TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page
No.

6.
DERMAL
ROUTE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
6.1.
EQUATION
FOR
DERMAL
DOSE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
6.2.
SURFACE
AREA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
6.2.1.
Background
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
6.2.2.
Measurement
Techniques
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
6.2.3.
Key
Body
Surface
Area
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
6.2.4.
Relevant
Surface
Area
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
6.2.5.
Application
of
Body
Surface
Area
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
6.3.
SOIL
ADHERENCE
TO
SKIN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
6.3.1.
Background
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
6.3.2.
Key
Soil
Adherence
to
Skin
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
6.3.3.
Relevant
Soil
Adherence
to
Skin
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
6.4.
RECOMMENDATIONS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
6.4.1.
Body
Surface
Area
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
6.4.2.
Soil
Adherence
to
Skin
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
6.5.
REFERENCES
FOR
CHAPTER
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
APPENDIX
6A
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
ADD
'
DA
event
x
EV
x
ED
x
EF
x
SA
BW
x
AT
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
1
(
Eqn.
6­
1)

where:
ADD
=
average
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg­
day);
DA
=
absorbed
dose
per
event
(
mg/
cm
­
event);
event
2
EV
=
event
frequency
(
events/
day);
ED
=
exposure
duration
(
years);
EF
=
exposure
frequency
(
days/
year);
SA
=
skin
surface
area
available
for
contact
(
cm
);
2
BW
=
body
weight
(
kg);
and
AT
=
averaging
time
(
days)
for
noncarcinogenic
effects,
AT
=
ED
and
for
carcinogenic
effects,
AT
=
70
years
or
25,550
days.
6.
DERMAL
ROUTE
Dermal
exposure
can
occur
during
a
variety
of
The
ADD
is
used
for
exposure
to
chemicals
with
nonactivities
in
different
environmental
media
and
carcinogenic
non­
chronic
effects.
For
compounds
with
microenvironments
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992).
These
include:
carcinogenic
or
chronic
effects,
the
lifetime
average
daily
°
Water
(
e.
g.,
bathing,
washing,
swimming);
over
a
lifetime.
°
Soil
(
e.
g.,
outdoor
recreation,
gardening,
For
dermal
contact
with
chemicals
in
soil
or
water,
construction);
dermally
absorbed
average
daily
dose
can
be
estimated
by
°
Sediment
(
e.
g.,
wading,
fishing);
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b):
°
Liquids
(
e.
g.,
use
of
commercial
products);
°
Vapors/
fumes
(
e.
g.,
use
of
commercial
products);
and
°
Indoors
(
e.
g.,
carpets,
floors,
countertops).

The
major
factors
that
must
be
considered
when
estimating
dermal
exposure
are:
the
chemical
concentration
in
contact
with
the
skin,
the
potential
dose,
the
extent
of
skin
surface
area
exposed,
the
duration
of
exposure,
the
absorption
of
the
chemical
through
the
skin,
the
internal
dose,
and
the
amount
of
chemical
that
can
be
delivered
to
a
target
organ
(
i.
e.,
biologically
effective
dose)
(
see
Figure
6­
1).
A
detailed
discussion
of
these
factors
can
be
found
in
Guidelines
for
Exposure
Assessment
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992a).
This
chapter
focuses
on
measurements
of
body
surface
areas
and
various
factors
needed
to
estimate
dermal
exposure
to
chemicals
in
water
and
soil.
Information
This
method
is
to
be
used
to
calculate
the
absorbed
dose
of
concerning
dermal
exposure
to
pollutants
in
indoor
a
chemical.
Total
body
surface
area
(
SA)
is
assumed
to
be
environments
is
limited.
Useful
information
concerning
exposed
for
a
period
of
time
(
ED).
estimates
of
body
surface
area
can
be
found
in
For
dermal
contact
with
water,
the
DA
is
"
Development
of
Statistical
Distributions
or
Ranges
of
estimated
with
consideration
for
the
permeability
coefficient
Standard
Factors
Used
in
Exposure
Assessments"
(
U.
S.
from
water,
the
chemical
concentration
in
water,
and
the
EPA,
1985).
"
Dermal
Exposure
Assessment:
Principles
event
duration.
The
approach
to
estimate
DA
is
different
and
Applications
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b),
provides
detailed
for
inorganic
and
organic
compounds.
The
nonsteady­
state
information
concerning
dermal
exposure
using
a
stepwise
approach
to
estimate
the
dermally
absorbed
dose
from
water
guide
in
the
exposure
assessment
process.
is
recommended
as
the
preferred
approach
for
organics
The
available
studies
have
been
classified
as
either
which
exhibit
octanol­
water
partitioning
(
U.
S.
EPA,
key
or
relevant
based
on
their
applicability
to
exposure
1992b).
First,
this
approach
more
accurately
reflects
assessment
needs
and
are
summarized
in
this
chapter.
normal
human
exposure
conditions
since
the
short
contact
Recommended
values
are
based
on
the
results
of
the
key
times
associated
with
bathing
and
swimming
generally
studies.
Relevant
studies
are
presented
to
provide
an
added
mean
that
steady
state
will
not
occur.
Second,
the
approach
perspective
on
the
state­
of­
knowledge
pertaining
to
dermal
accounts
for
uptake
that
can
occur
after
the
actual
exposure
exposure
factors.
All
tables
and
figures
presenting
data
event
due
to
absorption
of
residual
chemical
trapped
in
skin
from
these
studies
are
shown
at
the
end
of
this
chapter.
tissue.
Use
of
the
nonsteady­
state
model
for
organics
has
6.1.
EQUATION
FOR
DERMAL
DOSE
The
average
daily
dose
(
ADD)
is
the
dose
rate
traditional
steady­
state
approach
be
applied
to
inorganics
averaged
over
a
pathway­
specific
period
of
exposure
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b).
Detailed
information
concerning
how
expressed
as
a
daily
dose
on
a
per­
unit­
body­
weight
basis.

dose
(
LADD)
is
used.
The
LADD
is
the
dose
rate
averaged
event
event
implications
for
selecting
permeability
coefficient
(
K
)
p
values
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b).
It
is
recommended
that
the
to
estimate
absorbed
dose
per
event
(
DA
)
and
K
event
p
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6­
2
August
1997
values
can
be
found
in
Section
5.3.1
of
"
Dermal
Exposure
Assessment:
Principles
and
Applications"
(
U.
S.
EPA,
Coating,
triangulation,
and
surface
integration
are
1992b).
direct
measurement
techniques
that
have
been
used
to
For
dermal
contact
with
contaminated
soil,
measure
total
body
surface
area
and
the
surface
area
of
estimation
of
the
DA
is
different
from
the
estimation
for
specific
body
parts.
Consideration
has
been
given
for
event
dermal
contact
with
chemicals
in
water.
It
is
based
on
the
differences
due
to
age,
gender,
and
race.
The
results
of
the
concentration
of
the
chemical
in
soil,
the
adherence
factor
various
techniques
have
been
summarized
in
"
Development
of
soil
to
skin,
and
the
absorption
fraction.
Information
for
of
Statistical
Distributions
or
Ranges
of
Standard
Factors
DA
estimation
from
soil
contact
can
be
found
in
U.
S.
Used
in
Exposure
Assessments"
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1985).
The
event
EPA
(
1992b),
Section
6.4.
coating
method
consists
of
coating
either
the
whole
body
or
The
apparent
simplicity
of
the
absorption
fraction
specific
body
regions
with
a
substance
of
known
or
(
percent
absorbed)
makes
this
approach
appealing.
measured
area.
Triangulation
consists
of
marking
the
area
However,
it
is
not
practical
to
apply
it
to
water
contact
of
the
body
into
geometric
figures,
then
calculating
the
scenarios,
such
as
swimming,
because
of
the
difficulty
in
figure
areas
from
their
linear
dimensions.
Surface
estimating
the
total
material
contacted
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b).
integration
is
performed
by
using
a
planimeter
and
adding
It
is
assumed
that
there
is
essentially
an
infinite
amount
of
the
areas.
material
available,
and
that
the
chemical
will
be
replaced
The
triangulation
measurement
technique
developed
continuously,
thereby
increasing
the
amount
of
material
by
Boyd
(
1935)
has
been
found
to
be
highly
reliable.
It
(
containing
the
chemical)
available
by
some
large
unknown
estimates
the
surface
area
of
the
body
using
geometric
amount.
Therefore,
the
permeability
coefficient
approximations
that
assume
parts
of
the
body
resemble
­
based
approach
is
recommended
over
the
absorption
geometric
solids
(
Boyd,
1935).
More
recently,
Popendorf
fraction
approach
for
determining
the
dermally
absorbed
and
Leffingwell
(
1976),
and
Haycock
et
al.
(
1978)
have
dose
of
chemicals
in
aqueous
media.
developed
similar
geometric
methods
that
assume
body
Before
the
absorption
fraction
approach
can
be
used
parts
correspond
to
geometric
solids,
such
as
the
sphere
and
in
soil
contact
scenarios,
the
contaminant
concentration
in
cylinder.
A
linear
method
proposed
by
DuBois
and
DuBois
soil
must
be
established.
Not
all
of
the
chemical
in
a
layer
(
1916)
is
based
on
the
principle
that
the
surface
areas
of
the
of
dirt
applied
to
skin
may
be
bioavailable,
nor
is
it
assumed
parts
of
the
body
are
proportional,
rather
than
equal
to
the
to
be
an
internal
dose.
Because
of
the
lack
of
K
data
for
surface
area
of
the
solids
they
resemble.
p
compounds
bound
to
soil,
and
reduced
uncertainty
in
In
addition
to
direct
measurement
techniques,
several
defining
an
applied
dose,
the
absorption
fraction­
based
formulae
have
been
proposed
to
estimate
body
surface
area
approach
is
suggested
for
determining
the
internal
dose
of
from
measurements
of
other
major
body
dimensions
(
i.
e.,
chemicals
in
soil.
More
detailed
explanation
of
the
height
and
weight)
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1985).
Generally,
the
equations,
assumptions,
and
approaches
can
be
found
in
formulae
are
based
on
the
principles
that
body
density
and
"
Dermal
Exposure
Assessment:
Principles
and
shape
are
roughly
the
same
and
that
the
relationship
of
Applications"
(
U.
S.
EPA.
1992b).
surface
area
to
any
dimension
may
be
represented
by
the
6.2.
SURFACE
AREA
6.2.1.
Background
The
total
surface
area
of
skin
exposed
to
a
are
presented
in
Appendix
6A.
contaminant
must
be
determined
using
measurement
or
estimation
techniques
before
conducting
a
dermal
exposure
assessment.
Depending
on
the
exposure
scenario,
estimation
of
the
surface
area
for
the
total
body
or
a
specific
body
part
can
be
used
to
calculate
the
contact
rate
for
the
pollutant.
This
section
presents
estimates
for
total
body
surface
area
and
for
body
parts
and
presents
information
on
the
application
of
body
surface
area
data.
6.2.2.
Measurement
Techniques
curve
of
central
tendency
of
their
plotted
values
or
by
the
algebraic
expression
for
the
curve.
A
discussion
and
comparison
of
formulae
to
determine
total
body
surface
area
6.2.3.
Key
Body
Surface
Area
Studies
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
­
Development
of
Statistical
Distributions
or
Ranges
of
Standard
Factors
Used
in
Exposure
Assessments
­
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
analyzed
the
direct
surface
area
measurement
data
of
Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
using
the
Statistical
Processing
System
(
SPS)
software
package
of
Buhyoff
et
al.
(
1982).
Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
selected
401
measurements
made
by
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
3
Boyd
(
1935)
that
were
complete
for
surface
area,
height,
present
the
percentage
of
total
body
surface
by
body
part
for
weight,
and
age
for
their
analysis.
Boyd
(
1935)
had
men
and
women.
reported
surface
area
estimates
for
1,114
individuals
using
Percentile
estimates
for
total
surface
area
of
male
and
coating,
triangulation,
or
surface
integration
methods
(
U.
S.
female
children
presented
in
Tables
6­
6
and
6­
7
were
EPA,
1985).
calculated
using
the
total
surface
area
regression
equation,
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
used
SPS
to
generate
equations
to
NHANES
II
height
and
weight
data,
and
using
QNTLS.
calculate
surface
area
as
a
function
of
height
and
weight.
Estimates
are
not
included
for
children
younger
than
2
years
These
equations
were
then
used
to
calculate
body
surface
old
because
NHANES
height
data
are
not
available
for
this
area
distributions
of
the
U.
S.
population
using
the
height
age
group.
For
children,
the
error
associated
with
height
and
weight
data
obtained
from
the
National
Health
and
and
weight
cannot
be
assumed
to
be
zero
because
of
their
Nutrition
Examination
Survey
(
NHANES)
II
and
the
relatively
small
sizes.
Therefore,
the
standard
errors
of
the
computer
program
QNTLS
of
Rochon
and
Kalsbeek
percentile
estimates
cannot
be
estimated,
since
it
cannot
be
(
1983).
assumed
that
the
errors
associated
with
the
exogenous
The
equation
proposed
by
Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
variables
(
height
and
weight)
are
independent
of
that
was
determined
by
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
to
be
the
best
choice
associated
with
the
model;
there
are
insufficient
data
to
for
estimating
total
body
surface
area.
However,
the
paper
determine
the
relationship
between
these
errors.
by
Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
gave
insufficient
information
Measurements
of
the
surface
area
of
children's
body
to
estimate
the
standard
error
about
the
regression.
parts
are
summarized
as
a
percentage
of
total
surface
area
Therefore,
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
used
the
401
direct
in
Table
6­
8.
Because
of
the
small
sample
size,
the
data
measurements
of
children
and
adults
and
reanalyzed
the
cannot
be
assumed
to
represent
the
average
percentage
of
data
using
the
formula
of
Dubois
and
Dubois
(
1916)
and
surface
area
by
body
part
for
all
children.
Note
that
the
SPS
to
obtain
the
standard
error
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1985).
percent
of
total
body
surface
area
contributed
by
the
head
Regression
equations
were
developed
for
specific
decreases
from
childhood
to
adult,
while
the
percent
body
parts
using
the
Dubois
and
Dubois
(
1916)
formula
contributed
by
the
leg
increases.
and
using
the
surface
area
of
various
body
parts
provided
by
Boyd
(
1935)
and
Van
Graan
(
1969)
in
conjunction
with
SPS.
Regression
equations
for
adults
were
developed
for
the
head,
trunk
(
including
the
neck),
upper
extremities
(
arms
and
hands,
upper
arms,
and
forearms)
and
lower
extremities
(
legs
and
feet,
thighs,
and
lower
legs)
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1985).
Table
6­
1
presents
a
summary
of
the
equation
parameters
developed
by
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
for
calculating
surface
area
of
adult
body
parts.
Equations
to
estimate
the
body
part
surface
area
of
children
were
not
developed
because
of
insufficient
data.
Percentile
estimates
of
total
surface
area
and
surface
area
of
body
parts
developed
by
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
using
the
regression
equations
and
NHANES
II
height
and
weight
data
are
presented
in
Tables
6­
2
and
6­
3
for
adult
males
and
adult
females,
respectively.
The
calculated
mean
surface
areas
of
body
parts
for
men
and
women
are
presented
in
Table
6­
4.
The
standard
deviation,
the
minimum
value,
and
the
maximum
value
for
each
body
part
are
included.
The
median
total
body
surface
area
for
men
and
women
and
the
corresponding
standard
errors
about
the
regressions
are
also
given.
It
has
been
assumed
that
errors
associated
with
height
and
weight
are
negligible
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1985).
The
data
in
Table
6­
5
Phillips
et
al.
(
1993)
­
Distributions
of
Total
Skin
Surface
Area
to
Body
Weight
Ratios
­
Phillips
et
al.
(
1993)
observed
a
strong
correlation
(
0.986)
between
body
surface
area
and
body
weight
and
studied
the
effect
of
using
these
factors
as
independent
variables
in
the
LADD
equation.
Phillips
et
al.
(
1993)
concluded
that,
because
of
the
correlation
between
these
two
variables,
the
use
of
body
surface
area
to
body
weight
(
SA/
BW)
ratios
in
human
exposure
assessments
is
more
appropriate
than
treating
these
factors
as
independent
variables.
Direct
measurement
(
coating,
triangulation,
and
surface
integration)
data
from
the
scientific
literature
were
used
to
calculate
body
surface
area
to
body
weight
(
SA/
BW)
ratios
for
three
age
groups
(
infants
aged
0
to
2
years,
children
aged
2.1
to
17.9
years,
and
adults
18
years
and
older).
These
ratios
were
calculated
by
dividing
body
surface
areas
by
corresponding
body
weights
for
the
401
individuals
analyzed
by
Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
and
summarized
by
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985).
Distributions
of
SA/
BW
ratios
were
developed
and
summary
statistics
were
calculated
for
each
of
the
three
age
groups
and
the
combined
data
set.
Summary
statistics
for
these
populations
are
presented
in
Table
6­
9.
The
shapes
of
these
SA/
BW
distributions
were
determined
using
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6­
4
August
1997
SA=
4W+
7/
W+
90
(
Eqn.
6­
2)

