Jump to main content.


Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments

APPENDIX B SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessments
Surrogate PHED V1.1 Unit Exposure Values
July 18, 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BELLY GRINDER/GRANULE/OPEN POUR (MLAP)
"PUSH TYPE" Granular Spreader (MLAP)
AEROSOL APPLICATION (APPL)
GRANULAR BAIT DISPERSED BY HAND (APPL)
LOW PRESSURE HANDWAND/WETTABLE POWDER/OPEN POUR (MLAP)
LOW PRESSURE HANDWAND/LIQUID/OPEN POUR (MLAP)
BACKPACK/LIQUID/OPEN POUR (MLAP)
GARDEN HOSE END SPRAYER/LIQUID/OPEN POUR (MLAP)
AIRLESS SPRAYER APPLICATION (APPL)
PAINTBRUSH APPLICATION (APPL)
WETTABLE POWDER, OPEN MIXING and LOADING (MIXLD)
WETTABLE POWDER, WATER SOLUBLE BAGS (MIXLD)
DRY FLOWABLE, OPEN MIXING and LOADING (MIXLD)
GRANULAR, OPEN MIXING and LOADING (MIXLD)
ALL LIQUIDS, OPEN MIXING and LOADING

INTRODUCTION

The surrogate dermal and inhalation exposure data presented in Appendix B of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments have been developed using the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED V1.1). The basic assumption underlying the database is that exposure to pesticide handlers is primarily a function of the physical parameters associated with handling and applying rather than the chemical properties of individual active ingredients. The PHED Task Force is currently updating the system and is anticipating the release of PHED V2.0 in the near future. This Appendix will need to be updated periodically as PHED is updated and as the U.S. EPA’s policies for using the system are modified.

The following tables report the exposure scenario, unit dermal (mg/lb ai) and inhalation (Fg/lb ai) exposures, data confidence, and a description of the representativeness of each use scenario. Each exposure scenario title lists the specific use scenario (e.g., “push type” granular spreader) and the specific PHED file. The PHED files are defined using the following codes:

• APPL - applicator file,
• MIXLD - mixer/loader file, and
• MLAP - combined mixer/loader/applicator file.

Each unit exposure value presented in this appendix has a confidence level associated with the data. These confidence levels are designated as low, medium, or high. Confidence levels are defined as follows:

• High Confidence Data - Acceptable grades (i.e., A and B) and 15+ more replicates
• Medium Confidence Data - Grades A, B, or C and 15+ replicates; and
• Low Confidence Data - All grades, acceptable grades and less than 15 replicates, or grades A, B, C,and
   less than 15 replicates.

Data grades are defined by the following table:

Data
Grade
Lab
Recovery
(%)
CV* for Lab
Recovery
(%)
Field
Recovery
(%)
Storage
Stability
(%)
Data Corrected for:***
A 90-110 <15 70-120 ** Field Recovery
B 80-110 <25 50-120 ** Field Recovery
C 70-120

70-120

<33

<33

30-120
or
missing
**

50-120

Field Recovery

Storage Stability

D 60-120 <33 ** ** Field rec., if available; if not, then storage
stab., if available; if not, then lab recovery
E Does not meet above criteria
*     CV = Coefficient of variation.
**   Does not matter if available or missing.
*** If a field recovery of 90 percent or greater is obtained, no correction of the data is necessary.

Note: Travel spikes or storage stability results are substituted for field recovery when grading handrinse data.

Each exposure scenario also presents a description of the representativeness of the exposure data for use in residential settings. Some of the PHED exposure data are very representative of residential exposure scenarios. For example, the “push type” granular spreader scenario is represented by a test subject using a Scotts Speedy Green Rotary Spreader to apply a granular product packaged in 25 pound bags to turf. This scenario could also be substituted as a surrogate for drop type granular spreaders. On the other hand, some of the PHED exposure data were developed for agricultural uses and are not completely representative of residential uses. For example, the mixing/loading of liquid formulations are based on larger volumes (i.e., agricultural scenarios) than that for typical homeowner uses. However, these data are normalized on a per pound ai basis and the data are currently the best available for developing a screening level assessment. The assessor will have to judge the representativeness of each exposure scenario and include an uncertainty analysis based on the specific needs of the assessor.

