Page 1 of 62

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

Date: March 11, 2011

SUBJECT: Review of Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) Open Cab 

Airblast Applicator Exposure Monitoring Studies: AHE62, AHE63, AHE64

PC Code: -- DP Barcode: D387287

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

Petition No.: -- Regulatory Action: --

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

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

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

 Ver.Apr.08

 

FROM: Matthew Crowley, Biologist

Chemistry and Exposure Branch

Health Effects Division

THROUGH: David J. Miller, Chief

Chemistry and Exposure Branch

Health Effects Division

TO: Richard Dumas

Pesticide Registration Division

This memorandum presents the Health Effects Division’s primary reviews of the analytical and 

field phase reports for the following Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) open 

cab airblast applicator studies: AHE62, AHE63, and AHE64. Details of a previously reviewed 

open cab airblast study (Smith, L., 2004; EPA Review: Dawson, J., 2006, D316628) is included 

as well, since these four studies will comprise a complete dataset. The open cab airblast 

applicator scenario monograph (AHETF, 2010; MRID 48326701) – incorporating these 4 studies

into a single dataset and providing statistical analysis for benchmark analytical objectives – is

reviewed separately (Crowley, 2011; D387287).

These studies meet EPA standards for occupational pesticide exposure monitoring and are 

considered acceptable and appropriate for use in occupational exposure assessments for open cab

airblast applicators.
Page 2 of 62

1.0 Executive Summary

The Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) monitored exposure for 28 workers1

applying liquid spray pesticides using open cab airblast equipment. Four separate field studies, 

summarized in Table 1 below, were conducted, each monitoring different workers while 

spraying tree or trellis crops in 5 different states in the U.S where open cab airblast equipment is 

commonly used in production agriculture.

Table 1. Study Summary

Study ID State Crop No. Monitored Workers Gender Ages

AHE07

GA peach 5 Male 49-56

ID apple & pear 6 Male 40-61

FL orange 4 Male 33-72

AHE62 CA grape 3 Male 43-79

AHE63 NY grape 5 Male 28-66

AHE64 OK pecan 5 Male 47-59

Monitored on actual days of work, participants handled from 5 to 90 lbs of active ingredient

(carbaryl or malathion), spraying 3 to 30 acres in 1.4 to 10.6 hours. Dermal exposure was 

measured using hand washes, face/neck wipes, whole body dosimeters (100% cotton union suits) 

for the remainder of the body (torso, arms, and legs), and gauze patches on the inside and outside 

of chemical-resistant (CR) hats for exposure to the head. Inhalation exposure was measured 

using personal air sampling pumps and OSHA Versatile Samplers (OVS) mounted on the shirt

collar. Results represent dermal exposure with and without chemical-resistant hats while 

wearing a long-sleeved shirt, pants, shoes/socks, and chemical-resistant gloves, and inhalation 

exposure without respiratory protection.

All studies followed the applicable and most up-to-date AHETF standard operating procedures 

(SOPs) and their corresponding protocols with deviations appropriately recorded with none

considered to have compromised the overall research. Field and laboratory fortification samples 

were acceptable, generally averaging between 70 and 120% recovery, with no systematic 

deviations. All field samples were appropriately adjusted for the corresponding recovery

adjustment factors. 

Table 2 below summarizes the results, presenting the full range and a simple average of dermal 

exposure with and without chemical-resistant hats and inhalation exposure without respiratory

protection.

Table 2. AHETF Open Cab Airblast Exposure Data Summary

Dermal Exposure Inhalation Exposure with CR Hats w/o CR Hats

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

 

1 Execution of Study AHE07 resulted in 25 total measurements (after accounting for a repeated measure on the same 

worker, an aborted sample due to equipment failure, and an unanalyzed sample due to a worker switching headgear 

midday). However, 10 of these workers wore chemical-resistant jackets with hoods and are not included in this 

scenario since the jacket would constitute a “double layer” and would not meet the AHETF personal protection 

equipment (PPE) definition for this scenario. Thus, the total of 15 monitored workers for this scenario adopted from 

AHE07.
Page 3 of 62

Minimum 60.3 0.66 4 69.8 0.81 3.8 0.294 0.003 0.00026

Maximum 80702 877 3202 233089 2534 9355 529 5.34 7.13

Average 7511 86.7 281 35930 425 1227 61.0 0.72 1.71

Note: For dermal exposure for workers wearing chemical-resistant hats, the average contribution of hand rinse and 

face/neck wipe residues to the total dermal exposure was approximately 30%. Per Agency policy, this triggers a 2X 

adjustment on hand rinse and face/neck wipe measurements to account for assumed residue collection method 

inefficiencies. No adjustment was used for dermal exposure values for workers without chemical-resistant hats, as 

the contribution to total dermal exposure averaged 7%. See Section 3.3.

2.0 Summary of Field Study Characteristics

This section provides summary characteristics of the five open-cab airblast exposure studies. 

Attached supplemental tables (Tables S1-8) containing supporting details are cited in each 

subsection.

2.1 Administrative Summary (Table S – 1)

All studies were sponsored by the AHETF and followed both the study-specific protocols and the 

AHETF Governing Document (AHETF, 2008-a). Additionally, they were in substantial 

compliance with Good Laboratory Practice Standards (GLPS) (40 CFR §160)

2

and met EPA 

Test Guidelines in Series 875 – Occupational and Residential Exposure (875.1100 – dermal 

exposure; 875.1300 – inhalation exposure). Signed copies of acceptable Quality Assurance and 

Data Confidentiality statements were provided for each study.

2.2 Test Materials (Table S – 2)

All studies used liquid formulation pesticides containing carbaryl or malathion.

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

According to the AHETF Governing Document (AHETF, 2008-a) and the Open Cab Airblast 

Scenario Construction Plan (AHETF, 2008-b), an additional 15 monitored workers (in a “5 

workers x 3 site” configuration) combined with the 15 existing monitored workers from AHE07 

were considered adequate to complete the open cab airblast application exposure scenario. That 

is, a total of 30 “monitoring units” (MU), obtained via monitoring exposure from 6 spatially

distinct study locations across the U.S. would likely to satisfy pre-defined accuracy benchmarks. 

However, due to recruitment problems in AHE62 (CA-grape) – where only 3 workers were able 

to be monitored3– the total sample was 28 workers. The locations and crops monitored were: 

Georgia pecans (6 workers), Idaho apples and pears (5 workers), Florida oranges (4 workers), 

New York grapes (5 workers), California grapes (3 workers), and Oklahoma pecans (5 workers).

 

2 Minor GLPS deviations were noted for all studies, including: test substance was not characterized before use; 

scales used to weigh subjects and weather monitoring devices were not maintained and calibrated according to 

GLPS specifications. These deviations do not have any substantive impact on the study results.

3 A total of only 4 grape growers were found eligible to participate in study AHE62 (CA-grape). Only 3 workers 

were ultimately monitored because the 4th grower sprayed a different pesticide than the surrogate for this study 

(malathion).
Page 4 of 62

While AHE07 (GA-pecan, ID-apple/pear, and FL-orange) actually monitored a total of 25 

workers, only 15 were selected to populate the open cab airblast scenario because 10 workers 

wore chemical-resistant hooded jackets – a PPE-level (i.e., a second protective layer provided by 

the jacket) the AHETF considered outside the definition of the open cab airblast scenario.

2.4 Environmental Conditions (Table S – 4)

Temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, and rainfall were all reported. 

The maximum reported temperature was 87° F (AHE62 – CA-grape) and the lowest reported 

temperature was 33° F (AHE07 – ID-apple/pear). Heat index values were not directly reported 

in the study report, but provided separately to the Agency. The maximum reported heat index 

value was 95° F (AHE62 – CA-grape). In no case did the heat index exceed the pre-defined 

threshold of concern for potential heat-related injury. No significant rainfall was reported.

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

Per the stated goals of the AHETF, monitoring of open cab airblast applicators was conducted to 

represent exposure for workers wearing long-sleeve shirts, pants, shoes/socks, chemical-resistant 

gloves, with or without chemical-resistant hats, and no respiratory protection. So long as the 

work clothing met the standards of the EPA Worker Protection Standard (WPS), monitoring was 

conducted with the clothing worn by the worker on the scheduled monitoring day. In two

instances – MU 3 and MU 12 in study AHE07 (ID-apple/pear) – the AHETF supplied 

replacement garments. Per protocol, new chemical-resistant gloves were supplied by the 

AHETF to all workers at the beginning of the day and were available throughout the day

according to WPS requirements. Additionally, some workers, of their own accord, wore 

protective eyewear, and others wore half-face respirators. In these cases, the exposure 

measurements were adjusted (according to AHETF SOP 9.K) to extrapolate deposited residue to 

those portions of the face/head covered by the eyewear or the respirator (see Section 3.3.3).

2.6 Application Characteristics (Table S – 6)

For these studies, only the airblast application activity was monitored – monitoring was not 

conducted for those workers responsible for mixing and loading the pesticide. The applications 

were made by trucks or tractors with open cabs hauling airblast sprayers4. Rigs were inspected 

by the study director to ensure compliance with EPA WPS requirements. Application 

characteristics including crop height and row spacing, truck/tractor and airblast sprayer brands 

and models, nozzle characteristics, and driving speed are also reported in Table S-6.

 

2.7 Application Rates (Table S – 7)

Per the AHETF Governing Document (AHETF, 2008-a) and the OCAB Scenario Construction 

Plan (AHETF, 2008-b), the total amount of active ingredient applied should be diversified across 

the scenario and within each study to provide adequate analytical power for certain statistical 

procedures. Specifically, amounts of active ingredient handled within a study should be 

 

4

Six of the 28 workers drove open cab vehicles with a canopy (see Table S-6). However, the presence of a roof 

does not appear to reduce exposure. Section 3.4.1 provides more details.
Page 5 of 62

separated logarithmically for each MU and span at least an order of magnitude. Because AHE07 

was completed before initiation of this sampling strategy modification, the span of amounts of 

active ingredient handled does not meet this standard. Table 3 below presents the amount 

handled for each worker (total amount handled ranged from 5 to 90 lb active ingredient). For 

AHE62, 63, and 64, which were subject to this strategy, the amount handled was slightly out of 

the range in three instances (indicated by italics).

Table 3. Summary of Amount Handled (lbs ai)

Desired 

Stratum of 

Amount 

Handled (lbs ai)

Actual Amount Handled (lbs ai) & MU ID (#)

AHE07 AHE62

(CA-grape)

AHE63

(NY-grape)

AHE64

(OK-pecan)

(GApeach)(IDapple/pear)

(FL-orange)

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

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

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

31-55 45 (3)

52 (8)

32 (10)

33 (12)

34 (17)

36 (13)

40 (16)

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

56-100

60 (6)

75 (1)

75 (4)

--

60 (22)

90 (23)

90 (26)

90 (27)

-- 48.4 (A1) 63.1 (A1)

In order to help achieve the range of amount of active ingredient handled as well as to avoid nondetectable exposures, the study design called for workers to apply at least 3 tank loads and/or 

work for at least 4 hours per day. In a few cases, work days were less than 4 hours (monitoring 

durations ranged from 1.4-10.6 hours); however these instances did not result in failure to 

capture the desired amount of active ingredient handled or non-detectable exposures.

2.8 Exposure Monitoring and Analytical Methods (Table S – 8)

Passive dosimetry methods were utilized for all monitoring – no biomonitoring samples were 

collected. Dermal exposure to the hands was measured using a hand rinse method administered 

at the end of the workday as well as at lunch, restroom breaks, or other instances where workers 

would otherwise wash their hands as outlined in AHETF SOP 8.B. Dermal exposure to the 

face/neck was measured using a wipe technique as outlined in AHETF SOP 8.C and extrapolated 

to non-wiped portions of the head (i.e., those parts covered by goggles or a respirator or covered 

by hair) according to AHETF SOP 9.K. Exposure to the head inside and outside of chemicalresistant hats was measured using 50 and 100 cm2

gauze patches, respectively, which were then 

used to extrapolate to the whole head based on the surface area of the patch and the surface area 

of the head. Dermal exposure to the remainder of the body (torso, arms, legs) was measured 

using whole body dosimeters (100% cotton union suits), analyzed as 6 separate sections: upper 

arm, lower arm, front torso, rear torso, upper leg and lower leg, per according to AHETF SOP 

8.A. Additionally, in AHE07, exposure to the feet was measured using cotton socks; however 

this method was not utilized in AHE62-64 due to the relatively small contribution to exposure 

seen in AHE07. All these measurements combine to reflect dermal exposure underneath a single 

layer of work clothing (long-sleeve shirt, pants, shoes/socks), chemical-resistant gloves, and with 
Page 6 of 62

or without a chemical-resistant hat. Inhalation exposure was measured using OVS tubes

mounted on the worker’s collar and personal sampling pumps (set at 2 liters per minute)

according to AHETF SOP 8.D. The concentrations measured represent the chemical available in 

each worker’s breathing zone.