where:
SA
=
Surface
Area
(
m
);
and
2
W
=
Weight
(
kg).
D'Agostino's
test.
The
results
indicate
that
the
SA/
BW
weight
and
the
formulae
described
above.
A
total
of
5,000
ratios
for
infants
are
lognormally
distributed
and
the
random
samples
each
for
men
and
women
were
selected
SA/
BW
ratios
for
adults
and
all
ages
combined
are
normally
from
the
two
correlated
bivariate
distributions.
Body
distributed
(
Figure
6­
2).
SA/
BW
ratios
for
children
were
surface
area
calculations
were
made
for
each
sample,
and
neither
normally
nor
lognormally
distributed.
According
to
for
each
formula,
resulting
in
body
surface
area
Phillips
et
al.
(
1993),
SA/
BW
ratios
should
be
used
to
distributions.
Murray
and
Burmaster
(
1992),
found
that
the
calculate
LADDs
by
replacing
the
body
surface
area
factor
body
surface
area
frequency
distributions
were
similar
for
in
the
numerator
of
the
LADD
equation
with
the
SA/
BW
the
four
models
(
Table
6­
10).
Using
the
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
ratio
and
eliminating
the
body
weight
factor
in
the
formula,
the
median
surface
area
values
were
calculated
to
denominator
of
the
LADD
equation.
be
1.96
m
for
men
and
1.69
m
for
women.
The
median
The
effect
of
gender
and
age
on
SA/
BW
distribution
value
for
women
is
identical
to
that
generated
by
U.
S.
EPA
was
also
analyzed
by
classifying
the
401
observations
by
(
1985)
but
differs
for
men
by
approximately
1
percent.
gender
and
age.
Statistical
analyses
indicated
no
significant
Body
surface
area
was
found
to
have
lognormal
differences
between
SA/
BW
ratios
for
males
and
females.
distributions
for
both
men
and
women
(
Figure
6­
3).
It
was
SA/
BW
ratios
were
found
to
decrease
with
increasing
age.
also
found
that
assuming
correlation
between
height
and
6.2.4.
Relevant
Surface
Area
Studies
Murray
and
Burmaster
(
1992)
­
Estimated
AIHC
(
1994)
­
Exposure
Factors
Sourcebook
­
The
Distributions
for
Total
Body
Surface
Area
of
Men
and
Women
in
the
United
States
­
In
this
study,
distributions
of
total
body
surface
area
for
men
and
women
ages
18
to
74
years
were
estimated
using
Monte
Carlo
simulations
based
on
height
and
weight
distribution
data.
Four
different
formulae
for
estimating
body
surface
area
as
a
function
of
height
and
weight
were
employed:
Dubois
and
Dubois
(
1916);
Boyd
(
1935);
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985);
and
Costeff
(
1966).
The
formulae
of
Dubois
and
Dubois
(
1916);
Boyd
(
1935);
and
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
are
based
on
height
and
weight.
They
are
discussed
in
Appendix
6A.
The
formula
developed
by
Costeff
(
1966)
is
based
on
220
observations
that
estimate
body
surface
area
based
on
weight
only.
This
formula
is:

Formulae
were
compared
and
the
effect
of
the
correlation
between
height
and
weight
on
the
body
surface
area
distribution
was
analyzed.
Monte
Carlo
simulations
were
conducted
to
estimate
body
surface
area
distributions.
They
were
based
on
the
bivariate
distributions
estimated
by
Brainard
and
Burmaster
(
1992)
for
height
and
natural
logarithm
of
2
2
weight
influences
the
final
distribution
by
less
than
1
percent.

Exposure
Factors
Sourcebook
(
AIHC,
1994)
provides
similar
body
surface
area
data
as
presented
here.
Consistent
with
this
document,
average
and
percentile
values
are
presented
on
the
basis
of
age
and
gender.
In
addition,
the
Sourcebook
presents
point
estimates
of
exposed
skin
surface
areas
for
various
scenarios
on
the
basis
of
several
published
studies.
Finally,
the
Sourcebook
presents
probability
distributions
based
on
U.
S.
EPA
(
1989)
and
as
derived
by
Thompson
and
Burmaster
(
1991);
Versar
(
1991);
and
Brorby
and
Finley
(
1993).
For
each
distribution,
the
@
Risk
formula
is
provided
for
direct
use
in
the
@
Risk
simulation
software
(
Palisade,
1992).
The
organization
of
this
document,
makes
it
very
convenient
to
use
in
support
of
Monte
Carlo
analysis.
The
reviews
of
the
supporting
studies
are
very
brief
with
little
analysis
of
their
strengths
and
weaknesses.
The
Sourcebook
has
been
classified
as
a
relevant
rather
than
key
study
because
it
is
not
the
primary
source
for
the
data
used
to
make
recommendations
in
this
document.
The
Sourcebook
is
very
similar
to
this
document
in
the
sense
that
it
summarizes
exposure
factor
data
and
recommends
values.
As
such,
it
is
clearly
relevant
as
an
alternative
information
source
on
body
surface
area
as
well
as
other
exposure
factors.

6.2.5.
Application
of
Body
Surface
Area
Data
In
many
settings,
it
is
likely
that
only
certain
parts
of
the
body
are
exposed.
All
body
parts
that
come
in
contact
with
a
chemical
must
be
considered
to
estimate
the
total
surface
area
of
the
body
exposed.
The
data
in
Table
6­
4
may
be
used
to
estimate
the
total
surface
area
of
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
5
the
particular
body
part(
s).
For
example,
to
assess
exposure
For
default
purposes,
adult
body
surface
areas
of
to
a
chemical
in
a
cleaning
product
for
which
only
the
hands
20,000
cm
(
central
estimate)
to
23,000
cm
(
upper
are
exposed,
surface
area
values
for
hands
from
Table
6­
4
percentile)
are
recommended
in
U.
S.
EPA
(
1992b).
Tables
can
be
used.
For
exposure
to
both
hands
and
arms,
mean
6­
2
and
6­
3
can
also
be
used
when
the
default
values
are
not
surface
areas
for
these
parts
from
Table
6­
4
may
be
preferred.
Central
and
upper­
percentile
values
for
children
summed
to
estimate
the
total
surface
area
exposed.
The
should
be
derived
from
Table
6­
6
or
6­
7.
mean
surface
area
of
these
body
parts
for
men
and
women
Unlike
exposure
to
liquids,
clothing
may
or
may
not
is
as
follows:
be
effective
in
limiting
the
extent
of
exposure
to
soil.
The
Surface
Area
(
m
)
2
Men
Women
Arms
(
includes
upper
arms
and
forearms)
0.228
0.210
Hands
0.084
0.075
Total
area
0.312
0.285
Therefore,
the
total
body
part
surface
area
that
may
be
in
contact
with
the
chemical
in
the
cleaning
product
in
this
example
is
0.312
m
for
men
and
0.285
m
for
women.
2
2
A
common
assumption
is
that
clothing
prevents
dermal
contact
and
subsequent
absorption
of
contaminants.
This
assumption
may
be
false
in
cases
where
the
chemical
may
be
able
to
penetrate
clothing,
such
as
in
a
fine
dust
or
liquid
suspension.
Studies
using
personal
patch
monitors
placed
beneath
clothing
of
pesticide
workers
exposed
to
fine
mists
and
vapors
show
that
a
significant
proportion
of
dermal
exposure
may
occur
at
anatomical
sites
covered
by
clothing
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b).
In
addition,
it
has
been
demonstrated
that
a
"
pumping"
effect
can
occur
which
causes
material
to
move
under
loose
clothing
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b).
Furthermore,
studies
have
demonstrated
that
hands
cannot
be
considered
to
be
protected
from
exposure
even
if
waterproof
gloves
are
worn
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b).
This
may
be
due
to
contamination
to
the
interior
surface
of
the
gloves
when
donning
or
removing
them
during
work
activities
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b).
Depending
on
the
task,
pesticide
workers
have
been
shown
to
experience
12
percent
to
43
percent
of
their
total
exposure
through
their
hands,
approximately
20
percent
to
23
percent
through
their
heads
and
necks,
and
36
percent
to
64
percent
through
their
torsos
and
arms,
despite
the
use
of
protective
gloves
and
clothing
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b).
For
swimming
and
bathing
scenarios,
past
exposure
assessments
have
assumed
that
75
percent
to
100
percent
of
the
skin
surface
is
exposed
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b).
As
shown
in
Table
6­
4,
total
adult
body
surface
areas
can
vary
from
about
17,000
cm
to
23,000
cm
.
The
mean
is
reported
as
2
2
approximately
20,000
cm
.
2
2
2
1989
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
presented
two
adult
clothing
scenarios
for
outdoor
activities
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1989):

Central
tendency
mid
range:
Individual
wears
long
sleeve
shirt,
pants,
and
shoes.
The
exposed
skin
surface
is
limited
to
the
head
and
hands
(
2,000
cm
).
2
Upper
percentile:
Individual
wears
a
short
sleeve
shirt,
shorts,
and
shoes.
The
exposed
skin
surface
is
limited
to
the
head,
hands,
forearms,
and
lower
legs
(
5,300
cm
).
2
The
clothing
scenarios
presented
above,
suggest
that
roughly
10
percent
to
25
percent
of
the
skin
area
may
be
exposed
to
soil.
Since
some
studies
have
suggested
that
exposure
can
occur
under
clothing,
the
upper
end
of
this
range
was
selected
in
Dermal
Exposure
Assessment:
Principles
and
Applications
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b)
for
deriving
defaults.
Thus,
taking
25
percent
of
the
total
body
surface
area
results
in
defaults
for
adults
of
5,000
cm
to
2
5,800
cm
.
These
values
were
obtained
from
the
body
2
surface
areas
in
Table
6­
2
after
rounding
to
20,000
cm
and
2
23,000
cm
,
respectively.
The
range
of
defaults
for
children
2
can
be
derived
by
multiplying
the
50th
and
95th
percentiles
by
0.25
for
the
ages
of
interest.
When
addressing
soil
contact
exposures,
assessors
may
want
to
refine
estimates
of
surface
area
exposed
on
the
basis
of
seasonal
conditions.
For
example,
in
moderate
climates,
it
may
be
reasonable
to
assume
that
5
percent
of
the
skin
is
exposed
during
the
winter,
10
percent
during
the
spring
and
fall,
and
25
percent
during
the
summer.
The
previous
discussion,
has
presented
information
about
the
area
of
skin
exposed
to
soil.
These
estimates
of
exposed
skin
area
should
be
useful
to
assessors
using
the
traditional
approach
of
multiplying
the
soil
adherence
factor
by
exposed
skin
area
to
estimate
the
total
amount
of
soil
on
skin.
The
next
section
presents
soil
adherence
data
specific
to
activity
and
body
part
and
is
designed
to
be
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6­
6
August
1997
combined
with
the
total
surface
area
of
that
body
part.
No
outdoor
activities:
greenhouse
gardening,
tae
kwon
do
reduction
of
body
part
area
is
made
for
clothing
coverage
karate,
soccer,
rugby,
reed
gathering,
irrigation
installation,
using
this
approach.
Thus,
assessors
who
adopt
this
truck
farming,
and
playing
in
mud.
A
summary
of
field
approach,
should
not
use
the
defaults
presented
above
for
studies
by
activity,
gender,
age,
field
conditions,
and
soil
exposed
skin
area.
Rather,
they
should
use
Table
6­
4
clothing
worn
is
presented
in
Table
6­
11.
Subjects'
body
to
obtain
total
surface
areas
of
specific
body
parts.
See
surfaces
(
forearms,
hands,
lower
legs
in
all
cases,
faces,
detailed
discussion
below.
and/
or
feet;
pairs
in
some
cases)
were
washed
before
and
6.3.
SOIL
ADHERENCE
TO
SKIN
6.3.1.
Background
Soil
adherence
to
the
surface
of
the
skin
is
a
required
presented
in
Table
6­
12.
Results
presented
are
based
on
parameter
to
calculate
dermal
dose
when
the
exposure
direct
measurement
of
soil
loading
on
the
surfaces
of
skin
scenario
involves
dermal
contact
with
a
chemical
in
soil.
A
before
and
after
occupational
and
recreational
activities
that
number
of
studies
have
attempted
to
determine
the
may
be
expected
to
have
soil
contact
(
Kissel
et
al.,
1996b).
magnitude
of
dermal
soil
adherence.
These
studies
are
described
in
detail
in
U.
S.
EPA
(
1992b).
This
section
summarizes
recent
studies
that
estimate
soil
adherence
to
skin
for
use
as
exposure
factors.