Other uncertainties that exposure assessors need to be aware of include the use of “best fit” exposure estimates and protection factors. PHED calculates total dermal exposure as a composite of each body part. The “best fit” mean is a summation of the individual body parts based on the distribution type. The “best fit” mean uses the geometric mean for lognormally distributed data, the arithmetic mean for normal distribution, and the median value for “other” distributions not characterized. The reason that a point estimate of the composite dermal exposure is reported is that each replicate does not constitute total exposure. Rather, test subjects, in most instances, only wore dermal dosimeters in limited body locations (e.g., head, forearm, chest). Therefore, a distribution of dermal exposure cannot be calculated from incomplete replicate samples. The inhalation data are reported as the geometric mean for lognormally distributed data, the arithmetic mean for normal distribution, and the median value for “other” distributions not characterized.

Finally, in some scenarios data are not available for the selected residential clothing attire of short pants, short sleeved shirt, and no gloves. In these instances, protection factors (PFs) were selected to either add or subtract (i.e., back-calculate) clothing. The PFs selected are 50 percent for single layer clothing and 90 percent to back-calculate no glove scenarios from gloved data. The use of these values may change over time based on the currently ongoing research of PFs.

BELLY GRINDER/GRANULE/OPEN POUR (MLAP)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt, No
Gloves

0.71 + 110 + 2.5 = 113

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal replicates = 20 to 45, ABC grades. Hand replicates = 23, ABC grade. Medium Confidence run. No protection factors were necessary

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

INHALATION EXPOSURE: 62 g/lb ai Applied. 40 Replicates, AB Grade. High Confidence run

Representativeness of Scenario

These data are representative of typical belly-grinder applications of a pesticide. The PHED subset is comprised of four studies that monitored test subjects applying the granular products (packaged in 5, 25, and 50 lb bags) to driveways and sidewalks, turf, and ornamentals.

"PUSH TYPE" Granular Spreader (MLAP)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(g/lb ai handled)
Short Pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt, No
Gloves

No Data! + 1.2 + 1.8 =

3.0

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal replicates = 0 to 15. Hand replicates = 15, “C” grade. Low Confidence run due to inadequate replicate numbers. No data are available for the head and neck, all other data points have 15 replicates each. A 50 percent protection factor was used to back-calculate a short sleeve scenario from the long sleeve data.

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

6.3 g/lb ai handled. 15 replicates, “B” grade. High Confidence run.

Representativeness of Scenario

These data are representative of typical granular spreader applications. These data were generated by individuals applying a granular product (25 lb bags) to lawns using a typical push cyclone lawn spreader (Scotts Speedy Green Rotary Spreader Model SG-1A). The significant issues that should be considered when using these data include: (1) there are anticipated differences in exposure levels between common drop and rotary-type spreaders; (2) an adjustment of the dermal dosimetry data was required using a theoretical protection factor to quantify the use of a short-sleeve/short pants clothing scenario; and (3) data are not available for the head and neck.

AEROSOL APPLICATION (APPL)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt,
No Gloves

33.7 + 79.1 + 105.7 = 219

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal replicates = 30, ABC grade. Hand replicates = 15, Grade A. Medium Confidence Run. There were adequate replicates to base this study on only AB grade, but this would have resulted in only 1 study being used to estimate exposure. No protection factors were necessary.

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

2,400 g/lb ai handled. 30 Replicates, ABC grade (“other” distribution type; median value reported). Medium Confidence run.

