### Page 1 of 62 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### MEMORANDUM Date : March 1 1 , 201 1 SUBJECT: Review of Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF ) Open Cab Airblast Applicator Exposure Monitoring Studies : AHE62 , AHE 63 , AHE 64 PC Code: -- DP Barcode: D 38 7287 Decision No.: -- Registration No. : -- Petition No.: -- Regulatory Action: -- Risk Assessment Type: -- Case No.: -- TXR No.: -- CAS N o.: -- MRID No.: 482896 11, 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 Divisi on ’s primary reviews of the analytical and field phase reports for the following Agricultural Handl er Exposure Task Force (AHETF) open cab airblast applicator studies: AHE 62, 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, 201 0 ; MRID 483 267 01)

– incorporating these 4 studies into a single dataset and providing statistical analys i s for benchmark analytical ob j ective s – i s reviewed separately (Crowley, 201 1 ; D 387287 ). 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 2 8 workers 1 

### applying liquid spray pesticides using open cab airblast e quipment. F our 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 e quipment is commonly

used in production agriculture. Table 1 

### . Study Summary Study ID State Crop No. Monitored Workers Gender Ages AHE07 GA peach 5 M ale 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 re corded 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 he adgear 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 fo r 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- spec ific 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 C ab 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 GLP S 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 4 th grower sprayed a different pesticide than the surrogate for this study (malathion).

### Page 4 of 62

Whil e 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 l ayer provided b y 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 (AHE 62

– CA- grape) and the lowest reported temperature was 3 3 ° F (AHE 07

– 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 b y the worker on the scheduled monitoring day. In two instance s – MU 3 and MU 12 in study AHE 07 (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 . Additi onally, 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 b y 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 b y trucks or tractors with open cabs hauling airblast sprayers 4 

### . 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 O CAB 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 b y italics). Table 3 . Summary of Amount Handled (lbs ai) Desired Stratumof Amount Handled (lbs ai) Actual Amount Handled (lbs ai) & MU ID (#) AHE 07 AHE6 2 ( CA- grape) AHE 63

(NY- grape) AHE 64

(OK-pecan) ( GApeach) (ID apple/pear) (FL - orange) 5 - 9 -- -- -- 5 (A2) 6.1 (A5) 10.1 (A2) 10 - 17 -- -- -- 10.4 (A3) 15.2 (A4) 18.2 (A5) 18 - 30 24 (15) -- -- -- 24.4 (A3) 25.2 (A4) 31 - 55 4 5 ( 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) P assive dosimetry methods were utilized for all monitoring

– no biomonitoring samples were collected. Dermal exposure to the hands was mea sured using a hand rinse method administered at the end of the workday as well as at lunch , restroom breaks , or other instances where workers would otherwise wash their hands as outlined in AHETF SOP 8.B . Dermal exposure to the face/neck was measured using a wipe technique as outlined in AHETF SOP 8.C and extrapolated to non-wiped portions of the head (i.e., those parts covered by goggles or a respirator or covered by hair) according to AHETF SOP 9.K . Exposure to the head inside and outside of chemical re sistant 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 analy

tical methods specific to each typ e of monitoring matrix were used to extract residues followed b y quantification with gas chromatography (GC) employing flame photometric detection in phosphorous mode (FPD/P) . Modifications to analy tical methods are outlined in the submitted analy

tical 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 AHE 07 and AHE62 - 64 Monitoring Matrix Limit of Detection Limit of Quantification Carbaryl Malathion Carbaryl Malathion Inner Dosimeter AHE07 -- NA 0.25 NA AHE62 - 64 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0 Hand Rinse AHE07 -- NA 1.0 NA AHE62 - 64 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0 Face/Neck Wipe AHE07 -- NA 1.0 NA AHE62 - 64 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0 Socks (AHE07 only) -- NA 0.25 NA Head patches AHE07 -- NA 0.25 NA AHE62 - 64 0.075 0.075 0.25 0.25 OVS air sampler AHE07 GA & ID -- NA 0.01 NA FL -- NA 0.05 NA AHE62 - 64 0.0015 0.0015 0.005 0.005 Note: no LOD was derived in AHE07 for any matrix. NA = not applicable, chemical not used. 

