UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460      

	OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

 AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

	

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

Date:	March 11, 2011

SUBJECT:	Review of Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) Open
Cab Airblast Applicator Exposure Monitoring Studies:  AHE62, AHE63,
AHE64

 

PC Code:  --	DP Barcode:  D387287

Decision No.: --	Registration No.: --

Petition No.: --	Regulatory Action: -- 

Risk Assessment Type:  -- 	Case No.: --

TXR No.: --	CAS No.: --

MRID No.: 48289611, 48289612, 48289613 	40 CFR: --

		              									Ver.Apr.08

	          	

FROM:	Matthew Crowley, Biologist

		Chemistry and Exposure Branch

Health Effects Division  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 		

THROUGH:	David J. Miller, Chief

		Chemistry and Exposure Branch

		Health Effects Division

TO:		Richard Dumas		  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 

		Pesticide Registration Division			  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1 

	

This memorandum presents the Health Effects Division’s primary reviews
of the analytical and field phase reports for the following Agricultural
Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) open cab airblast applicator
studies:  AHE62, AHE63, and AHE64.  Details of a previously reviewed
open cab airblast study (Smith, L., 2004; EPA Review: Dawson, J., 2006,
D316628) is included as well, since these four studies will comprise a
complete dataset.  The open cab airblast applicator scenario monograph
(AHETF, 2010; MRID 48326701) – incorporating these 4 studies into a
single dataset and providing statistical analysis for benchmark
analytical objectives – is reviewed separately (Crowley, 2011;
D387287).

These studies meet EPA standards for occupational pesticide exposure
monitoring and are considered acceptable and appropriate for use in
occupational exposure assessments for open cab airblast applicators.

1.0	Executive Summary

The Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) monitored exposure
for 28 workers applying liquid spray pesticides using open cab airblast
equipment.  Four separate field studies, summarized in   REF
_Ref280797691 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 1  below, were conducted, each
monitoring different workers while spraying tree or trellis crops in 5
different states in the U.S where open cab airblast equipment is
commonly used in production agriculture.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 . Study Summary

Study ID	State	Crop	No. Monitored Workers	Gender	Ages

AHE07	GA	peach	5	Male	49-56

	ID	apple & pear	6	Male	40-61

	FL	orange	4	Male	33-72

AHE62	CA	grape	3	Male	43-79

AHE63	NY	grape	5	Male	28-66

AHE64	OK	pecan	5	Male	47-59



Monitored on actual days of work, participants handled from 5 to 90 lbs
of active ingredient (carbaryl or malathion), spraying 3 to 30 acres in
1.4 to 10.6 hours.  Dermal exposure was measured using hand washes,
face/neck wipes, whole body dosimeters (100% cotton union suits) for the
remainder of the body (torso, arms, and legs), and gauze patches on the
inside and outside of chemical-resistant (CR) hats for exposure to the
head.  Inhalation exposure was measured using personal air sampling
pumps and OSHA Versatile Samplers (OVS) mounted on the shirt collar. 
Results represent dermal exposure with and without chemical-resistant
hats while wearing a long-sleeved shirt, pants, shoes/socks, and
chemical-resistant gloves, and inhalation exposure without respiratory
protection.

All studies followed the applicable and most up-to-date AHETF standard
operating procedures (SOPs) and their corresponding protocols with
deviations appropriately recorded with none considered to have
compromised the overall research.  Field and laboratory fortification
samples were acceptable, generally averaging between 70 and 120%
recovery, with no systematic deviations.  All field samples were
appropriately adjusted for the corresponding recovery adjustment
factors.  

  REF _Ref286151775 \h  Table 2  below summarizes the results,
presenting the full range and a simple average of dermal exposure with
and without chemical-resistant hats and inhalation exposure without
respiratory protection.

	Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 .  AHETF Open Cab Airblast Exposure Data
Summary

	Dermal Exposure	Inhalation Exposure

	with CR Hats	w/o CR Hats

	Statistic	μg	μg/kg	μg/lb ai	μg	μg/kg	μg/lb ai	μg	μg/kg	μg/lb
ai

Minimum	60.3	0.66	4	69.8	0.81	3.8	0.294	0.003	0.00026

Maximum	80702	877	3202	233089	2534	9355	529	5.34	7.13

Average	7511	86.7	281	35930	425	1227	61.0	0.72	1.71

Note:  For dermal exposure for workers wearing chemical-resistant hats,
the average contribution of hand rinse and face/neck wipe residues to
the total dermal exposure was approximately 30%.  Per Agency policy,
this triggers a 2X adjustment on hand rinse and face/neck wipe
measurements to account for assumed residue collection method
inefficiencies.  No adjustment was used for dermal exposure values for
workers without chemical-resistant hats, as the contribution to total
dermal exposure averaged 7%.  See Section 3.3.



Summary of Field Study Characteristics

This section provides summary characteristics of the five open-cab
airblast exposure studies.  Attached supplemental tables (Tables S1-8)
containing supporting details are cited in each subsection.

Administrative Summary (Table S – 1)

All studies were sponsored by the AHETF and followed both the
study-specific protocols and the AHETF Governing Document (AHETF,
2008-a).  Additionally, they were in substantial compliance with Good
Laboratory Practice Standards (GLPS) (40 CFR §160) and met EPA Test
Guidelines in Series 875 – Occupational and Residential Exposure
(875.1100 – dermal exposure; 875.1300 – inhalation exposure). 
Signed copies of acceptable Quality Assurance and Data Confidentiality
statements were provided for each study.

Test Materials (Table S – 2)

All studies used liquid formulation pesticides containing carbaryl or
malathion.

Sample Size, Monitored Workers, and Locations (Table S – 3)

According to the AHETF Governing Document (AHETF, 2008-a) and the Open
Cab Airblast Scenario Construction Plan (AHETF, 2008-b), an additional
15 monitored workers (in a “5 workers x 3 site” configuration)
combined with the 15 existing monitored workers from AHE07 were
considered adequate to complete the open cab airblast application
exposure scenario.  That is, a total of 30 “monitoring units” (MU),
obtained via monitoring exposure from 6 spatially distinct study
locations across the U.S. would likely to satisfy pre-defined accuracy
benchmarks.  However, due to recruitment problems in AHE62 (CA-grape)
– where only 3 workers were able to be monitored – the total sample
was 28 workers.  The locations and crops monitored were:  Georgia pecans
(6 workers), Idaho apples and pears (5 workers), Florida oranges (4
workers), New York grapes (5 workers), California grapes (3 workers),
and Oklahoma pecans (5 workers).

While AHE07 (GA-pecan, ID-apple/pear, and FL-orange) actually monitored
a total of 25 workers, only 15 were selected to populate the open cab
airblast scenario because 10 workers wore chemical-resistant hooded
jackets – a PPE-level (i.e., a second protective layer provided by the
jacket) the AHETF considered outside the definition of the open cab
airblast scenario.

Environmental Conditions (Table S – 4)

Temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, and
rainfall were all reported.  The maximum reported temperature was 87° F
(AHE62 – CA-grape) and the lowest reported temperature was 33° F
(AHE07 – ID-apple/pear).  Heat index values were not directly reported
in the study report, but provided separately to the Agency.  The maximum
reported heat index value was 95° F (AHE62 – CA-grape).  In no case
did the heat index exceed the pre-defined threshold of concern for
potential heat-related injury.  No significant rainfall was reported.

Clothing and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (Table S – 5)

Per the stated goals of the AHETF, monitoring of open cab airblast
applicators was conducted to represent exposure for workers wearing
long-sleeve shirts, pants, shoes/socks, chemical-resistant gloves, with
or without chemical-resistant hats, and no respiratory protection.  So
long as the work clothing met the standards of the EPA Worker Protection
Standard (WPS), monitoring was conducted with the clothing worn by the
worker on the scheduled monitoring day.  In two instances – MU 3 and
MU 12 in study AHE07 (ID-apple/pear) – the AHETF supplied replacement
garments.  Per protocol, new chemical-resistant gloves were supplied by
the AHETF to all workers at the beginning of the day and were available
throughout the day according to WPS requirements.  Additionally, some
workers, of their own accord, wore protective eyewear, and others wore
half-face respirators.  In these cases, the exposure measurements were
adjusted (according to AHETF SOP 9.K) to extrapolate deposited residue
to those portions of the face/head covered by the eyewear or the
respirator (see Section 3.3.3).

Application Characteristics (Table S – 6)

For these studies, only the airblast application activity was monitored
– monitoring was not conducted for those workers responsible for
mixing and loading the pesticide.  The applications were made by trucks
or tractors with open cabs hauling airblast sprayers.  Rigs were
inspected by the study director to ensure compliance with EPA WPS
requirements.  Application characteristics including crop height and row
spacing, truck/tractor and airblast sprayer brands and models, nozzle
characteristics, and driving speed are also reported in Table S-6.

  

Application Rates (Table S – 7)

Per the AHETF Governing Document (AHETF, 2008-a) and the OCAB Scenario
Construction Plan (AHETF, 2008-b), the total amount of active ingredient
applied should be diversified across the scenario and within each study
to provide adequate analytical power for certain statistical procedures.
 Specifically, amounts of active ingredient handled within a study
should be separated logarithmically for each MU and span at least an
order of magnitude.  Because AHE07 was completed before initiation of
this sampling strategy modification, the span of amounts of active
ingredient handled does not meet this standard.  Table 3 below presents
the amount handled for each worker (total amount handled ranged from 5
to 90 lb active ingredient).  For AHE62, 63, and 64, which were subject
to this strategy, the amount handled was slightly out of the range in
three instances (indicated by italics).

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3 .  Summary of Amount Handled (lbs ai)

Desired Stratum of Amount Handled (lbs ai)	Actual Amount Handled (lbs
ai) & MU ID (#)

	AHE07	AHE62

(CA-grape)	AHE63

(NY-grape)	AHE64

(OK-pecan)

	(GA-peach)	(ID-apple/pear)	(FL-orange)



	5-9	--	--	--	5 (A2)	6.1 (A5)	10.1 (A2)

10-17	--	--	--	10.4 (A3)	15.2 (A4)	18.2 (A5)

18-30	24 (15)	--	--	--	24.4 (A3)	25.2 (A4)

31-55	45 (3)

52 (8)	32 (10)

33 (12)

34 (17)

36 (13)

40 (16)	--	34.3 (A1)	35.6 (A2)	35.3 (A3)

56-100	60 (6)

75 (1)

75 (4)	--	60 (22)

90 (23)

90 (26)

90 (27)	--	48.4 (A1)	63.1 (A1)



In order to help achieve the range of amount of active ingredient
handled as well as to avoid non-detectable exposures, the study design
called for workers to apply at least 3 tank loads and/or work for at
least 4 hours per day.  In a few cases, work days were less than 4 hours
(monitoring durations ranged from 1.4-10.6 hours); however these
instances did not result in failure to capture the desired amount of
active ingredient handled or non-detectable exposures.

Exposure Monitoring and Analytical Methods (Table S – 8)

Passive dosimetry methods were utilized for all monitoring – no
biomonitoring samples were collected.  Dermal exposure to the hands was
measured using a hand rinse method administered at the end of the
workday as well as at lunch, restroom breaks, or other instances where
workers would otherwise wash their hands as outlined in AHETF SOP 8.B. 
Dermal exposure to the face/neck was measured using a wipe technique as
outlined in AHETF SOP 8.C and extrapolated to non-wiped portions of the
head (i.e., those parts covered by goggles or a respirator or covered by
hair) according to AHETF SOP 9.K.  Exposure to the head inside and
outside of chemical-resistant hats was measured using 50 and 100 cm2
gauze patches, respectively, which were then used to extrapolate to the
whole head based on the surface area of the patch and the surface area
of the head.  Dermal exposure to the remainder of the body (torso, arms,
legs) was measured using whole body dosimeters (100% cotton union
suits), analyzed as 6 separate sections:  upper arm, lower arm, front
torso, rear torso, upper leg and lower leg, per according to AHETF SOP
8.A.  Additionally, in AHE07, exposure to the feet was measured using
cotton socks; however this method was not utilized in AHE62-64 due to
the relatively small contribution to exposure seen in AHE07.  All these
measurements combine to reflect dermal exposure underneath a single
layer of work clothing (long-sleeve shirt, pants, shoes/socks),
chemical-resistant gloves, and with or without a chemical-resistant hat.
 Inhalation exposure was measured using OVS tubes mounted on the
worker’s collar and personal sampling pumps (set at 2 liters per
minute) according to AHETF SOP 8.D.  The concentrations measured
represent the chemical available in each worker’s breathing zone.

Validated analytical methods specific to each type of monitoring matrix
were used to extract residues followed by quantification with gas
chromatography (GC) employing flame photometric detection in phosphorous
mode (FPD/P).  Modifications to analytical methods are outlined in the
submitted analytical reports.  Limits of quantification and detection
(as defined in AHETF SOP 9.A) are presented in   REF _Ref280797945 \h 
\* MERGEFORMAT  Table 4  below.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  4 .  Analytical Limits (ug/sample) for
AHE07 and AHE62-64

Monitoring Matrix	Limit of Detection	Limit of Quantification

	Carbaryl	Malathion	Carbaryl	Malathion

Inner Dosimeter	AHE07	--	NA	0.25	NA

	AHE62-64	0.3	0.3	1.0	1.0

Hand Rinse	AHE07	--	NA	1.0	NA

	AHE62-64	0.3	0.3	1.0	1.0

Face/Neck Wipe	AHE07	--	NA	1.0	NA

	AHE62-64	0.3	0.3	1.0	1.0

Socks (AHE07 only)	--	NA	0.25	NA

Head patches	AHE07	--	NA	0.25	NA

	AHE62-64	0.075	0.075	0.25	0.25

OVS air sampler	AHE07	GA & ID	--	NA	0.01	NA



FL	--	NA	0.05	NA

	AHE62-64	0.0015	0.0015	0.005	0.005

Note:  no LOD was derived in AHE07 for any matrix.

NA = not applicable, chemical not used.



Results

This section provides a discussion of quality assurance and quality
control sampling and the actual field monitoring measurements of
workers.  Corresponding supplemental tables providing additional detail
are identified.

Quality Assurance

All phases of each study were subject to appropriate quality assurance
processes according to EPA’s GLPs and inspected/audited by the AHETF
Quality Assurance Unit (QAU) per AHETF SOPs (AHETF SOP Chapter 5:  A-K).
 The inspected phases were:  Protocol, Field Phase, Field Data, Draft
Report, Analytical Data, Final Report, and Post-Audit Report.  Each
study contains a signed quality assurance compliance statement as
required by GLPs.  Protocol amendments or deviations were addressed
appropriately under GLP guidance and are described further in Section
4.0.

Quality Control

AHETF instituted various quality control measures to ensure proper field
conduct including calibration of sprayers, preparation and handling of
exposure measurement matrices, evaluation of test material, and field
observations (AHETF SOP Chapter 10:  A-G).  Analytical quality control
measures for ensuring the integrity of measurements captured in the
research were also instituted according to AHETF SOP 9.J.  Exposure
monitoring matrices (inner whole body dosimeters, hand washes, face/neck
wipes, OVS tubes) were fortified with known amounts of active ingredient
to assess their stability during field, transit, and storage conditions
according to AHETF SOP 8.E.  Laboratory control samples were also
fortified at the level of quantification and at levels capturing the
range of expected field exposures for each matrix.  Generally, field
fortification samples were collected in triplicate at each of 3 levels
(high, middle, and low) on each sampling day.  Travel fortifications
were generally conducted on each day of sampling in duplicate at the
high fortification level only.  Untreated control samples were generally
conducted in duplicate on each day of sampling.  Deviations from this
general sampling protocol are specified in the sub-sections below.