Validated analytical methods specific to each type of monitoring matrix were used to extract 

residues followed by quantification with gas chromatography (GC) employing flame photometric 

detection in phosphorous mode (FPD/P). Modifications to analytical methods are outlined in the 

submitted analytical reports. Limits of quantification and detection (as defined in AHETF SOP 

9.A) are presented in Table 4 below.

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

Monitoring Matrix Limit of Detection Limit of Quantification

Carbaryl Malathion Carbaryl Malathion

Inner Dosimeter AHE07 -- NA 0.25 NA

AHE62-64 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0

Hand Rinse AHE07 -- NA 1.0 NA

AHE62-64 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0

Face/Neck Wipe AHE07 -- NA 1.0 NA

AHE62-64 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0

Socks (AHE07 only) -- NA 0.25 NA

Head patches AHE07 -- NA 0.25 NA

AHE62-64 0.075 0.075 0.25 0.25

OVS air sampler AHE07 GA & ID -- NA 0.01 NAFL -- NA 0.05 NA

AHE62-64 0.0015 0.0015 0.005 0.005

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

NA = not applicable, chemical not used.

3.0 Results

This section provides a discussion of quality assurance and quality control sampling and the 

actual field monitoring measurements of workers. Corresponding supplemental tables providing 

additional detail are identified.

3.1 Quality Assurance

All phases of each study were subject to appropriate quality assurance processes according to 

EPA’s GLPs and inspected/audited by the AHETF Quality Assurance Unit (QAU) per AHETF 

SOPs (AHETF SOP Chapter 5: A-K). The inspected phases were: Protocol, Field Phase, Field 

Data, Draft Report, Analytical Data, Final Report, and Post-Audit Report. Each study contains a 

signed quality assurance compliance statement as required by GLPs. Protocol amendments or 

deviations were addressed appropriately under GLP guidance and are described further in

Section 4.0.

3.2 Quality Control

AHETF instituted various quality control measures to ensure proper field conduct including 

calibration of sprayers, preparation and handling of exposure measurement matrices, evaluation 
Page 7 of 62

of test material, and field observations (AHETF SOP Chapter 10: A-G). Analytical quality

control measures for ensuring the integrity of measurements captured in the research were also 

instituted according to AHETF SOP 9.J. Exposure monitoring matrices (inner whole body 

dosimeters, hand washes, face/neck wipes, OVS tubes) were fortified with known amounts of 

active ingredient to assess their stability during field, transit, and storage conditions according to 

AHETF SOP 8.E. Laboratory control samples were also fortified at the level of quantification 

and at levels capturing the range of expected field exposures for each matrix. Generally, field 

fortification samples were collected in triplicate at each of 3 levels (high, middle, and low) on 

each sampling day. Travel fortifications were generally conducted on each day of sampling in 

duplicate at the high fortification level only. Untreated control samples were generally 

conducted in duplicate on each day of sampling. Deviations from this general sampling protocol 

are specified in the sub-sections below.

The following sections provide results for all quality control sampling across all exposure 

measurement matrices for all chemicals used. The identified supplemental tables should be 

referenced for chemical-specific results.

3.2.1 Control Samples (Table S – 9)

As expected, most non-fortified (blank) laboratory and field control samples were below the 

LOQ. For AHE62-64, in no instance was an untreated laboratory control found to contain 

residues. However, for AHE07, residues were detected in untreated laboratory control samples 

for 5 of 25 inner dosimeter samples, all (9 of 9) OVS samples, and 1 of 9 sock samples. 

Potential reasons for these findings were not addressed, nor were any corrections made to 

samples based on these results.

For control samples in the fields, most had non-detectable residues, as would be expected. 

However, particularly for the OVS air sampler field controls, there were some found to have 

detectable residues. No summary of these results was provided in the study report. Detected 

residues in field control samples is a potentially notable finding, since they may impact field 

fortification recovery estimates, which in turn could alter actual field sample measurements. 

Despite the findings in these studies, no action is deemed necessary because only trace amounts 

were found (most samples were below the LOQ, with some only slightly above the LOQ) which 

do not significantly impact the results. However, for future AHETF studies, residues found in 

field control or laboratory control samples should be systematically summarized and reasons for 

accounting for them (or not) should be described in the study reports.

3.2.2 Laboratory Fortification Recoveries (Table S – 10)

Along with one untreated control, two fortified samples served as additional laboratory recovery

samples – one at the LOQ and the other at a level designated to encompass the range of 

anticipated residues. Average recoveries for each sampling media were > 90% thus no 

corrections were made to the field sampling measurements based on this aspect of the analytical 

process.

3.2.3 Field Fortification Recoveries
Page 8 of 62

Field fortification sampling matrices are spiked with known amounts of chemical, then placed in 

the exposure monitoring area under similar conditions as those in which the actual sampling 

matrices used on the workers are handled (including drawing air through OVS samplers). 

Additional samples are fortified to assess degradation of the sample during transit from the field 

to the lab, but, per AHETF protocol, only analyzed if anomalous field fortification recoveries 

indicate potential degradation during transport. No storage or transport fortification samples 

were analyzed.

Field fortifications are conducted at 3 levels (except for the inner and outer head patches which 

are fortified at 2 levels) to capture the expected range of results, with triplicate samples taken on 

each day at each fortification level5. Once analyzed, the average recovery results (expressed as a 

percentage of known amount applied) are used as multipliers to adjust, or correct, all measured 

field samples. As the fortification samples are conducted at levels to capture the range of 

expected field sample results, adjustments are done using the average percent recovery for the 

fortification level closest to the measured field sample. The mid-point between each fortification 

level is used as the threshold in determining the average recovery percentage to adjust the field 

sample.

With few exceptions, field fortification averages for each fortification level and each monitoring 

matrix were in the range of 70-120%. A summary of field fortification results for each matrix is 

provided below in Sections 3.2.3.1 – 3.2.3.4.

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

Most results for inner whole body dosimeter (WBD) field fortification samples were acceptable, 

with recoveries ranging from 75% to 110%. Unusually low recoveries were observed at the 5 ug 

fortification level on the first day of sampling in AHE62 (43%, 37% and 32%). Additionally, 

fortification samples on the first day of sampling in AHE63 were not used to calculate average 

recoveries as abnormally high and low recoveries were observed at all fortification levels.

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

Results for face/neck wipe field fortification samples were acceptable, with average recoveries 

ranging from approximately 84.7% to 106%.

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

Results for hand wash field fortification samples were acceptable, with average recoveries 

ranging from 93.3% to 113%.

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

 

5 As it was conducted a few years prior to current AHETF protocols, AHE07 had a slightly different strategy for 

fortification sampling: 4 fortification levels for inner dosimeters and 2 fortification levels for the face/neck wipes, 

hand washes, head patches, socks, and OVS tubes.
Page 9 of 62

The results for OVS field fortification samples were acceptable, with average recoveries ranging 

from approximately 99% to 122%. Unusually high recovery results were observed at 

fortification levels on the second day of sampling in AHE62 (low level: 2014%, 570%, and 

1103%; mid-level: 195%, 171%, 192% – contamination suspected) and the results were not used 

in calculating average recoveries. Additionally, per AHETF standard procedures, samples for 

the highest fortification level (1000 ug) went unanalyzed as no OVS air sample in the field 

exceeded 100 ug.

3.2.3.5 Head Patches

3.2.3.5.1 Outer Patches (Table S – 15)

The results for outer head patch samples were acceptable, with average recoveries ranging from 

approximately 54% to 122%. Abnormally low recoveries were observed at the 5 ug fortification 

level on the second day of sampling in AHE63 (54.8%, 59.5%, and 61.6%).

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

The results for outer head patch samples were acceptable, with average recoveries ranging from 

approximately 52.4% to 109%, though abnormally low recoveries (< 70%) were observed for 

most of the samples in AHE63.

3.2.3.6 Socks (Table S – 17)

The results for field fortification of sock matrices (in AHE07 only) samples were acceptable, 

with average recoveries ranging from approximately 69% to 93%. Some abnormally low results 

were observed at the low fortification level (5 ug): the third through the sixth sampling day

ranged from 48%-71%.

3.3 Field Measurements

The following sections summarize the exposure monitoring results, conducted as described in 

Section 2.8. All measurements were appropriately adjusted for field fortification recoveries. 

Face/neck wipe measurements reflect extrapolation to un-wiped portions of the face covered by 

protective eyewear or a respirator according to AHETF SOP 9.K. For samples below the LOQ 

or LOD, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD was used.

Additionally, in order to account for potential residue collection method inefficiencies per EPA 

policy, the AHETF has made adjustments to hand and face/neck field study measurements as 

follows6:

 

6 This directive was discussed and presented at a meeting of the Human Studies Review Board (June 2007). The 

terminology used to describe this are “method efficiency adjusted” (MEA) or “method efficiency corrected” (MEC). 

For this scenario, adjustments are made to face/neck wipe and hand wash measurements for exposures to workers 

while wearing chemical-resistant hats only. For exposures without chemical-resistant hats, because the contribution 

to total dermal exposure by the face/neck and hands is less than 20%, adjustments are unnecessary.
Page 10 of 62

 if measured exposures from hands, face and neck contribute less than 20% as an 

average across all workers, no action is required;

 if measured exposure contribution from hands and face/neck represents between 20% 

and 60% of total, the measurements shall be adjusted upward by 50%, or submission 

of a validation study to support the residue collection method

 if measured exposure contribution from hands and face/neck represents is greater than 

60%, a validation study demonstrating the efficiency of the residue collection 

methods is required.

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

Inner whole body dosimeters were sectioned and analyzed separately in six sections. Out of a 

total of 158 inner dosimeter sample sections, only 5 were below the LOQ or LOD (all 5 were 

from AHE64). After adjusting for field fortification recoveries (see Section 3.2.3.1), the ranges 

for each body part were as follows:

 Lower arms: 2.0 – 5631 μg

 Upper arms: 0.5 – 2888 μg

 Front torso: 0.5 – 3559 μg

 Rear torso: 0.5 – 5492 μg

 Lower leg: 0.5 – 7080 μg

 Upper leg: 0.5 – 50638 μg

3.3.2 Head Patches (Table S – 19)

Gauze patches were placed inside and outside chemical-resistant hats to evaluate exposure to the 

head with the hats. Out of a total of 28 inner head patch values, 6 were below the LOQ or LOD. 

All outer head patches contained quantifiable residues. After adjusting for field fortification 

recoveries (see Section 3.2.3.5), the ranges for each body part were as follows:

 Outer head patches: 0.73 – 13,080 μg

 Inner head patches: 0.04 – 58.1 μg 

3.3.3 Face/Neck Wipes (Table S – 20)

Because some workers wore protective eyewear or a respirator, extrapolations from those 

portions of the face/neck that are wiped need to be made to portions of the head that are not 

measured. Specifics on these adjustment factors can be found in AHETF SOP 9.K. 

Additionally, to account for potential inefficiencies in residue collection by the wipe technique, 

the measurements are further adjusted by a factor of 2 (i.e., assuming 50% inefficiency).

After adjusting for field fortification recoveries (see Section 3.2.3.2) and extrapolating to nonwiped portions of the head described above, face/neck exposure ranged from 3.3 – 3417 μg. 

Including adjustments for potential method collection inefficiencies (i.e., doubling the 

measurements), total head exposure ranged from 6.6 – 6834 μg. All face/neck wipe field 

samples had quantifiable residues.
Page 11 of 62

3.3.4 Hand Washes (Table S – 21)

Per protocol, hand washes were collected at the end of each work day and during restroom or 

lunch breaks. Only two hand washes were collected from each worker in AHE62-64, while in 

AHE07 two workers had 4 washes and another 4 workers had 3 washes. As for the face/neck 

wipe measurements, the hand wash measurements were also increased by a factor of 2 to reflect 

potential inefficiencies in the collection method.

