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 Exposure Task Force (AHETF) Closed Cab 

Airblast Applicator Exposure Monitoring 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 Division’s primary reviews of the analytical and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

considered acceptable and appropriate for use in occupational exposure assessments for closedcab airblast applicators. 
Page 2 of 53 

1.0 Executive Summary 

The Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) monitored exposure for 24 workers1

applying liquid spray pesticides using closed cab airblast equipment. Five separate field studies, 

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

spraying tree or trellis crops in 5 different states in the U.S where 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 chlorothalonil), 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 (torso, arms, and legs). Inhalation exposure was 

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

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

shoes/socks and chemical-resistant gloves, and inhalation exposure without respiratory 

protection. 

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

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

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

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

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

adjustment factors. 

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

face/neck wipes, ranged from 9 – 3168 μg, with an average of 377 μg. 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 μg, with an average of 1.6 μg. 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 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 the five closed-cab airblast 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 AHETF and followed both the study-specific protocols and the 

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

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

 and met EPA 

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

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

Data Confidentiality statements were provided for each study. 

2.2 Test Materials (Table S - 2) 

All studies used liquid formulation pesticides containing carbaryl, malathion, or chlorothalonil.

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

According to the Closed Cab Airblast Scenario Construction Plan and 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 units” (MU), obtained by monitoring 

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

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

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

difficulties4

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

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

measurements. 

2.4 Environmental Conditions (Table S - 4) 

Temperature (including heat index), humidity, 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 – MI-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 selection process. 2 – Scales used to weigh subjects were not 

maintained and calibrated according to GLPS specifications. 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 record 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 unsuccessful before the application window of the study’s surrogate chemical 

(carbaryl) passed. 
Page 4 of 53 

ambient temperature exceed the pre-defined threshold of concern for potential heat-related 

injury. No significant rainfall was reported. 

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

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

to represent exposure for workers wearing long-sleeve shirts, pants, shoes/socks, and chemicalresistant gloves when exiting the cabs (gloves are 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 conducted 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 chemicals 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 exposure measurements were adjusted (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 studies, only the airblast application activity was monitored – monitoring was not 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

2.7 Application Rates (Table S - 7) 

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

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

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

of active ingredient handled within a study should be separated logarithmically for each MU and 

span at least an order of magnitude. 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 minor 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 range of amount of active ingredient handled as well as to avoid nondetectable exposures, the study design called for workers to apply at least 3 tank loads and/or 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arms, legs) was measured using whole body dosimeters (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 exposure underneath a single layer of work clothing 

(long-sleeve shirt, pants, shoes/socks) and chemical-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 concentrations measured represent the 

chemical available in each worker’s breathing zone. 

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

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

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

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

9.A) are presented in Table 3 below. 

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

Monitoring Matrix Limit of Detection Limit of Quantification 

Carbaryl Malathiona Chlorothalonil Carbaryl Malathiona 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 measurements of workers. Attached corresponding supplemental tables 

providing additional detail are identified. 

3.1 Quality Assurance 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 4.0. 

3.2 Quality Control 

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

calibration of sprayers, preparation and handling of exposure measurement matrices, evaluation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

are specified in the sub-sections below. 

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

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

referenced for chemical-specific results.

3.2.1 Control Samples (Table S - 9) 

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

LOQ. In no instance was an untreated laboratory 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 provided in the study report. 

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

field fortification recovery estimates, which in turn could alter actual field sample measurements. 
Page 7 of 53 

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

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

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

systematically summarized and reasons for accounting for them (or not) should be described in 

the study reports.

3.2.2 Laboratory Fortification Recoveries (Table S - 10) 

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

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

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

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

process. 

3.2.3 Field Fortification Recoveries 

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

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

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

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

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

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

were analyzed. 

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

triplicate samples taken on each day at each fortification level5

. Once analyzed, the average 

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

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

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

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

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

recovery percentage for use in adjusting the field sample. 

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

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

provided below in Sections 3.1.3.1 – 3.1.3.4.

