### Appendix C. Exposure Factors and Assumptions

### [This page intentionally left blank.]4/28/2011 C-i 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

C-1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. ...... C-1 C-2 Age of Exposed Individual .............................................................................................. C- 1 C-3 Body Weight ............................................................................................................... .... C-2 C-4 Ingestion Rates ........................................................................................................... ... C-2 C-4.1 Drinking Water Intake ............................................................................................. C-3 C-4.2 Soil Ingestion .......................................................................................................... C-3 C-4.3 FFC Ingestion ......................................................................................................... C -5 C-4.4 Fish Ingestion .......................................................................................................... C-6 C-4.5 Breast Milk Ingestion ............................................................................................... C-7 C-5 Exposure Frequency ...................................................................................................... C -8 C-6 Fraction Contaminated ................................................................................................... C -8 C-7 Cooking Loss .............................................................................................................. ... C-8 C-8 References ................................................................................................................ ... C-104/28/2011 C-ii 

### [This page intentionally left blank.]4/28/2011 C-iii 

### LIST OF TABLES Table C-1. Mean and Percentile Body Weight Estimates for Adults and Children................... C-2 Table C-2. Estimated Daily Per Capita Mean and Percentile Water Ingestion Rates |for Children and Adults ......................................................................................... C-4 Table C-3. Daily Mean and Percentile Soil Ingestion Rates for Children and Adults ............... C-4 Table C-4. 90 th 

### Percentile and Mean, Age-Specific Ingestion Rates for the FFC Pathway ..... C-5 Table C-5. 90 th 

### Percentile and Mean Fish Ingestion Rates ...................................................... C-6 Table C-6. Calculated Mean and 90 th 

### Percentile Per capita Fish Ingestion Rates for Select Populations of Recreational Fishers ...................................................................... C-7 Table C-7. Breast Milk Ingestion Rates for Infants Less Than 1 Year of Age .......................... C-7 Table C-8. Fraction Weight Losses from Preparation of Various Foods .................................. C-94/28/2011 C-iv 

### [This page intentionally left blank.]4/28/2011 C-1 

## C-1 Introduction

For this multipathway risk assessment, human ex posures (i.e., intake rates) of persistent and bioaccumulative hazardous air pollutants (PB-HAPs) were estimated with the Multimedia Ingestion Risk Calculator (MIRC). MIRC calculates intakes using a number of exposure factors, including assumptions about age and body weight of the exposed individual, the ingestion rate of each source of exposure (e.g., fruits and vegetables, fish), and others. Collectively, the exposure factor values used in a multipathway assessment represent an “exposure scenario,” or a set of assumptions about the nature and degree of exposures expected to occur. The exposure scenarios used for this assessment are described in Section 3 of the main report. This appendix provides additional detail about t he exposure factors and the exposure factor assumptions built into MIRC.
The exposure factors used for this assessment were derived from EPA’s risk assessment guidance and other reliable and defensible sources. For example, the ingestion and body weight exposure factors were obtained primar ily from EPA’s (1997a, b) Exposure Factors Handbook (hereafter referred to as EFH). The discussions of each exposure factor in this appendix identify the basis of the values built into MIRC. 

## C-2 Age of Exposed Individual

In 2005, EPA recommended a standard set of child age categories for exposure and risk assessments (EPA 2005). In Chapter 13 of both its EFH (EPA 1997a) and its Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA 2008), hereafter referred to as CSEFH, EPA summarized home-grown/raised food ingestion rates for four children’s age groups: 1 to < 3 years; 3 to < 6 years; 6 to < 12 years; and 12 to < 20 years. MIRC estimates exposures and risks separately for four children’s age groups and for adults
For purposes of developing MIRC, however, the designation of age categories was limited by the categories for which most of the published FFC food ingestion rates have been calculated. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) 1987-1988 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (USDA 1994) remains the most recent survey of ingestion rates for home-grown foods, and EPA’s analysis of those data, published in its 1997 EFH, remains the most recently published major analysis of those data. Because ingestion of home-grown produce and animal products are the primary exposure pathways for which MIRC was developed, those are the age groupings used for all child parameter values used to estimate exposure and risk in MIRC.
Thus, in MIRC, values for each exposure parameter were estimated for adults (20 to 70 years) and five children’s age groups:

 Infants under 1 year (i.e., 0 to < 1 year);

 Children ages 1 through 2 years (i.e., 1 to < 3 years);

 Children ages 3 through 5 years (i.e., 3 to < 6 years);

 Children ages 6 through 11 years(i.e., 6 to < 12 years) and

 Children ages 12 through 19 years (i.e., 12 to < 20 years).