The following sections provide results for all quality control sampling
across all exposure measurement matrices for all chemicals used.  The
identified supplemental tables should be referenced for
chemical-specific results.

Control Samples (Table S – 9)

As expected, most non-fortified (blank) laboratory and field control
samples were below the LOQ.  For AHE62-64, in no instance was an
untreated laboratory control found to contain residues.  However, for
AHE07, residues were detected in untreated laboratory control samples
for 5 of 25 inner dosimeter samples, all (9 of 9) OVS samples, and 1 of
9 sock samples.  Potential reasons for these findings were not
addressed, nor were any corrections made to samples based on these
results.

For control samples in the fields, most had non-detectable residues, as
would be expected.  However, particularly for the OVS air sampler field
controls, there were some found to have detectable residues.  No summary
of these results was provided in the study report. Detected residues in
field control samples is a potentially notable finding, since they may
impact field fortification recovery estimates, which in turn could alter
actual field sample measurements.  Despite the findings in these
studies, no action is deemed necessary because only trace amounts were
found (most samples were below the LOQ, with some only slightly above
the LOQ) which do not significantly impact the results.  However, for
future AHETF studies, residues found in field control or laboratory
control samples should be systematically summarized and reasons for
accounting for them (or not) should be described in the study reports.

Laboratory Fortification Recoveries (Table S – 10)

Along with one untreated control, two fortified samples served as
additional laboratory recovery samples – one at the LOQ and the other
at a level designated to encompass the range of anticipated residues. 
Average recoveries for each sampling media were > 90% thus no
corrections were made to the field sampling measurements based on this
aspect of the analytical process.

Field Fortification Recoveries

Field fortification sampling matrices are spiked with known amounts of
chemical, then placed in the exposure monitoring area under similar
conditions as those in which the actual sampling matrices used on the
workers are handled (including drawing air through OVS samplers). 
Additional samples are fortified to assess degradation of the sample
during transit from the field to the lab, but, per AHETF protocol, only
analyzed if anomalous field fortification recoveries indicate potential
degradation during transport.  No storage or transport fortification
samples were analyzed.

Field fortifications are conducted at 3 levels (except for the inner and
outer head patches which are fortified at 2 levels) to capture the
expected range of results, with triplicate samples taken on each day at
each fortification level.  Once analyzed, the average recovery results
(expressed as a percentage of known amount applied) are used as
multipliers to adjust, or correct, all measured field samples.  As the
fortification samples are conducted at levels to capture the range of
expected field sample results, adjustments are done using the average
percent recovery for the fortification level closest to the measured
field sample.  The mid-point between each fortification level is used as
the threshold in determining the average recovery percentage to adjust
the field sample.

With few exceptions, field fortification averages for each fortification
level and each monitoring matrix were in the range of 70-120%.  A
summary of field fortification results for each matrix is provided below
in Sections 3.2.3.1 – 3.2.3.4.

Inner Dosimeters (Table S – 11a and Table S – 11b)

Most results for inner whole body dosimeter (WBD) field fortification
samples were acceptable, with recoveries ranging from 75% to 110%. 
Unusually low recoveries were observed at the 5 ug fortification level
on the first day of sampling in AHE62 (43%, 37% and 32%).  Additionally,
fortification samples on the first day of sampling in AHE63 were not
used to calculate average recoveries as abnormally high and low
recoveries were observed at all fortification levels.

Face/Neck Wipes (Table S – 12a and Table S – 12b)

Results for face/neck wipe field fortification samples were acceptable,
with average recoveries ranging from approximately 84.7% to 106%.

Hand Washes (Table S – 13a and Table S – 13b)

Results for hand wash field fortification samples were acceptable, with
average recoveries ranging from 93.3% to 113%.

OVS Air Samplers (Table S – 14a and Table S – 14b)

The results for OVS field fortification samples were acceptable, with
average recoveries ranging from approximately 99% to 122%.  Unusually
high recovery results were observed at fortification levels on the
second day of sampling in AHE62 (low level:  2014%, 570%, and 1103%;
mid-level:  195%, 171%, 192% – contamination suspected) and the
results were not used in calculating average recoveries.  Additionally,
per AHETF standard procedures, samples for the highest fortification
level (1000 ug) went unanalyzed as no OVS air sample in the field
exceeded 100 ug.

Head Patches

Outer Patches (Table S – 15)

The results for outer head patch samples were acceptable, with average
recoveries ranging from approximately 54% to 122%.  Abnormally low
recoveries were observed at the 5 ug fortification level on the second
day of sampling in AHE63 (54.8%, 59.5%, and 61.6%).

Inner Patches (Table S – 16a and Table S – 16b)

The results for outer head patch samples were acceptable, with average
recoveries ranging from approximately 52.4% to 109%, though abnormally
low recoveries (< 70%) were observed for most of the samples in AHE63.

Socks (Table S – 17)

The results for field fortification of sock matrices (in AHE07 only)
samples were acceptable, with average recoveries ranging from
approximately 69% to 93%.  Some abnormally low results were observed at
the low fortification level (5 ug):  the third through the sixth
sampling day ranged from 48%-71%.

Field Measurements

The following sections summarize the exposure monitoring results,
conducted as described in Section 2.8.  All measurements were
appropriately adjusted for field fortification recoveries.  Face/neck
wipe measurements reflect extrapolation to un-wiped portions of the face
covered by protective eyewear or a respirator according to AHETF SOP
9.K.  For samples below the LOQ or LOD, ½ LOQ or ½ LOD was used.

Additionally, in order to account for potential residue collection
method inefficiencies per EPA policy, the AHETF has made adjustments to
hand and face/neck field study measurements as follows:

if measured exposures from hands, face and neck contribute less than 20%
as an average across all workers, no action is required;

if measured exposure contribution from hands and face/neck represents
between 20% and 60% of total, the measurements shall be adjusted upward
by 50%, or submission of a validation study to support the residue
collection method

if measured exposure contribution from hands and face/neck represents is
greater than 60%, a validation study demonstrating the efficiency of the
residue collection methods is required.

 

Inner Dosimeters (Table S – 18a, Table S – 18b, and Table S – 18c)

Inner whole body dosimeters were sectioned and analyzed separately in
six sections.  Out of a total of 158 inner dosimeter sample sections,
only 5 were below the LOQ or LOD (all 5 were from AHE64).  After
adjusting for field fortification recoveries (see Section 3.2.3.1), the
ranges for each body part were as follows:

Lower arms:  2.0 – 5631 µg

Upper arms:  0.5 – 2888 µg

Front torso:  0.5 – 3559 µg

Rear torso:  0.5 – 5492 µg

Lower leg:  0.5 – 7080 µg

Upper leg:  0.5 – 50638 µg  

Head Patches (Table S – 19)

Gauze patches were placed inside and outside chemical-resistant hats to
evaluate exposure to the head with the hats.  Out of a total of 28 inner
head patch values, 6 were below the LOQ or LOD.  All outer head patches
contained quantifiable residues.  After adjusting for field
fortification recoveries (see Section 3.2.3.5), the ranges for each body
part were as follows:

Outer head patches:  0.73 – 13,080 µg

Inner head patches:  0.04 – 58.1 µg  

Face/Neck Wipes (Table S – 20)

Because some workers wore protective eyewear or a respirator,
extrapolations from those portions of the face/neck that are wiped need
to be made to portions of the head that are not measured.  Specifics on
these adjustment factors can be found in AHETF SOP 9.K.  Additionally,
to account for potential inefficiencies in residue collection by the
wipe technique, the measurements are further adjusted by a factor of 2
(i.e., assuming 50% inefficiency).

After adjusting for field fortification recoveries (see Section 3.2.3.2)
and extrapolating to non-wiped portions of the head described above,
face/neck exposure ranged from 3.3 – 3417 µg.  Including adjustments
for potential method collection inefficiencies (i.e., doubling the
measurements), total head exposure ranged from 6.6 – 6834 µg.  All
face/neck wipe field samples had quantifiable residues.

Hand Washes (Table S – 21)

Per protocol, hand washes were collected at the end of each work day and
during restroom or lunch breaks.  Only two hand washes were collected
from each worker in AHE62-64, while in AHE07 two workers had 4 washes
and another 4 workers had 3 washes.  As for the face/neck wipe
measurements, the hand wash measurements were also increased by a factor
of 2 to reflect potential inefficiencies in the collection method.

After adjusting for field fortification recoveries (see Section 3.2.3.3)
and summing each hand wash, the total hand exposure ranged from 0.5 –
4146 µg.  Including adjustments for potential method collection
inefficiencies, total hand exposure ranged from 1.0 – 8292 µg (i.e.,
doubling the measurements).  Out of a total of 54 hand wash samples,
only 1 was below the LOQ or LOD.

Socks (Table S – 22)

In AHE07, the AHETF used sock dosimeters to measure exposure to
workers’ feet.  After adjusting for field fortification recoveries
(see Section 3.2.3.6), feet exposure ranged from 0.39 – 108 µg.  All
sock samples had quantifiable residues.  Because it was found that in
AHE07 feet exposure contributed less 1% to the total dermal exposure for
all workers, the AHETF did not monitor exposure to the feet in AHE62-64.


OVS Air Samplers (Table S – 25)

Front and back sections of the OVS tube were analyzed separately for
AHE62-64, with all but one back section sample was less than the LOQ or
LOD and all front section samples having quantifiable residues.  After
adjusting for field fortification recoveries (see Section 3.2.3.4) the
total (front section + back section) collected chemical amounts ranged
from 0.07 – 28.7 µg.

Exposure Calculations (Tables S – 23 to S – 26)

This section provides total exposures (expressed as mass active
ingredient), as well as exposures normalized to (i.e., dividing by) body
weight and amount of active ingredient handled (AaiH).

Dermal Exposures

Total dermal exposure is calculated by summing the results for inner
dosimeters, hand washes, face/neck wipes, and head patches.  Note that
both the face/neck wipes and head patches are extrapolated using surface
area adjustments to non-measured portions of the head.  Additionally,
the inner and outer head patches provide the ability to express dermal
exposures for workers with and without chemical resistant hats.

As outlined in Table S-6, six of the 28 monitored workers used an open
cab vehicle that also had a canopy or roof.  Figure 1 below presents
dermal unit exposures without CR hats for each study and indicates the 6
monitored workers that used an open cab vehicle with a canopy.  It does
not appear that the presence of a canopy above the workers offers any
additional dermal protection.  Thus, no differentiation with respect to
using the data needs to be made.  This was first addressed in the study
review for AHE07 (D316628) and can be referenced for additional detail.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  1 :  Dermal Unit Exposures (ug/lb ai) w/o
CR Hats - Effect of Canopies on Open Cab Vehicles

Dermal exposures with chemical-resistant hats ranged from 60.3 –
80,702 μg.  Normalized to each worker’s body weight, dermal exposures
ranged from 0.66 – 877 µg/kg.  Normalized by the amount of active
ingredient handled, dermal “unit exposures” ranged from 4 – 3,202
µg/lb ai.

Dermal exposures without chemical-resistant hats ranged from 69.8 –
233,089 μg.  Normalized to each worker’s body weight, dermal
exposures ranged from 0.81 – 2,534 µg/kg.  Normalized by the amount
of active ingredient handled, dermal “unit exposures” ranged from
3.8 – 9,355 µg/lb ai.

Inhalation Exposures

To calculate worker inhalation exposure – specifically, “breathing
zone” exposure – the measured amounts are adjusted based on the pump
flow rate (in liters per minute) and a typical worker’s breathing rate
for this type of activity.  For these studies a breathing rate of 8.3
liters per minute was used, representing sedentary activities, like
driving a tractor (NAFTA, 1998).  The calculation is as follows:

Inhalation exposure = Adjusted residue (µg) * [Breathing rate (LPM) ÷
Pump flow rate (LPM)]

Calculated inhalation exposures ranged from 0.294 – 529 µg. 
Normalized to the worker’s body weight, inhalation exposures ranged
from 0.003 – 5.34 µg/kg.  Normalized by the amount of active
ingredient handled, inhalation unit exposures ranged from 0.00026 –
7.13 µg/lb ai.

Worker ID A5 in study AHE64 (OK-pecan) has significantly less exposure
than the other workers in AHE64 as well as the workers in the other open
cab airblast studies.  Consideration should be given during further
analysis of this data whether it should be treated as an outlier and
potentially excluded from the data.

Field Observations

For all studies, observers were employed to monitor each worker and
record their behavior throughout the work day.  Much of the observations
detailed application procedures (e.g., AHE62 MU A3 @ 1101:  “Sprays
between final two rows on East end of lower block, 3-point turn to come
down end row with left side only spraying.”), while others indicated
potential impacts on exposure such as spray drift (e.g., AHE63 MUA4 @
1130:  “Spray appears to slightly drift back towards the tractor). 
Field observations should be considered when analyzing this data.

Protocol Amendments and Deviations (Table S – 27)

Field and analytical phase deviations were minor.  Reported field phase
deviations included errors in measuring field fortification recovery
levels and slight deviations from specified ranges of amount of active
ingredient handled and monitoring time requirements.  Analytical phase
deviations included instances analytical method modifications and
failure to verify field fortification concentrations.  No protocol
amendments or deviations were considered to adversely affect the results
of exposure monitoring or compromise the overall research.

Conclusion

As the studies followed their corresponding protocols as well as EPA
guidelines for occupational pesticide exposure monitoring, the results
are considered useful for assessment of exposure and risk for open cab
airblast applicators.  Since these were collected with the intention to
populate a generic pesticide exposure database, reviewers are directed
to the additional information and statistical analyses in the AHETF Open
Cab Airblast Scenario Monograph (AHETF, 2010; MRID 48326701) and
recommendations for use of the data in its corresponding HED review
(Crowley, 2011; D387287).

References

AHETF, (2008-a).  Volume IV AHETF Revised Governing Document for a
Multi-Year Pesticide Handler Worker Exposure Monitoring Program. 
Version Number:  1.  April 7, 2008.  Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task
Force (AHETF). [MRID 47172401]

AHETF, (2008-b).  Monitoring Unit Selection and Construction Plan for
Scenario:  Airblast Application of Liquids Sprays to Crops Using Open
Cab Equipment.  July 21, 2008.  Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task
Force (AHETF).

AHETF, (2010).  Agricultural Handler Exposure Scenario Monograph:  Open
Cab Airblast Application of Liquid Sprays.  Report Number AHE1006. 
December 14, 2010.  [MRID 48326701]

Bruce, E. (2010-a).  Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Workers During Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Open Cab
Equipment in California Trellis Crops.  Study Number AHE62.  Unpublished
study prepared by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force.  283 p.
 November 3, 2010.  MRID 48289611.

Crowley, M., 2011.  Memorandum:  Review of Agricultural Handler Exposure
Task Force (AHETF) Monograph:  Open Cab Airblast Application of Liquid
Sprays.  D387287.  March 11, 2011.

Dawson, J., 2006.  Memorandom:  Carbaryl:  Data Evaluation Record For
MRID 464482-01; Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Workers during Application of a Liquid Pesticide Product by Open Cab
Airblast Application to Orchard Crops; PC Code 056801; DP Barcode
316628.