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

Most results for inner whole body dosimeter (WBD) field fortification samples 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 protocol resulting from dilution 

errors by the laboratory technician that were not discovered until after the fortification samples were used in the 

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

compromise the overall research. 
Page 8 of 53 

AHE58 (CA-grape) – 233% and 42.7%, respectively. However, no results required adjustments 

using these fortification levels, so the decision 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 samples were acceptable, with average recoveries 

ranging from approximately 72.7% to 117% and coefficients of variation ranging from 1.1% to 

13.8%.

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

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

recoveries ranging from approximately 75% to 129% and coefficients of variation ranging from 

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

below. Additionally, per AHETF standard procedures, samples for the highest fortification level 

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

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. Additionally, 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 average. This had no effect on results, because no 

AHE58 field sample residue was high enough to justify 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 average 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 summarize the exposure monitoring results, conducted as described in 

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

Face/neck wipe measurements were extrapolated to un-wiped portions of the face and head 
Page 9 of 53 

according to AHETF SOP 9.K. For samples below the LOQ or LOD, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD was 

used. 

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

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

follows6

: 

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

average across all workers, no action is required; 

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

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

of a validation study to support the residue collection method 

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

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

methods is required. 

3.3.1 Inner Dosimeters (Table S - 20) 

After adjusting for field fortification recoveries (see Section 3.1.3.1) and summing the upper and 

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

from 0.7 – 1540 μg with an average of 99.8 μg. Out 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 some 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 fortification recoveries (see Section 3.1.3.2) and extrapolating to nonwiped portions of the head described above, total head exposure ranged from 0.24 – 7.24 μg with 

an average of 1.19 μg. Including adjustments for potential method collection 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 protocol, hand washes were collected at the end of each work day and during restroom or 

lunch breaks. From only one worker – AHE59 (WA-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 potential inefficiencies in the collection method. 

 

6

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

terminology used to describe this are “method efficiency adjusted” (MEA) or “method efficiency corrected” (MEC). 
Page 10 of 53 

After adjusting for field fortification recoveries (see Section 3.1.3.3) and summing each hand 

wash, the total hand exposure ranged 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 total 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 tube were analyzed separately. Most back section samples 

were non-detects, with none above the LOQ. All 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 invalid, 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 – specifically, “breathing zone” exposure – the 

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

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

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

The calculation is as follows: 

Inhalation exposure = Adjusted residue (μg) * [Breathing 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 exposures (expressed as mass active ingredient), as well as exposures 

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

3.4.1 Dermal 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 μg, with an average of 377 μg. 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 chemical in air over 

the monitoring period, the pump flow rate, and the worker’s breathing 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 efficiency 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 μg. 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 exposures 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 studies, observers were employed to monitor each worker and record their behavior 

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

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 shorter than other rows, only 6 to 8 ft. trees.”), 

while others indicated potential 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 should be considered when 

analyzing this data. 

4.0 Protocol Amendments and Deviations (Table S - 26) 

Field and analytical phase deviations were minor. Reported field 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 ingredient handled and monitoring 

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

while outside the application equipment (see Table 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 during participation. Analytical phase deviations included two 

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

deviations. No protocol amendments or deviations were considered to adversely affect the 

results of exposure monitoring or compromise the overall research. 

5.0 Conclusion 

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

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

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

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

statistical analyses in the AHETF 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 Document for a Multi-Year 

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

Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force (AHETF). [MRID 47172401] 
Page 12 of 53 

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

Application of Liquids Sprays to Crops Using 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. Report Number AHE1005. December 2, 2010. [MRID 

48314201] 

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

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

Study Number AHE58. Unpublished study prepared by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure 

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

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

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

Study Number AHE59. Unpublished study prepared by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure 

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

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

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

2011. 

NAFTA - Dept. of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), 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 study prepared by the Agricultural 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 study prepared by the Agricultural 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 Closed Cab Equipment in Michigan Stone Fruit. 