After adjusting for field fortification recoveries (see Section 3.2.3.3) and summing each hand 

wash, the total hand exposure ranged from 0.5 – 4146 μg. Including adjustments for potential 

method collection inefficiencies, total hand exposure ranged from 1.0 – 8292 μg (i.e., doubling 

the measurements). Out of a total of 54 hand wash samples, only 1 was below the LOQ or LOD.

3.3.5 Socks (Table S – 22)

In AHE07, the AHETF used sock dosimeters to measure exposure to workers’ feet. After 

adjusting for field fortification recoveries (see Section 3.2.3.6), feet exposure ranged from 0.39 –

108 μg. All sock samples had quantifiable residues. Because it was found that in AHE07 feet 

exposure contributed less 1% to the total dermal exposure for all workers7, the AHETF did not 

monitor exposure to the feet in AHE62-64. 

3.3.6 OVS Air Samplers (Table S – 25)

Front and back sections of the OVS tube were analyzed separately for AHE62-64, with all but 

one back section sample was less than the LOQ or LOD and all front section samples having 

quantifiable residues. After adjusting for field fortification recoveries (see Section 3.2.3.4) the 

total (front section + back section) collected chemical amounts ranged from 0.07 – 28.7 μg.

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

This section provides total exposures (expressed as mass active ingredient), as well as exposures 

normalized to (i.e., dividing by) body weight and amount of active ingredient handled (AaiH).

3.4.1 Dermal Exposures8

Total dermal exposure is calculated by summing the results for inner dosimeters, hand washes,

face/neck wipes, and head patches. Note that both the face/neck wipes and head patches are 

extrapolated using surface area adjustments to non-measured portions of the head. Additionally, 

 

7 Calculated as a percentage of dermal exposure with chemical-resistant hats. The contribution would be even less 

when compared with dermal exposure without chemical-resistant hats.

8 Dermal exposures reflect the 50% method efficiency assumption (i.e., a 2X upward adjustment) for hand rinse and 

face/neck wipe measurements (“MEA” = method efficiency adjustment) for exposures with chemical-resistant hats 

only. As previously stated, it is unnecessary to adjust these measurements for dermal exposures without chemicalresistant hats. 
Page 12 of 62

the inner and outer head patches provide the ability to express dermal exposures for workers with 

and without chemical resistant hats.

As outlined in Table S-6, six of the 28 monitored workers used an open cab vehicle that also had 

a canopy or roof. Figure 1 below presents dermal unit exposures without CR hats for each study

and indicates the 6 monitored workers that used an open cab vehicle with a canopy. It does not 

appear that the presence of a canopy above the workers offers any additional dermal protection. 

Thus, no differentiation with respect to using the data needs to be made. This was first addressed 

in the study review for AHE07 (D316628) and can be referenced for additional detail.

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

Dermal UE w/o CR hats (ug/lb ai)

Dermal exposures with chemical-resistant hats ranged from 60.3 – 80,702 μg. Normalized to 

each worker’s body weight, dermal exposures ranged from 0.66 – 877 μg/kg. Normalized by the 

amount of active ingredient handled, dermal “unit exposures” ranged from 4 – 3,202 μg/lb ai.

Dermal exposures without chemical-resistant hats ranged from 69.8 – 233,089 μg. Normalized 

to each worker’s body weight, dermal exposures ranged from 0.81 – 2,534 μg/kg. Normalized 

by the amount of active ingredient handled, dermal “unit exposures” ranged from 3.8 – 9,355 

μg/lb ai.

3.4.2 Inhalation Exposures

To calculate worker inhalation exposure – specifically, “breathing zone” exposure – the 

measured amounts are adjusted based on the pump flow rate (in liters per minute) and a typical 

worker’s breathing rate for this type of activity. For these studies a breathing rate of 8.3 liters 

per minute was used, representing sedentary activities, like driving a tractor (NAFTA, 1998). 

The calculation is as follows:
Page 13 of 62

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

Calculated inhalation exposures ranged from 0.294 – 529 μg. Normalized to the worker’s body 

weight, inhalation exposures ranged from 0.003 – 5.34 μg/kg. Normalized by the amount of 

active ingredient handled, inhalation unit exposures ranged from 0.00026 – 7.13 μg/lb ai.

Worker ID A5 in study AHE64 (OK-pecan) has significantly less exposure than the other 

workers in AHE64 as well as the workers in the other open cab airblast studies. Consideration 

should be given during further analysis of this data whether it should be treated as an outlier and 

potentially excluded from the data.

3.5 Field Observations

For all studies, observers were employed to monitor each worker and record their behavior 

throughout the work day. Much of the observations detailed application procedures (e.g., 

AHE62 MU A3 @ 1101: “Sprays between final two rows on East end of lower block, 3-point 

turn to come down end row with left side only spraying.”), while others indicated potential 

impacts on exposure such as spray drift (e.g., AHE63 MUA4 @ 1130: “Spray appears to slightly 

drift back towards the tractor). Field observations should be considered when analyzing this 

data.

4.0 Protocol Amendments and Deviations (Table S – 27)

Field and analytical phase deviations were minor. Reported field phase deviations included 

errors in measuring field fortification recovery levels and slight deviations from specified ranges 

of amount of active ingredient handled and monitoring time requirements. Analytical phase 

deviations included instances analytical method modifications and failure to verify field 

fortification concentrations. No protocol amendments or deviations were considered to 

adversely affect the results of exposure monitoring or compromise the overall research.

5.0 Conclusion

As the studies followed their corresponding protocols as well as EPA guidelines for occupational 

pesticide exposure monitoring, the results are considered useful for assessment of exposure and 

risk for open cab airblast applicators. Since these were collected with the intention to populate a 

generic pesticide exposure database, reviewers are directed to the additional information and 

statistical analyses in the AHETF Open Cab Airblast Scenario Monograph (AHETF, 2010; 

MRID 48326701) and recommendations for use of the data in its corresponding HED review 

(Crowley, 2011; D387287).

6.0 References

AHETF, (2008-a). Volume IV AHETF Revised Governing Document for a Multi-Year 

Pesticide Handler Worker Exposure Monitoring Program. Version Number: 1. April 7, 2008. 

Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force (AHETF). [MRID 47172401]
Page 14 of 62

AHETF, (2008-b). Monitoring Unit Selection and Construction Plan for Scenario: Airblast 

Application of Liquids Sprays to Crops Using Open Cab Equipment. July 21, 2008. 

Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force (AHETF).

AHETF, (2010). Agricultural Handler Exposure Scenario Monograph: Open Cab Airblast 

Application of Liquid Sprays. Report Number AHE1006. December 14, 2010. [MRID 

48326701]

Bruce, E. (2010-a). Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Workers During 

Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Open Cab Equipment in California Trellis Crops. 

Study Number AHE62. Unpublished study prepared by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure 

Task Force. 283 p. November 3, 2010. MRID 48289611.

Crowley, M., 2011. Memorandum: Review of Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force 

(AHETF) Monograph: Open Cab Airblast Application of Liquid Sprays. D387287. March 11,

2011.

Dawson, J., 2006. Memorandom: Carbaryl: Data Evaluation Record For MRID 464482-01; 

Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Workers during Application of a Liquid 

Pesticide Product by Open Cab Airblast Application to Orchard Crops; PC Code 056801; DP 

Barcode 316628.

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

Smith, L. (2010-a). Amended Report – Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to 

Workers During Application of a Liquid Pesticide Product by Open Cab Airblast Application to 

Orchard Crops. Study Number AHE07. Unpublished study prepared by the Agricultural 

Handlers Exposure Task Force. 235 p. August 23, 2005 (Initial Report Date: December 30, 

2004). MRID 46448201.

Smith, L. (2010-b). Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Workers During 

Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Open Cab Equipment in New York Trellis Crops. 

Study Number AHE63. Unpublished study prepared by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure 

Task Force. 245 p. November 3, 2010. MRID 48289612.

Smith, L. (2010-c). Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Workers During 

Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Open Cab Equipment in Oklahoma Tree Nuts. 

Study Number AHE64. Unpublished study prepared by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure 

Task Force. 236 p. November 3, 2010. MRID 48289613.
Page 15 of 62

Supplemental Tables S – 1-28

Table S - 1. Administrative Details.............................................................................................. 17

Table S - 2. Summary of Pesticides Used................................................................................. 18

Table S - 3. Summary of Monitored Workers and Locations ............................................... 19

Table S - 4. Summary of Meteorological Conditions.............................................................. 20

Table S - 5. Summary of Work Clothing and PPE................................................................. 21

Table S - 6. Summary of Application Characteristics............................................................ 22

Table S - 7. Summary of Application Rate Information ........................................................ 24

Table S - 8. Descriptions of Exposure Monitoring and Analytical Methods........................ 25

Table S - 9. Field Control Samples with Detected Residues .................................................. 29

Table S - 10. Summary of Concurrent Laboratory Fortification Samples .......................... 30

Table S – 11a. Inner Whole Body Dosimeter Samples: Summary of Field Fortification 

Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors.................................................. 31

Table S – 11b. AHE07 – Inner Whole Body Dosimeter Samples: Summary of Field 

Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors ........................... 32

Table S – 12a. Face/Neck Wipe Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery 

Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors................................................................... 33

Table S – 12b. AHE07 – Face/Neck Wipe Samples: Summary of Field Fortification 

Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors.................................................. 34

Table S – 13a. Hand Wash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples 

and Corresponding Adjustment Factors.................................................................................. 35

Table S – 13b. AHE07 – Hand Wash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery 

Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors................................................................... 36

Table S – 14a. OVS Air Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and 

Corresponding Adjustment Factors.......................................................................................... 37

Table S – 14b. AHE07 – OVS Air Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery 

Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors................................................................... 38

Table S - 15. Outer Head Patches: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and 

Corresponding Adjustment Factors.......................................................................................... 39

Table S – 16a. AHE62 – Inner Head Patches: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery 

Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors................................................................... 41

Table S – 16b. Inner Head Patches: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples 

and Corresponding Adjustment Factors.................................................................................. 42

Table S - 17. Socks (AHE07 only): Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and 

Corresponding Adjustment Factors.......................................................................................... 44

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

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

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

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

Table S - 20. Face/Neck Wipe Field Sample Results............................................................... 49

Table S - 21. Hand Wash Field Sample Results...................................................................... 51

Table S - 22. Socks (AHE07 only): Field Sample Results...................................................... 53
Page 16 of 62

Table S - 23. Head Exposure with and without Chemical-Resistant Hats (Face/Neck Wipes 

plus Inner and Outer Head Patches)......................................................................................... 54

Table S - 24. Total Dermal Exposures ..................................................................................... 56

Table S - 25. OVS Air Sample Field Results and Inhalation Exposure................................ 58

Table S - 26. Dermal and Inhalation Unit Exposures............................................................. 60

Table S - 27. Protocol Amendments and Deviations............................................................... 61
Page 17 of 62

Table S - 1. Administrative Details

Study ID

Title Author Report 

Date

Field Principal 

Investigator Analytical Facility AHE# EPA MRID

AHE07 46448201

Determination of Dermal and Inhalation 

Exposure to Workers During Airblast 

Applications of a Liquid Pesticide Product 

by Open Cab Airblast Application to 

Orchard Crops

Larry D. Smith, 

Ph.D. 12/30/04 Tami Belcher

Morse Laboratories, Inc.

1525 Fulton Ave.

Sacramento, CA 95825

AHE62 48289611

Determination of Dermal and Inhalation 

Exposure to Workers During Airblast 

Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Open

Cab Equipment in California Trellis Crops

Eric Bruce 11/3/10 Brian D. Lange

Morse Laboratories, Inc.

1525 Fulton Ave.

Sacramento, CA 95825

AHE63 48289612

Determination of Dermal and Inhalation 

Exposure to Workers During Airblast 

Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Open

Cab Equipment in New York Trellis Crops

Larry D. Smith, 

Ph.D. 11/3/10 Aaron Rotondaro

Morse Laboratories, Inc.

1525 Fulton Ave.

Sacramento, CA 95825

AHE64 48289613

Determination of Dermal and Inhalation 

Exposure to Workers During Airblast 

Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Open

Cab Equipment in Oklahoma Tree Nuts

Larry D. Smith, 

Ph.D. 11/3/10 Aaron Rotondaro

Morse Laboratories, Inc.