NAFTA - Dept. of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), California EPA, HSM-98014,
April 24, 1998.

Smith, L. (2010-a).  Amended Report – Determination of Dermal and
Inhalation Exposure to Workers During Application of a Liquid Pesticide
Product by Open Cab Airblast Application to Orchard Crops.  Study Number
AHE07.  Unpublished study prepared by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure
Task Force.  235 p.  August 23, 2005 (Initial Report Date:  December 30,
2004).  MRID 46448201.

Smith, L. (2010-b).  Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Workers During Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Open Cab
Equipment in New York Trellis Crops.  Study Number AHE63.  Unpublished
study prepared by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force.  245 p.
 November 3, 2010.  MRID 48289612.

Smith, L. (2010-c).  Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Workers During Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Open Cab
Equipment in Oklahoma Tree Nuts.  Study Number AHE64.  Unpublished study
prepared by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force.  236 p. 
November 3, 2010.  MRID 48289613.



Supplemental Tables S – 1-28

  TOC \c "Table S -"  Table S - 1.  Administrative Details	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610704 \h  17 

Table S - 2.  Summary of Pesticides Used	  PAGEREF _Toc287610705 \h  18 

Table S - 3.  Summary of Monitored Workers and Locations	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610706 \h  19 

Table S - 4.  Summary of Meteorological Conditions	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610707 \h  20 

Table S - 5.  Summary of Work Clothing and PPE	  PAGEREF _Toc287610708
\h  21 

Table S - 6.  Summary of Application Characteristics	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610709 \h  22 

Table S - 7.  Summary of Application Rate Information	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610710 \h  24 

Table S - 8.  Descriptions of Exposure Monitoring and Analytical Methods
  PAGEREF _Toc287610711 \h  25 

Table S - 9.  Field Control Samples with Detected Residues	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610712 \h  29 

Table S - 10.  Summary of Concurrent Laboratory Fortification Samples	 
PAGEREF _Toc287610713 \h  30 

Table S – 11a.  Inner Whole Body Dosimeter Samples:  Summary of Field
Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors	 
PAGEREF _Toc287610714 \h  31 

Table S – 11b. AHE07 – Inner Whole Body Dosimeter Samples: Summary
of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment
Factors	  PAGEREF _Toc287610715 \h  32 

Table S – 12a.  Face/Neck Wipe Samples:  Summary of Field
Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors	 
PAGEREF _Toc287610716 \h  33 

Table S – 12b.  AHE07 – Face/Neck Wipe Samples:  Summary of Field
Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors	 
PAGEREF _Toc287610717 \h  34 

Table S – 13a.  Hand Wash Samples:  Summary of Field Fortification
Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610718 \h  35 

Table S – 13b.  AHE07 – Hand Wash Samples:  Summary of Field
Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors	 
PAGEREF _Toc287610719 \h  36 

Table S – 14a.  OVS Air Samples:  Summary of Field Fortification
Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610720 \h  37 

Table S – 14b.  AHE07 – OVS Air Samples:  Summary of Field
Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors	 
PAGEREF _Toc287610721 \h  38 

Table S - 15.  Outer Head Patches:  Summary of Field Fortification
Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610722 \h  39 

Table S – 16a.  AHE62 – Inner Head Patches:  Summary of Field
Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors	 
PAGEREF _Toc287610723 \h  41 

Table S – 16b.  Inner Head Patches:  Summary of Field Fortification
Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610724 \h  42 

Table S - 17.  Socks (AHE07 only):  Summary of Field Fortification
Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610725 \h  44 

Table S – 18a.  Inner Dosimeter (Arms):  Field Sample Results	 
PAGEREF _Toc287610726 \h  45 

Table S – 18b.  Inner Dosimeter (Torso):  Field Sample Results	 
PAGEREF _Toc287610727 \h  46 

Table S – 18c.  Inner Dosimeter (Legs):  Field Sample Results	 
PAGEREF _Toc287610728 \h  47 

Table S - 19.  Head Patch (Inner and Outer):  Field Sample Results	 
PAGEREF _Toc287610729 \h  48 

Table S - 20.  Face/Neck Wipe Field Sample Results	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610730 \h  49 

Table S - 21.  Hand Wash Field Sample Results	  PAGEREF _Toc287610731 \h
 51 

Table S - 22.  Socks (AHE07 only):  Field Sample Results	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610732 \h  53 

Table S - 23.  Head Exposure with and without Chemical-Resistant Hats
(Face/Neck Wipes plus Inner and Outer Head Patches)	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610733 \h  54 

Table S - 24.  Total Dermal Exposures	  PAGEREF _Toc287610734 \h  56 

Table S - 25.  OVS Air Sample Field Results and Inhalation Exposure	 
PAGEREF _Toc287610735 \h  58 

Table S - 26.  Dermal and Inhalation Unit Exposures	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610736 \h  60 

Table S - 27.  Protocol Amendments and Deviations	  PAGEREF
_Toc287610737 \h  61 

 Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  1 .  Administrative Details

Study ID	Title	Author	Report Date	Field Principal Investigator
Analytical Facility

AHE#	EPA MRID





	AHE07	46448201	Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Workers During Airblast Applications of a Liquid Pesticide Product by
Open Cab Airblast Application to Orchard Crops	Larry D. Smith, Ph.D.
12/30/04	Tami Belcher	Morse Laboratories, Inc.

1525 Fulton Ave.

Sacramento, CA 95825

AHE62	48289611	Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Workers During Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Open Cab
Equipment in California Trellis Crops	Eric Bruce	11/3/10	Brian D. Lange
Morse Laboratories, Inc.

1525 Fulton Ave.

Sacramento, CA 95825

AHE63	48289612	Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Workers During Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Open Cab
Equipment in New York Trellis Crops	Larry D. Smith, Ph.D.	11/3/10	Aaron
Rotondaro	Morse Laboratories, Inc.

1525 Fulton Ave.

Sacramento, CA 95825

AHE64	48289613	Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to
Workers During Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Open Cab
Equipment in Oklahoma Tree Nuts	Larry D. Smith, Ph.D.	11/3/10	Aaron
Rotondaro	Morse Laboratories, Inc.

1525 Fulton Ave.

Sacramento, CA 95825

 



Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  2 .  Summary of Pesticides Used

Study ID	Product Information	Product Purity Analysis

	Trade Name	Formulation	Manufacturer	Packaging	Active Ingredient	Label %
ai	Actual % ai	Lot / Batch #	Laboratory (Date)

AHE07	Sevin® XLR Plus	Suspension concentrate	Bayer CropScience	2.5
gallon plastic jug	Carbaryl	44.1% by weight	44.15% by weight	60702302
Morse Laboratories (date unknown)

AHE62	Gowan Malathion 8	Emulsifiable concentrate	Gowan Company	2.5
gallon plastic jug	Malathion	79.5% by weight	68.35% by weight	30AK7005
EPL Bio-Analytical Services (4/20/09)

	Gowan Malathion 8 Flowable	Emulsifiable concentrate	Gowan Company	2.5
gallon plastic jug	Malathion	79.5% by weight	65.70% by weight	30AK8003
EPL Bio-Analytical Services (4/20/09)

	Gowan Malathion 8 Flowable	Emulsifiable concentrate	Gowan Company	2.5
gallon plastic jug	Malathion	79.5% by weight	67.26% by weight	30AK9003
EPL Bio-Analytical Services (4/20/09)

AHE63	Sevin® XLR Plus	Aqueous suspension / flowable	Bayer CropScience
2.5 gallon plastic jug	Carbaryl	44.1% by weight	44.8% by weight
E180426-JH312	EPL Bio-Analytical Services (1/23/09)

AHE64	Sevin® XLR Plus	Aqueous suspension / flowable	Bayer CropScience
2.5 gallon plastic jug	Carbaryl	44.1% by weight	44.5% by weight
K492074-JI148	EPL Bio-Analytical Services (1/23/09)





Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  3 .  Summary of Monitored Workers
and Locations

Study ID	MU ID	Age	Gender	Height (in)	Weight (kg)	Yrs. Experience	State
County	Town	Date	Crop

AHE07	1	50	M	66	51	19	GA	Brooks	Morven	10/07/03	peach

	3	53	M	69.2	73	2	GA	Brooks	Morven	10/08/03	peach

	4	55	M	72	118	3	GA	Brooks	Morven	10/08/03	peach

	6	49	M	70	68	2	GA	Brooks	Morven	10/09/03	peach

	8	56	M	71.2	64	15	GA	Brooks	Morven	10/09/03	peach

	10	55	M	71.2	94	15	ID	Payette	Payette	10/22/03	apple

	12	61	M	73.2	93	20	ID	Payette	Payette	10/24/03	apple

	13	40	M	71.2	77	20	ID	Payette	Payette	10/24/03	apple

	15	55	M	68	67	35	ID	Payette	Payette	10/24/03	apple

	16	60	M	72	109	40	ID	Payette	Payette	10/25/03	apple

	17	48	M	73.2	89	30	ID	Payette	Fruitland	10/25/03	apple & pear

	22	65	M	69.2	96	30	FL	Polk	Winter Haven	12/10/03	orange

	23	33	M	71.2	127	12	FL	Polk	Winter Haven	12/10/03	orange

	26	72	M	72	77	35	FL	Polk	Winter Haven	12/11/03	orange

	27	47	M	72	99	25	FL	Polk	Winter Haven	12/11/03	orange

AHE62	A1	43	M	66	73	15	CA	Fresno	Firebaugh	07/02/09	grape

	A2	53	M	71	83	8	CA	San Joaquin	Lodi	07/20/09	grape

	A3	79	M	69	89	30	CA	El Dorado	Camino	07/24/09	grape

	A4	AHETF planned to monitor 5 workers in this study, but only 3 were
able to be recruited and monitored.

	A5

	AHE63	A1	52	M	68	114	30	NY	Chautauqua	Not reported	7/28/2009	grape

	A2	66	M	68	79	39	NY	Chautauqua	Not reported	7/30/2009	grape

	A3	45	M	71	83	24	NY	Chautauqua	Not reported	8/3/2009	grape

	A4	58	M	70	93	20	NY	Chautauqua	Not reported	8/5/2009	grape

	A5	28	M	69	89	4	NY	Chautauqua	Not reported	8/6/2009	grape

AHE64	A1	59	M	67	90	10	OK	Okmulgee	Not reported	8/22/2009	pecan

	A2	74	M	71	75	26	OK	Okfuskee	Not reported	8/24/2009	pecan

	A3	47	M	73	96	30	OK	Osage	Not reported	8/25/2009	pecan

	A4	69	M	70	92	3	OK	Rogers	Not reported	8/28/2009	pecan

	A5	67	M	68	86	40	OK	Rogers	Not reported	8/29/2009	pecan





Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  4 .  Summary of Meteorological
Conditions

Study ID	State	MU ID	Date	Monitoring Period	Humidity

(%)	Temp.

(° F)	Wind	Cloud Cover (%)	Heat Indexa	Rainfall

(in)







	Speed (mph)	Direction









Max	Min	Max	Min	Max	Min





AHE07	GA	1	10/07/03	0954-1522	95.9	68.4	79.2	68.8	2.5	0.3	NE	varied	NR
0.1



3	10/08/03	0928-1606	97.3	62.1	82.6	66.0	1.6	0.7	E	varied	NR	0.1



4	10/08/03	0907-1455	97.3	62.1	82.6	66.0	1.6	0.7	E	varied	NR	0.1



6	10/09/03	0836-1642	97.4	58.6	81.7	63.5	2.4	1.2	NE	varied	NR	0.0



8	10/09/03	0840-1659	97.4	58.6	81.7	63.5	2.4	1.2	NE	varied	NR	0.0

	ID	10	10/22/03	0914-1654	97.3	22.0	79.9	34.7	3.2	1.0	W	varied	NR	0.0



12	10/24/03	0850-1645	82.1	14.1	65.5	33.1	7.0	0.6	SW	varied	NR	0.0



13	10/24/03	0915-1547	82.1	14.1	65.5	33.1	7.0	0.6	SW	varied	NR	0.0



15	10/24/03	0956-1705	82.1	14.1	65.5	33.1	7.0	0.6	SW	varied	NR	0.0



16	10/25/03	0830-1514	88.6	17.6	64.4	25.52	3.8	0.8	SW	varied	NR	0.0



17	10/25/03	0932-1543	88.6	17.6	64.4	25.52	3.8	0.8	SW	varied	NR	0.0

	FL	22	12/10/03	0922-1408	90.3	64.5	76.8	63.3	6.5	2.8	S	varied	NR	trace



23	12/10/03	0947-1644	90.3	64.5	76.8	63.3	6.5	2.8	S	varied	NR	trace



26	12/11/03	0905-1427	74.9	43.5	65.1	50.9	6.9	5.2	W	varied	NR	0.0



27	12/11/03	0846-1607	74.9	43.5	65.1	50.9	6.9	5.2	W	varied	NR	0.0

AHE62	CA	A1	07/02/09	0621-1125	69.3	29.3	86.0	63.3	3.1	1.8	NW	0-20	< 105
0.0



A2	07/20/09	0547-0841	84.1	30.3	79.5	56.8	2.4	0.6	SE	0-20	< 105	0.0



A3	07/24/09	0638-1112	79.6	26.8	87.4	55.4	4.4	1.4	ENE	0-20	< 105	0.0

AHE63	NY	A1	7/28/2009	0817-1850	71.4	46.3	81.7	72.0	17	0.5	SW	0-100	<
105	0.0



A2	7/30/2009	0653-1346	94.7	58.1	76.1	63.0	8.3	0.1	SSW	0-100	< 105	0.0



A3	8/3/2009	0647-1257	78.3	44.9	74.7	60.6	11.5	0.2	SW	0-20	< 105	0.0



A4	8/5/2009	0749-1201	93.6	48.2	68.2	57.0	6.3	0.1	N	0-40	< 105	0.0



A5	8/6/2009	0810-0934	77.9	67.4	66.9	63.0	5.3	0.3	SSW	0-100	< 105	0.0

AHE64	FL	A1	8/22/2009	0659-1444	84.0	36.4	81.3	63.7	10.3	0.2	ENE	0-80	<
105	0.0



A2	8/24/2009	0833-1112	71.0	54.7	79.3	70.9	11.3	0.3	SE	0-20	< 105	0.0



A3	8/25/2009	1005-1302	72.2	57.3	84.5	76.6	11.2	0.6	SSE	0-60	< 105	0.0



A4	8/28/2009	0723-1041	92.0	68.2	72.3	65.1	10.6	0.2	NNW	0-40	< 105	0.0



A5	8/29/2009	0811-1040	95.9	76.8	72.0	64.2	6.1	0.1	NW	20-100	< 105	0.0

NR = not reported





Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  5 .  Summary of Work Clothing and
PPE

Study ID	MU ID	Long-sleeved Shirt	Pants	Gloves	Eye Protection3	Shoe type
(over socks)	Cap	Respirator Type3



