
description
of
the
RESADULT
and
RESCHILD
scenarios,
see
the
WPEM
User's
Guide.
The
following
chemical­
specific
inputs
were
used
in
the
model:

 
OPP's
molecular
weight
(
170.19
amu)
and
vapor
pressure
(
0.002
mm
Hg)
 
The
weight
fraction
of
OPP
in
paint
(
product
#
464­
126
contains
0.5%
OPP)

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
commaseparated
file
contains
details
on
time­
varying
concentrations
within
the
modeled
building
as
well
as
concentrations
to
which
the
individual
is
exposed.
This
file
can
be
read
directly
into
spreadsheet
software
(
e.
g.,
Excel)
for
calculating
additional
summary
statistics.
The
air
concentrations
outputted
by
the
model
were
used
by
AD
to
estimate
inhalation
exposure
doses
and
MOEs.
The
model
results
and
exposure
calculations
are
summarized
in
Table
4.10.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
WPEM
model
moves
the
occupant
throughout
the
home
(
i.
e.,
zone
1
=
painted
room,
zone
2
=
non­
painted
room,
and
outdoors)
based
on
predefined
activity
schedules.
Therefore,
the
24­
hr
average
used
in
this
assessment
was
based
on
OPP
air
concentrations
found
in
each
zone
at
the
specific
time
the
person
is
placed
within
the
associated
zone
(
see
Appendix
E).
Furthermore,
although
the
house
dimensions
and
the
painting
schedule
is
identical
for
both
the
adult
and
child
scenario,
the
average
air
concentrations
to
which
the
individuals
are
exposed
are
different,
due
to
different
schedules
of
activities
followed
by
the
adult
and
child.

Table
4.10.
Short­
term
Post­
application
Inhalation
(
vapor)
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Adult
and
Children
in
Areas
Painted
with
Preserved
Paint
Exposed
Individual
24­
hr
TWA
(
mg/
m3)
a
Exposure
Duration
(
hrs/
day)
Inhal.
Rate
(
m3/
hr)
b
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
c
ST
Inhal.
MOEd
Adult
0.98
24
0.5
0.168
600
Child
1.35
24
0.4
0.867
120
a
24­
hr
Time
Weighted
Average
(
TWA)
including
the
time
during
and
after
painting
occurs
(
see
Appendix
E)
b
Inhalation
rate
for
sedentary
activity
as
indicated
in
the
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
(
USEPA,
1997)
c
Inhalation
Dose
=
Air
Conc.
TWA
*
Exposure
duration
*
Inhalation
Rate
/
Body
Weight
(
70
kg
for
adults,
15
kg
for
children)
d
Short­
Term
Inhalation
MOE
=
Short­
Term
Inhalation
NOAEL
(
100
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Inhal.
Dose
Both
the
child
and
adult
inhalation
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100,
but
below
a
value
of
1,000.
Since
the
MOEs
are
below
1,000,
the
Agency
may
request
that
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
be
conducted.
37
4.4.2.6
Foggers
Post­
application
inhalation
exposures
were
assessed
for
entry
into
a
room
after
a
fogging
application
was
conducted
using
MCCEM
v1.2.

One
product
was
identified
that
can
be
used
for
fogging
in
residential
settings
(
product
#
70263­
3,
0.22%
OPP,
0.0183
lbs
a.
i./
gal).
The
label
states
that
the
product
is
for
household
use
in
areas
damaged
by
smoke,
fire,
floods,
and
sewage
backups
and
also
notes
that
the
product
can
be
applied
with
appropriate
fogging
equipment.
Therefore
it
was
assumed
that
a
professional
cleanup
operation
would
actually
apply
the
product
in
a
residential
setting,
such
as
a
basement.
No
other
information
was
provided
on
the
label
regarding
use
of
the
product
as
a
fogger.
In
the
absence
of
better
information,
an
assessment
was
performed
for
residential
post­
application
exposures
using
the
OPP
concentration
from
label
#
70263­
3
(
0.0183
lb
ai/
gal)
and
the
application
rate
listed
on
product
#
65020­
7
(
1
gallon
of
product
per
6,000
square
feet).
Note
that
product
#
65020­
7
is
intended
for
fogging
agricultural
premises
and
was
selected
for
occupational
assessment.
Because
the
label
for
product
#
70263­
3
did
not
provide
a
re­
entry
interval,
this
assessment
was
performed
using
reasonable
re­
entry
intervals
(
REIs)
of
0
and
4
hours.
Concentrations
of
exposed
individuals
were
determined
for
2,
8,
and
24
hours
of
exposure.
It
should
be
noted
that
label
#
70263­
3
can
be
used
in
both
residential
and
institutional
settings
(
i.
e.,
day
care
facilities).
However,
since
this
product
(
when
used
as
a
fogger)
appears
to
be
used
specifically
for
clean
up
following
smoke,
fire,
floods,
and
sewage
backup
damage,
it
was
assumed
that
it
would
not
be
used
on
a
routine
basis
and
only
short­
term
duration
exposures
would
occur
in
both
the
residential
and
institutional
setting.

Assumptions
 
The
area
being
fogged
is
the
default
1­
chamber
generic
house
(
assuming
this
is
similar
to
a
water­
damaged
basement),
as
defined
by
MCCEM
(
408
m3,
ACH=
0.18/
hr).
 
Fogging
occurs
instantaneously,
so
that
the
entire
mass
of
product
is
mixed
homogeneously
with
the
indoor
air
as
soon
as
fogging
commences.
 
Table
4.11
summarizes
the
model
inputs
Table
4.11.
MCCEM
Model
Inputs
for
Postapplication
Exposure
to
Fogged
Houses
Value
Parameter
Adult
Child
Rationale
House
Dimensions*
408
m3
(
14,400
ft3)
1801
ft2
floor
area
MCCEM
1­
chamber
generic
house,
assuming
8­
ft
high
stories
Concentration
of
Fogging
Liquid
0.22%
a.
i.
(
OPP)
0.0183
lbs
a.
i./
gal
See
Table
6.1.

Use
rate
1
gal/
6000
ft2
Product
label
#
65020­
7
Mass
applied
to
house
0.00549
lbs
a.
i.
(
2.49
g
a.
i.)
(
Use
rate)
x
(
Concentration)
x
(
Floor
area)

Concentration
in
house
after
fogging
(
initial
concentration
at
time
0)*
0.00611
g/
m3
Mass
/
Volume
38
Body
Weight*
70
kg
15
kg
Average
body
weights
for
adults
and
young
children
Light
Activity
Inhalation
Rate
(
m3/
hr)*
0.5
0.4
Sedentary
activity
inhalation
rates
for
adults
and
young
children
(
USEPA,
1997a)

*
Used
as
MCCEM
input.
Default
values
from
MCCEM
were
used
for
all
inputs
not
listed
in
the
table
above.

Results
Details
of
the
MCCEM
modeling
can
be
found
in
Appendix
B.
Based
on
the
model
output,
inhalation
exposures
to
adults
and
young
children
were
calculated
(
Table
4.12).
All
of
the
adult
and
child
inhalation
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100.
All
of
the
MOEs
for
children
were
below
1,000.
However,
the
ST
vapor
inhalation
exposures
to
adults
for
a
0­
hr
REI
and
a
4­
and
24­
hour
exposure
duration
along
with
the
ST
vapor
inhalation
exposure
to
adults
for
a
4­
hr
REI
and
24
hour
exposure
duration
were
below
1,000.
Therefore,
the
based
on
the
results
of
these
scenarios
for
which
the
calculated
MOEs
are
below
1,000,
the
Agency
may
request
that
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
be
conducted.

Table
4.12.
Short­
term
Post­
application
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Adults
and
Children
in
Fogged
Houses
Re­
Entry
Interval
(
hrs)
Exposure
Duration
(
hrs/
day)
TWA
Air
Conc.
(
mg/
m3)
a
Inhalation
Rate
(
m3/
hr)
b
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
c
ST
Inhal.
MOEd
Adults
2
5.25
0.5
0.075
1,300
4
4.45
0.5
0.127
790
0
24
1.43
0.5
0.245
410
2
2.56
0.5
0.037
2,700
4
2.17
0.5
0.062
1,600
4
24
0.695
0.5
0.119
840
Child
2
5.25
0.4
0.280
360
4
4.45
0.4
0.475
210
0
24
1.43
0.4
0.914
110
2
2.56
0.4
0.136
730
4
2.17
0.4
0.231
430
4
24
0.695
0.4
0.445
230
a
Air
concentrations
calculated
by
MCCEM
using
inputs
described
in
Table
4.11.
Model
provided
air
concentrations
at
15­
minute
intervals.
Starting
after
the
REI,
the
TWA
was
calculated
for
each
exposure
time
duration
(
See
Appendix
B).
b
Inhalation
rate
is
based
on
sedentary
activity
of
adults
and
young
children
(
USEPA,
1997a)
c
Inhalation
Dose
=
Exposure
Duration
x
TWA
x
Inhalation
Rate
/
Body
Weight
(
70
kg
for
adults,
15
kg
for
children)
d
Short­
Term
Inhalation
MOE
=
Short­
Term
Inhalation
NOAEL
(
100
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Inhal.
Dose
39
4.4.3
Data
Limitations/
Uncertainties
There
are
several
data
limitations
and
uncertainties
associated
with
the
residential
handler
and
postapplication
exposure
assessments
which
include
the
following:

 
Surrogate
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA,
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
USEPA,
1998)
(
See
Appendix
A
for
summaries
of
these
data
sources).
Most
of
the
CMA
data
are
of
poor
quality
therefore,
AD
requests
that
confirmatory
monitoring
data
be
generated
to
support
the
values
used
in
these
assessments.
 
The
quantities
handled/
treated
were
estimated
based
on
information
from
various
sources,
including
HED's
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(
USEPA
2000,
and
2001)
and
AD
standard
assumptions,
which
can
be
further
refined
from
input
from
registrants.
 
The
low
pressure
spray
unit
exposure
data
from
PHED
were
used
to
assess
outdoor
applications
to
hard
surfaces
(
exterior
of
homes).
As
the
low
pressure
spray
data
are
representative
of
treating
low
to
mid
level
shrubs
and
the
scenario
assessed
in
this
document
represents
treatments
above
the
waist,
the
unit
exposure
value
may
underestimate
exposure
to
the
head
and
the
upper
body.
 
The
method
used
to
estimate
exposure
from
mouthing
treated
plastic
toys
is
conservative
because
it
does
not
account
for
washing
of
the
toy
or
depletion
of
residue
after
each
toy­
to­
mouth
episode.
 
The
textile
exposure
methods
were
very
conservative
because
they
assumed
that
the
textiles
were
saturated
with
the
product,
dried,
and
worn.
No
laundering
was
accounted
for
because
the
labels
did
not
provide
specific
use
instructions
pertaining
to
washing
of
the
clothing/
diapers.
 
A
confirmatory
study
is
needed
to
verify
the
5%
transfer
factor
for
clothing
and
diapers.
 
The
Wall
Paint
Exposure
Model
is
designed
to
estimate
indoor­
air
concentrations
and
associated
inhalation
exposures
for
interior
applications
involving
alkyd
or
latex
primer/
paint.
The
chamber
tests
on
which
the
emission
algorithms
are
based
involve
a
limited
set
of
chemicals
with
a
correspondingly
limited
range
of
properties
(
molecular
weight
and
vapor
pressure).
Further,
the
emission
algorithms
are
valid
only
for
chemicals
that
are
formulated
into
alkyd/
latex
primers
or
paints.
Actual
monitoring
data
could
be
used
to
refine
the
exposures
and
risks
estimated
in
this
assessment.

5.0
RESIDENTIAL
AGGREGATE
RISK
ASSESSMENT
AND
CHARACTERIZATION
5.1
Acute
and
Chronic
Dietary
Aggregate
Risk
This
is
included
in
the
Preliminary
Risk
Assessment.

5.2
Short
and
Intermediate
Term
Aggregate
Risk
In
order
for
a
pesticide
registration
to
continue,
it
must
be
shown
"
that
there
is
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
from
aggregate
exposure
to
pesticide
chemical
40
residue,
including
all
anticipated
dietary
exposures
and
other
exposures
for
which
there
are
reliable
information."
Aggregate
exposure
is
the
total
exposure
to
a
single
chemical
(
or
its
residues)
that
may
occur
from
dietary
(
i.
e.,
food
and
drinking
water),
residential,
and
other
non­
occupational
sources,
and
from
all
known
or
plausible
exposure
routes
(
oral,
dermal,
and
inhalation).
However,
this
assessment
only
addresses
non­
dietary
residential
aggregate
exposures
and
risks.
The
PRA
of
the
RED
will
address
the
complete
aggregate
assessment
including
both
dietary
and
non­
dietary
residential
exposures
and
risks.

In
performing
aggregate
exposure
and
risk
assessments,
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
has
published
guidance
outlining
the
necessary
steps
to
perform
such
assessments
(
General
Principles
for
Performing
Aggregate
Exposure
and
Risk
Assessments,
November
28,
2001;
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
trac/
science/
aggregate.
pdf).
Steps
for
deciding
whether
to
perform
aggregate
exposure
and
risk
assessments
are
listed,
which
include:
identification
of
toxicological
endpoints
for
each
exposure
route
and
duration;
identification
of
potential
exposures
for
each
pathway
(
food,
water,
and/
or
residential);
reconciliation
of
durations
and
pathways
of
exposure
with
durations
and
pathways
of
health
effects;
determination
of
which
possible
residential
exposure
scenarios
are
likely
to
occur
together
within
a
given
time
frame;
determination
of
magnitude
and
duration
of
exposure
for
all
exposure
combinations;
determination
of
the
appropriate
technique
(
deterministic
or
probabilistic)
for
exposure
assessment;
and
determination
of
the
appropriate
risk
metric
to
estimate
aggregate
risk
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Aggregate
Exposures
and
Risks
Short­
and
intermediate­
term
aggregate
exposures
and
risks
were
assessed
for
adults
and
children
that
could
be
exposed
to
OPP
and
OPP
salt
residues
from
the
use
of
products
in
non­
occupational
environments.
The
following
lists
summarize
all
of
the
non­
dietary,
nonoccupation
potential
sources
of
OPP
and
OPP
salt
exposures
for
adults
and
children:

Adult
OPP
and
OPP
salt
exposures
sources:
 
Cleaning
indoor
hard
surfaces
via
mopping,
wiping,
or
spraying
 
Cleaning
outdoor
hard
surfaces
via
low
pressure
sprayer
 
Applying
textile
products
to
clothes
and
diapers
 
Applying
air
deodorizers
in
residential
settings
 
Applying
of
OPP
preserved
paint
in
residential
settings
 
Wearing
treated
clothing
 
Post­
application
exposure
to
OPP
vapors
from
foggers
used
in
residential
settings
 
Post­
application
exposure
to
OPP
vapors
from
air
deodorizers
used
in
residential
settings
 
Post­
application
exposure
to
OPP
vapors
from
OPP
preserved
paint
used
in
residential
settings
Child
OPP
and
OPP
salt
exposures
sources:
 
Post­
application
exposures
to
residues
from
cleaning
products
used
on
hard
surfaces
(
i.
e.,
floors)
 
Wearing
treated
clothing
and
diapers
 
Post­
application
exposure
to
OPP
vapors
from
foggers
used
in
residential
settings
 
Post­
application
exposure
to
OPP
vapors
from
air
deodorizers
used
in
residential
settings
41
 
Post­
application
exposure
to
OPP
vapors
from
OPP
preserved
paint
used
in
residential
settings
 
Playing
with
OPP
preserved
plastic
toys
The
use
patterns
of
the
products
and
probability
of
co­
occurrence
must
be
considered
when
selecting
scenarios
for
incorporation
in
the
aggregate
assessment.
In
the
case
of
OPP
and
OPP
salts,
homeowner
painting
activities
occur
only
once
or
twice
a
year.
Furthermore,
the
use
of
fogger
products
occurs
on
an
intermittent
basis
since
they
are
used
as
a
cleanup
after
water
or
smoke
damage.
Therefore
the
probability
of
co­
occurrence
and
the
potential
for
exposure
to
residues
from
these
products
on
the
same
day
is
highly
unlikely.
However,
it
is
likely
that
someone
could
clean
the
kitchen
(
mopping
and
wiping
activities)
as
well
as,
use
an
air
deodorizer
containing
OPP
or
OPP
salts
during
the
same
day.