Exposure and risks to infants under 1 year of age are estimated only for the breast-milkingestion pathway.4/28/2011 C-2 

## C-3 Body Weight

Body weight (BW) options included in MIRC include mean, 5 th 

### , 10 th 

### , 50 th 

### , 90 th 

### , and 95 th 

### percentiles for adults and the five children’s age groups. The BW values are listed in Table C-1. For adults, BW represents the weighted average of male and female mean body weights for all races, ages 18-74 years, from EPA’s EFH (1997a, b). In general, BW values for the five children’s age groups were calculated from t he summary data provided in Mean BWs are used as default values in MIRC. For its default screening assessment, EPA uses the mean BW for each age group.
In addition to the values shown in Table C-1, the breast milk exposure module in MIRC includes a default nursing mother BW of 66 kg. This value is from EPA (2004).

Table C-1. Mean and Percentile Body Weight Estimates for Adults and Children Life stage

(years) Duration (years) Body Weight (kg)
Mean 5 th 10 th 50 th 90 th 95 th

Adult a (20-70) 50 71.4 52.9 56.0 69.3 89.7 97.6 Child < 1 b 1 7.83 6.03 6.38 7.76 9.24 9.66 Child 1-2 c 2 12.6 9.9 10.4 12.5 14.9 15.6 Child 3-5 d 3 18.6 13.5 14.4 17.8 23.6 26.2 Child 6-11 e 6 31.8 19.7 21.3 29.3 45.6 52.5 Child 12-19 f 8 64.2 39.5 45.0 64.2 83.5 89.0

a BW represents the sample-size weighted average of male and female mean body weights (all races, 18-74 years) from EPA (1997a) (Tables 7-4 for males and 7-5 for fe males). Note that these weights include the weight of clothing, estimated to range from 0.09 to 0.28 kg. Although the 18 to 74 year age category in EPA’s EFH (1997a) does not match exactly the age 20 to 70 year cat egorization of adults in MIRC, the magnitude of error in the mean and percentile body weights is likely to be very small (i.e., less than 1%).

b Each BW represents a time-weighted average of body weights for age groups birth to <1 month, 1 to <3 months, 3 to <6 months, and 6 to <12 months from Tabl e 8-3 of the 2008 CSEFH. Original sample sizes for each of these age groups can also be found in Table 8-3.

c Each BW represents a time-weighted average of body weights for age groups 1 to <2 years and 2 to <3 years from Table 8-3 of the 2008 CSEFH. Original sample sizes for each of these age groups can also be found in Table 8-3.

d BWs obtained directly from Table 8-3 of the 2008 CSEFH (age group 3 to <6 years).

e BWs obtained directly from Table 8-3 of the 2008 CSEF H (age group 6 to <11 years). This value represents a conservative (i.e., slightly low) estimate of BW for ages 6 through 11 years since 11-year olds are not included in this CSEFH age group.

f Mean BW estimated using Table 8-22 of the 2008 CSEFH, which is based on NHANES IV data as presented in Portier et al. (2007). This estimate was calculated as the average of the 8 single-y ear age groups from 12 to 13 years through 19 to 20 years. Values for the other per centiles were estimated using Portier et al., 2007.



## C-4 Ingestion Rates

MIRC includes built-in, age-specific ingestion rate (IR) data for drinking water, soil, nine FFC items, and fish. Each of these, as well as br east-milk ingestion data, is discussed below. All default IRs in MIRC are 90 th 

### percentile values.4/28/2011 C-3 

### C-4.1 Drinking Water Intake

MIRC includes the option of calculating chemic al ingestion via drinking water obtained from surface-water sources or from wells (i.e., from groundwater) in the contaminated area. Users have the option in MIRC to set drinking water ingestion rates to zero or to revise the drinking water ingestion rates in MIRC to better reflect site-specific water uses. Table C-2 includes the drinking water ingestion rates for adults and children that are included in MIRC.
The drinking water ingestion pathway is not included in the proposed exposure scenarios for the secondary lead smelting multipathway assessment because surface water bodies are not likely to be used as a source of drinking water.