Style	Material	Style	Material





	AHE07	1	Button-front	Cotton	Pleated	Cotton	Rubber	--	Rubber boots	CR
hat	--

	3	Button-front1	Cotton/Polyester	Jeans	Cotton	Rubber	Eyeglasses	Leather
boots	CR hat	--

	4	Button-front	Cotton/Polyester	Pleated	Cotton	Rubber	--	Leather boots
CR hat	--

	6	T-shirt	Cotton	Pleated	Cotton	Rubber	--	Leather boots	CR hat	--

	8	Polo	Cotton/Polyester	Jeans	Cotton	Rubber	--	Rubber boots	CR hat	--

	10	Button-front	Cotton	Jeans	Cotton	Rubber	Eyeglasses	Leather boots	CR
hat	--

	12	Button-front

Button-front1,2	Light Wt Wool

Cotton/Polyester	Pleated1	Cotton/Polyester	Rubber	--	Leather/Cloth upper
boots	CR hat	--

	13	T-shirt	Cotton	Jeans	Cotton	Rubber	--	Rubber boots	CR hat	--

	15	Button-front	Cotton	Jeans	Cotton	Rubber	--	Leather boots	CR hat	--

	16	Coverall	Cotton	Coverall	Cotton	Rubber	--	Leather boots	CR hat	--

	17	Button-front	Cotton	Jeans	Cotton	Rubber	--	Leather boots	CR hat	--

	22	Button-front	Cotton/Polyester	Uniform	Cotton/Polyester	Rubber	--
Leather boots	CR hat	--

	23	Button-front	Cotton/Polyester	Uniform	Cotton/Polyester	Rubber	--
Leather boots	CR hat	--

	26	Button-front	Cotton/Polyester	Jeans	Cotton	Rubber	--	Leather boots
CR hat	--

	27	Button-front	Cotton	Jeans	Cotton	Rubber	Eyeglasses	Leather boots	CR
hat	--

AHE62	A1	Button, collar	100% cotton	Dickies	cotton	Nitrile	Protective
eyewear	Leather boots	CR hat	--

	A2	Button-up	cotton	Jeans	cotton	Nitrile	Protective eyewear	Leather
boots	CR hat	--

	A3	Button-up	cotton	Jeans	cotton	Nitrile	Goggles	Leather shoes	CR hat
--

AHE63	A1	Button-Down	Cotton/Polyester	Jeans	Cotton	Nitrile	Eyeglasses
Leather shoes	CR hat	--

	A2	Button-Down	Cotton/Polyester	Jeans	Cotton	Nitrile	Eyeglasses	Leather
boots	CR hat	Half-face

	A3	Button-Down	Cotton	Jeans	Cotton	Nitrile	--	Leather boots	CR hat	--

	A4	Button-Down	Cotton	Jeans	Cotton	Nitrile	Eyeglasses	Leather boots	CR
hat	--

	A5	Button-Down	Cotton	Jeans	Cotton	Nitrile	--	Tennis shoes	CR hat	--

AHE64	A1	Button-Down	Cotton	Jeans	Cotton	Nitrile	--	Leather boots	CR hat
--

	A2	Button-Down	Cotton/Polyester	Jeans	Cotton	Nitrile	Eyeglasses	Leather
shoes	CR hat	--

	A3	Button-Down	Cotton	Jeans	Cotton	Nitrile	Eyeglasses	Leather boots	CR
hat	Half-face

	A4	Button-Down	Cotton	Work	Cotton	Nitrile	--	Leather boots	CR hat	--

	A5	Button-Down	Cotton/Polyester	Jeans	Cotton	Nitrile	Eyeglasses	Leather
shoes	CR hat	Half-face

1 Clothing provided by AHETF due to non-compliant clothing worn by
worker.

2 Initial shirt worn by worker was compliant – shirt replaced by AHETF
after being torn by a tree branch.

3 Per AHETF SOP 9.K, exposure is extrapolated to portions of face
covered by eyewear or respiratory protection.



Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  6 .  Summary of Application
Characteristics

Study ID	MU ID	Crop	Application Equipment	Speed

(mph)	Tank Size

(gal)	Application / Exposure Monitoring Time



Type	Height

(ft)	Spacing (ft)	Tractor/truck	Airblast







	Full	In-row

Brand	Nozzle











	Type	# used	Pressure

(psi)



	AHE07	1	peach	NR	NR	10-15	NR	Duran Wayland	NR	14	NR	2-4	500	5.5

	3	peach	NR	NR	10-15	NR	Agri Dynamic	NR	12	NR	2-4	500	6.6

	4	peach	NR	NR	10-15	NR	Duran Wayland	NR	14	NR	2-4	500	5.8

	6	peach	NR	NR	10-15	NR	Agri Dynamic	NR	12	NR	2-4	500	8.1

	8	peach	NR	NR	10-15	NR	Ag Tech	NR	16	NR	2-4	425	8.3

	10	apple	NR	NR	10-15	Ford 4230	GB Mistair	NR	7	NR	2-4	400	7.7

	12	apple	NR	NR	10-15	Kubota L4150	Turbomist / Victair	NR	12	NR	2-4	183
7.9

	13	apple	NR	NR	10-15	NR	Victair / Mistifier	NR	28	NR	2-4	300	6.5

	15	apple	NR	NR	10-15	NR	Duran Wayland	NR	12	NR	2-4	400	7.2

	16	apple	NR	NR	10-15	NR	FMC	NR	16	NR	2-4	500	6.7

	17	apple & pear	NR	NR	10-15	John Deere 2255	Meyers	NR	14	NR	2-4	480	6.2

	22	orange	NR	NR	15-24	John Deere 6405b	Rears Power Pull	NR	24	NR	2-4
1000	4.8

	23	orange	NR	NR	15-24	John Deere 6405b	Rears Powerblast	NR	22	NR	2-4
1000	7.0

	26	orange	NR	NR	15-24	NRb	FMC 957	NR	22	NR	2-4	1000	4.8

	27	orange	NR	NR	15-24	John Deere 6405b	Rears Power Pull	NR	24	NR	8	1000
7.4

AHE62	A1	grape	NR	NR	11	John Deere 2950b	International Manf. Co.	Plastic
10	90	3-3.5	600	5.1

	A2	grape	NR	NR	10	Kubota M5400	Gearmore	Spinning disc	6	40	4	150	2.9

	A3	grape	NR	NR	10	Kubota M7030N	Rears Pul-Blast	Cone	6	120	2.5	400	4.6

AHE63	A1	grape	NR	NR	9	Case IH 2140	Turbo Mist Slimline	NR	10	100	4	400
10.6

	A2	grape	NR	NR	8-10	John Deere 2355N	Berthoud Arbo AX LT600	NR	5	600
3.9	160	6.9

	A3	grape	NR	NR	8.5	Massey Ferguson 265	CIMA Blitz 45 T100	NR	10	26	3
300	6.2

	A4	grape	NR	NR	7-9	John Deere 830	Holland Windmill 350	NR	9	22	3-3.5
280	4.2

	A5	grape	NR	NR	8-9	International Case 485	Berthoud Arbo 1000	Hollow
cone	12	350	2.5-3	300	1.4

AHE64	A1	pecan	NR	NR	--a	John Deere 300B	FMC Bean	Cone	11	20-25	2-2.5
500	7.8

	A2	pecan	NR	NR	--a	Ford 6600	Savage 5534	Floodjet	7	25-30	3-5	500	2.7

	A3	pecan	NR	NR	--a	John Deere 2940b	Savage 5528	Floodjet	7	20-25	3-4
500	3.0

	A4	pecan	NR	NR	--a	Massey Ferguson 360	Savage 5525	Floodjet	7	20	1.2
500	3.3

	A5	pecan	NR	NR	30	Kubota M4900	Savage 50	Floodjet	7	70-80	~2	500	2.5

NR = not reported 

a Trees not in rows (non-systematic planting)

b Open cab vehicle with a canopy/roof.





Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  7 .  Summary of Application Rate
Information

Study ID	MU ID	Crop	Active Ingredient (ai)	Product Conc.

(lb ai / gallon)	# Loads applied	Area Treated

(acres)	Application Amount







	Spray	Product	Active Ingredient







	Per Acre

(gal)	Total

(gal)	Per Acre

(gal)	Total

(gal)	Per Acre

(lb)	Total (lb)

AHE07	1	peach	Carbaryl	4.0	5	25	100	2500	0.75	19	3.0	75

	3	peach	Carbaryl	4.0	3	15	100	1500	0.75	11	3.0	45

	4	peach	Carbaryl	4.0	5	25	100	2500	0.75	19	3.0	75

	6	peach	Carbaryl	4.0	4	20	100	2000	0.75	15	3.0	60

	8	peach	Carbaryl	4.0	5	17	123	2091	0.76	13	3.1	52

	10	apple	Carbaryl	4.0	4	16	100	1600	0.50	8	2.0	32

	12	apple	Carbaryl	4.0	9	16	100	1600	0.52	8	2.1	33

	13	apple	Carbaryl	4.0	6	18	100	1800	0.50	9	2.0	36

	15	apple	Carbaryl	4.0	4	12	133	1596	0.50	6	2.0	24

	16	apple	Carbaryl	4.0	4	20	100	2000	0.50	10	2.0	40

	17	apple & pear	Carbaryl	4.0	14	17	400	6800	0.50	9	2.0	34

	22	orange	Carbaryl	4.0	2	20	100	2000	0.75	15	3.0	60

	23	orange	Carbaryl	4.0	3	30	100	3000	0.75	23	3.0	90

	26	orange	Carbaryl	4.0	6	30	200	6000	0.75	23	3.0	90

	27	orange	Carbaryl	4.0	3	30	100	3000	0.75	23	3.0	90

AHE62	A1	grape	Malathion	6.88	4	20	100	2000	0.25	5	1.7	34.3

	A2	grape	Malathion	6.61	3	12	38	450	0.06	1	0.4	5.0

	A3	grape	Malathion	6.77	3	9.5	61	575	0.16	2	1.1	10.4

AHE63	A1	grape	Carbaryl	4.06	3	24	50	1200	0.50	12	2.0	48.4

	A2	grape	Carbaryl	4.06	7	17.5	63	1100	0.50	9	2.0	35.6

	A3	grape	Carbaryl	4.06	3	12	75	900	0.50	6	2.0	24.4

	A4	grape	Carbaryl	4.06	3	7.5	100	750	0.50	4	2.0	15.2

	A5	grape	Carbaryl	4.06	2	3	100	300	0.50	2	2.0	6.1

AHE64	A1	pecan	Carbaryl	4.04	3	15	83	1250	1.04	16	4.2	63.1

	A2	pecan	Carbaryl	4.04	2	5	100	500	0.50	3	2.0	10.1

	A3	pecan	Carbaryl	4.04	2	7	86	600	1.25	9	5.0	35.3

	A4	pecan	Carbaryl	4.04	2	5	150	750	1.25	6	5.0	25.2

	A5	pecan	Carbaryl	4.04	2	9	33	300	0.50	5	2.0	18.2





Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  8 .  Descriptions of Exposure
Monitoring and Analytical Methods

Exposure Monitoring Method	Analytical Method

Matrix	Description	Active Ingredient	Identification	Description

Hand Rinse	Exposure to the hands was measured using a 500 mL aliquot of
0.01% v/v AOT solution.  First, 400 mL AOT solution was poured over a
worker’s hand while rubbing them together over a glass bowl for
approximately 30 seconds; the remaining 100 mL was then poured over the
worker’s hands into the bowl.  The bowl of 500 mL solution (now with
hand residue) is transferred to a clear glass jar and frozen for
storage.  Samples are taken at any point a worker would normally wash
their hands (e.g., during lunch breaks, before using restroom, etc.) and
at the end of monitoring.  Samples are analyzed separately, but summed
to obtain a total daily hand exposure.	Carbaryl	ARTF-AM-012, Revision #2
[“Determination of Carbaryl in Hand Wash Solutions” (6/98)]	Carbaryl
was extracted from hand wash solutions with dichloromethane, using
multiple extractions. An aliquot of the extract was evaporated to
dryness, reconstituted in acetonitrile:water (50:50 v/v), then submitted
to HPLC analysis using post column derivatization/fluorescence
detection. The method provided for an optional Florisil SPE purification
step that was not needed for this study.



Malathion	ARTF-AM-006, Revision 3, [“Determination of Diazinon and
Malathion in Hand Wash Solutions”]	Malathion residues in AOT hand wash
solutions were retained on a conditioned C-18 reverse phase cartridge by
passing an aliquot of hand wash sample through the cartridge. The
cartridge was washed with water, air-dried, then washed with hexane. 
Malathion residues were eluted from the C-18 cartridge with
dichloromethane. The eluate was evaporated to dryness, redissolved in
acetone, then submitted to gas chromatographic (GC) analysis using flame
photometric detection in the phosphorous mode (FPD/P).

Face/neck Wipe	The face/neck wipes consisted of two 4” x 4”, 100%
cotton gauze Kendall Curity sponges moistened with 4 mL of 0.01% (v/v)
Aerosol® OT solution (sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate in distilled
water), used sequentially.  Face/neck wipes were conducted prior to
breaks and at the end of monitoring.  Samples were combined for
analysis.	Carbaryl	ARTF-AM-014, Revision 2

[“Determination of Carbaryl in Cotton Facial/Neck Wipes” (4/98)]
Carbaryl was extracted from cotton face/neck wipes with acetone. The
aluminum foil used to wrap each sample was also rinsed with acetone to
remove any residues. An aliquot of the extract was concentrated,
subjected to Florisil SPE cleanup (most extracts), then submitted to
high performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) analysis using post
column derivatization/fluorescence detection.



Malathion	ARTF-AM-010, Revision 2, [“Determination of Diazinon and
Malathion in Cotton Facial/Neck Wipes”]	Malathion was extracted from
cotton facial/neck wipes with an aqueous AOT solution. The aluminum foil
used to wrap each sample was also rinsed with aqueous AOT to remove any
residues. An aliquot of the extract was subjected to C-18 cleanup. After
the sample was passed through the cartridge, retaining the analyte, the
cartridge was washed with water, then air-dried. Malathion residues were
eluted from the C-18 cartridge with dichloromethane:methanol (50:50,
v/v). The eluate was evaporated to dryness and redissolved in acetone.

Inner Dosimeters	Whole body dosimeters – white, long underwear, 100%
cotton one-piece Carolina Mills, Inc. union suits worn underneath the
workers’ outer clothing – served to represent the workers’ skin on
their arms, legs and torso.  Following each monitoring period, the inner
whole body dosimeters were carefully removed and sectioned into two
pieces:  lower body (below the waist) and upper body (above the waist).
Carbaryl	ARTF-AM-011, Revision 4 [“Determination of Carbaryl in Dermal
Dosimeters”, (9/29/03)]	Carbaryl was extracted from cotton inner
dosimeter sections (upper and lower) with acetone. Each section was
considered one analytical sample. An aliquot of the sample extract was
subjected to Florisil SPE cleanup, then submitted to high performance
liquid chromatographic analysis using post column
derivatization/fluorescence detection. The method, incorporating
Florisil cleanup, is applicable to samples containing residue levels
ranging from 1.0 μg/sample to 500 μg/sample for inner dosimeters. A
provision was made to extend the range of applicability by eliminating
the Florisil cleanup.



Malathion	ARTF-AM-005, Revision 4 (by ABC Laboratories, Inc.)

[ “Determination of Diazinon/Malathion Inner Dermal Dosimeters”,
3/98]	Malathion was extracted from cotton inner dosimeter sections with
acetone.  The aluminum foil used to wrap each sample was also rinsed
with acetone to remove any residues. Following evaporation of the
solvent from an aliquot of the extract, the residues were suspended in
water, then partitioned into hexane; the hexane was back-extracted
against water. An aliquot of the hexane extract was subjected to
Florisil Bond Elut cleanup.