Cleaning
activities
in
a
residential
setting
occur
on
a
short­
term
basis.
However,
the
OPP
and
salts­
containing
cleaning
products
are
also
labeled
for
use
in
institutional
settings
such
as
day
care
facilities
where
cleaning
activities
can
occur
on
an
intermediate­
term
basis.
Therefore,
children
could
have
exposure
to
cleaning
product
residues
on
a
more
continuous
basis
in
a
day
care
facility
thus;
these
post­
application
scenarios
were
included
in
the
intermediate­
term
aggregate
assessment.
Table
5.1
summarizes
the
scenarios
included
in
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
aggregate
assessments.

Table
5.1:
Summary
of
Exposure
Scenarios
Included
in
the
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Aggregate
Assessments
Short­
term
Aggregate
Intermediate­
Term
Aggregate
Dermal:
 
Mopping
applicator
 
Wiping
applicator
 
Air
deodorizer
applicator
Adults
Oral
+
Inhalation:
 
Mopping
applicator
 
Wiping
applicator
 
Air
deodorizer
applicator
 
Post­
app
to
air
deodorizers
Dermal
+
Oral
+
Inhalation:
 
No
applicable
exposures
Dermal:
 
Dermal
post­
app
exposure
to
residues
from
mopping
activities
Children
Oral
+
Inhalation:
 
Inhalation
post­
app
exposure
to
air
deodorizer
residues
 
Oral
post­
app
exposure
to
residues
from
mopping
activities
Dermal
+
Oral
+
Inhalation:
 
Inhalation
post­
app
exposure
to
air
deodorizer
residues
 
Oral
post­
app
exposure
to
residues
from
mopping
activities
 
Dermal
post­
app
exposure
to
residues
from
mopping
activities
It
should
be
reiterated
that
the
adult
and
child
dermal
post­
application
exposures
to
textile
OPP
residues
alone
are
of
concern
to
the
Agency.
Incorporation
of
this
scenario
in
the
aggregate
assessment
would
result
in
risks
of
concern.
Therefore,
the
textile
scenario
was
not
incorporated
in
the
aggregate
assessment.
If
these
exposures
did
not
result
in
risks
of
42
concern,
then
they
also
would
have
been
included
in
the
aggregate
assessments.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
the
short­
term
aggregate
assessment
for
children
did
not
include
a
child
mouthing
plastic
toys
because
this
scenario
is
represented
by
children
under
the
age
of
1
year
old
whereas,
the
child
aggregate
assessment
is
represented
by
children
3
years
old.

Since
the
short­
term
dermal
toxicity
endpoint
was
based
on
skin
irritation
and
the
oral
and
inhalation
endpoints
were
based
on
the
same
study
and
toxic
effect,
the
short­
term
dermal
exposures
were
aggregated
in
a
separate
analysis
from
the
short­
term
inhalation
and
oral
exposures.
However,
the
intermediate­
term
toxicity
endpoints
for
all
of
the
routes
of
exposure
(
oral,
dermal
and
inhalation)
are
based
on
the
same
study
and
same
toxic
effect
therefore,
all
intermediate­
term
routes
were
aggregated
together.
The
Total
MOE
method
outlined
in
OPP
guidance
for
aggregate
risk
assessment
(
September
1,
2000,
Standard
Operating
Procedure
(
SOP)
for
Incorporating
Screening
Level
Estimates
of
Drinking
Water
Exposure
into
Aggregate
Risk
Assessments)
was
utilized
in
the
assessment.
This
method
was
used
because
the
oral,
dermal
and
inhalation
endpoints
have
the
same
uncertainty
factors
or
target
MOEs.
The
target
MOE
for
all
routes
of
exposure
is
100.
The
general
equation
used
to
estimate
total
or
aggregate
MOEs
is:

Aggregate
MOE
=
1
/
((
1/
MOEroute
1,
scenario
1)
+
(
1/
MOEroute1,
scenario
2)
+
(
1/
MOE
route
1,
scenario
n)
+
(
1/
MOEroute
2,
scenario
1)
+
(
1/
MOEroute
2,
scenario
2)
+
(
1/
MOEroute
2,
scenario
n)
+
(
1/
MOEroute
n,
scenario
n))

Where,
route
represents
oral,
dermal,
or
inhalation
exposures,
and
scenario
represents
handler
or
post­
app
wiping,
mopping,
etc.

Tables
5.2,
5.3,
and
5.4
present
the
OPP
short­
term
dermal
exposures,
the
OPP
shortterm
oral
and
inhalation
exposures,
and
the
OPP
intermediate­
term
exposures
used
in
the
aggregate
assessment,
respectively.
Tables
5.5,
5.6,
and
5.7
present
the
resulting
MOEs
for
the
short­
term
dermal,
short­
term
oral
and
inhalation,
and
intermediate
term
aggregate
assessments,
respectively.
All
of
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
aggregate
MOEs
for
residential
scenarios
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100.

Table
5.2:
Exposures
for
Short­
term
Dermal
Aggregate
Assessment
Household
Cleaning
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Routes
Applicator
Post­
Application
Wipe
Mop
Air
Deodorizers
Mop
Air
Deodorizers
Adult
Dermal
0.672
0.129
0.0064
NA
NA
Child
Dermal
NA
NA
NA
0.674
NA
43
Table
5.3:
Exposures
for
Short­
term
Oral
and
Inhalation
Aggregate
Assessment
Household
Cleaning
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Routes
Applicator
Post­
Application
Wipe
Mop
Air
Deodorizers
Mop
Air
Deodorizers
Adult
Oral
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inhalation
0.0157
0.0043
0.0001
NA
2.67E­
04
Child
Oral
NA
NA
NA
0.0824
NA
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.5E­
04
Table
5.4:
Exposures
for
Intermediate­
term
Aggregate
Assessment
Exposure
Household
Cleaning
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Routes
Post­
application
Mop
Air
Deodorizers
Child
Oral
0.0057
NA
Inhalation
NA
9.5E­
04
Dermal
0.0421
NA
Table
5.5
Short­
term
Dermal
Aggregate
Risks
Household
Cleaning
Exposure
MOEs
Routes
Applicator
Post­
App
Aggregate
Wipe
Mop
Air
Deodorizers
Mop
Air
Deodorizers
Adult
Dermal
150
780
16,000
NA
NA
120
a
Child
Dermal
NA
NA
NA
150
NA
150
a:
Aggregate
MOE
=
1/((
1/
MOEwipe)
+
(
1/
MOEmop)
+
(
1/
MOEair
deodorizer))

Table
5.6:
Short­
term
Oral
and
Inhalation
Aggregate
Risks
Household
Cleaning
Exposure
MOEs
Routes
Applicator
Post­
App
Aggregate
Wipe
Mop
Air
Deodorizers
Mop
Air
Deodorizers
Adult
Oral
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inhalation
6,300
23,000
670,000
NA
370,000
4900a
Child
Oral
NA
NA
NA
1,200
NA
Inhalation
NA
NA
NA
NA
100,000
1200b
44
a:
Aggregate
MOE
=
1/((
1/
MOEwipe,
app­
inhal)
+
(
1/
MOEmop,
app­
inhal)
+
(
1/
MOEair
deodorizer,
app­
inhal)
+
(
1/
MOEair
deodorizer,
post­
inhal))
b:
Aggregate
MOE
=
1/((
1/
MOEmop,
post­
oral)
+
(
1/
MOEair
deodorizer,
post­
inhal))

Table
5.7:
Intermediate­
term
Aggregate
Risks
Household
Cleaning
MOEs
Exposure
Post­
application
Aggregate
Routes
Mop
Air
Deodorizers
Child
Oral
6,800
NA
Inhalation
NA
41,000
Dermal
930
NA
800a
a:
Aggregate
MOE
=
1/((
1/
MOEmop­
oral)
+
(
1/
MOEmop­
dermal)
+
(
1/
MOEair
deodorizer­
inhal))

6.0
OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
The
exposure
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document
for
the
representative
uses
selected
by
AD
are
shown
in
Table
6.1.
The
table
also
shows
the
maximum
application
rate
associated
with
the
representative
use
and
the
appropriate
EPA
Registration
number
for
the
product
label.
For
handlers,
the
representative
uses
assessed
include
application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces,
outdoor
hard
surfaces,
and
air
deodorization
(
aerosol
spray).
Additionally,
handler
exposures
were
assessed
for
the
application
of
treated
paint
(
paint
brush/
roller
and
airless
sprayer)
and
mixing
and
loading
of
product
for
fogging
applications
(
liquid
pour
of
soluble
concentrate).
It
should
be
noted
that
for
the
calculation
of
application
rates
in
which
8.34
lb
a.
i./
gal
is
noted,
the
product
is
assumed
to
have
the
density
of
water
because
no
productspecific
density
is
available.

Potential
occupational
handler
exposure
can
occur
in
various
use
sites,
which
include;
agricultural
premises,
food
handling
premises,
commercial/
institutional/
industrial
premises,
and
medical
premises.
Additionally,
occupational
exposure
can
occur
during
the
preservation
of
materials
that
are
used
for
household,
institutional,
and
industrial
uses,
along
with
the
preservation
of
wood.
The
"
preservation
of
materials"
refers
to
the
scenario
of
a
worker
adding
the
preservative
to
the
material
being
treated
(
metalworking
fluid,
paint,
textiles,
etc.)
through
either
liquid
pour
or
liquid
pump
methods.
Liquid
pour
refers
to
transferring
the
antimicrobial
product
from
a
small
container
to
an
open
vat.
Liquid
pump
refers
to
transferring
the
preservative
by
connecting/
disconnecting
a
chemical
metering
pump
from
a
tote
or
by
gravity
flow.
For
the
preservation
of
wood,
the
procedure
for
treatment
can
occur
in
different
ways,
such
that
multiple
worker
functions
were
analyzed.
Due
to
the
complexity
of
the
wood
preservative
analysis,
the
results
for
handler
and
postapplication
exposures
are
presented
in
a
separate
section,
6.4.
45
Table
6.1.
Representative
Exposure
Scenarios
Associated
with
Occupational
Exposures
to
OPP
and
OPP
Salts
Representative
Use
Method
of
Application
Exposure
Scenario
Registration
#
Application
Rate
Agricultural
Premises
and
Equipment
Indoor
Hard
Surfaces
 
Low
pressure
handwand
 
High
Pressure
Spray
 
Mopping
 
Wiping
surfaces
 
Trigger
pump
spray
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
70263­
3
(
OPP)
0.0183
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
0.22%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal)

Fogger1
 
Liquid
pour
of
soluble
concentrate
IT
and
ST
Handler
(
mixer/
loader
only):
dermal
and
inhalation
ST
Postapp:
inhalation
(
vapor)
65020­
7
(
OPP)
0.661
lb
a.
i./
6000ft2
(
7.92%
a.
i.
x
1
gal
product/
6000
ft2
x
8.34
lb/
gal)

Food
Handling
 
Low
pressure
handwand
 
Mopping
 
Wiping
surfaces2
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
11725­
7
(
OPP)
0.00391
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
12.0%
a.
i.
x
0.5
oz
product/
gal
water
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1gal/
128oz)
Indoor
Hard
Surfaces
 
Trigger
pump
spray3
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
69658­
3
(
OPP)
0.0334
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
0.4%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal)

Commercial/
Institutional
Premises
 
Low
pressure
handwand
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
70263­
3
(
OPP)
0.0183
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
0.22%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal)

 
Mopping
 
Wiping
surfaces2
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
40510­
5
(
OPP
Salt)
7
0.126
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
8oz.
product/
4
gal
water
x
97%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)
Indoor
Hard
Surfaces
 
Trigger
pump
spray3
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
69658­
3
(
OPP)
0.0334
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
0.4%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal)

Outdoor
hard
surfaces
 
Airless
sprayer
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
IT
and
ST
71240­
1
(
OPP
Salt)
0.00104
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
0.25%
a.
i.
x
1
quart
of
product
/
5
gal
water
x
1gal/
4
quarts
x
8.34
lb/
gal)
46
Table
6.1.
Representative
Exposure
Scenarios
Associated
with
Occupational
Exposures
to
OPP
and
OPP
Salts
Representative
Use
Method
of
Application
Exposure
Scenario
Registration
#
Application
Rate
Mixer/
Loader
Air
Deodorization
 
Aerosol
spray
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
44446­
67
(
OPP)
0.199%
a.
i.
by
weight
Medical
Premises
 
Low
pressure
handwand
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
70263­
3
(
OPP)
0.0183
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
0.22%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal)

 
Mopping
 
Wiping
surfaces2
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
46851­
11
(
OPP)
0.0234
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
9%
a.
i.
x
1/
32
water
dilution
x
8.34
lb/
gal)
Indoor
Hard
Surfaces
 
Trigger
pump
spray
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
69658­
3
(
OPP)
0.0334
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
0.4%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal)

Air
Deodorization
 
Aerosol
spray
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
44446­
67
(
OPP)
0.199%
a.
i.
by
weight
Material
Preservatives
Metalworking
fluid
(
worker
pouring
preservative
into
fluid
being
treated)
 
Liquid
pour
 
Liquid
pump
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
ST
and
IT/
LT
Machinist:
dermal
and
inhalation
(
vapor)
67869­
24
(
OPP
salt)

464­
126
(
OPP)
5.66%
a.
i.
by
weight
of
the
material
to
be
treated
(
28.3%
product
by
weight
of
material
treated
x
20%
a.
i.
in
product)
4
1.5%
a.
i.
by
weight
of
the
material
to
be
treated
(
1.5%
product
by
weight
of
material
treated
x
99.5%
a.
i.
in
product)

Paint
Preservation
of
paint
 
Liquid
pour
 
Liquid
pump
Professional
painter
 
Brush/
Roller
 
Airless
sprayer
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
ST
Prof
Painter:
dermal
and
inhalation
(
aerosol
and
vapor)
67869­
24
(
OPP
Salt)

464­
126
(
OPP)
0.56%
a.
i.
by
weight
of
the
material
to
be
treated
(
2.8%
product
by
weight
of
material
treated
x
20%
a.
i.
in
product)

0.5%
a.
i.
by
weight
of
the
material
to
be
treated
(
0.5%
product
by
weight
of
material
treated
x
99.5%
a.
i.
in
product)
5
47
Table
6.1.
Representative
Exposure
Scenarios
Associated
with
Occupational
Exposures
to
OPP
and
OPP
Salts
Representative
Use
Method
of
Application
Exposure
Scenario
Registration
#
Application
Rate
Paper
pulp
 
Liquid
pump
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
67869­
24
(
OPP
Salt)
0.34%
a.
i.
by
weight
of
the
material
to
be
treated
(
1.7%
product
by
weight
of
material
treated
x
20%
a.
i.
in
product)

Textiles
 
Liquid
pour
 
Liquid
pump
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
ST
and
IT
Industrial
bystander:
inhalation6
(
vapor)
67869­
24
(
OPP
salt)

464­
126
(
OPP)
5.66%
a.
i.
by
weight
of
the
material
to
be
treated
(
28.3%
product
by
weight
of
material
treated
x
20%
a.
i.
in
product)

5%
a.
i.
by
weight
of
the
material
to
be
treated
(
5
%
product
by
weight
of
material
treated
x
99.5%
a.
i.
in
product)

Wood
Preservative
(
non­
pressure
treated)
 
Airless
Spray
 
Dip
IT
and
ST
Handler:
dermal
and
inhalation
67869­
24
(
OPP
salt)
4.52%
a.
i.
in
treatment
solution
(
formulated
product
is
applied
at
a
rate
of
22.6%
of
the
weight
of
the
wood
treated,
and
the
product
contains
20%
a.
i.)