1525 Fulton Ave.

Sacramento, CA 95825
Page 18 of 62

Table S - 2. Summary of Pesticides Used

Study ID

Product Information Product Purity Analysis

Trade 

Name

Formulation Manufacturer Packaging Active 

Ingredient Label % ai Actual % ai Lot / Batch # Laboratory (Date)

AHE07 Sevin®

XLR Plus

Suspension 

concentrate

Bayer 

CropScience

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Carbaryl 44.1% by weight

44.15% by 

weight 60702302

Morse 

Laboratories 

(date 

unknown)

AHE62

Gowan 

Malathion 

8

Emulsifiable 

concentrate

Gowan 

Company

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Malathion 79.5% by weight

68.35% by 

weight 30AK7005

EPL BioAnalytical 

Services 

(4/20/09)

Gowan 

Malathion 

8 Flowable

Emulsifiable 

concentrate

Gowan 

Company

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Malathion 79.5% by weight

65.70% by 

weight 30AK8003

EPL BioAnalytical

Services 

(4/20/09)

Gowan 

Malathion 

8 Flowable

Emulsifiable 

concentrate

Gowan 

Company

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Malathion 79.5% by weight

67.26% by 

weight 30AK9003

EPL BioAnalytical 

Services 

(4/20/09)

AHE63 Sevin®

XLR Plus

Aqueous 

suspension / 

flowable

Bayer 

CropScience

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Carbaryl 44.1% by weight 44.8% by weight E180426-JH312

EPL BioAnalytical 

Services 

(1/23/09)

AHE64 Sevin® 

XLR Plus

Aqueous 

suspension / 

flowable

Bayer 

CropScience

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Carbaryl 44.1% by weight 44.5% by weight K492074-JI148

EPL BioAnalytical 

Services 

(1/23/09)
Page 19 of 62

Table S - 3. Summary of Monitored Workers and Locations

Study 

ID

MU

ID Age Gender Height (in)

Weight 

(kg)

Yrs. 

Experience State County Town Date Crop

AHE07

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AHE62

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

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

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

A4 AHETF planned to monitor 5 workers in this study, but only 3 were able to be recruited and monitored. A5

AHE63

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

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

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

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

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

AHE64

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

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

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

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

A5 67 M 68 86 40 OK Rogers Not reported 8/29/2009 pecan
Page 20 of 62

Table S - 4. Summary of Meteorological Conditions

Study 

ID

State MU 

ID Date Monitoring Period

Humidity

(%)

Temp.

(° F)

Wind Cloud 

Cover (%)

Heat 

Indexa

Rainfall

(in)

Speed (mph) Direction Max Min Max Min Max Min

AHE07

GA

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

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

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

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

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

ID

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

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

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

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

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

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

FL

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

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

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

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

AHE62 CA

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

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

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

AHE63 NY

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

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

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

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

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

AHE64 FL

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

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

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

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

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

NR = not reported
Page 21 of 62

Table S - 5. Summary of Work Clothing and PPE

Study 

ID

MU 

ID

Long-sleeved Shirt Pants Gloves Eye 

Protection3

Shoe type 

(over socks) Cap Respirator Type3

Style Material Style Material

AHE07

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 Button-front

Button-front1,2

Light Wt Wool

Cotton/Polyester Pleated1 Cotton/Polyester Rubber --

Leather/Cloth 

upper boots CR hat --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AHE62

A1 Button, collar 100% cotton Dickies cotton Nitrile Protective 

eyewear

Leather boots CR hat --

A2 Button-up cotton Jeans cotton Nitrile Protective 

eyewear

Leather boots CR hat --

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

AHE63

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

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

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

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

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

AHE64

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

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

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

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

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

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

2

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

3

Per AHETF SOP 9.K, exposure is extrapolated to portions of face covered by eyewear or respiratory protection.
Page 22 of 62

Table S - 6. Summary of Application Characteristics

Study 

ID

MU

ID

Crop Application Equipment

Speed

(mph

)

Tank 

Size

(gal)

Application / 

Exposure 

Monitoring 

Time

Type Height

(ft)

Spacing (ft)

Tractor/truck

Airblast

Full InrowBrand

Nozzle

Type # 

used

Pressure

(psi)

AHE07

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 apple NR NR 10-15 Kubota L4150 Turbomist / 

Victair NR 12 NR 2-4 183 7.9

13 apple NR NR 10-15 NR Victair / 

Mistifier NR 28 NR 2-4 300 6.5

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

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

17 apple & 

pear

NR NR 10-15 John Deere 2255 Meyers NR 14 NR 2-4 480 6.2

22 orange NR NR 15-24 John Deere 

6405b Rears Power Pull NR 24 NR 2-4 1000 4.8

23 orange NR NR 15-24 John Deere 

6405b Rears Powerblast NR 22 NR 2-4 1000 7.0

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

27 orange NR NR 15-24 John Deere 

6405b Rears Power Pull NR 24 NR 8 1000 7.4

AHE62

A1 grape NR NR 11 John Deere 

2950b

International 

Manf. Co. Plastic 10 90 3-3.5 600 5.1

A2 grape NR NR 10 Kubota M5400 Gearmore Spinning 

disc 6 40 4 150 2.9

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

AHE63

A1 grape NR NR 9 Case IH 2140 Turbo Mist 

Slimline NR 10 100 4 400 10.6

A2 grape NR NR 8-10 John Deere 

2355N

Berthoud Arbo 

AX LT600 NR 5 600 3.9 160 6.9
Page 23 of 62

Table S - 6. Summary of Application Characteristics

Study 

ID

MU

ID

Crop Application Equipment Speed

(mph

)

Tank 

Size

(gal)

Application / 

Exposure 

Monitoring 

Time

Type Height

(ft)

Spacing (ft) Tractor/truck Airblast

Full In- Brand Nozzle

A3 grape NR NR 8.5 Massey 

Ferguson 265

CIMA Blitz 45 

T100 NR 10 26 3 300 6.2

A4 grape NR NR 7-9 John Deere 830 Holland 

Windmill 350 NR 9 22 3-3.5 280 4.2

A5 grape NR NR 8-9

International 

Case 485

Berthoud Arbo 

1000

Hollow

cone

12 350 2.5-3 300 1.4

AHE64

A1 pecan NR NR --

a

John Deere 300B FMC Bean Cone 11 20-25 2-2.5 500 7.8

A2 pecan NR NR --

a

Ford 6600 Savage 5534 Floodjet 7 25-30 3-5 500 2.7

A3 pecan NR NR --

a John Deere 

2940b Savage 5528 Floodjet 7 20-25 3-4 500 3.0

A4 pecan NR NR --

a Massey 

Ferguson 360 Savage 5525 Floodjet 7 20 1.2 500 3.3

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

NR = not reported

a Trees not in rows (non-systematic planting)

b Open cab vehicle with a canopy/roof.
Page 24 of 62

Table S - 7. Summary of Application Rate Information

Study 

ID

MU 

ID Crop

Active 

Ingredient 

(ai)

Product 

Conc.

(lb ai / 

gallon)

# Loads 

applied

Area 

Treated

(acres)

Application Amount

Spray Product Active Ingredient

Per Acre

(gal)

Total

(gal)

Per Acre

(gal)

Total

(gal)

Per Acre

(lb)

Total 

(lb)

AHE07

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AHE62

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

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

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

AHE63

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

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

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

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

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

AHE64

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

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

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

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

A5 pecan Carbaryl 4.04 2 9 33 300 0.50 5 2.0 18.2
Page 25 of 62

Table S - 8. Descriptions of Exposure Monitoring and Analytical Methods

Exposure Monitoring Method Analytical Method

Matrix Description Active 

Ingredient Identification Description

Hand Rinse

Exposure to the hands was measured using 

a 500 mL aliquot of 0.01% v/v AOT 

solution. First, 400 mL AOT solution was 

poured over a worker’s hand while rubbing 

them together over a glass bowl for 

approximately 30 seconds; the remaining 

100 mL was then poured over the worker’s 

hands into the bowl. The bowl of 500 mL 

solution (now with hand residue) is 

transferred to a clear glass jar and frozen 

for storage. Samples are taken at any point 

a worker would normally wash their hands 

(e.g., during lunch breaks, before using 

restroom, etc.) and at the end of 

monitoring. Samples are analyzed 

separately, but summed to obtain a total 

daily hand exposure.

Carbaryl

ARTF-AM-012, Revision 

#2 [“Determination of 

Carbaryl in Hand Wash 

Solutions” (6/98)]

Carbaryl was extracted from hand wash solutions with 

dichloromethane, using multiple extractions. An 

aliquot of the extract was evaporated to dryness, 

reconstituted in acetonitrile:water (50:50 v/v), then 

submitted to HPLC analysis using post column 

derivatization/fluorescence detection. The method 

provided for an optional Florisil SPE purification step 

that was not needed for this study.

Malathion

ARTF-AM-006, Revision 3, 

[“Determination of 

Diazinon and Malathion in 

Hand Wash Solutions”]

Malathion residues in AOT hand wash solutions were 

retained on a conditioned C-18 reverse phase cartridge 

by passing an aliquot of hand wash sample through the 

cartridge. The cartridge was washed with water, airdried, then washed with hexane. Malathion residues 

were eluted from the C-18 cartridge with 

dichloromethane. The eluate was evaporated to 

dryness, redissolved in acetone, then submitted to gas 

chromatographic (GC) analysis using flame 

photometric detection in the phosphorous mode 

(FPD/P).

Face/neck 

Wipe

The face/neck wipes consisted of two 4” x 

4”, 100% cotton gauze Kendall Curity 

sponges moistened with 4 mL of 0.01% 

(v/v) Aerosol® OT solution (sodium 

dioctyl sulfosuccinate in distilled water), 

used sequentially. Face/neck wipes were 

conducted prior to breaks and at the end of 

monitoring. Samples were combined for 

analysis.

Carbaryl

ARTF-AM-014, Revision 2

[“Determination of Carbaryl 

in Cotton Facial/Neck 

Wipes” (4/98)]

Carbaryl was extracted from cotton face/neck wipes 

with acetone. The aluminum foil used to wrap each 

sample was also rinsed with acetone to remove any 

residues. An aliquot of the extract was concentrated, 

subjected to Florisil SPE cleanup (most extracts), then 

submitted to high performance liquid chromatographic 

(HPLC) analysis using post column 

derivatization/fluorescence detection.

Malathion

ARTF-AM-010, Revision 2, 

[“Determination of 

Diazinon and Malathion in 

Cotton Facial/Neck Wipes”]

Malathion was extracted from cotton facial/neck wipes 

with an aqueous AOT solution. The aluminum foil 

used to wrap each sample was also rinsed with 

aqueous AOT to remove any residues. An aliquot of 

the extract was subjected to C-18 cleanup. After the 

sample was passed through the cartridge, retaining the 
Page 26 of 62

Table S - 8. Descriptions of Exposure Monitoring and Analytical Methods

Exposure Monitoring Method Analytical Method

Matrix Description Active 

Ingredient Identification Description

analyte, the cartridge was washed with water, then airdried. Malathion residues were eluted from the C-18 

cartridge with dichloromethane:methanol (50:50, v/v). 

The eluate was evaporated to dryness and redissolved 

in acetone.

Inner 

Dosimeters

Whole body dosimeters – white, long 

underwear, 100% cotton one-piece 

Carolina Mills, Inc. union suits worn 

underneath the workers’ outer clothing –

served to represent the workers’ skin on 

their arms, legs and torso. Following each 

monitoring period, the inner whole body 

dosimeters were carefully removed and 

sectioned into two pieces: lower body 

(below the waist) and upper body (above 

the waist).

Carbaryl

ARTF-AM-011, Revision 4 

[“Determination of Carbaryl 

in Dermal Dosimeters”, 

(9/29/03)]

Carbaryl was extracted from cotton inner dosimeter 

sections (upper and lower) with acetone. Each section 

was considered one analytical sample. An aliquot of 

the sample extract was subjected to Florisil SPE 

cleanup, then submitted to high performance liquid 

chromatographic analysis using post column 

derivatization/fluorescence detection. The method, 

incorporating Florisil cleanup, is applicable to samples 

containing residue levels ranging from 1.0 μg/sample 

to 500 μg/sample for inner dosimeters. A provision 

was made to extend the range of applicability by 

eliminating the Florisil cleanup.