### 3.0 Results This section provides a discussion of quality assurance and quality

control sampling and the actual field monitoring measurements of workers. C orresponding supplemental tables providing additional detail are identified . 3.1 Quality Assurance All phases of each study were subj ect 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, Analy tical Data, Final Report, and Post-Audit Report. Each study contains a signed quality

assurance compliance statement as required b y GLP s. 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) . Analy tical 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 - se ctions 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 contro l samples in the fields, most had non- detectable residues, as would be expected. However, particularly for the OVS air sampler field control s , 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 de emed 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 c ontrol 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 analyz ed if anomalous field fortification recoveries indicate potential degradation during transport. No storage or transport fortification samples were analyz ed. Field fortifications are conducted at 3 levels (except for the inner and outer head patches which are fortified at 2 levels) to capture the expected range of results, with triplicate samples taken on each day at each fortification level 5 

### . Once analyz ed, the average recovery results (expressed as a percentage of known amount applied) are used as multipli ers 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 D osimeters (Table S – 11a and Table S – 11b) Most results for inner whole body dos imeter (WBD) field fortification samples were acceptable, with recoveries ranging from 7 5 % to 11 0 %. Unusually low recoveries were observed at the 5 ug fortification level on the first day of sampling in AHE62 (43%, 37% and 32%) . Additionally, fortificati on 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 f ield fortification samples were acceptable, with average recoveries ranging from approximately 84.7 % to 1 06 %.

3.2.3.3 Hand Washes (Table S – 13a and Table S – 13b) Re sults for hand wash field fortification samples were acceptable, with average recoveries ranging from 93.3 % to 1 13 %.

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 12 2%. 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 1 22%. 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 1 09 % , though a bnormally

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 matric es (in AHE07 only) samples were acceptable, with average recoveries ranging from approximately 6 9 % 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. F ace/neck wipe measurements reflect extrapolation to un-wiped portions of the face covered b y protective eyewear or a respirator according to AHETF SOP 9.K. F or samples below the LOQ or LOD, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD was used. Additionally, in order to account for potential residue co llection method inefficiencies per EPA policy, the AHETF has made adjustments to hand and face/neck field study measurements as follows 6 

### :

6 This directive was discussed and presented at a meeting of the Human Studies Revie w Board (June 2007). The terminology used to describe this are “method effi ciency 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 ;  i f measured exposure contribution from hands and face/neck represents between 20% and 60% of total, the measurements shall be adjusted upward b y 50 %, or submission of a validation study to support the residue collection method  i f 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 H ead 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 recoverie s (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 co llection by the wipe technique, the measurements are further adjusted b y 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 describe d 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 quantifiabl e 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 (se e 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 o f 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 exposu re ranged from 0.39

– 108 μg. All sock samples had quantifiable residues. Because it was found that in AHE07 feet exposure contributed less 1% to the total dermal exposure for all workers 7 

### , the AHETF did not monitor exposure to the feet in AHE62 - 64. 3.3.6 OV S 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 0.0 7

– 28.7 μg. 3.4 Exposure Calculation s (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 b y) body weight and amount of active ingredient handled (AaiH). 3.4.1 Dermal Exposures 8 

### Total dermal exposure is calculated b y 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 co mp ared 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 chemical resistant 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 canop y 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 canop y 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 Exposure s (ug/lb ai) w/o CR Hats - Effect of Canopies on Open Cab VehiclesDermalUEw/oCRhats(ug/lbai)



### 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 ty pe 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

– 52 9 μg. Normalized to the worker’s body weight, inhalation exposures ranged from 0.00 3

– 5.34 μg/kg. Normalized by the amount of active ingredient handled, inhalation unit exposures ranged from 0.00 026