### C-4.2 Soil Ingestion

Adult gardeners may incidentally ingest soil s from gardening activities, and gardening and farming families might ingest soil particles that adhere to exposed fruits and exposed and belowground vegetables. Soils that are re-suspended in the air by wind can resettle on exposed fruits and vegetables. Children may incidentally ingest soils in those ways, but in addition, children playing outdoors may ingest soils directly or by hand-to-mouth activities during play. MIRC includes soil ingestion rate opti ons by age group for these types of exposures. MIRC does not include options for children who may exhibit pica, or the recurrent ingestion of unusually high amounts of soil (i.e., on the order of 1,000 - 5,000 mg/day or more) (EPA 2008).
Data on soil IRs are sparse; the soil ingestion rates listed in Table C-3 and included in MIRC are based on very limited data, as is evident from the values listed. The studies evaluated by EPA for children generally focused on children between the ages of 1 and 3 to 6 years and were not specific to families that garden or farm.4/28/2011 C-4 

### Table C-2. Estimated Daily Per Capita Mean and Percentile Water Ingestion Rates for Children and Adults a

Life stage (years) Ingestion Rates, Community Water (mL/day)
Mean 50 th 90 th 95 th 99 th
Child <1 b 324 146 866 * 1,011 * 1,377 * Child 1-2 c 294 217 654 857 1,290 * Child 3-5 d 380 291 834 1,078 1,654 Child 6-11 e 447 350 980 1,235 1,870 * Child 12-19 f 697 516 1,537 2,022 * 3,195 * Adult g 1,098 920 2,224 2,801 4,488 Sources: EPA 2004, 2008 * The sample size does not meet minimum reporting requi rements as described in EPA 2008. For some of these MIRC age groupings, the values are based on the time-wei ghted average value for 2 or more age ranges from CSEFH Table 3-4. One or more age ranges within t he group may not meet the minimum reporting requirements, but not necessarily all of them fall within this category.

a Source is Kahn and Stralka 2008, also presented in the CSEFH (EPA 2008). b Each IR represents a time-weighted average of ingestion rates for age groups birth to <1 month, 1 to <3 months, 3 to <6 months, and 6 to <12 months fr om Table 3-4 of the 2008 CSEFH.

c Each IR represents a time-weighted average of ingesti on rates for age groups 1 to <2 years and 2 to <3 years from Table 3-4 of the 2008 CSEFH. d Each IR represents the ingestion rate for age group 3 to <6 years from Table 3-4 of the 2008 CSEFH.

e Each IR represents the ingestion rate for age group 6 to <11 years from Table 3-4 of the 2008 CSEFH. This value represents a conservative (i.e., slightly low) esti mate of IR for ages 6 through 11 years since 11-year olds are not included in this CSEFH age group. f Each IR represents a time-weighted average of ingesti on rates for age groups 11 to <16 years, 16 to <18, and 18 to <21 years from Table 3-4 of the 2008 CSEFH. Note t hat estimated values include 11-year-olds and individuals through age 20, which contributes to uncerta inty in the estimates for 12 to 19 years.
g Adult drinking water ingestion rates were obtained fr om EPA (2004), Appendix E, Part I, Table A1 for community water, both sexes (ages 20+), direct plus indirect water ingestion.



### Table C-3. Daily Mean and Percentile Soil Ingestion Rates for Children and Adults Age Group (years) Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day)
Mean a 50 th a 90 th 95 th 99 th

Child < 1 NA Child 1-2 50 50 400 b 400 b 400 b
Child 3-5 50 50 400 b 400 b 400 b
Child 6-11 50 50 201 c 331 d 331 d
Child 12-19 50 50 201 c 331 d 331 d

Adult 20-70 50 50 201 c 331 d 331 d
Sources: EPA 1997a, 2008

a For the mean and 50 th percentile soil ingestion rates for children, value represents a “central tendency” estimate from EPA’s 2008 CSEFH, Table 5-1. For adults , value is the recommended mean value for adults from EPA’s 1997 EFH, Chapter 4, Table 4-23. b These values are the recommended “upper percentile” value for children from EPA’s 1997 EFH, Chapter 4, Table 4-23. The 2008 CSEFH included a high-end value associated with pica only.