Malathion

ARTF-AM-005, Revision 4 

(by ABC Laboratories, Inc.)

[ “Determination of 

Diazinon/Malathion Inner 

Dermal Dosimeters”, 3/98]

Malathion was extracted from cotton inner dosimeter 

sections with acetone. The aluminum foil used to 

wrap each sample was also rinsed with acetone to 

remove any residues. Following evaporation of the 

solvent from an aliquot of the extract, the residues 

were suspended in water, then partitioned into hexane; 

the hexane was back-extracted against water. An 

aliquot of the hexane extract was subjected to Florisil 

Bond Elut cleanup.
Page 27 of 62

Table S - 8. Descriptions of Exposure Monitoring and Analytical Methods

Exposure Monitoring Method Analytical Method

Matrix Description Active 

Ingredient Identification Description

OVS tubes

Air sampling was conducted using OSHA 

Versatile Sampler (OVS) tubes connected 

by Tygon®-type tubing to a SKC model 

110-100 personal air sampling pump set to 

approximately 2 liters per minute. The 

sample collector consisted of a glass fiber 

filter and two sections of XAD-2 sorbent 

housed in a 13 mm diameter glass tube. 

The sampler was clipped to the worker’s 

collar (intake facing downward) and the 

tube attached to their belt. Pump on/off 

times and starting and ending flow rates 

were recorded.

Carbaryl

ARTF-AM-013, Revision 2, 

[“Determination of Carbaryl 

in OVS Air Sampling 

Tubes” (12/17/09)]

Air sampling tube contents were divided into front and 

back sections and the sections were analyzed 

separately. Carbaryl was extracted from the contents 

of each section of sorbent tube with acetonitrile. An 

aliquot of the extract was evaporated to dryness, 

reconstituted in acetonitrile:water (50:50, v/v) then 

submitted to HPLC analysis using post column 

derivatization/fluorescence detection. The method 

provided for an optional Florisil SPE purification step 

that was not needed for this study.

Malathion

ARETF-AM-009, Revision 

5, [“Determination of 

Diazinon and Malathion in 

OVS Air Sampling Tubes”]

Air sampling tube contents were divided into front and 

back sections and the sections were analyzed 

separately. Malathion was extracted from the contents 

of each section of sorbent tube with acetone. An 

aliquot of the extract was evaporated to dryness, then 

reconstituted in acetone. Samples were submitted to 

gas chromatographic (GC) analysis using flame 

photometric detection in the phosphorous mode 

(FPD/P).

Head Patch

The inner head patch consisted of one 

layer of inner dosimeter material (a onepiece, white, long-underwear union suit 

constructed of 100% cotton) measuring 

100 square centimeters. Extra material 

was used for the attachment of strings, 

which ran under the chin of the worker to 

hold the patch in place. The patch was 

worn on the crown of the head, under the 

chemical-resistant hat for the duration of 

the monitoring period.

Carbaryl

ARTF-AM-011, Revision 4 

[“Determination of Carbaryl 

in Dermal Dosimeters”, 

(9/29/03)]

Carbaryl was extracted from head patch samples with 

acetone. Each section was considered one analytical 

sample. An aliquot of the sample extract was subjected 

to Florisil SPE cleanup, then submitted to high 

performance liquid chromatographic analysis using 

post column derivatization/fluorescence detection. The 

method, incorporating Florisil cleanup, is applicable to 

samples containing residue levels ranging from 1.0 

μg/sample to 500 μg/sample for inner dosimeters. A 

provision was made to extend the range of 

applicability by eliminating the Florisil cleanup.

Malathion

ARTF-AM-005, Revision 4, 

modifications dated 

11/16/09, [ “Determination 

of Diazinon/Malathion Inner 

Dermal Dosimeters”, 3/98]

Malathion was extracted from head patch samples

with acetone. The aluminum foil used to wrap each 

sample was also rinsed with acetone to remove any 

residues. Following evaporation of the solvent from an 

aliquot of the extract, the residues were suspended in 
Page 28 of 62

Table S - 8. Descriptions of Exposure Monitoring and Analytical Methods

Exposure Monitoring Method Analytical Method

Matrix Description Active 

Ingredient Identification Description

water, then partitioned into hexane; the hexane was 

back-extracted against water. An aliquot of the hexane 

extract was subjected to Florisil Bond Elut cleanup.
Page 29 of 62

Table S - 9. Field Control Samples with Detected Residues

Study Control Sample Type # with detected residues Sample ID Residue Found 

(ug/sample)

LOQ

(ug/sample) Comparison to LOQ

AHE07

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

OVS tube (both sections) 3 of 12

07-FF-05-AR-C1 0.0127 0.01 1.3X > LOQ

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

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

AHE62

Head patch (inner and outer) 5 of 8

62-FF-01-IH-C3 0.2145 0.25 1.2 X < LOQ

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

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

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

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

OVS tube (front section) 4 of 4

62-FF-02-AR-C1 0.00658 0.005 1.3X > LOQ

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

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

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

AHE63

Inner Dosimeter 3 of 5

63-FF-01-ID-C2 0.10 1.0 10X < LOQ

63-FF-01-ID-C2 

(confirmatory) 0.11 1.0 9X < LOQ

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

Head patch (inner and outer) 3 of 8

63-FF-01-IH-C1 0.119 0.25 2X < LOQ

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

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

OVS tube (front section) 4 of 4

63-FF-02-AR-C1 0.03652 0.005 7 > LOQ

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

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

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

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

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

AHE64

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

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

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

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

OVS tube (front section) 4 of 4

64-FF-02-AR-C1 0.0153 0.005 3X > LOQ

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

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

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

Note: as only negative controls for matrices with detected residues are shown in this table, it follows that all other negative controls for those matrices not 

presented in this table did not have detected residues (i.e., only a small percentage of all negative controls had detected residues).
Page 30 of 62

Table S - 10. Summary of Concurrent Laboratory Fortification Samples

Study ID Exposure Matrix Fortification Range Recovery Results

(mean ± standard deviation)

AHE07a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AHE62

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

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

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

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

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

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

AHE63b

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

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

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

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

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

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

AHE64

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b Anomalous samples: 1 OVS air sample (278%)
Page 31 of 62

Table S – 11. Inner Whole Body Dosimeter Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study ID Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Range (ug)a

Low level

(5 ug)

Mid level

(100 ug)

High level

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

AHE62 Malathion

7/02/09

43.0 105 101

0.746 0.958 1.10

36.8 87.2 98.0

31.8 92.8 101

7/20/09

118 65.0 126

105 112 117

113 113 118

Summary

Statistics

Mean 74.6 95.8 110

SD 41.3 18.3 11.6

CV (%) 55 19 11

AHE63 Carbaryl

7/28/09b

77.3 16.3 50.0

0.912 0.834 0.882

83.7 89.4 136

25.2 51.5 163

8/5/09

92.8 92.8 126

88.5 94.6 88.0

92.3 62.8 50.6

Summary

Statistics

Mean 91.2 83.4 88.2

SD 2.4 17.9 37.7

CV (%) 2.6 21 43

AHE64 Carbaryl

8/24/09

77.2 91.8 102

0.843 0.899 0.992

81.6 78.7 103

95.4 71.1 99.4

8/28/09

95.0 94.1 88.5

77.0 107 98.1

79.5 96.7 104

Summary

Statistics

Mean 84.3 89.9 99.2

SD 8.62 13.0 5.68

CV (%) 10 14 5.7

a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level. 

Example: 52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100 ug. Field sample residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level 

recovery mean.

b Study day’s results not used. The cause of the abnormally low and high results reported as unknown.
Page 32 of 62

Table S – 12. AHE07 – Inner Whole Body Dosimeter Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment 

Factors

Study 

ID

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Range (ug)a

Low level (ug) Mid level (ug) High level (ug) ≤52.5 >52.5 to ≤300 >300 to ≤2750 >2750 5 100 500 5000

AHE07 Carbaryl

10/07/03

100 99.6 104.8 113.2

0.845 0.977 0.98 1.07

94.2 96.0 97.2 114.4

90 101.0 97.4 113.5

-- -- -- 104.6

10/08/03

101.6 101.0 101.2 108.2

93.0 104.0 94.8 103.6

89.2 105.0 104.6 105.6

10/22/03

75.2 100.0 96.4 112.6

74.8 99.7 98.2 109.4

76.0 96.7 98.6 118.6

10/24/03

70.8 92.5 98.6 107.2

67.6 101.0 103.2 105.6

73.0 101.0 103.0 107.8

12/09/03

116.6 87.4 97.4 100.0

85.0 99.4 100.2 101.0

80.2 97.0 94.6 103.4

12/11/03

66.6 92.5 86.2 105.2

83.8 91.7 95.0 100.8

83.2 92.2 93.2 104.4

Summary

Statistics

Mean 84.5 97.7 98.0 107.3

SD 13.2 4.7 4.6 5.1

CV 

(%) 16 4.8 4.7 5.3

a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level. 

Example: 52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100 ug. Residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recovery mean.
Page 33 of 62

Table S – 13. Face/Neck Wipe Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study ID Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor

by Measured Residue Range (ug)a

Low level

(5 ug)

Mid level

(100 ug)

High level

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

AHE62 Malathion

7/02/09

87.6 79.4 81.2

1.02 0.928 0.924

89.4 76.4 82.4

87.4 86.0 72.6

7/20/09

117 103 101

115 106 108

116 106 109

Summary

Statistics

Mean 102 92.8 92.4

SD 15.3 13.8 15.6

CV (%) 15 15 17

AHE63 Carbaryl

7/28/09

104 100 105

0.983 0.899 1.06

97.5 88.5 94.9

98.9 102 95.6

8/5/09

97.0 87.4 129

98.2 78.1 101

94.2 83.4 111

Summary

Statistics

Mean 98.3 89.9 106

SD 3.2 9.4 12.7

CV (%) 3.3 10 12

AHE64 Carbaryl

8/24/09

89.7 88.7 88.5

0.878 0.847 0.917

91.9 92.2 96.4

92.5 86.3 53.3

8/28/09

83.7 80.8 111

82.2 75.4 103

86.5 84.9 97.7

Summary

Statistics

Mean 87.8 84.7 91.7

SD 4.30 5.94 20.2

CV (%) 5 7 22

a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level. 

Example: 52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100 ug. Residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recovery mean.
Page 34 of 62

Table S – 14. AHE07 – Face/Neck Wipe Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study 

ID

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Range (ug)a

Low level (ug) High level (ug) ≤52.5 >52.5 5 100

AHE07 Carbaryl

10/07/03

89.8 79.4

0.849 0.955

87.4 89.6

80.6 81.4

10/08/03

92.8 91.7

69.8 88.4

77.0 87.7

10/22/03

94.6 101.0

88.4 103.0

85.6 104.0

10/24/03

93.4 94.8

89.4 93.4

95.0 109.0

12/09/03

76.8 93.5

83.2 97.7

73.8 95.6

12/11/03

86.4 100.0

82.0 103.0

81.6 105.0

Summary Statistics

Mean 84.9 95.5

SD 7.3 8.2

CV (%) 8.6 8.6

a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level. 

Example: 52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100 ug. Residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recovery mean.
Page 35 of 62

Table S – 15. Hand Wash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study ID Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor

by Measured Residue Range (ug)a

Low level

(5 ug)

Mid level

(100 ug)

High level

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

AHE62 Malathion

7/02/09

93.0 91.0 103

0.984 0.933 0.982

92.6 90.2 106

93.8 96.6 92.8

7/20/09

106 100 95.6

105 90.4 93.6

100 91.8 98.0

Summary

Statistics

Mean 98.4 93.3 98.2

SD 6.1 4.0 5.3

CV (%) 6.2 4.3 5.4

AHE63 Carbaryl

7/28/09

106 113 113

1.11 1.10 1.13

106 112 106

105 98.9 110

8/5/09

113 108 114

113 112 109

121 114 123

Summary

Statistics

Mean 111 110 113

SD 6.2 5.6 5.9

CV (%) 5.6 5.1 5.2

AHE64 Carbaryl

8/24/09

105 106 114

1.05 1.03 1.12

109 107 113

105 106 113

8/28/09

100 98.2 110

103 102 111

106 98.7 111

Summary

Statistics

Mean 105 103 112

SD 3.01 3.91 1.55

CV (%) 2.9 3.8 1.4

a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level. 