Representativeness of Scenario

These data are representative of typical aerosol spray can applications of a pesticide except for two types of devices that include the backyard fogger and the use of the stream-type nozzle (i.e., for wasp and hornet control). These data were generated by individuals applying a contact insecticide to the baseboards of kitchens. The exposure data in this scenario may underestimate upper body and inhalation exposure during the use of foggers and stream-type nozzles.

GRANULAR BAIT DISPERSED BY HAND (APPL)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt, No Gloves

5.7 + 69.0 + 35.6 = 110.3

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal replicates = 16, ABC grade. Hand replicates = 16, all grades. LOW confidence run. There are no "no glove" replicates for this use scenario. The only way to estimate “no glove” hand exposure is to back-calculate using a 90 percent protection factor.

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

467 g/lb ai handled. 16 Replicates, ABC grade. Medium Confidence Run.

Representativeness of Scenario

This scenario is representative of a granular bait dispersed by hand as these data were generated by test subjects applying a granular bait by hand around driveways in a residential setting. The only significant issue that should be considered when using these data is that the individuals wore gloves during the process and it is unlikely that most homeowners will wear gloves. Hence, an adjustment of the hand exposure data was required using a theoretical protection factor to quantify bare hand exposure scenarios.

LOW PRESSURE HANDWAND/WETTABLE POWDER/OPEN POUR (MLAP)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants, Short
Sleeved Shirt, No
Gloves

1.6 + 20.6 + 22.9 = 45.1

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal replicates = 16, C grade. Hand replicates = 15, A grade. Low/Medium Confidence run. There are no “no glove” hand data available for this use scenario. The only way to estimate Dermal Exposure is due to “back calculate” the glove exposure using a 90 percent protection factor. This scenario is based on one study (0458).

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

INHALATION EXPOSURE: 1,063 g/lb ai handled. 16 Replicates, C Grade. Medium Confidence run

Representativeness of Scenario

This scenario is representative of indoor crack-and-crevice treatments. This scenario is not, however, completely representative of homeowners using a low pressure handwand sprayer to apply pesticides to the lawn, garden, or ornamentals. These data are representative of an indoor crack-and-crevice application (i.e., below the waist) as they were generated by test subjects using a typical low pressure handwand device to make crack-and-crevice applications. For those exposure scenarios representing applications above the waist, the unit exposure value may underestimate exposures to the head and upper body (e.g., tree applications). Additionally, the individuals who were monitored in this study wore gloves. Hence, an adjustment of the hand exposure data was required using a theoretical protection factor to quantify bare hand exposure scenarios.

LOW PRESSURE HANDWAND/LIQUID/OPEN POUR (MLAP)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt,
No Gloves

0.3 + 1.7 + 101.6 = 103.6

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal replicates = 8 to 9, ABC grade. Hand replicates = 70, all grades. Low Confidence Run. No protection factors were necessary.

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

21.6 g/lb ai handled. 80 Replicates, ABC grade (“other” distribution type; median value reported). Medium Confidence run.

Representativeness of Scenario

This scenario is representative of treating low to mid level shrubs. This scenario is not, however, completely representative of homeowners using a low pressure handwand sprayer to apply pesticides indoors and to lawns, gardens, or to trees. These data were generated by test subjects using a typical low pressure handwand to treat low and mid-level targets generally below the waist (e.g., shrubs and greenhouse benches). For those exposure scenarios representing applications above the waist, the unit exposure value may underestimate exposures to the head and upper body (e.g., tree applications).

BACKPACK/LIQUID/OPEN POUR (MLAP)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt, No Gloves

0.74 + 3.9 + 0.046 = 4.9

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal replicates = 9 to 11, AB grade. Hand replicates = 11, C grade. Low Confidence run due to the inadequate replicate number. "No glove" hand data are unavailable for this usescenario. The only way to estimate TOTAL Dermal Exposure is to “back calculate” the glove exposure using a 90 percent protection factor.