Study Number AHE57. Unpublished study prepared 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. Administrative Details .............................................................................................. 14 

Table S - 2. Summary of Pesticides Used .................................................................................... 15 

Table S - 3. Summary of Monitored Workers and Locations ...................................................... 17 

Table S - 4. Summary of Meteorological Conditions .................................................................. 18 

Table S - 5. Summary of Work Clothing and PPE ...................................................................... 19 

Table S - 6. Summary of Application Characteristics ................................................................. 21 

Table S - 7. Summary of Application Rate Information .............................................................. 23 

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

Table S - 9. Field Control Samples with Detected Residues ....................................................... 28 

Table S - 10. Summary of Concurrent Laboratory Fortification Samples ................................... 29 

Table S - 11. Inner Whole Body Dosimeter Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery 

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

Table S - 12. AHE58 – Inner Whole Body Dosimeter Samples: Summary of Field Fortification 

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

Table S - 13. Face/Neck Wipe Samples: Summary of Field Fortification 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 Wash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and 

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

Table S - 16. AHE58 – Hand Wash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery 

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

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

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

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

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

Table S - 19. AHE58 – OVS Air Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples 

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

Table S - 20. Inner Dosimeter Field Sample Results ................................................................... 43 

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

Table S - 22. Hand Wash Field Sample Results .......................................................................... 45 

Table S - 23. OVS Air Sample Field Results and Inhalation Exposure ...................................... 46 

Table S - 24. Dermal and Inhalation Exposures .......................................................................... 47 

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

Table S - 26. Protocol Amendments and Deviations ................................................................... 51 
Page 14 of 53 

Table S - 1. Administrative Details 

Study ID 

Title Author Report Date Field Principal Investigator 

AHE# EPA MRID 

AHE55 48289601 

Determination of Dermal and Inhalation 

Exposure to Workers During Airblast 

Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Closed 

Cab Equipment in Florida Citrus 

Larry D. Smith, 

Ph.D. 11/3/10 Tami I. Belcher 

M

AHE56 48289602 

Determination of Dermal and Inhalation 

Exposure to Workers During Airblast 

Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Closed 

Cab Equipment in Georgia Pecans 

Larry D. Smith, 

Ph.D. 11/3/10 Aaron Rotondaro 

M

AHE57 48303501 

Determination of Dermal and Inhalation 

Exposure to Workers During Airblast 

Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Closed 

Cab Equipment in Michigan Stone Fruit 

Larry D. Smith, 

Ph.D. 11/3/10 Aaron Rotondaro 

R

AHE58 48289604 

Determination of Dermal and Inhalation 

Exposure to Workers During Airblast 

Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Closed 

Cab Equipment in California Trellis Crops 

Eric Bruce 11/3/10 Brian D. Lange 

M

AHE59 48303502 

Determination of Dermal and Inhalation 

Exposure to Workers During Airblast 

Applications of Liquid Sprays Using Closed 

Cab Equipment in Washington Pome Fruit 

Eric Bruce 11/3/10 Tami I. Belcher 

M
Page 15 of 53 

Table S - 2. Summary of Pesticides Used 

Study ID 

Product Information Product Pu

Trade 

Name Formulation Manufacturer Packaging Active Ingredient Label % ai Actual % ai Lot 

AHE55 

Sevin® 

brand XLR 

Plus 

Liquid 

Flowable 

Bayer 

CropScience 

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Carbaryl 44.1% by weight 43.7% by weight E

Fyfanon® Emulsifiable Concentrate Helena Chemical Company 2.5 gallon plastic jug Malathion 56.44% by weight 59.6% by weight CG

AHE56 

Fyfanon® 

5E 

Emulsifiable 

Concentrate 

Helena 

Chemical 

Company 

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Malathion 56.44% by weight 59.3% by weight CG

Sevin XLR 

Plus 

Aqueous 

suspension / 

flowable 

Bayer 

CropScience 

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Carbaryl 44.1% by weight 44.5% by weight 2

AHE57 

Bravo 

Weather 

Stik 

Aqueous 

suspension / 

flowable 

Sygenta Crop 

Protection, Inc. 

