# Page 1 of 53 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



# MEMORANDUM

Date: January 7, 2011

SUBJECT: Review of Agricultural Handler Exposu re Task Force (AHETF) Closed Cab

Airblast Applicator Exposure Monitori ng Studies: AHE55, AHE56, AHE57, AHE58, AHE59

PC Code:

-- DP Barcode: D381148

Decision No.: -- Registration No.:

--

Petition No.:

-- Regulatory Action: --

Risk Assessment Type: -- Case No.:

--

TXR No.:

-- CAS No.: --

MRID No.: 48289601, 48289602, 48303501,

48289604, 48303502 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 Di vision’s primary reviews of the analytical and

field phase reports for the follo wing Agricultural Handler Exposur e Task Force (AHETF) closed

cab airblast applicator studies: AHE55, AHE56, AHE57, AHE58, and AHE59. The closed cab

airblast applicator scenar io monograph (AHETF, 2010; MRID 48314201), which incorporates

these 5 studies as a single dataset and include s statistical analysis based on pre-defined

benchmark accuracy objectives, is review ed separately (Crowley, 2011; D381148).

These studies meet EPA standa rds for occupational pesticid e exposure monitoring and are

considered acceptable and appropriate for use inoccupational exposure assessments for closedcab airblast applicators.

# Page 2 of 53 1.0 Executive Summary

The Agricultural Handler Exposure Task For ce (AHETF) monitored exposure for 24 workers 1



# applying liquid spray pesticid es using closed cab airblast equipmen t. Five separate field studies,

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

spraying tree or trellis crops in 5 different states in the U.S wher e closed cab airblast equipment

is commonly used in production agriculture.

Table 1



# . Study Summary

Study ID State Crop No. Monitored Workers Gender Ages

AHE55 FL citrus (orange and tangerine) 5 All male 20-70

AHE56 GA pecan 5 All male 43-68

AHE57 MI cherry 5 4 male, 1 female 21-58

AHE58 CA grape 5 All male 27-49

AHE59 WA apple 4 All male 26-62



# Monitored on actual days of work, participants handled from 7 to 90 lbs of active ingredient

(carbaryl, malathion, or chloroth alonil), spraying 4 to 30 acres in 2 to 9 hours. Dermal exposure

was measured using hand washes, face/neck wipes, and whole body dosimeters (100% cotton

union suits) for the remainder of the body (tors o, arms, and legs). Inhalation exposure was

measured using personal air sampling pumps a nd OSHA Versatile Samplers (OVS) mounted on

the shirt collar. Results represent dermal expos ure while wearing a long-sleeved shirt, pants,

shoes/socks and chemical-resistant gloves, a nd 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 appr opriately recorded with none

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

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

deviations. All field sample s were appropriately adjusted for the corresponding recovery

adjustment factors.

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

face/neck wipes, ranged from 9 – 3168 μ g, with an average of 377 μ g. Normalized to the

worker’s body weight, dermal exposures ranged from 0.13 – 39.4 μg/kg, with an average of 4.48

μg/kg. Normalized to the amount of active ingredient handled, dermal unit exposures ranged

from 0.4 – 76.6 μg/lb ai, with an average of 13.3 μg/lb ai. 2



# Inhalation exposure ranged from 0.1 – 6.39 μ g, with an average of 1.6 μ g. Normalized to the

worker’s body weight, inhalation exposures rang ed from 0.001 – 0.089 μg/kg, with an average of

0.019 μg/kg. Normalized by the amount of active ingredient handled, in halation unit exposures

ranged from 0.002 – 0.245 μg/lb ai, with an average of 0.0567 μg/lb ai.

1 

# One worker enrolled in study AHE59 (WA-apple) was not monitored, reducing the total from 25 to 24. See

Section 2.3.

2 

# All dermal exposure values reflect a 2X adjustment on hand rinse and face/neck wipe measurements accounting for

assumed 50% residue collection method efficiency. See Section 3.3

# Page 3 of 53 2.0 Summary of Field Study Characteristics

This section provides summary characteristics of th e five closed-cab airb last exposure studies.

Attached supplemental tables (Tables S1-26) containing supporting details are cited in each

subsection.

2.1 Administrative Summary ( Table S - 1)

All studies were sponsored by the A HETF and fo llowed both the study-specific protocols and the

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

compliance with Good Laboratory Pract ice Standards (GLPS) (40 CFR §160) 3 

# and met EPA

Test Guidelines in Series 875 – Occupati onal 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 form ulation pesticides containing carbaryl, malathion, or chlorothalonil.

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

According to the Closed Cab Airblast Scenar io Construction Plan a nd the AHETF Governing

Document, a “5 x 5” configuration was deemed a reasonable approach for the closed cab airblast

application scenario. That is, a total of 25 “monitoring uni ts” (MU), obtained by monitoring

exposure from 5 spatially distinct study locat ions across the U.S., each with 5 workers per

location would be likely to satisfy pre-defi ned accuracy benchmarks. Only 24 MUs were

collected – Subject A5 in AHE59 (WA-apple) was not monitored due to a series of logistical

difficulties 4 

# . Additionally, due to unknown sampling time, inhalation data for subject A2 in

AHE59 (WA-apple) was declared invalid, re ndering a total of 23 inhalation exposure

measurements.

2.4 Environmental Conditions ( Table S - 4)

Tem perature (including heat index), humidit y, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, and

rainfall were all reported. The maximum reported temperature was 93.9° F (AHE58 – CAgrape) and the lowest reported temperature was 35.4° F (AHE57 – M I-apple). In no case did the

3 

# Two minor GLP deviations were noted for all studies. 1 – Test substance was not characterized before use. Per

protocol, GLP characterization of test substance was conducted at a later date following collection of substance on

monitoring day. This was infeasible due to participant sele ction process. 2 – Scales used to weigh subjects were not

maintained and calibrated according to GLPS specifica tions. Additional study-specific GLP deviations are as

follows – AHE57 (MI-cherry): empty substance containers were not retained for study duration and a noncompliant weather station instrument was used to reco rd environmental conditions; AHE58 (CA-grape) & AHE59

(WA-apple): handheld weather monitoring device not maintained as specified. These deviations do not have any

substantive impact on the study results.

4 

# Fully described in Table S-3, initially a field study team was unavailable on the scheduled day. Attempts at

utilizing replacement workers were unsu ccessful before the application window of the study’s surrogate chemical

(carbaryl) passed.

# Page 4 of 53 ambient temperature exceed the pre-defined th reshold of concern for potential heat-related

injury. No significan t rainfall was reported.

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

Per the stated goals of the AH ETF, monitoring of closed cab ai rblast applicators was conducted

to represent exposure for worker s wearing long-sleeve shirts, pant s, shoes/socks, and chem icalresistant gloves when exiting the cabs (gloves ar e not required when inside the cab), and no

respiratory protection. So long as the work clothing met the standards of the EPA Worker

Protection Standard (WPS), monitoring was conduc ted with the clothing worn by the worker on

the scheduled monitoring day. In two instances – MUs A3 and A4 in study AHE55 (FL-citrus) –

the AHETF supplied workers with replacement shirts prior to study initiation. Per protocol, new

chemical-resistant gloves were supplied by the AHETF to all workers at the beginning of the day

and were available throughout the day according to WPS requirements. Additionally, due to

pesticide label requirements for some of the chem icals used in these studies, some workers wore

goggles for eye protection. In another case, though not label-required, a worker elected to wear a

dust/mist respirator. In these cases, the exposur e measurements were ad justed (according to

AHETF SOP 9.K) to extrapolate deposited residue to those portions of the face/head covered by

the goggles/eyewear or the respirator.

2.6 Application Characteristics ( Table S - 6)

For these s tudies, only the airblast applicati on activity was monitored – monitoring was not

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

were made by trucks or tractors with enclosed cabs hauling airblast sprayers. Rigs were

inspected by the study director to ensure comp liance with EPA WPS requirements and to verify

that the enclosed cabs were equipped with f unctioning air conditioning systems. Application

characteristics including crop heig ht and row spacing, tr uck/tractor and airblast sprayer brands

and models, nozzle characteristics, and driv ing speed are also re ported in Table S-6.

2.7 Application Rates ( Table S - 7)

Per the AHETF Governing Docum ent (AHETF, 2008-a) and the CCAB Scenario Construction

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

the scenario and within each study to provide adequate analyt ical power. Specifically, amounts

of active ingredient handled with in a study should be separated l ogarithmically for each MU and

span at least an order of magn itude. Table 2 below presents the amount handled for each worker

(total amount handled ranged from 7.3 to 90.3 lb active ingredient). The amount handled was

slightly out of the range in six instances (italicized in Table 2) – the effects of which are

considered only m inor and would be reflected in statistical analyses.

Table 2. Summary of Amount Handled (lbs ai)

Desired

Stratum of

Amount

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

AHE55

(FL-citrus) AHE56

(GA-pecan) AHE57

(MI-cherry) AHE58

(CA-grape) AHE59

(WA-apple)

5-9 8.0 (A1) 7.9 (A1) 10.8 (A1) 7.3 (A5) 9.4 (A2)

# Page 5 of 53 10-17 15 (A2) 15.8 (A2) 16.9 (A2) 23.0 (A3) 15.8 (A1)

18-30 24 (A3) 24.6 (A3) 27.6 (A3) 34.4 (A2) 15.9 (A3)

31-55 40 (A4) 50.5 (A4) 40.7 (A4) 59.2 (A4) 34.5 (A4)

56-100 75 (A5) 75.7 (A5) 90.3 (A5) 63.5 (A1) Not monitored

(see Section 2.3)



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

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

durations ranged from 2-9.4 hours); however these in stances did not result in failure to capture

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

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

Passive dosim etry methods were utilized for all monitoring – no biomonitoring samples were

collected. Dermal exposure to the hands was me asured using a hand rins e method administered

at the end of the workday as we ll 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 part s covered by goggles or a respirator or covered

by hair) according to AHETF SOP 9.K. Dermal e xposure to the remainder of the body (torso,

arms, legs) was measured using whole body dosim eters (100% cotton union suits), sectioned and

analyzed separately as the upper and lower body according to AHETF SOP 8.A. All these

measurements combine to reflect dermal expos ure underneath a single layer of work clothing

(long-sleeve shirt, pants, shoes/socks) and chemi cal-resistant gloves. 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 concentra tions measured represent the

chemical available in each worker’s breathing zone.

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

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

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

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

9.A) are presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Analytical Limits (ug/sample) for AHE55-59

Monitoring Matrix Limit of Detection Limit of Quantification

Carbaryl Malathion a 

# Chlorothalonil Carbaryl Malathion a 

# Chlorothalonil

Inner Dosimeter 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0

Hand Rinse 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0

Face/Neck Wipe 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0

OVS air

sampler AHE55

AHE56

AHE59 0.003 0.003 NA 0.01 0.01 NA

AHE57

AHE58 NA 0.0015 0.0015 NA 0.005 0.005

NA = not applicable, chemical not used.

a 

# Additional validation was performed for malathion for AHE58 (CA-grape), resulting in different LOD/LOQ than

other studies using malathion.

# Page 6 of 53 3.0 Results

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

actual field monitoring measuremen ts of workers. Attached co rresponding supplemental tables

providing additional detail are identified.

3.1 Quality Assurance

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

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

SOPs (AHETF SOP Chapter 5: A-K). The inspec ted phases were: Protoc ol, Field Phase, Field

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

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

deviations were addressed appropriately unde r 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, prepara tion and handling of exposure m easurement matrices, evaluation

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

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

instituted according to AHETF SOP 9.J. E xposure 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, a nd 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 fi eld exposures for each ma trix. Generally, field

fortification samples were collect ed in triplicate at each of 3 le vels (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. Devi ations from this general sampling protocol

are specified in the sub-sections below.

The following sections provide results for all quality control sampli ng 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, m ost non-fortified (blank) laboratory and field c ontrol samples were below the

LOQ. In no instance was an untreated laborator y control found to contain residues. Some field

control samples, however, particularly the field control samples for the OVS air samplers, were

found to have detectable residues. No summary of these results was provid ed 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 tu rn could alter actual field sample measurements.

# Page 7 of 53 Despite the findings in these st udies, no action is deemed nece ssary because only trace amounts

were found (most only slightly above the LOQ) which do not significantly impact the results.

However, for future AHETF studies, residue s found in field control samples should be

systematically summarized and reasons for accoun ting 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, tw o fortified sa mples served as additiona l laboratory recovery

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

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

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

process.

3.2.3 Field Fortification Recoveries

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

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

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

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

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

indicate potential degradation duri ng transport. No storage or transport fortification samples

were analyzed.

Field fortifications are conducted at 3 levels to capture the ex pected range of results, with

triplicate samples taken on each da y at each fortification level 5 

# . Once analyzed, the average

recovery results (expressed as a percentage of known amount applied) are used as multipliers to

adjust, or correct, all measured field samples. As the fortification samples are conducted at

levels to capture the range of expected field sample results, adjustments are done using the

average percent recovery for the fortification level closest to th e measured field sample. The

mid-point between each fortification level is used as the threshold in determining the average

recovery percentage for use in adjusting the field sample.