– 7.13 μg/lb ai. Worker ID A5 in study AHE 64 (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., AHE 62 MU A3 @ 1 101 : “ 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., AHE 63 MUA4 @ 11 30 : “ 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 – 2 7) Fi eld and analytical phase deviations were minor. Reported f ield 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. Analy tical 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 ca

b 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 483 26701 ) and recommendations for use of the data in its corresponding HED review (Crowley, 201 1 ; D 387287 ). 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 AHE100 6 . December 14 , 2010. [MRID 483 267 01 ] 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 AHE 62 . Unpublished study prepared by

the Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force. 28 3 p. November 3, 2010. MRID 482896 11 . Crowley, M., 201 1 . Memorandum: Review of Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) Monograph: Open Cab Airblast Application of Liquid Sprays. D38 7287 . March 1 1 , 201 1 . Daws on , J., 2006. Memorandom: Carbaryl: Data Evaluation Record For MRID 464482 - 01; Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to W orkers 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 C ab Equipment in Oklahoma Tree Nuts . Study Number AHE6 4 . Unpublished study prepared b y the Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force. 236 p. November 3, 2010. MRID 482896 13 .

### Page 15 of 62



# Supplemental Tables S – 1 -2 8 Table S - 1. Administrative Details ................................ ................................ .............................. 17 Table S - 2 . Summary of Pe sticides 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 Cloth ing 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 Fo rtification 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 - 1 7 . 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 . In ner 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 T able S - 1 . Administrative Details Study ID Title Author Report Date Field Principal

Investigator Analytical Facility AHE# EPA MRID AHE 07 4 6448201 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 Ne w York Trellis Crops Larry D. Smith, Ph.D. 11/3/10 Aaron Rotondaro Morse Laboratories, Inc. 1525 Fulton Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 AHE64 482896 13 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)

AHE 62 Gowan

Malathion 8 Em

ulsifiable concentrate Gowan

Com pany 2.5 gallon

plastic jug Malathion 79.5% by weight 68.35% by

weight 30AK7005 EPL Bio Analytical Services (4/2 0/09) Gowan Malathion 8 Flowable Em

ulsifiable concentrate Gowan

Com pany 2.5 gallon

plastic jug Malathion 79.5% by weight 65.70% by

weight 30AK8003 EPL Bio Analytical Services (4/2 0/09) Gowan Malathion 8 Flowable Em

ulsifiable concentrate Gowan

Com pany 2.5 gallon

plastic jug Malathion 79.5% by weight 67.26% by

weight 30AK9003 EPL Bio Analytical Services (4/2 0/09) AHE 63 Sevin®

XLR Plus Aqueous

suspension / flowable Bayer

CropScience 2.5 gallon

plastic jug Carbaryl 44.1% by weight 44. 8 % by weight E180426 - JH312 EPL Bio Analytical Services ( 1 /2 3 /09) AHE 64 Sevin®

XLR Plus Aqueous

suspension / flowable Bayer

CropScience 2.5 gallon

plastic jug Carbaryl 44.1% by weight 44.5% by weight K492074 - JI148 EPL Bio Analytical Services (1/2 3 /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 10/25/0 3 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 7 2 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

Index a 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 1 4.1 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 reporte d

### Page 2 1 of 62 Table S - 5 . Summary of Work Clothing and PPE Study ID MU ID Long- sleeved Shirt Pants Gloves Eye Protection 3 Shoe type

(over socks) Cap Respirator Type 3 Style Material Style Material

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

3 Button- front 1 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 bo ots CR hat -- 10 Button- front Cotton Jeans Cotton Rubber Eyeglasses Leather boots CR hat -- 12 Button- front Button- front 1,2 Light Wt Wool

Cotton/Polyester Pleated 1 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 bo ots 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 eyewe ar 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- com pliant 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 . Su mmary 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 Inrow Brand Nozzle Type #

used Pressure

(psi)