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Chlorothalonil 54% by weight 54.2% by weight GB

AHE58 

Gowan 

Malathion 

8 

Emulsifiable 

Concentrate 

Gowan 

Company 

2.5 gallon 

wide mouth 

plastic jug 

Malathion 79.5% by weight 

75.87% by 

weight 30

72.4% by weight 30

68.35% by 

weight 30

Gowan 

Malathion 

8 Flowable 

Emulsifiable 

Concentrate 

Gowan 

Company 

2.5 gallon 

wide mouth 

plastic jug 

Malathion 79.5% by weight 67.52% by weight 30
Page 16 of 53 

Table S - 2. Summary of Pesticides Used 

Study ID 

Product Information Product Pu

Trade 

Name Formulation Manufacturer Packaging Active Ingredient Label % ai Actual % ai Lot 

67.18% by 

weight 30

Malathion 

8 Aquamul 

Emulsifiable 

Concentrate 

Loveland 

Products, Inc. 

2.5 gallon 

wide mouth 

plastic jug 

Malathion 81.8% by weight 78.2% by weight 531

AHE59 

Sevin® 

Brand 4F 

Carbaryl 

Insecticide 

Aqueous 

Suspension / 

flowable 

Bayer 

CropScience 

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Carbaryl 43% by weight 

41.2% by weight E

43% by weight E

Carbaryl 

4L 

Insecticide 

Aqueous 

Suspension / 

flowable 

Drexel 

Chemical 

Company 

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Carbaryl 43.4% by weight 45.4% by weight 7

Carbaryl 

4L 

Insecticide 

Aqueous 

Suspension / 

flowable 

Loveland 

Products, Inc. 

2.5 gallon 

plastic jug Carbaryl 43% by weight 43.4% by weight E
Page 17 of 53 

Table S - 3. Summary of Monitored Workers and Locations 

Study ID MU ID Age Gender Height (cm) Weight (kg) Yrs. Experience State County Town 

AHE55 

A1 70 M 175 112 48 FL Polk Babson Park 

A2 33 M 183 94 8 FL Polk Crews Lake A3 20 M 188 106 10 FL Orange Winter Garden A4 29 M 175 93 9 FL Polk Fort Meade A5 30 M 175 92 3 FL Orange Labelle 

AHE56 

A1 63 M 168 107 10 GA Tift Tifton 

A2 68 M 173 92 44 GA Berrien Alapaha A3 43 M 193 102 8 GA Coffee Douglas A4 49 M 180 95 7 GA Irwin Ocilla A5 51 M 173 91 8 GA Irwin Ocilla 

AHE57 

A1 53 M 165 70 24 MI Leelanau Cedar / Lake Leelanau 

A2 21 F 161 70 6 MI Grand Traverse Williamsburg / Traverse City A3 58 M 175 103 50 MI Grand Traverse Mapleton A4 48 M 196 143 11 MI Grand Traverse Williamsburg / Traverse City A5 46 M 183 91 30 MI Leelanau Cedar / Lake Leelanau 

AHE58 

A1 49 M 168 77 28 CA Fresno Selma 

A2 42 M 168 72 20 CA Fresno Firebaugh A3 43 M 165 76 8 CA Sacramento Walnut Grove A4 31 M 185 83 5 CA San Joaquin Linden A5 27 M 183 108 7 CA San Joaquin Lodi 

AHE59 

A1 62 M 176 75 40 WA Yakima Sunnyside 

A2 49 M 163 115 29 WA Yakima Wapato A3 53 M 180 85 25 WA Benton Prosser A4 26 M 175 67 5 WA Yakima Sunnyside A5 

Worker monitoring planned but not executed because: 

• On the scheduled monitoring day, only one field studies team was available and already monitoring another wor• A replacement worker from another eligible grower was not monitored because the grower did not need to spray 