c These values are 90th percentile adult ingestion rates calculated in Stanek et al. 1997, and they are used to represent older children and adults. d These values are 95th percentile adult ingestion rates calculated in Stanek et al. 1997, and they are used to represent older children and adults.4/28/2011 C-5 

### C-4.3 FFC Ingestion

MIRC includes mean, median, 90 th 

### , 95 th 

### , and 99 th 

### percentile food-specific IRs for consumers of FFC media for adults and children. The mean and percentile values are from EPA’s analysis of data from the USDA’s 1987 to 1988 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) (USDA 1994), as presented in Chapter 13 (i.e., Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items) of the EFH (EPA 1997a). All FFC IRs are consumers-only, meaning that individuals who did not report eating a specified type of food during the three-day period covered by the food ingestion part of the survey were not included in the analysis of ingestion rates for that food type.

Table C-4 shows the 90 th 

### percentile and mean ingestion rates for the FFC pathways. Median, 95 th 

### percentile, and 99 th 

### percentile IRs, although not shown, are available in MIRC or in EPA (2009). The units for the FFC IRs are in g wet weight 

### /kg body weight 

### -day. As these units suggest, the FFC IRs are normalized for body weight.
Table C-4. 90 th 

### Percentile and Mean, Age-Specific Ingestion Rates for the FFC Pathway

Product Age Group

Units a Child < 1 yr Child 1-2 yrs Child 3-5 yrs Child 6-11 yrs Child 12-19 yrs Adult
90th Percentile Consumer Ingestion Rate Farm Food Item (wet weight) Beef NA f 4.5 6.7 11.4 3.53 5.39 g/kg-day Dairy c NA f 148 82 54.7 27.0 34.9 g/kg-day Eggs c NA f 5.1 2.8 1.80 1.34 1.65 g/kg-day Exposed Fruit NA f 3.7 5.4 6.98 3.41 5 g/kg-day Exposed Vegetable NA f 10.7 3.5 3.22 2.35 6.01 g/kg-day Pork c NA f 4.5 4.4 3.04 2.65 3.08 g/kg-day Poultry c NA f 7.4 6.8 4.58 3.28 3.47 g/kg-day Protected Fruit c NA f 53 36 24.1 16.2 15.1 b g/kg-day Protected Vegetable NA f 3.9 2.5 2.14 1.85 3.55 g/kg-day Root Vegetable NA f 7.3 4.3 3.83 2.26 3.11 g/kg-day Mean Consumer Ingestion Rate Farm Food Item (wet weight) Beef NA f 1.49 2.21 3.77 1.72 2.63 g/kg-day Dairy c NA f 67 37 24.8 10.9 17.1 g/kg-day Eggs c NA f 2.5 1.4 0.86 0.61 0.90 g/kg-day Exposed Fruit NA f 1.8 2.6 2.52 1.33 2.32 g/kg-day Exposed Vegetable NA f 3.5 1.7 1.39 1.07 2.17 g/kg-day Pork c NA f 2.2 2.1 1.49 1.17 1.30 g/kg-day Poultry c NA f 3.6 3.4 2.13 1.59 1.54 g/kg-day Protected Fruit c NA f 19 13 8.13 5.44 5.19 b g/kg-day Protected Vegetable NA f 2.5 1.3 1.1 0.78 1.3 g/kg-day Root Vegetable NA f 2.5 1.3 1.32 0.94 1.39 g/kg-day Source: EPA 1997a (Chapter 13), unless otherwise noted in table notes. See Attachment C-2 for additional information on sources. NA = not applicable.

a Ingestion rates for produce and animal products are normalized to consumer body weight

. Ingestion rates for soil (mg/day) and water (mL/day) are not normalized to body weight. b This value represents a weighted av erage for the 20-39 and 40-69 age groups.

c In many cases, ingestion rates for certain child age gro ups were not available in EPA 1997a. Intakes for these receptor groups were calculated using the methodology recommended in HHRAP (EPA 2005) d This value represents an estimated “u pper percentile” for children (EPA 1997a).

e Values represent soil ingestion rates for individuals cons uming homegrown food products from Stanek et al. 1997. f Infants are assumed to consume only breast milk for one year.4/28/2011 C-6 