1
Label
for
fogging
application
in
Food
Handling,
Commercial/
Institutional,
and
Medical
Premises
(
EPA
Reg
No.
11725­
7)
does
not
provide
specific
use
rate
instructions.
Therefore
the
Agricultural
Premise
fogging
scenario
represents
all
fogging
scenarios
(
EPA
Reg
No.
65020­
7).
2
Wiping
surfaces
is
assumed
to
be
representative
of
impregnated
wipes.
3
The
trigger
pump
scenario
also
represents
the
aerosol
scenario
since
the
application
rate
for
the
trigger
pump
is
higher
and
the
aerosol
spray.
Also,
the
unit
exposure
for
aerosol
applications
is
used
in
the
exposure
assessment
for
both
the
trigger
pump
and
aerosol
spray
products.
4
Label
67869­
24
provides
a
high
application
rate
for
preserving
concentrate
mineral
oil­
based
cooling
fluid
products;
therefore
this
label
was
assessed
for
the
handler
(
adding
the
preservative
to
the
concentrated
cooling
fluid).
However,
the
label
that
provides
an
application
rate
for
the
non­
concentrate
fluid
was
selected
for
the
machinist
scenario
(
Label
464­
126).
5
For
the
professional
painter
and
industrial
bystander,
the
OPP
product
(
Label
464­
126)
was
assessed
over
the
OPP
salt
product
(
Label
67869­
24)
because
the
vapor
pressure
of
OPP
is
greater
and
therefore
poses
a
greater
inhalation
risk.
6
Currently,
there
is
no
data
for
the
assessment
of
industrial
bystanders'
inhalation
exposures.
7
This
label,
#
40510­
5,
states
that
the
product
can
be
used
for
"
housekeeping
santization"
and
to
"
sanitize
latrine:
buckets,
urinals,
toilet
bowls,
walls,
shower
stalls,
garbage
cans,
and
garbage
platforms."
This
is
why
it
is
assumed
not
to
be
used
in
daycares.
It
does
not
specifically
say
"
commercial
and
institutional
premises."

6.1
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
The
occupational
handler
scenarios
included
in
Table
6.1
were
assessed
to
determine
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures.
The
general
assumptions
and
equations
that
were
used
to
calculate
occupational
handler
risks
are
provided
in
Section
1.2,
Criteria
for
Conducting
the
Risk
Assessment.
The
majority
of
the
scenarios
were
assessed
using
CMA
data
and
Equations
48
1­
3.
However,
for
the
occupational
scenarios
in
which
CMA
data
were
insufficient,
other
data
and
methods
were
applied.

Unit
Exposure
Values
(
UE):
Dermal
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA,
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
USEPA,
1998).

 
For
the
low
pressure
handwand
scenarios,
the
CMA
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
ungloved
use
of
a
low
pressure
spray
were
used
(
191
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
0.681
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively).
These
values
are
based
on
data
collected
from
eight
replicates
in
which
the
applicator
hand
sprayed
carpet
using
200
psi,
then
used
a
push
broom
rake
to
raise
the
carpet
nap
 
For
the
high­
pressure
spray
scenario,
the
PHED
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
liquid/
open
pour/
high
pressure
spray
(
PHED
scenario
35)
were
used
(
single
layer
of
clothing
and
gloves).
The
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
are
2.5
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
0.12
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively.
 
For
the
mopping
scenarios,
the
CMA
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
ungloved
mopping
were
used
(
71.6
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
2.38
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively).
These
values
are
based
on
data
collected
from
six
replicates
in
which
the
applicator
mopped
the
floor
and
received
exposure
via
contact
with
the
mop
or
with
the
bucket.
 
For
the
wiping
scenarios,
the
CMA
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
ungloved
wiping
were
used
(
2,870
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
67.3
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively).
These
values
are
based
on
data
collected
from
six
replicates
(
dental
technicians)
who
used
a
finger
pump
sprayer
to
apply
the
product
and
then
wiped
the
surfaces
with
a
paper
towel
 
For
the
aerosol
sprays
and
trigger
pump
spray
scenarios,
the
PHED
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
aerosol
applications
(
PHED
scenario
10)
were
used.
The
dermal
unit
exposures
(
single
layer
of
clothing)
are
190
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
ungloved
replicates
and
81
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
gloved
replicates.
The
inhalation
unit
exposure
is
1.3
mg/
lb
a.
i.
 
For
the
fogging
scenarios,
it
was
assumed
that
most
of
the
exposure
to
the
handler
will
be
due
to
preparing
the
fogger,
and
that
the
handler
leaves
the
room
immediately
after
fogging
commences.
Therefore,
the
available
CMA
disinfectant
liquid
pour
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
were
used.
The
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
are
36.5
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
1.89
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively.
This
value
is
based
on
data
collected
from
two
gloved
replicates
involving
pouring
a
disinfectant
product
from
a
jug
into
sterilization
trays
designed
for
dental
instruments,
adding
water
and
instruments
to
the
tray,
removing
the
instruments,
and
discarding
the
old
solution.
 
For
the
liquid
pour
scenarios
for
materials
preservatives,
the
unit
exposure
depends
on
the
material
being
treated.
The
following
CMA
unite
exposures
were
available
and
used
for
the
assessment
of
the
risk
associated
with
the
treatment
of
the
specified
materials.
o
Metalworking
fluid:
CMA
metal
fluid
gloved
data.
The
dermal
UE
is
0.184
mg/
lb
ai
and
the
inhalation
UE
is
0.00854
mg/
lb
ai.
The
values
are
based
on
8
replicates
where
the
test
subjects
were
wearing
a
single
layer
of
clothing
and
chemical
resistant
gloves.
o
Paint
and
Textiles:
CMA
preservative
gloved
data.
The
dermal
UE
is
0.135
mg/
lb
ai
and
the
inhalation
UE
is
0.00346
mg/
lb
ai.
The
values
are
based
on
2
replicates
where
the
test
subjects
were
wearing
a
single
layer
of
clothing
and
chemical
resistant
gloves.
49
 
For
the
liquid
pump
scenarios,
the
unit
exposure
depends
on
the
material
being
treated.
The
following
CMA
unite
exposures
were
available
and
used
for
the
assessment
of
the
risk
associated
with
the
treatment
of
the
specified
materials.
o
Metalworking
fluid:
CMA
metal
fluid
gloved
data.
The
dermal
UE
is
0.312
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
the
inhalation
UE
is
0.00348
mg/
lb
a.
i.
The
values
are
based
on
2
replicates
where
the
test
subjects
were
wearing
a
single
layer
of
clothing
and
chemical
resistant
gloves.
o
Paint
and
Textiles:
CMA
preservative
gloved
data.
The
dermal
UE
is
0.00629
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
the
inhalation
UE
is
0.000403
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
inhalation.
The
values
are
based
on
two
replicates
where
the
test
subjects
were
wearing
a
single
layer
of
clothing
and
chemical
resistant
gloves.
o
Pulp
and
Paper:
CMA
pulp
and
paper
gloved
data.
The
dermal
UE
is
0.00454
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
the
inhalation
UE
is
0.000265
mg/
lb
a.
i.
The
values
are
based
on
7
replicates
where
the
test
subjects
were
wearing
a
single
layer
of
clothing
and
chemical
resistant
gloves.
 
For
roller/
brush
scenarios,
the
occupational
PHED
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
paintbrush
applications
(
PHED
scenario
22)
were
used
(
single
layer
of
clothing).
The
inhalation
exposure
value
is
0.28
mg/
lb
a.
i.
The
dermal
unit
exposures
are
180
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
ungloved
replicates
and
24
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
gloved
replicates.
 
For
airless
sprayer
scenarios,
the
occupational
PHED
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
airless
sprayer
application
(
PHED
scenario
23)
were
used
(
single
layer
of
clothing).
The
inhalation
exposure
value
is
0.83
mg/
lb
a.
i.
The
dermal
unit
exposures
are
38
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
ungloved
replicates
and
14
mg/
lb
a.
i.
for
gloved
replicates.

Quantity
handled/
treated:
The
quantity
handled/
treated
values
were
estimated
based
on
information
from
various
sources.
The
following
assumptions
were
made:

 
For
the
low­
pressure
handwand
scenario,
it
was
assumed
that
10
gallons
of
solution
are
used
in
agricultural
uses
(
Exposure
Policy
#
009)
and
by
standard
assumptions,
that
2
gallons
are
used
in
all
other
applications.
 
For
the
high­
pressure
spray
scenario,
it
was
assumed
that
40
gallons
of
solution
are
used
(
Exposure
Policy
#
009).
 
For
the
mopping
scenario,
it
was
assumed
that
two
gallons
of
solution
are
used
in
the
food
handling
and
commercial/
institutional/
industrial
setting
and
45
gallons
are
used
in
the
medical
setting.
The
reason
for
this
assumption
specific
to
medical
premises
is
because
in
hospitals,
it
is
assumed
that
a
janitor
cleans
approximately
28
rooms
a
day
and
must
change
the
cleaning
water
every
three
rooms.
 
For
the
wiping
and
trigger
pump
spray
scenarios,
it
was
assumed
that
0.26
gallons
were
used
based
on
standard
assumptions
of
the
amount
used
for
hard
surface
disinfection.
 
For
the
air
deodorization
scenario,
it
was
standard
assumption
that
3
cans
of
product
are
used
(
3
x
16.5
oz
=
49.5
oz,
or
49.5
oz.
x
1
lb/
16oz.
=
3.1
lbs
product).
 
For
the
fogging
scenario
in
the
agricultural
use
site
category,
it
was
assumed
that
15,000
ft2
of
floor
space
is
treated,
based
on
the
estimated
dimensions
of
a
poultry
barn
(
300
ft
x
50
ft
x
10
ft).
 
For
the
fogging
scenario
in
the
commercial
use
site
category,
it
was
assumed
that
a
commercial
operator
would
be
treating
one
residential
house.
It
was
assumed
that
the
area
being
fogged
is
the
same
size
as
the
generic
house
described
in
the
MCCEM
Model:
408
m3,
or
14,400
ft3
(
see
Section
4.4.2.6
for
a
discussion
of
the
use
of
MCCEM
in
fogger
50
postapplication
modeling).
This
includes
the
assumption
that
the
ceilings
are
8
feet
high
and
the
floor
area
of
the
house
is
1801
ft2.
 
For
the
liquid
pour
scenarios,
the
quantity
of
the
chemical
that
is
handled
depends
on
the
material
that
is
being
treated.
The
following
values
were
used
for
the
different
materials:
o
Metalworking
fluid:
2,502
lbs
(
approximately
300
gallons,
and
the
density
of
the
fluid
is
assumed
to
be
that
of
water,
8.34
lb
a.
i./
gal)
(
Dang,
1997)
o
Paint:
2,000
lbs
(
approximately
200
gallons,
weight
based
on
a
density
10
lb
a.
i./
gal),
and
this
is
based
on
standard
assumptions.
o
Textiles:
10,000
lbs
is
treated
based
on
standard
assumption.
 
For
the
liquid
pump
scenarios
the
quantity
that
is
handled
depends
on
the
material
that
is
being
treated.
The
following
values
were
used
for
the
different
materials:
o
Metalworking
fluid:
2,502
lbs
(
approximately
300
gallons,
weight
and
the
density
of
the
fluid
is
assumed
to
be
that
of
water,
8.34
lb
ai/
gal)
(
Dang,
1997)
o
Paint:
10,000
lbs
(
approximately
1,000
gallons,
weight
based
on
a
density
of
10
lb
a.
i./
gal)
and
this
is
based
on
standard
assumptions.
o
Pulp
and
Paper:
500
tons
based
on
standard
assumption
(
500
tons
x
2204.622
lb/
ton
=
1102311
lbs)
o
Textiles:
10,000
lbs
is
treated
based
on
standard
assumption.
 
For
the
roller/
brush
painting
scenario,
it
was
assumed
that
50
lbs
(
approximately
5
gallons
of
paint
with
a
density
of
10
lb/
gal)
of
treated
paint
are
used.
 
For
the
airless
sprayer
in
the
painting
scenario,
it
was
assumed
that
500
lbs
(
approximately
50
gallons
of
paint
with
a
density
of
10
lb/
gal)
of
treated
paint
are
used.
 
For
the
airless
sprayer
in
the
outdoor
application
to
hard
surface
scenario,
it
was
assumed
that
40
gallons
of
solution
are
used
(
Exposure
Policy
#
009).

Duration
of
Exposure:
The
MOEs
were
calculated
for
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
durations
for
occupational
handlers
using
the
appropriate
endpoints
in
Table
3.2.
51
Table
6.2
Short
and
Intermediate
Term
Risks
Associated
with
Occupational
Handlers
using
OPP
and
OPP
Salts
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
c
MOEd
Baseline
Dermala
PPE­
Gloves
Dermalb
Baseline
Dermal
(
Target
MOE
=

100)
a
PPE­
Gloves
Dermal
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

b
Inhalation
(
Target
MOE
=
100)
IT
Total
MOE
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Exposure
Scenario
Method
of
Application
Baseline
Dermala
PPEGloves
Dermalb
Inhalation
App.

Rate
Quantity
Handled/

Treated
per
day
IT
ST
IT
ST
Inhal.

ST/
IT
IT
ST
IT
ST
IT
ST
Baseline
PPE
Agricultural
Premises
and
Equipment
(
Use
Site
Category
I)

Low
Pressure
Handwand
191
N/
A
0.681
0.0183
lb
ai/
gal
10
gal
0.21
0.5
N/
A
N/
A
0.0018
180
200
N/
A
N/
A
22,000
56,000
180
N/
A
High
Pressure
Handwand
N/
A
e
2.5
0.12
0.0183
lb
ai/
gal
40
gal
N/
A
N/
A
0.011
0.026
0.0013
N/
A
N/
A
3,500
3,800
31,000
80,000
N/
A
3,100
Mopping
71.6
N/
A
2.38
0.0183
lb
ai/
gal
2
gal
0.016
0.037
N/
A
N/
A
0.0012
2,400
2,700
N/
A
N/
A
31,000
80,000
2,200
N/
A
Wiping
2870
N/
A
67.3
0.0183
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gal
0.084
0.2
N/
A
N/
A
0.0046
460
510
N/
A
N/
A
8,500
22,000
440
N/
A
Application
to
hard
surfaces
Trigger
Pump
Spray
190
81
1.3
0.0183
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gal
0.005
6
0.013
0.0024
0.0055
0.0001
7,000
7,700
16,000
18,000
440000
1.1x106
6,900
15,000
Fogger
Liquid
Pour
of
soluble
concentrate
N/
A
36.5
1.89
0.661
lb
ai/
6,00
0
ft2
15,000
ft2
N/
A
N/
A
0.37
0.86
0.045
N/
A
N/
A
110
120
880
2,200
N/
A
98
Food
Handling
(
Use
Site
Category
II)

Low
Pressure
Handwand
191
N/
A
0.681
0.0039
1
lb
ai/
gal
2
gal
0.009
2
0.02
N/
A
N/
A
0.0001
4,300
4,700
N/
A
N/
A
510,000
1.3x106
4,300
N/
A
Mopping
71.6
N/
A
2.38
0.0039
1
lb
ai/
gal
2
gal
0.003
4
0.008
N/
A
N/
A
0.0003
11,000
13,000
N/
A
N/
A
150,000
380,000
10,000
N/
A
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Wiping
2870
N/
A
67.3
0.0039
1
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gal
0.018
0.04
N/
A
N/
A
0.0010
2,200
2,400
N/
A
N/
A
40,000
100,000
2,100
N/
A
52
Table
6.2
Short
and
Intermediate
Term
Risks
Associated
with
Occupational
Handlers
using
OPP
and
OPP
Salts
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
c
MOEd
Baseline
Dermala
PPE­
Gloves
Dermalb
Baseline
Dermal
(
Target
MOE
=

100)
a
PPE­
Gloves
Dermal
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

b
Inhalation
(
Target
MOE
=
100)
IT
Total
MOE
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Exposure
Scenario
Method
of
Application
Baseline
Dermala
PPEGloves
Dermalb
Inhalation
App.