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

INHALATION EXPOSURE: 30 g/lb ai Applied. 11 Replicates, A Grade. Low Confidence run due to inadequate replicate number

Representativeness of Scenario

This scenario is representative of treating low to mid level shrubs. This scenario is not, however, completely representative of homeowners using a backpack sprayer to apply pesticides to lawns, gardens, or to trees. These data were generated by test subjects using a typical backpack sprayer to treat low to mid-level targets generally below the waist (e.g., greenhouse benches). For those exposure scenarios representing applications above the waist, the unit exposure value may underestimate exposures to the head and upper body (e.g., tree applications).

GARDEN HOSE END SPRAYER/LIQUID/OPEN POUR (MLAP)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt, No Gloves

0.47 + 2.2 + 27.5 = 30.2

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal Replicates= 8, C grade. Hand replicates = 8, E grade. Low Confidence run due to inadequate replicate number and low grade confidence. A 50 percent protection factor was applied to the upper arm, chest, back, and thighs to simulate short pants and short sleeved shirt.

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

INHALATION EXPOSURE: 9.5 g/lb ai Applied. 8 Replicates, C Grade. LOW Confidence run due to inadequate replicate number

SPECIAL ITEMS OF NOTE FOR THIS USE SCENARIO: This is an extremely low confidence use scenario and should be viewed as a datagap. The hand grade is grade E and the replicate number is only 8. This use scenario is based on only one study (#0201).

Representativeness of Scenario

This scenario is representative of homeowners using a hose-end sprayer to apply pesticides to the lawn, garden, or ornamentals. These data were generated by test subjects using a typical hose-end sprayer to treat their lawns and shrubs (one replicate). Because these data were generated as "below the waist" treatments, they may underestimate exposures to the head and upper body for high growing ornamentals and trees.

AIRLESS SPRAYER APPLICATION (APPL)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt, No Gloves

10.2 + 41.9 + 26.7 = 78.8

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal replicates = 15, B grade. Hand replicates = 15, B Grade. High Confidence run. NOTE: there is only on study in PHED version 1.1 that estimates airless sprayer exposure (study 0467). No protection factors were necessary.

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

830 g/lb ai handled. 15 replicates, C grade. Medium Confidence run

Representativeness of Scenario

This scenario is representative of homeowners using an airless sprayer to apply paint or stain to building exteriors. Airless sprayers are not commonly available to homeowners except through rental. These data were generated by test subjects using airless sprayers to apply house stain.

PAINTBRUSH APPLICATION (APPL)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt, No Gloves

2.5 + 55.4 + 175.2 = 233.1

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal replicates = 14 to 15, C grade. Hand replicates = 15, B grade. LOW to Medium Confidence run due to inadequate replicate number. No protection factors were necessary.

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

284 g/lb ai handled. 15 replicates, C grade. Distribution type is “other,” therefore, the median value is reported. Medium Confidence run.

NOTE:PHED Contains a number of data entry errors for this use scenario. The exposure estimates in these table represent the recalculated (correct) values.

Representativeness of Scenario

This scenario is representative of the use of homeowner products because the data were obtained by test subjects using 1-gallon paint cans and typical brushes while engaged in painting a single, residential bathroom. The applicators were not professional painters. Each replicate used up to 1/2-gallon of paint for each bathroom painted.

WETTABLE POWDER, OPEN MIXING and LOADING (MIXLD)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants, Short
Sleeved Shirt, No Gloves

0.08 + 0.7 + 3.6 = 4.4

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal replicates = 14-24, ABC grade. Hand replicates = 7, ABC grade. LOW Confidence run due to the low number of hand replicates (There were additional “D” and “E” grade hand replicates but hand exposure would have been reduced significantly and the data confidence would still have been quite low). Additionally, all the body parts did not have at least 15 replicates (i.e., only 14 replicates for lower legs). No protection factors were necessary.