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

3 peach NR NR 10 - 15 NR Agri Dynamic NR 12 NR 2 -4 500 6.6 4 peach NR NR 10 - 15 NR Duran Wayland NR 14 NR 2 -4 500 5.8 6 peach NR NR 10 - 15 NR Agri Dynamic NR 12 NR 2 -4 500 8.1 8 peach NR NR 10 - 15 NR Ag Tech NR 16 NR 2 -4 425 8.3 10 apple NR NR 10 - 15 Ford 4230 GB Mistair NR 7 NR 2 -4 400 7.7 12 apple NR NR 10 - 15 Kubota L4150 Turbomist / Victair NR 12 NR 2 -4 183 7.9 13 apple NR NR 10 - 15 NR Victair / Mistifier NR 28 NR 2 -4 300 6.5 15 apple NR NR 10 - 15 NR Duran Wayland NR 12 NR 2 -4 400 7.2 16 apple NR NR 10 - 15 NR FMC NR 16 NR 2 -4 500 6.7 17 apple & pear NR NR 10 - 15 John Deere 2255 Meyers NR 14 NR 2 -4 480 6.2 22 orange NR NR 15 -24 John Deere 6405 b Rears Power Pull NR 24 NR 2 -4 1000 4.8 23 orange NR NR 15 -24 John Deere 6405 b Rears Powerblast NR 22 NR 2 -4 1000 7.0 26 orange NR NR 15 -24 NR b FMC 957 NR 22 NR 2 -4 1000 4.8 27 orange NR NR 15 -24 John Deere 6405 b Rears Power Pull NR 24 NR 8 1000 7.4 AHE62 A1 grap e NR NR 11 John Deere 2950 b 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 AHE 63 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 . Su mmary 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

AHE 64 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 2940 b 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 C arbaryl 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 2 0 100 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 wa s 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 c lear 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 mo nitoring. 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 mo nitoring. 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 w rap each sample was also rinsed with acetone to remove any residues. An aliquot of the extract was concentrated, subjected to Florisil S PE 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 w rap each sample was also rinsed with aqueous AOT to remove any residues. An aliquot of the extract was subjected to C - 18 cleanup. Af ter 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 mo nitoring 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 wa s 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/sampl e for inner dosimeters. A provision wa s 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 D ermal D osimeters” , 3/98 ] M alathion 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 T ygo n® -ty

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

Malathion ARETF -AM - 009, Revision

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

Head Patch The inner head patch consisted of one

layer of inner dosimeter material (a one piece, w hite, long -underwear union suit constructed of 100% cotton) measuring 100 square centimeters. Extra material wa s 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 provisi on was made to extend the range of applicability by eliminating the Florisil cleanup. Malathion ARTF -AM - 005, Revision 4,

mo difications dated 11/16/09, [ “Determination of Diazinon/Malathion Inner D ermal D osimeters” , 3/98 ] Malathion was extracted from he ad patch samples with acetone. The aluminum foil used to w rap 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 d etected residues Sample ID Residue Found (ug/sample) LOQ

(ug/sample) Comparison to LOQ AHE 07 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

AHE 62 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 3 X > LOQ 62 -FF - 02 -AR- C1 0.67812 0.005 136X > LOQ 62 -FF - 02 -AR- C2 0.75075 0.005 150X > LOQ

AHE 6 3 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

AHE 64 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 0.0 98 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)

AHE 07 a Inner Dosimeters 0.25

– 10 000 ug/sample 101 ± 7.6 % (n= 58 ) Face/Neck Wipes 1.0

– 5 000 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

– 5 000 ug/sample 10 4 % ± 6. 2 % (n=26 ) OVS Air Samplers 0.0 5

– 2 00 ug/sample 93.7 % ± 11 % (n=1 6 ) Socks 0.25

– 500 ug/sample 102% ± 8 .0 % (n=21 ) AHE6 2 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 0.0 05

– 100 ug/sample 111 % ± 6. 8 % (n= 6 ) AHE 63 b Inner Dosimeters 1.0

– 2500 ug/sample 9 5.2 % ± 1 0.8 % (n= 13 ) Head Patch Inner 0.25

– 100 ug/sample 93.7 % ± 18.6 % (n=4 )

Outer 0.25

– 6 000 ug/sample 95.6 % ± 12.3 % (n= 7 ) Face/Neck Wipes 1.0

– 2 0 00 ug/sample 101 % ± 6.8 % (n= 8 ) Hand Washes 1.0

– 2 0 00 ug/sample 10 4 % ± 6.5 % (n= 8 ) OVS Air Samplers 0.005

– 100 ug/sample 94.9 % ± 1 4.9 % (n= 12 ) AHE 64 Inner Dosimeters 1.0

– 55 000 ug/sample 10 5 % ± 11.1 % (n=1 5 ) Head Patch Inner 0.25

– 100 ug/sample 10 0 % ± 28 .2 % (n=4 )