Rate
Quantity
Handled/

Treated
per
day
IT
ST
IT
ST
Inhal.

ST/
IT
IT
ST
IT
ST
IT
ST
Baseline
PPE
Trigger
Pump
Spray
190
81
1.3
0.0034
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gal
0.001
0.002
4
0.0004
0.001
1.6x10­
5
38,000
42,000
89,000
98,000
2.4e+
06
6.1e+
06
37,000
86,000
Commercial/
Institutional
Premises
(
Use
Site
Category
III
)

Low
Pressure
Handwand
191
N/
A
0.681
0.0183
lb
ai/
gal
2
gal
0.043
0.1
N/
A
N/
A
0.00036
910
1,000
N/
A
N/
A
110,000
280,000
900
N/
A
Mopping
71.6
N/
A
2.38
0.0126
lb
ai/
gal
2
gal
0.111
0.258
N/
A
N/
A
0.0086
350
390
N/
A
N/
A
4,600
1,200
330
N/
A
Wiping
2870
N/
A
67.3
0.0126
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gal
0.578
1.34
N/
A
N/
A
0.0031
68
74
N/
A
N/
A
1,200
3,200
64
N/
A
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Trigger
Pump
Spray
190
81
1.3
0.0334
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gal
0.010
0.024
0.0043
0.01
1.6x10­
4
3,800
4,200
9,000
10,000
2.4x105
6.2x105
3,700
8,700
Application
to
outdoor
hard
surfaces
Airless
sprayer
38
14
0.83
0.00104
lb
ai/
gal
40
gal
0.009
7
0.023
0.0036
0.0083
0.00049
4,000
4,400
11,000
12,000
79,000
200,000
3,800
9,700
Air
deodorization
Aerosol
Spray
190
81
1.3
0.199%

ai
by
weight
3
16­
oz
cans
0.007
0.016
2
0.003
0.007
0.00011
5,600
6,200
13,000
14,000
350,000
900,000
5,500
13,000
Fogging
Liquid
pour
of
soluble
concentrate
N/
A
36.5
1.89
0.019
lb
a.
i./
6,00
0
ft2
1,801
sq.
ft.
N/
A
N/
A
0.001
0.003
0.0002
N/
A
N/
A
880
970
250,000
650,000
N/
A
28,000
Medical
Premises
and
Equipment
(
Use
Site
Category
V)

Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Low
Pressure
Handwand
191
N/
A
0.681
0.0183
lb
ai/
gal
2
gal
0.043
0.1
N/
A
N/
A
0.00036
910
1,000
N/
A
N/
A
110,000
280,000
902
N/
A
53
Table
6.2
Short
and
Intermediate
Term
Risks
Associated
with
Occupational
Handlers
using
OPP
and
OPP
Salts
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
c
MOEd
Baseline
Dermala
PPE­
Gloves
Dermalb
Baseline
Dermal
(
Target
MOE
=

100)
a
PPE­
Gloves
Dermal
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

b
Inhalation
(
Target
MOE
=
100)
IT
Total
MOE
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Exposure
Scenario
Method
of
Application
Baseline
Dermala
PPEGloves
Dermalb
Inhalation
App.

Rate
Quantity
Handled/

Treated
per
day
IT
ST
IT
ST
Inhal.

ST/
IT
IT
ST
IT
ST
IT
ST
Baseline
PPE
Mopping
71.6
N/
A
2.38
0.0234
lb
ai/
gal
45
gal
0.46
1.1
N/
A
N/
A
0.036
84
93
N/
A
N/
A
1,100
2,800
78
N/
A
Wiping
2870
N/
A
67.3
0.0234
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gal
0.11
0.25
N/
A
N/
A
0.0058
360
400
N/
A
N/
A
6,700
17,000
340
N/
A
Trigger
Pump
Spray
190
81
1.3
0.0334
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gal
0.01
0.024
0.0043
0.01
1.6x10­
5
3,800
4,200
9,000
10,000
240,000
620,000
3,700
8,700
Air
deodorization
Aerosol
Spray
190
81
1.3
0.199
%
ai
by
weight
3
16­
oz
cans
0.007
0.016
0.003
0.007
0.00011
5,600
6,200
13,000
14,000
350,000
900,000
5,500
1/
3,000
Material
Preservatives
(
Use
Site
Category
VII)

Liquid
Pour
N/
A
0.184
0.0085
5.66%

ai
by
weight
2,502
lbs
N/
A
N/
A
0.16
0.372
0.017
N/
A
N/
A
240
270
2,300
5,800
N/
A
220
Preservation
of
Metalworking
Fluid
Liquid
Pump
N/
A
0.312
0.00348
5.66%

ai
by
weight
2,502
lbs
N/
A
N/
A
0.27
0.631
0.007
N/
A
N/
A
140
160
5,500
14,000
N/
A
140
Liquid
Pour
N/
A
0.135
0.00346
0.56%

ai
by
weight
2,000
lbs
(
200
gal)
N/
A
N/
A
0.0093
0.0216
0.0006
N/
A
N/
A
4,200
4,600
70,000
180,000
N/
A
4,000
Preservation
of
Paint
Liquid
Pump
N/
A
0.00629
0.000403
0.56%

ai
by
weight
10,000
lbs
(
1,000
gal)
N/
A
N/
A
0.0022
0.005
0.0003
N/
A
N/
A
18,000
20,000
120,000
310,000
N/
A
16,000
Preservation
of
Pulp
and
Paper
Liquid
Pump
N/
A
0.00454
0.000265
0.34%

ai
by
weight
500
tons
N/
A
N/
A
0.11
0.245
0.014
N/
A
N/
A
370
410
2,700
6,900
N/
A
330
54
Table
6.2
Short
and
Intermediate
Term
Risks
Associated
with
Occupational
Handlers
using
OPP
and
OPP
Salts
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
c
MOEd
Baseline
Dermala
PPE­
Gloves
Dermalb
Baseline
Dermal
(
Target
MOE
=

100)
a
PPE­
Gloves
Dermal
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

b
Inhalation
(
Target
MOE
=
100)
IT
Total
MOE
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Exposure
Scenario
Method
of
Application
Baseline
Dermala
PPEGloves
Dermalb
Inhalation
App.

Rate
Quantity
Handled/

Treated
per
day
IT
ST
IT
ST
Inhal.

ST/
IT
IT
ST
IT
ST
IT
ST
Baseline
PPE
Liquid
Pour
N/
A
0.135
0.00346
5.66%

ai
by
weight
10,000
lbs
N/
A
N/
A
0.047
1.09
0.0028
N/
A
N/
A
83
92
1,400
3,600
N/
A
78
Preservation
of
Textiles
Liquid
Pump
N/
A
0.00629
0.000403
5.66%

ai
by
weight
10,000
lbs
N/
A
N/
A
0.022
0.051
0.0003
N/
A
N/
A
1,800
2,000
12,000
31,000
N/
A
1,600
Brush/

Roller
180
24
0.28
0.56%

ai
by
weight
50
lbs
NC
0.72
NC
0.096
0.0011
NC
140
NC
1,000
NC
89,000
NC
NC
Application
of
Paint
by
professionals
Airless
Sprayer
38
14
0.83
0.56%

ai
by
weight
500
lbs
NC
1.52
NC
0.56
0.033
NC
66
NC
180
NC
3,000
NC
NC
ST
=
short­
term,
IT
=
intermediate­
term,
N/
A=
No
data
available
a
Baseline
Dermal:
Long­
sleeve
shirt,
long
pants,
no
gloves.

b
PPE
Dermal
with
gloves:
baseline
dermal
plus
chemical­
resistant
gloves.

c
Absorbed
Daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
*
absorption
(
1.0
for
ST/
IT
inhalation
and
ST
dermal,
0.43
for
IT
dermal)
*
application
rate
*
quantity
treated
/
Body
weight
(
70
kg).

d
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
[
Where
short­
term
NOAEL
=
100
mg/
kg/
day
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
and
intermediate­
term
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
day
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures].

e
No
ungloved
data
available
such
that
only
a
gloved
scenario
was
assessed.
Although
there
is
a
potential
that
a
handler
may
be
exposed
to
a
high
pressure
spray
scenario,
the
MOE
values
were
well
above
the
target
MOE,
such
that
AD
assumes
that
the
ungloved
scenario
will
also
produce
acceptable
MOEs.

f
Total
IT
MOE
=
1/((
1/
Dermal
IT
MOE)
+
(
1/
Inhalation
IT
MOE))

NC
=
Not
conducted:
IT
exposures
were
not
assessed
for
professional
painters
because
it
was
assumed
that
professional
painters
will
not
use
OPP
preserved
paint
on
a
continuous
basis
55
Exposure
Calculations
and
Results
The
calculated
dermal,
inhalation,
and
IT
Total
MOEs
are
shown
in
Table
6.2.
All
MOEs
in
the
occupational
setting
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
dermal,
inhalation
and
total
exposures,
except
for
the
following
scenarios:

 
Agricultural
premises,
fogging:
intermediate­
term
PPE
Total
MOE
=
98
 
Commercial/
Institutional
premises,
wiping:
short­
term
baseline
dermal
MOE=
74,
intermediate­
term
baseline
dermal
MOE
=
68,
and
intermediate­
term
baseline
Total
MOE
=
64.
 
Medical
premises,
mopping:
short­
term
baseline
dermal
MOE=
93,
intermediate­
term
baseline
dermal
MOE
=
84,
and
intermediate­
term
baseline
Total
MOE
=
78.
 
Materials
Preservatives,
liquid
pour
preservation
of
textiles:
short­
term
PPE
dermal
MOE=
92,
intermediate­
term
PPE
dermal
MOE
=
83,
and
intermediate­
term
Total
MOE
=
78.
 
Materials
Preservatives,
painter
(
applying
paint
post­
preservation),
airless
sprayer:
baseline
dermal
short­
term
MOE
=
66.

It
should
be
noted
that
although
the
target
inhalation
MOE
is
100,
if
the
MOE
is
below
1,000
the
Agency
may
request
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
because
the
current
inhalation
endpoint
is
based
on
an
oral
NOAEL.
All
of
the
occupational
inhalation
MOEs
were
above
1,000,
except
for
the
following
scenarios:

 
Agricultural
equipment,
fogger
MOE
=
880
6.1.1
Professional
Painter
Inhalation
(
vapor)
Exposure
Table
6.2
presents
the
exposures
and
risks
associated
with
the
application
of
OPP
or
OPP
Salt
preservative
to
the
paint.
In
this
section,
the
professional
painter
inhalation
exposure
to
OPP
vapors
during
paint
activities
was
assessed.
AD
utilized
EPA's
Wall
Paint
Exposure
Model
(
WPEM)
version
3.2
to
estimate
air
concentrations
resulting
from
the
use
of
paint
preserved
with
OPP.
For
this
professional
painter
exposure
assessment,
the
WPEM
default
scenario
for
the
residential
professional
painter
(
RESPROF)
was
used.
This
WPEM
default
scenario
assumes
that
two
professional
painters
are
exposed
to
a
chemical
in
paint
while
painting
an
entire
apartment
per
working
day.
For
a
detailed
description
of
the
default
RESPROF
scenario,
see
the
WPEM
User's
Guide.
The
following
chemical­
specific
inputs
were
used
in
the
model:

 
OPP's
molecular
weight
(
170.19
amu)
and
vapor
pressure
(
0.002
mm
Hg)
 
The
weight
fraction
of
OPP
in
paint
(
product
#
464­
126
contains
0.5%
OPP)
56
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
as
well
as
concentrations
to
which
the
individual
is
exposed.
This
file
can
be
read
directly
into
spreadsheet
software
(
e.
g.,
Excel)
for
calculating
additional
summary
statistics.
The
air
concentrations
outputted
by
the
model
were
used
by
AD
to
estimate
inhalation
exposure
doses
and
MOEs.
It
should
be
noted
that
only
short­
term
exposures
were
assessed
because
it
was
assumed
that
professional
painters
would
not
use
an
OPP­
preserved
paint
on
a
continuous
basis.
The
model
results
and
exposure
calculations
are
summarized
in
Table
6.3.
The
MOE
for
the
short­
term
inhalation
exposure
for
the
professional
painter
is
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
MOE
=
43).

Table
6.3.
Short­
Term
Inhalation
(
vapor)
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Professional
Painters
Using
OPP­
Preserved
Paint
Average
Air
Conc.
(
mg/
m3)
a
Exposure
Duration
(
hrs/
day)
Inhal.
Rate
(
m3/
hr)
b
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
c
ST
Inhalation
MOE
(
Target
=
100)

18.16
9
1.00
2.33
43
a9­
hr
Time
Weighted
Average
(
TWA)
during
the
painting
activity
(
See
Appendix
E)
bInhalation
rate
for
light
activity
(
USEPA,
1997)
cInhalation
Dose
=
9­
hr
TWA
*
Inhalation
Rate
*
exposure
duration
/
Body
Weight
(
70
kg
for
adults)
dShort
Term
Inhalation
MOE
=
Short­
Term
Inhalation
NOAEL
(
100
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Inhalation
Dose
6.1.2
Industrial
Bystander
Inhalation
Exposure
Inhalation
exposures
are
expected
to
occur
to
bystanders
as
a
result
of
material
preservative
applications
in
industrial
settings.
Currently,
no
data
are
available
to
assess
these
bystander
exposures
and
therefore,
monitoring
data
are
needed.

6.2
Occupational
Post­
application
Exposures
6.2.1
Fogging
Post­
application
inhalation
exposures
were
only
assessed
for
entry
into
a
building
after
a
fogging
application,
because
dermal
post
application
is
presumed
to
be
negligible.
The
inhalation
exposure
assessment
was
conducted
using
the
Multi­
Chamber
Concentration
and
Exposure
Model
(
MCCEM
v1.2).
MCCEM
estimates
average
and
peak
indoor
air
concentrations
of
chemicals
released
from
products
or
materials
in
houses,
apartments,
townhouses,
or
other
residences.
Although
the
data
libraries
contained
in
MCCEM
are
limited
to
residential
settings,
the
model
can
be
used
to
assess
other
indoor
environments.
MCCEM
has
the
capability
to
estimate
inhalation
exposures
to
chemicals,
calculated
as
single
day
doses,
chronic
average
daily
doses,
or
lifetime
average
daily
doses.
(
All
dose
estimates
are
potential
doses;
they
do
not
account
for
actual
absorption
into
the
body.)