With few exceptions, field fortification averages for each fortification le vel and each monitoring

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

provided below in Sections 3.1.3.1 – 3.1.3.4.

3.2.3.1 Inner Dosimeters ( Table S - 11 and Table S - 12)

Most results for inner whole body d osimeter (WBD ) field fortification sa mples were acceptable,

with recoveries ranging from 78% to 112% and coefficients of variation ranging from 0.43% to

12.3%. Unusually high and low recoveries were observed at the 2200 ug and 5000 ug levels in

5 

# AHE58 (CA-grape) reports a deviation from the standard 3-level fortification prot ocol resulting from dilution

errors by the laboratory technician th at were not discovered until after the fo rtification samples were used in the

field and analyzed. Despite this difference, the fortifica tions are still useful to correct field samples and did not

compromise the ov erall research.

# Page 8 of 53 AHE58 (CA-grape) – 233% and 42.7%, respectivel y. However, no results required adjustments

using these fortification levels, so the decisi on to include or exclude these recoveries (as

potential outliers) is moot.

3.2.3.2 Face/Neck Wipes ( Table S - 13 and Table S - 14)

Results for face/neck wipe field fortification s a mples were acceptable, with average recoveries

ranging from approximately 72.7% to 117% and coe fficients of variation ranging from 1.1% to

13.8%.

3.2.3.3 Hand Washes ( Table S - 15 and Table S - 16)

Results for h and wash field fortification samp les were acceptable, with average recoveries

ranging from 62.5% to 122% and coefficients of variation ranged from 1.2% to 13.3%.

3.2.3.4 OVS Air Samplers ( Table S - 17, Table S - 18, and Table S - 19)

The results for face/neck wipe field fortific ation samples were acceptable, with average

recoveries ranging from approximate ly 75% to 129% and coefficien ts of variation ranging from

1.08% to 25.7%. However, notably anomalous results were observed and are listed in Table 4

below. Addition ally, per AHETF standard procedur es, samples for the highest fortification level

(1000 ug) went unanalyzed as no OVS air sample in the field exceeded 100 ug.

Table 4. Unusual OVS Field Fortification Results

AHE55

(FL-citrus) Contamination was suspected for the malathion low- level (0.05 ug) fortification since recoveries

were abnormally high for the three samples (203%, 157%, and 150%). Field monitoring samples

that would have used results for this fortification level instead were adjusted based on the mid-level

fortification results.

AHE58

(CA-grape) Improper fortification sample preparation led to unusually high recovery samples at the low-level

on the first two days of sampling. These were excluded from calculation of the low-level recovery

average.

The high-level fortification for the first two days of sampling should have been 100 ug samples but

were inadvertently prepared at 250 ug. Additiona lly, one sample was lost during analysis and the

other two were unusually high, indicating improper fortification. These samples were not included

in calculation of the high-level fortification averag e. This had no effect on results, because no

AHE58 field sample residue was high enough to jus tify use of recovery results from either of the

high-level fortification samples.

AHE59

(WA-apple) Described in the study report as resulting from improper vial preparation, an unusually low

recovery (11.8%) at the mid-level fortification (0.5 ug) on the first day of sampling was excluded in

calculation of average

Despite being unusually high, recoveries from fourth day of sampling (163% and 184%) at the lowlevel fortification (0.05 ug) were included in the av erage calculation due to large recoveries at this

fortification level on other sampling days. For this level, the maximum adjustment factor of 1.2

will be used, per AHETF standard procedures, since the factor from the average recovery is 1.29.



# 3.3 Field Measurements

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

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

Face/neck wipe measurements were extrapolat ed to un-wiped portions of the face and head

# Page 9 of 53 according to AHETF SOP 9.K. For samples be low the LOQ or LOD, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD was

used.

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

directed the AHETF to make adjustments to ha nd and face/neck field study measurements as

follows 6 

# :

• if measured exposures from hands, face a nd neck contribute less than 20% as an

average across all workers, no action is required;

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

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

of a validation study to support the residue collection method

• if measured exposure contribution from hands and face/neck represen ts is greater than

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

methods is required.

3.3.1 Inner Dosimeters ( Table S - 20)

After adjusting for field fortif ication recoveries (see Section 3.1.3.1) and summ ing the upper and

lower body sections, the total dermal exposure un derneath the long-sleeve shirt and pants ranged

from 0.7 – 1540 μg with an average of 99.8 μg. Ou t of a total of 48 inner dosimeter samples, 7

were below the LOQ or LOD.

3.3.2 Face/Neck Wipes ( Table S - 21)

Because so me workers wore label-prescribed eye protection or elected to wear a respirator, and

because measurements cannot be easily conducted on hair, extrapolations from those portions of

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

Specifics on these adjustment factors can be found in AHETF SOP 9.K. Additionally, to account

for potential inefficiencies in residue collection by the wipe technique, the measurements are

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

After adjusting for field fortif ication recoveries (see Section 3.1.3.2) and extrapolating to nonwiped portions of the head desc ribed above, total head exposure ranged from 0.24 – 7.24 μg with

an average of 1.19 μg. Including adjustments for potential method collecti on inefficiencies, total

head exposure ranged from 0.48 – 14.4 μg with an average of 2.36 μg. Out of a total of 24

face/neck wipe samples, 21 were below the LOQ or LOD.

3.3.3 Hand Washes ( Table S - 22)

Per protoco l, hand washes were collected at th e end of each work day and during restroom or

lunch breaks. From only one worker – AHE59 (W A-apple) MU3 – were more than 2 hand wash

samples collected. As for the face/neck wipe measurements, the hand wash measurements were

also adjusted by a factor of 2 to reflect pot ential inefficiencies in the collection method.

6 

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

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

# Page 10 of 53 After adjusting for field fortif ication recoveries (see Secti on 3.1.3.3) and summing each hand

wash, the total hand exposure ra nged from 0.65 – 1312 μg with an average of 138 μg. Including

adjustments for potential method collection inefficiencies, total hand exposure ranged from 1.3 –

2624 μg with an average of 275 μg. Out of a to tal of 36 hand wash samples, 4 were below the

LOQ or LOD.

3.3.4 OVS Air Samplers/Inhalation Exposure ( Table S - 23)

Front and back sections of the OVS t ube were an alyzed separately. Most back section samples

were non-detects, with none above the LOQ. A ll front section samples had detected residues.

Because pump operation time was not recorded, inhalation data for subject A4 in study AHE59

(WA-apple) was considered inva lid, and was not analyzed. Thus there were a total of 23 air

samples. After adjusting for field fortification recoveries (see Section 3.1.3.4) the total collected

chemical amounts ranged from 0.024 – 1.54 μg with an average of 0.386 μg.

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

measured amounts are adjusted based on the pump fl ow rate (in liters pe r minute) and a typical

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

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

The calculation is as follows:

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

Calculated inhalation exposures ranged from 0.103 – 6.39 μg, with an average of 1.6 μg.

3.4 Exposure Calculations

This section provides total exposur es (expressed as mass active ingred ient), as well as exposures

normalized to (i.e., dividing by) body weight a nd amount of active ingred ient handled (AaiH).

3.4.1 Dermal Exposures ( Table S - 24) 7



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

face/neck wipes, ranged from 9 – 3168 μ g, with an average of 377 μ g. Normalized to the

worker’s body weight, dermal exposures ranged from 0.13 – 39.4 μg/kg, with an average of 4.48

μg/kg. Normalized by the amount of active ingredient handled, dermal unit exposures ranged

from 0.4 – 76.6 μg/lb ai, with an average of 13.3 μg/lb ai.

3.4.2 Inhalation Exposures ( Table S - 24)

As shown in Section 3.2.4, inhalation exposure is calculated based on the chem ical in air over

the monitoring period, the pump flow rate, and the worker’s breathi ng rate. Inhalation exposures

7 

# All dermal exposures reflect the 50% method efficiency assumption (i.e., a 2X upward adjustment) for hand rinse

and face/neck wipe measurements (“MEA” = method effici ency adjustment). Supplemental Table S-24 presents

“Non-MEA” values for reference.

# Page 11 of 53 ranged from 0.1 – 6.39 μg, with an average of 1.6 μ g. Normalized to the worker’s body weight,

inhalation exposures ranged from 0.001 – 0.089 μg/kg, with an average of 0.019 μg/kg.

Normalized by the amount of active ingredient handled, inhalation unit ex posures ranged from

0.002 – 0.245 μg/lb ai, with an average of 0.0567 μg/lb ai.

3.5 Field Observations (Table S - 25)

For all s tudies, observers were employed to mo nitor each worker and record their behavior

throughout the work day. Much of the observa tions detailed applica tion procedures (e.g.,

AHE55 MU A1 @ 1020: “Finishes outside of row 1, N to S, then turns and sprays other side of

row 1W and row 2E using all nozzles. Row 1 is shor ter than other rows, only 6 to 8 ft. trees.”),

while others indicated potentia l impacts on exposure such as when they entered/exited the

vehicle and/or instances where they contacted something with a bare hand (e.g., AHE59 MUA4

@ 1144: “Exited cab, walked back to sprayer and with bare hands, turned lever to shut off one

side of airblast sprayer to treat end row.”). Field observations shoul d be considered when

analyzing this data.

4.0 Protocol Amendments and Deviations ( Table S - 26)

Field and an alytical phase devi ations were minor. Reported fi eld phase deviations included

failure to collect a handwash sample at a bathroom break (AHE56 – GA-pecan, MUA4) and

slight deviations from specified ranges of amount of active in gredient handled and monitoring

time requirements. Additionally, workers were observed not wearing chemical-resistant gloves

while outside the application equipment (see Tabl e S-25), despite protocols stating that “the use

of label-specified PPE (especially the use of gloves outside the cab if contacting contaminated

surfaces)” would be enforced duri ng participation. Analytical phase deviations included two

instances where a 15% calibration criterion was exceeded as wells as some analytical method

deviations. No protocol amendm ents or deviations were consid ered to adversely affect the

results of exposure monitoring or compromise the overall research.

5.0 Conclusion

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

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

risk for closed cab airblast applicators. Since these were collected withthe intention to populate

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

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

MRID 48314201) and recommendations for use of the data in its corresponding HED review

(Crowley, 2011; D381148).

6.0 References

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

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

Agricultural Handlers Exposure Ta sk Force (AHETF). [MRID 47172401]

# Page 12 of 53 AHETF, (2008-b). Monitoring Unit Selection and Construction Pl an for Scenario: Airblast

Application of Liquids Sprays to Crops Us ing Closed Cab Equipment. April 1, 2008.

Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force (AHETF).

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

Application of Liquid Sprays. Repor t Number AHE1005. December 2, 2010. [MRID

48314201]

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

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

Study Number AHE58. Unpublished study prepar ed by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure

Task Force. 282 p. November 3, 2010. MRID 48289604.

Bruce, E. (2010-b). Determination of Derm al and Inhalation Exposure to Workers During

Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Closed Cab Equipment in Wa shington Pome Fruit.

Study Number AHE59. Unpublished study prepar ed by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure

Task Force. 220 p. November 3, 2010. MRID 48303502.

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

(AHETF) Monograph: Closed Cab Airblast Application of Liqui d Sprays. D381148. January 7,

2011.

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

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

Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Closed Cab Equipment in Florida Citrus. Study

Number AHE55. Unpublished st udy prepared by the Agricultur al Handlers Exposure Task

Force. 377 p. November 3, 2010. MRID 48289601.

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

Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Closed Cab Equipment in Georgia Pecans. Study

Number AHE56. Unpublished st udy prepared by the Agricultur al Handlers Exposure Task

Force. 379 p. November 3, 2010. MRID 48289602.

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

Airblast Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Cl osed Cab Equipment in Michigan Stone Fruit.

Study Number AHE57. Unpublished study prepar ed by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure

Task Force. 169 p. November 3, 2010. MRID 48303501.