Outer 0.25

– 1 5000 ug/sample 10 1 % ± 6.4 % (n= 7 ) Face/Neck Wipes 1.0

– 4 0 00 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=1 2 ) a Anomalous samples: 1 sock (1 9 3%), 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 7/28/09 b 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 betwe en each fortification level. Example: 52.5 is the midpoint betwe en 5 and 100 ug. Field s am ple 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 . AHE 07 – 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 5 00 5000

AHE 07 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

9 3.0 104.0 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 betwe en 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

AHE6 2 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

AHE 63 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

AHE 64 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

T able S – 14 . AHE 07 – 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 Adj ustment Factor by Measured Residue Range (ug) a Low level (ug) High level (ug) ≤52.5 >52.5 5 100

AHE 07 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 Me asured 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 betwe en each fortification level. Example: 52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100 ug. Residue result s ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recovery mean.

### Page 36 of 62 Table S – 16 . AHE 07 – Hand Wash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjust ment 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

AHE 07 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 S amples: 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 a Low level (0.05 ug) M id 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 7/20/09 b 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 betwe en 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 . AHE 07 – 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 Range a Low level (ug) High level (ug) ≤ 25.025 > 25.025 0.05 50

AHE 07 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

120.0 100.2 196.2 b 98.6 12/09/03 88.2 99.4 94.6 98.2 94.8 95.8 12/11/03 100.6 95.6

102.8 72.6 82.6 98.6 Summary Statistics Mean 109.4 101.2

SD 13.8 9.0 CV (%) 13 9 a Adjustment factor c orresponds 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 5 0 ug. Residue results ≤ 25.025 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recovery mean. b Sam ple excluded as a statistical outlier.

### Page 39 of 62 Table S - 19 . O uter 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 Range a Low level (ug) High level (ug) ≤ 25 50 > 25 50 100 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 1.20 c 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 . O uter 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 Range a Low level (ug) High level (ug) ≤ 25 50 > 25 50 100 5000 56.8 91.4 8/5/09 54.8 104 59.5 104 61.6 8 9.9 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 S D 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 betwe en 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 Sam ple 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 Range 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 88.0 -- 99.3

1.01 1.09 1.05 97.1 -- 110

-- b

-- -- b 7/20/09 b 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 betwe en 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 Sam ple 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 Range a 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 9 0.1 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 48.0 b 43.1 b 58.2 37.1 b 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 Range a 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 8 1.0 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 betwe en each fortification level. Example: 52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 1 0 0 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 Sa mples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors Study ID Active Ingredient Monitoring Date Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adjustment Factor by Measured Residue Range a 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 betwe en 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 FFAF c Adj. Exp. (ug) d Raw Exp. b FFAF c 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 7 26 660 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 FFAF c Adj. Exp. (ug) d Raw Exp. b FFAF c 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 FFAF c Adj. Exp. (ug) d Raw Exp. b FFAF c 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 0.89 9 512

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 FFAF c Adj. Exp. (ug) d Raw Exp. b FFAF c 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 20 37 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 1 3.4 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 Calcul ated 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 Factor c PPE Adjustment Factor d Adjusted Exposure (ug) e LOQ LOD Non-MEA MEAf

AHE07 1

Carbaryl 1.0 -- 76.7 0.955 1.0 80.3 161

3 155 0.955 1.0 162 324 4 28.2 0.849 1.0 33.2 66.4 6 88.6 0.955 1.0 92.8 186 8 913 0.955 1.0 956 1912 10 51.7 0.849 1.0 60.9 122 12 47.7 0.849 1.0 56.2 1 12 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 ineffic iencies. 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 M U ID Active Ingredient Analytical

Method Levels (ug/sample) a Hand Wash Sample b Total (ug) e # 1 # 2 # 3 #4 Raw Exp . (ug) c FFAF d Raw Exp .

(ug) c FFAF d Raw

Exp . (ug) c FFAF d Raw

Exp . (ug) c FFAF d NonMEA MEAf 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 -- -- -- -- 3 89 778 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 ineffi ciencies. 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 (AHE0 7 only): Field Sample Results Study ID MU ID Active Ingredient Analytical Method Levels (ug/sample) a Socks LOQ LOD Raw Exp. b FFAF c 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 Hat e With CR Hat f NonMEA MEA Adj.