Example: 52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100 ug. Residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recovery mean.
Page 36 of 62

Table S – 16. AHE07 – Hand Wash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study 

ID

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Range (ug)a

Low level (ug) High level (ug) ≤52.5 >52.5 5 100

AHE07 Carbaryl

10/07/03

91.4 106.0

0.997 0.966

98.2 105.0

101.8 100.0

10/08/03

96.6 106.0

102.2 89.1

104.4 91.5

10/22/03

104.2 109.0

108.8 86.4

107.4 98.6

10/24/03

112.4 85.0

101.8 107.0

104.2 106.0

12/09/03

98.2 81.1

89.2 89.9

97.4 83.5

12/11/03

93.4 90.6

92.2 104.0

90.0 100.0

Summary

Statistics

Mean 99.7 96.6

SD 6.7 9.4

CV 

(%) 6.7 9.7

a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level. 

Example: 52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100 ug. Residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recovery mean.
Page 37 of 62

Table S – 17. OVS Air Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study ID Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor

by Measured Residue Rangea

Low level

(0.05 ug)

Mid level

(0.5 ug)

High level

(100 ug) ≤ 0.275 ug > 0.275 ug to ≤ 50.25 ug > 50.25 ug

AHE62 Malathion

7/02/09

133 114 134

1.18 1.05 1.20

101 101 114

119 101 117

7/20/09b

2014 195 112

570 171 104

1103 192 103

Summary

Statistics

Mean 118 105 122

SD 16.0 7.5 10.8

CV (%) 14 7 9

AHE63 Carbaryl

7/28/09

90.4 87.2 116

1.08 0.990 1.07

127 92.4 113

130 90.6 109

8/5/09

95.7 104 101

107 111 106

95.3 109 95.6

Summary

Statistics

Mean 108 99.0 107

SD 17.1 10.2 7.6

CV (%) 16 10 7

AHE64 Carbaryl

8/24/09

120 90.7 106

1.16 1.04 1.13

147 94.8 108

108 104 124

8/28/09

103 112 113

106 107 114

113 115 110

Summary

Statistics

Mean 116 104 113

SD 16.2 9.54 6.38

CV (%) 14 9 6

a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level. 

Example: 0.275 is the midpoint between 0.05 and 0.5 ug. Residue results ≤ 0.275 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recovery 

mean.

b Contamination suspected, thus results not used.
Page 38 of 62

Table S – 18. AHE07 – OVS Air Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study 

ID

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Rangea

Low level (ug) High level (ug) ≤ 25.025 > 25.025 0.05 50

AHE07 Carbaryl

10/07/03

116.2 103.4

1.09 1.01

109.2 110.8

113.8 106.6

10/08/03

112.6 112.4

114.2 109.2

113.0 109.0

10/22/03

116.8 109.8

119.4 99.4

125.2 101.8

10/24/03

135.6 99.4

120.0 100.2

196.2b98.6

12/09/03

88.2 99.4

94.6 98.2

94.8 95.8

12/11/03

100.6 95.6

102.8 72.6

82.6 98.6

Summary

Statistics

Mean 109.4 101.2

SD 13.8 9.0

CV 

(%) 13 9

a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level. 

Example: 25.025 is the midpoint between 0.05 and 50 ug. Residue results ≤ 25.025 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recovery 

mean.

b

Sample excluded as a statistical outlier.
Page 39 of 62

Table S - 19. Outer Head Patches: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study 

ID

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Rangea

Low level (ug) High level (ug) ≤ 2550 > 2550 100 5000

AHE07 Carbaryl

10/07/03

93.9 91.6

0.869 1.02

95.7 106.8

102.0 108.6

10/08/03

100.0 107.8

90.9 104.4

97.3 108.6

10/22/03

85.6 105.8

92.3 107.6

74.4 104.8

10/24/03

84.5 104.8

85.2 102.8

81.9 98.8

12/09/03

75.8 97.0

78.9 97.2

84.5 96.2

12/11/03

83.9 96.6

78.0 97.2

79.3 94.2

Summary Statistics

Mean 86.9 101.7

SD 8.4 5.5

CV (%) 10 5.4

AHE62 Malathion

7/02/09

92.2 124

1.06 1.20c

107 125

--

b

--

b

7/20/09

112 122

103 116

114 123

Summary Statistics

Mean 106 122

SD 8.7 3.5

CV (%) 8.2 3

AHE63 Carbaryl 7/28/09 43.7 91.5 0.544 0.971 50.1 102
Page 40 of 62

Table S - 19. Outer Head Patches: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study 

ID

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Rangea

Low level (ug) High level (ug) ≤ 2550 > 2550 100 5000

56.8 91.4

8/5/09

54.8 104

59.5 104

61.6 89.9

Summary Statistics

Mean 54.4 97.1

SD 6.6 6.9

CV (%) 12 7.1

AHE64 Carbaryl

8/24/09

63.3 84.3

0.796 0.952

61.7 95.7

63.7 101

8/28/09

104 92.9

94.7 100

90.2 97.5

Summary Statistics

Mean 79.6 95.2

SD 18.8 6.10

CV (%) 24 6.4

a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level. 

Example: 2550 is the midpoint between 100 and 5000 ug. Residue results ≤ 2550 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recovery 

mean.

b

Sample not taken.

c

Per AHETF SOPs, recovery means greater than 120% will use a maximum adjustment factor of 1.2
Page 41 of 62

Table S – 20. AHE62 – Inner Head Patches: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study ID Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor

by Measured Residue Rangea

Low 

level

(5 ug)

Mid 

level

(100 ug)

High level

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

AHE62 Malathion

7/02/09

88.0 -- 99.3

1.01 1.09 1.05

97.1 -- 110

--

b

-- --

b

7/20/09b

104 108 --

103 108 --

115 111 --

Summary

Statistics

Mean 101 109 105

SD 9.9 1.7 7.6

CV (%) 10 16 7.2

a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level. 

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

b

Sample not taken.
Page 42 of 62

Table S – 21. Inner Head Patches: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study 

ID

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Rangea

Low level (ug) High level (ug) ≤ 52.5 > 52.5 5 100

AHE07 Carbaryl

10/07/03

94.6 108.0

0.837 0.981

96.6 105.0

99.8 107.0

10/08/03

99.2 112.0

95.0 110.0

93.8 108.0

10/22/03

75.0 85.0

79.4 83.2

76.4 105.0

10/24/03

78.0 92.1

83.8 85.8

72.4 92.9

12/09/03

71.6 84.3

72.2 87.4

73.2 90.1

12/11/03

75.6 129.0

76.4 89.9

92.8 90.4

Summary Statistics

Mean 83.7 98.1

SD 10.6 12.7

CV (%) 13 13

AHE63 Carbaryl

7/28/09

93.6 57.5

0.692 0.524

74.2 65.6

81.4 61.1

8/5/09

59.7 50.0

48.0b43.1b

58.2 37.1b

Summary Statistics

Mean 69.2 52.4

SD 16.9 11.0

CV (%) 24 21

AHE64 Carbaryl 8/24/09 75.1 97.1 0.810 0.870 79.4 79.2
Page 43 of 62

Table S – 21. Inner Head Patches: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study 

ID

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Rangea

Low level (ug) High level (ug) ≤ 52.5 > 52.5 5 100

69.8 84.3

8/28/09

86.3 100

92.6 88.3

82.6 73.2

Summary Statistics

Mean 81.0 87.0

SD 8.10 10.3

CV (%) 10 12

a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level. 

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

b Cause of low recovery not known.
Page 44 of 62

Table S - 22. Socks (AHE07 only): Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors

Study 

ID

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor 

by Measured Residue Rangea

Low level (ug) Mid level (ug) High level (ug) ≤ 52.5 > 52.5 ug to ≤ 300 ug > 300 5 100 500

AHE07 Carbaryl

10/07/03

82.8 91.1 77.6

0.692 0.775 0.925

88.6 90.8 93.2

85.2 90.0 96.8

10/08/03

86.6 89.2 104.0

88.0 88.2 107.6

87.8 87.6 105.0

10/22/03

48.2 72.6 89.2

54.0 69.7 91.2

71.0 69.3 86.0

10/24/03

61.2 77.5 97.2

65.8 78.8 81.2

64.2 79.3 111.4

12/09/03

58.2 70.3 88.4

58.8 71.1 71.6

57.6 67.1 83.8

12/11/03

58.0 67.2 93.2

64.4 69.9 91.0

65.0 64.6 86.8

Summary 

Statistics

Mean 69.2 77.5 92.5

SD 13.6 9.6 10.2

CV (%) 20 12 11

a Adjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level. 

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

b Cause of low recovery not known.
Page 45 of 62

Table S – 23. Inner Dosimeter (Arms): Field Sample Results

Study 

ID

MU 

ID

Active 

Ingredient

Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a Lower Arm Upper Arm

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

AHE07

1

Carbaryl 0.25 --

73.7 0.977 75.4 39.4 0.845 46.6

3 1230 0.98 1255 168 0.977 172

4 192 0.977 197 36.4 0.845 43.1

6 348 0.98 355 128 0.977 131

8 890 0.98 908 237 0.977 243

10 1387 0.98 1415 1754 0.98 1790

12 230 0.977 235 97 0.977 99.3

13 230 0.977 235 208 0.977 213

15 711 0.98 726 660 0.98 673

16 326 0.98 333 59.4 0.977 60.8

17 44.9 0.845 53.1 21.2 0.845 25.1

22 521 0.98 532 278 0.977 285

23 985 0.98 1005 285 0.977 292

26 783 0.98 799 589 0.98 601

27 5380 1.07 5028 3090 1.07 2888

AHE62

A1

Malathion 1.0 0.3

25.28 0.746 33.9 20.92 0.746 28.0

A2 51.9 0.746 69.6 45.1 0.746 60.5

A3 82.7 0.958 86.3 12.0 0.746 16.1

AHE63

A1

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3

1085 0.882 1230 1064 0.882 1206

A2 3069 0.882 3480 1520 0.882 1723

A3 244 0.834 293 48.5 0.912 53.2

A4 4.6 0.912 5.0 2.7 0.912 3.0

A5 40.1 0.912 44.0 44.4 0.912 48.7

AHE64

A1

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3

1041 0.899 1158 221 0.899 246

A2 5106 0.992 5147 3381 0.992 3408

A3 345 0.899 384 78.6 0.899 87.4

A4 5586 0.992 5631 1647 0.992 1660

A5 1.7 0.843 2.0 < LOQ -- 0.50

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used. Note no LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

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

c

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

d Adjusted Exposure = Raw exposure ÷ Field Fortification Adjustment Factor
Page 46 of 62

Table S – 24. Inner Dosimeter (Torso): Field Sample Results

Study 

ID

MU 

ID

Active 

Ingredient

Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a Front Torso Rear Torso

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

AHE07

1

Carbaryl 0.25 --

20.2 0.845 23.9 21.6 0.845 25.6

3 353 0.98 360 152 0.977 156

4 87.9 0.977 90.0 37 0.845 43.8

6 157 0.977 161 101 0.977 103

8 417 0.98 426 270 0.977 276

10 232 0.977 237 547 0.98 558

12 97.6 0.977 99.9 50.6 0.845 59.9

13 178 0.977 182 158 0.977 162

15 704 0.98 718 368 0.98 376

16 207 0.977 212 69.5 0.977 71.1

17 31.5 0.845 37.3 12.8 0.845 15.1

22 485 0.98 495 304 0.98 310

23 593 0.98 605 895 0.98 913

26 539 0.98 550 501 0.98 511

27 3660 1.07 3421 2630 0.98 2684

AHE62

A1

Malathion 1.0 0.3

44.2 0.746 59.2 17.3 0.746 23.2

A2 50.2 0.746 67.3 54.9 0.958 57.3

A3 78.7 0.958 82.2 13.5 0.746 18.1

AHE63

A1

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3

1985 0.882 2251 419 0.834 502

A2 833 0.834 999 402 0.834 482

A3 153 0.834 183 79.9 0.834 96

A4 2.2 0.912 2.4 5.5 0.912 6.0

A5 49.3 0.912 54.1 23.0 0.912 25.2

AHE64

A1

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3

427 0.899 475 280 0.899 311

A2 3531 0.992 3559 3642 0.992 3671

A3 131 0.899 146 38.9 0.843 46.1

A4 1561 0.992 1574 5448 0.992 5492

A5 < LOQ -- 0.50 < LOQ -- 0.50

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used. Note no LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