6.3.2.
Key
Soil
Adherence
to
Skin
Studies
Kissel
et
al.
(
1996a)
­
Factors
Affecting
Soil
Adherence
to
Skin
in
Hand­
Press
Trials:
Investigation
of
Samples
of
dirt
from
the
hands
of
subjects
were
collected
Soil
Contact
and
Skin
Coverage
­
Kissel
et
al.
(
1996a)
conducted
soil
adherence
experiments
using
five
soil
types
(
descriptor)
obtained
locally
in
the
Seattle,
Washington,
area:
sand
(
211),
loamy
sand
(
CP),
loamy
sand
(
85),
sandy
loam
(
228),
and
silt
loam
(
72).
All
soils
were
analyzed
by
hydrometer
(
settling
velocity)
to
determine
composition.
Clay
contents
ranged
from
0.5
to
7.0
percent.
Organic
carbon
content,
determined
by
combustion,
ranged
from
0.7
to
4.6
percent.
Soils
were
dry
sieved
to
obtain
particle
size
ranges
of
<
150,
150­
250,
and
>
250
F
m.
For
each
soil
type,
the
amount
of
soil
adhering
to
an
adult
female
hand,
using
both
sieved
and
unsieved
soils,
was
determined
by
measuring
the
difference
in
soil
sample
weight
before
and
after
the
hand
was
pressed
into
a
pan
containing
the
test
soil.
Loadings
were
estimated
by
dividing
the
recovered
soil
mass
by
total
hand
area,
although
loading
occurred
Roels
et
al.
(
1980)
­
Exposure
to
Lead
by
the
Oral
primarily
on
only
one
side
of
the
hand.
Results
showed
that
generally,
soil
adherence
to
hands
could
be
directly
correlated
with
moisture
content,
inversely
correlated
with
particle
size,
and
independent
of
clay
content
or
organic
carbon
content.
Kissel
et
al.
(
1996b)
­
Field
Measurement
of
Dermal
Soil
Loading
Attributable
to
Various
Activities:
mL
dilute
nitric
acid.
The
amount
of
lead
on
the
hands
was
Implications
for
Exposure
Assessment
­
Further
experiments
were
conducted
by
Kissel
et
al.
(
1996b)
to
estimate
soil
adherence
associated
with
various
indoor
and
after
monitored
activities.
Paired
samples
were
pooled
into
single
ones.
Mass
recovered
was
converted
to
loading
using
allometric
models
of
surface
area.
These
data
are
6.3.3.
Relevant
Soil
Adherence
to
Skin
Studies
Lepow
et
al.
(
1975)
­
Investigations
into
Sources
of
Lead
in
the
Environment
of
Urban
Children
­
This
study
was
conducted
to
identify
the
behavioral
and
environmental
factors
contributing
to
elevated
lead
levels
in
ten
preschool
children.
The
study
was
performed
over
6
to
25
months.

during
the
course
of
play
around
the
areas
where
they
lived.
Preweighed
self­
adhesive
labels
were
used
to
sample
a
standard
area
on
the
palm
of
the
hands
of
16
male
and
female
children.
The
labels
were
pressed
on
a
single
area,
often
pressed
several
times,
to
obtain
an
adequate
sample.
In
the
laboratory,
labels
were
equilibrated
in
a
desiccant
cabinet
for
24
hours
(
comparable
to
the
preweighed
desiccation),
then
the
total
weight
was
recorded.
The
mean
weight
of
dirt
from
the
22
hand
sample
labels
was
11
mg.
This
corresponds
to
0.51
mg/
cm
.
Lepow
et
al.
(
1975)
2
reported
that
this
amount
(
11
mg)
represented
only
a
small
fraction
(
percent
not
specified)
of
the
total
amount
of
surface
dirt
present
on
the
hands,
because
much
of
the
dirt
may
be
trapped
in
skin
folds
and
creases
or
there
may
be
a
patchy
distribution
of
dirt
on
hands.

and
the
Pulmonary
Routes
of
Children
Living
in
the
Vicinity
of
a
Primary
Lead
Smelter
­
Roels
et
al.
(
1980)
examined
blood
lead
levels
among
661
children,
9
to
14
years
old,
who
lived
in
the
vicinity
of
a
large
lead
smelter
in
Brussels,
Belgium.
During
five
different
study
periods,
lead
levels
were
assessed
by
rinsing
the
childrens'
hands
in
500
divided
by
the
concentration
of
lead
in
soil
to
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
7
estimate
the
amount
of
soil
adhering
to
the
hands.
The
µ
m,
and
0.58
mg/
cm
for
unsieved
soils.
Analysis
of
mean
soil
amount
adhering
to
the
hands
was
0.159
grams.
variance
statistics
showed
that
the
most
important
factor
Que
Hee
et
al.
(
1985)
­
Evolution
of
Efficient
Methods
to
Sample
Lead
Sources,
Such
as
House
Dust
and
Hand
Dust,
in
the
Homes
of
Children
­
Que
Hee
et
al.
(
1985)
used
soil
having
particle
sizes
ranging
from
#
44
to
833
µ
m
diameters,
fractionated
into
six
size
ranges,
to
estimate
the
amount
that
adhered
to
the
palm
of
the
hand
that
are
assumed
to
be
approximately
160
cm
(
test
subject
2
with
an
average
total
body
surface
area
of
16,000
cm
and
2
a
total
hand
surface
area
of
400
cm
).
The
amount
of
soil
2
that
adhered
to
skin
was
determined
by
applying
approximately
5
g
of
soil
for
each
size
fraction,
removing
excess
soil
by
shaking
the
hands,
and
then
measuring
the
difference
in
weight
before
and
after
application.
Several
Exposure
of
Humans
to
Soil
in
a
Residential
Setting
­
assumptions
were
made
to
apply
these
results
to
other
soil
Sedman
(
1989)
used
the
estimate
from
Roels
et
al.
(
1980),
types
and
exposure
scenarios:
(
a)
the
soil
is
composed
of
0.159
g,
and
the
average
surface
area
of
the
hand
of
an
11
particles
of
the
indicated
diameters;
(
b)
all
soil
types
and
year
old,
307
cm
to
estimate
the
amount
of
soil
adhering
particle
sizes
adhere
to
the
skin
to
the
degree
observed
in
per
unit
area
of
skin
to
be
0.9
mg/
cm
.
This
assumed
that
this
study;
and
an
equivalent
weight
of
particles
of
any
approximately
60
percent
(
185
cm
)
of
the
lead
on
the
diameter
adhere
to
the
same
surface
area
of
skin.
On
hands
was
recovered
by
the
method
employed
by
Roels
et
average,
31.2
mg
of
soil
adhered
to
the
palm
of
the
hand.
al.
(
1980).
Driver
et
al.
(
1989)
­
Soil
Adherence
to
Human
Skin
­
Driver
et
al.
(
1989)
conducted
soil
adherence
experiments
using
various
soil
types
collected
from
sites
in
Virginia.
A
total
of
five
soil
types
were
collected:
Hyde,
Chapanoke,
Panorama,
Jackland,
and
Montalto.
Both
top
soils
and
subsoils
were
collected
for
each
soil
type.
The
soils
were
also
characterized
by
cation
exchange
capacity,
organic
content,
clay
mineralogy,
and
particle
size
distribution.
The
soils
were
dry
sieved
to
obtain
particle
sizes
of
#
250
µ
m
and
#
150
µ
m.
For
each
soil
type,
the
amount
of
soil
Percutaneous
Absorption
of
Benzo[
a]
pyrene
from
adhering
to
adult
male
hands,
using
both
sieved
and
unsieved
soils,
was
determined
gravimetrically
(
i.
e.,
measuring
the
difference
in
soil
sample
weight
before
and
after
soil
application
to
the
hands).
An
attempt
was
made
to
measure
only
the
minimal
or
"
monolayer"
of
soil
adhering
to
the
hands.
This
was
done
by
mixing
a
pre­
weighed
amount
of
soil
over
the
entire
surface
area
of
the
hands
for
a
period
of
approximately
30
seconds,
followed
by
removal
of
excess
soil
by
gently
rubbing
the
hands
together
after
contact
with
the
soil.
Excess
soil
that
was
removed
from
the
hands
was
collected,
weighed,
and
compared
to
the
original
soil
sample
weight.
The
authors
measured
average
adherence
of
1.40
mg/
cm2
for
particle
sizes
less
than
150
µ
m,
0.95
mg/
cm
for
particle
2
sizes
less
than
250
2
affecting
adherence
variability
was
particle
size
(
p
<
0.001).
The
next
most
important
factor
is
soil
type
and
subtype
(
p
<
0.001).
The
interaction
of
soil
type
and
particle
size
was
also
significant,
but
at
a
lower
significance
level
(
p
<
0.01).
Driver
et
al.
(
1989)
found
statistically
significant
increases
in
soil
adherence
with
decreasing
particle
size;
whereas,
Que
Hee
et
al.
(
1985)
found
relatively
small
changes
with
changes
in
particle
size.
The
amount
of
soil
adherence
found
by
Driver
et
al.
(
1989)
was
greater
than
that
reported
by
Que
Hee
et
al.
(
1985).
Sedman
(
1989)
­
The
Development
of
Applied
Action
Levels
for
Soil
Contact:
A
Scenario
for
the
2
2
2
Sedman
(
1989)
used
estimates
from
Lepow
et
al.
(
1975),
Roels
et
al.
(
1980),
and
Que
Hee
et
al.
(
1985)
to
develop
a
maximum
soil
load
that
could
occur
on
the
skin.
A
rounded
arithmetic
mean
of
0.5
mg/
cm
was
calculated
2
from
these
three
studies.
According
to
Sedman
(
1989),
this
was
near
the
maximum
load
of
soil
that
could
occur
on
the
skin
but
it
is
unlikely
that
most
skin
surfaces
would
be
covered
with
this
amount
of
soil
(
Sedman,
1989).
Yang
et
al.
(
1989)
­
In
vitro
and
In
vivo
Petroleum
Crude
­
Fortified
Soil
in
the
Rat
­
Yang
et
al.
(
1989)
evaluated
the
percutaneous
absorption
of
benzo[
a]
pyrene
(
BAP)
in
petroleum
crude
oil
sorbed
on
soil
using
a
modified
in
vitro
technique.
This
method
was
used
in
preliminary
experiments
to
determine
the
minimum
amount
of
soil
adhering
to
the
skin
of
rats.
Based
on
these
results,
percutaneous
absorption
experiments
with
the
crude­
sorbed
soil
were
conducted
with
soil
particles
of
<
150
F
m
only.
This
particle
size
was
intended
to
represent
the
composition
of
the
soil
adhering
to
the
skin
surface.
Approximately
9
mg/
cm
of
soil
was
found
to
be
the
2
minimum
amount
required
for
a
"
monolayer"
coverage
of
the
skin
surface
in
both
in
vitro
and
in
vivo
experiments.
This
value
is
larger
than
reports
for
human
skin
in
the
studies
of
Kissel
et
al.,
1996a,
b;
Lepow
et
al.,
1975;
Roels
et
al.,
1980;
and
Que
Hee
et
al.,
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6­
8
August
1997
1985.
Differences
between
the
rat
and
human
soil
adhesion
because
these
data
are
straightforward
determinations
for
findings
may
be
the
result
of
differences
in
rat
and
human
most
scenarios.
However,
for
others,
additional
skin
texture,
the
types
of
soils
used,
soil
moisture
content
or
considerations
may
need
to
be
addressed.
For
example,
(
1)
possibly
the
methods
of
measuring
soil
adhesion
(
Yang
et
the
type
of
clothing
worn
could
have
a
significant
effect
on
al.,
1989).
the
surface
area
exposed,
and
(
2)
climatic
conditions
will
6.4.
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.4.1.
Body
Surface
Area
Body
surface
area
estimates
are
based
on
direct
activities
and
soil
contact
are
presented
in
Activity
Patterns,
measurements.
Re­
analysis
of
data
collected
by
Boyd
Volume
III,
Chapter
15
of
this
report.
For
each
parameter,
(
1935)
by
several
investigators
(
Gehan
and
George,
1970;
recommended
values
were
derived
for
average
and
upper
U.
S.
EPA,
1985;
Murray
and
Burmaster,
1992;
Phillips
et
percentile
values.
Each
of
these
considerations
are
also
al.,
1993)
constitutes
much
of
this
literature.
Methods
are
discussed
in
more
detail
in
U.
S.
EPA
(
1992b).
Data
in
highly
reproducible
and
the
results
are
widely
accepted.
Tables
6­
2
and
6­
3
can
be
used
when
surface
area
The
representativeness
of
these
data
to
the
general
distributions
are
preferred.
A
range
of
recommended
values
population
is
somewhat
limited
since
variability
due
to
race
for
estimates
of
the
skin
surface
area
of
children
may
be
or
gender
have
not
been
systematically
addressed.
taken
from
Tables
6­
6
and
6­
7
using
the
50th
and
95th
Individual
body
surface
area
studies
are
summarized
percentile
values
for
age(
s)
of
concern.
The
recommended
in
Table
6­
13
and
the
recommendations
for
body
surface
50th
and
95th
percentile
values
for
adult
skin
surface
area
area
are
summarized
in
Table
6­
14.
Table
6­
15
presents
provided
in
U.
S.
EPA
(
1992b)
are
presented
in
Table
6­
16.
the
confidence
ratings
for
various
aspects
of
the
recommendations
for
body
surface
area.
The
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
study
is
based
on
generally
accepted
measurements
Table
6­
17
summarizes
the
relevant
and
key
studies
that
enjoy
widespread
usage,
summarizes
and
compares
addressing
soil
adherence
to
skin.
Both
Lepow
et
al.
(
1975)
previous
reports
in
the
literature,
provides
statistical
and
Roels
et
al.
(
1980)
monitored
typical
exposures
in
distributions
for
adults,
and
provides
data
for
total
body
children.
They
attempted
to
estimate
typical
exposure
by
surface
area
and
body
parts
by
gender
for
adults
and
recovery
of
accumulated
soil
from
hands
at
specific
time
children.
However,
the
results
are
based
on
401
selected
intervals.
The
efficiency
of
their
sample
collection
methods
measurements
from
the
original
1,114
made
by
Boyd
is
not
known
and
may
be
subject
to
error.
Only
children
(
1935).
More
than
half
of
the
measurements
are
from
were
studied
which
may
limit
generalizing
these
results
to
children.
Therefore,
these
estimates
may
be
subject
to
adults.
Later
studies
(
Que
Hee
et
al.,
1985
and
Driver
et
al.,
selection
bias
and
may
not
be
representative
of
the
general
1989)
attempted
to
characterize
both
soil
properties
and
population
nor
specific
ethnic
groups.
Phillips
et
al.
(
1993)
sample
collection
efficiency
to
estimate
adherence
of
soil
to
analyses
are
based
on
direct
measurement
data
that
provide
skin.
However,
the
experimental
conditions
used
to
expose
distributions
of
body
surface
area
to
calculate
LADD.
The
skin
to
soil
may
not
reflect
typical
dermal
exposure
results
are
consistent
with
previous
efforts
to
estimate
body
situations.
This
provides
useful
information
about
the
surface
area.
Analyses
are
based
on
401
measurements
influence
of
soil
characteristics
on
skin
adherence,
but
the
selected
from
the
original
1,114
measurements
made
by
intimate
contact
of
skin
with
soil
required
under
the
Boyd
(
1935)
and
data
were
not
analyzed
for
specific
body
controlled
experimental
conditions
in
the
studies
by
Driver
parts.
The
study
by
Murray
and
Burmaster
(
1992)
provides
et
al.
(
1989)
and
Que
Hee
et
al.
(
1985)
may
have
frequency
distributions
for
body
surface
area
for
men
and
exaggerated
the
amount
of
adherence
over
what
typically
women
and
produces
results
that
are
similar
to
those
occurs.
obtained
by
the
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985),
but
do
not
provide
data
More
recently,
Kissel
et
al.
(
1996a;
1996b)
have
for
body
parts
nor
can
results
be
applied
to
children.
related
dermal
adherence
to
soil
characteristics
and
to
For
most
dermal
exposure
scenarios
concerning
specific
activities.
In
all
cases,
experimental
design
and
adults,
it
is
recommended
that
the
body
surface
areas
measurement
methods
are
straightforward
and
reproducible,
presented
in
Table
6­
4
be
used
after
determining
which
but
application
of
results
is
limited.
Both
controlled
body
parts
will
be
exposed.
Table
6­
4
was
selected
experiments
and
field
studies
are
based
on
a
also
affect
the
type
of
clothing
worn
and,
thus,
the
skin
surface
area
exposed.
Frequency,
event,
and
exposure
duration
for
water
6.4.2.
Soil
Adherence
to
Skin
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
9
limited
number
of
measurements.
Specific
situations
have
EPA
is
sponsoring
research
to
develop
such
an
approach.
been
selected
to
assess
soil
adherence
to
skin.
As
this
information
becomes
availble,
updated
Consequently,
variation
due
to
individuals,
protective
recommendations
will
be
issued.
clothing,
temporal,
or
seasonal
factors
remain
to
be
studied
Table
6­
12
provides
the
best
estimates
available
on
in
more
detail.
Therefore,
caution
is
required
in
activity­
specific
adherence
values,
but
are
based
on
limited
interpretation
and
application
of
these
results
for
exposure
data.
Therefore,
they
have
a
high
degree
of
uncertainty
such
assessments.
that
considerable
judgment
must
be
used
when
selecting
These
studies
are
based
on
limited
data,
but
suggest:
them
for
an
assessment.
The
confidence
ratings
for
various
°
Soil
properties
influence
adherence.
Adherence
18.
Insufficient
data
are
available
to
develop
a
distribution
increases
with
moisture
content,
decreases
with
or
a
probability
function
for
soil
loadings.
particle
size,
but
is
relatively
unaffected
by
clay
or
Past
EPA
guidance
has
recommended
assuming
that
organic
carbon
content.
soil
exposure
occurs
primarily
to
exposed
body
surfaces
and
°
Adherence
levels
vary
considerably
across
exposed
skin
area.
The
approach
recommended
above
for
different
parts
of
the
body.
The
highest
levels
were
estimating
soil
adherence
addresses
this
issue
in
a
different
found
on
common
contact
points
such
as
hands,
manner.
This
change
was
motivated
by
two
developments.
knees,
and
elbows;
the
least
was
detected
on
the
First,
increased
acceptance
that
soil
and
dust
particles
can
face.
get
under
clothing
and
be
deposited
on
skin.
Second,
recent
°
Adherence
levels
vary
with
activity.
In
general,
parts
(
whether
or
not
they
were
covered
by
clothing)
and
the
highest
levels
of
soil
adherence
were
seen
in
averaged
the
amount
of
soil
adhering
to
skin
over
the
area
outdoor
workers
such
as
farmers
and
irrigation
of
entire
body
part.
The
soil
adherence
levels
resulting
from
system
installers,
followed
by
outdoor
recreation,
these
new
studies
must
be
combined
with
the
surface
area
and
gardening
activities.
Very
high
adherence
of
the
entire
body
part
(
not
merely
unclothed
surface
area)
levels
were
seen
in
individuals
contacting
wet
to
estimate
the
amount
of
contaminant
on
skin.
An
soils
such
as
might
occur
during
wading
or
other
important
caveat,
however,
is
that
this
approach
assumes
shore
area
recreational
activities.
that
clothing
in
the
exposure
scenario
of
interest
matches
In
consideration,
of
these
general
observations
and
levels
such
that
the
same
degree
of
protection
provided
by
the
recent
data
from
Kissel
et
al.
(
1996a,
1996b),
changes
clothing
can
be
assumed
in
both
cases.
If
clothing
differs
are
needed
from
past
EPA
recommendations
which
used
significantly
between
the
studies
reported
here
and
the
one
adherence
value
to
represent
all
soils,
body
parts,
and
exposure
scenarios
under
investigation,
considerable
activities.
One
approach
would
be
to
select
the
activity
judgment
is
needed
to
adjust
either
the
adherence
level
or
from
Table
6­
11
which
best
represents
the
exposure
surface
area
assumption.
scenario
of
concern
and
use
the
corresponding
adherence
The
dermal
adherence
value
represents
the
amount
value
from
Table
6­
12.
Although
this
approach
represents
of
soil
on
the
skin
at
the
time
of
measurement.
Assuming
an
improvement,
it
still
has
shortcomings.
For
example,
it
that
the
amount
measured
on
the
skin
represents
its
is
difficult
to
decide
which
activity
in
Table
6­
12
is
most
accumulation
between
washings
and
that
people
wash
at
representative
of
a
typical
residential
setting
involving
a
least
once
per
day,
these
adherence
values
can
be
variety
of
activities.
It
may
be
useful
to
combine
these
interpreted
as
daily
contact
rates
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b).
activities
into
general
classes
of
low,
moderate,
and
high
However,
this
is
not
recommended
because
the
residence
contact.
In
the
future,
it
may
be
possible
to
combine
time
of
soils
on
skin
has
not
been
studied.
Instead,
it
is
activity­
specific
soil
adherence
estimates
with
survey­
recommended
that
these
adherence
values
be
interpreted
on
specific
soil
adherence
estimates
with
survey­
derived
data
an
event
basis
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992b).
on
activity
frequency
and
duration
to
develop
overall
average
soil
contact
rates.
aspects
of
this
recommendation
are
summarized
in
Table
6­