# Page 13 of 53 

# Supplemental Tables S – 1-26

Table S - 1. Admini strative Details .............................................................................................. 14

Table S - 2. Summ ary of Pesticides Used .................................................................................... 15

Table S - 3. Summ ary of Mon itored Workers and Locations ...................................................... 17

Table S - 4. Summ ary of Me teorological Conditions .................................................................. 18

Table S - 5. Summ ary of Work Clothing and PPE ...................................................................... 19

Table S - 6. Summ ary of A pplication Characteristics ................................................................. 21

Table S - 7. Summ ary of App lication Rate Information .............................................................. 23

Table S - 8. Descriptions of Exposure Monitoring and Analytical Methods ............................... 24

Table S - 9. Field Control Sam p les with Detected Residues ....................................................... 28

Table S - 10. Summ ary of Concurrent Laboratory Fortification Samples ................................... 29

Table S - 11. Inner W hole Body Dosimeter Sample s: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery

Samples and Corresponding Adjustment Factors ......................................................................... 30

Table S - 12. AHE58 – I nner Whole Body Dosimete r Samples: Summary of Field Fortification

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

Table S - 13 . Face/Neck Wipe Samples: Summar y of Field Fortificati on Recovery Samples and

Corresponding Adjustment Factors .............................................................................................. 33

Table S - 14 . AHE58 – Face/Neck Wipe Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery

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

Table S - 15. Hand W ash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and

Corresponding Adjustment Factors .............................................................................................. 36

Table S - 16. AHE58 – Hand W ash Samples: Summary of Field Fort ification Recovery

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

Table S - 17. OVS Air Sa mples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and

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

Table S - 18. OVS Air Sa mples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and

Corresponding Adjustment Factors .............................................................................................. 41

Table S - 19. AHE58 – OVS Air Samples: Summ ary of Field Fortification Recovery Sa mples

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

Table S - 20. Inner Dosim eter Field Sample Results ................................................................... 43

Table S - 21 . Face/Neck Wipe Field Sample Results .................................................................. 44

Table S - 22. Hand W ash Field Sample Results .......................................................................... 45

Table S - 23. OVS Air Sa mple Fiel d Results and Inhalation Exposure ...................................... 46

Table S - 24. Derm al and Inhalation Exposures .......................................................................... 47

Table S - 25. Select Excerpts from Field Observations ............................................................... 48