One
product,
EPA
Reg
#
65020­
7,
which
can
be
used
for
fogging
(
7.92%
OPP),
was
assessed
for
use
in
a
poultry
house
or
livestock
building.
The
label
states
that
the
product
is
to
be
applied
at
a
rate
of
1
gallon
of
product
per
6,000
square
feet.
After
fogging,
the
label
57
states
that
the
building
should
be
kept
closed
for
24
hrs.
Therefore,
exposure
was
calculated
for
a
person
entering
the
building
24
hours
after
all
the
applied
fogger
has
been
deployed.

Assumptions
used
to
calculate
inputs
for
MCCEM
and
the
calculated
exposure
values
are
presented
in
Table
6.4.
The
following
assumptions
were
made:

 
The
area
being
fogged
is
a
one­
chamber
barn
with
dimensions
of
300
ft
x50
ft
x10
ft
(
AD
standard
assumption)
and
an
air
exchange
rate
of
0.18
per
hour
 
Fogging
occurs
instantaneously,
so
that
the
entire
mass
of
product
is
mixed
homogeneously
with
the
indoor
air
as
soon
as
fogging
commences.

A
number
of
labels
for
fogging
products
make
statements
pertaining
to
the
fact
that
if
the
fogger
is
used
in
well­
ventilated
areas,
such
as
hatcheries,
the
re­
entry
interval
can
be
as
low
as
1­
2
hours.
Scenarios
in
well­
ventilated
areas
such
as
hatcheries
were
not
assessed
in
this
document.

Table
6.4.
Short
and
Intermediate
Term
Inhalation
Risks
Associated
with
Postapplication
Exposure
OPP
and
OPP
salts
After
Fogging
a
Barn
Parameter
Value
Rationale
Barn
Dimensions*
300x50x10
ft,
15,000
ft2
floor
area,
150,000
ft3
(
4,248
m3)
volume
EPA
Assumption
Air
Changes
per
Hour
(
ACH)*
0.18/
hr
EPA
Assumption
Activity
Pattern*
8
hour
Time
Weight
Average
(
TWA)
starting
at
expiration
of
24­
hr
REI
Based
on
product
=

s
re­
entry
interval
(
EPA
Registration
No.
65020­
7).

Concentration
of
Fogging
Liquid
7.92%
a.
i.
(
OPP)
Product
Label
(
See
Table
6.1)

Use
rate
1
gal/
6000
ft2
Product
label
Mass
applied
to
barn
1.65
lbs
a.
i.
(
750
g
a.
i.)
(
Use
rate)
x
(
Concentration)
x
(
Floor
area)

Concentration
in
barn
after
fogging
(
initial
concentration
rate
at
time
0)*
0.177
g/
m3
Mass
/
Volume
Body
Weight
70
kg
EPA
Assumption
Inhalation
Rate
1.00
m3/
hr
Light
Activity
for
Adults
(
USEPA,
1997)

MCCEM
Output
Average
Concentration
over
8­
hrs
1.27
mg/
m3
Average
of
MCCEM­
calculated
air
concentrations
from
Hour
24
to
Hour
32
8­
hr
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
0.145
Average
Conc.
*
8
hrs
*
Inhal.
Rate
/
BW
8­
hr
short­
term
MOE
690
NOAEL
(
100
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Dose
58
Table
6.4.
Short
and
Intermediate
Term
Inhalation
Risks
Associated
with
Postapplication
Exposure
OPP
and
OPP
salts
After
Fogging
a
Barn
Parameter
Value
Rationale
8­
hr
intermediate­
term
MOE
270
NOAEL
(
39
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Dose
*
Used
as
MCCEM
input.
Default
values
from
MCCEM
were
used
for
all
inputs
not
listed
in
the
table
above
A
detailed
model
report
is
presented
in
Appendix
D.
Based
on
MCCEM
.
csv
output,
MOE
values
were
calculated.
Both
the
short­
term
MOE
(
690)
and
the
intermediate­
term
MOE
(
270)
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
but
below
1,000.
Therefore,
the
Agency
may
request
that
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
be
submitted
since
the
current
inhalation
endpoint
is
based
on
an
oral
toxicity
study.

6.3
Metalworking
Fluids:
Machinist
There
is
a
potential
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
when
a
worker
handles
treated
metalworking
fluids.
This
route
of
exposure
occurs
after
the
chemical
has
been
incorporated
into
the
metalworking
fluid
and
a
machinist
is
using/
handling
this
treated
end­
product.

Dermal
Exposures
Exposure
Calculations
A
ST
and
a
IT/
LT
estimate
were
derived
using
the
2­
hand
immersion
model
from
ChemSTEER.
The
model
is
available
at
www.
epa.
gov/
opptintr/
exposure/
docs/
chemsteer.
htm.
The
2­
hand
immersion
equation
is
as
follows:

PDR
=
SA
x
%
ai
x
FT
x
FQ
BW
where:

PDR
=
Potential
dose
rate
(
mg/
kg/
day);
SA
=
Surface
area
of
both
hands
(
cm2);
%
ai
=
Fraction
active
ingredient
in
treated
metalworking
fluid
(
unitless)
FT
=
Film
thickness
of
metal
fluid
on
hands
(
mg/
cm2)
FQ
=
Frequency
of
events
(
event/
day);
BW
=
Body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions
 
The
surface
of
area
of
both
hands
is
840
cm2
(
US
EPA
1997)
 
The
body
weight
of
an
adult
is
70
kg
(
US
EPA
1997)
 
The
percent
active
ingredient
was
selected
from
the
label
that
provides
an
application
rate
for
the
non­
concentrate
fluid
(
EPA
Registration
No.
464­
126,
this
is
1.5
%)
 
For
intermediate­
and
long­
term
durations,
the
film
thickness
on
the
hands
is
1.75
mg/
cm2,
which
was
extracted
from
the
document
titled,
"
A
Laboratory
Method
to
Determine
the
59
Retention
of
Liquids
on
the
Surface
of
Hands."
The
film
thickness
is
based
on
a
machinist
immersing
both
hands
in
metalworking
fluid
and
then
partially
cleaning
hands
with
a
rag.
The
film
thickness
was
chosen
because
the
dermal
endpoint
for
the
intermediate­
and
longterm
durations
is
based
on
systemic
effects.
 
For
short­
term
durations,
the
film
thickness
on
the
hands
is
10.3
mg/
cm2,
which
is
from
the
document
titled,
"
A
Laboratory
Method
to
Determine
the
Retention
of
Liquids
on
the
Surface
of
Hands."
The
film
thickness
is
based
on
a
machinist
completing
a
double
dip
in
which
both
hands
are
immersed
and
remain
wet.
The
film
thickness
was
chosen
because
the
dermal
endpoint
for
short­
term
durations
is
based
on
dermal
irritation
effects.

Results
Table
6.5
shows
the
calculation
of
the
dermal
doses
and
dermal
MOEs
for
a
machinist
working
with
metal
fluids.
The
MOE
value
is
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
intermediateand
long­
term
exposures
(
MOE
=
290).
However,
there
is
concern
with
short
term
exposure
because
the
calculated
MOE
of
54
is
below
the
target
MOE
of
100.

Table
6.5.
Short,
Intermediate,
and
Long
Term
Dermal
Risks
Associated
With
Postapplication
Exposure
to
Metalworking
Fluids
Treated
With
OPP
(
Machinist)

Absorbed
Daily
Dosea
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOE
(
Target
MOE
is
100)
b
Exposure
Scenario
%
ai
Hand
Surface
Area
(
cm2)
Film
thickness
(
mg/
cm2)
Frequency
(
event/
day)
ST
IT/
LT
ST
IT/
LT
Machinist
­
two
hand
immersion
1.5%
840
10.3
for
ST
1.75
for
IT/
LT
1
1.85
0.13545
54
290
a
Absorbed
Daily
Dose,
normalized
to
body
weight
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[(%
active
ingredient
*
dermal
absorption
factor
(
0.43
for
IT/
LT
exposure
and
not
applicable
to
ST
exposures)
*
film
thickness
(
mg/
cm2)*
Frequency
(
event/
day)]
/
Body
weight
(
70
kg).
b
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
[
Where:
short­
term
NOAEL
=
100
mg/
kg/
day
and
intermediate­
and
long­
term
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
day
for
dermal
exposures,
Table
3.2].

Inhalation
Exposures
The
screening­
level
intermediate
and
long
term
inhalation
exposure
estimate
for
treated
metalworking
fluids
have
been
developed
using
the
OSHA
PEL
for
oil
mist.
The
equation
used
for
calculating
the
inhalation
dose
is:

PDR
=
PEL
x
IR
x
%
ai
x
ED
BW
where:
PDR
=
Potential
dose
rate
(
mg/
kg/
day);
PEL
=
OSHA
PEL
(
mg/
m3);
IR
=
Inhalation
rate
(
m3
/
hr)
%
ai
=
Fraction
active
ingredient
in
treated
metalworking
fluid
(
unitless)
ED
=
Exposure
duration
(
hrs/
day);
BW
=
Body
weight
(
kg)
60
Assumptions
 
The
high­
end
oil
mist
concentration
is
based
on
OSHA's
Permissible
Exposure
Limit
(
PEL)
of
5
mg/
m3
(
NIOSH,
1998).
 
The
percent
active
ingredient
was
selected
from
the
label
that
provides
an
application
rate
for
the
non­
concentrate
fluid
(
EPA
Registration
No.
464­
126).
 
The
inhalation
rate
for
a
machinist
is
1.25
m3
/
hr.
 
A
machinist
is
exposed
to
the
metalworking
fluid
8
hours
a
day,
for
5
days
a
week.
 
The
body
weight
of
an
adult
is
70
kg
(
US
EPA
1997).

Results
Table
6.6
shows
the
calculation
of
the
dermal
doses
and
MOEs
for
a
machinist
working
with
metalworking
fluids.
The
inhalation
MOE
values
for
IT/
LT
and
ST
exposures
to
OPP
and
OPP
salts
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
IT/
LT
MOE
=
3,600
and
ST
MOE
=
9,300).
Furthermore,
these
MOEs
are
also
above
1,000
therefore
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
is
not
warranted
based
on
the
results
of
this
scenario.

Table
6.6.
Short,
Intermediate,
and
Long
Term
Inhalation
Risks
Associated
with
Postapplication
Exposure
to
Metalworking
Fluids
treated
with
OPP
(
Machinist)

Absorbed
Daily
Dosea
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOE
(
Target
MOE
is
100)
b
Exposure
Scenario
%
a.
i.
OSHA
PEL
(
mg/
m3)
Inhalation
rate
(
m3/
hr)
Exposure
Duration
(
hrs/
day)
ST/
IT/
LT
ST
IT/
LT
Machinist
1.5%
5
1.25
8
0.0107
9,300
3,600
a
Absorbed
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
%
active
ingredient
*
OSHA
PEL
(
mg/
m3)
*
Inhalation
rate
(
m3/
hr)
*
exposure
duration
(
hr/
day)
/
body
weight
(
70
kg)
b
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
absorbed
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
[
Where:
short­
term
NOAEL
=
100
mg/
kg/
day
and
intermediate­
and
long­
term
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
day
for
inhalation
exposures,
Table
3.2
].

The
intermediate­
term
Total
MOE
was
also
calculated
and
compared
to
the
target
MOE
of
100.
It
was
necessary
to
estimate
intermediate­
term
Total
MOEs
because
the
toxicological
effects
from
the
dermal
and
inhalation
routes
are
the
same
(
Table
3.2).
The
Total
MOE
was
270
and
is
well
above
the
target
MOE
of
100.

6.4
Wood
Preservation
OPP
and
OPP
salts
are
used
in
products
that
are
intended
to
preserve
wood
(
nonpressure
treatment).
As
noted
on
label
Reg
#
67869­
24,
OPP
Salt
for
wood
preservation
serves
the
purpose,
"
for
the
temporary
protection
of
freshly
sawn
lumber
against
staining
and
molding.
[
The
product]
are
applied
to
the
freshly
sawn
lumber
by
either
dipping
or
spraying."
The
label
also
provides
four
categories
of
recommended
dosages,
which
include
construction
woods,
fresh
cut
lumber,
fruit
and
vegetable
containers,
and
pallets.
In
addition,
the
handler
and
post
application
scenarios
that
have
been
identified
and
assessed
for
wood
preservation
were
extracted
from
MRID
455243­
04,
"
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
61
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III)"
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999).
This
proprietary
sapstain
task
force
study
(
task
force
#
73154)
includes
the
potential
ways
that
the
Agency
believes
an
individual
can
come
into
contact
with
preserved
wood,
and
therefore
is
included
in
this
assessment.

Handler:

 
Blender/
spray
operators
are
workers
that
add
the
wood
preservative
into
a
blender/
sprayer
system
for
composite
wood
via
closed­
liquid
pumping.
 
Chemical
operators
consist
of
chemical
operators,
chemical
assistants,
chemical
supervisors,
and
chemical
captains.
These
individuals
maintain
a
chemical
supply
balance
and
are
assigned
the
task
of
flushing
and
cleaning
spray
nozzles.
 
Diptank
Operators
can
be
in
reference
to
wood
being
lowered
into
the
treating
solution
through
an
automated
process
(
i.
e.:
elevator
diptank,
forklift
diptank).
This
scenario
can
also
occur
in
a
small
scale
treatment
facility
in
which
the
worker
can
manually
dip
the
wood
into
the
treatment
solution.

Post­
application:

 
Graders
are
expected
to
be
positioned
right
after
the
spray
box
sequence
and
grade
the
dry
lumber
by
hand
(
i.
e.
detect
faults).
In
the
DDAC
study,
graders
graded
wet
lumber;
therefore,
the
exposures
to
graders
using
OPP
and
OPP
salts
are
assumed
to
be
the
worstcase
scenarios.
 
Trim
saw
operators
operate
the
hula
trim
saw
and
this
group
consists
of
operators
and
strappers.
 
Millwrights
repair
all
conveyer
chains
and
are
involved
in
a
general
up­
keep
of
the
mill.
 
Clean­
up
crews
perform
general
cleaning
duties
at
the
mill.
 
Construction
workers
install
treated
plywood,
oriented
strand
board,
medium
density
fiberboard,
and
others.

The
CMA
unit
exposure
data
were
used
to
assess
exposure
and
risks
for
the
job
function
that
involves
blender/
spray
operators.
The
liquid
pump
preservative
unit
exposures
for
gloved
workers
were
used.
The
dermal
UE
was
0.00629
mg/
lb
ai
and
the
inhalation
UE
was
0.000403
mg/
lb
ai.
These
values
are
based
on
two
replicates
where
the
test
subjects
were
wearing
a
single
layer
of
clothing
and
chemical
resistant
gloves.
The
quantity
of
the
wood
being
treated
was
derived
from
standard
Agency
assumptions
for
the
amount
of
wood
slurry
treated
because
no
chemical
specific
data
were
available
for
OPP.
It
was
assumed
that
batches
of
7,000
gallons
of
wood
slurry
are
treated
in
a
batch
for
wood
blender
type
operations.
The
Agency
also
assumed
that
eight
batches
of
wood
slurry
were
treated
per
day
(
one
per
hour
for
an
8­
hr
work
shift).
The
total
amount
of
wood
slurry
treated
per
day
would
therefore
be
56,000
gallons
or
213
m3
(
where,
56,000
gal/
day
=
7,000
gallons/
batch
x
8
batches/
day;
or
213
m3
=
56,000
gallons
x
0.003785
m3/
gallon).
Wood
chips
were
assumed
to
have
a
density
of
about
380
kg/
m3
(
SIMetric,
2005),
and
with
this
assumption,
a
potential
amount
of
178,000
lbs
of
wood
is
expected
to
be
treated
(
213
m3
x
380
kg/
m3
x
2.2
lb/
kg).
The
OPP
product
is
to
be
applied
at
a
rate
of
4.52%
a.
i.
(
20%
OPP
applied
at
22.6%
by
weight
of
the
wood
treated)
by
weight.
Table
6.7
provides
the
short,
intermediate
term,
and
total
MOEs
(
IT)
for
the
workers
adding
the
preservative
to
the
wood
slurry.
All
of
the
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
and
therefore
do
not
pose
a
concern.
However,
the
IT
inhalation
MOE
(
840)
for
62
the
blender/
spray
operators
adding
the
chemical
via
closed­
liquid
pumping
is
less
than
1,000
and
therefore
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
is
warranted
based
on
these
results.