used
typical
clothing
scenarios
to
derive
estimates
of
studies
of
soil
adherence
have
measured
soil
on
entire
body
the
clothing
in
the
studies
used
to
derive
these
adherence
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6­
10
August
1997
6.5.
REFERENCES
FOR
CHAPTER
6
American
Industrial
Health
Council
(
AIHC).
(
1994)
Kissel,
J.;
Richter,
K.;
Fenske,
R.
(
1996b)
Field
Exposure
factors
sourcebook.
Washington,
DC:
measurements
of
dermal
soil
loading
attributable
to
AIHC.
various
activities:
Implications
for
exposure
Boyd,
E.
(
1935)
The
growth
of
the
surface
area
of
the
assessment.
Risk
Anal.
16(
1):
116­
125.
human
body.
Minneapolis,
Minnesota:
University
Lepow,
M.
L.;
Bruckman,
L.;
Gillette,
M.;
Markowitz,
S.;
of
Minnesota
Press.
Rubino,
R.;
Kapish,
J.
(
1975)
Investigations
into
Brainard,
J.
B.;
Burmaster,
D.
E.
(
1992)
Bivariate
sources
of
lead
in
the
environment
of
urban
children.
distributions
for
height
and
weight,
men
and
Environ.
Res.
10:
415­
426.
women
in
the
United
States.
Risk
Anal.
Murray,
D.
M.;
Burmaster,
D.
E.
(
1992)
Estimated
12(
2):
267­
275.
distributions
for
total
surface
area
of
men
and
women
Brorby,
G.;
Finley
B.
(
1993)
Standard
probability
in
the
United
States.
J.
Expos.
Anal.
Environ.
density
functions
for
routine
use
in
environmental
Epidemiol.
3(
4):
451­
462.
health
risk
assessment.
Presented
at
the
Society
of
Palisade.
(
1992)
@
Risk
users
guide.
Palisade
Risk
Analysis
Annual
Meeting,
December
1993,
Corporation,
Newfield,
NY.
Savannah,
GA.
Phillips,
L.
J.;
Fares,
R.
J.;
Schweer,
L.
G.
(
1993)
Buhyoff,
G.
J.;
Rauscher,
H.
M.;
Hull,
R.
B.;
Killeen,
K.;
Distributions
of
total
skin
surface
area
to
body
Kirk,
R.
C.
(
1982)
User's
Manual
for
Statistical
weight
ratios
for
use
in
dermal
exposure
Processing
System
(
version
3C.
1).
Southeast
assessments.
J.
Expos.
Anal.
Environ.
Epidemiol.
Technical
Associates,
Inc.
3(
3):
331­
338.
Costeff,
H.
(
1966)
A
simple
empirical
formula
for
Popendorf,
W.
J.;
Leffingwell,
J.
T.
(
1976)
Regulating
calculating
approximate
surface
area
in
children.
OP
pesticide
residues
for
farmworker
protection.
In:
Arch.
Dis.
Childh.
41:
681­
683.
Residue
Review
82.
New
York,
NY:
Springer­
Driver,
J.
H.;
Konz,
J.
J.;
Whitmyre,
G.
K.
(
1989)
Soil
Verlag
New
York,
Inc.,
1982.
pp.
125­
201.
adherence
to
human
skin.
Bull.
Environ.
Contam.
Que
Hee,
S.
S.;
Peace,
B.;
Clark,
C.
S.;
Boyle,
J.
R.;
Toxicol.
43:
814­
820.
Bornschein,
R.
L.;
Hammond,
P.
B.
(
1985)
Dubois,
D.;
Dubois,
E.
F.
(
1916)
A
formula
to
estimate
Evolution
of
efficient
methods
to
sample
lead
the
approximate
surface
area
if
height
and
weight
sources,
such
as
house
dust
and
hand
dust,
in
the
be
known.
Arch.
of
Intern.
Med.
17:
863­
871.
homes
of
children.
Environ.
Res.
38:
77­
95.
Gehan,
E.;
George,
G.
L.
(
1970)
Estimation
of
human
Rochon,
J.;
Kalsbeek,
W.
D.
(
1983)
Variance
estimation
body
surface
area
from
height
and
weight.
Cancer
from
multi­
stage
sample
survey
data:
the
jackknife
Chemother.
Rep.
54(
4):
225­
235.
repeated
replicate
approach.
Presented
at
1983
SAS
Geigy
Scientific
Tables
(
1981)
Nomograms
for
Users
Group
Conference,
New
Orleans,
Louisiania,
determination
of
body
surface
area
from
height
and
January
1983.
mass.
Lentner,
C.
(
ed.).
CIBA­
Geigy
Roels,
H.
A.;
Buchet,
J.
P.;
Lauwenys,
R.
R.;
Branx,
P.;
Corporation,
West
Caldwell,
NJ.
pp.
226­
227.
Claeys­
Thoreau,
F.;
Lafontaine,
A.;
Verduyn,
G.
George,
S.
L.;
Gehan,
E.
A.;
Haycock,
G.
B.;
Schwartz,
(
1980)
Exposure
to
lead
by
oral
and
pulmonary
G.
J.
(
1979)
Letters
to
the
editor.
J.
Ped.
routes
of
children
living
in
the
vicinity
of
a
primary
94(
2):
342.
lead
smelter.
Environ.
Res.
22:
81­
94.
Haycock,
G.
B.;
Schwartz,
G.
J.;
Wisotsky,
D.
H.
(
1978)
Sedman,
R.
M.
(
1989)
The
development
of
applied
Geometric
method
for
measuring
body
surface
action
levels
for
soil
contact:
a
scenario
for
the
area:
A
height­
weight
formula
validated
in
infants,
exposure
of
humans
to
soil
in
a
residential
setting.
children,
and
adults.
J.
Ped.
93(
1):
62­
66.
Environ.
Health
Perspect.
79:
291­
313.
Holmes,
K.
K.;
Kissel,
J.
C.;
Richter,
K.
Y.
(
1996)
Sendroy,
J.;
Cecchini,
L.
P.
(
1954)
Determination
of
Investigation
of
the
influence
of
oil
on
soil
human
body
surface
area
from
height
and
weight.
J.
adherence
to
skin.
J.
Soil
Contam.
5(
4):
301­
308.
Appl.
Physiol.
7(
1):
3­
12.
Kissel,
J.;
Richter,
K.;
Duff,
R.;
Fenske,
R.
(
1996a)
Factors
Affecting
Soil
Adherence
to
Skin
in
Hand­
Press
Trials.
Bull.
Environ.
Contamin.
Toxicol.
56:
722­
728.
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
11
Thompson,
K.
M.;
Burmaster,
D.
E.
(
1991)
Parametric
U.
S.
EPA.
(
1992b)
Dermal
exposure
assessment:
distributions
for
soil
ingestion
by
children.
Risk
.
principles
and
applications.
Washington,
DC:
Anal.
11(
2):
339­
342.
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
Office
of
U.
S.
EPA.
(
1985)
Development
of
statistical
Health
and
Environmental
Assessment/
OHEA.
U.
S.
distributions
or
ranges
of
standard
factors
used
in
EPA/
600/
8­
9­
91.
exposure
assessments.
Washington,
DC:
Office
Van
Graan,
C.
H.
(
1969)
The
determination
of
body
of
Research
and
Development,
Office
of
Health
surface
area.
Supplement
to
the
South
African
J.
of
and
Environmental
Assessment.
EPA
Lab.
and
Clin.
Med.
8­
2­
69.
600/
8­
85­
010.
Available
from:
NTIS,
Versar,
Inc.
(
1991)
Analysis
of
the
impact
of
exposure
Springfield,
VA.
PB85­
242667.
assumptions
on
risk
assessment
of
chemicals
in
the
U.
S.
EPA.
(
1989)
Exposure
factors
handbook.
environment,
phase
II:
uncertainty
analyses
of
Washington,
DC:
Office
of
Research
and
existing
exposure
assessment
methods.
Draft
Development,
Office
of
Health
and
Environmental
Report.
Prepared
for
Exposure
Assessment
Task
Assessment.
EPA/
600/
18­
89/
043.
Group,
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association,
U.
S.
EPA.
(
1992a)
Guidelines
for
exposure
assessment.
Washington,
DC.
Federal
Register.
FR
57:
104:
22888­
22938.
May
Yang,
J.
J.;
Roy,
T.
A.;
Krueger,
A.
J.;
Neil,
W.;
Mackerer,
29,
1992.
C.
R.
(
1989)
In
vitro
and
in
vivo
percutaneous
absorption
of
benzo[
a]
pyrene
from
petroleum
crudefortified
soil
in
the
rat.
Bull.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
43:
207­
214.
Applied
Dose
Potential
Dose
Organ
Chemical
Effect
Exposure
Internal
Dose
Biologically
Effective
Dose
Metabolism
Skin
Uptake
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6­
12
August
1997
Figure
6­
1.
Schematic
of
Dose
and
Exposure:
Dermal
Route
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1992a.