(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 53 

Table S - 4. Summary of Meteorological Conditions 

Study 

ID State MU ID Date Monitoring Period Humidity (%) Temp. (° F) Wind Clou

Cover 

Speed (mph) Direction Max Min Max Min Max Min 

AHE55 FL 

A1 10/29/08 1012-1449 53.8 26.8 65.7 54.0 7.1 3.7 NW 0-2

A2 10/30/08 1035-1453 54.3 41.3 70.3 59.4 10.0 5.4 N 0-2A3 10/31/08 0907-1343 76.8 42.3 77.4 63.5 6.6 2.9 N 0-2A4 10/27/08 0932-1423 84.8 29.3 79.3 60.1 3.3 0.8 N 0-2A5 10/28/08 1023-1808 45.3 20.8 66.2 55.2 8.3 2.9 NW 0-2

AHE56 GA 

A1 8/28/08 0824-1249 89.0 49.6 88.5 74.7 4.10 0.10 NW 0-2

A2 8/26/08 0955-1443 84.7 61.0 86.2 78.4 8.30 0.30 S 0-4A3 8/27/08 0958-1553 77.2 47.3 90.5 80.2 5.20 0.00 W 20-6A4 8/25/08 0036-0501 93.8 92.8 72.9 71.6 3.30 0.10 SE 80-1A5 8/25/08 0548-1216 94.6 68.3 83.3 71.8 5.70 0.20 SE 80-1

AHE57 MI 

A1 5/22/09 1335-1533 49.8 27.7 66.9 62.4 7.6 0.3 SE 0-2

A2 5/15/09 0620-0958 97.5 70.2 52.7 35.4 8.0 0.1 E 20-4A3 5/19/09 1255-1655 66.4 56.5 62.1 56.3 10.4 0.5 NW 0-2A4 5/15/09 1419-1834 55.6 37.3 69.4 62.4 13.4 0.3 SE 80-1A5 5/22/09 0500-0942 96.0 60.1 58.3 47.5 6.2 0.1 NW 80-1

AHE58 CA 

A1 6/26/09 0801-1346 55.6 12.5 93.9 64.4 3.7 1.0 W 0-2

A2 7/1/09 0650-1149 65.8 25.3 88.3 65.8 3.5 1.1 N 0-2A3 7/28/09 0641-1056 88.2 55.3 74.5 57.0 5.4 4.5 NRb 0-2A4 8/7/09 0321-0921 88.9 35.0 71.2 53.2 3.2 <0.1 N 0-2A5 8/10/09 0726-1034 84.7 30.8 87.8 61.9 2.5 0.5 NW 0-2

AHE59 WA 

A1 4/30/09 0732-1233 43.4 29.2 59.7 51.8 6.1 1.8 N 0-2

A2 5/7/09 0920-1313 39.3 27.8 60.8 55.3 8.3 5.0 W 0-2

20-4

A3 5/8/09 0809-1328 59.3 33.3 60.8 47.5 4.2 2.1 S 0-2A4 5/9/09 0707-1628 67.8 18.8 71.1 46.1 4.6 0.8 SW 0-2

20-4

NR = not reported

a Heat index threshold set at 120 in 2008 and is applicable for AHE55 and AHE56. In 2009, it was revised down to 105 and applicable 

AHE59. 

b Report indicated that the pin holding the weather vane in place for storage was not removed, so readings are unreliable.
Page 19 of 53 

Table S - 5. Summary of Work Clothing and PPE 

Study 

ID 

MU 

ID 

Long-sleeved Shirt Pants 

Gloves2 Eye Protection4 Shoe type (over socks) 

Style Material Style Material 

AHE55 

A1 Button-front Cotton Work Cotton/Polyester Rubber Goggles Tennis shoes 

A2 Button-front Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Rubber Sunglasses Goggles Leather shoes A3 Button-front1 Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Rubber Sunglasses Leather boots A4 Button-front1 Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Rubber Goggles Water- resistant boots A5 Button-front Cotton/Polyester Work Cotton/Polyester Rubber Goggles Leather boots 

AHE56 

A1 Button-front Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Latex -- Leather boots 

A2 Button-front Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Latex Yes Leather shoes A3 Button-front Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Latex -- Leather boots A4 Button-front Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Latex -- Leather shoes A5 Button-front Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Latex -- Tennis shoes 