### C-4.4 Fish Ingestion

The USDA’s 1987 to 1988 Nationwide Food Consumpt ion Survey (NFCS) (USDA 1993, 1994a), as presented in Chapter 13 of the Agency’s Exposure Factors Handbook (i.e., Intake Rates for Various Home Produced Food Items) (EPA 1997a), includes family-caught fish ingestion rates by age category. There are several disadvantages, however, to using that data source to estimate fish ingestion rates. First, due to inadequate sample si zes, EPA did not report fish IRs for children less than 6 years of age. Second, the NFCS data were collected approximately two decades ago. Third, the reported fish IRs are for ages 6 to 11 and 12 to 19 and are based on 29 and 21 individuals in each age category, respectively (EPA 1997a, Table 13-23). Finally, the IRs from NFCS data are based on total weight of fish as brought into the home, and do not include losses from preparation of the fish (i.e., removal of inedible parts and, possibly, the skin). Estimates of preparation losses for fish intended to apply to the NFCS fish IR data are very uncertain and are based on a wide variety of freshwater, estuarine, and marine fish, and squid (EPA 1997a, Table 13- 5). Therefore, a more recent survey was sought that included larger sample sizes, data for children younger than six years, and IRs for the par ts of fish actually consumed.
EPA’s (2002) analysis freshwater and estuarine fish consumption from the USDA’s Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) for 1994-96 and 1998 was chosen to provide per capita fish IR options by age category in MIRC. Although the fish consumption rates reported in the CSFII include all sources, commercial and self-caught, for purposes of this assessment, it was assumed that all freshwater and estuarine fish consumed are self-caught. The inclusion of commercially obtained and estuarine fish will overesti mate locally caught freshwater fish IRs for many rural populations in the United States; howev er, it also may underestimate locally caught fish IRs for some populations (e.g., Native Americans, Asian and Pacific Island communities, rural African American communities). Because consumpti on of locally caught fish varies substantially from region to region in the United States and from one population or ethnic group to the next, users of MIRC are encouraged to use more locally relevant data whenever available.
For children ages 3 to 17 years and for adults, MIRC includes values for the mean and the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentile fish i ngestion rates (freshwater and estuarine fish only) based on EPA’s analysis of 1994-96 and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) (EPA 2002, 2008), part of USDA’s NFCS. Due to limitations of the available data, ICF analyzed the survey data to estimate child fish ingestion rate s. The details of ICF’s approach are presented in EPA (2009). Table C-5 presents the age-specific mean and 90 th 

### percentile fish ingestion rates, which were used for the recreational angler scenario of the multipathway assessment for secondary lead smelting.

Table C-5. 90 th 

### Percentile and Mean Fish Ingestion Rates
Product Age Group
Units g Child < 1 Year Child 1-2 Years Child 3-5 Years Child 6-11 Years Child 12- 19 Years Adult 20 - 70 years Mean g/day NA a 1.37 2.03 2.71 3.9 6.9
90 th Percentile g/day NA a 3.24 4.79 6.9 8.95 17
Source: EPA 2002

a Infants are assumed to consume on ly breast milk for one year.



### MIRC also includes values for the mean and th e 90th percentile fish ingestion rates for recreational anglers of Hispan ic, Laotian, and Vietnamese descent. These populations are4/28/2011 C-7 

### culturally or economically disposed to higher rates of fish ingestion than the general population. The fish ingestion rates for these populations, wh ich are shown in Table C-6, were derived from a study by Shilling et al . (2010) of contaminated fish consum ption in California’s Central Valley Delta. Shilling et al . (2010) reported mean and 95 th 

### percentile ingestion rates for each subpopulation. In part due to the lo w sample size (n of 30 to 45), 95 th 

### percentile values were believed to be unrealistically high. The 90 th 

### percentile ingestion rate estimates presented in Table C-6 were derived by EPA using information from Shilling et al . (2010).