Table S - 26. Protocol A mendments and Deviations ................................................................... 51Page 14 of 53Table S - 1. Administrative DetailsStudy IDTitleAuthorReportDateField PrincipalInvestigatorAnalytical FacilityAHE#EPA MRIDAHE55 48289601Determination of Dermal and InhalationExposure to Workers During AirblastApplications of Liquid Sprays Using ClosedCab Equipment in Florida CitrusLarry D. Smith,Ph.D.11/3/10 Tami I. BelcherMorse Laboratories, Inc.1525 Fulton Ave.Sacramento, CA 95825AHE56 48289602Determination of Dermal and InhalationExposure to Workers During AirblastApplications of Liquid Sprays Using ClosedCab Equipment in Georgia PecansLarry D. Smith,Ph.D.11/3/10 Aaron RotondaroMorse Laboratories, Inc.1525 Fulton Ave.Sacramento, CA 95825AHE57 48303501Determination of Dermal and InhalationExposure to Workers During AirblastApplications of Liquid Sprays Using ClosedCab Equipment in Michigan Stone FruitLarry D. Smith,Ph.D.11/3/10 Aaron RotondaroRicerca Biosciences, LLC7528 Auburn RoadConcord, OH 44077AHE58 48289604Determination of Dermal and InhalationExposure to Workers During AirblastApplications of Liquid Sprays Using ClosedCab Equipment in California Trellis CropsEric Bruce 11/3/10 Brian D. LangeMorse Laboratories, Inc.1525 Fulton Ave.Sacramento, CA 95825AHE59 48303502Determination of Dermal and InhalationExposure to Workers During AirblastApplications of Liquid Sprays Using ClosedCab Equipment in Washington Pome FruitEric Bruce 11/3/10 Tami I. BelcherMorse Laboratories, Inc.1525 Fulton Ave.Sacramento, CA 95825Page 15 of 53Table S - 2. Summary of Pesticides UsedStudy IDProduct InformationProduct Purity AnalysisTradeNameFormulationManufacturerPackagingActiveIngredientLabel % aiActual % aiLot / Batch #Laboratory(Date)AHE55Sevin®brand XLRPlusLiquidFlowableBayerCropScience2.5 gallonplastic jugCarbaryl44.1% byweight43.7% by weightE1H0189-JH122MorseLaboratories(3/6/09)Fyfanon®EmulsifiableConcentrateHelenaChemicalCompany2.5 gallonplastic jugMalathion56.44% byweight59.6% by weight CG7L0523MorseLaboratories(3/6/09)AHE56Fyfanon®5EEmulsifiableConcentrateHelenaChemicalCompany2.5 gallonplastic jugMalathion56.44% byweight59.3% by weight CG7L0523MorseLaboratories(3/16/09)Sevin XLRPlusAqueoussuspension /flowableBayerCropScience2.5 gallonplastic jugCarbaryl44.1% byweight44.5% by weight208006JH164MorseLaboratories(3/6/09)AHE57BravoWeatherStikAqueoussuspension /flowableSygenta CropProtection, Inc.2.5 gallonplastic jugChlorothalonil54% byweight54.2% by weight GBY8D1601EPL BioAnalyticalServices(12/2/09)AHE58GowanMalathion8EmulsifiableConcentrateGowanCompany2.5 gallonwide mouthplastic jugMalathion79.5% byweight75.87% byweight30AK8003EPL BioAnalyticalServices(2/26/10)72.4% by weight 30AK8002EPL BioAnalyticalServices(2/26/10)68.35% byweight30AK7005EPL BioAnalyticalServices(2/26/10)GowanMalathion8 FlowableEmulsifiableConcentrateGowanCompany2.5 gallonwide mouthplastic jugMalathion79.5% byweight67.52% byweight30AK8010EPL BioAnalyticalServices(2/26/10)Page 16 of 53Table S - 2. Summary of Pesticides UsedStudy IDProduct InformationProduct Purity AnalysisTradeNameFormulationManufacturerPackagingActiveIngredientLabel % aiActual % aiLot / Batch #Laboratory(Date)67.18% byweight30AK8003EPL BioAnalyticalServices(2/26/10)Malathion8 AquamulEmulsifiableConcentrateLovelandProducts, Inc.2.5 gallonwide mouthplastic jugMalathion81.8% byweight78.2% by weight 531K004A-9EPL BioAnalyticalServices(2/19/10)AHE59Sevin®Brand 4FCarbarylInsecticideAqueousSuspension /flowableBayerCropScience2.5 gallonplastic jugCarbaryl43% byweight41.2% by weightE160395-JF192EPL BioAnalyticalServices(12/2/09)43% by weightE160226-JF110EPL BioAnalyticalServices(12/2/09)Carbaryl4LInsecticideAqueousSuspension /flowableDrexelChemicalCompany2.5 gallonplastic jugCarbaryl43.4% byweight45.4% by weight 7KI211EPL BioAnalyticalServices(12/2/09)Carbaryl4LInsecticideAqueousSuspension /flowableLovelandProducts, Inc.2.5 gallonplastic jugCarbaryl43% byweight43.4% by weightE18044-JH345EPL BioAnalyticalServices(12/2/09)Page 17 of 53Table S - 3. Summary of Monitored Workers and LocationsStudy IDMUIDAgeGenderHeight(cm)Weight(kg)Yrs.ExperienceStateCountyTownDateCropAHE55A1 70 M 175 112 48 FL Polk Babson Park 10/29/08 OrangeA2 33 M 183 94 8 FL PolkCrews Lake 10/30/08 TangerineA3 20 M 188 106 10 FL OrangeWinter Garden 10/31/08 OrangeA4 29 M 175 93 9 FL PolkFort Meade 10/27/08 OrangeA5 30 M 175 92 3 FL OrangeLabelle 10/28/08 OrangeAHE56A1 63 M 168 107 10 GA Tift Tifton 8/28/08 PecanA2 68 M 173 92 44 GA Berrien Alapaha 8/26/08 PecanA3 43 M 193 102 8 GA Coffee Douglas 8/27/08 PecanA4 49 M 180 95 7 GA IrwinOcilla8/25/08 PecanA5 51 M 173 91 8 GA IrwinOcilla8/25/08 PecanAHE57A1 53 M 165 70 24 MI Leelanau Cedar / Lake Leelanau 5/22/09 CherryA2 21 F 161 70 6 MI Grand Traverse Williamsburg / Traverse City 5/15/09 CherryA3 58 M 175 103 50 MI Grand Traverse Mapleton 5/19/09 CherryA4 48 M 196 143 11 MI Grand Traverse Williamsburg / Traverse City 5/15/09 CherryA5 46 M 183 91 30 MI Leelanau Cedar / Lake Leelanau 5/22/09 CherryAHE58A1 49 M 168 77 28 CA Fresno Selma 6/26/09 GrapeA2 42 M 168 72 20 CA FresnoFirebaugh 7/1/09 GrapeA3 43 M 165 76 8 CA Sacramento Walnut Grove 7/28/09 GrapeA4 31 M 185 83 5 CA San JoaquinLinden8/7/09 GrapeA5 27 M 183 108 7 CA San JoaquinLodi8/10/09 GrapeAHE59A1 62 M 176 75 40 WA YakimaSunnyside 4/30/09 AppleA2 49 M 163 115 29 WA YakimaWapato 5/7/09 AppleA3 53 M 180 85 25 WA BentonProsser5/8/09 AppleA4 26 M 175 67 5 WA YakimaSunnyside 5/9/09 AppleA5Worker monitoring plannedbut not executed because:•On the scheduled monitoring day, only one field studies team was available and already monitoring another worker•A replacement worker from another eligiblegrower was not monitored because the growerdid not need to spray the surrogate chemical(carbaryl)•An identified backup grower did not have a working closed-cab (broken air conditioning)•The application window for surrogate chemical (carbaryl) ended before recruitment was possible.Page 18 of 53Table S - 4. Summary of Meteorological ConditionsStudyIDStateMUIDDateMonitoringPeriodHumidity(%)Temp.(° F)WindCloudCover (%)HeatIndexaRainfall(mm)Speed (mph)DirectionMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinAHE55 FLA1 10/29/08 1012-1449 53.8 26.8 65.7 54.0 7.1 3.7 NW 0-20 <80 0A2 10/30/08 1035-1453 54.3 41.3 70.3 59.4 10.0 5.4 N 0-20 <80 0A3 10/31/08 0907-1343 76.8 42.3 77.4 63.5 6.6 2.9 N 0-20 <80 0A4 10/27/08 0932-1423 84.8 29.3 79.3 60.1 3.3 0.8 N 0-20 <80 0A5 10/28/08 1023-1808 45.3 20.8 66.2 55.2 8.3 2.9 NW 0-20 <80 0.01AHE56 GAA1 8/28/08 0824-1249 89.0 49.6 88.5 74.7 4.10 0.10 NW 0-20 <120 0A2 8/26/08 0955-1443 84.7 61.0 86.2 78.4 8.30 0.30 S 0-40 <120 0A3 8/27/08 0958-1553 77.2 47.3 90.5 80.2 5.20 0.00 W 20-60 <120 0.10A4 8/25/08 0036-0501 93.8 92.8 72.9 71.6 3.30 0.10 SE 80-100 <120 0A5 8/25/08 0548-1216 94.6 68.3 83.3 71.8 5.70 0.20 SE 80-100 <120 2.89AHE57 MIA1 5/22/09 1335-1533 49.8 27.7 66.9 62.4 7.6 0.3 SE 0-20 <105 0A2 5/15/09 0620-0958 97.5 70.2 52.7 35.4 8.0 0.1 E 20-40 <105 0A3 5/19/09 1255-1655 66.4 56.5 62.1 56.3 10.4 0.5 NW 0-20 <105 0A4 5/15/09 1419-1834 55.6 37.3 69.4 62.4 13.4 0.3 SE 80-100 <105 0A5 5/22/09 0500-0942 96.0 60.1 58.3 47.5 6.2 0.1 NW 80-100 <105 0AHE58 CAA1 6/26/09 0801-1346 55.6 12.5 93.9 64.4 3.7 1.0 W 0-20 <105 0A2 7/1/09 0650-1149 65.8 25.3 88.3 65.8 3.5 1.1 N 0-20 <105 0A3 7/28/09 0641-1056 88.2 55.3 74.5 57.0 5.4 4.5 NRb0-20 <105 0A4 8/7/09 0321-0921 88.9 35.0 71.2 53.2 3.2 <0.1 N 0-20 <105 0A5 8/10/09 0726-1034 84.7 30.8 87.8 61.9 2.5 0.5 NW 0-20 <105 0AHE59 WAA1 4/30/09 0732-1233 43.4 29.2 59.7 51.8 6.1 1.8 N 0-20 <80 0A2 5/7/09 0920-1313 39.3 27.8 60.8 55.3 8.3 5.0 W0-2020-40<80 0A3 5/8/09 0809-1328 59.3 33.3 60.8 47.5 4.2 2.1 S 0-20 <80 0A4 5/9/09 0707-1628 67.8 18.8 71.1 46.1 4.6 0.8 SW0-2020-40<80 0NR = not reportedaHeat index threshold set at 120 in 2008 and is applicable for AHE55 and AHE56. In 2009, it was revised down to 105 and applicable to AHE57, AHE58, andAHE59.bReport indicated that the pin holdingthe weather vane in place for storage wasnot removed, so readings are unreliable.Page 19 of 53Table S - 5. Summary of Work Clothing and PPEStudyIDMUIDLong-sleeved ShirtPantsGloves2EyeProtection4Shoe type(oversocks)CapRespiratorType4StyleMaterialStyleMaterialAHE55A1 Button-front Cotton Work Cotton/Polyester Rubber GogglesTennisshoes-- --A2 Button-front CottonDenimjeansCotton RubberSunglassesGogglesLeathershoes-- --A3 Button-front1CottonDenimjeansCotton Rubber SunglassesLeatherbootsBaseball --A4 Button-front1CottonDenimjeansCotton Rubber GogglesWater-resistantboots-- --A5 Button-front Cotton/Polyester WorkCotton/Polyester Rubber GogglesLeatherbootsBaseball --AHE56A1 Button-front CottonDenimjeansCotton Latex --LeatherbootsBaseball --A2 Button-front CottonDenimjeansCotton Latex YesLeathershoesBaseball --A3 Button-front CottonDenimjeansCotton Latex --Leatherboots-- --A4 Button-front CottonDenimjeansCotton Latex --Leathershoes-- --A5 Button-front CottonDenimjeansCotton Latex --TennisshoesBaseball --AHE57A1 Button-front CottonDenimjeansCotton Nitrile YesLeathershoesBaseball --A2 T-shirt CottonKnitPull-onCotton Nitrile YesTennisshoes-- --A3 Button-front CottonWork(slacks)Cotton Nitrile --LeathershoesBaseball --A4 Sweatshirt CottonDenimjeansCotton Nitrile --Leathershoes-- --A5 Sweatshirt CottonDenimjeansCotton Nitrile --Tennisshoes-- --AHE58A1 Button, collar65% polyester,35% cottonJeans,white100% cotton Nitrile GogglesLeatherbootsBaseball Dust/mist5A2 Button, collar Cotton Jeans, 100% cotton Nitrile Eyeglasses Leather Baseball --Page 20 of 53Table S - 5. Summary of Work Clothing and PPEStudyIDMUIDLong-sleeved ShirtPantsGloves2EyeProtection4Shoe type(oversocks)CapRespiratorType4StyleMaterialStyleMaterialblue bootsA3 Long-sleeve 100% cottonBluejeansCotton Nitrile EyeglassesLeathershoesBaseball --A4 Button-up 100% cottonBluejeans100% cotton Nitrile EyeglassesLeatherbootsBaseball --A5Long sleeved T-shirtCotton Jeans Denim=cotton Nitrile EyeglassesLeatherbootsBaseball --AHE59A1 Button-front CottonDenimjeansCotton Nitrile Eye/sunglassesRubberbootsBaseball --A2 Pull over CottonDenimjeansCotton Rubber SunglassesLeatherbootsBaseball --A3 Button-front CottonDenimjeansCottonRubberandCloth3SunglassesLeatherbootsBaseball --A4 Button-front CottonDenimjeansCotton Rubber --Tennisshoes-- --1Per study protocol, AHETF replaced a non-WPS compliant shirt worn by worker.2Gloves worn while outside the cab only.3Non-protective, wornwhile inside the cab.4Per AHETF SOP 9.K, exposure is extrapolated to portions of face covered byeyewear or respiratory protection.5Though not label-required, worker elected to wear a dust/mist face mask.Page 21 of 53Table S - 6. Summary of Application CharacteristicsStudyIDMUIDCropApplication EquipmentSpeed(mph)TankSize(gal)Application /ExposureMonitoringTimeTypeHeight(ft)Spacing (ft)Tractor/truckAirblastFullInrowBrandNozzleType#usedPressure(psi)AHE55A1 Orange 8-16 25 15 John Deere 6615Rears PowerBlastAlbuzATR8024 NR NR 500 4.6A2Tan-gerine12-14 22 8-9 Kubota M9540 HoganHoganATR8035 NR NR 500 4.3A3 Orange 5-8 25 12.5 John Deere 7410Rears PowerBlastAlbuzATR8016 NR NR 1000 4.6A4 Orange 10-12 30 12-15 John Deere 7330Rears PowerBlastAlbuz 24 NR NR 1000 4.9A5 Orange 8-12 25 15 John Deere 6615Durand WaylandSuper SprayCeramic 18 NR NR 1000 7.8AHE56A1 Pecan 30-40 60 60MasseyFerguson 3630Savage 5540 Flood jet 8 70 3-4 500 4.4A2 Pecan 45-65 40 40 John Deere 7420Savage 500 NR 7 40 2.5-3 500 4.8A3 Pecan 80 60 50 Flatbed truck NR NR 14 200 3-5 500 5.9A4 Pecan 40-60 50 50 John Deere 5603 Savage 5534 NR 7 40 2.1 500 4.4A5 Pecan 40-60 50 50 Flatbedtruck NR NR 15 200 3 500 6.5AHE57A1 Cherry 15 22 16 John Deere 6330 Ag-Tec NR 12 40 3.5 400 2A2 Cherry 18 23 18 John Deere 5525Ag SuperiorSpray BlastNR 8 50 3 300 3.6A3 Cherry 14-18 22 20 Case 1394Speed SprayerLV5002.5-3 500 Cone 12 450 4A4 Cherry 23 23 23MasseyFerguson 3435FJohn Bean393CPB3 500 NR 12 NR 4.25A5 Cherry 25 24 20-25MasseyFerguson 4355Rears Pul 3 400 Cone 8 200 4.7AHE58A1 Grape 510-126-7New HollandTS110AD&M dual-row Porcelain 20 125 3-3.5 600 5.75A2 Grape 7 11 7 John Deere 4430 Int. Man. 256 Plastic 8 ~ 90 3-4 600 5A3 Grape 7 12 8 John Deere 6715Aer-O-Fan dual-rowCone,hollow16 80 2.8 600 4.25A4 Grape 7 11 8Kubota M8200NarrowLectro Blastdual-rowAir sheer 20 25 3.5 400 6Page 22 of 53Table S - 6. Summary of Application CharacteristicsStudyIDMUIDCropApplication EquipmentSpeed(mph)TankSize(gal)Application /ExposureMonitoringTiTypeHeight(ft)Spacing (ft)Tractor/truckAirblastFullIn-BrandNozzleA5 Grape 8 10 7John Deere5525NRears dul-rowTeejetcera-mic,8’s and5’s tip18 ~ 100 3.1 500 3.1AHE59A1 Apple 8-1415-2010John Deere5500NRears NR 14 140 NR 400 5A2 Apple 13-15 18 12New HollandT75FRears NR 16 40 2.6 400 3.9aA3 Apple 10-12 16 6John Deere5510NRears NR 14 150 NR 400 5.3A4 Apple 10 13 4 John Deere 5525 Rears NR 8 145 5.2 400 9.4NR = not reportedaInhalation monitoring time = 3.4 hrs as pump was not running for up to 36 minutes from 1237 – 1313.Page 23 of 53Table S - 7. Summary of Application Rate InformationStudyIDMUIDCropActiveIngredient(ai)ProductConc.