Table
6.7
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Wood
Preservative
Blender/
spray
Operators
Daily
Dermal
Dose
a
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOE
b
Inhalation
MOE
b
Exposure
Scenario
CMA
Dermal
UE
(
mg/
lb
ai)
CMA
Inhal
UE
(
mg/
lb
ai)
App
Rate
(%
ai)
Quantity
Treated
(
lb/
day)
ST
IT
Daily
Inhal.
Dose
a
(
mg/
kg/
day)
ST
IT
ST
IT
Total
IT
MOE
c
Liquid
Pump
0.00629
0.000403
4.52%
178,000
0.723
0.311
0.0463
140
130
2,200
840
110
a
Daily
Dose
=
UE
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
App
Rate
(%
ai)
x
Quantity
treated
(
lb/
day)
x
absorption
factor
(
IT/
LT
dermal
=
0.43,
not
necessary
for
ST
dermal
and
all
durations
for
inhalation)/
BW
(
70
kg)
b
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)/
Daily
dose
[
Where
short­
term
NOAEL
=
100
mg/
kg/
day
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
and
intermediate­
term
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
day
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures].
Target
MOE
is
100
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
c
Total
IT
MOE
=
1/
((
1/
MOEdermal)
+
(
1/
MOEinhalation))

Chemical
Operators,
Graders,
Millwrights,
Clean­
up
Crews,
and
Trim
Saw
Operators
The
CMA
data
were
inadequate
to
represent
the
other
job
functions
associated
with
preservation
on
non­
pressure
treated
wood.
As
very
little
chemical
specific
data
were
available
regarding
typical
exposures
OPP
and
its
salts
as
a
wood
preservative,
surrogate
data
were
used
to
estimate
exposure
risks.
This
surrogate
data
was
obtained
from,
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III)
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999).
This
study
is
proprietary
(
Task
Force
#
73154);
therefore,
data
compensation
needs
to
be
paid
for
use
of
the
data
in
this
exposure
assessment.
It
was
assumed
that
the
workers
at
facilities
using
OPP
and
OPP
salt
preservatives
are
performing
similar
tasks
as
those
monitored
in
the
DDAC
study.

The
DDAC
study
examined
individuals
=

exposure
to
DDAC
while
working
with
antisapstains
and
performing
routine
tasks
at
11
sawmills/
planar
mills.
Dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
monitoring
data
were
gathered
for
each
job
function
of
interest
using
dosimeters
and
personal
sampling
tubes.
Dosimeters
and
personal
air
sampling
tubes
were
analyzed
for
DDAC,
and
the
results
were
reported
in
terms
of
mg
DDAC
exposure
per
person
per
day.
The
study
reported
average
daily
exposures
for
workers
in
various
categories.
Exposure
data
for
individuals
performing
the
same
job
functions
were
averaged
together
to
determine
job
specific
averages.
Total
exposures
from
2
trim
saw
workers,
13
grader
workers,
11
chemical
operators,
3
millwrights,
and
6
clean­
up
staff
were
used.

The
individual
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
from
the
DDAC
study
are
presented
in
Table
C­
1
in
Appendix
C.
To
determine
OPP
exposures,
the
average
DDAC
exposures
measured
on
individuals
(
in
terms
of
total
mg
DDAC)
were
multiplied
by
a
modification
factor
of
0.25
to
account
for
the
difference
in
percent
active
ingredient
(
20%
OPP
in
the
wood
preservative
product
versus
80%
DDAC
in
the
comparative
wood
preservative
product).
The
63
pound
(
lb)
active
ingredient
handled
by
each
person
or
the
percent
active
ingredient
in
the
treatment
solution
was
not
provided
for
these
worker
functions.

The
following
equation
was
used
to
calculate
daily
dose
for
OPP
and
Salts:

Daily
Dose
=
DDAC
UE
x
CR
x
AB
BW
Where:

DDAC
UE
=
DDAC
dermal
or
inhalation
unit
exposure
(
mg/
day);
CR
=
Conversion
ratio
(
20%
OPP
/
80%
DDAC);
AB
=
Absorption
factor
(
43
%
for
IT/
LT
dermal
and
100%
for
all
other
durations);
and
BW
=
Body
weight
(
70
kg).

In
using
this
methodology,
the
following
assumptions
were
made:

 
DDAC
and
OPP
end
products
will
be
used
in
similar
quantities.

 
The
procedures
for
applying
both
chemicals
are
similar.

 
The
physical­
chemical
properties
that
affect
the
transport
of
the
chemical
are
similar.

 
The
limits
of
detections
(
LOD)
for
inhalation
residues
from
chemical
operators,
graders,
mill
wrights,
and
clean­
up
staff
replicates
were
not
provided
in
the
DDAC
report.
For
lack
of
better
data,
it
was
assumed
that
the
inhalation
LODs
for
these
worker
positions
are
equal
to
the
LOD
of
the
diptank
operator
replicates
(
5.6
ug).
For
all
measurements
below
the
air
concentration
associated
with
this
detection
limit,
half
the
detection
limit
was
used.
The
dermal
LOD
for
all
operators
is
also
5.6
ug.

 
In
the
DDAC
study,
dermal
exposures
to
hands
were
measured
separately
from
the
rest
of
the
body.
For
each
replicate,
the
body
dose
measurements
and
hand
dose
measurements
were
summed
for
a
total
dermal
dose.

 
Air
concentrations
were
reported
in
the
DDAC
study.
To
convert
air
concentrations
(
Fg/
m3)
into
terms
of
inhalation
unit
exposure
(
mg/
day),
the
air
concentrations
were
multiplied
by
an
inhalation
rate
of
1.0
m3/
hr
for
light
activity
(
EPA
1997),
a
sample
duration
of
8
hrs/
day,
and
a
conversion
factor
of
1
mg/
1000
µ
g.
Table
C­
1
in
Appendix
C
presents
the
inhalation
and
dermal
DDAC
exposures.

 
Average
DDAC
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
were
multiplied
by
a
conversion
ratio
of
0.25
to
account
for
the
differences
in
OPP
and
DDAC
concentrations
[(
20%
OPP
/
80%
DDAC)].

Table
6.8
provides
the
short­,
intermediate­,
and
long­
term
doses
and
MOEs
for
chemical
operators,
graders,
millwrights,
clean­
up
crews,
and
trim
saw
operators.
For
all
worker
functions,
the
dermal,
inhalation
and
total
MOEs
are
not
of
concern.
64
Table
6.8
Short­,
Intermediate­
and
Long­
Term
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Wood
Preservative
Chemical
Operators,
Graders,
Trim
Saw
Operators,
and
Clean­
Up
Crews
Absorbed
Daily
Dosesd
(
mg/
kg/
day)
MOEs
(
target
MOE
=
100)
e
Dermal
Inhalatio
n
Dermal
Inhalation
Exposure
Scenarioa
(
number
of
volunteers)
Dermal
UEb
(
mg/
day)
Inhalation
UEb
(
mg/
day)
Conversion
Ratioc
ST
IT/
LT
ST/
IT/
LT
ST
IT/
LT
ST
IT/
LT
Total
IT
MOE
Occupational
Handler
Chemical
Operator
(
n=
11)
9.81
0.0281
0.25
0.0350
0.0151
0.0001
2,900
2,600
1.0x10E06
3.9x10E05
2,600
Occupational
Post­
application
Grader
(
n=
13)
3.13
0.0295
0.25
0.0112
0.0048
0.0001
8,900
8,100
9.5x10E05
3.7x10E05
7,900
Trim
Saw
(
n=
2)
1.38
0.061
0.25
0.0049
0.0021
0.0002
20,000
18,000
4.6x10E05
1.8x10E05
17,000
Millwright
(
n=
3)
12.8
0.057
0.25
0.0457
0.0197
0.0002
2,200
2,000
4.9x10E05
1.9x10E05
2,000
Clean­
Up
(
n=
6)
55.3
0.60
0.25
0.198
0.0849
0.0021
510
460
47,000
18,200
450
ST
=
Short­
term
duration;
IT
=
Intermediate­
term
duration;
and
LT
=
long­
term
duration
a.
The
exposure
scenario
represents
a
worker
wearing
short
sleeve
shirts,
cotton
work
trousers,
and
cotton
glove
dosimeter
gloves
under
chemical
resistant
gloves.
Volunteers
were
grouped
according
to
tasks
they
conducted
at
the
mill.
b.
Dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposures
are
from
Bestari
et
al
(
1999).
Refer
to
Table
A­
1
in
Appendix
A
for
the
calculation
of
the
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures.
Inhalation
exposures
(
mg/
day)
were
calculated
using
the
following
equation:
air
concentration
(
ug/
m3)
x
inhalation
rate
(
1.0
m3/
hr)
x
sample
duration
(
8
hr/
day)
x
unit
conversion
(
1
mg/
1000
ug).
The
inhalation
rate
is
from
USEPA,
1997a.
c.
Conversion
Ratio
=
20%
OPP/
80%
DDAC
d.
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
exposure
(
mg/
day)
*
conversion
ratio
(
0.25)
*
absorption
factor
(
43%
for
IT/
LT
dermal
and
100%
for
all
other
exposures/
durations)
/
body
weight
(
70
kg).
e.
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)/
Daily
Dose
[
Where
ST
NOAEL
=
100
mg/
kg/
day
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures,
and
the
IT/
LT
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
day
for
all
durations].
Target
MOE
is
100
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures.

Diptank
Operators
Exposures
to
diptank
operators
were
also
assessed
using
surrogate
data
from
the
DDAC
study
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999).
The
diptank
scenario
assessment
was
conducted
differently
than
for
the
other
job
functions
because
the
concentration
of
DDAC
in
the
diptank
solution
was
provided.
The
exposure
data
for
diptank
operators
wearing
gloves
were
converted
into
"
unit
exposures"
in
terms
of
mg
a.
i.
for
each
1%
of
concentration
of
the
product.
The
calculations
of
the
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposures
(
2.99
and
0.046
mg/
1%
solution,
respectively)
are
presented
in
Table
C­
2
in
Appendix
C.
The
air
concentrations
presented
in
the
DDAC
study
were
converted
to
unit
exposures
using
an
inhalation
rate
of
1.0
m3/
hr
(
light
activity)
and
sample
duration
of
8
hrs/
day.

The
following
equations
are
used
to
estimate
dermal
and
inhalation
handler
exposure:
65
Daily
Dose
=
DDAC
UE
x
AI
x
AB
BW
Where:

DDAC
UE
=
DDAC
dermal
unit
exposure
(
mg/
1%
in
solution);
AI
=
Percent
active
ingredient
in
solution
(
4.52%);
AB
=
Absorption
factor
(
43
%
for
IT/
LT
dermal
and
100%
for
all
other
durations);
and
BW
=
Body
weight
(
70
kg).

Table
6.9
provides
the
short­,
intermediate­,
and
long­
term
exposures
and
MOEs
for
diptank
operators.
All
of
the
dermal,
inhalation,
and
total
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100.

Table
6.9.
Short­,
Intermediate­,
and
Long­
Term
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Diptank
Operator
Absorbed
Daily
Dosesc
(
mg/
kg/
day)
MOEsd
(
target
MOE
=
100)

Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Exposure
Scenarioa
(
number
of
replicates))
Dermal
Unit
Exposureb
(
mg
DDAC/
1%
solution)
Inhalation
Unit
Exposureb
(
mg
DDAC/
1%
Application
Rate
(%
a.
i.
in
solution/
day)
c
ST
IT/
LT
ST/
IT/
LT
ST
IT/
LT
ST
IT/
LT
Total
IT
MOE
Occupational
Handler
Chemical
Operator
(
n=
11)
2.99
0.046
4.52
0.193
0.083
0
0.00297
520
470
34,000
13,000
450
ST
=
Short­
term
duration;
IT
=
Intermediate­
term
duration;
and
LT
=
long­
term.
a.
The
exposure
scenario
represents
a
worker
wearing
long­
sleeved
shirts,
cotton
work
trousers,
and
gloves.
Gloves
were
worn
only
when
near
chemicals,
not
when
operating
the
diptank.
b.
Dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposures
are
from
the
DDAC
study
(
MRID
455243­
04).
Refer
to
Table
A­
2
in
Appendix
A
for
the
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
calculations.
Inhalation
exposure
(
mg)
was
calculated
using
the
following
equation:
Air
concentration
(
mg/
m3)
x
Inhalation
rate
(
1.0
m3/
hr)
x
Sample
Duration
(
8
hr).
The
inhalation
rate
is
from
USEPA,
1997a.
c.
The
application
rate
is
4.52%
a.
i.
in
treatment
solution
(
formulated
product
is
applied
at
a
rate
of
22.6%
of
the
weight
of
the
wood
treated,
and
the
product
contains
20%
a.
i.)
d.
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
unit
exposure
(
mg/
1%
ai
solution)
*
percent
active
ingredient
in
solution
*
absorption
factor
(
43%
for
dermal
IT,
and
100%
for
all
other
exposures/
durations)
/
body
weight
(
70
kg).
e.
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)/
Daily
Dose
[
Where
ST
NOAEL
=
100
mg/
kg/
day
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures,
and
the
IT/
LT
NOAEL
=
39
mg/
kg/
day
for
all
durations].
Target
MOE
is
100
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures.

Construction
Workers
Not
enough
data
exists
to
estimate
the
amount
of
exposure
associated
with
66
construction
workers
who
install
treated
wood.
In
particular,
values
for
the
transfer
coefficient
associated
with
a
construction
worker
handling
the
wood
could
not
be
determined.
However,
it
is
believed
that
the
construction
worker
using
a
trim
saw
will
have
larger
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
than
the
installer,
due
to
the
amount
of
sawdust
generated
and
the
greater
amount
of
hand
contact
that
would
be
necessary
to
handle
the
wood
when
using
a
saw
compared
to
installing
the
wood.

6.5
Data
Limitations/
Uncertainties
There
are
several
data
limitations
and
uncertainties
associated
with
the
occupational
handler
and
postapplication
exposure
assessments.
These
include:

 
Surrogate
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA,
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
USEPA,
1998)
(
See
Appendix
A
for
summaries
of
these
data
sources).
Since
the
CMA
data
are
of
poor
quality,
the
Agency
requests
that
confirmatory
data
be
submitted
to
support
the
occupational
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document.
 
Although
the
data
libraries
contained
in
MCCEM
are
limited
to
residential
settings,
the
model
can
be
used
to
assess
other
indoor
environments.
For
this
assessment,
assumptions
were
made
regarding
barn
dimensions
and
air
changes
per
hour.
The
results
could
be
refined
with
actual
ventilation
rates.
Also
the
half­
life
for
the
chemical
would
useful
to
refine
the
results.
 
Currently,
no
exposure
data
are
available
to
assess
the
bystanders'
inhalation
exposure
to
OPP
vapors
in
industrial
settings.
Appropriate
air
monitoring
data
in
the
manufacturing
setting
are
needed
to
support
the
preservative
uses.
67
7.0
REFERENCES
Bestari
et
al.,
1999
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III).
(
MRID
455243­
04,
Task
force
#
73154).