Table
6­
1.
Summary
of
Equation
Parameters
for
Calculating
Adult
Body
Surface
Area
Body
Part
N
P
R
S.
E.
Equation
for
surface
areas
(
m
)
2
2
a
W
H
o
a1
a2
Head
Female
57
0.0256
0.124
0.189
0.01
0.302
0.00678
Male
32
0.0492
0.339
­
0.0950
0.01
0.222
0.0202
Trunk
Female
57
0.188
0.647
­
0.304
0.001
0.877
0.00567
Male
32
0.0240
0.808
­
0.0131
0.001
0.894
0.0118
Upper
Extremities
Female
57
0.0288
0.341
0.175
0.001
0.526
0.00833
Male
48
0.00329
0.466
0.524
0.001
0.821
0.0101
Arms
Female
13
0.00223
0.201
0.748
0.01
0.731
0.00996
Male
32
0.00111
0.616
0.561
0.001
0.892
0.0177
Upper
Arms
Male
6
8.70
0.741
­
1.40
0.25
0.576
0.0387
Forearms
Male
6
0.326
0.858
­
0.895
0.05
0.897
0.0207
Hands
Female
12
0.0131
0.412
0.0274
0.1
0.447
0.0172
Male
32
0.0257
0.573
­
0.218
0.001
0.575
0.0187
b
Lower
Extremities
105
0.00286
0.458
0.696
0.001
0.802
0.00633
c
Legs
45
0.00240
0.542
0.626
0.001
0.780
0.0130
Thighs
45
0.00352
0.629
0.379
0.001
0.739
0.0149
Lower
legs
45
0.000276
0.416
0.973
0.001
0.727
0.0149
Feet
45
0.000618
0.372
0.725
0.001
0.651
0.0147
SA
=
a
W
H
a
a1
a2
o
W
=
Weight
in
kilograms;
H
=
Height
in
centimeters;
P
=
Level
of
significance;
R
=
Coefficient
of
determination;
2
SA
=
Surface
Area;
S.
E.
=
Standard
error;
N
=
Number
of
observations
One
observation
for
a
female
whose
body
weight
exceeded
the
95
percentile
was
not
used.
b
Although
two
separate
regressions
were
marginally
indicated
by
the
F
test,
pooling
was
done
for
consistency
with
individual
components
of
c
lower
extremities.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1985.
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
13
Table
6­
2.
Surface
Area
of
Adult
Males
in
Square
Meters
Percentile
Body
part
5
10
15
25
50
75
85
90
95
S.
E.
a
Total
1.66
1.72
1.76
1.82
1.94
2.07
2.14
2.20
2.28
0.00374
Head
0.119
0.121
0.123
0.124
0.130
0.135
0.138
0.140
0.143
0.0202
Trunk
0.591
0.622
0.643
0.674
0.739
0.807
0.851
0.883
0.935
0.0118
b
Upper
extremities
0.321
0.332
0.340
0.350
0.372
0.395
0.408
0.418
0.432
0.00101
Arms
0.241
0.252
0.259
0.270
0.291
0.314
0.328
0.339
0.354
0.00387
Forearms
0.106
0.111
0.115
0.121
0.131
0.144
0.151
0.157
0.166
0.0207
Hands
0.085
0.088
0.090
0.093
0.099
0.105
0.109
0.112
0.117
0.0187
Lower
extremities
0.653
0.676
0.692
0.715
0.761
0.810
0.838
0.858
0.888
0.00633
Legs
0.539
0.561
0.576
0.597
0.640
0.686
0.714
0.734
0.762
0.0130
Thighs
0.318
0.331
0.341
0.354
0.382
0.411
0.429
0.443
0.463
0.0149
Lower
legs
0.218
0.226
0.232
0.240
0.256
0.272
0.282
0.288
0.299
0.0149
Feet
0.114
0.118
0.120
0.124
0.131
0.138
0.142
0.145
0.149
0.0147
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Standard
error
for
the
5­
95
percentile
of
each
body
part.
a
Trunk
includes
neck.
b
Percentile
estimates
exceed
the
maximum
measured
values
upon
which
the
equations
are
based.
c
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1985.

Table
6­
3.
Surface
Area
of
Adult
Females
in
Square
Meters
Percentile
Body
part
5
10
15
25
50
75
85
90
95
S.
E.
a
Total
1.45
1.49
1.53
1.58
1.69
1.82
1.91
1.98
2.09
0.00374
Head
0.106
0.107
0.108
0.109
0.111
0.113
0.114
0.115
0.117
0.00678
Trunk
0.490
0.507
0.518
0.538
0.579
0.636
0.677
0.704
0.752
0.00567
b
Upper
extremities
0.260
0.265
0.269
0.274
0.287
0.301
0.311
0.318
0.329
0.00833
Arms
0.210
0.214
0.217
0.221
0.230
0.238
0.243
0.247
0.253
0.00996
Hands
0.0730
0.0746
0.0757
0.0777
0.0817
0.0868
0.0903
0.0927
0.0966
0.0172
Lower
extremities
0.564
0.582
0.595
0.615
0.657
0.704
0.736
0.757
0.796
0.00633
Legs
0.460
0.477
0.488
0.507
0.546
0.592
0.623
0.645
0.683
0.0130
Thighs
0.271
0.281
0.289
0.300
0.326
0.357
0.379
0.394
0.421
0.0149
Lower
legs
0.186
0.192
0.197
0.204
0.218
0.233
0.243
0.249
0.261
0.0149
Feet
0.100
0.103
0.105
0.108
0.114
0.121
0.126
0.129
0.134
0.0147
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Standard
error
for
the
5­
95
percentile
of
each
body
part.
a
Trunk
includes
neck.
b
Percentile
estimates
exceed
the
maximum
measured
values
upon
which
the
equations
are
based.
c
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1985.
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6­
14
August
1997
Table
6­
4.
Surface
Area
by
Body
Part
for
Adults
(
m
)
2
Body
part
Men
Women
N
Mean
(
sd)
Min.
­
Max.
N
Mean
(
sd)
Min.
­
Max.
a
b
Head
32
0.118
(
0.0160)
0.090
­
0.161
57
0.110
(
0.00625)
0.0953
­
0.127
Trunk
32
0.569
(
0.104)
0.306
­
0.893
57
0.542
(
0.0712)
0.437
­
0.867
(
Incl.
Neck)

Upper
extremities
48
0.319
(
0.0461)
0.169
­
0.429
57
0.276
(
0.0241)
0.215
­
0.333
Arms
32
0.228
(
0.0374)
0.109
­
0.292
13
0.210
(
0.0129)
0.193
­
0.235
Upper
arms
6
0.143
(
0.0143)
0.122
­
0.156
­
­
­
­
­
­
Forearms
6
0.114
(
0.0127)
0.0945
­
0.136
­
­
­
­
­
Hands
32
0.084
(
0.0127)
0.0596
­
0.113
12
0.0746
(
0.00510)
0.0639
0.0824
Lower
extremities
48
0.636
(
0.0994)
0.283
­
0.868
57
0.626
(
0.0675)
0.492
­
0.809
Legs
32
0.505
(
0.0885)
0.221
­
0.656
13
0.488
(
0.0515)
0.423
­
0.585
Thighs
32
0.198
(
0.1470)
0.128
­
0.403
13
0.258
(
0.0333)
0.258
­
0.360
Lower
legs
32
0.207
(
0.0379)
0.093
­
0.296
13
0.194
(
0.0240)
0.165
­
0.229
Feet
32
0.112
(
0.0177)
0.0611
­
0.156
13
0.0975
(
0.00903)
0.0834
­
0.115
TOTAL
1.94
(
0.00374)
1.66
­
2.28
1.69
(
0.00374)
1.45
­
2.09
c
d
e
c
d
e
number
of
observations.
a
standard
deviation.
b
median
(
see
Table
6­
2).
c
standard
error.
d
percentiles
(
5th
­
95th).
e
Source:
Adapted
from
U.
S.
EPA,
1985.

Table
6­
5.
Percentage
of
Total
Body
Surface
Area
by
Part
for
Adults
Men
Women
Body
part
N
Mean
(
s.
d.)
Min.
­
Max.
N
Mean
(
s.
d.)
Min.
­
Max.
a
b
Head
32
7.8
(
1.0)
6.1
­
10.6
57
7.1
(
0.6)
5.6
­
8.1
Trunk
32
35.9
(
2.1)
30.5
­
41.4
57
34.8
(
1.9)
32.8
­
41.7
Upper
extremities
48
18.8
(
1.1)
16.4
­
21.0
57
17.9
(
0.9)
15.6
­
19.9
Arms
32
14.1
(
0.9)
12.5
­
15.5
13
14.0
(
0.6)
12.4
­
14.8
Upper
arms
6
7.4
(
0.5)
6.7
­
8.1
­
­
­
­
­
­
Forearms
6
5.9
(
0.3)
5.4
­
6.3
­
­
­
­
­
Hands
32
5.2
(
0.5)
4.6
­
7.0
12
5.1
(
0.3)
4.4
5.4
Lower
extremities
48
37.5
(
1.9)
33.3
­
41.2
57
40.3
(
1.6)
36.0
­
43.2
Legs
32
31.2
(
1.6)
26.1
­
33.4
13
32.4
(
1.6)
29.8
­
35.3
Thighs
32
18.4
(
1.2)
15.2
­
20.2
13
19.5
(
1.1)
18.0
­
21.7
Lower
legs
32
12.8
(
1.0)
11.0
­
15.8
13
12.8
(
1.0)
11.4
­
14.9
Feet
32
7.0
(
0.5)
6.0
­
7.9
13
6.5
(
0.3)
6.0
­
7.0
Number
of
observations.
a
Standard
deviation.
b
Source:
Adapted
from
U.
S.
EPA,
1985.
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
15
Table
6­
6.
Total
Body
Surface
Area
of
Male
Children
in
Square
Metersa
Age
(
yr)
b
Percentile
5
10
15
25
50
75
85
90
95
2
<
3
0.527
0.544
0.552
0.569
0.603
0.629
0.643
0.661
0.682
3
<
4
0.585
0.606
0.620
0.636
0.664
0.700
0.719
0.729
0.764
4
<
5
0.633
0.658
0.673
0.689
0.731
0.771
0,796
0.809
0.845
5
<
6
0.692
0.721
0.732
0.746
0.793
0.840
0.864
0.895
0.918
6
<
7
0.757
0.788
0.809
0.821
0.866
0.915
0.957
1.01
1.06
7
<
8
0.794
0.832
0.848
0.877
0.936
0.993
1.01
1.06
1.11
8
<
9
0.836
0.897
0.914
0.932
1.00
1.06
1.12
1.17
1.24
9
<
10
0.932
0.966
0.988
1.00
1.07
1.13
1.16
1.25
1.29
10
<
11
1.01
1.04
1.06
1.10
1.18
1.28
1.35
1.40
1.48
11
<
12
1.00
1.06
1.12
1.16
1.23
1.40
1.47
1.53
1.60
12
<
13
1.11
1.13
1.20
1.25
1.34
1.47
1.52
1.62
1.76
13
<
14
1.20
1.24
1.27
1.30
1.47
1.62
1.67
1.75
1.81
14
<
15
1.33
1.39
1.45
1.51
1.61
1.73
1.78
1.84
1.91
15
<
16
1.45
1.49
1.52
1.60
1.70
1.79
1.84
1.90
2.02
16
<
17
1.55
1.59
1.61
1.66
1.76
1.87
1.98
2.03
2.16
17
<
18
1.54
1.56
1.62
1.69
1.80
1.91
1.96
2.03
2.09
3
<
6
0.616
0.636
0.649
0.673
0.728
0.785
0.817
0.842
0.876
6
<
9
0.787
0.814
0.834
0.866
0.931
1.01
1.05
1.09
1.14
9
<
12
0.972
1.00
1.02
1.07
1.16
1.28
1.36
1.42
1.52
12
<
15
1.19
1.24
1.27
1.32
1.49
1.64
1.73
1.77
1.85
15
<
18
1.50
1.55
1.59
1.65
1.75
1.86
1.94
2.01
2.11
Lack
of
height
measurements
for
children
<
2
years
in
NHANES
II
precluded
calculation
of
surface
areas
for
this
age
group.
a
Estimated
values
calculated
using
NHANES
II
data.
b
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1985.