(lb ai /gallon)# LoadsappliedAreaTreated(acres)Application AmountSprayProductActive IngredientPer Acre(gal)Total(gal)Per Acre(gal)Total(gal)Per Acre(lb)Total(lb)AHE55A1 Orange Malathion 5.3 3 12 125 1500 0.125 1.5 0.67 8A2 Tangerine Carbaryl 4.0 3 6 200 1200 0.625 3.75 2.5 15A3 Orange Carbaryl 4.0 3 9 333 3000 0.675 6.0 2.67 24A4 Orange Carbaryl 4.0 4 20+ 200 4000 0.5 10.0 2 40A5 Orange Carbaryl 4.0 3 30+ 100 3000 0.625 18.75 2.5 75AHE56A1 Pecan Malathion 5.3 3 12100 1200 0.125 1.5 0.66 7.9A2 Pecan Malathion 5.3 3 1883.3 1500 0.167 3 0.88 15.8A3 Pecan Malathion 5.3 6 30100 3000 0.157 4.7 0.82 24.6A4 Pecan Carbaryl 4.0 4 20 100 2000 0.625 12.5 2.53 50.5A5 Pecan Carbaryl 4.0 6 30 100 3000 0.625 18.75 2.53 75.7AHE57A1 Cherry Chlorothalonil 6.0 2 4 40 190 0.448 1.79 2.7 10.8A2 Cherry Chlorothalonil 6.0 3 7.5 60 450 0.373 2.8 2.25 16.9A3 Cherry Chlorothalonil 6.0 3 12 62.5 750 0.383 4.59 2.3 27.6A4 Cherry Chlorothalonil 6.0 3 19.75 100 1500 0.346 6.75 2.1 40.7A5 Cherry Chlorothalonil 6.0 3 24 50 1200 0.625 15 3.76 90.3AHE58A1 Grape Malathion 7.27 4 35 60 2100 0.25 8.73 1.81 63.5A2 Grape Malathion 6.88 4 20 100 2000 0.25 5.0 1.72 34.4A3 Grape Malathion 7.65 3 16 75 1200 0.19 3.0 1.44 23.0A4 Grape Malathion 6.76 5 35 50 1750 0.25 8.75 1.69 59.2A5 Grape Malathion 7.29 3 15 100 1500 0.07 1.0 0.49 7.3AHE59A1 Apple Carbaryl ~ 4 4 8.5 165 1400 0.5-0.625 4.125 1.86 15.8A2 Apple Carbaryl ~ 4 3 6 200 1200 0.625 2.25 1.57 9.4A3 Apple Carbaryl ~ 4 4 12 108 1300 0.35 4.06 1.33 15.9A4 Apple Carbaryl ~ 4 7 23.5 97.2 2285 0.375 8.565 1.47 34.5Page 24 of 53Table S - 8. Descriptions of Exposure Monitoring and Analytical MethodsExposure Monitoring MethodAnalytical MethodMatrixDescriptionActiveIngredientIdentificationDescriptionHand RinseExposure to the hands was measured usinga 500 mL aliquot of 0.01% v/v AOTsolution. First, 400 mL AOT solution waspoured over a worker’s hand whilerubbing them togetherover a glass bowlfor approximately 30 seconds; theremaining 100 mL was then poured overthe worker’s hands into the bowl. Thebowl of 500 mL solution (now with handresidue) is transferred to a clear glass jarand frozen for storage. Samples are takenat any point a worker would normallywash their hands (e.g., during lunchbreaks, before using restroom, etc.) and atthe end of monitoring. Samples areanalyzed separately, but summed to obtaina total daily hand exposure.CarbarylARTF-AM-012[“Determination ofCarbaryl in Hand WashSolutions” (6/98)]Carbaryl was extracted fromhand wash solutions withdichloromethane, usingmultiple extractions. Analiquot of the extract was evaporated to dryness,reconstituted in acetonitrile:water (50:50 v/v), thensubmitted to HPLC analysis using post columnderivatization/fluorescence detection. The methodprovided for an optional Florisil SPE purification stepthat was not needed for this study.MalathionARTF-AM-006, Revision3, [“Determination ofDiazinon and Malathion inHand Wash Solutions”]Malathion residues in AOT hand wash solutions wereretained on a conditioned C-18 reverse phasecartridge by passing an aliquot of hand wash samplethrough the cartridge. The cartridge was washed withwater, air-dried, then washed with hexane. Malathionresidues were eluted fromthe C-18 cartridge withdichloromethane. The eluate was evaporated todryness, redissolved in acetone, then submitted to gaschromatographic (GC) analysis using flamephotometric detection in the phosphorous mode(FPD/P).ChlorothalonilARTF-002[“Determination ofChlorothalonil in HandWash Solutions”,10/17/97)]Chlorothalonil was extracted from hand wash sampleswith 500 mL of 0.01% Aerosol®-OT. Each samplewas added to separate separatory funnels withtogether with 10 mL of 20% NaCl, 2 mL of 10NH2SO4 and 50 mL of 1:1 petroleum ether:diethylether solution. The sample was shaken for ~2 minutes.The upper organic phase was collected in aevaporation flask. The extraction was repeated, thesecond organic phase was combined with the first oneand then the samples were concentrated to ~2 mL byrotary evaporation and further concentrated to drynesswith a stream of nitrogen. The samples werereconstituted with 10 mL ofethyl acetate and diluteddepending on the type of sample (field measurement,recovery sample, etc.).Page 25 of 53Table S - 8. Descriptions of Exposure Monitoring and Analytical MethodsExposure Monitoring MethodAnalytical MethodMatrixDescriptionActiveIngredientIdentificationDescriptionFace/neckWipeThe face/neck wipes consisted of two 4” x4”, 100% cotton gauze Kendall Curitysponges moistened with 4 mL of 0.01%(v/v) Aerosol® OT solution (sodiumdioctyl sulfosuccinate in distilled water),used sequentially. Face/neck wipes wereconducted prior to breaks and at the end ofmonitoring. Samples were combined foranalysis.CarbarylARTF-AM-014[“Determination ofCarbaryl in CottonFacial/Neck Wipes”(4/98)]Carbaryl was extracted from cotton face/neck wipeswith acetone. The aluminumfoil used to wrap eachsample was also rinsed with acetone to remove anyresidues. An aliquot of the extract was concentrated,subjected to Florisil SPE cleanup (most extracts), thensubmitted to high performance liquidchromatographic (HPLC) analysis using post columnderivatization/fluorescence detection.MalathionARTF-AM-010, Revision2, [“Determination ofDiazinon and Malathion inCotton Facial/NeckWipes”]Malathion was extractedfrom cotton facial/neckwipes with an aqueous AOT solution. The aluminumfoil used to wrap each sample was also rinsed withaqueous AOT to remove any residues. An aliquot ofthe extract was subjected toC-18 cleanup. After thesample was passed through the cartridge, retaining theanalyte, the cartridge was washed with water, then airdried. Malathion residues were eluted from the C-18cartridge with dichloromethane:methanol (50:50, v/v).The eluate was evaporated to dryness and redissolvedin acetone.ChlorothalonilARTF-004[“Determination ofChlorothalonil inFacial/Neck Wipes”,(10/17/97)]For the concurrent recoveries eight milliliters of0.01% Aerosol®-OT were added to the gauze pads tosimulate field conditions and chlorothalonil residueswere extracted with 100 mLethyl acetate. For fieldsamples the aluminum foil in which the samples werewrapped was placed in 250 mL Teflon® capped jarswith the samples and brought to a total volume of 100mL with ethyl acetate. Samples were shaken for 30minutes and further diluted depending on the type ofsample (field measurement,recovery sample, etc.).InnerDosimetersWhole body dosimeters – white, longunderwear, 100% cotton one-pieceCarolina Mills, Inc. union suits wornunderneath the workers’ outer clothing –served to represent the workers’ skin ontheir arms, legs and torso. Following eachmonitoring period, the inner whole bodyCarbarylAHETF-AM-031[ “Determination ofCarbaryl in Cotton InnerDosimeters Sectioned intoTwo Parts” (6/5/08)]Carbaryl was extracted from cotton inner dosimetersections (upper and lower)with acetone. Each sectionwas considered one analytical sample. An aliquot ofthe sample extract was subjected to Florisil SPEcleanup, then submitted to high performance liquidchromatographic analysis using post columnderivatization/fluorescence detection. The method,Page 26 of 53Table S - 8. Descriptions of Exposure Monitoring and Analytical MethodsExposure Monitoring MethodAnalytical MethodMatrixDescriptionActiveIngredientIdentificationDescriptiondosimeters were carefully removed andsectioned into two pieces: lower body(below the waist) and upper body (abovethe waist).incorporating Florisil cleanup, is applicable tosamples containing residue levels ranging from 1.0μg/sample to 500μg/sample for inner dosimeters. Aprovision was made to extend the range ofapplicability by eliminating the Florisil cleanup.MalathionAHETF-AM-018[ “Determination ofDiazinon/Malathion inCotton Inner DosimetersSectioned into Two Parts”Revised, 3/07]Malathion was extracted from cotton inner dosimetersections with acetone. The aluminum foil used towrap each sample was also rinsed with acetone toremove any residues. Following evaporation of thesolvent from an aliquot of the extract, the residueswere suspended in water, then partitioned into hexane;the hexane was back-extracted against water. Analiquot of the hexane extract was subjected to FlorisilBond Elut cleanup.ChlorothalonilARTF-0001[“Determination ofChlorothalonil In DermalDosimeters, (10/17/97)”]Chlorothalonil residueswere extracted fromindividual fabric segments with 2500 mL of hexane.The aluminum foil pieces used to wrap each samplewere also rinsed with the solvent to remove anyresidues. The samples were shaken on a platformshaker for approximately 30 minutes, and then stored≥8 hours at ambient temperature. 500 mL wasdecanted from each sample disposing of the initial 70mL. From the remaining 430 mL the samples wereprocessed depending on the type of sample (fieldmeasurement, fortification sample, etc.).OVS tubesAir sampling was conducted using OSHAVersatile Sampler (OVS) tubes connectedby Tygon®-type tubing to a SKC model110-100 personal air sampling pump set toapproximately 2 liters per minute. Thesample collector consisted of a glass fiberfilter and two sections of XAD-2 sorbenthoused in a 13 mm diameter glass tube.The sampler was clipped to the worker’scollar (intake facing downward) and thetube attached to their belt. Pump on/offCarbarylAHETF-AM-013[ “Determination ofCarbaryl in OVS AirSampling Tubes”Revision #1 (3/18/04)]Air sampling tube contents were divided into frontand back sections and the sections were analyzedseparately. Carbaryl was extracted from the contentsof each section of sorbenttube with acetonitrile. Analiquot of the extract was evaporated to dryness,reconstituted in acetonitrile:water (50:50, v/v) thensubmitted to HPLC analysis using post columnderivatization/fluorescence detection. The methodprovided for an optional Florisil SPE purification stepthat was not needed for this study.Malathion AHETF-AM-009, Air sampling tube contents were divided into frontPage 27 of 53Table S - 8. Descriptions of Exposure Monitoring and Analytical MethodsExposure Monitoring MethodAnalytical MethodMatrixDescriptionActiveIngredientIdentificationDescriptiontimes and starting and ending flow rateswere recorded.Revision 4,[“Determination ofDiazinon and Malathion inOVS Air SamplingTubes”]and back sections and the sections were analyzedseparately. Malathion was extracted from the contentsof each section of sorbent tube with acetone. Analiquot of the extract was evaporated to dryness, thenreconstituted in acetone. Samples were submitted togas chromatographic (GC) analysis using flamephotometric detection in the phosphorous mode(FPD/P).ChlorothalonilARTF-003[“Determination ofChlorothalonil in OVS AirSampling Tubes”(10/17/97)]Tube contents were divided into front and backsections and analyzed separately. After front and backsections were separated 3.5 mL of toluene was used torinse the glass portion and extract each sample. Theextraction was completed by shaking each sample for~2 minutes. Aliquots/dilutions were taken/madedepending on the type of sample (field measurement,recovery sample, etc.).Page 28 of 53Table S - 9. Field Control Samples with Detected ResiduesStudyControl Sample Type# with detected residuesSample IDResidue Found(ug/sample)LOQ(ug/sample)Comparison to LOQAHE55 OVS tube (front section)2 of 655-F2-03-AR-C1 (F) 0.0363 0.01 3.6X > LOQ55-F2-03-AR-C2 (F) 0.0404 