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

c

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

d Adjusted Exposure = Raw exposure ÷ Field Fortification Adjustment Factor
Page 47 of 62

Table S – 25. Inner Dosimeter (Legs): Field Sample Results

Study 

ID

MU 

ID

Active 

Ingredient

Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a Lower Leg Upper Leg

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

AHE07

1

Carbaryl 0.25 --

24.6 0.845 29.1 82.7 0.977 84.6

3 26.8 0.845 31.7 187 0.977 191

4 9.3 0.845 11.0 67 0.977 68.6

6 10 0.845 11.8 43.7 0.845 51.7

8 109 0.977 112 531 0.98 542

10 15.6 0.845 18.5 64.2 0.977 65.7

12 12.5 0.845 14.8 41.7 0.845 49.3

13 97.2 0.977 99.5 204 0.977 209

15 43.8 0.845 51.8 326 0.98 333

16 165 0.977 169 319 0.98 326

17 12.5 0.845 14.8 12.8 0.845 15.1

22 98.6 0.977 101 532 0.98 543

23 122 0.977 125 1000 0.98 1020

26 64.8 0.977 66.3 66.2 0.977 67.8

27 261 0.977 267 553 0.98 564

AHE62

A1

Malathion 1.0 0.3

79.0 0.958 82.5 45.9 0.746 61.5

A2 10.8 0.746 14.5 7.4 0.746 9.9

A3 15.6 0.746 20.9 11.6 0.746 15.5

AHE63

A1

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3

31.5 0.912 34.5 115 0.834 138

A2 44.9 0.912 49.2 48.5 0.912 53.2

A3 36.5 0.912 40.0 70.9 0.834 85.0

A4 2.1 0.912 2.3 1.8 0.912 2.0

A5 12.4 0.912 13.6 4.8 0.912 5.3

AHE64

A1

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3

63.7 0.899 70.9 460 0.899 512

A2 261 0.899 290 466 0.899 518

A3 38.3 0.843 45.4 65.2 0.899 72.5

A4 7023 0.992 7080 50233 0.992 50638

A5 < LOQ -- 0.5 < LOQ -- 0.50

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used. Note no LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

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

c

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

d Adjusted Exposure = Raw exposure ÷ Field Fortification Adjustment Factor
Page 48 of 62

Table S - 26. Head Patch (Inner and Outer): Field Sample Results

Study 

ID

MU 

ID

Active 

Ingredient

Analytical Method Levels

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

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

AHE07

1

Carbaryl 0.25 --

1.3 0.837 1.6 636 0.869 732

3 2.3 0.837 2.7 3750 1.017 3687

4 0.133 1 0.133 234 0.869 269

6 0.41 0.837 0.49 1340 0.869 1542

8 8.2 0.837 9.8 6730 1.017 6618

10 0.133 1 0.133 993 0.869 1143

12 0.3 0.837 0.36 498 0.869 573

13 0.64 0.837 0.76 4360 1.017 4287

15 0.96 0.837 1.1 2130 0.869 2451

16 1.3 0.837 1.6 1330 0.869 1530

17 0.133 1 0.133 271 0.869 312

22 1.3 0.837 1.6 1460 0.869 1680

23 48.6 0.837 58.1 1770 0.869 2037

26 0.38 0.837 0.45 677 0.869 779

27 0.59 0.837 0.70 7520 1.017 7394

AHE62

A1

Malathion 0.25 0.075

6.00 1.01 5.90 354 1.06 334

A2 0.60 1.01 0.59 94.5 1.06 89.2

A3 0.98 1.010 0.97 236 1.06 223

AHE63

A1

Carbaryl 0.25 0.075

9.3 0.692 13.4 5498 0.971 5662

A2 2.0 0.692 2.9 1454 0.544 2673

A3 2.6 0.692 3.8 2253 0.544 4142

A4 < LOQ -- 0.13 10.4 0.544 19.1

A5 < LOD -- 0.04 71.6 0.544 132

AHE64

A1

Carbaryl 0.25 0.075

0.89 0.81 1.1 1095 0.796 1376

A2 1.1 0.81 1.4 5836 0.952 6130

A3 0.39 0.81 0.48 139 0.796 175

A4 0.43 0.81 0.53 12452 0.952 13080

A5 < LOD NA 0.04 0.58 0.796 0.73

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used. Note no LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

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

c

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

d Adjusted Exposure = Raw exposure ÷ Field Fortification Adjustment Factor
Page 49 of 62

Table S - 27. Face/Neck Wipe Field Sample Results

Study 

ID

MU 

ID

Active 

Ingredient

Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a

Raw 

Exposure 

(ug)b

Face/Neck Exposure Adjustments

Field Fortification 

Adjustment Factorc

PPE Adjustment 

Factord

Adjusted Exposure 

(ug)e

LOQ LOD Non-MEA MEA

f

AHE07

1

Carbaryl 1.0 --

76.7 0.955 1.0 80.3 161

3 155 0.955 1.0 162 324

4 28.2 0.849 1.0 33.2 66.4

6 88.6 0.955 1.0 92.8 186

8 913 0.955 1.0 956 1912

10 51.7 0.849 1.0 60.9 122

12 47.7 0.849 1.0 56.2 112

13 45.2 0.849 1.0 53.2 106

15 281 0.955 1.0 294 588

16 43.3 0.849 1.0 51.0 102

17 13.1 0.849 1.0 15.4 30.8

22 325 0.955 1.0 340 680

23 493 0.955 1.0 516 1032

26 498 0.955 1.0 521 1042

27 2420 0.955 1.0 2534 5068

AHE62

A1

Malathion 1.0 0.3

12.04 1.02 1.1 13 26.0

A2 56.2 0.928 1.1 66.7 133

A3 75.6 0.928 1.1 89.7 179

AHE63

A1

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3

518 0.899 1.0 576 1152

A2 37.9 0.983 1.2 46.3 92.6

A3 114 0.899 1.0 127 254

A4 3.2 0.983 1.0 3.3 6.6

A5 41.2 0.983 1.0 41.9 83.8

AHE64

A1

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3

221 0.847 1.0 261 522

A2 3133 0.917 1.0 3417 6834

A3 42.6 0.878 1.2 58.2 116

A4 2689 0.917 1.0 2932 5864

A5 40.8 0.878 1.2 55.8 112

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used. Note no LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

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

c

From Supplemental Tables – 12a-b.

d

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

e Adjusted Exposure = Raw Exposure ÷ FF Adjustment Factor * PPE Adjustment Factor
Page 50 of 62

f MEA = method efficiency adjustment. Data reflects a 2X adjustment to account for potential residue collection method inefficiencies. See Section 3.3.3 for 

more details. Only utilized for total dermal exposure with chemical-resistant hats (i.e., this adjustment is not applicable to exposure estimates without CR hats).
Page 51 of 62

Table S - 28. Hand Wash Field Sample Results

Study 

ID

MU 

ID

Active 

Ingredient

Analytical 

Method 

Levels

(ug/sample)a

Hand Wash Sampleb Total

(ug)e

# 1 # 2 # 3 #4

Raw 

Exp.

(ug)c

FFAFd Raw Exp.

(ug)c FFAFd

Raw 

Exp.

(ug)c

FFAFd

Raw 

Exp.

(ug)c

FFAFd NonMEAMEA

f

LOQ LOD

AHE0

7

1

Carbaryl 1.0 --

79.8 0.966 145 0.966 185 0.966 -- -- 424 848

3 1080 0.966 347 0.966 361 0.966 -- -- 1851 3702

4 21.7 0.966 114 0.966 37.6 0.966 -- -- 179 358

6 6.55 0.966 12.2 0.966 20.0 0.966 171 0.966 217 434

8 781 0.966 640 0.966 484 0.966 2100 0.966 4146 8292

10 86.7 0.966 179 0.966 -- -- -- -- 275 550

12 4.29 0.997 46.9 0.997 -- -- -- -- 51.4 103

13 64.4 0.966 132 0.966 -- -- -- -- 203 406

15 16.8 0.966 138 0.966 -- -- -- -- 160 320

16 109 0.966 267 0.966 -- -- -- -- 389 778

17 6.62 0.997 4.76 0.997 -- -- -- -- 11.4 22.8

22 663 0.966 893 0.966 -- -- -- -- 1614 3228

23 847 0.966 -- -- -- -- -- -- 877 1754

26 811 0.966 -- -- -- -- -- -- 840 1680

27 578 0.966 253 0.966 1940 0.966 -- -- 2869 5738

AHE6

2

A1

Malathion 1.0 0.3

46.8 0.984 207.6 0.933 -- -- -- -- 271 542

A2 14.8 0.984 -- -- -- -- -- -- 15.0 30.0

A3 3.3 0.984 10.2 0.984 -- -- -- -- 13.8 27.6

AHE6

3

A1

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3

52.2 1.11 215 1.10 -- -- -- -- 242 484

A2 247 1.10 -- -- -- -- -- -- 225 450

A3 64.8 1.10 -- -- -- -- -- -- 58.9 118

A4 5.9 1.11 12 1.11 -- -- -- -- 16.1 32.2

A5 33.2 1.11 -- -- -- -- -- -- 29.9 59.8

AHE6

4

A1

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3

168 1.03 333 1.03 -- -- -- -- 486 972

A2 1152 1.12 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1029 2058

A3 428 1.03 -- -- -- -- -- -- 416 832

A4 1546 1.12 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1380 2760

A5 < LOQ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.5 1.0

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used. Note no LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

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

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

d

FFAF = field fortification adjustment factor. From Supplemental Tables S – 13a-b.
Page 52 of 62

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

f MEA = method efficiency adjustment. Data reflects a 2X adjustment to account for potential residue collection method inefficiencies. See Section 3.3.4 for 

more details. Only utilized for total dermal exposure with chemical-resistant hats (i.e., this adjustment is not applicable to exposure estimates without CR hats).
Page 53 of 62

Table S - 29. Socks (AHE07 only): Field Sample Results

Study ID MU ID Active 

Ingredient

Analytical Method Levels

(ug/sample)a Socks

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

AHE07

1

Carbaryl 0.25 --

1.5 0.692 2.2

3 1.2 0.692 1.7

4 0.27 0.692 0.39

6 0.59 0.692 0.85

8 16.1 0.692 23.3

10 0.64 0.692 0.92

12 0.55 0.692 0.79

13 0.41 0.692 0.59

15 4.6 0.692 6.6

16 5.8 0.692 8.4

17 0.67 0.692 0.97

22 0.81 0.692 1.2

23 4.8 0.692 6.9

26 5 0.692 7.2

27 83.7 0.775 108

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used. Note no LOD was derived for AHE07 for any sampling matrix.

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

c

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

d Adjusted Exposure = Raw exposure ÷ Field Fortification Adjustment Factor
Page 54 of 62

Table S - 30. Head Exposure with and without Chemical-Resistant Hats (Face/Neck Wipes plus Inner and Outer Head Patches)

Study 

ID

MU 

ID

Face/Neck Wipe 

(ug)a

Head Patch Total Head Exposure (ug)

Inner (ug) Outer (ug) w/o CR 

Hate

With CR Hatf

NonMEA

MEA

Adj. 