Cinalli,
Christina,
et
al.
A
Laboratory
Method
to
Determine
the
Retention
of
Liquids
on
the
Surface
of
Hands.
Exposure
Evaluation
Division.
September
1992.

National
Institute
for
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
(
NIOSH):
Criteria
for
a
Recommended
Standard­
Occupational
Exposure
to
Metalworking
Fluids.
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
(
DHHS)
NIOSH
Publication
#
98­
102
(
1998).

SIMetric,
2005.
Mass,
Weight,
Density,
or
Specific
Gravity
of
Bulk
Materials.
http://
www.
simetric.
co.
uk/
si_
materials.
htm,
last
accessed
June
2005.

USEPA.
1997.
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments.
EPA
Office
of
Pesticide
ProgramsBHuman
Health
Effects
Division
(
HED).
Dated
December
18,
1997.

USEPA.
1997a.
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.
Volume
I­
II.
Office
of
Research
and
Development.
Washington,
D.
C.
EPA/
600/
P­
95/
002Fa.

USEPA
1997b.
Risk
Analysis
for
Microban
Additive
AB@
(
Triclosan
or
Irgason
DP300)
Treated
Toys
for
Infants.
Memorandum
from
Winston
Dang,
USEPA
to
Frank
Sanders
and
William
Jordan,
USEPA.
Dated
February
27,
1997.

USEPA.
1998.
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide.
Estimates
of
Worker
Exposure
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
Version
1.1.
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

USEPA.
1999.
Evaluation
of
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
Antimicrobial
Exposure
Assessment
Study.
Memorandum
from
Siroos
Mostaghimi,
Ph.
D.,
USEPA,
to
Julie
Fairfax,

USEPA.
Dated
November
4,
1999.
DP
Barcode
D247642.
(
HED=
s
Science
Advisory
council
for
Exposure
Policy
#
009.
Agricultural
Default
Daily
Acres
Treated.
April
1,
1999).

USEPA.
2000.
Residential
SOPs.
EPA
Office
of
Pesticide
ProgramsBHuman
Health
Effects
Division.
Dated
April
5,
2000.

USEPA.
2001.
HED
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure.
Policy
Update,
November
12.
Recommended
Revisions
to
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment,
February
22,
2001.

Whatman,
2005.
Whatman
Absorbent
Sinks.
http://
www.
whatman.
com/
products/?
pageID=
7.32.42,
Accessed
March
2005.
68
APPENDIX
A:
Summary
of
CMA
and
PHED
Data
69
APPENDIX
A:
Summary
of
CMA
data
and
PHED
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
Data:
In
response
to
an
EPA
Data
Call­
In
Notice,
a
study
was
undertaken
by
the
Institute
of
Agricultural
Medicine
and
Occupational
Health
of
The
University
of
Iowa
under
contract
to
the
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association.
In
order
to
meet
the
requirements
of
Subdivision
U
of
the
Pesticide
Assessment
Guidelines
(
superseded
by
Series
875.1000­
875.1600
of
the
Pesticide
Assessment
Guidelines),
handler
exposure
data
are
required
from
the
chemical
manufacturer
specifically
registering
the
antimicrobial
pesticide.
The
applicator
exposure
study
must
comply
with
the
assessment
guidelines
for
AApplicator
Exposure
Monitoring@
in
Subdivision
U
and
the
AOccupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Test
Guidelines@
in
Series
875.
For
this
purpose,
CMA
submitted
a
study
on
28
February,
1990,
entitled
"
Antimicrobial
Exposure
Assessment
Study
(
amended
on
December
8,
1992)"
which
was
conducted
by
William
Popendorf,
et
al.
It
was
evaluated
and
accepted
by
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Branch
(
OREB)
of
Health
Effect
Division
(
HED),
Office
of
Pesticides
Program
(
OPP)
of
EPA
in
1990.
The
purpose
of
this
CMA
study
was
to
characterize
exposure
to
antimicrobial
chemicals
in
order
to
support
pesticide
reregistrations
(
CMA,
1992).
The
unit
exposures
presented
in
the
most
recent
EPA
evaluation
of
the
CMA
database
(
USEPA,
1999)
were
used
in
this
assessment.

The
Agency
determined
that
the
CMA
study
had
fulfilled
the
basic
requirements
of
Subdivision
U
­
Applicator
Exposure
Monitoring.
The
advantages
of
CMA
data
over
other
Asurrogate
data
sets@
is
that
the
chemicals
and
the
job
functions
of
mixer/
loader/
applicator
were
defined
based
on
common
application
methods
used
for
antimicrobial
pesticides.
A
few
of
the
deficiencies
in
the
CMA
data
are
noted
below:

 
The
inhalation
concentrations
were
typically
below
the
detection
limits,
so
the
unit
exposures
for
the
inhalation
exposure
route
could
not
be
accurately
calculated.
 
QA/
QC
problems
including
lack
of
either/
or
field
fortification,
laboratory
recoveries,
and
storage
stability
information.
 
Data
have
an
insufficient
amount
of
replicates.

The
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(
PHED):
The
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(
PHED)
has
been
developed
by
a
Task
Force
consisting
of
representatives
from
Health
Canada,
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
and
the
American
Crop
Protection
Association
(
ACPA).
PHED
provides
generic
pesticide
worker
(
i.
e.,
mixer/
loader
and
applicator)
exposure
estimates.
The
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
estimates
generated
by
PHED
are
based
on
actual
field
monitoring
data,
which
are
reported
generically
(
i.
e.,
chemical
specific
names
not
reported)
in
PHED.
It
has
been
the
Agency=
s
policy
to
use
Asurrogate@
or
Ageneric@
exposure
data
for
pesticide
applicators
in
certain
circumstances
because
it
is
believed
that
the
physical
parameters
(
e.
g.,
packaging
type)
or
application
technique
(
e.
g.,
aerosol
can),
not
the
chemical
properties
of
the
pesticide,
attribute
to
exposure
levels.
[
Note:
Vapor
pressures
for
the
chemicals
in
PHED
are
in
the
range
of
E­
5
to
E­
7
mm
Hg.]
Chemical
specific
properties
are
accounted
for
by
correcting
the
exposure
data
for
study
specific
field
and
laboratory
recovery
values
as
specified
by
the
PHED
grading
criteria.
70
PHED
handler
exposure
data
are
generally
provided
on
a
normalized
basis
for
use
in
exposure
assessments.
The
most
common
method
for
normalizing
exposure
is
by
pounds
of
active
ingredient
(
ai)
handled
per
replicate
(
i.
e.,
exposure
in
mg
per
replicate
is
divided
by
the
amount
of
ai
handled
in
that
particular
replicate).
These
unit
exposures
are
expressed
as
mg/
lb
ai
handled.
This
normalization
method
presumes
that
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
are
linear
based
on
the
amount
of
active
ingredient
handled.
71
APPENDIX
B:
Input/
Output
from
Residential
MCCEM
Modeling
72
TITLE:
MCCEM
Postapplication
Adult
Exposure
to
Aerosol
Spray
(
Residential)
RUN
Day
Hour
Min
Length
Days
Hours
Min
Reporting
TIME
Start:
0
0
0
of
Run:
1
0
0
Interval:
15
minutes
HOUSE
Type:
Generic
house
State:
NA
Code:
GN001
Season:
SUMMER
Zones:
2
Infiltration
Rate:
0.18
ACH
EMISSIONS
Source
Zone
Type
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
1
2
3
4
SINKS
Sink
Zone
Model
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
1
2
3
4
5
6
ACTIVITIES
Primary
Activity
Pattern
is
used
on
days:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7
OVERRIDE
ACTIVITIES:
YES
DOSE
Events/
yr:
255
Yrs
of
Use:
1
Weight(
kg):
70
Length
of
Life(
yrs):
75
MONTE
CARLO:
NO
Number
of
Trials:
1
Seed
No:
Random
OPTIONS
Single
Chamber:
NO
Saturation
Concentration
(
mg/
m;):
0
Output
Concentration
Units:
mg/
m;

Initial
Concentrations
Units:
µ
g/
m;
Zone
1:
65.6
Zone
2:
0
Zone
3:
0
Zone
4:
0
Outdoors:
0
____________________________________________________________________________
RESULTS
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
LADD:
3.5593e­
06
mg/(
kg
day)
LADC:
2.1478e­
05
mg/
m;
ADD:
0.00026694
mg/(
kg
day)
ADC:
0.0016109
mg/
m;
Single
Event
Dose:
0.026765
mg
Peak
Concentration:
0.064656
mg/
m;
APDR:
0.00038235
mg/(
kg
day)
Time
when
APDR
occurred:
0.33368
days
Average
Inhalation
Rate:
11.6
m3/
day
__________________________________________________________________________
73
TITLE:
MCCEM
Postapplication
Child
Exposure
to
Aerosol
Spray
(
Residential)
NOTES:
EXECUTED
FILE:
H:\
AD\
PhenylPhenol\
OPP
MCCEM
Residential
Aerosol
Postapp
Child.
mcm
RESULTS
SAVED
IN
FILE:
H:\
AD\
PhenylPhenol\
OPP
MCCEM
Residential
Aerosol
Postapp
Child.
csv
RUN
Day
Hour
Min
Length
Days
Hours
Min
Reporting
TIME
Start:
0
0
0
of
Run:
1
0
0
Interval:
15
minutes
HOUSE
Type:
Generic
house
State:
NA
Code:
GN001
Season:
SUMMER
Zones:
2
Infiltration
Rate:
0.18
ACH
EMISSIONS
Source
Zone
Type
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
1
2
3
4
SINKS
Sink
Zone
Model
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
1
2
3
4
5
6
ACTIVITIES
Primary
Activity
Pattern
is
used
on
days:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7
OVERRIDE
ACTIVITIES:
YES
DOSE
Events/
yr:
255
Yrs
of
Use:
1
Weight(
kg):
15
Length
of
Life(
yrs):
75
MONTE
CARLO:
NO
Number
of
Trials:
1
Seed
No:
Random
OPTIONS
Single
Chamber:
NO
Saturation
Concentration
(
mg/
m;):
0
Output
Concentration
Units:
mg/
m;

Initial
Concentrations
Units:
µ
g/
m;
Zone
1:
65.6
Zone
2:
0
Zone
3:
0
Zone
4:
0
Outdoors:
0
____________________________________________________________________________
RESULTS
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
LADD:
1.2715e­
05
mg/(
kg
day)
LADC:
2.1478e­
05
mg/
m;
ADD:
0.00095364
mg/(
kg
day)
ADC:
0.0016109
mg/
m;

Single
Event
Dose:
0.020489
mg
Peak
Concentration:
0.064656
mg/
m;
APDR:
0.0013659
mg/(
kg
day)
Time
when
APDR
occurred:
0.33368
days
Average
Inhalation
Rate:
8.88
m3/
day
____________________________________________________________________________
74
TITLE:
Residential
Fogger
RUN
Day
Hour
Min
Length
Days
Hours
Min
Reporting
TIME
Start:
0
0
0
of
Run:
2
0
0
Interval:
15
minutes
HOUSE
Type:
Generic
house
State:
NA
Code:
GN001
Season:
SUMMER
Zones:
2
Infiltration
Rate:
0.18
ACH
EMISSIONS
Source
Zone
Type
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
1
2
3
4
SINKS
Sink
Zone
Model
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
1
2
3
4
5
6
ACTIVITIES
Primary
Activity
Pattern
is
used
on
days:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
OVERRIDE
ACTIVITIES:
YES
DOSE
Events/
yr:
Yrs
of
Use:
Weight(
kg):
Length
of
Life(
yrs):

MONTE
CARLO:
NO
Number
of
Trials:
1
Seed
No:
Random
OPTIONS
Single
Chamber:
YES
Saturation
Concentration
(
mg/
m;):
NONE
Output
Concentration
Units:
mg/
m;

Initial
Concentrations
Units:
g/
m;
Zone
1:
0.00611
Zone
2:
0.00611
Zone
3:
0
Zone
4:
0
Outdoors:
0
____________________________________________________________________________
75
MCCEM
Air
Concentration
Output
(.
csv)
for
the
Residential
Fogging
Scenario
Time
(
hrs)
Conc
Inside
House
(
mg/
m3)
0
6.11
0.25
5.84129
0.5
5.58439
0.75
5.33879
1
5.104
1.25
4.87953
1.5
4.66493
1.75
4.45977
2
4.26363
2.25
4.07612
2.5
3.89686
2.75
3.72548
3
3.56163
3.25
3.405
3.5
3.25525
3.75
3.11208
4
2.97522
4.25
2.84437
4.5
2.71928
4.75
2.59968
5
2.48535
5.25
2.37605
5.5
2.27155
5.75
2.17165
6
2.07614
6.25
1.98484
6.5
1.89754
6.75
1.81409
7
1.73431
7.25
1.65804
7.5
1.58512
7.75
1.5154
8
1.44876
8.25
1.38504
8.5
1.32413
8.75
1.2659
9
1.21022
9.25
1.157
9.5
1.10611
9.75
1.05747
10
1.01096
10.25
0.9665
10.5
0.923994
10.75
0.883357
11
0.844508
76
Time
(
hrs)
Conc
Inside
House
(
mg/
m3)
11.25
0.807367
11.5
0.77186
11.75
0.737914
12
0.705461
12.25
0.674435
12.5
0.644774
12.75
0.616418
13
0.589308
13.25
0.563391
13.5
0.538613
13.75
0.514925
14
0.492279
14.25
0.470629
14.5
0.449931
14.75
0.430144
15
0.411226
15.25
0.393141
15.5
0.375851
15.75
0.359321
16
0.343519
16.25
0.328411
16.5
0.313968
16.75
0.30016
17
0.286959
17.25
0.274339
17.5
0.262273
17.75
0.250739
18
0.239712
18.25
0.229169
18.5
0.219091
18.75
0.209455
19
0.200243
19.25
0.191437
19.5
0.183018
19.75
0.174969
20
0.167274
20.25
0.159917
20.5
0.152884
20.75
0.14616
21
0.139732
21.25
0.133587
21.5
0.127712
21.75
0.122095
22
0.116726
22.25
0.111592
22.5
0.106684
77
Time
(
hrs)
Conc
Inside
House
(
mg/
m3)
22.75
0.101993
23
0.097507
23.25
0.0932187
23.5
0.089119
23.75
0.0851996
24
0.0814526
24.25
0.0778704
24.5
0.0744457
24.75
0.0711716
25
0.0680416
25.25
0.0650491
25.5
0.0621883
25.75
0.0594533
26
0.0568386
26.25
0.0543389
26.5
0.0519491
26.75
0.0496644
27
0.0474802
27.25
0.0453921
27.5
0.0433958
27.75
0.0414873
28
0.0396627
78
APPENDIX
C:

Calculation
of
DDAC
Unit
Exposure
Values
79
Table
C­
1:
DDAC
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
Values
for
Chemical
Operators,
Graders,
Millwrights,
Clean­
up
Crews,
and
Trim
Saw
Operatorsa
Chemical
Operator
Grader
Trim
Saw
Operator
Millwright
Cleanup
Crew
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Replicate
Number
Potential
exposure
(
mg/
day)
Air
Concentrationb,

c
(
µ
g/
m3)
Potential
exposure
d
(
mg/
day)
Potential
exposure
(
mg/
day)
Air
Concentratio
nb,
c
(
µ
g/
m3)
Potential
exposure
d
(
mg/
day)
Potential
exposure
(
mg/
day)
Air
Concentratio
nb,
c
(
µ
g/
m3)
Potential
exposure
d
(
mg/
day)
Potential
exposure
(
mg/
day)
Air
Concentr
ationb,
c
(
µ
g/
m3)
Potential
exposure
d
(
mg/
day)
Potential
exposure
(
mg/
day)
Air
Concentr
ationb,
c
(
µ
g/
m3)
Potential
exposure
d
(
mg/
day)