AHE57 

A1 Button-front Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Nitrile Yes Leather shoes 

A2 T-shirt Cotton Knit Pull-on Cotton Nitrile Yes Tennis shoes A3 Button-front Cotton Work (slacks) Cotton Nitrile -- Leather shoes A4 Sweatshirt Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Nitrile -- Leather shoes A5 Sweatshirt Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Nitrile -- Tennis shoes 

AHE58 A1 Button, collar 65% polyester, 35% cotton Jeans, white 100% cotton Nitrile Goggles Leather boots 

A2 Button, collar Cotton Jeans, 100% cotton Nitrile Eyeglasses Leather 
Page 20 of 53 

Table S - 5. Summary of Work Clothing and PPE 

Study 

ID 

MU 

ID 

Long-sleeved Shirt Pants 

Gloves2 Eye Protection4 Shoe type (over socks) 

Style Material Style Material 

blue boots 

A3 Long-sleeve 100% cotton Blue jeans Cotton Nitrile Eyeglasses Leather shoes A4 Button-up 100% cotton Blue jeans 100% cotton Nitrile Eyeglasses Leather boots A5 Long sleeved T- shirt Cotton Jeans Denim=cotton Nitrile Eyeglasses Leather boots 

AHE59 

A1 Button-front Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Nitrile Eye/sunglasses Rubber boots 

A2 Pull over Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Rubber Sunglasses Leather boots A3 Button-front Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Rubber and Cloth3 Sunglasses Leather boots A4 Button-front Cotton Denim jeans Cotton Rubber -- Tennis shoes 

1 Per study protocol, AHETF replaced a non-WPS compliant shirt worn by worker. 2 Gloves worn while outside the cab only. 3 Non-protective, worn while inside the cab. 4 Per AHETF SOP 9.K, exposure is extrapolated to portions of face covered by eyewear or respiratory protection. 5 Though not label-required, worker elected to wear a dust/mist face mask. 
Page 21 of 53 

Table S - 6. Summary of Application Characteristics 

Study 

ID 

MU 

ID 

Crop Application Equipment 

Speed

(mph

) 

Type Height (ft) 

Spacing (ft) 

Tractor/truck 

Airblast 

Full Inrow Brand Nozzle Type # used Pressure (psi) 

AHE55 

A1 Orange 8-16 25 15 John Deere 6615 Rears Power Blast Albuz ATR80 24 NR NR 

A2 Tan- gerine 12-14 22 8-9 Kubota M9540 Hogan Hogan ATR80 35 NR NR A3 Orange 5-8 25 12.5 John Deere 7410 Rears Power Blast Albuz ATR80 16 NR NR A4 Orange 10-12 30 12-15 John Deere 7330 Rears Power Blast Albuz 24 NR NR A5 Orange 8-12 25 15 John Deere 6615 Durand Wayland Super Spray Ceramic 18 NR NR 

AHE56 

A1 Pecan 30-40 60 60 Massey Ferguson 3630 Savage 5540 Flood jet 8 70 3-4 

A2 Pecan 45-65 40 40 John Deere 7420 Savage 500 NR 7 40 2.5-3 A3 Pecan 80 60 50 Flatbed truck NR NR 14 200 3-5 A4 Pecan 40-60 50 50 John Deere 5603 Savage 5534 NR 7 40 2.1 A5 Pecan 40-60 50 50 Flatbed truck NR NR 15 200 3 

AHE57 

A1 Cherry 15 22 16 John Deere 6330 Ag-Tec NR 12 40 3.5 

A2 Cherry 18 23 18 John Deere 5525 Ag Superior Spray Blast NR 8 50 3 A3 Cherry 14-18 22 20 Case 1394 Speed Sprayer LV500 2.5-3 500 Cone 12 A4 Cherry 23 23 23 Massey Ferguson 3435F John Bean 393CPB 3 500 NR 12 A5 Cherry 25 24 20-25 Massey Ferguson 4355 Rears Pul 3 400 Cone 8 