Exp.b

Extrapolated to Nonwiped Head Areasc Adj. Exp. b Extrapolated to Non-wiped 

Head Areasd

NonMEA

MEA

AHE07

1 80.3 161 1.6 9.58 732 8769 8859 89.9 170

3 162 324 2.7 16.17 3687 44170 44348 178 340

4 33.2 66.4 0.133 0.75 269 3223 3257 33.9 67.1

6 92.8 186 0.49 2.94 1542 18473 18569 95.7 189

8 956 1912 9.8 58.70 6618 79284 80298 1015 1971

10 60.9 122 0.133 0.75 1143 13693 13755 61.6 123

12 56.2 112 0.36 2.16 573 6865 6923 58.4 115

13 53.2 106 0.76 4.55 4287 51358 51416 57.8 111

15 294 588 1.1 6.59 2451 29363 29664 301 595

16 51.0 102 1.6 9.58 1530 18329 18390 60.6 112

17 15.4 30.8 0.133 0.75 312 3738 3754 16.1 31.5

22 340 680 1.6 9.58 1680 20126 20476 350 690

23 516 1032 58.1 348.02 2037 24403 25267 864 1380

26 521 1042 0.45 2.70 779 9332 9856 524 1045

27 2534 5068 0.70 4.19 7394 88580 91118 2538 5072

AHE62

A1 13 26.0 5.90 35.34 334 4001 4050 48.3 61.3

A2 66.7 133 0.59 3.53 89.2 1069 1139 70.2 137

A3 89.7 179 0.97 5.81 223 2672 2767 95.5 185

AHE63

A1 576 1152 13.4 80.27 5662 67831 68487 656 1232

A2 46.3 92.6 2.9 17.37 2673 32023 32086 63.7 110

A3 127 254 3.8 22.76 4142 49621 49771 150 277

A4 3.3 6.6 0.13 0.78 19.1 229 233 4.1 7.4

A5 41.9 83.8 0.04 0.24 132 1581 1623 42.1 84.0

AHE64

A1 261 522 1.1 6.59 1376 16484 16752 268 529

A2 3417 6834 1.4 8.39 6130 73437 76863 3425 6842

A3 58.2 116 0.48 2.88 175 2097 2158 61.1 119

A4 2932 5864 0.53 3.17 13080 156698 159634 2935 5867

A5 55.8 112 0.04 0.24 0.73 9 64.8 56.0 112

a

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

b Head patch exposures from Supplemental Table S – 19.

c

Inner head patch extrapolated to areas of the head not wiped using the Face/Neck wipe by adjusting the estimated surface area of the head not wiped by the 
Page 55 of 62

Face/Neck wipe (599 cm2) and the surface area of the inner head patch (100 cm2), as follows: Inner Head Patch value (ug) * (599 cm2/100 cm2).

d Outer head patch extrapolated to areas of the head not wiped using the Face/Neck wipe by adjusting the estimated surface area of the head not wiped by the 

Face/Neck wipe (599 cm2) and the surface area of the outer head patch (50 cm2), as follows: Outer Head Patch value (ug) * (599 cm2/50 cm2).

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

f Head Exposure with CR Hats (ug) = Face/Neck Wipe (μg) + Extrapolated Inner Head Patch (ug).
Page 56 of 62

Table S - 31. Total Dermal Exposures

Study 

ID

MU

ID

BW 

(kg)

Bodya

(μg)

Handb

(μg)

Headc

(μg) Feetd

(ug)

Total Exposure

(μg)e(μg/kg)f

with 

CR 

Hat

w/o

CR 

Hat

with 

CR 

Hat

w/o

CR 

Hat

with 

CR 

Hat

w/o CR 

LA UA FT RT LL UL Total Hat NonMEAMEA

AHE07

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AHE62

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

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

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

AHE63

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

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

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

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

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

AHE64

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

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

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

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

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

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

leg. Total = LA + UA + FT + RT + LL + UL.

b Hand exposure from Supplemental Table S – 21.
Page 57 of 62

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

d

Feet exposure from Supplemental Table S – 23.

e Total Exposure (μg) = Total Body + Hands + Feet (AHE07 only) + Head. Note for exposure with CR hats, only estimates using MEA hand wash and face/neck 

wipe data are shown (see Section 3.4.1).

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

data are shown. (see Section 3.4.1).
Page 58 of 62

Table S - 32. OVS Air Sample Field Results and Inhalation Exposure

Study ID MU 

ID

BW 

(kg)

Active 

Ingredient

Analytical 

Method Levels

(ug/sample)a

Measured Residue Inhalation Exposure

Front Section Back Section Breath

Rate

(LPM)

Pump

Rate

(LPM)

Raw Total

Exp. 

(ug)b

FFAFc Adj. 

Exp.d

Raw 

Exp. 

(ug)b

FFAFc Adj. 

Exp.d LOQ LOD (ug)e

(ug/kg)e

AHE07f

1 51

Carbaryl

0.01

--

4.1 1.094 3.7 NA 8.3 2.00 15.4 0.302

3 73 14.2 1.094 13.0 NA 8.3 2.00 54.0 0.740

4 118 4.9 1.094 4.5 NA 8.3 2.00 18.7 0.158

6 68 13 1.094 11.9 NA 8.3 2.05 48.2 0.709

8 64 73.9 1.012 73.0 NA 8.3 2.05 296 4.625

10 94 9.5 1.094 8.7 NA 8.3 2.10 34.4 0.366

12 93 11.7 1.094 10.7 NA 8.3 2.10 42.3 0.455

13 77 10.6 1.094 9.7 NA 8.3 2.05 39.3 0.510

15 67 9.5 1.094 8.7 NA 8.3 2.05 35.2 0.525

16 109 8.6 1.094 7.9 NA 8.3 2.05 32.0 0.294

17 89 5 1.094 4.6 NA 8.3 2.05 18.6 0.209

22 96

0.05

13.5 1.094 12.3 NA 8.3 2.00 51.0 0.531

23 127 9.3 1.094 8.5 NA 8.3 2.00 35.3 0.278

26 77 8.2 1.094 7.5 NA 8.3 2.05 30.4 0.395

27 99 129 1.012 127.5 NA 8.3 2.00 529 5.343

AHE62

A1 73

Malathion 0.01 0.0015

7.50 1.05 7.14 0.0208 1.18 0.0176 8.3 1.95 30.5 0.418

A2 83 8.80 1.05 8.38 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 1.95 35.7 0.430

A3 89 10.66 1.05 10.15 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 1.90 44.3 0.498

AHE63

A1 114

Carbaryl 0.005 0.0015

28.45 0.990 28.74 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 2.04 117 1.026

A2 79 5.23 0.990 5.28 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 2.01 21.8 0.276

A3 83 16.36 0.990 16.53 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 2.03 67.6 0.814

A4 92 0.78 0.990 0.79 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 2.01 3.25 0.035

A5 89 7.31 0.990 7.38 < LOQ -- 0.00250 8.3 2.02 30.3 0.340

AHE64

A1 90

Carbaryl 0.005 0.0015

10.81 1.04 10.39 < LOQ -- 0.00250 8.3 2.02 42.7 0.474

A2 75 3.72 1.04 3.58 < LOQ -- 0.00250 8.3 2.05 14.5 0.193

A3 96 3.38 1.04 3.25 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 2.01 13.4 0.140

A4 92 1.68 1.04 1.62 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 2.02 6.66 0.072

A5 86 0.082 1.16 0.07 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 2.02 0.294 0.003

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used.

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

c

FFAF = field fortification adjustment factor. From Supplemental Tables S – 14a-b.
Page 59 of 62

d Adjusted Exposure = Raw Exposure ÷ FF Adjustment Factor

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

f OVS sampler sections not analyzed separately. Results for “Front Section” represent a composite of the sections.
Page 60 of 62

Table S - 33. Dermal and Inhalation Unit Exposures

Study 

ID

MU 

ID AaiH

Dermal Exposure Inhalation Exposure

Total (μg)a Unit Exposure (ug/lb ai)b

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

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

AHE07

1 75 1305 9570 17.4 128 15.4 0.205

3 45 6210 48367 138 1075 54.0 1.20

4 75 879 3890 11.7 51.9 18.7 0.249

6 60 1438 19601 24.0 327 48.2 0.803

8 52 12793 86974 246 1673 296 5.68

10 32 4758 18115 149 566 34.4 1.07

12 33 777 7533 23.5 228 42.3 1.28

13 36 1619 52721 45.0 1464 39.3 1.09

15 24 3800 32709 158 1363 35.2 1.47

16 40 2070 19959 51.8 499 32.0 0.800

17 34 216 3927 6.4 116 18.6 0.548

22 60 6185 24357 103 406 51.0 0.851

23 90 7101 30111 78.9 335 35.3 0.392

26 90 5327 13298 59.2 148 30.4 0.337

27 90 25770 108947 286 1211 529 5.88

AHE62

A1 34.3 891 4609 26.0 134 30.5 0.889

A2 5.0 446 1433 89.2 287 35.7 7.13

A3 10.4 452 3020 43.5 290 44.3 4.26

AHE63

A1 48.4 7078 74091 146 1531 117 2.42

A2 35.6 7346 39097 206 1098 21.8 0.612

A3 24.4 1145 50580 46.9 2073 67.6 2.77

A4 15.2 60.3 270 4.0 17.8 3.25 0.214

A5 6.1 335 1844 54.9 302 30.3 4.97

AHE64

A1 63.1 4274 20011 67.7 317 42.7 0.677

A2 10.1 25493 94485 2524 9355 14.5 1.44

A3 35.3 1732 3355 49.1 95.0 13.4 0.380

A4 25.2 80702 233089 3202 9250 6.66 0.264

A5 18.2 118 69.8 6.5 3.8 0.294 0.00026

a

See Supplemental Tables S – 24.

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

c

See Supplemental Tables S – 25.

d Dermal exposure with CR hats reflects MEA hand wash and face/neck wipe data.
Page 61 of 62

Table S - 34. Protocol Amendments and Deviations

Study 

ID Summary of Amendments Summary of Deviations

Field Phase Analytical Phase

AHE62

Amended once to incorporate comments from EPA, California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation, and HSRB.

Reported:

1. On study day 1, inner and outer 

head patch field fortifications were 

conducted in duplicate instead of 

triplicate, and on study day 1, no 

samples were taken for the higher 

fortification level (100 ug) for the 

inner head patches.

Unreported:

1. Subject A2 was monitored for 174 

minutes, although the protocol 

requires a minimum 4-hour period.

1. Field fortification solutions for some 

lots were not verified to establish 

Protocol Amendment 1 concentration.

 Inclusion criteria amended to allow participation of workers 

who normally wear two layers of clothing.

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

 Removed efficient configuration requirement if recruitment 

area is expanded.

Protocol Amendment 2

 Added a new malathion product to possible test products (the 

active ingredient malathion was already an approved 

surrogate)

Protocol Amendment 3

 Specified the analytical methods to be used for head patches

AHE63

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

1. Subject A5 applied only 2 tank 

loads and sprayed for only 2 hours, 

although the protocol specifies that 

each subject should apply a 

minimum of 3 tank loads over a 

minimum time of 4 hours; also, the 

highest stratum (56 to 100 lbs a.i.) 

was not achieved; the highest 

amount sprayed was 48 lbs a.i

Unreported:

1. None

1. The analytical laboratory deviated 

from methodologies related to 

analysis of carbaryl in inner 

dosimeters 

2. The analytical lab deviated from 

methodologies related to analysis of 

carbaryl in face/neck wipe samples

Protocol Amendment 1

 Recruitment process modified to permit use of recruitment 

letters

 Reduce heat index triggering stopping rule lowered from 120° 

F to 105° F

 Amend dermal exposure sampling procedure to specify that 

the inner dosimeters would be cut into 6 sections rather than 2 

sections

 Revise analytical methods to make them appropriate for 

dosimeters sectioned into 6 pieces

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

policy

Protocol Amendment 2

 Amended analytical method for head patches

AHE64

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

1. Subjects A2, A3, A4, A5 each 

applied only 2 tank loads and 

sprayed for less than 4 hours, 

although the protocol specifies that 

each subject should apply a 

1. The analytical laboratory deviated 

from analytical methodologies 

related to analysis of carbaryl in 

inner dosimeters.

Protocol Amendment 1

 Recruitment process modified to permit use of recruitment 

letters

 Recruitment area expanded to allow counties adjacent to Tulsa 

County, Oklahoma.
Page 62 of 62

Table S - 34. Protocol Amendments and Deviations

Study 

ID Summary of Amendments Summary of Deviations

Field Phase Analytical Phase

 Removed efficient configuration requirement if recruitment 

area is expanded.

 Amended dermal exposure sampling procedure to specify that 

the inner dosimeters would be cut into 6 sections 

 Revise analytical methods to make them appropriate for 

dosimeters cut in 6 sections

minimum of 3 tank loads over a 

minimum time of 4 hours. Also, 

the lowest stratum (5 to 9 lbs a.i.) 

was not achieved; the lowest 

amount sprayed was 10 lbs a.i. 

Unreported:

1. None

Protocol Amendment 2

The study director was changed from Eric D. Bruce to Larry D. 

Smith, effective September 14, 2009 (after study closure)