0.014X > LOQAHE57OVS tube (front section) 4 of 457-F1-01-AR-C1 (F) 0.02006 0.005 4X > LOQ57-F1-AR-C2 (F) 0.00560 0.005 1X > LOQ57-F1-03-AR-C1 (F) 0.01845 0.005 3.7X > LOQ57-F1-03-AR-C2 (F) 0.01964 0.005 4X > LOQOVS tube (back section)2 of 457-F1-03-AR-C1 (B) 0.00215 0.005 2.5X < LOQ57-F1-03-AR-C2 (B) 0.00855 0.005 1.7X > LOQAHE58Inner Dosimeter 3 of 858-FF-02-ID-C1 0.76 1.0 1.3X < LOQ58-FF-02-ID-C21.21.0 1.2X > LOQ58-FF-03-ID-C20.321.03X < LOQInner Dosimeter(confirmatory samples)5 of 558-FF-02-ID-C11.21.0 1.2X > LOQ58-FF-02-ID-C11.11.0 1.1X > LOQ58-FF-02-ID-C20.891.0 1.1X < LOQ58-FF-02-ID-C21.31.0 1.3X > LOQ58-FF-03-ID-C20.211.0 4.8X < LOQOVS tube (front section)6 of 858-FF-02-AR-C1 (F) 0.0793 0.005 16X > LOQ58-FF-02-AR-C2 (F) 0.0634 0.005 13X > LOQ58-FF-03-AR-C1 (F) 0.0119 0.005 2.4X > LOQ58-FF-03-AR-C2 (F) 0.0019 0.005 2.6X < LOQ58-FF-04-AR-C1 (F) 0.0063 0.005 1.3X > LOQ58-FF-04-AR-C2 (F) 0.0089 0.005 1.8X > LOQOVS tube (back section)1 of 858-FF-02-AR-C2 (B) 0.001615 0.005 3X < LOQAHE59 OVS tube (front section)5 of 659-FF-01-AR-C2 (F) 0.003176 0.01 3.1X < LOQ59-FF-02-AR-C1 (F) 0.024228 0.01 2.4X > LOQ59-FF-02-AR-C2 (F) 0.015651 0.01 1.6X >LOQ59-FF-04-AR-C1 (F) 0.021984 0.01 2.2X >LOQ59-FF-04-AR-C2 (F) 0.013675 0.01 1.4X > LOQNote: as only negative controls for matrices with detected residues are shown in this table, it follows that all other negative controls for those matrices notpresented in this table did not have detected residues (i.e., only a small percentage of all negative controls had detected residues).Page 29 of 53Table S - 10. Summary of Concurrent Laboratory Fortification SamplesStudy IDExposure MatrixFortification RangeRecovery Results(mean ± standard deviation)AHE55Inner Dosimeters 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 98.9% ± 2.8% (n=6)Face/Neck Wipes1.0 – 2000 ug/sample92.9% ± 4.6% (n=6)Hand Washes1.0 – 2000 ug/sample101% ± 6.5% (n=6)OVS Air Samplers0.01 – 100 ug/sample103% ± 6.2% (n=10)AHE56aInner Dosimeters 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 102% ± 17.8% (n=5)Face/Neck Wipes1.0 – 2000 ug/sample84.3% ± 6.7% (n=4)Hand Washes1.0 – 2000 ug/sample90.8% ± 4.3% (n=4)OVS Air Samplers0.01 – 100 ug/sample92.0% ± 6.7% (n=4)AHE57Inner Dosimeters 1.0 – 2500 ug/sample 102.9% ± 13% (n=6)Face/Neck Wipes1.0 – 2500 ug/sample93.4% ± 11.7% (n=6)Hand Washes1.0 – 2500 ug/sample108.5% ± 8.2% (n=6)OVS Air Samplers0.01 – 1500 ug/sample98.1% ± 13.4% (n=9)AHE58bInner Dosimeters 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 104% ± 13.3% (n=13)Face/Neck Wipes1.0 – 2000 ug/sample102% ± 8.0% (n=8)Hand Washes1.0 – 2000 ug/sample101% ± 7.9% (n=8)OVS Air Samplers0.005 – 250 ug/sample104% ± 6.6% (n=10)AHE59cInner Dosimeters 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 108% ± 8.6% (n=13)Face/Neck Wipes1.0 – 2000 ug/sample103% ± 9.9% (n=10)Hand Washes1.0 – 2000 ug/sample99.7% ± 9.6% (n=12)OVS Air Samplers0.01 – 100 ug/sample101% ± 10.2% (n=18)a1 inner dosimeter (133%), 2 OVS air samplers (318% and 337% - excluded from any analysis due to likely contamination)b2 OVS air samples (325% and 311% - contamination likely)c1 inner dosimeter (125%), 1 OVS air sample (125%)Page 30 of 53Table S - 11. Inner Whole Body DosimeterSamples: Summary of Field FortificationRecovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment FactorsStudy IDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue Range (ug)aLow level(5 ug)Mid level(100 ug)High level(2000 ug)≤52.5 ug> 52.5 ug to≤1050 ug> 1050 ugAHE55Carbaryl10/28/0877.0 90.6 90.00.778 0.852 1.0083.1 89.9 94.186.0 82.6 10610/30/0875.2 84.6 97.573.4 84.0 10672.0 79.6 108SummaryStatisticsMean 77.8 85.2 100SD 5.57 4.28 7.45CV (%) 7.2 5.0 7.5Malathion10/29/08108 97.2 1011.02 0.929 0.97397.8 93.0 97.0101 88.6 93.8SummaryStatisticsMean 102 92.9 97.3SD 5.22 4.30 3.61CV (%) 5.1 4.6 3.7AHE56Carbaryl8/25/0892.8 81.6 81.40.924 0.789 0.87792.3 74.6 89.592.1 80.6 92.3SummaryStatisticsMean 92.4 78.9 87.7SD 0.4 3.8 5.7CV (%) 0.43 4.8 6.5Malathion8/27/0887.2 99.8 1100.871 1.12 1.0785.4 111 10888.6 126 103SummaryStatisticsMean 87.1 112 107SD 1.6 13.2 3.8CV (%) 1.8 11.8 3.6AHE57Chloro-thalonil5/15/0987.8 86.0 1110.926 1.01 1.1093.0 87.8 10792.3 99.5 1055/29/0992.8 117 10697.5 101 114Page 31 of 53Table S - 11. Inner Whole Body DosimeterSamples: Summary of Field FortificationRecovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment FactorsStudy IDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue Range (ug)aLow level(5 ug)Mid level(100 ug)High level(2000 ug)≤52.5 ug> 52.5 ug to≤1050 ug> 1050 ug92.2 111 116SummaryStatisticsMean 92.6 101 110SD 3.6 12.5 4.4CV (%) 3.9 12.3 4.0AHE59 Carbaryl4/30/0987.0 101 1090.897 0.996 1.0290.6 99.4 10683.5 95.4 1055/7/09102 109 96.691.2 92.6 102100 103 97.65/9/0975.3 111 97.085.1 95.7 10692.9 89.2 99.6SummaryStatisticsMean 89.7 99.6 102SD 8.3 7.3 4.6CV (%) 9.3 7.3 4.5aAdjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level.Example: 52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100 ug. Field sample residue results≤52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low levelrecovery mean.Page 32 of 53Table S - 12. AHE58 – Inner Whole Body Dosimeter Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding AdjustmentFactorsStudyIDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue Range (ug)aLowlevel(ug)Mid level (ug)High level (ug)≤52.5>52.5to≤175>175to≤1125>1125to≤2100>2100to≤3600>36005100250200022005000AHE58 Malathion6/26/0967.4 -- 89.8 -- -- 1071.14 0.966 0.953 1.2 1.2 0.88966.4 -- 94.9 -- -- 11782.8 -- 100 -- -- 42.77/1/09138 -- 98.4 -- 108 --126 -- 101 -- 233 --167 -- 87.5 -- 104 --7/28/09132 88.2 -- 121 -- --112 91.2 -- 136 -- --114 102 -- 119 -- --8/7/09119 92.2 -- 117 -- --124 105 -- 111 -- --123 101 -- 124 -- --SummaryStatisticsMean 114 96.6 95.3 121b148 88.9SD 29.3 6.9 5.9 8.4 73.4 40.3CV(%)26 7.1 6.2 6.9 50 45aAdjustment 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.bPer standard AHETF procedures, for averagerecoveries greater than 120%, field measurements are adjusted by a maximum factor of 1.2.Page 33 of 53Table S - 13. Face/Neck Wipe Samples:Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and CorrespondingAdjustment FactorsStudy IDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue Range (ug)aLow level(5 ug)Mid level(100 ug)High level(2000 ug)≤52.5 ug> 52.5 ug to≤1050 ug> 1050 ugAHE55Carbaryl10/28/0872.7 83.3 93.00.760 0.841 0.97963.3 81.6 92.479.1 81.7 87.810/30/0869.7 88.7 99.883.9 89.8 10487.3 79.4 110SummaryStatisticsMean 76.0 84.1 97.9SD 9.07 4.20 8.29CV (%) 11.9 5.0 8.5Malathion10/29/08118 96.6 1071.17 1.06 1.08116 111 110118 109 107SummaryStatisticsMean 117 106 108SD 1.15 7.8 1.73CV (%) 9.8 7.4 1.6AHE56Carbaryl8/25/0886.9 89.3 1020.877 0.872 0.97989.2 79.4 10087.0 92.8 91.6SummaryStatisticsMean 87.7 87.2 97.9SD 1.3 7.0 5.5CV (%) 1.5 8.0 5.6Malathion8/27/08105 81.2 81.01.04 0.775 0.727101 73.4 71.4107 78.0 65.6SummaryStatisticsMean 104 77.5 72.7SD 3.2 3.9 7.8CV (%) 3.1 5.0 10.7AHE57Chloro-thalonil5/15/09101 80.3 81.20.967 0.773 0.857101 79.1 84.1109 79.6 80.05/29/0994.7 74.9 88.092.4 76.0 91.3Page 34 of 53Table S - 13. Face/Neck Wipe Samples:Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and CorrespondingAdjustment FactorsStudy IDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue Range (ug)aLow level(5 ug)Mid level(100 ug)High level(2000 ug)≤52.5 ug> 52.5 ug to≤1050 ug> 1050 ug82.3 73.5 89.9SummaryStatisticsMean 96.7 77.3 85.7SD 9.1 2.8 4.7CV (%) 9.4 3.6 5.5AHE59 Carbaryl4/30/09100 95.8 1031.01 .994 1.0696.8 105 104103 97.9 99.95/7/09103 103 86.0101 108 108109 93.9 95.55/9/0996.2 100 11497.8 93.6 12498.3 97.6 124SummaryStatisticsMean 101 99.4 106SD 4.0 5.0 12.6CV (%) 4.0 5.0 11.9aAdjustment 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 53Table S - 14. AHE58 – Face/Neck Wipe Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment FactorsStudyIDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue Range (ug)aLowlevel(ug)Mid level (ug)High level (ug)≤52.5>52.5to≤175>175to≤1125>1125to≤2100>2100to≤3600>36005100250200022005000AHE58 Malathion6/26/0995.0 -- 96.8 -- -- 1041.04 0.914 0.992 1.09 1.01 1.05102 -- 100 -- -- 10481.8 -- 93.3 -- -- 1067/1/0995.0 -- 100 -- 104 --94.2 -- 101 -- 99.3 --91.8 -- 104 -- 100 --7/28/09124 92.8 -- 110 -- --123 94.2 -- 115 -- --123 97.8 -- 112 -- --8/7/09105 78.4 -- 109 -- --110 94.0 -- 102 -- ----b91.2 -- 106 -- --SummaryStatisticsMean 104 91.4 99.2 109 101 105SD 14.4 6.7 3.7 4.6 2.5 1.2CV(%)13.8 7.3 3.7 4.2 2.5 1.1aAdjustment 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.bSample not taken.Page 36 of 53Table S - 15. Hand Wash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment FactorsStudy IDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue Range (ug)aLow level(5 ug)Mid level(100 ug)High level(2000 ug)≤52.5 ug> 52.5 ug to≤1050 ug> 1050 ugAHE55Carbaryl10/28/0895.4 83.0 1080.891 0.914 1.0489.3 101 10797.3 97.5 10610/30/0877.4 82.9 10690.3 99.8 10585.2 84.3 90.0SummaryStatisticsMean 89.1 91.4 104SD 7.21 8.87 6.77CV (%) 8.1 9.7 6.5Malathion10/29/0885.8 94.4 93.20.969 0.987 0.969103 98.4 94.4102 103 103SummaryStatisticsMean 96.9 98.7 96.9SD 9.65 4.3 5.35CV (%) 10.0 4.4 5.5AHE56Carbaryl8/25/0893.4 94.1 1060.958 0.952 1.0196.5 95.1 85.697.7 96.2 111SummaryStatisticsMean 95.8 95.2 101SD 2.2 1.1 13.3CV (%) 2.3 1.2 13.2Malathion8/27/0896.2 103 89.41.02 1.05 0.910107 101 90.8105 110 92.8SummaryStatisticsMean 102 105 91.0SD 5.5 4.9 1.7CV (%) 5.4 4.7 1.9AHE57Chloro-thalonil5/15/09117 120 1051.17 1.16 1.07115 106 102113 117 1105/29/09119 121 108119 118 109Page 37 of 53Table S - 15. Hand Wash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment FactorsStudy IDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue Range (ug)aLow level(5 ug)Mid level(100 ug)High level(2000 ug)≤52.5 ug> 52.5 ug to≤1050 ug> 1050 ug118 116 110SummaryStatisticsMean 117 116 107SD 2.2 5.4 3.2CV (%) 1.9 4.7 3.0AHE59 Carbaryl4/30/09113 109 1101.08 1.04 1.06110 104 107110 99.0 1085/7/09107 105 98.2109 107 91.4103 107 97.25/9/09107 102 109110 109 113104 90.5 120SummaryStatisticsMean 108 104 106SD 3.2 5.9 8.8CV (%) 3.0 5.7 8.3aAdjustment 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 38 of 53Table S - 16. AHE58 – Hand Wash Samples: Summary of FieldFortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment FactorsStudyIDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue Range (ug)aLowlevel(ug)Mid level (ug)High level (ug)≤52.5>52.5to≤175>175to≤1125>1125to≤2100>2100to≤3600>36005100250200022005000AHE58 Malathion6/26/09103 -- 87.8 -- -- 62.31.11 0.863 0.869 1.03 1.22 0.625108 -- 90.9 -- -- 65.1105 -- 82.2 -- -- 60.07/1/0993.2 -- 109 -- 119 --122 -- 48.6b-- 126 --124 -- 103 -- 120 --7/28/0989.8 92.2 -- 89.8 -- --128 87.4 -- 111 -- --126 85.8 -- 111 -- --8/7/09112 85.2 -- 107 -- --115 76.2 -- 96.8 -- ----c91.0 -- 101 -- --SummaryStatisticsMean 111 86.3 86.9 103 122 62.5SD 13.0 5.7 21.2 8.5 3.8 2.6CV(%)11.7 6.6 24.4 8.3 3.1 4.2aAdjustment 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.bSample is unusually low, though without clear explanation – thus, it was included in calculation of the 250 ug level average.cSample not taken.Page 39 of 53Table S - 17. OVS Air Samples: Summaryof Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment FactorsStudy IDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue RangeaLowlevel(0.05ug)Midlevel(0.5 ug)Highlevel(100 ug)Highestlevel(1000ug)≤0.275 ug> 0.275 ug to≤50.25 ug> 50.25 ugAHE55Carbaryl10/28/08112 90.9 106 --0.99 0.913 1.04104 89.9 108 --97.8 91.6 105 --10/30/0890.6 93.1 111 --94.0 90.8 89.3 --97.8 91.6 104 --SummaryStatisticsMean 99.4 91.3 104 --SD 7.6 1.08 7.56 --CV (%) 7.6 1.2 7.3 --Malathion10/29/08203b88.3 99.6 ----c0.853 0.930157b80.8 91.0 --150b86.8 88.3 --SummaryStatisticsMean -- 85.3 93.0 --SD -- 3.97 5.90 --CV (%) -- 4.7 6.3 --AHE59 Carbaryl4/30/0984.1 110 104 --1.2 1.07 1.0492.7 110 110 --96.7 11.8d105 --5/7/09134 97.2 94.8 --130 107 108 --141 109 103 --5/9/09133 115 106 --184 104 101 --163 101 103 --SummaryStatisticsMean 129 107 104 --SD 33.1 5.7 4.4 --CV (%) 25.7 5.3 4.2 --aAdjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level.Example: 0.275 is the midpoint between 0.05 and 0.5 ug. Residue results≤0.275 