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

43.4 g/lb ai handled. 44 Replicates, ABC grade. Medium Confidence run

Representativeness of Scenario

This scenario is not completely representative of homeowner products because the data are based on the use of agricultural products. In agricultural scenarios, more chemical would typically be handled and the material is generally packaged in larger containers. However, these data represent the best available data set for determining exposures during open mixing/loading using a wettable powder formulation. No data are available to assess the differences between agricultural and residential scenarios.

WETTABLE POWDER, WATER SOLUBLE BAGS (MIXLD)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure
(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt, No Gloves

0.002 + 0.01 + 0.01 = 0.02

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal replicates = 6 to 15, AB grade. Hand replicates = 5, ABC grade. LOW confidence run due to the low replicate number per body part. No protection factors were necessary.

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

0.24 g/lb ai handled. Replicates = 15, all grades. Low confidence run

Representativeness of Scenario

This scenario is representative of homeowner products even though the data set is based on agricultural uses of water soluble bags. The PHED data are based on water soluble packets that are 1 to 8 ounces. As a result, a homeowner could purchase materials contained in similar sized packages. No data are available to assess the differences between the agricultural and residential scenarios.

DRY FLOWABLE, OPEN MIXING and LOADING (MIXLD)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt, No Gloves

0.02 + 0.15 + 0.01 = 0.2

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal = 16 to 26 replicates, AB grade. Hand = 7 replicates, AB grade. LOW confidence run due to the small number of hand replicates. No protection factors were necessary.

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

0.77 g/lb ai handled . Replicates = 23, AB grade. High Confidence run.

Representativeness of Scenario

This scenario is not completely representative of homeowner products because the data are based on the use of agricultural products. In agricultural scenarios, more chemical would typically be handled and the material is generally packaged in larger containers However, these data represent the best available data set for determining exposures during open mixing/loading with dry flowable formulations. No data are available to assess the differences between the agricultural and residential scenarios.

GRANULAR, OPEN MIXING and LOADING (MIXLD)

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt, No Gloves

0.0007 + 0.03 + 0.002 = 0.03

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal replicates = 11 to 56, ABC grade. Hand = 10 replicates, ALL GRADE. Low confidence run due to the poor grade quality of the hand replicates and low replicate number. No protection factors were necessary.

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

1.7 g/lb ai handled. 58 replicates, AB grade. High Confidence run

Representativeness of Scenario

Although this scenario is represented by seven studies (few replicates per study), it is not representative of homeowner products. The available data are based on agricultural uses. In an agricultural scenario, more chemical would typically be handled and the material is generally packaged in larger containers. Study 1003 was excluded because of a high vapor pressure and no field recovery data. No data are available to assess the differences between the agricultural and residential scenarios.

ALL LIQUIDS, OPEN MIXING and LOADING

Dermal Exposure

Clothing
Scenario

Head and Neck
(mg/lb ai handled)

Upper and Lower Arm,
Chest, Back, Thigh
and Lower Leg
(mg/lb ai handled)

Hand
(mg/lb ai
Handled)

TOTAL
Dermal Exposure

(mg/lb ai handled)
Short Pants,
Short Sleeved
Shirt, No Gloves

0.005 + 0.08 + 2.8 = 2.9

Dermal Exposure Data Confidence and Items of Note

Data Confidence/Items of Note
Dermal = 72 to 122 replicates, AB grade. Hand = 53 replicates, AB grade. High Confidence run

Inhalation Exposure and Data Confidence

1.2 g/lb ai handled. Replicates = 85, AB grade. High Confidence run. Distribution type is "other" and therefore the median value is reported.

Representativeness of Scenario

This scenario is not completely representative of homeowner products because the data are based on the use of agricultural products. In these scenarios, more chemical would typically be handled and the material is generally packaged in larger containers. However, these data represent the best available data set for determining exposures during open pouring with liquid chemicals. No data are available to assess the differences between the agricultural and the residential scenarios.


Local Navigation


Jump to main content.