1
3.5
10.4
0.0808
3.05
2.90
0.0232
0.78
2.83
0.0227
1.31
2.92
0.0233
68.3
2.99145
0.0239
2
6.11
2.80
0.0224
7.47
2.93
0.0234
1.98
12.3
0.0984
29.08
2.83
0.0226
0.720
2.78840
0.0223
3
6.07
2.79
0.0223
1.09
2.91
0.0233
8.03
15.6
0.1248
166
30.3
0.2424
4
46.37
2.82
0.0226
10.51
3.00
0.0240
95.2
412
3.2960
5
0.94
2.93
0.0235
0.61
2.82
0.0226
1.20
2.83585
0.0227
6
22.15
2.83
0.0227
0.98
2.85
0.0228
0.260
2.80989
0.0225
7
21.45
2.77
0.0222
2.63
2.91
0.0233
8
0.22
2.73
0.0218
5.23
2.85
0.0228
9
0.44
2.77
0.0222
0.19
13.20
0.1056
10
0.33
3.14
0.0251
1.47
2.89
0.0231
11
0.29
2.88
0.0230
2.38
2.85
0.0228
12
4.09
2.81
0.0225
13
1.03
2.94
0.0235
Arithmetic
Mean
9.81
3.51
0.0281
3.13
3.68
0.0295
1.38
7.57
0.061
12.8
7.12
0.057
55.3
75.6
0.60
Minimum
0.22
2.73
0.0218
0.19
2.81
0.0225
0.78
2.83
0.0227
1.31
2.83
0.0226
0.260
2.79
0.0223
Maximum
46.4
10.4
0.081
10.51
13.2
0.106
1.98
12.3
0.098
29.1
15.6
0.125
166
412
3.30
a.
"
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III)"
is
the
study
that
values
were
obtained
from
for
this
table
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999,
MRID
455243­
04).

b.
The
inhalation
LOD
was
not
provided
for
chemical
operators,
graders,
trim
saw
operators,
millwrights,
or
the
clean­
up
crew.
Therefore,
the
LOD
provided
for
the
diptank
operator
(
5.6
:
g)
was
used
for
these
positions.
Residues
less
than
the
LOD
were
adjusted
to
1/
2
LOD.

c.
The
inhalation
limit
of
detection
was
converted
to
µ
g/
m3
using
the
following
equation:
air
concentration
(
µ
g/
m3)
=
5.6
:
g/
[
average
flow
rate
(
L/
min)
*
sampling
duration
(
480
min)
*
1000
L/
m3.
Data
was
obtained
from
Bestari
et
al
(
1999).
Average
flow
rate
of
air
was
collected
from
where
that
particular
volunteer
was.

d.
DDAC
air
concentrations
were
converted
to
inhalation
exposure
(
mg/
day)
using
the
following
equation:
Air
concentration
(:
g/
m3)
x
inhalation
rate
(
1.0
m3/
hr)
x
Conversion
factor
(
1
mg/
1000
:
g)
x
sample
duration
(
8
hours/
day)
80
Table
C­
2:
Normalization
of
DDAC
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
Values
for
Diptank
Operators
a
Worker
ID
Mill
number
Sample
Time
(
min)
DDAC
Conc.
in
Diptank
(%)
Gloves
Dermal
Body
Exposureb
(
mg)
Hand
Exposureb
(
mg)
Total
Dermal
Exposure
(
mg)
Normalized
Total
Dermal
Unit
Exposurec
(
mg/
1
%
solution)
Air
Conc.
d
(
mg/
m3)
Inhalation
Exposuree
(
mg)
Normalized
Inhalation
Unit
Exposurec
(
mg
/
1%
solution)

M7P1A
7
480
0.64
Rubber
0.5
3.44
3.94
6.16
0.003
0.024
0.0375
M7P1B
7
480
0.64
Rubber
0.32
2.02
2.34
3.66
0.003
0.024
0.0375
M8P4A
8
408
0.42
Rubber
0.04
f
1.34
1.38
3.29
0.003
0.024
0.057
M8P4B
8
480
0.42
Rubber
0.04f
0.5
0.54
1.29
0.003
0.024
0.057
M8P7
8
480
0.42
Cotton
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.17
0.003
0.024
0.057
M11P9A
11
395
0.63
Leather
0.15
3.33
3.48
5.52
0.003
0.024
0.0381
M11P9B
11
480
0.63
Leather
0.1
0.45
0.55
0.87
0.003
0.024
0.0381
Arithmetic
Mean
0.17
1.59
1.76
2.99
0.0030
0.0240
0.046
Standard
Deviation
0.18
1.39
1.53
2.32
0.0000
0.0000
0.0103
Median
0.10
1.34
1.38
3.29
0.0030
0.0240
0.0381
Geometric
Mean
0.10
0.83
0.99
1.86
0.0030
0.0240
0.045
90%
tile
0.39
3.37
3.66
5.78
0.0030
0.0240
0.057
Maximum
0.50
3.44
3.94
6.16
0.0030
0.0240
0.057
a.
"
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III)"
is
the
study
that
values
were
obtained
from
for
this
table
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999,
MRID
455243­
04).

b.
DDAC
concentration
that
was
detected
in
the
monitoring
study
(
MRID
#
455243­
04).

c.
Normalization
of
DDAC
data
for
percent
ai
treatment.
Normalized
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
1%
ai
solution)
=
Exposure
(
mg
DDAC)
/
concentration
in
diptank
solution
(%

DDAC)

d.
All
inhalation
residues
were
<
LOD
(
5.6
µ
g
or
0.0056
mg/
m3).
1/
2
LOD
was
used
in
all
calculations
(
0.003
mg/
m3).
Air
Concentration
(
mg/
m3)
=
5.6
µ
g
/
(~
2
L/
min
flow
rate
x
~
480
min)
x
1000
L/
m3
conversion
x
0.001
µ
g/
mg
=
0.003
mg/
m3
e.
Inhalation
exposure
(
mg)
=
air
concentration
(
mg/
m3)
x
inhalation
rate
(
1.0
m3/
hr)
x
sample
duration
(
8
hours/
day).

f.
Residues
were
<
LOD
for
dermal
samples
M8P4A,
M8P4B.
Sample
size
of
~
11,231
cm2
x
<
0.007
µ
g/
cm2
=
LOD
of
0.079
mg.
½
LOD
reported
(
i.
e.
0.04
mg)
81
APPENDIX
D:
Input/
Output
from
Occupational
MCCEM
Modeling
82
MCCEM
SUMMARY
REPORT
TITLE:
MCCEM
Barn
Scenario
(
24­
hr
REI,
8­
hr
Exposure)
RUN
Day
Hour
Min
Length
Days
Hours
Min
Reporting
TIME
Start:
0
0
0
of
Run:
2
0
0
Interval:
15
minutes
HOUSE
Type:
Hypothetical
house
State:
NA
Code:
HY03
Season:
NA
Zones:
1
Infiltration
Rate:
0.18008
ACH
EMISSIONS
Source
Zone
Type
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
1
2
3
4
SINKS
Sink
Zone
Model
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
1
2
3
4
5
6
ACTIVITIES
Primary
Activity
Pattern
is
used
on
days:
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7
OVERRIDE
ACTIVITIES:
YES
DOSE
Events/
yr:
1
Yrs
of
Use:
50
Weight(
kg):
71.8
Length
of
Life(
yrs):
75
MONTE
CARLO:
NO
Number
of
Trials:
1
Seed
No:
Random
OPTIONS
Single
Chamber:
NO
Saturation
Concentration
(
mg/
m;):
0
Output
Concentration
Units:
mg/
m;

Initial
Concentrations
Units:
g/
m;
Zone
1:
0.177
Zone
2:
0
Zone
3:
0
Zone
4:
0
Outdoors:
0
____________________________________________________________________________
83
MCCEM
Output
for
Occupational
Foggers
­
Barn
Scenario
(
REI
=
24hrs,
TWA
=
8
hrs)

Time
(
hrs)
a
Conc
Zone
1
(
mg/
m3)
b
24
2.34926
24.25
2.24584
24.5
2.14697
24.75
2.05246
25
1.9621
25.25
1.87573
25.5
1.79315
25.75
1.71421
26
1.63875
26.25
1.5666
26.5
1.49764
26.75
1.43171
27
1.36868
27.25
1.30843
27.5
1.25083
27.75
1.19576
28
1.14312
28.25
1.0928
28.5
1.04469
28.75
0.998698
29
0.954732
29.25
0.912702
29.5
0.872522
29.75
0.834111
30
0.797391
30.25
0.762288
30.5
0.72873
30.75
0.696649
31
0.66598
31.25
0.636662
31.5
0.608634
31.75
0.58184
32
0.556226
8­
hr
TWA
c
1.25
a
Time
(
hrs)
=
Hours
after
fogging
occurs
b
Conc.
Zone
1
=
air
concentration
in
room
being
fogged
c
8­
hr
TWA
(
Time
Weighted
Average)
=
average
concentration
over
an
8­
hr
period
(
e.
g.
hours
24
through
32)
84
APPENDIX
E:
Wallpaint
Exposure
Model
(
WPEM)
Outputs
85
Air
Concentrations
for
Professional
Painters
from
WPEM
Time
(
hrs)
a
Conc@
Person
(
mg/
m3)
b
0
0
1
1.98738
2
6.14056
3
10.842
4
15.3683
5
19.4515
6
23.0419
7
26.1839
8
28.9536
9
31.4292
9­
hr
TWA
18.16
a
Time
(
hrs)
=
Hours
after
painting
activities
begin;
note
that
time
0
represents
the
time
when
the
painting
begins
b
Air
concentration
inhaled
by
painter
c
9­
hr
TWA
(
Time
Weighted
Average)
=
average
concentration
over
an
9­
hr
period
(
e.
g.
hours
1
through
9)

Air
Concentrations
for
DIY
Painter
Time
(
hrs)
a
Conc
Zone
1
(
mg/
m3)
b
Conc@
Person
(
mg/
m3)
c
0
0
0
1
0.521529
0.521529
2
1.18451
1.18451
3
1.74769
1.74769
4
1.9753
0
Max.
3­
hr
Avg
d
1.15
a
Time
(
hrs)
=
Hours
after
painting
activities
begin;
note
that
time
0
represents
the
time
when
the
painting
begins
b
Conc.
Zone
1
=
air
concentration
in
room
being
painted
c
Conc.
@
person
=
air
concentration
being
inhaled
by
the
DIY
painter
during
the
painting
activities
d
The
model
assumes
that
it
takes
a
DIY
painter
approximately
3
hours
to
paint
one
room.
Therefore,
the
maximum
3­
hr
average
(
e.
g.,
hrs
1,
2,
and
3)
of
conc@
person
was
used
in
the
exposure
assessment
86
Air
Concentrations
for
Residential
Child
Exposure
(
24­
hr
Exposure)

Time
(
hrs)
a
Conc
Outdoors
(
mg/
m;)
Conc
Zone
1
(
mg/
m;)
b
Conc
Zone
2
(
mg/
m;)
c
Conc@
Person
(
mg/
m;)
d
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.66E­
59
1.34333
0.111125
0.111125
2
1.09E­
58
3.05102
0.465527
0.465527
3
3.08E­
58
4.50163
0.920322
0.920322
4
6.15E­
58
5.70673
1.37936
6.15E­
58
5
1.01E­
57
5.34545
1.68663
1.68663
6
1.41E­
57
4.50329
1.70397
1.70397
7
1.79E­
57
3.8085
1.57669
1.57669
8
2.12E­
57
3.27633
1.40645
1.40645
9
2.42E­
57
2.87919
1.24103
1.24103
10
2.68E­
57
2.58719
1.09896
1.09896
11
2.92E­
57
2.37415
0.984513
2.37415
12
3.13E­
57
2.21896
0.895679
2.21896
13
3.33E­
57
2.1054
0.828198
2.1054
14
3.51E­
57
2.02137
0.777492
2.02137
15
3.69E­
57
1.95807
0.739473
1.95807
16
3.85E­
57
1.9092
0.710801
1.9092
17
4.02E­
57
1.87033
0.688885
1.87033
18
4.17E­
57
1.83834
0.671786
1.83834
19
4.33E­
57
1.81109
0.658084
1.81109
20
4.48E­
57
1.78711
0.646763
1.78711
21
4.63E­
57
1.76538
0.637102
1.76538
22
4.78E­
57
1.74522
0.628597
0.628597
23
4.93E­
57
1.72617
0.620897
4.93E­
57
24
5.07E­
57
1.70791
0.613763
5.07E­
57
24­
hr
TWA
1.35
a
Time
(
hrs)
=
Hours
after
painting
activities
begin;
note
that
time
0
represents
the
time
when
the
painting
begins
b
Conc.
Zone
1
=
air
concentration
in
room
being
painted
c
Conc.
Zone
2=
air
concentration
in
room
not
being
painted
d
Conc.
@
person
=
air
concentration
being
inhaled
by
the
child
due
to
being
in
the
vicinity
of
the
freshly
painted
room.
Based
on
activity
patterns,
WPEM
assumes
that
the
child
may
be
in
zone
1,
zone
2
or
outdoors.
87
Air
Concentrations
for
Residential
Adult
Exposure
(
24­
hr
Exposure)

Time
(
hrs)
a
Conc
Outdoors
(
mg/
m;)
Conc
Zone
1
(
mg/
m;)
b
Conc
Zone
2
(
mg/
m;)
c
Conc@
Person
(
mg/
m;)
d
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.66E­
59
1.34333
0.111125
0.111125
2
1.09E­
58
3.05102
0.465527
0.465527
3
3.08E­
58
4.50163
0.920322
0.920322
4
6.15E­
58
5.70673
1.37936
6.15E­
58
5
1.01E­
57
5.34545
1.68663
1.01E­
57
6
1.41E­
57
4.50329
1.70397
1.41E­
57
7
1.79E­
57
3.8085
1.57669
1.79E­
57
8
2.12E­
57
3.27633
1.40645
1.40645
9
2.42E­
57
2.87919
1.24103
1.24103
10
2.68E­
57
2.58719
1.09896
1.09896
11
2.92E­
57
2.37415
0.984513
0.984513
12
3.13E­
57
2.21896
0.895679
0.895679
13
3.33E­
57
2.1054
0.828198
0.828198
14
3.51E­
57
2.02137
0.777492
2.02137
15
3.69E­
57
1.95807
0.739473
1.95807
16
3.85E­
57
1.9092
0.710801
1.9092
17
4.02E­
57
1.87033
0.688885
1.87033
18
4.17E­
57
1.83834
0.671786
1.83834
19
4.33E­
57
1.81109
0.658084
1.81109
20
4.48E­
57
1.78711
0.646763
1.78711
21
4.63E­
57
1.76538
0.637102
1.76538
22
4.78E­
57
1.74522
0.628597
0.628597
23
4.93E­
57
1.72617
0.620897
4.93E­
57
24
5.07E­
57
1.70791
0.613763
5.07E­
57
24­
hr
TWA
0.98
a
Time
(
hrs)
=
Hours
after
painting
activities
begin;
note
that
time
0
represents
the
time
when
the
painting
begins
b
Conc.
Zone
1
=
air
concentration
in
room
being
painted
c
Conc.
Zone
2=
air
concentration
in
room
not
being
painted
d
Conc.
@
person
=
air
concentration
being
inhaled
by
the
adult
bystander
due
to
being
in
the
vicinity
of
the
freshly
painted
room.
Based
on
activity
patterns,
WPEM
assumes
that
the
child
may
be
in
zone
1,
zone
2
or
outdoors.