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recoverymean.bContamination suspected, thus results not used.Page 40 of 53Table S - 17. OVS Air Samples: Summaryof Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment FactorsStudy IDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue RangeaLowlevel(0.05ug)Midlevel(0.5 ug)Highlevel(100 ug)Highestlevel(1000ug)≤0.275 ug> 0.275 ug to≤50.25 ug> 50.25 ugcDue to suspected contamination of fortification samples, samples≤0.275 ug will be adjusted using the mid-level fortification adjustment factor.dExcluded from calculation of average recovery due to improper sample preparation.Page 41 of 53Table S - 18. OVS Air Samples: Summaryof Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustment FactorsStudy IDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue RangeaLowlevel(0.05ug)Midlevel(0.5 ug)Highlevel(5 ug)Highestlevel(1000ug)≤0.275 ug> 0.275 ug to≤2.75 ug> 2.75 ugAHE56Carbaryl8/25/0896.0 94.7 78.8 --0.975 0.914 0.79898.0 89.7 86.5 --98.6 89.9 74.1 --SummaryStatisticsMean 97.5 91.4 79.8 --SD 1.4 2.8 6.2 --CV (%) 1.4 3.1 7.8 --Malathion8/27/0875.4 93.1 93.6 --0.784 0.832 0.87075.2 72.2 85.5 --84.6 84.3 81.9 --SummaryStatisticsMean 78.4 83.2 87.0 --SD 5.4 10.5 6.0 --CV (%) 6.9 12.6 6.9 --AHE57Chloro-thalonil5/15/09120 82.1 96.0 --0.979 0.803 0.87891.1 86.9 91.8 --86.9 79.7 72.9 --5/29/0994.1 82.8 91.8 --96.7 68.6 98.5 --98.7 81.4 76.1 --SummaryStatisticsMean 97.9 80.3 87.8 --SD 11.6 6.2 10.7 --CV (%) 11.8 7.7 12.2 --aAdjustment factor corresponds to mean recovery percentage for each recovery level. Residue range corresponds to midpoint between each fortification level.Example: 0.275 is the midpoint between 0.05 and 0.5 ug. Residue results≤0.275 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the low level recoverymean.Page 42 of 53Table S - 19. AHE58 – OVS Air Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples andCorresponding Adjustment FactorsStudyIDActiveIngredientMonitoring DateField Fortification Recovery (%)Field Recovery Adjustment Factorby Measured Residue RangeaLow level(ug)Mid level(ug)High level (ug)≤0.275>0.275 to≤50.25>50.25 to≤175>1750.050.5100250bAHE58 Malathion6/26/09683c114 -- 91.71.11 0.952 1.08 0.895272c87.6 -- 74.896.3c86.2 -- 1027/1/09205c100 -- --d197c103 -- 185e236c89.7 -- 212e7/28/09106 95.6 109 --115 90.6 90.6 --103 92.7 110 --8/7/09118 80.6 113 --104 98.5 112 --117 104 111 --SummaryStatisticsMean 111 95.2 108 89.5SD 6.9 9.2 8.4 13.7CV(%)6.2 9.7 7.8 15.3aAdjustment 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.bHigh-level samples prepared with 250 ug, but were supposed to have been prepared with 100 ug. This does not compromise results.cDue to improper fortification sample preparation these results were excluded from calculating the recovery average.dSample lost during analysis.eDue to improper fortification sample preparation these results were excluded from calculating the recovery average.Page 43 of 53Table S - 20. Inner Dosimeter Field Sample ResultsStudyIDMUIDActiveIngredientAnalytical MethodLevels(ug/sample)aLower BodyUpper BodyTotal(ug)eRawExposure(ug)bField FortificationRawExposure(ug)bField FortificationLOQLODAdjustmentFactorcAdjustedExposure(ug)dAdjustmentFactorcAdjustedExposure(ug)dAHE55A1 Malathion 1.0 0.3 9.0 1.02 8.824 121 0.929 130.3 139.1A2Carbaryl 1.0 0.31.7 0.778 2.185 35.6 0.778 45.76 47.9A353.0 0.852 62.21 8.9 0.778 11.44 73.7A4< LOQ --0.5 < LOQ -- 0.5 1.0A520.8 0.778 26.74 9.5 0.778 12.21 39.0AHE56A1Malathion 1.0 0.334.6 0.871 39.72 < LOQ -- 0.5 40.2A2 12.20.87114.0115.30.87117.5731.6A3 26.60.87130.5412.30.87114.1244.7A4Carbaryl 1.0 0.37.8 0.924 8.442 2.0 0.924 2.165 10.6A5 27.80.92430.0913240.87715101540AHE57A1Chlorothalonil 1.0 0.32.749 0.926 2.916 9.113 0.926 9.827 12.7A2 6.7580.9267.343<LOD--0.157.5A3 16.830.92618.1423.80.92625.7043.8A4 11.880.92612.854.2850.9264.64417.5A5 15.040.92616.2041.840.92645.1461.3AHE58A1Malathion 1.0 0.31.75 1.14 1.579 48.1 1.14 42.19 43.8A2 2.511.142.1935.071.144.4746.7A3 2.931.142.5441.961.141.7544.3A4 1.381.141.2289.21.148.079.3A5 101.40.966104.612.321.1410.79115.4AHE59A1Carbaryl 1.0 0.3< LOQ -- 0.5 1.164 0.897 1.338 1.8A2< LOD -- 0.15 < LOQ -- 0.5 0.7A3 47.780.89753.2929.250.89732.5585.8A4 2.3180.8972.56411.810.89713.1515.7aWhen < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used.bCalculated from chromatogrampeak response (e.g., ug/mL)cFrom Supplemental Tables K-L.dAdjusted Exposure = Raw exposure ÷ Field Fortification Adjustment FactoreTotal = Lower Body Adjusted Exposure + Upper Body Adjusted ExposurePage 44 of 53Table S - 21. Face/Neck Wipe Field Sample ResultsStudyIDMUIDActiveIngredientAnalyticalMethod Levels(ug/sample)aRawExposure(ug)bFace/Neck Exposure AdjustmentsEstimatedExposure to NonWiped Portion ofHead(ug)fHead Exposure(ug)FieldFortificationAdjustmentFactorcPPEAdjustmentFactordAdjustedExposure(ug)eLOQLODTotalgTotal(MEA)hAHE55A1 Malathion 1.0 0.3 < LOQ -- 1.1 0.55 0.34 0.89 1.78A2Carbaryl 1.0 0.3< LOQ -- 1.1 0.55 0.34 0.89 1.78A3 3.40.7601.04.4742.77.1714.40A4 <LOD--1.10.170.100.270.54A5 <LOQ--1.10.550.340.891.78AHE56A1Malathion 1.0 0.3< LOD -- 1.0 0.15 0.09 0.24 0.48A2 <LOQ--1.00.500.300.81.60A3 <LOQ--1.00.500.300.81.60A4Carbaryl 1.0 0.3< LOD -- 1.0 0.15 0.09 0.24 0.48A5 <LOQ--1.00.500.300.81.60AHE57A1Chlorothalonil 1.0 0.3< LOD -- 1.0 0.15 0.09 0.24 0.48A2 <LOD--1.00.150.090.240.48A3 1.550.9671.01.6551.0092.665.40A4 <LOD--1.00.150.090.240.48A5 <LOQ--1.00.500.300.81.60AHE58A1Malathion 1.0 0.32.37 1.04 1.3 2.963 1.83 4.79 9.60A2 <LOQ--1.00.50.300.801.60A3 <LOD--1.00.150.090.240.48A4 1.61.041.01.5380.912.454.80A5 <LOD--1.00.150.090.240.48AHE59A1Carbaryl 1.0 0.3< LOD -- 1.0 0.15 0.09 0.24 0.48A2 <LOQ--1.00.50.300.801.60A3 <LOQ--1.00.50.300.801.60A4 <LOQ--1.00.50.300.801.60aWhen < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used.bCalculated from chromatogrampeak response (e.g., ug/mL)cFrom Supplemental Tables M-N.dPPE characterized in Supplemental Table E. PPE Adjustment Factor discussed in Section 3.2.2.eAdjusted Exposure = Raw Exposure ÷ FF Adjustment Factor * PPE Adjustment FactorfExposure to non-wiped portion of head = Adjusted Exposure * (2.95/4.84, for males) or (3.05/5.01, for females). MU-specific gender in Supplemental Table C.gTotal Head Exposure = Adjusted face/neck wipeexposure + Extrapolated non-wiped head exposure.hMEA = method efficiency adjustment. Total head measurement corrected by a factor of50% to account for potential collection method inefficiencies.Page 45 of 53Table S - 22. Hand Wash Field Sample ResultsStudyIDMUIDActiveIngredientAnalyticalMethodLevels(ug/sample)aHand Wash SamplebHand Exposure# 1# 2# 3RawExposure(ug)cFieldFort. Adj.FactordRawExposure(ug)cFieldFort. Adj.FactordRawExposure(ug)cField Fort.Adj.FactordTotal(ug)eTotal(MEA)fLOQLODAHE55A1 Malathion 1.0 0.3 136 0.987 72.2 0.986 -- -- 211.2 422A2Carbaryl 1.0 0.334.9 0.891 41.0 0.892 -- -- 85.09 170A3 13.20.8913540.914----402.1804A41.5 0.891 9.1 0.892 -- -- 11.88 23.8A5 1.30.89143.90.892----50.67101AHE56A1Malathion 1.0 0.31.2 1.03 < LOQ -- -- -- 1.67 3.4A2 19.51.03--------18.9337.8A3 <LOQ--7.21.03----7.4915A4Carbaryl 1.0 0.330.0 0.958 -- -- -- -- 31.28 62.6A5 7730.952--------812.81626AHE57A1Chlorothalonil 1.0 0.38.383 1.17 -- -- -- -- 7.16 14.4A2< LOD -- < LOQ -- -- -- 0.65 1.3A3 10.8651.17--------9.2918.6A4 19.7511.17--------16.8833.8A5 24.1261.17--------20.6241.2AHE58A1Malathion 1.0 0.379.3 0.863 -- -- -- -- 91.89 184A2 32.851.11--------29.5959.2A3 2.921.11--------2.635.2A4 11.841.11--------10.6721.2A5 23.651.11--------21.3142.8AHE59A1Carbaryl 1.0 0.39.301 1.08 -- -- -- -- 8.61 17.2A220.33 1.08 3.807 1.08 -- -- 22.35 44.6A35.909 1.08 4.90 1.08 109.1 1.04 114.9 230A4 28.091.0813631.06----13122624aWhen < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used.bHand washes were conducted prior to lunch or bathroom breaks and at the end of the day.cCalculated from chromatogrampeak response (e.g., ug/mL)dFrom Supplemental Tables O-P.eTotal Hand Exposure = [Hand Wash #1 ÷ FF Adjustment Factor] + [Hand Wash #2 ÷ FF Adjustment Factor] + [Hand Wash #3 ÷ FF Adjustment Factor]fMEA = method efficiency adjustment. Total hand measurement corrected by a factor of50% to account for potential collection method inefficiencies.Page 46 of 53Table S - 23. OVS Air Sample Field Results and Inhalation ExposureStudyIDMUIDActiveIngredientAnalyticalMethod Levels(ug/sample)aMeasured ResidueInhalation ExposureFront SectionBack SectionBreath.Rate(LPM)PumpFlowRate(LPM)Total(ug)eRawExposure(ug)bFieldFort.Adj.FactorcAdj.Exp.dRawExposure(ug)bFieldFort. Adj.FactorcAdj.Exp.dLOQLODAHE55A1 Malathion 0.01 0.003 0.2472 0.853 0.2896 < LOD -- 0.0015 8.3 2.01 1.21A2Carbaryl 0.01 0.0030.1407 0.944 0.1419 < LOD -- 0.0015 8.3 2.01 0.59A3 1.3300.9131.457<LOD--0.00158.32.065.88A4 0.10860.9940.1097<LOD--0.00158.32.020.46A5 0.31030.9130.3395<LOD--0.00158.32.021.41AHE56A1Malathion 0.01 0.0030.0267 0.784 0.0341 < LOD -- 0.0015 8.3 1.99 0.15A2 0.19000.7840.2423<LOD--0.00158.32.040.99A3 0.38000.8320.4567<LOD--0.00158.32.041.87A4Carbaryl 0.01 0.0030.0224 0.975 0.0227 < LOD -- 0.0015 8.3 1.97 0.10A5 0.42710.9140.4379<LOQ--0.0058.32.041.92AHE57A1Chlorothalonil 0.005 0.00150.0364 0.979 0.0367 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 2.03 0.16A2 0.03020.9790.0304<LOD--0.000758.31.990.13A3 0.02730.9790.0279<LOD--0.000758.32.040.12A4 0.16420.9790.1652<LOQ--0.00258.32.010.71A5 0.3150.8030.3923<LOQ--0.00258.32.051.60AHE58A1Malathion 0.005 0.00150.8096 0.952 0.8508 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 2.00 3.54A21.471 0.952 1.544 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 2.00 6.39A3 0.10921.110.0982<LOQ--0.00258.31.950.43A41.161 0.952 1.218 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 2.00 5.06A50.0799 1.11 0.0720 < LOD -- 0.00075 8.3 2.00 0.30AHE59A1Carbaryl 0.01 0.0030.3517 1.07 0.3290 < LOD -- 0.0015 8.3 2.07 1.33A2Invalid sample – sample time unknown.A3 0.34861.070.3262<LOD--0.00158.32.021.35A4 0.30861.070.2888<LOD--0.00158.32.021.20aWhen < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used.bCalculated from chromatogrampeak response (e.g., ug/mL)cFrom Supplemental Tables Q-S.dAdjusted Exposure = Raw Exposure ÷ FF Adjustment FactoreTotal Exposure = [Adjusted front section + Adjustedback section] * [Breathing Rate ÷ Pump Flow Rate]Page 47 of 53Table S - 24. Dermal and Inhalation ExposuresStudyIDMUIDAaiH(lbs)cBW(kg)Dermala,bInhalationInnerWBD(μg)Hand(μg)Head(μg)Total ExposureUnitExposure(ug/lb ai)fTotalUE(ug/lbai)f(μg)d(μg/kg)e(ug)g(μg/kg)eNonMEAMEANon-MEAMEANon-MEAMEANon-MEAMEANon-MEAMEAAHE55A1 8 112 139.1 211.2 422 0.89 1.78 351 563 3.13 5.03 43.9 70.4 1.21 0.011 0.151A2 15 94 47.9 85.09 170 0.89 1.78 134 220 1.43 2.34 8.9 14.7 0.59 0.006 0.0396A3 24 106 73.7 402.1 804 7.17 14.40 483 892 4.56 8.42 20.1 37.2 5.88 0.055 0.245A4 40 93 1.0 11.88 23.8 0.27 0.54 13.2 25.3 0.14 0.27 0.33 0.63 0.46 0.005 0.0115A5 75 92 39.0 50.67 101 0.89 1.78 90.5 142 0.98 1.54 1.2 1.9 1.41 0.015 0.0187AHE56A1 7.9 107 40.2 1.67 3.4 0.24 0.48 42.1 44.1 0.39 0.41 5.3 5.6 0.15 0.001 0.0188A2 15.8 92 31.6 18.93 37.8 0.8 1.60 51.3 71.0 0.56 0.77 3.2 4.5 0.99 0.011 0.0628A3 24.6 102 44.7 7.49 15 0.8 1.60 52.9 61.2 0.52 0.60 2.2 2.5 1.87 0.018 0.0759A4 50.5 95 10.6 31.28 62.6 0.24 0.48 42.1 73.7 0.45 0.78 0.83 1.5 0.10 0.001 0.002A5 75.7 91 1540 812.8 1626 0.8 1.60 2354 3168 25.75 34.81 31.1 41.8 1.92 0.021 0.0254AHE57A1 10.8 70 12.7 7.16 14.4 0.24 0.48 20.1 27.6 0.29 0.39 1.9 2.6 0.16 0.002 0.0144A2 16.9 70 7.5 0.65 1.3 0.24 0.48 8.4 9.3 0.12 0.13 0.50 0.55 0.13 0.002 0.0078A3 27.6 103 43.8 9.29 18.6 2.66 5.40 55.8 67.8 0.54 0.66 2.0 2.5 0.12 0.001 0.0042A4 40.7 143 17.5 16.88 33.8 0.24 0.48 34.6 51.8 0.24 0.36 0.85 1.3 0.71 0.005 0.0173A5 90.3 91 61.3 20.62 41.2 0.8 1.60 82.7 104 0.90 1.14 0.92 1.2 1.60 0.018 0.0177AHE58A1 63.5 77 43.8 91.89 184 4.79 9.60 141 237 1.83 3.08 2.2 3.7 3.54 0.046 0.0557A2 34.4 72 6.7 29.59 59.2 0.80 1.60 37.1 67.5 0.51 0.94 1.1 2.0 6.39 0.089 0.186A3 23.0 76 4.3 2.63 5.2 0.24 0.48 7.1 10.0 0.09 0.13 0.31 0.43 0.43 0.006 0.0187A4 59.2 83 9.3 10.67 21.2 2.45 4.80 22.3 35.3 0.27 0.43 0.38 0.60 5.06 0.061 0.0855A5 7.3 108 115.4 21.31 42.8 0.24 0.48 138 159 1.28 1.47 18.9 21.8 0.30 0.003 0.0414AHE59A1 15.8 75 1.8 8.61 17.2 0.24 0.48 