AHE58 

A1 Grape 5 10- 12 6-7 New Holland TS110A D&M dual-row Porcelain 20 125 3-3.5 

A2 Grape 7 11 7 John Deere 4430 Int. Man. 256 Plastic 8 ~ 90 3-4 A3 Grape 7 12 8 John Deere 6715 Aer-O-Fan dual- row Cone, hollow 16 80 2.8 A4 Grape 7 11 8 Kubota M8200 Narrow Lectro Blast dual-row Air sheer 20 25 3.5 
Page 22 of 53 

Table S - 6. Summary of Application Characteristics 

Study 

ID 

MU 

ID 

Crop Application Equipment Speed

(mph

) 

Type Height (ft) Spacing (ft) Tractor/truck Airblast Full In- Brand Nozzle 

A5 Grape 8 10 7 John Deere 5525N Rears dul-row 

Teejet 

cera-mic, 

8’s and 

5’s tip 

18 ~ 100 3.1 

AHE59 

A1 Apple 8-14 15- 20 10 John Deere 5500N Rears NR 14 140 NR 

A2 Apple 13-15 18 12 New Holland T75F Rears NR 16 40 2.6 A3 Apple 10-12 16 6 John Deere 5510N Rears NR 14 150 NR A4 Apple 10 13 4 John Deere 5525 Rears NR 8 145 5.2 

NR = not reported a Inhalation monitoring time = 3.4 hrs as pump was not running for up to 36 minutes from 1237 – 1313. 
Page 23 of 53 

Table S - 7. Summary of Application Rate Information 

Study 

ID 

MU 

ID Crop 

Active 

Ingredient 

(ai) 

Product 

Conc. 

(lb ai / 

gallon) 

# Loads 

applied 

Area 

Treated 

(acres) 

Application Amo

Spray Product 

Per Acre 

(gal) 

Total 

(gal) 

Per Acre 

(gal) 

To

(ga

AHE55 

A1 Orange Malathion 5.3 3 12 125 1500 0.125 1.

A2 Tangerine Carbaryl 4.0 3 6 200 1200 0.625 3.7A3 Orange Carbaryl 4.0 3 9 333 3000 0.675 6.A4 Orange Carbaryl 4.0 4 20+ 200 4000 0.5 10A5 Orange Carbaryl 4.0 3 30+ 100 3000 0.625 18.

AHE56 

A1 Pecan Malathion 5.3 3 12 100 1200 0.125 1.

A2 Pecan Malathion 5.3 3 18 83.3 1500 0.167 3 A3 Pecan Malathion 5.3 6 30 100 3000 0.157 4.A4 Pecan Carbaryl 4.0 4 20 100 2000 0.625 12A5 Pecan Carbaryl 4.0 6 30 100 3000 0.625 18.

AHE57 

A1 Cherry Chlorothalonil 6.0 2 4 40 190 0.448 1.7

A2 Cherry Chlorothalonil 6.0 3 7.5 60 450 0.373 2.A3 Cherry Chlorothalonil 6.0 3 12 62.5 750 0.383 4.5A4 Cherry Chlorothalonil 6.0 3 19.75 100 1500 0.346 6.7A5 Cherry Chlorothalonil 6.0 3 24 50 1200 0.625 1

AHE58 

A1 Grape Malathion 7.27 4 35 60 2100 0.25 8.7

A2 Grape Malathion 6.88 4 20 100 2000 0.25 5.A3 Grape Malathion 7.65 3 16 75 1200 0.19 3.A4 Grape Malathion 6.76 5 35 50 1750 0.25 8.7A5 Grape Malathion 7.29 3 15 100 1500 0.07 1.