OVS tubes	Air sampling was conducted using OSHA Versatile Sampler (OVS)
tubes connected by Tygon®-type tubing to a SKC model 110-100 personal
air sampling pump set to approximately 2 liters per minute.  The sample
collector consisted of a glass fiber filter and two sections of XAD-2
sorbent housed in a 13 mm diameter glass tube.  The sampler was clipped
to the worker’s collar (intake facing downward) and the tube attached
to their belt.  Pump on/off times and starting and ending flow rates
were recorded.	Carbaryl	ARTF-AM-013, Revision 2, [“Determination of
Carbaryl in OVS Air Sampling Tubes” (12/17/09)]	Air sampling tube
contents were divided into front and back sections and the sections were
analyzed separately. Carbaryl was extracted from the contents of each
section of sorbent tube with acetonitrile. An aliquot of the extract was
evaporated to dryness, reconstituted in acetonitrile:water (50:50, v/v)
then submitted to HPLC analysis using post column
derivatization/fluorescence detection. The method provided for an
optional Florisil SPE purification step that was not needed for this
study.



Malathion	ARETF-AM-009, Revision 5, [“Determination of Diazinon and
Malathion in OVS Air Sampling Tubes”]	Air sampling tube contents were
divided into front and back sections and the sections were analyzed
separately. Malathion was extracted from the contents of each section of
sorbent tube with acetone. An aliquot of the extract was evaporated to
dryness, then reconstituted in acetone. Samples were submitted to gas
chromatographic (GC) analysis using flame photometric detection in the
phosphorous mode (FPD/P).

Head Patch	The inner head patch consisted of one layer of inner
dosimeter material (a one-piece, white, long-underwear union suit
constructed of 100% cotton) measuring 100 square centimeters.  Extra
material was used for the attachment of strings, which ran under the
chin of the worker to hold the patch in place.  The patch was worn on
the crown of the head, under the chemical-resistant hat for the duration
of the monitoring period.	Carbaryl	ARTF-AM-011, Revision 4
[“Determination of Carbaryl in Dermal Dosimeters”, (9/29/03)]
Carbaryl was extracted from head patch samples with acetone. Each
section was considered one analytical sample. An aliquot of the sample
extract was subjected to Florisil SPE cleanup, then submitted to high
performance liquid chromatographic analysis using post column
derivatization/fluorescence detection. The method, incorporating
Florisil cleanup, is applicable to samples containing residue levels
ranging from 1.0 μg/sample to 500 μg/sample for inner dosimeters. A
provision was made to extend the range of applicability by eliminating
the Florisil cleanup.



Malathion	ARTF-AM-005, Revision 4, modifications dated 11/16/09, [
“Determination of Diazinon/Malathion Inner Dermal Dosimeters”, 3/98]
Malathion was extracted from head patch samples with acetone.  The
aluminum foil used to wrap each sample was also rinsed with acetone to
remove any residues. Following evaporation of the solvent from an
aliquot of the extract, the residues were suspended in water, then
partitioned into hexane; the hexane was back-extracted against water. An
aliquot of the hexane extract was subjected to Florisil Bond Elut
cleanup.

Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  9 .  Field Control Samples with
Detected Residues

Study	Control Sample Type	# with detected residues	Sample ID	Residue
Found (ug/sample)	LOQ

(ug/sample)	Comparison to LOQ

AHE07	Face/Neck wipe	1 of 12	07-FF-02-FW-C1	1.08	0.05	1.1X > LOQ

	OVS tube (both sections)	3 of 12	07-FF-05-AR-C1	0.0127	0.01	1.3X > LOQ



	07-FF-05-AR-C2	0.0143	0.01	1.4X > LOQ



	07-FF-04-AR-C1	0.0210	0.01	2X > LOQ

AHE62	Head patch (inner and outer)	5 of 8	62-FF-01-IH-C3	0.2145	0.25	1.2
X < LOQ



	62-FF-01-IH-C4	0.1862	0.25	1.3 X < LOQ



	62-FF-02-IH-C1	0.1460	0.25	1.7 X < LOQ



	62-FF-02-IH-C2	0.1225	0.25	2 X < LOQ



	62-FF-02-OH-C2	0.1730	0.25	1.4X < LOQ

	OVS tube (front section)	4 of 4	62-FF-02-AR-C1	0.00658	0.005	1.3X > LOQ



	62-FF-02-AR-C2	0.01497	0.005	3X > LOQ



	62-FF-02-AR-C1	0.67812	0.005	136X > LOQ



	62-FF-02-AR-C2	0.75075	0.005	150X > LOQ

AHE63	Inner Dosimeter	3 of 5	63-FF-01-ID-C2	0.10	1.0	10X < LOQ



	63-FF-01-ID-C2 (confirmatory)	0.11	1.0	9X < LOQ



	63-FF-04-ID-C1	0.10	1.0	10X < LOQ

	Head patch (inner and outer)	3 of 8	63-FF-01-IH-C1	0.119	0.25	2X < LOQ



	63-FF-01-IH-C2	0.087	0.25	3X < LOQ



	63-FF-04-IH-C2	0.059	0.25	4X < LOQ

	OVS tube (front section)	4 of 4	63-FF-02-AR-C1	0.03652	0.005	7 > LOQ



	63-FF-02-AR-C2	0.02751	0.005	5.5 > LOQ



	63-FF-02-AR-C1	0.00219	0.005	2.3 < LOQ



	63-FF-02-AR-C2	0.00416	0.005	1.2 < LOQ

	Face/Neck wipe	1 of 4	63-FF-01-FW-C2	0.32	1.0	3X < LOQ

	Hand Wash	1 of 4	63-FF-01-HW-C1	0.33	1.0	3X < LOQ

AHE64	Inner Dosimeter	1 of 4	64-FF-04-ID-C2	0.04	1.0	25X < LOQ

	Head patch (inner and outer)	2 of 8	64-FF-04-OH-C1	0.121	0.25	2X < LOQ



	64-FF-04-OH-C2	0.098	0.25	2.6X < LOQ

	Hand wash	1 of 4	64-FF-02-HW-C2	0.18	1.0	5.6X < LOQ

	OVS tube (front section)	4 of 4	64-FF-02-AR-C1	0.0153	0.005	3X > LOQ



	64-FF-02-AR-C2	0.01124	0.005	2.2X > LOQ



	64-FF-02-AR-C1	0.00238	0.005	2X < LOQ



	64-FF-02-AR-C2	0.00234	0.005	2X < LOQ

Note:  as only negative controls for matrices with detected residues are
shown in this table, it follows that all other negative controls for
those matrices not presented in this table did not have detected
residues (i.e., only a small percentage of all negative controls had
detected residues).



Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  10 .  Summary of Concurrent
Laboratory Fortification Samples

Study ID	Exposure Matrix	Fortification Range	Recovery Results

(mean ± standard deviation)

AHE07a	Inner Dosimeters	0.25 – 10000 ug/sample	101 ± 7.6% (n=58)

	Face/Neck Wipes	1.0 – 5000 ug/sample	93.0% ± 9.2% (n=21)

	Head Patch	Inner	0.25 – 500 ug/sample	96.6% ± 8.4% (n=19)



Outer	0.25 – 10000 ug/sample	96.7% ± 7.2% (n=20)

	Hand Washes	1.0 – 5000 ug/sample	104% ± 6.2% (n=26)

	OVS Air Samplers	0.05 – 200 ug/sample	93.7% ± 11% (n=16)

	Socks	0.25 – 500 ug/sample	102% ± 8.0% (n=21)

AHE62	Inner Dosimeters	1.0 – 2000 ug/sample	102% ± 7.3% (n=6)

	Head Patch	Inner	0.25 – 100 ug/sample	105% ± 9.2% (n=4)



Outer	0.25 – 5000 ug/sample	107% ± 8.6% (n=4)

	Face/Neck Wipes	1.0 – 2000 ug/sample	108% ± 14% (n=4)

	Hand Washes	1.0 – 2000 ug/sample	106% ± 6.9% (n=6)

	OVS Air Samplers	0.005 – 100 ug/sample	111% ± 6.8% (n=6)

AHE63b	Inner Dosimeters	1.0 – 2500 ug/sample	95.2% ± 10.8% (n=13)

	Head Patch	Inner	0.25 – 100 ug/sample	93.7% ± 18.6% (n=4)



Outer	0.25 – 6000 ug/sample	95.6% ± 12.3% (n=7)

	Face/Neck Wipes	1.0 – 2000 ug/sample	101% ± 6.8% (n=8)

	Hand Washes	1.0 – 2000 ug/sample	104% ± 6.5% (n=8)

	OVS Air Samplers	0.005 – 100 ug/sample	94.9% ± 14.9% (n=12)

AHE64	Inner Dosimeters	1.0 – 55000 ug/sample	105% ± 11.1% (n=15)

	Head Patch	Inner	0.25 – 100 ug/sample	100% ± 28.2% (n=4)



Outer	0.25 – 15000 ug/sample	101% ± 6.4% (n=7)

	Face/Neck Wipes	1.0 – 4000 ug/sample	98.6% ± 10.2% (n=7)

	Hand Washes	1.0 – 2000 ug/sample	102% ± 7.1% (n=6)

	OVS Air Samplers	0.005 – 100 ug/sample	99.5% ± 13.6% (n=12)

a Anomalous samples:  1 sock (193%), 1 OVS air samplers (267%), 1 inner
dosimeter (58%)

b Anomalous samples:  1 OVS air sample (278%)





Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  11a .  Inner Whole Body Dosimeter
Samples:  Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and
Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study ID	Active Ingredient	Monitoring Date	Field Fortification Recovery
(%)	Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Range (ug)a



	Low level

(5 ug)	Mid level

(100 ug)	High level

≤ 52.5 ug	> 52.5 ug to ≤ 1050 ug	> 1050 ug

AHE62	Malathion	7/02/09	43.0	105	101	0.746	0.958	1.10



	36.8	87.2	98.0







31.8	92.8	101





	7/20/09	118	65.0	126







105	112	117







113	113	118





	Summary

Statistics	Mean	74.6	95.8	110







SD	41.3	18.3	11.6







CV (%)	55	19	11



	AHE63	Carbaryl	7/28/09b	77.3	16.3 	50.0	0.912	0.834	0.882



	83.7	89.4	136







25.2	51.5	163 





	8/5/09	92.8	92.8	126







88.5	94.6	88.0







92.3	62.8	50.6





	Summary

Statistics	Mean	91.2	83.4	88.2







SD	2.4	17.9	37.7







CV (%)	2.6	21	43



	AHE64	Carbaryl	8/24/09	77.2	91.8	102	0.843	0.899	0.992



	81.6	78.7	103







95.4	71.1	99.4





	8/28/09	95.0	94.1	88.5







77.0	107	98.1







79.5	96.7	104





	Summary

ample residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor
corresponding to the low level recovery mean.

b Study day’s results not used.  The cause of the abnormally low and
high results reported as unknown.





Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  11b . AHE07 – Inner Whole Body
Dosimeter Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and
Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study ID	Active Ingredient	Monitoring Date	Field Fortification Recovery
(%)	Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

≤52.5	>52.5 to ≤300	>300 to ≤2750	>2750



	5	100	500	5000





AHE07	Carbaryl	10/07/03	100	99.6	104.8	113.2	0.845	0.977	0.98	1.07



	94.2	96.0	97.2	114.4







	90	101.0	97.4	113.5







	--	--	--	104.6







10/08/03	101.6	101.0	101.2	108.2







	93.0	104.0	94.8	103.6







	89.2	105.0	104.6	105.6







10/22/03	75.2	100.0	96.4	112.6







	74.8	99.7	98.2	109.4







	76.0	96.7	98.6	118.6







10/24/03	70.8	92.5	98.6	107.2







	67.6	101.0	103.2	105.6







	73.0	101.0	103.0	107.8







12/09/03	116.6	87.4	97.4	100.0







	85.0	99.4	100.2	101.0







	80.2	97.0	94.6	103.4







12/11/03	66.6	92.5	86.2	105.2







	83.8	91.7	95.0	100.8







	83.2	92.2	93.2	104.4







Summary

esidue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding
to the low level recovery mean.





Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  12a .  Face/Neck Wipe Samples: 
Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding
Adjustment Factors

Study ID	Active Ingredient	Monitoring Date	Field Fortification Recovery
(%)	Field Recovery Adjustment Factor

by Measured Residue Range (ug)a



	Low level

(5 ug)	Mid level

(100 ug)	High level

(2000 ug)	≤ 52.5 ug	> 52.5 ug to ≤ 1050 ug	> 1050 ug

AHE62	Malathion	7/02/09	87.6	79.4	81.2	1.02	0.928	0.924



	89.4	76.4	82.4







87.4	86.0	72.6





	7/20/09	117	103	101







115	106	108







116	106	109





	Summary

Statistics	Mean	102	92.8	92.4







SD	15.3	13.8	15.6







CV (%)	15	15	17



	AHE63	Carbaryl	7/28/09	104	100	105	0.983	0.899	1.06



	97.5	88.5	94.9







98.9	102	95.6





	8/5/09	97.0	87.4	129







98.2	78.1	101







94.2	83.4	111





	Summary

Statistics	Mean	98.3	89.9	106







SD	3.2	9.4	12.7







CV (%)	3.3	10	12



	AHE64	Carbaryl	8/24/09	89.7	88.7	88.5	0.878	0.847	0.917



	91.9	92.2	96.4







92.5	86.3	53.3





	8/28/09	83.7	80.8	111







82.2	75.4	103







86.5	84.9	97.7





	Summary

ch recovery level.  Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each
fortification level.  Example:  52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100
ug.  Residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor
corresponding to the low level recovery mean.





Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  12b .  AHE07 – Face/Neck Wipe
Samples:  Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and
Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study ID	Active Ingredient	Monitoring Date	Field Fortification Recovery
(%)	Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

ecovery level.  Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each
fortification level.  Example:  52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100
ug.  Residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor
corresponding to the low level recovery mean.





Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  13a .  Hand Wash Samples: 
Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding
Adjustment Factors

Study ID	Active Ingredient	Monitoring Date	Field Fortification Recovery
(%)	Field Recovery Adjustment Factor

by Measured Residue Range (ug)a



	Low level

(5 ug)	Mid level

(100 ug)	High level

≤ 52.5 ug	> 52.5 ug to ≤ 1050 ug	> 1050 ug

AHE62	Malathion	7/02/09	93.0	91.0	103	0.984	0.933	0.982



	92.6	90.2	106







93.8	96.6	92.8





	7/20/09	106	100	95.6







105	90.4	93.6







100	91.8	98.0





	Summary

Statistics	Mean	98.4	93.3	98.2







SD	6.1	4.0	5.3







CV (%)	6.2	4.3	5.4



	AHE63	Carbaryl	7/28/09	106	113	113	1.11	1.10	1.13



	106	112	106







105	98.9	110





	8/5/09	113	108	114







113	112	109







121	114	123





	Summary

Statistics	Mean	111	110	113







SD	6.2	5.6	5.9







CV (%)	5.6	5.1	5.2



	AHE64	Carbaryl	8/24/09	105	106	114	1.05	1.03	1.12



	109	107	113







105	106	113





	8/28/09	100	98.2	110







103	102	111







106	98.7	111





	Summary

≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low
level recovery mean.





Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  13b .  AHE07 – Hand Wash
Samples:  Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and
Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study ID	Active Ingredient	Monitoring Date	Field Fortification Recovery
(%)	Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Range (ug)a



	Low level (ug)	High level (ug)	≤52.5	>52.5



	5	100



AHE07	Carbaryl	10/07/03	91.4	106.0	0.997	0.966



	98.2	105.0





	101.8	100.0





10/08/03	96.6	106.0





	102.2	89.1





	104.4	91.5





10/22/03	104.2	109.0





	108.8	86.4





	107.4	98.6





10/24/03	112.4	85.0





	101.8	107.0





	104.2	106.0





12/09/03	98.2	81.1





	89.2	89.9





	97.4	83.5





12/11/03	93.4	90.6





	92.2	104.0





	90.0	100.0





Summary

Statistics	Mean	99.7	96.6





	SD	6.7	9.4





	CV (%)	6.7	9.7



a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each
recovery level.  Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each
fortification level.  Example:  52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100
ug.  Residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor
corresponding to the low level recovery mean.





Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  14a .  OVS Air Samples:  Summary
of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment
Factors

Study ID	Active Ingredient	Monitoring Date	Field Fortification Recovery
(%)	Field Recovery Adjustment Factor

by Measured Residue Rangea



	Low level

(0.05 ug)	Mid level

(0.5 ug)	High level

≤ 0.275 ug	> 0.275 ug to ≤ 50.25 ug	> 50.25 ug

AHE62	Malathion	7/02/09	133	114	134	1.18	1.05	1.20



	101	101	114







119	101	117





	7/20/09b	2014	195	112







570	171	104







1103	192	103





	Summary

Statistics	Mean	118	105	122







SD	16.0	7.5	10.8







CV (%)	14	7	9



	AHE63	Carbaryl	7/28/09	90.4	87.2	116	1.08	0.990	1.07



	127	92.4	113







130	90.6	109





	8/5/09	95.7	104	101







107	111	106







95.3	109	95.6





	Summary

Statistics	Mean	108	99.0	107







SD	17.1	10.2	7.6







CV (%)	16	10	7



	AHE64	Carbaryl	8/24/09	120	90.7	106	1.16	1.04	1.13



	147	94.8	108







108	104	124





	8/28/09	103	112	113







106	107	114







113	115	110





	Summary

Statistics	Mean	116	104	113







SD	16.2	9.54	6.38







CV (%)	14	9	6



	a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each
recovery level.  Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each
fortification level.  Example:  0.275 is the midpoint between 0.05 and
0.5 ug.  Residue results ≤ 0.275 ug would use the adjustment factor
corresponding to the low level recovery mean.

b Contamination suspected, thus results not used.



Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  14b .  AHE07 – OVS Air Samples:
 Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding
Adjustment Factors

Study ID	Active Ingredient	Monitoring Date	Field Fortification Recovery
(%)	Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

≤ 25.025	> 25.025



	0.05	50



AHE07	Carbaryl	10/07/03	116.2	103.4	1.09	1.01



	109.2	110.8





	113.8	106.6





10/08/03	112.6	112.4





	114.2	109.2





	113.0	109.0





10/22/03	116.8	109.8





	119.4	99.4





	125.2	101.8





10/24/03	135.6	99.4





	120.0	100.2





	196.2b	98.6





12/09/03	88.2	99.4





	94.6	98.2





	94.8	95.8





12/11/03	100.6	95.6





	102.8	72.6





	82.6	98.6





Summary

0 ug.  Residue results ≤ 25.025 ug would use the adjustment factor
corresponding to the low level recovery mean.

b Sample excluded as a statistical  outlier.





Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  15 .  Outer Head Patches:  Summary
of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment
Factors

Study ID	Active Ingredient	Monitoring Date	Field Fortification Recovery
(%)	Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

ue results ≤ 2550 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to
the low level recovery mean.

b Sample not taken.

c Per AHETF SOPs, recovery means greater than 120% will use a maximum
adjustment factor of 1.2





Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  16a .  AHE62 – Inner Head
Patches:  Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and
Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study ID	Active Ingredient	Monitoring Date	Field Fortification Recovery
(%)	Field Recovery Adjustment Factor

by Measured Residue Rangea



	Low level

(5 ug)	Mid level

(100 ug)	High level

≤ 52.5 ug	> 52.5 ug to ≤ 1050 ug	> 1050 ug

AHE62	Malathion	7/02/09	88.0	--	99.3	1.01	1.09	1.05



	97.1	--	110







-- b	--	-- b





	7/20/09b	104	108	--







103	108	--







115	111	--





	Summary

ts ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low
level recovery mean.

b Sample not taken.





Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  16b .  Inner Head Patches: 
Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding
Adjustment Factors

Study ID	Active Ingredient	Monitoring Date	Field Fortification Recovery
(%)	Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Rangea



	Low level (ug)	High level (ug)	≤ 52.5	> 52.5



	5	100



AHE07	Carbaryl	10/07/03	94.6	108.0	0.837	0.981



	96.6	105.0





	99.8	107.0





10/08/03	99.2	112.0





	95.0	110.0





	93.8	108.0





10/22/03	75.0	85.0





	79.4	83.2





	76.4	105.0





10/24/03	78.0	92.1





	83.8	85.8





	72.4	92.9





12/09/03	71.6	84.3





	72.2	87.4





	73.2	90.1





12/11/03	75.6	129.0





	76.4	89.9





	92.8	90.4





Summary Statistics	Mean	83.7	98.1





	SD	10.6	12.7





	CV (%)	13	13



AHE63	Carbaryl	7/28/09	93.6	57.5	0.692	0.524



	74.2	65.6





	81.4	61.1





8/5/09	59.7	50.0





	48.0b	43.1b





	58.2	37.1b





Summary Statistics	Mean	69.2	52.4





	SD	16.9	11.0





	CV (%)	24	21



AHE64	Carbaryl	8/24/09	75.1	97.1	0.810	0.870



	79.4	79.2





	69.8	84.3





8/28/09	86.3	100





	92.6	88.3





	82.6	73.2





Summary Statistics	Mean	81.0	87.0





	SD	8.10	10.3





	CV (%)	10	12



a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each
recovery level.  Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each
fortification level.  Example:  52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100
ug.  Residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor
corresponding to the low level recovery mean.

b Cause of low recovery not known.





Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  17 .  Socks (AHE07 only):  Summary
of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment
Factors

Study ID	Active Ingredient	Monitoring Date	Field Fortification Recovery
(%)	Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

 is the midpoint between 5 and 100 ug.  Residue results ≤ 52.5 ug
would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recovery
mean.

b Cause of low recovery not known.



Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  18a .  Inner Dosimeter (Arms): 
Field Sample Results

Study ID	MU ID	Active Ingredient	Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a	Lower Arm	Upper Arm



	LOQ	LOD	Raw Exp.b	FFAFc	Adj. Exp. (ug)d	Raw Exp.b	FFAFc	Adj. Exp. (ug)d

AHE07	1	Carbaryl	0.25	--	73.7	0.977	75.4	39.4	0.845	46.6

	3



1230	0.98	1255	168	0.977	172

	4



192	0.977	197	36.4	0.845	43.1

	6



348	0.98	355	128	0.977	131

	8



890	0.98	908	237	0.977	243

	10



1387	0.98	1415	1754	0.98	1790

	12



230	0.977	235	97	0.977	99.3

	13



230	0.977	235	208	0.977	213

	15



711	0.98	726	660	0.98	673

	16



326	0.98	333	59.4	0.977	60.8

	17



44.9	0.845	53.1	21.2	0.845	25.1

	22



521	0.98	532	278	0.977	285

	23



985	0.98	1005	285	0.977	292

	26



783	0.98	799	589	0.98	601

	27



5380	1.07	5028	3090	1.07	2888

AHE62	A1	Malathion	1.0	0.3	25.28	0.746	33.9	20.92	0.746	28.0

	A2



51.9	0.746	69.6	45.1	0.746	60.5

	A3



82.7	0.958	86.3	12.0	0.746	16.1

AHE63	A1	Carbaryl	1.0	0.3	1085	0.882	1230	1064	0.882	1206

	A2



3069	0.882	3480	1520	0.882	1723

	A3



244	0.834	293	48.5	0.912	53.2

	A4



4.6	0.912	5.0	2.7	0.912	3.0

	A5



40.1	0.912	44.0	44.4	0.912	48.7

AHE64	A1	Carbaryl	1.0	0.3	1041	0.899	1158	221	0.899	246

	A2



5106	0.992	5147	3381	0.992	3408

	A3



345	0.899	384	78.6	0.899	87.4

	A4



5586	0.992	5631	1647	0.992	1660

	A5



1.7	0.843	2.0	< LOQ	--	0.50

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, ½ LOQ or ½ LOD is used.  Note no
LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

b Calculated from chromatogram peak response (e.g., ug/mL)

c FFAF=field fortification adjustment factor.  From Supplemental Tables
S – 11a-b.

d Adjusted Exposure = Raw exposure ÷ Field Fortification Adjustment
Factor



Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  18b .  Inner Dosimeter (Torso): 
Field Sample Results

Study ID	MU ID	Active Ingredient	Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a	Front Torso	Rear Torso



	LOQ	LOD	Raw Exp.b	FFAFc	Adj. Exp. (ug)d	Raw Exp.b	FFAFc	Adj. Exp. (ug)d

AHE07	1	Carbaryl	0.25	--	20.2	0.845	23.9	21.6	0.845	25.6

	3



353	0.98	360	152	0.977	156

	4



87.9	0.977	90.0	37	0.845	43.8

	6



157	0.977	161	101	0.977	103

	8



417	0.98	426	270	0.977	276

	10



232	0.977	237	547	0.98	558

	12



97.6	0.977	99.9	50.6	0.845	59.9

	13



178	0.977	182	158	0.977	162

	15



704	0.98	718	368	0.98	376

	16



207	0.977	212	69.5	0.977	71.1

	17



31.5	0.845	37.3	12.8	0.845	15.1

	22



485	0.98	495	304	0.98	310

	23



593	0.98	605	895	0.98	913

	26



539	0.98	550	501	0.98	511

	27



3660	1.07	3421	2630	0.98	2684

AHE62	A1	Malathion	1.0	0.3	44.2	0.746	59.2	17.3	0.746	23.2

	A2



50.2	0.746	67.3	54.9	0.958	57.3

	A3



78.7	0.958	82.2	13.5	0.746	18.1

AHE63	A1	Carbaryl	1.0	0.3	1985	0.882	2251	419	0.834	502

	A2



833	0.834	999	402	0.834	482

	A3



153	0.834	183	79.9	0.834	96

	A4



2.2	0.912	2.4	5.5	0.912	6.0

	A5



49.3	0.912	54.1	23.0	0.912	25.2

AHE64	A1	Carbaryl	1.0	0.3	427	0.899	475	280	0.899	311

	A2



3531	0.992	3559	3642	0.992	3671

	A3



131	0.899	146	38.9	0.843	46.1

	A4



1561	0.992	1574	5448	0.992	5492

	A5



< LOQ	--	0.50	< LOQ	--	0.50

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, ½ LOQ or ½ LOD is used.  Note no
LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

b Calculated from chromatogram peak response (e.g., ug/mL)

c FFAF=field fortification adjustment factor.  From Supplemental Tables
S – 11a-b.

d Adjusted Exposure = Raw exposure ÷ Field Fortification Adjustment
Factor



Table S –   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  18c .  Inner Dosimeter (Legs): 
Field Sample Results

Study ID	MU ID	Active Ingredient	Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a	Lower Leg	Upper Leg



	LOQ	LOD	Raw Exp.b	FFAFc	Adj. Exp. (ug)d	Raw Exp.b	FFAFc	Adj. Exp. (ug)d

AHE07	1	Carbaryl	0.25	--	24.6	0.845	29.1	82.7	0.977	84.6

	3



26.8	0.845	31.7	187	0.977	191

	4



9.3	0.845	11.0	67	0.977	68.6

	6



10	0.845	11.8	43.7	0.845	51.7

	8



109	0.977	112	531	0.98	542

	10



15.6	0.845	18.5	64.2	0.977	65.7

	12



12.5	0.845	14.8	41.7	0.845	49.3

	13



97.2	0.977	99.5	204	0.977	209

	15



43.8	0.845	51.8	326	0.98	333

	16



165	0.977	169	319	0.98	326

	17



12.5	0.845	14.8	12.8	0.845	15.1

	22



98.6	0.977	101	532	0.98	543

	23



122	0.977	125	1000	0.98	1020

	26



64.8	0.977	66.3	66.2	0.977	67.8

	27



261	0.977	267	553	0.98	564

AHE62	A1	Malathion	1.0	0.3	79.0	0.958	82.5	45.9	0.746	61.5

	A2



10.8	0.746	14.5	7.4	0.746	9.9

	A3



15.6	0.746	20.9	11.6	0.746	15.5

AHE63	A1	Carbaryl	1.0	0.3	31.5	0.912	34.5	115	0.834	138

	A2



44.9	0.912	49.2	48.5	0.912	53.2

	A3



36.5	0.912	40.0	70.9	0.834	85.0

	A4



2.1	0.912	2.3	1.8	0.912	2.0

	A5



12.4	0.912	13.6	4.8	0.912	5.3

AHE64	A1	Carbaryl	1.0	0.3	63.7	0.899	70.9	460	0.899	512

	A2



261	0.899	290	466	0.899	518

	A3



38.3	0.843	45.4	65.2	0.899	72.5

	A4



7023	0.992	7080	50233	0.992	50638

	A5



< LOQ	--	0.5	< LOQ	--	0.50

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, ½ LOQ or ½ LOD is used.  Note no
LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

b Calculated from chromatogram peak response (e.g., ug/mL)

c FFAF=field fortification adjustment factor.  From Supplemental Tables
S – 11a-b.

d Adjusted Exposure = Raw exposure ÷ Field Fortification Adjustment
Factor



Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  19 .  Head Patch (Inner and Outer):
 Field Sample Results

Study ID	MU ID	Active Ingredient	Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a	Inner Head Patch	Outer Head Patch



	LOQ	LOD	Raw Exp.b	FFAFc	Adj. Exp. (ug)d	Raw Exp.b	FFAFc	Adj. Exp. (ug)d

AHE07	1	Carbaryl	0.25	--	1.3	0.837	1.6	636	0.869	732

	3



2.3	0.837	2.7	3750	1.017	3687

	4



0.133	1	0.133	234	0.869	269

	6



0.41	0.837	0.49	1340	0.869	1542

	8



8.2	0.837	9.8	6730	1.017	6618

	10



0.133	1	0.133	993	0.869	1143

	12



0.3	0.837	0.36	498	0.869	573

	13



0.64	0.837	0.76	4360	1.017	4287

	15



0.96	0.837	1.1	2130	0.869	2451

	16



1.3	0.837	1.6	1330	0.869	1530

	17



0.133	1	0.133	271	0.869	312

	22



1.3	0.837	1.6	1460	0.869	1680

	23



48.6	0.837	58.1	1770	0.869	2037

	26



0.38	0.837	0.45	677	0.869	779

	27



0.59	0.837	0.70	7520	1.017	7394

AHE62	A1	Malathion	0.25	0.075	6.00	1.01	5.90	354	1.06	334

	A2



0.60	1.01	0.59	94.5	1.06	89.2

	A3



0.98	1.010	0.97	236	1.06	223

AHE63	A1	Carbaryl	0.25	0.075	9.3	0.692	13.4	5498	0.971	5662

	A2



2.0	0.692	2.9	1454	0.544	2673

	A3



2.6	0.692	3.8	2253	0.544	4142

	A4



< LOQ	--	0.13	10.4	0.544	19.1

	A5



< LOD	--	0.04	71.6	0.544	132

AHE64	A1	Carbaryl	0.25	0.075	0.89	0.81	1.1	1095	0.796	1376

	A2



1.1	0.81	1.4	5836	0.952	6130

	A3



0.39	0.81	0.48	139	0.796	175

	A4



0.43	0.81	0.53	12452	0.952	13080

	A5



< LOD	NA	0.04	0.58	0.796	0.73

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, ½ LOQ or ½ LOD is used.  Note no
LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

b Calculated from chromatogram peak response (e.g., ug/mL)

c FFAF=field fortification adjustment factor.  From Supplemental Tables
S – 15-16a-b.