10.6 19.5 0.14 0.26 0.67 1.2 1.33 0.018 0.0840A2 9.4 115 0.7 22.35 44.6 0.80 1.60 23.8 46.9 0.21 0.41 2.5 5.0 Invalid sampleA3 15.9 85 85.8 114.9 230 0.80 1.60 202 318 2.38 3.74 12.7 20.0 1.35 0.016 0.0848A4 34.5 67 15.7 1312 2624 0.80 1.60 1329 2641 19.84 39.42 38.5 76.6 1.20 0.018 0.0347aSee Supplemental Tables T-V.bMEA = method efficiency adjusted; 50% method efficiency assumed – “Non-MEA” measurement multiplied by 2.cSee Supplemental Table F.dTotal Dermal Exposure = Inner Dosimeter + Hands + Head.eTotal Exposure (μg) ÷ Body Weight (kg)fUnit Exposure (μg/lb ai) = Exposure (μg)÷ AaiH (lbs).gSee Supplemental Table W.Page 48 of 53Table S - 25. Select Excerpts from Field ObservationsStudy IDMUIDAirblast cabentrances/exits (#)ObservationAHE55A1 41113: “Worker in cab while mix/load is performed.”1231: “...brushes up against treated foliage due to narrow rows”1322: “...again brushing up against treated foliage.”1422: “...again brushing up against treated foliage...”A2 161207: “...exits cab with gloves on, then turns valve...”1232: “...exits cab with gloves on, picks up a plastic pipe...”1245: “...exits cab after putting gloves on...”1412: “...exits cab wearing gloves...”A3 101032: “...exits cab...no gloves wornsince no contact with equipment.”1144: “...exits cab without gloves...shuts the door...contacting the side edge.”1214: “...opens door with bare hands...”A4 41032: “Mixing completed. Worker did not exit cab.”1124: “Worker remains inside cab as water was added, then test substance.”1213: “Puts gloves on, then exits cab.”A5 81032: “...exits cab wearing gloves. Opens up back of sprayer...”1529: “...exits cab. Not wearing gloves.”AHE56A1 120833: “Donning gloves while exiting cab...”0911: “Out of tractor with gloves on...”0934: “Donned gloves while exiting tractor...”A2 141119: “...exited cab, donned gloves.”1149: “Exited cab, wearing fresh gloves...”A3 161137: “Climbed out of truck with gloves on...”1141: “Climbed up on flat bed...”1322: “...donned clean gloves, exited cab.”1335: “Out of truck and puts on gloves to jump start the sprayer engine.”1340: “Exited cab with gloveson...leaning against sprayer”1347: “Out of cab, gloves on...holds onto...other application equipment.”A4 60134: “...at mixing/loading site. Stays inside cab...”0300: “Exited tractor with gloves donned.”0346: “Waits inside the cab...during M/L.”0405: “Donned gloves and exited cab.”0447: “Donned gloves before exiting tractor.”A5 220640: “Waited inside truck during M/L.”0710: “...gets out of the truck to adjustspray pressure while wearing gloves.”0742: “Rain had started...”0835-0843: “Donned clean gloves. Left shirt sleeve cuff is open...states that the button popped off...clean out sprayPage 49 of 53Table S - 25. Select Excerpts from Field ObservationsStudy IDMUIDAirblast cabentrances/exits (#)Observationnozzles...reached down into nozzle area with right arm up to arm pit...leanon fan casing...clean the top spraynozzles”1017: “...out of truck wearing gloves.”1025: “...continued to blow out spray nozzles...left shirt sleeve opening near mid-forearm, exposing the dosimeter.”1059: “With only left glove on, climbed on flat-bed near sprayer...”1230: “...left lower sleeve was soiled and the edge of the right lower sleeve was soiled.”AHE57A1 41430: “Arrived at mix/load area and got out of the cab with fresh gloves.”1528: “Put on clean gloveswhen he left the tractor...”A2 40710: “...stayed inside cab...”0829: “Dons gloves before entering cab and discards gloves outside the cab.”A3 61403: “...shirts sleeve unbuttoned...also unbuttoned...above waist.”1534: “...exited the cabwith clean gloves on.”1648: “...drop of spray...landed on his hand...wiped his hand on right pant leg.”A4 81534: “Donned nitrile gloves and stood near tractor...”1710: “Exited tractor with clean gloves...reentered cab...again exited tractor...inner dosimeter is exposed on hisback...near his waist...”A5 60630: “...exited tractorwith clean gloves.”0806: “...got out of thecab with clean gloves.”AHE58A1 141005-1012: “A1 stepped out of tractor...donned face mask and glove and goggles.”1035: “...got out to adjust nozzles.”1122: “A1 occasionally opened back window of cab to give instructions to mixer.”1315: “Donned glove, goggles. Turned off nozzles...”A28 0948: “Mixer overfilled tank. Two-three gallons spilled at top of tank. Re-entered tractor. Did not step in spill.”A3 10 Nothing noteworthy.A4 120330: “Entered field for bathroom break. Refused hand wash.”0338: “Adjusted agitation...after donning gloves.”0345: “...got out of cab...to check pressure and agitation...Wore safety glasses and gloves.”A5 40814: “Turned off water near tank with bare hand...”0930: “Touched inner dosimeter (cuff) with bare hand.”AHE59A1 10Gen. obs.: “...did not wear the chemical resistant gloves during the mixing/loading process...”0858: “Climbed back into cab, opened door with bare hands.”0951: “Opened cab door and tied ribbon marker to tree (observer unable to determine whether gloves worn duringthis process).”A2 4Gen. obs.: “The applicator was not observed to handle anything except the door and door handle...Door opened withbare hand.”1000: “Arrives at mixing/loading station remained sitting inside cab.”Page 50 of 53Table S - 25. Select Excerpts from Field ObservationsStudy IDMUIDAirblast cabentrances/exits (#)ObservationA3 120821: “Put on chemical resistant gloves and goes to airblast sprayer...”0828: “Remained in cab during loading.”0956: “Opened truck door with bare hands...”1209: “Exited tractor cab and wiped nose with bare hand.”1248: “Placed gloved hand on lever...Touched another valve on spray tank with gloved hand.”A4 26Gen. obs.: “Exchange of tractor and sprayer...”0822: “Inner dosimeter cuff is observed at right wrist, out from right shirt sleeve. Long sleeve shirt is not tuckedinto pants.0833: “Spoke to mixer loader through opened back window of tractor cab. Closed window”1102: “...exited cab and with bare hands picked up a marker from ground...”1320: “Exited cab, walked back to sprayer and with bare hands, turned lever...”1432: “Walked to front of spray tank and with bare hand turned lever...”1500: “Opened rear window...”1549: “...walked back to sprayer and withbare hands, turned off a couple nozzles...”Page 51 of 53Table S - 26. Protocol Amendments and DeviationsStudyIDSummary of AmendmentsSummary of DeviationsField PhaseAnalytical PhaseAHE55The study report indicates that the protocol wasamended/changed three times prior to executionof the field phase, however it did not summarizethese changes.The IIRB Correspondence Report shows onlyone amendment, to address EPA and HSRBcomments following the June 2008 HSRBmeeting.Reported:•On two occasions MUs were selected randomlyusing a coin flip rather than writing names andpicking from hats, per AHETF protocol.Unreported:•Rather than growers being reimbursed for thepesticide used in the study as required by section2.4 of the protocol, the Local Site Coordinatorpurchased the product and delivered it to theapplication sites.•The witness for the consent process for a nonreader was selected by the prospective subject,contrary to the protocol requirement that thewitness should not have an association with thegrower or worker.•Despite protocol indicating that wearing chemicalresistant gloves while outside the cab would beenforced, observations indicate that this occurred.•4 of 5 MUs did not achieve 4 hours of “spraytime”.None reportedAHE56The study report indicates that the protocol wasamended/changed twice prior to execution of thefield phase, however it did not summarize thesechanges.The IIRB Correspondence Report shows onlyone amendment, to address EPA and HSRBcomments following the June 2008 HSRBmeeting.Reported:•The original list of eligible growers was exhaustedbefore successfully recruiting enough workers formonitoring. Two growers ultimately monitoredwere referred to the AHETF by other growers, anddid not appear on the eligible grower list. Thiswas a reported deviation since the protocol did notprovide guidance on recruitment beyond eligiblegrowers list.•Informed consent form signed by MU A5 afterdonning inner dosimeter garment.•Travel fortification samples were not prepareduntil monitoring day 4.•MU A4 took bathroom break without handwash•OVS sampling tubes Set 2 was above15% criteria (reported 22.02%) forback-calculation value at 5.0 ng/mLstandard.•Travel spikes analyzed inadvertently.•For Set 2a OVS samples, 3.0 mLaliquot was used instead of 4.0 mL(deviation reported in IIRBcorrespondence,but not withinAppendix B of AHE56 study report).Page 52 of 53Table S - 26. Protocol Amendments and DeviationsStudyIDSummary of AmendmentsSummary of DeviationsField PhaseAnalytical Phasesample being taken.•Air flow rotometer measurement taken afterremoval of sampling gear from workers.Unreported:•No MU achieved 4 hours of “spray time”.AHE57The study report indicates that the protocol wasamended/changed twice prior to execution of thefield phase. One amendment was to addressEPA and HSRB comments following theOctober 2008 HSRB meeting. The secondamendment was to edit a sentence on purityanalysis.Reported:•One subject applied 10.68 lbs (1.68 lbs abovestratum 5-9 lbs); was monitored for 2 hours (theprotocol prescribes a minimum of 4 hours ofapplication time); and applied only 2 tank loads(the protocol prescribes a minimum of 3 tankloads).Unreported:•Two subjects applied amounts outside the desiredAaiH stratum.•No subject achieved 4hours of “spray time”.•Inner dosimeter controls and LOQconcurrent recovery samples werediluted to 5 mL while field sampleswere diluted to 10 mL (samplessupposed to be treated in samemanner).•Protocol lists method titles that werenot used.•Aliquot deviation in Method ARTF0001 for 2-piece cotton innerdosimeters.•Back-calculated calibration standardvalues for the 0.001 ug/mL OVSsample and the 0.005 ug/mL face/neckwipe standard deviated from thetheoretical value by more than 20%(reported in IIRB correspondence, notin study report).AHE581•Inclusion criteria added to allow forworkers who normally wear two layersof clothing, provided the worker iswilling to substitute the normally worninner layer with the AHETF-providedone-piece dosimeter.•Recruitment area expanded to any countyin CA or WA if protocol-specifiedcounties do not provide sufficientnumber of eligible growers.•Removed efficient configurationrequirement if recruitment area isReported:•Inner dosimeters were not folded afteradministration of field fortifications and prior tocovering with cloth.•Low level field fortifications conducted induplicate on day 4 instead of triplicate.•MU A5 monitored for 3 hours 8 minutes (less thanprescribed 4 hours).•Field fortifications done at (known) levelsdifferent than specified in protocol.•Concentrations of some fieldfortification solutions corrected forvolume based on density, notgravimetrically, resulting in incorrectfield fortification concentrations.Page 53 of 53Table S - 26. Protocol Amendments and DeviationsStudyIDSummary of AmendmentsSummary of DeviationsField PhaseAnalytical Phaseexpanded.Unreported:•Despite protocol indicating that wearing chemicalresistant gloves while outside the cab would beenforced, observations indicate that this occurred.•The following MUs handled amounts of activeingredient outside the desired range indicated inthe protocol: MU A2, A3, A4.2 Added a malathion product to possible testsubstancesAHE59Two carbaryl products were added to possibletest substancesReported:•Post-monitoring photographs of worker clothingwere not taken.•Though use of two additional carbaryl productswas approved by EPA and product risk statements(PRS) were IIRB approved before monitoring, theamendment (Amendment 1) adding the additionalcarbaryl products was notapproved until after themonitoring had taken place.Unreported:•Despite protocol indicating that wearing chemicalresistant gloves while outside the cab would beenforced, observations indicate that this occurred.•The following MUs handled amounts of activeingredient outside the desired range indicated inthe protocol: MU A2, A3.•Only 1 of 4 MUs achieved 4 hours of “spraytime”.•Curve standard off by 25.89% morethan 15% criteria) – not detailed inAppendix B of study report