Table C-1. Calculated Mean and 90 th 

### Percentile Per capita Fish Ingestion Rates for Select Populations of Recreational Fishers (IR PC ,y 

### )

Percentile Units Hispanic Recreational Fisher Laotia

n Recre ationa l Fisher Vietna

mese Recre ationa l Fisher 

### Mean a g/day 

### 25.8 47.2 27.1 90th Percentile b g/day 

### 98 144.8 99.1

a Shilling et al . (2010) b EPA (2010)



### C-4.5 Breast Milk Ingestion

The breast milk ingestion rates (in kg/day) assumed for nursing infants are presented in Table C-7. These values were calculated using the EPA-recommended upper percentile breast milk ingestion rate for infants nursing up to one year of 980 mL/day (EPA 1997b) and the density of human milk (1.03 g/mL).
Table C-7. Breast Milk Ingestion Rates for Infants Less Than 1 Year of Age Percentile Breast Milk Ingestion Rate (kg/day) Mean 0.70864 90 th Percentile 1.0094



### The mean ingestion rate was calculated by multiplying the EPA-recommended mean breast milk ingestion rate for infants nursing up to one year of 688 mL/day (EPA 1997b, Table 14-16) by the density of human milk (1.03 g/mL) and converting to kg/day, for a final value of 0.70864 kg/day. The 90 th 

### percentile ingestion rate was calculated by multiplying the EPA-recommended upper percentile breast milk ingestion rate for inf ants nursing up to one year of 980 mL/day (EPA 1997b, Table 14-16) by the density of human milk (1.03 g/mL) and converting to kg/day, for a final value of 1.0094 kg/day. As the units suggest, the ingestion rates for breast milk (kg/day) are not normalized for body weight.
The magnitude of an infant’s exposure through ingestion of breast milk also depends on the mother’s exposure. The mother’s exposure can be calculated and varied in MIRC using the exposure factors detailed in the section, for instance, to utilize the mean or 90 th 

### percentile FFC ingestion rates. MIRC uses these data exposure factor assumptions in conjunction with adapted exposure algorithms and default assumptions from EPA’s Methodology for Assessing4/28/2011 C-8 

### Health Risks Associated with Multiple Pathways of Exposure to Combustor Emissions (EPA 1998) to calculate the infant’s average daily dose. 

## C-5 Exposure Frequency

The exposure frequency (EF) represents the number of days per year that an individual consumes home-produced food items that are contaminated with the chemical being assessed. In MIRC, the default value for EF is 365 days/year for all exposure sources and all potential receptors. This assumption is consistent with the food ingestion rates used in MIRC (i.e., daily intake rates equivalent to annual totals divided by 365 days) and does not imply that residents necessarily consume home-produced food pr oducts every day of the year.
If the user wishes to evaluate daily intake rates based on shorter averaging times, the user can overwrite both the food-specific ingestion rate s and the EF for each home-grown food product. Users of MIRC might want to specify lower EF values for various food types where residents obtain some of their diet from commercial sources and where consumption of home grown produce is seasonal.


## C-6 Fraction Contaminated

The fraction contaminated (FC) represents the fraction of each food product consumed that is contaminated by the chemical at a level consis tent with environmental concentrations in the area of concern (e.g., area with maximum depositi on rates). Obviously, the most conservative assumption is that all food products consum ed (i.e., 100 percent) are from the location represented by the chemical concentrations input into MIRC.
For non-infant children and the adult age cohorts, MIRC includes the default FC of 1, assuming that 100 percent of the food product consumed is produced by households that farm, garden, or raise animals. The user can vary this default FC value for individual food products to tailor the assessment to a particular exposure scenario. 

## C-7 Cooking Loss

Cooking loss (CL) inputs are included to simulate the amount of a food product that is not ingested due to loss during preparation.
Three distinct types of preparation and cooking losses are included in the ingestion exposure algorithms in MIRC: (1) loss of parts of the food type from paring (i.e., removing the skin from vegetables and fruits) or other types of preparation (e.g., removing pits, coring, deboning), (2) additional loss of weight for the food type during cooking (e.g., evaporation of water), and (3) post-cooking losses (e.g., non-consumption of bones , draining cooking liquid [e.g., spinach]). MIRC includes mean values for these three types of preparation and cooking losses for exposed fruit, protected fruit, exposed vegetables , protected vegetables, root vegetables, beef, pork, poultry, and fish. Different types of losses apply to different types of foods. Therefore, the losses can be represented by only two parameters, L1 and L2 , the definitions of which vary according to the food type as explained in the endnotes in Table C-8. All preparation and cooking loss parameter values were estimated as specified in the Table’s endnotes from data presented in Chapter 13 of the EFH (EPA 1997a).4/28/2011 C-9 

### Table C-8. Fraction Weight Losses from Preparation of Various Foods

Product Mean Cooking, Paring, or Preparation Loss (Cooking Loss Type 1 [L1]) (unitless) a Mean Net Post Cooking (Cooking Loss Type 2 [L2]) (unitless) b