d Adjusted Exposure = Raw exposure ÷ Field Fortification Adjustment
Factor



Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  20 .  Face/Neck Wipe Field Sample
Results

Study ID	MU ID	Active Ingredient	Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a	Raw Exposure (ug)b	Face/Neck Exposure Adjustments





	Field Fortification Adjustment Factorc	PPE Adjustment Factord	Adjusted
Exposure (ug)e



	LOQ	LOD



Non-MEA	MEAf

AHE07	1	Carbaryl	1.0	--	76.7	0.955	1.0	80.3	161

	3



155	0.955	1.0	162	324

	4



28.2	0.849	1.0	33.2	66.4

	6



88.6	0.955	1.0	92.8	186

	8



913	0.955	1.0	956	1912

	10



51.7	0.849	1.0	60.9	122

	12



47.7	0.849	1.0	56.2	112

	13



45.2	0.849	1.0	53.2	106

	15



281	0.955	1.0	294	588

	16



43.3	0.849	1.0	51.0	102

	17



13.1	0.849	1.0	15.4	30.8

	22



325	0.955	1.0	340	680

	23



493	0.955	1.0	516	1032

	26



498	0.955	1.0	521	1042

	27



2420	0.955	1.0	2534	5068

AHE62	A1	Malathion	1.0	0.3	12.04	1.02	1.1	13	26.0

	A2



56.2	0.928	1.1	66.7	133

	A3



75.6	0.928	1.1	89.7	179

AHE63	A1	Carbaryl	1.0	0.3	518	0.899	1.0	576	1152

	A2



37.9	0.983	1.2	46.3	92.6

	A3



114	0.899	1.0	127	254

	A4



3.2	0.983	1.0	3.3	6.6

	A5



41.2	0.983	1.0	41.9	83.8

AHE64	A1	Carbaryl	1.0	0.3	221	0.847	1.0	261	522

	A2



3133	0.917	1.0	3417	6834

	A3



42.6	0.878	1.2	58.2	116

	A4



2689	0.917	1.0	2932	5864

	A5



40.8	0.878	1.2	55.8	112

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, ½ LOQ or ½ LOD is used.  Note no
LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

b Calculated from chromatogram peak response (e.g., ug/mL)

c From Supplemental Tables – 12a-b.

d PPE characterized in Supplemental Table S – 5.  PPE Adjustment
Factors discussed in Section 3.2.2.

e Adjusted Exposure = Raw Exposure ÷ FF Adjustment Factor * PPE
Adjustment Factor

f MEA = method efficiency adjustment.  Data reflects a 2X adjustment to
account for potential residue collection method inefficiencies.  See
Section 3.3.3 for more details.  Only utilized for total dermal exposure
with chemical-resistant hats (i.e., this adjustment is not applicable to
exposure estimates without CR hats).





Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  21 .  Hand Wash Field Sample
Results

Study ID	MU ID	Active Ingredient	Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a	Hand Wash Sampleb	Total

(ug)e





# 1	# 2	# 3	#4





	Raw Exp. (ug)c	FFAFd	Raw Exp. (ug)c	FFAFd	Raw Exp. (ug)c	FFAFd	Raw Exp.
(ug)c	FFAFd	Non-MEA	MEAf



	LOQ	LOD











AHE07	1	Carbaryl	1.0	--	79.8	0.966	145	0.966	185	0.966	--	--	424	848

	3



1080	0.966	347	0.966	361	0.966	--	--	1851	3702

	4



21.7	0.966	114	0.966	37.6	0.966	--	--	179	358

	6



6.55	0.966	12.2	0.966	20.0	0.966	171	0.966	217	434

	8



781	0.966	640	0.966	484	0.966	2100	0.966	4146	8292

	10



86.7	0.966	179	0.966	--	--	--	--	275	550

	12



4.29	0.997	46.9	0.997	--	--	--	--	51.4	103

	13



64.4	0.966	132	0.966	--	--	--	--	203	406

	15



16.8	0.966	138	0.966	--	--	--	--	160	320

	16



109	0.966	267	0.966	--	--	--	--	389	778

	17



6.62	0.997	4.76	0.997	--	--	--	--	11.4	22.8

	22



663	0.966	893	0.966	--	--	--	--	1614	3228

	23



847	0.966	--	--	--	--	--	--	877	1754

	26



811	0.966	--	--	--	--	--	--	840	1680

	27



578	0.966	253	0.966	1940	0.966	--	--	2869	5738

AHE62	A1	Malathion	1.0	0.3	46.8	0.984	207.6	0.933	--	--	--	--	271	542

	A2



14.8	0.984	--	--	--	--	--	--	15.0	30.0

	A3



3.3	0.984	10.2	0.984	--	--	--	--	13.8	27.6

AHE63	A1	Carbaryl	1.0	0.3	52.2	1.11	215	1.10	--	--	--	--	242	484

	A2



247	1.10	--	--	--	--	--	--	225	450

	A3



64.8	1.10	--	--	--	--	--	--	58.9	118

	A4



5.9	1.11	12	1.11	--	--	--	--	16.1	32.2

	A5



33.2	1.11	--	--	--	--	--	--	29.9	59.8

AHE64	A1	Carbaryl	1.0	0.3	168	1.03	333	1.03	--	--	--	--	486	972

	A2



1152	1.12	--	--	--	--	--	--	1029	2058

	A3



428	1.03	--	--	--	--	--	--	416	832

	A4



1546	1.12	--	--	--	--	--	--	1380	2760

	A5



< LOQ	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0.5	1.0

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, ½ LOQ or ½ LOD is used.  Note no
LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

b Hand washes were conducted prior to lunch or bathroom breaks and at
the end of the day.

c Calculated from chromatogram peak response (e.g., ug/mL)

d FFAF = field fortification adjustment factor.  From Supplemental
Tables S – 13a-b.

e Total Hand Exposure = [Hand Wash #1 ÷ FF Adjustment Factor] + [Hand
Wash #2 ÷ FF Adjustment Factor] …+ [Hand Wash #N ÷ FF Adjustment
Factor]

f MEA = method efficiency adjustment.  Data reflects a 2X adjustment to
account for potential residue collection method inefficiencies.  See
Section 3.3.4 for more details.  Only utilized for total dermal exposure
with chemical-resistant hats (i.e., this adjustment is not applicable to
exposure estimates without CR hats).





Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  22 .  Socks (AHE07 only):  Field
Sample Results

Study ID	MU ID	Active Ingredient	Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a	Socks



	LOQ	LOD	Raw Exp.b	FFAFc	Adj. Exp. (ug)d

AHE07	1	Carbaryl	0.25	--	1.5	0.692	2.2

	3



1.2	0.692	1.7

	4



0.27	0.692	0.39

	6



0.59	0.692	0.85

	8



16.1	0.692	23.3

	10



0.64	0.692	0.92

	12



0.55	0.692	0.79

	13



0.41	0.692	0.59

	15



4.6	0.692	6.6

	16



5.8	0.692	8.4

	17



0.67	0.692	0.97

	22



0.81	0.692	1.2

	23



4.8	0.692	6.9

	26



5	0.692	7.2

	27



83.7	0.775	108

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, ½ LOQ or ½ LOD is used.  Note no
LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

b Calculated from chromatogram peak response (e.g., ug/mL)

c FFAF=field fortification adjustment factor.  From Supplemental Table S
– 17.

d Adjusted Exposure = Raw exposure ÷ Field Fortification Adjustment
Factor



Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  23 .  Head Exposure with and
without Chemical-Resistant Hats (Face/Neck Wipes plus Inner and Outer
Head Patches)

Study ID	MU ID	Face/Neck Wipe (ug)a	Head Patch	Total Head Exposure (ug)



	Inner (ug)	Outer (ug)	w/o CR Hate	With CR Hatf



Non-MEA	MEA	Adj. Exp.b	Extrapolated to Non-wiped Head Areasc	Adj. Exp. b
Extrapolated to Non-wiped Head Areasd

Non-MEA	MEA

AHE07	1	80.3	161	1.6	9.58	732	8769	8859	89.9	170

	3	162	324	2.7	16.17	3687	44170	44348	178	340

	4	33.2	66.4	0.133	0.75	269	3223	3257	33.9	67.1

	6	92.8	186	0.49	2.94	1542	18473	18569	95.7	189

	8	956	1912	9.8	58.70	6618	79284	80298	1015	1971

	10	60.9	122	0.133	0.75	1143	13693	13755	61.6	123

	12	56.2	112	0.36	2.16	573	6865	6923	58.4	115

	13	53.2	106	0.76	4.55	4287	51358	51416	57.8	111

	15	294	588	1.1	6.59	2451	29363	29664	301	595

	16	51.0	102	1.6	9.58	1530	18329	18390	60.6	112

	17	15.4	30.8	0.133	0.75	312	3738	3754	16.1	31.5

	22	340	680	1.6	9.58	1680	20126	20476	350	690

	23	516	1032	58.1	348.02	2037	24403	25267	864	1380

	26	521	1042	0.45	2.70	779	9332	9856	524	1045

	27	2534	5068	0.70	4.19	7394	88580	91118	2538	5072

AHE62	A1	13	26.0	5.90	35.34	334	4001	4050	48.3	61.3

	A2	66.7	133	0.59	3.53	89.2	1069	1139	70.2	137

	A3	89.7	179	0.97	5.81	223	2672	2767	95.5	185

AHE63	A1	576	1152	13.4	80.27	5662	67831	68487	656	1232

	A2	46.3	92.6	2.9	17.37	2673	32023	32086	63.7	110

	A3	127	254	3.8	22.76	4142	49621	49771	150	277

	A4	3.3	6.6	0.13	0.78	19.1	229	233	4.1	7.4

	A5	41.9	83.8	0.04	0.24	132	1581	1623	42.1	84.0

AHE64	A1	261	522	1.1	6.59	1376	16484	16752	268	529

	A2	3417	6834	1.4	8.39	6130	73437	76863	3425	6842

	A3	58.2	116	0.48	2.88	175	2097	2158	61.1	119

	A4	2932	5864	0.53	3.17	13080	156698	159634	2935	5867

	A5	55.8	112	0.04	0.24	0.73	9	64.8	56.0	112

a Face/neck wipe sample results from Supplemental Table S – 20.

b Head patch exposures from Supplemental Table S – 19.

c Inner head patch extrapolated to areas of the head not wiped using the
Face/Neck wipe by adjusting the estimated surface area of the head not
wiped by the Face/Neck wipe (599 cm2) and the surface area of the inner
head patch (100 cm2), as follows:  Inner Head Patch value (ug) * (599
cm2/100 cm2).

d Outer head patch extrapolated to areas of the head not wiped using the
Face/Neck wipe by adjusting the estimated surface area of the head not
wiped by the Face/Neck wipe (599 cm2) and the surface area of the outer
head patch (50 cm2), as follows:  Outer Head Patch value (ug) * (599
cm2/50 cm2).

e Head Exposure without CR Hats (ug) = Face/Neck Wipe (μg) +
Extrapolated Inner Head Patch (ug) + Extrapolated Outer Head Patch (ug).
 Note only “Non-MEA” face/neck wipe values are used for this
estimate.

f Head Exposure with CR Hats (ug) = Face/Neck Wipe (μg) + Extrapolated
Inner Head Patch (ug).





Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  24 .  Total Dermal Exposures

Study ID	MU ID	BW (kg)	Bodya

(μg)	Handb

(μg)	Headc

(μg)	Feetd (ug)	Total Exposure







	(μg)e	(μg/kg)f





	with CR Hat	w/o CR Hat

with CR Hat	w/o CR Hat	with CR Hat	w/o CR Hat



	LA	UA	FT	RT	LL	UL	Total	Non-MEA	MEA







	AHE07	1	51	75.4	46.6	23.9	25.6	29.1	84.6	285	424	848	170	8859	2.2	1305
9570	25.59	187.65

	3	73	1255	172	360	156	31.7	191	2166	1851	3702	340	44348	1.7	6210	48367
85.07	662.56

	4	118	197	43.1	90.0	43.8	11.0	68.6	454	179	358	67.1	3257	0.39	879	3890
7.45	32.97

	6	68	355	131	161	103	11.8	51.7	814	217	434	189	18569	0.85	1438	19601
21.15	288.25

	8	64	908	243	426	276	112	542	2507	4146	8292	1971	80298	23.3	12793	86974
199.89	1358.97

	10	94	1415	1790	237	558	18.5	65.7	4084	275	550	123	13755	0.92	4758
18115	50.62	192.71

	12	93	235	99.3	99.9	59.9	14.8	49.3	558	51.4	103	115	6923	0.79	777	7533
8.35	81.00

	13	77	235	213	182	162	99.5	209	1101	203	406	111	51416	0.59	1619	52721
21.03	684.69

	15	67	726	673	718	376	51.8	333	2878	160	320	595	29664	6.6	3800	32709
56.72	488.19

	16	109	333	60.8	212	71.1	169	326	1172	389	778	112	18390	8.4	2070	19959
18.99	183.11

	17	89	53.1	25.1	37.3	15.1	14.8	15.1	161	11.4	22.8	31.5	3754	0.97	216
3927	2.43	44.12

	22	96	532	285	495	310	101	543	2266	1614	3228	690	20476	1.2	6185	24357
64.43	253.72

	23	127	1005	292	605	913	125	1020	3960	877	1754	1380	25267	6.9	7101
30111	55.91	237.09

	26	77	799	601	550	511	66.3	67.8	2595	840	1680	1045	9856	7.2	5327	13298
69.18	172.70

	27	99	5028	2888	3421	2684	267	564	14852	2869	5738	5072	91118	108	25770
108947	260.30	1100.47

AHE62	A1	73	33.9	28.0	59.2	23.2	82.5	61.5	288	271	542	61.3	4050	--	891
4609	12.21	63.14

	A2	83	69.6	60.5	67.3	57.3	14.5	9.9	279	15.0	30.0	137	1139	--	446	1433
5.37	17.27

	A3	89	86.3	16.1	82.2	18.1	20.9	15.5	239	13.8	27.6	185	2767	--	452	3020
5.08	33.93

AHE63	A1	114	1230	1206	2251	502	34.5	138	5362	242	484	1232	68487	--	7078
74091	62.09	649.92

	A2	79	3480	1723	999	482	49.2	53.2	6786	225	450	110	32086	--	7346	39097
92.99	494.90

	A3	83	293	53.2	183	96	40.0	85.0	750	58.9	118	277	49771	--	1145	50580
13.80	609.40

	A4	92	5.0	3.0	2.4	6.0	2.3	2.0	20.7	16.1	32.2	7.4	233	--	60.3	270	0.66
2.93

	A5	89	44.0	48.7	54.1	25.2	13.6	5.3	191	29.9	59.8	84.0	1623	--	335	1844
3.76	20.72

AHE64	A1	90	1158	246	475	311	70.9	512	2773	486	972	529	16752	--	4274
20011	47.49	222.34

	A2	75	5147	3408	3559	3671	290	518	16593	1029	2058	6842	76863	--	25493
94485	339.91	1259.80

	A3	96	384	87.4	146	46.1	45.4	72.5	781	416	832	119	2158	--	1732	3355
18.04	34.95

	A4	92	5631	1660	1574	5492	7080	50638	72075	1380	2760	5867	159634	--
80702	233089	877.20	2533.58

	A5	86	2.0	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.5	0.50	4.5	0.5	1.0	112	64.8	--	118	69.8	1.37
0.81

a Dermal body exposures from Supplemental Tables S – 18a-c.  LA =
lower arm; UA = upper arm; FT = front torso; RT = rear torso; LL = lower
leg; UL = upper leg.  Total = LA + UA + FT + RT + LL + UL.

b Hand exposure from Supplemental Table S – 21.

c Head exposure from Supplemental Table S – 22.  Note that MEA data
presented for head exposure with CR hats. 

d Feet exposure from Supplemental Table S – 23.