Table
6­
7.
Total
Body
Surface
Area
of
Female
Children
in
Square
Metersa
Percentile
Age
(
yr)
5
10
15
25
50
75
85
90
95
b
2
<
3
0.516
0.532
0.544
0.557
0.579
0.610
0.623
0.637
0.653
3
<
4
0.555
0.570
0.589
0.607
0.649
0.688
0.707
0.721
0.737
4
<
5
0.627
0.639
0.649
0.666
0.706
0.758
0.777
0.794
0.820
5
<
6
0.675
0.700
0.714
0.735
0.779
0.830
0.870
0.902
0.952
6
<
7
0.723
0.748
0.770
0.791
0.843
0.914
0.961
0.989
1.03
7
<
8
0.792
0.808
0.819
0.854
0.917
0.977
1.02
1.06
1.13
8
<
9
0.863
0.888
0.913
0.932
1.00
1.05
1.08
1.11
1.18
9
<
10
0.897
0.948
0.969
1.01
1.06
1.14
1.22
1.31
1.41
10
<
11
0.981
1.01
1.05
1.10
1.17
1.29
1.34
1.37
1.43
11
<
12
1.06
1.09
1.12
1.16
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.56
1.62
12
<
13
1.13
1.19
1.24
1.27
1.40
1.51
1.62
1.64
1.70
13
<
14
1.21
1.28
1.32
1.38
1.48
1.59
1.67
1.75
1.86
14
<
15
1.31
1.34
1.39
1.45
1.55
1.66
1.74
1.76
1.88
15
<
16
1.38
1.49
1.43
1.47
1.57
1.67
1.72
1.76
1.83
16
<
17
1.40
1.46
1.48
1.53
1.60
1.69
1.79
1.84
1.91
17
<
18
1.42
1.49
1.51
1.56
1.63
1.73
1.80
1.84
1.94
3
<
6
0.585
0.610
0.630
0.654
0.711
0.770
0.808
0.831
0.879
6
<
9
0.754
0.790
0.804
0.845
0.919
1.00
1.04
1.07
1.13
9
<
12
0.957
0.990
1.03
1.06
1.16
1.31
1.38
1.43
1.56
12
<
15
1.21
1.27
1.30
1.37
1.48
1.61
1.68
1.74
1.82
15
<
18
1.40
1.44
1.47
1.51
1.60
1.70
1.76
1.82
1.92
Lack
of
height
measurements
for
children
<
2
years
in
NHANES
II
precluded
calculation
of
surface
areas
for
this
age
group.
a
Estimated
values
calculated
using
NHANES
II
data.
b
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1985.
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6­
16
August
1997
Table
6­
8.
Percentage
of
Total
Body
Surface
Area
by
Body
Part
for
Children
Age
(
yr)
N
M:
F
Percent
of
Total
Head
Trunk
Arms
Hands
Legs
Feet
Mean
Min­
Max
Mean
Min­
Max
Mean
Min­
Max
Mean
Min­
Max
Mean
Min­
Max
Mean
Min­
Max
<
1
2:
0
18.2
18.2­
18.3
35.7
34.8­
36.6
13.7
12.4­
15.1
5.3
5.21­
5.39
20.6
18.2­
22.9
6.54
6.49­
6.59
1
<
2
1:
1
16.5
16.5­
16.5
35.5
34.5­
36.6
13.0
12.8­
13.1
5.68
5.57­
5.78
23.1
22.1­
24.0
6.27
5.84­
6.70
2
<
3
1:
0
14.2
38.5
11.8
5.30
23.2
7.07
3
<
4
0:
5
13.6
13.3­
14.0
31.9
29.9­
32.8
14.4
14.2­
14.7
6.07
5.83­
6.32
26.8
26.0­
28.6
7.21
6.80­
7.88
4
<
5
1:
3
13.8
12.1­
15.3
31.5
30.5­
32.4
14.0
13.0­
15.5
5.70
5.15­
6.62
27.8
26.0­
29.3
7.29
6.91­
8.10
5
<
6
6
<
7
1:
0
13.1
35.1
13.1
4.71
27.1
6.90
7
<
8
8
<
9
9
<
10
0:
2
12.0
11.6­
12.5
34.2
33.4­
34.9
12.3
11.7­
12.8
5.30
5.15­
5.44
28.7
28.5­
28.8
7.58
7.38­
7.77
10
<
11
11
<
12
12
<
13
1:
0
8.74
34.7
13.7
5.39
30.5
7.03
13
<
14
1:
0
9.97
32.7
12.1
5.11
32.0
8.02
14
<
15
15
<
16
16
<
17
1:
0
7.96
32.7
13.1
5.68
33.6
6.93
17
<
18
1:
0
7.58
31.7
17.5
5.13
30.8
7.28
N:
Number
of
subjects,
male
to
female
ratios.

Source:
U.
S.
EPA
1985.
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
17
Table
6­
9.
Descriptive
Statistics
for
Surface
Area/
Body
Weight
(
SA/
BW)
Ratios
(
m
/
kg)
2
Age
(
yrs.)
Mean
Min­
Max
SD
SE
Range
a
b
Percentiles
5
10
25
50
75
90
95
0­
2
0.0641
0.0421­
0.1142
0.0114
7.84e­
4
0.0470
0.0507
0.0563
0.0617
0.0719
0.0784
0.0846
2.1
­
17.9
0.0423
0.0268­
0.0670
0.0076
1.05e­
3
0.0291
0.0328
0.0376
0.0422
0.0454
0.0501
0.0594
$
18
0.0284
0.0200­
0.0351
0.0028
7.68e­
6
0.0238
0.0244
0.0270
0.0286
0.0302
0.0316
0.0329
All
ages
0.0489
0.0200­
0.1142
0.0187
9.33e­
4
0.0253
0.0272
0.0299
0.0495
0.0631
0.0740
0.0788
Standard
deviation.
a
Standard
error
of
the
mean.
b
Source:
Phillips
et
al.,
1993.

Table
6­
10.
Statistical
Results
for
Total
Body
Surface
Area
Distributions
(
m
)
2
Men
U.
S.
EPA
Boyd
DuBois
and
DuBois
Costeff
Mean
1.97
1.95
1.94
1.89
Median
1.96
1.94
1.94
1.89
Mode
1.96
1.91
1.90
1.90
Standard
Deviation
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
Skewness
0.27
0.26
0.23
0.04
Kurtosis
3.08
3.06
3.02
2.92
Women
U.
S.
EPA
Boyd
DuBois
and
DuBois
Costeff
Mean
1.73
1.71
1.69
1.71
Median
1.69
1.68
1.67
1.68
Mode
1.68
1.62
1.60
1.66
Standard
Deviation
0.21
0.20
0.18
0.21
Skewness
0.92
0.88
0.77
0.69
Kurtosis
4.30
4.21
4.01
3.52
Source:
Murray
and
Burmaster,
1992
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6­
20
August
1997
Table
6­
11.
Summary
of
Field
Studies
Activity
Month
(
hrs)
N
M
F
Age
Conditions
Clothing
Eventa
b
Indoor
Tae
Kwon
Do
Feb.
1.5
7
6
1
8­
42
Carpeted
floor
All
in
longsleeve­
long
pants
martial
arts
uniform,
sleeves
rolled
back,
barefoot
Greenhouse
Workers
Mar.
5.25
2
1
1
37­
39
Plant
watering,
spraying,
soil
Long
pants,
elbow
length
short
sleeve
blending,
sterilization
shirt,
no
gloves
Indoor
Kids
No.
1
Jan.
2
4
3
1
6­
13
Playing
on
carpeted
floor
3
of
4
short
pants,
2
of
4
short
sleeves,
socks,
no
shoes
Indoor
Kids
No.
2
Feb.
2
6
4
2
3­
13
Playing
on
carpeted
floor
5of
6
long
pants,
5
of
6
long
sleeves,
socks,
no
shoes
Indoor
Totals
19
14
5
Outdoor
Daycare
Kids
No.
1a
Aug.
3.5
6
5
1
1­
6.5
Indoors:
linoleum
surface;
4
of
6
in
long
pants,
4
of
6
short
outdoors:
grass,
bare
earth,
barked
sleeves,
shoes
area
Daycare
Kids
No.
1b
Aug.
4
6
5
1
1­
6.5
Indoors:
linoleum
surface;
4
of
6
in
long
pants,
4
of
6
short
outdoors:
grass,
bare
earth,
barked
sleeves,
no
shoes
area
Daycare
Kids
No.
2c
Sept.
8
5
4
1
1­
4
Indoors,
low
napped
carpeting,
4
of
5
long
pants,
3of
5
long
sleeves,
linoleum
surfaces
all
barefoot
for
part
of
the
day
Daycare
Kids
No.
3
Nov.
8
4
3
1
1­
4.5
Indoors:
linoleum
surface,
outside:
All
long
pants,
3
of
4
long
sleeves,
grass,
bare
earth,
barked
area
socks
and
shoes
Soccer
No.
1
Nov.
0.67
8
8
0
13­
15
Half
grass­
half
bare
earth
6
of
8
long
sleeves,
4
of
8
long
pants,
3
of
4
short
pants
and
shin
guards
Soccer
No.
2
Mar.
1.5
8
0
8
24­
34
All­
weather
field
(
sand­
ground
All
in
short
sleeve
shirts,
shorts,
knee
tires)
socks,
shin
guards
Soccer
No.
3
Nov.
1.5
7
0
7
24­
34
All­
weather
field
(
sand­
ground
All
in
short
sleeve
shirts,
shorts,
knee
tires)
socks,
shin
guards
Groundskeepers
No.
1
Mar.
1.5
2
1
1
29­
52
Campus
grounds,
urban
All
in
long
pants,
intermittent
use
of
horticulture
center,
arboretum
gloves
Groundskeepers
No.
2
Mar.
4.25
5
3
2
22­
37
Campus
grounds,
urban
horticulture
All
in
long
pants,
intermittent
use
of
center,
arboretum
gloves
Groundskeepers
No.
3
Mar.
8
7
5
2
30­
62
Campus
grounds,
urban
horticulture
All
in
long
pants,
intermittent
use
of
center,
arboretum
gloves
Groundskeepers
No.
4
Aug.
4.25
7
4
3
22­
38
Campus
grounds,
urban
horticulture
5
of
7
in
short
sleeve
shirts,
intermittent
center,
arboretum
use
of
gloves
Groundskeepers
No.
5
Aug.
8
8
6
2
19­
64
Campus
grounds,
urban
horticulture
5
of
8
in
short
sleeve
shirts,
intermittent
center,
arboretum
use
of
gloves
Landscape/
Rockery
June
9
4
3
1
27­
43
Digging
(
manual
andmechanical),
All
long
pants,
2
long
sleeves,
all
socks
rock
moving
and
boots
IrrigationInstallers
Oct.
3
6
6
0
23­
41
Landscaping,
surface
restoration
All
in
long
pants,
3
of
6
short
sleeve
or
sleeveless
shirts
Gardeners
No.
1
Aug.
4
8
1
7
16­
35
Weeding,
pruning,
digging
a
trench
6
of
8
long
pants,
7
of
8
short
sleeves,
1
sleeveless,
socks,
shoes,
intermittent
use
of
gloves
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
21
Table
6­
11.
Summary
of
Field
Studies
(
continued)

Activity
Month
(
hrs)
N
M
F
Age
Conditions
Clothing
Eventa
b
Gardeners
No.
2
Aug.
4
7
2
5
26­
52
Weeding,
pruning,
digging
a
3
of
7
long
pants,
5of
7
short
sleeves,
1
trench,
picking
fruit,
cleaning
sleeveless,
socks,
shoes,
no
gloves
Rugby
No.
1
Mar.
1.75
8
8
0
20­
22
Mixed
grass­
barewet
field
All
in
short
sleeve
shirts,
shorts,
variable
sock
lengths
Rugby
No.
2
July
2
8
8
0
23­
33
Grass
field
(
80%
oftime)
and
all­
All
in
shorts,
7
of
8
in
short
sleeve
weather
field
(
mix
of
gravel,
sand,
shirts,
6
of
8
in
low
socks
and
clay)
(
20%
oftime)