Exposed Fruit c 0.244 0.305 Exposed Vegetable 0.162 d NA Protected Fruit 0.29 e NA Protected Vegetable 0.088 f NA Root Vegetable g 0.075 0.22 Beef 0.27 0.24 Pork 0.28 0.36 Poultry 0.32 0.295 h
Fish i 0.0 j 0.0 Source: EPA 1997a (Chapter 13; Tables 13- 5 [meats], 13-6 [fruits], and 13-7 [vegetables]) NA = Not Available

a For fruits , includes losses from draining cooked forms. For vegetables , includes losses due to paring, trimming, flowering the stalk, thawing, draining, scraping, shelling, slicing, husking, chopping, and dicing and gains from the addition of water, fat, or other ingredients. For meats , includes dripping and volatile losses during cooking. b For fruits , includes losses from removal of skin or peel, core or pit, stems or caps, seeds and defects; may also include losses from removal of drained liquids from canned or frozen forms. For vegetables , includes losses from draining or removal of skin. For meats , includes losses from cutting, shrinkage, excess fat, bones, scraps, and juices.

c These values represent averages of means for all frui ts with available data (except oranges) (Table 13-6). d This value represents an average of means for all expos ed vegetables with available data (Table 13-7). Exposed vegetables include asparagus, broccoli, cabbage, cucumber , lettuce, okra, peppers, snap beans, and tomatoes.

e This value was set equal to the value for oranges (Table 13-6). f This value represents an average of means for all prot ected vegetables with available data (Table 13-7). Protected vegetables include pumpkin, corn, peas, and lima beans.
g These values represent averages of means for all root vegetables with available data (Table 13-7). Root vegetables include beets, carr ots, onions, and potatoes. h This value represents an average of means for chicken and turkey (Table 13-5). i If the user changes fish ingestion rates to match a survey of the whole weight of fish brought into the home from the field (divided by the consumers of the fish), an appropr iate value for L1 would be 0.3 (EPA 1997a, Table 13-5). For volatile or water soluble chemicals, a non-zero va lue for L2 also may be appropriate. Although EPA (1997a) recommended 0.11 for L2, it varies substantially by chemical. J In the case of methyl mercury in fi sh, a cooking correction factor (CCF) is used rather than an L1 loss to account for concentration of methyl mercury in fish during cooki ng as water is volatilized, reducing the fish weight, but mercury is not.4/28/2011 C-10 

## C-8 References

Morgan, J., R. Berry and R. Graves. 1997. Effects of commonly used cooking practices on the effects of mercury concentration in fish and their impacts on exposure. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 7(1):119-133.
Portier K., J. Tolson, and S. Roberts. 2007. Body weight distributions for risk assessment. Risk Analysis 27(1): 11-26.
Shilling, F., A. White, L. Lippert, and M. Lubell. 2010. Contaminated fish consumption in California’s Central Valley Delta. Environmental Research 110: 334-344
Stanek, E.J., E.J. Calabrese, R. Barnes, P. Pekow. 1997. Soil ingestion in adults – results of a second pilot study. Toxicol. Environ Safety 36:249-257.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994. Food consumption and Dietary Levels of Households in the United States, 1987-88. Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-1978. NFCS Report 87-H-1 Available at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Pl ace/12355000/pdf/8788/nfcs8788_rep_87-h-1.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997a. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I, General Factors. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. August. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/efh/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume II, Food Ingestion Factors. EPA-600-P-95-002Fb. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. August. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/efh/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Pathways of Exposure to Combustor Emissions. EPA-600-R-98-137. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=55525.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the United States. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. EPA821- C- 02-003. August. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/files/consumption_report.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Estimated Per Capita Water Ingestion and Body Weight in the United States – An Update. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. EPA-822-R-00-001. October. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/crit eria/drinking/percapita/2004.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2 005. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA-530-R-05-006. September. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/combustion/riskvol.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 2008. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-06/096F. September. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=199243 .4/28/2011 C-11 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, Case Studies –MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources Portland Cement Manufacturing, RTP, NC. EPA-452/R09-006. June. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtr_sab_pdf_report.zip

. U.S. EPA, 2010. Personal communication from Zachary Pekar, Ambient Standards Group, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to Heidi Hubbard, ICF International, December 15, 2010.