Exp. b Extrapolated to Nonwiped Head Areas c Adj. Exp. b Extrapolated to Non-wiped Head Areas d 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 3.17 130 80 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 cm 2). d Outer head patch e xtrapolated 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 cm 2), as follows: Outer Head Patch value (ug) * (599 cm2/50 cm 2). 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) Body a (μg) Handb (μg) Head c

(μg) Feet d

(ug) Total Exposure

(μg) e (μg/kg) f with CR H at w/o CR Hat with

CR Hat w/o CR Hat with

CR Hat w/o CR

Hat LA UA FT RT LL UL Total NonMEA MEA

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

3 73 1255 172 360 156 31.7 191 2166 1851 3702 340 44348 1.7 6210 48367 85.07 662.56 4 118 197 43.1 90.0 43.8 11.0 68.6 454 179 358 67.1 3257 0.39 879 3890 7.45 32.97 6 68 355 131 161 103 11.8 51.7 814 217 434 189 18569 0.85 1438 19601 21.15 288.25 8 64 908 243 426 276 112 542 2507 4146 8292 1971 80298 23. 3 12793 86974 199.89 1358.97 10 94 1415 1790 237 558 18.5 65.7 4084 275 550 123 13755 0.92 4758 18115 50.62 192.71 12 93 235 99.3 99.9 59.9 14.8 49.3 558 51.4 103 115 6923 0.79 777 7533 8.35 81.00 13 77 235 213 182 162 99.5 209 1101 203 406 111 51416 0.59 1619 52721 21.03 684.69 15 67 726 673 718 376 51.8 333 2878 160 320 595 29664 6.6 3800 32709 56.72 488.19 16 109 333 60.8 212 71.1 169 326 1172 389 778 112 18390 8.4 2070 19959 18.99 183.11 17 89 53.1 25.1 37.3 15.1 14.8 15.1 161 11.4 22.8 31.5 3754 0.97 216 3927 2.43 44.12 22 96 532 285 495 310 101 543 2266 1614 3228 690 20476 1.2 6185 24357 64.43 253.72 23 127 1005 292 605 913 125 1020 3960 877 1754 1380 25267 6.9 7101 30111 55.91 237.09 26 77 799 601 550 511 66.3 67.8 2595 840 1680 1045 9856 7.2 5327 13298 69.18 172.70 27 99 5028 2888 3421 2684 267 564 14852 2869 5738 5072 91118 108 25770 108947 260.30 1100.47 AHE62 A1 73 33.9 28.0 59.2 23.2 82.5 61.5 288 271 542 61.3 4050 -- 891 4609 12.21 63.14

A2 83 69.6 60.5 67.3 57.3 14.5 9.9 2 79 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 Me asured Residue Inhalation Exposure

Front Section Back Section B reath Rate (LPM) P ump

Rate (LPM) Total Raw Exp. (ug) b FFAF c Adj.

Exp. d Raw

Exp. (ug) b FFAF c Adj.

Exp. d LOQ LOD (ug) e (ug/kg) e

AHE07 f 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 -- 0.0007 5 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 Expo sure Total (μg) a Unit Exposure (ug/lb ai) b Total (ug) c Unit Exposure (ug/lb ai) b with CR Hat d w/o CR Hat with CR Hat d 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 AHE6 2 A1 34.3 891 4609 26.0 134 30.5 0.889

A2 5.0 446 1 433 89.2 287 35.7 7.13 A3 10.4 452 3020 43.5 290 44.3 4.26 AHE 63 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 AHE 64 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 forti fications 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 concentration . Protocol Amendment 1  Inclusion criteria amended to allow participation of workers who normally wear two layers of clothing.  Recruitment area expanded to allow any county in CA or WA.  Removed efficient configuration requirement if recruitment area is expanded. Protocol Amendment 2  Added a new malathion product to possible test products (the active ingredient malathion was already an approved surrogate) Protocol Amendment 3  Specified the analytical methods to be used for head patches

AHE63 Amended once to incorporate comments from EPA and HSRB. Reported : 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.) wa s not achieved; the highest amount sprayed was 48 lbs a.i Unreported : 1. None 1. The analytical l aboratory 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 proce ss 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 spec ify 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.) wa s 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)