Rugby
No.
3
Sept.
2.75
7
7
0
24­
30
Compacted
mixedgrass
and
bare
All
short
pants,
7
of
8
short
or
rolled
up
earth
field
sleeves,
socks,
shoes
Archeologists
July
11.5
7
3
4
16­
35
Digging
withtrowel,
screening
dirt,
6
of
7
short
pants,
all
short
sleeves,
3
no
sorting
shoes
or
socks,
2
sandals
Construction
Workers
Sept.
8
8
8
0
21­
30
Mixed
bare
earth
and
concrete
5
of
8
pants,
7
of
8
short
sleeves,
all
surfaces,
dust
and
debris
socks
and
shoes
Utility
Workers
No.
1
July
9.5
5
5
0
24­
45
Cleaning,
fixing
mains,
excavation
All
long
pants,
short
sleeves,
socks,
(
backhoe
and
shovel)
boots,
gloves
sometimes
Utility
Workers
No.
2
Aug.
9.5
6
6
0
23­
44
Cleaning,
fixing
mains,
excavation
All
long
pants,
5
of
6
short
sleeves,
(
backhoe
and
shovel)
socks,
boots,
gloves
sometimes
Equip.
Operators
No.
1
Aug.
8
4
4
0
21­
54
Earth
scraping
withheavy
All
long
pants,
3
of
4
short
sleeves,
machinery,
dusty
conditions
socks,
boots,
2
of
4
gloves
Equip.
Operators
No.
2
Aug.
8
4
4
0
21­
54
Earth
scraping
withheavy
All
long
pants,
3
of
4
short
sleeves,
machinery,
dusty
conditions
socks,
boots,
1
gloves
Farmers
No.
1
May
2
4
2
2
39­
44
Manual
weeding,
mechanical
All
in
long
pants,
heavy
shoes,
short
cultivation
sleeve
shirts,
no
gloves
Farmers
No.
2
July
2
6
4
2
18­
43
Manual
weeding,
mechanical
2
of
6
short,
4
of
6long
pants,
1
of
6
cultivation
long
sleeve
shirt,
no
gloves
Reed
Gatherers
Aug.
2
4
0
4
42­
67
Tidal
flats
2
of
4
shortsleeve
shirts/
knee
length
pants,
all
wore
shoes
Kids­
in­
mud
No.
1
Sept.
0.17
6
5
1
9­
14
Lake
shoreline
All
in
short
sleeve
T­
shirts,
shorts,
barefoot
Kids­
in­
mud
No.
2
Sept.
0.33
6
5
1
9­
14
Lake
shoreline
All
in
short
sleeveT­
shirts,
shorts,
barefoot
Outdoor
Totals
181
125
56
a
Event
duration
b
Number
of
subject
c
Activities
were
confined
to
the
house
Sources:
Kissel
et
al.,
1996b;
Holmes
et
al.,
1996
(
submitted
for
publication).
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6­
22
August
1997
Table
6­
12.
Geometric
Mean
and
Geometric
Standard
Deviations
of
Soil
Adherence
by
Activity
and
Body
Region
Post­
activity
Dermal
Soil
Loadings
(
mg/
cm2)

Activity
N
Hands
Arms
Legs
Faces
Feet
a
Indoor
Tae
Kwon
Do
7
0.0063
0.0019
0.0020
0.0022
1.9
4.1
2.0
2.1
GreenhouseWorkers
2
0.043
0.0064
0.0015
0.0050
­­
­­
­­
­­

Indoor
Kids
No.
1
4
0.0073
0.0042
0.0041
0.012
1.9
1.9
2.3
1.4
Indoor
Kids
No.
2
6
0.014
0.0041
0.0031
0.0091
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.7
Daycare
Kids
No.
1a
6
0.11
0.026
0.030
0.079
1.9
1.9
1.7
2.4
Daycare
Kids
No.
1b
6
0.15
0.031
0.023
0.13
2.1
1.8
1.2
1.4
Daycare
Kids
No.
2
5
0.073
0.023
0.011
0.044
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.3
Daycare
Kids
No.
3
4
0.036
0.012
0.014
0.0053
1.3
1.2
3.0
5.1
Outdoor
Soccer
No.
1
8
0.11
0.011
0.031
0.012
1.8
2.0
3.8
1.5
Soccer
No.
2
8
0.035
0.0043
0.014
0.016
3.9
2.2
5.3
1.5
Soccer
No.
3
7
0.019
0.0029
0.0081
0.012
1.5
2.2
1.6
1.6
Groundskeepers
No.
1
2
0.15
0.005
0.0021
0.018
­­
­­
­­
­­

Groundskeepers
No.
2
5
0.098
0.0021
0.0010
0.010
2.1
2.6
1.5
2.0
Groundskeepers
No.
3
7
0.030
0.0022
0.0009
0.0044
0.0040
2.3
1.9
1.8
2.6
Groundskeepers
No.
4
7
0.045
0.014
0.0008
0.0026
0.018
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.6
­­

Groundskeepers
No.
5
8
0.032
0.022
0.0010
0.0039
1.7
2.8
1.4
2.1
Landscape/
Rockery
4
0.072
0.030
0.0057
2.1
2.1
1.9
Irrigation
Installers
6
0.19
0.018
0.0054
0.0063
1.6
3.2
1.8
1.3
Gardeners
No.
1
8
0.20
0.050
0.072
0.058
0.17
1.9
2.1
­­
1.6
­­
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
23
Table
6­
12.
Geometric
Mean
and
Geometric
Standard
Deviations
of
Soil
Adherence
by
Activity
and
Body
Region
(
continued)
Post­
activity
Dermal
Soil
Loadings
(
mg/
cm2)
Activity
N
Hands
Arms
Legs
Faces
Feet
a
Gardeners
No.
2
7
0.18
0.054
0.022
0.047
0.26
3.4
2.9
2.0
1.6
­­

Rugby
No.
1
8
0.40
0.27
0.36
0.059
1.7
1.6
1.7
2.7
Rugby
No.
2
8
0.14
0.11
0.15
0.046
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.4
Rugby
No.
3
7
0.049
0.031
0.057
0.020
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.5
Archeologists
7
0.14
0.041
0.028
0.050
0.24
1.3
1.9
4.1
1.8
1.4
Construction
Workers
8
0.24
0.098
0.066
0.029
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.6
Utility
Workers
No.
1
5
0.32
0.20
0.10
1.7
2.7
1.5
Utility
Workers
No.
2
6
0.27
0.30
0.10
2.1
1.8
1.5
Equip.
Operators
No.
1
4
0.26
0.089
0.10
2.5
1.6
1.4
Equip.
Operators
No.
2
4
0.32
0.27
0.23
1.6
1.4
1.7
Farmers
No.
1
4
0.41
0.059
0.0058
0.018
1.6
3.2
2.7
1.4
Farmers
No.
2
6
0.47
0.13
0.037
0.041
1.4
2.2
3.9
3.0
Reed
Gatherers
4
0.66
0.036
0.16
0.63
1.8
2.1
9.2
7.1
Kids­
in­
mud
No.
1
6
35
11
36
24
2.3
6.1
2.0
3.6
Kids­
in­
mud
No.
2
6
58
11
9.5
6.7
2.3
3.8
2.3
12.4
Number
of
subjects.
a
Sources:
Kissel
et
al.,
1996b;
Holmes
et
al.,
1996
(
submitted
for
publication).
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6­
24
August
1997
Table
6­
13.
Summary
of
Surface
Area
Studies
Surface
Area
Study
No.
of
Individuals
Type
of
Surface
Area
Measurement
Recommended
Formulae
Used
Population
Surveyed
Comments
KEY
STUDIES
Phillips
et
al.
(
1993)
Based
on
data
from
U.
S.

EPA
(
1985):
401
individuals
NA
calculated
surface
area
to
body
weight
ratios
Children
Adults
Developed
distributions
of
SA/
BW
and
calculated
summary
statistics
for
3
age
groups
and
the
combined
data
set
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
401
individuals
Based
on
Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
SA=
0.0239*
W
*
H
0.517
0.417
Children
Adults
Provides
statistical
distribution
data
for
total
SA
and
SA
of
body
parts
RELEVANT
STUDIES
AICH
(
1994)
Based
on
data
from
U.
S.

EPA
(
1989);
Brainard
et
al.
(
1991);
Brorby
and
Finley
(
1993)
@
Risk
simulation
software
Various
Adults
Children
Distribution
data
for:
adult
men
and
women
and
both
sexes
combined;
total
skin
area,

children
8­
18
years;
exposed
skin
area
(
hands
and
forearms);
head;

upper
body
Murray
and
Burmaster
(
1992)
Based
on
data
from
U.
S.

EPA
(
1985):
N
=
401;

Dubois
and
Dubois
(
1976):
N
=
9;

Boyd
(
1935):
N
=
231;

Costeff
(
1966):
N
=
220
Calculated
based
on
regression
equation
using
the
data
of
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
Various
Children
Adults
Analysis
of
and
comparision
of
four
models
developed
by
Dubois
&
Dubois
(
1916),
Boyd
(
1935),
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985),
and
Costeff
(
1966).
Presents
frequency
distribtions
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
25
Table
6­
14.
Summary
of
Recommended
Values
for
Skin
Surface
Area
Surface
Area
Central
Tendency
Upper
Percentile
Multiple
Percentiles
Adults
Whole
body
and
body
see
Tables
6­
4
and
6­
5
see
Tables
6­
2
and
6­
3
see
Tables
6­
2
and
6­
3
parts
Bathing/
swimming
20,000
cm
23,000
cm
­­­
2
2
Outdoor
soil
contact
5,000
cm
5,800
cm
­­­
2
2
Children
Whole
body
­­­
see
Tables
6­
6
and
6­
7
see
Tables
6­
6
and
6­
7
Body
parts
­­­
see
Table
6­
8
see
Table
6­
8
Table
6­
15.
Confidence
in
Body
Surface
Area
Measurement
Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study
Elements
°
Level
of
Peer
Review
Studies
were
from
peer
reviewed
journal
articles.
High
EPA
report
was
peer
reviewed
before
distribution.

°
Accessibility
The
journals
used
have
wide
circulation.
High
EPA
report
available
from
National
Technical
Information
Service.

°
Reproducibility
Experimental
methods
are
well­
described.
High
°
Focus
on
factor
of
interest
Experiments
measured
skin
area
directly.
High
°
Data
pertinent
to
U.
S.
Experiments
conducted
in
the
U.
S.
High
°
Primary
data
Re­
analysis
of
primary
data
in
more
detail
by
two
different
Low
investigators
.

°
Currency
Neither
rapidly
changing
nor
controversial
area;
estimates
Low
made
in
1935
deemed
to
be
accurate
and
subsequently
used
by
others.

°
Adequacy
of
data
collection
Not
relevant
to
exposure
factor;
parameter
not
time
NA
period
dependent.

°
Validity
of
approach
Approach
used
by
other
investigators;
not
challenged
in
other
High
studies.

°
Representativeness
of
the
Not
statistically
representative
of
U.
S.
population.
Medium
population
°
Characterization
of
variability
Individual
variability
due
to
age,
race,
or
gender
not
studied.
Low
°
Lack
of
bias
in
study
design
Objective
subject
selection
and
measurement
methods
used;
High
results
reproduced
by
others
with
different
methods.

°
Measurement
error
Measurement
variations
are
low;
adequately
described
by
Low/
Medium
normal
statistics.

Other
Elements
°
Number
of
studies
1
experiment;
two
independent
re­
analyses
of
this
data
set.
Medium
°
Agreement
among
researchers
Consistent
results
obtained
with
different
analyses;
but
from
Medium
a
single
set
of
measurements.

Overall
Rating
This
factor
can
be
directly
measured.
It
is
not
subject
to
High
dispute.
Influence
of
age,
race,
or
gender
have
not
been
detailed
adequately
in
these
studies.
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6­
26
August
1997
Table
6­
16.
Recommendations
for
Adult
Body
Surface
Area
Water
Contact
50th
95th
Bathing
and
Swimming
20,000
cm
23,000
cm
2
2
Soil
Contact
50th
95th
Outdoor
Activities
5,000
cm
5,800
cm
2
2
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1992.

Table
6­
17.
Summary
of
Soil
Adherence
Studies
Study
(
F
m)
Adherence
Surveyed
Comments
Size
Fraction
Soil
Population
(
mg/
cm
)
2
KEY
STUDIES
Kissel
et
al.,
1995a
<
150,
150­
Various
28
adults
Data
presented
for
soil
loadings
by
body
200,
>
250
24
children
part.
See
Table
6­
11.

Kissell
et
al.,
1996b
­­
Various
12
children
Data
presented
by
activity
and
body
89
adults
part.

RELEVANT
STUDIES
Driver
et
al.,
1989
<
150
1.40
Adults
Used
5
soil
types
and
2­
3
soil
horizons
<
250
0.95
Adults
(
top
soils
and
subsoils);
placed
soil
over
unsieved
0.58
Adults
entire
hand
of
test
subject,
excess
removed
by
shaking
the
hands.

Lepow
et
al.,
1975
­­
0.5
10
children
Dirt
from
hands
collected
during
play.
Represents
only
fraction
of
total
present,
some
dirt
may
be
trapped
in
skin
folds.

Que
Hee
et
al.,
1985
­­
1.5
1
adult
Assumed
exposed
area
=
20
cm
.
Test
2
subject
was
14
years
old.

Roels
et
al.,
1980
­­
0.9­
1.5
661
children
Subjects
lived
near
smelter
in
Brussels,
Belgium.
Mean
amount
adhering
to
soil
was
0.159
g.

Sedman,
1989
­­
0.9;
0.5
Children
Used
estimate
of
Roels
et
al.
(
1980)
and
average
surface
of
hand
of
an
11
year
old;
used
estimates
of
Lepow
et
al.
(
1975),
Roels
et
al.
(
1980),
and
Que
Hee
et
al.
(
1985)
to
develop
mean
of
0.5
mg/
cm
.
2
Yang
et
al.,
1989
<
150
9
Rats
Rat
skin
"
monolayer"
(
i.
e.,
minimal
amount
of
soil
covering
the
skin);
in
vitro
and
in
vivo
experiments.
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Chapter
6
­
Dermal
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6­
27
Table
6­
18.
Confidence
in
Soil
Adherence
to
Skin
Recommendations
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study
Elements
°
Level
of
Peer
Review
Studies
were
from
peer
reviewed
journal
articles.
High
°
Accessibility
Articles
were
published
in
widely
circulated
journals.
High
°
Reproducibility
Reports
clearly
describe
experimental
method.
High
°
Focus
on
factor
of
interest
The
goal
of
the
studies
was
to
determine
soil
adherence
to
High
skin.

°
Data
pertinent
to
U.
S.
Experiments
were
conducted
in
the
U.
S.
High
°
Primary
data
Experiments
were
directly
measure
soil
adherence
to
skin;
High
exposure
and
dose
of
chemicals
in
soil
were
measured
indirectly
or
estimated
from
soil
contact.

°
Currency
New
studies
were
presented.
High
°
Adequacy
of
data
collection
Seasonal
factors
may
be
important,
but
have
not
been
studied
Medium
period
adequately.

°
Validity
of
approach
Skin
rinsing
technique
is
a
widely
employed
procedure.
High
°
Representativeness
of
the
Studies
were
limited
to
the
State
of
Washington
and
may
not
Low
population
be
representative
of
other
locales.

°
Characterization
of
variability
Variability
in
soil
adherence
is
affected
by
many
factors
Low
including
soil
properties,
activity
and
individual
behavior
patterns.

°
Lack
of
bias
in
study
design
The
studies
attempted
to
measure
soil
adherence
in
selected
High
activities
and
conditions
to
identify
important
activities
and
groups.