:

?

L

N

O

c

e

y

z

œ

Ÿ

 

´

¶

Ê

Ë

*



9

:

{

Ì

Î

䀀&摧℞ጀ*

+

†

‡

Š

Ž

¹

Å

Æ

Ì

Í

Ð

Ó

Ö

Ù

ã

æ

í

î

ö

÷

û

j¬

h

 h¢

h

h

&

,

,

&

h

h

&

h

h

"

h

&

&

瑹㬵é咊଀

h

h

ht

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

&

&

hÜp

hÜp

hÜp

摧烜

摧ڏ}	㜀$␸䠀$摧烜

hÜp

 hÜp

hÜp

hÜp

(

»

Ff

Ffþ

Ff

a$gd³

a$gd³

a$gd³

gd³

gd³

gd³

gd³

gd³

gd³

Ff

愀Ĥ摧剤

愀Ĥ摧剤

 

-



!

"

#

/

D

V



D

G

K

N

S

T

q

t



ƒ

‡

‰

‘

’

•

–

—

«



±

´

µ

º

»

Î

Ò

Ó

ì

í

î

ï

.V

W

X

i



”

”

•

í

4

T

U

V

W

X

b

i

i

s

|

‡

‘

hÒ

Ffb

a$gdÒ

gdÒ

hÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

 h

 h

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

a$gdÒ

gdÒ

gdÒ

 h

h

 h

h

  h

h

 h

h

# h

 h

  h

 h

gd

gd

  h

h

 h

h

 h

h

 h

h

  h

h

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

a$gd

¹	ä

¹	ä

¹	ä

¹	ä

¹	ä

¹	ä

	

晆ʕ

晆ߺ

晆ൟ

晆ዄ

晆ᠩ

!

' Total Exposure (μg) = Total Body + Hands + Feet (AHE07 only) + Head. 
Note for exposure with CR hats, only estimates using MEA hand wash and
face/neck wipe data are shown (see Section 3.4.1).

f Total Exposure (ug/kg) = Total Exposure (ug) ÷ Body Weight (kg). 
Note for exposure with CR hats, only estimates using MEA hand wash and
face/neck wipe data are shown. (see Section 3.4.1).





Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  25 .  OVS Air Sample Field Results
and Inhalation Exposure

Study ID	MU ID	BW (kg)	Active Ingredient	Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a	Measured Residue	Inhalation Exposure





	Front Section	Back Section	BreathRate

(LPM)	PumpRate (LPM)	Total





	Raw Exp. (ug)b	FFAFc	Adj. Exp.d	Raw Exp. (ug)b	FFAFc	Adj. Exp.d







	LOQ	LOD























	(ug)e	(ug/kg)e

AHE07f	1	51	Carbaryl	0.01	--	4.1	1.094	3.7	NA	8.3	2.00	15.4	0.302

	3	73



14.2	1.094	13.0	NA	8.3	2.00	54.0	0.740

	4	118



4.9	1.094	4.5	NA	8.3	2.00	18.7	0.158

	6	68



13	1.094	11.9	NA	8.3	2.05	48.2	0.709

	8	64



73.9	1.012	73.0	NA	8.3	2.05	296	4.625

	10	94



9.5	1.094	8.7	NA	8.3	2.10	34.4	0.366

	12	93



11.7	1.094	10.7	NA	8.3	2.10	42.3	0.455

	13	77



10.6	1.094	9.7	NA	8.3	2.05	39.3	0.510

	15	67



9.5	1.094	8.7	NA	8.3	2.05	35.2	0.525

	16	109



8.6	1.094	7.9	NA	8.3	2.05	32.0	0.294

	17	89



5	1.094	4.6	NA	8.3	2.05	18.6	0.209

	22	96

0.05

13.5	1.094	12.3	NA	8.3	2.00	51.0	0.531

	23	127



9.3	1.094	8.5	NA	8.3	2.00	35.3	0.278

	26	77



8.2	1.094	7.5	NA	8.3	2.05	30.4	0.395

	27	99



129	1.012	127.5	NA	8.3	2.00	529	5.343

AHE62	A1	73	Malathion	0.01	0.0015	7.50	1.05	7.14	0.0208	1.18	0.0176	8.3
1.95	30.5	0.418

	A2	83



8.80	1.05	8.38	< LOD	--	0.00075	8.3	1.95	35.7	0.430

	A3	89



10.66	1.05	10.15	< LOD	--	0.00075	8.3	1.90	44.3	0.498

AHE63	A1	114	Carbaryl	0.005	0.0015	28.45	0.990	28.74	< LOD	--	0.00075
8.3	2.04	117	1.026

	A2	79



5.23	0.990	5.28	< LOD	--	0.00075	8.3	2.01	21.8	0.276

	A3	83



16.36	0.990	16.53	< LOD	--	0.00075	8.3	2.03	67.6	0.814

	A4	92



0.78	0.990	0.79	< LOD	--	0.00075	8.3	2.01	3.25	0.035

	A5	89



7.31	0.990	7.38	< LOQ	--	0.00250	8.3	2.02	30.3	0.340

AHE64	A1	90	Carbaryl	0.005	0.0015	10.81	1.04	10.39	< LOQ	--	0.00250	8.3
2.02	42.7	0.474

	A2	75



3.72	1.04	3.58	< LOQ	--	0.00250	8.3	2.05	14.5	0.193

	A3	96



3.38	1.04	3.25	< LOD	--	0.00075	8.3	2.01	13.4	0.140

	A4	92



1.68	1.04	1.62	< LOD	--	0.00075	8.3	2.02	6.66	0.072

	A5	86



0.082	1.16	0.07	< LOD	--	0.00075	8.3	2.02	0.294	0.003

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, ½ LOQ or ½ LOD is used.

b Calculated from chromatogram peak response (e.g., ug/mL)

c FFAF = field fortification adjustment factor.  From Supplemental
Tables S – 14a-b.

d Adjusted Exposure = Raw Exposure ÷ FF Adjustment Factor

e Total Exposure = [Adjusted front section + Adjusted back section] *
[Breathing Rate ÷ Pump Flow Rate]

f OVS sampler sections not analyzed separately.  Results for “Front
Section” represent a composite of the sections.



Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  26 .  Dermal and Inhalation Unit
Exposures

Study ID	MU ID	AaiH	Dermal Exposure	Inhalation Exposure



	Total (μg)a	Unit Exposure (ug/lb ai)b	Total (ug)c	Unit Exposure (ug/lb
ai)b



	with CR Hatd	w/o CR Hat	with CR Hatd	w/o CR Hat



AHE07	1	75	1305	9570	17.4	128	15.4	0.205

	3	45	6210	48367	138	1075	54.0	1.20

	4	75	879	3890	11.7	51.9	18.7	0.249

	6	60	1438	19601	24.0	327	48.2	0.803

	8	52	12793	86974	246	1673	296	5.68

	10	32	4758	18115	149	566	34.4	1.07

	12	33	777	7533	23.5	228	42.3	1.28

	13	36	1619	52721	45.0	1464	39.3	1.09

	15	24	3800	32709	158	1363	35.2	1.47

	16	40	2070	19959	51.8	499	32.0	0.800

	17	34	216	3927	6.4	116	18.6	0.548

	22	60	6185	24357	103	406	51.0	0.851

	23	90	7101	30111	78.9	335	35.3	0.392

	26	90	5327	13298	59.2	148	30.4	0.337

	27	90	25770	108947	286	1211	529	5.88

AHE62	A1	34.3	891	4609	26.0	134	30.5	0.889

	A2	5.0	446	1433	89.2	287	35.7	7.13

	A3	10.4	452	3020	43.5	290	44.3	4.26

AHE63	A1	48.4	7078	74091	146	1531	117	2.42

	A2	35.6	7346	39097	206	1098	21.8	0.612

	A3	24.4	1145	50580	46.9	2073	67.6	2.77

	A4	15.2	60.3	270	4.0	17.8	3.25	0.214

	A5	6.1	335	1844	54.9	302	30.3	4.97

AHE64	A1	63.1	4274	20011	67.7	317	42.7	0.677

	A2	10.1	25493	94485	2524	9355	14.5	1.44

	A3	35.3	1732	3355	49.1	95.0	13.4	0.380

	A4	25.2	80702	233089	3202	9250	6.66	0.264

	A5	18.2	118	69.8	6.5	3.8	0.294	0.00026

a See Supplemental Tables S – 24.

b Unit Exposure (μg/lb ai) = Exposure (μg) ÷ AaiH (lbs).

c See Supplemental Tables S – 25.

d Dermal exposure with CR hats reflects MEA hand wash and face/neck wipe
data.



Table S -   SEQ Table_S_- \* ARABIC  27 .  Protocol Amendments and
Deviations

Study ID	Summary of Amendments	Summary of Deviations



Field Phase	Analytical Phase

AHE62	Amended once to incorporate comments from EPA, California
Department of Pesticide Regulation, and HSRB.	Reported:

On study day 1, inner and outer head patch field fortifications were
conducted in duplicate instead of triplicate, and on study day 1, no
samples were taken for the higher fortification level (100 ug) for the
inner head patches.

Unreported:

Subject A2 was monitored for 174 minutes, although the protocol requires
a minimum 4-hour period.	Field fortification solutions for some lots
were not verified to establish concentration.

	Protocol Amendment 1

Inclusion criteria amended to allow participation of workers who
normally wear two layers of clothing.

Recruitment area expanded to allow any county in CA or WA.

Removed efficient configuration requirement if recruitment area is
expanded.



	Protocol Amendment 2

Added a new malathion product to possible test products (the active
ingredient malathion was already an approved surrogate)



	Protocol Amendment 3

Specified the analytical methods to be used for head patches



AHE63	Amended once to incorporate comments from EPA and HSRB.	Reported:

Subject A5 applied only 2 tank loads and sprayed for only 2 hours,
although the protocol specifies that each subject should apply a minimum
of 3 tank loads over a minimum time of 4 hours; also, the highest
stratum (56 to 100 lbs a.i.) was not achieved; the highest amount
sprayed was 48 lbs a.i

Unreported:

1.	None	The analytical laboratory deviated from methodologies related to
analysis of carbaryl in inner dosimeters 

The analytical lab deviated from methodologies related to analysis of
carbaryl in face/neck wipe samples

	Protocol Amendment 1

Recruitment process modified to permit use of recruitment letters

Reduce heat index triggering stopping rule lowered from 120° F to 105°
F

Amend dermal exposure sampling procedure to specify that the inner
dosimeters would be cut into 6 sections rather than 2 sections

Revise analytical methods to make them appropriate for dosimeters
sectioned into 6 pieces

Amend protocol to clarify the AHETF’s raw data retention policy



	Protocol Amendment 2

Amended analytical method for head patches



AHE64	Amended once to incorporate comments from EPA and HSRB.	Reported:

Subjects A2, A3, A4, A5 each applied only 2 tank loads and sprayed for
less than 4 hours, although the protocol specifies that each subject
should apply a minimum of 3 tank loads over a minimum time of 4 hours. 
Also, the lowest stratum (5 to 9 lbs a.i.) was not achieved; the lowest
amount sprayed was 10 lbs a.i. 

Unreported:

1.	None	The analytical laboratory deviated from analytical methodologies
related to analysis of carbaryl in inner dosimeters.

	Protocol Amendment 1

Recruitment process modified to permit use of recruitment letters

Recruitment area expanded to allow counties adjacent to Tulsa County,
Oklahoma.

Removed efficient configuration requirement if recruitment area is
expanded.

Amended dermal exposure sampling procedure to specify that the inner
dosimeters would be cut into 6 sections 

Revise analytical methods to make them appropriate for dosimeters cut in
6 sections



	Protocol Amendment 2

The study director was changed from Eric D. Bruce to Larry D. Smith,
effective September 14, 2009 (after study closure)





 Execution of Study AHE07 resulted in 25 total measurements (after
accounting for a repeated measure on the same worker, an aborted sample
due to equipment failure, and an unanalyzed sample due to a worker
switching headgear midday).  However, 10 of these workers wore
chemical-resistant jackets with hoods and are not included in this
scenario since the jacket would constitute a “double layer” and
would not meet the AHETF personal protection equipment (PPE) definition
for this scenario.  Thus, the total of 15 monitored workers for this
scenario adopted from AHE07.

 Minor GLPS deviations were noted for all studies, including:  test
substance was not characterized before use; scales used to weigh
subjects and weather monitoring devices were not maintained and
calibrated according to GLPS specifications.  These deviations do not
have any substantive impact on the study results.

 A total of only 4 grape growers were found eligible to participate in
study AHE62 (CA-grape).  Only 3 workers were ultimately monitored
because the 4th grower sprayed a different pesticide than the surrogate
for this study (malathion).

 Six of the 28 workers drove open cab vehicles with a canopy (see Table
S-6).  However, the presence of a roof does not appear to reduce
exposure.  Section 3.4.1 provides more details.

 As it was conducted a few years prior to current AHETF protocols, AHE07
had a slightly different strategy for fortification sampling:  4
fortification levels for inner dosimeters and 2 fortification levels for
the face/neck wipes, hand washes, head patches, socks, and OVS tubes.

 This directive was discussed and presented at a meeting of the Human
Studies Review Board (June 2007).  The terminology used to describe this
are “method efficiency adjusted” (MEA) or “method efficiency
corrected” (MEC).  For this scenario, adjustments are made to
face/neck wipe and hand wash measurements for exposures to workers while
wearing chemical-resistant hats only.  For exposures without
chemical-resistant hats, because the contribution to total dermal
exposure by the face/neck and hands is less than 20%, adjustments are
unnecessary.

 Calculated as a percentage of dermal exposure with chemical-resistant
hats.  The contribution would be even less when compared with dermal
exposure without chemical-resistant hats.

 Dermal exposures reflect the 50% method efficiency assumption (i.e., a
2X upward adjustment) for hand rinse and face/neck wipe measurements
(“MEA” = method efficiency adjustment) for exposures with
chemical-resistant hats only.  As previously stated, it is unnecessary
to adjust these measurements for dermal exposures without
chemical-resistant hats.  

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  62 