°
Measurement
error
The
experimental
error
is
low
and
well
controlled,
but
Low/
High
application
of
results
to
other
similar
activities
may
be
subject
to
variation.

Other
Elements
°
Number
of
studies
The
experiments
were
controlled
as
they
were
conducted
by
Medium
a
few
laboratories;
activity
patterns
were
studied
by
only
one
laboratory.

°
Agreement
among
researchers
Results
from
key
study
were
consistent
with
earlier
estimates
Medium
from
relevant
studies
and
assumptions,
but
are
limited
to
hand
data.

Overall
Rating
Data
are
limited,
therefore
it
is
difficult
to
extrapolate
from
Low
experiments
and
field
observations
to
general
conditions
.
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Appendix
6A
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6A­
1
APPENDIX
6A
FORMULAE
FOR
TOTAL
BODY
SURFACE
AREA
SA
'
a
0
H
a1
W
a2
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Appendix
6A
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6A­
3
(
Eqn.
6A­
2)
APPENDIX
6A
FORMULAE
FOR
TOTAL
BODY
SURFACE
AREA
Most
formulae
for
estimating
surface
area
(
SA),
relate
height
to
weight
to
surface
area.
The
following
formula
was
proposed
by
Gehan
and
George
(
1970):

SA
=
KW
(
Eqn.
6A­
1)
2/
3
where:

SA
=
surface
area
in
square
meters;
W
=
weight
in
kg;
and
K
=
constant.

While
the
above
equation
has
been
criticized
because
human
bodies
have
different
specific
gravities
and
because
the
surface
area
per
unit
volume
differs
for
individuals
with
different
body
builds,
it
gives
a
reasonably
good
estimate
of
surface
area.

A
formula
published
in
1916
that
still
finds
wide
acceptance
and
use
is
that
of
DuBois
and
DuBois.
Their
model
can
be
written:

where:

SA
=
surface
area
in
square
meters;
H
=
height
in
centimeters;
and
W
=
weight
in
kg.

The
values
of
a
(
0.007182),
a
(
0.725),
and
a
(
0.425)
were
estimated
from
a
sample
of
only
nine
individuals
for
0
1
2
whom
surface
area
was
directly
measured.
Boyd
(
1935)
stated
that
the
Dubois
formula
was
considered
a
reasonably
adequate
substitute
for
measuring
surface
area.
Nomograms
for
determining
surface
area
from
height
and
mass
presented
in
Volume
I
of
the
Geigy
Scientific
Tables
(
1981)
are
based
on
the
DuBois
and
DuBois
formula.
In
addition,
a
computerized
literature
search
conducted
for
this
report
identified
several
articles
written
in
the
last
10
years
in
which
the
DuBois
and
DuBois
formula
was
used
to
estimate
body
surface
area.

Boyd
(
1935)
developed
new
constants
for
the
DuBois
and
DuBois
model
based
on
231
direct
measurements
of
body
surface
area
found
in
the
literature.
These
data
were
limited
to
measurements
of
surface
area
by
coating
methods
(
122
cases),
surface
integration
(
93
cases),
and
triangulation
(
16
cases).
The
subjects
were
Caucasians
of
normal
body
build
for
whom
data
on
weight,
height,
and
age
(
except
for
exact
age
of
adults)
were
complete.
Resulting
values
for
the
constants
in
the
DuBois
and
DuBois
model
were
a
=
0.01787,
a
=
0.500,
and
a
=
0.4838.
Boyd
also
developed
a
formula
based
0
1
2
exclusively
on
weight,
which
was
inferior
to
the
DuBois
and
DuBois
formula
based
on
height
and
weight.
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Appendix
6A
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6A­
4
August
1997
Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
proposed
another
set
of
constants
for
the
DuBois
and
DuBois
model.
The
constants
were
based
on
a
total
of
401
direct
measurements
of
surface
area,
height,
and
weight
of
all
postnatal
subjects
listed
in
Boyd
(
1935).
The
methods
used
to
measure
these
subjects
were
coating
(
163
cases),
surface
integration
(
222
cases),
and
triangulation
(
16
cases).

Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
used
a
least­
squares
method
to
identify
the
values
of
the
constants.
The
values
of
the
constants
chosen
are
those
that
minimize
the
sum
of
the
squared
percentage
errors
of
the
predicted
values
of
surface
area.
This
approach
was
used
because
the
importance
of
an
error
of
0.1
square
meter
depends
on
the
surface
area
of
the
individual.
Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
used
the
401
observations
summarized
in
Boyd
(
1935)
in
the
least­
squares
method.
The
following
estimates
of
the
constants
were
obtained:
a
=
0.02350,
a
=
0.42246,
and
a
=
0.51456.
Hence,
their
equation
0
1
2
for
predicting
surface
area
(
SA)
is:

SA
=
0.02350
H
W
(
Eqn.
6A­
3)
0.42246
0.51456
or
in
logarithmic
form:

ln
SA=
­
3.75080
+
0.42246
ln
H
+
0.51456
ln
W
(
Eqn.
6A­
4)

where:

SA
=
surface
area
in
square
meters;
H
=
height
in
centimeters;
and
W
=
weight
in
kg.

This
prediction
explains
more
than
99
percent
of
the
variations
in
surface
area
among
the
401
individuals
measured
(
Gehan
and
George,
1970).

The
equation
proposed
by
Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
was
determined
by
the
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
as
the
best
choice
for
estimating
total
body
surface
area.
However,
the
paper
by
Gehan
and
George
gave
insufficient
information
to
estimate
the
standard
error
about
the
regression.
Therefore,
the
401
direct
measurements
of
children
and
adults
(
i.
e.,
Boyd,
1935)
were
reanalyzed
in
U.
S.
EPA
(
1985)
using
the
formula
of
Dubois
and
Dubois
(
1916)
and
the
Statistical
Processing
System
(
SPS)
software
package
to
obtain
the
standard
error.

The
Dubois
and
Dubois
(
1916)
formula
uses
weight
and
height
as
independent
variables
to
predict
total
body
surface
area
(
SA),
and
can
be
written
as:

SA
=
a
H
W
e
(
Eqn.
6A­
5)
i
0
i
i
i
a1
a2
or
in
logarithmic
form:

ln
(
SA)
=
ln
a
+
a
ln
H
+
a
ln
W
+
ln
e
(
Eqn.
6A­
6)
i
0
l
i
2
i
i
where:

Sai
=
surface
area
of
the
i­
th
individual
(
m
);
2
Hi
=
height
of
the
i­
th
individual
(
cm);
Wi
=
weight
of
the
i­
th
individual
(
kg);
a
,
a
,
and
a
=
parameters
to
be
estimated;
and
0
1
2
e
=
a
random
error
term
with
mean
zero
and
constant
variance.
i
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Appendix
6A
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6A­
5
Using
the
least
squares
procedure
for
the
401
observations,
the
following
parameter
estimates
and
their
standard
errors
were
obtained:

a
=
­
3.73
(
0.18),
a
=
0.417
(
0.054),
a
=
0.517
(
0.022)
0
1
2
The
model
is
then:

SA
=
0.0239
H
W
(
Eqn.
6A­
7)
0.417
0.517
or
in
logarithmic
form:

ln
SA
=
­
3.73
+
0.417
ln
H
+
0.517
ln
W
(
Eqn.
6A­
8)

with
a
standard
error
about
the
regression
of
0.00374.
This
model
explains
more
than
99
percent
of
the
total
variation
in
surface
area
among
the
observations,
and
is
identical
to
two
significant
figures
with
the
model
developed
by
Gehan
and
George
(
1970).

When
natural
logarithms
of
the
measured
surface
areas
are
plotted
against
natural
logarithms
of
the
surface
predicted
by
the
equation,
the
observed
surface
areas
are
symmetrically
distributed
around
a
line
of
perfect
fit,
with
only
a
few
large
percentage
deviations.
Only
five
subjects
differed
from
the
measured
value
by
25
percent
or
more.
Because
each
of
the
five
subjects
weighed
less
than
13
pounds,
the
amount
of
difference
was
small.
Eighteen
estimates
differed
from
measurements
by
15
to
24
percent.
Of
these,
12
weighed
less
than
15
pounds
each,
1
was
overweight
(
5
feet
7
inches,
172
pounds),
1
was
very
thin
(
4
feet
11
inches,
78
pounds),
and
4
were
of
average
build.
Since
the
same
observer
measured
surface
area
for
these
4
subjects,
the
possibility
of
some
bias
in
measured
values
cannot
be
discounted
(
Gehan
and
George
1970).

Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
also
considered
separate
constants
for
different
age
groups:
less
than
5
years
old,
5
years
old
to
less
than
20
years
old,
and
greater
than
20
years
old.
The
different
values
for
the
constants
are
presented
below:

Table
6A­
1.
Estimated
Parameter
Values
for
Different
Age
Intervals
Age
Number
a
a
a
0
1
2
group
of
persons
All
ages
401
0.02350
0.42246
0.51456
<
5
years
old
229
0.02667
0.38217
0.53937
$
5
­
<
20
years
old
42
0.03050
0.35129
0.54375
$
20
years
old1
30
0.01545
0.54468
0.46336
The
surface
areas
estimated
using
the
parameter
values
for
all
ages
were
compared
to
surface
areas
estimated
by
the
values
for
each
age
group
for
subjects
at
the
3rd,
50th,
and
97th
percentiles
of
weight
and
height.
Nearly
all
differences
in
surface
area
estimates
were
less
than
0.01
square
meter,
and
the
largest
difference
was
0.03
m
for
an
18­
year­
old
at
the
2
97th
percentile.
The
authors
concluded
that
there
is
no
advantage
in
using
separate
values
of
a
,
a
,
and
a
by
age
interval.
0
1
2
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Appendix
6A
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
6A­
6
August
1997
Haycock
et
al.
(
1978)
without
knowledge
of
the
work
by
Gehan
and
George
(
1970),
developed
values
for
the
parameters
a
,
a
,
and
a
for
the
DuBois
and
DuBois
model.
Their
interest
in
making
the
DuBois
and
DuBois
model
more
0
1
2
accurate
resulted
from
their
work
in
pediatrics
and
the
fact
that
DuBois
and
DuBois
(
1916)
included
only
one
child
in
their
study
group,
a
severely
undernourished
girl
who
weighed
only
13.8
pounds
at
age
21
months.
Haycock
et
al.
(
1978)
used
their
own
geometric
method
for
estimating
surface
area
from
34
body
measurements
for
81
subjects.
Their
study
included
newborn
infants
(
10
cases),
infants
(
12
cases),
children
(
40
cases),
and
adult
members
of
the
medical
and
secretarial
staffs
of
2
hospitals
(
19
cases).
The
subjects
all
had
grossly
normal
body
structure,
but
the
sample
included
subjects
of
widely
varying
physique
ranging
from
thin
to
obese.
Black,
Hispanic,
and
white
children
were
included
in
their
sample.
The
values
of
the
model
parameters
were
solved
for
the
relationship
between
surface
area
and
height
and
weight
by
multiple
regression
analysis.
The
least
squares
best
fit
for
this
equation
yielded
the
following
values
for
the
three
coefficients:
a
=
0.024265,
0
a
=
0.3964,
and
a
=
0.5378.
The
result
was
the
following
equation
for
estimating
surface
area:
1
2
SA
=
0.024265
H
W
(
Eqn.
6A­
9)
0.3964
0.5378
expressed
logarithmically
as:

ln
SA
=
ln
0.024265
+
0.3964
ln
H
+
0.5378
ln
W
(
Eqn.
6A­
10)

The
coefficients
for
this
equation
agree
remarkably
with
those
obtained
by
Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
for
401
measurements.

George
et
al.
(
1979)
agree
that
a
model
more
complex
than
the
model
of
DuBois
and
DuBois
for
estimating
surface
area
is
unnecessary.
Based
on
samples
of
direct
measurements
by
Boyd
(
1935)
and
Gehan
and
George
(
1970),
and
samples
of
geometric
estimates
by
Haycock
et
al.
(
1978),
these
authors
have
obtained
parameters
for
the
DuBois
and
DuBois
model
that
are
different
than
those
originally
postulated
in
1916.
The
DuBois
and
DuBois
model
can
be
written
logarithmically
as:

ln
SA
=
ln
a
+
a
ln
H
+
a
ln
W
(
Eqn.
6A­
11)
0
1
2
The
values
for
a
,
a
,
and
a
obtained
by
the
various
authors
discussed
in
this
section
are
presented
to
follow:
0
1
2
Table
6A­
2.
Summary
of
Surface
Area
Parameter
Values
for
the
DuBois
and
DuBois
Model
Author
Number
a
a
a
0
1
2
(
year)
of
persons
DuBois
and
DuBois
(
1916)
9
0.007184
0.725
0.425
Boyd
(
1935)
231
0.01787
0.500
0.4838
Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
401
0.02350
0.42246
0.51456
Haycock
et
al.
(
1978)
81
0.024265
0.3964
0.5378
The
agreement
between
the
model
parameters
estimated
by
Gehan
and
George
(
1970)
and
Haycock
et
al.
(
1978)
is
remarkable
in
view
of
the
fact
that
Haycock
et
al.
(
1978)
were
unaware
of
the
previous
work.
Haycock
et
al.
(
1978)
used
an
entirely
different
set
of
subjects,
and
used
geometric
estimates
of
surface
area
rather
than
direct
measurements.
It
has
been
determined
that
the
Gehan
and
George
model
is
the
formula
of
choice
for
estimating
total
surface
area
of
the
body
since
it
is
based
on
the
largest
number
of
direct
measurements.
Volume
I
­
General
Factors
Appendix
6A
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
6A­
7
Nomograms
Sendroy
and
Cecchini
(
1954)
proposed
a
graphical
method
whereby
surface
area
could
be
read
from
a
diagram
relating
height
and
weight
to
surface
area.
However,
they
do
not
give
an
explicit
model
for
calculating
surface
area.
The
graph
was
developed
empirically
based
on
252
cases,
127
of
which
were
from
the
401
direct
measurements
reported
by
Boyd
(
1935).
In
the
other
125
cases
the
surface
area
was
estimated
using
the
linear
method
of
DuBois
and
DuBois
(
1916).
Because
the
Sendroy
and
Cecchini
method
is
graphical,
it
is
inherently
less
precise
and
less
accurate
than
the
formulae
of
other
authors
discussed
above.