AHE59 

A1 Apple Carbaryl ~ 4 4 8.5 165 1400 0.5-0.625 4.1

A2 Apple Carbaryl ~ 4 3 6 200 1200 0.625 2.2A3 Apple Carbaryl ~ 4 4 12 108 1300 0.35 4.0A4 Apple Carbaryl ~ 4 7 23.5 97.2 2285 0.375 8.5
Page 24 of 53 

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

Exposure Monitoring Method Analytical Method 

Matrix Description Active Ingredient Identification Descri

Hand Rinse 

Exposure to the hands was measured using a 500 mL aliquot of 0.01% v/v AOT solution. First, 400 mL AOT solution was poured over a worker’s hand while rubbing them together over a glass bowl for approximately 30 seconds; the remaining 100 mL was then poured over the worker’s hands into the bowl. The bowl of 500 mL solution (now with hand residue) is transferred to a clear glass jar and frozen for storage. Samples are taken at any point a worker would normally wash their hands (e.g., during lunch breaks, before using restroom, etc.) and at the end of monitoring. Samples are analyzed separately, but summed to obtain a total daily hand exposure. 

Carbaryl 

ARTF-AM-012 

[“Determination of 

Carbaryl in Hand Wash 

Solutions” (6/98)] 

Carbaryl was extracted from 

dichloromethane, using mulaliquot of the extract was evreconstituted in acetonitrile:submitted to HPLC analysis derivatization/fluorescence provided for an optional Flothat was not needed for this 

Malathion 

ARTF-AM-006, Revision 

3, [“Determination of 

Diazinon and Malathion in 

Hand Wash Solutions”] 

Malathion residues in AOT retained on a conditioned Ccartridge by passing an aliquthrough the cartridge. The cwater, air-dried, then washeresidues were eluted from thdichloromethane. The eluate dryness, redissolved in acetochromatographic (GC) analyphotometric detection in the (FPD/P). 

Chlorothalonil 

ARTF-002 

[“Determination of 

Chlorothalonil in Hand 

Wash Solutions”, 

10/17/97)] 

Chlorothalonil was extractewith 500 mL of 0.01% Aerowas added to separate separtogether with 10 mL of 20% H2SO4 and 50 mL of 1:1 peether solution. The sample wThe upper organic phase waevaporation flask. The extrasecond organic phase was cand then the samples were crotary evaporation and furthwith a stream of nitrogen. Treconstituted with 10 mL of depending on the type of samrecovery sample, etc.). 
Page 25 of 53 

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

Exposure Monitoring Method Analytical Method 

Matrix Description Active Ingredient Identification Descri

Face/neck 

Wipe 

The face/neck wipes consisted of two 4” x 4”, 100% cotton gauze Kendall Curity sponges moistened with 4 mL of 0.01% (v/v) Aerosol® OT solution (sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate in distilled water), used sequentially. Face/neck wipes were conducted prior to breaks and at the end of monitoring. Samples were combined for analysis. 

Carbaryl 

ARTF-AM-014 

[“Determination of 

Carbaryl in Cotton 

Facial/Neck Wipes” 

(4/98)] 

Carbaryl was extracted from with acetone. The aluminum 

sample was also rinsed with residues. An aliquot of the esubjected to Florisil SPE clesubmitted to high performanchromatographic (HPLC) anderivatization/fluorescence 

Malathion 

ARTF-AM-010, Revision 

2, [“Determination of 

Diazinon and Malathion in 

Cotton Facial/Neck 

Wipes”] 

Malathion was extracted fro

wipes with an aqueous AOT foil used to wrap each sampaqueous AOT to remove anthe extract was subjected to sample was passed through analyte, the cartridge was wdried. Malathion residues wcartridge with dichloromethThe eluate was evaporated tin acetone. 

Chlorothalonil 

ARTF-004 

[“Determination of 

Chlorothalonil in 

Facial/Neck Wipes”, 

(10/17/97)] 

For the concurrent recoverie0.01% Aerosol®-OT were asimulate field conditions anwere extracted with 100 mL samples the aluminum foil iwrapped was placed in 250 with the samples and broughmL with ethyl acetate. Sampminutes and further diluted sample (field measurement, 

Inner 

Dosimeters 

Whole body dosimeters – white, long underwear, 100% cotton one-piece Carolina Mills, Inc. union suits worn underneath the workers’ outer clothing – served to represent the workers’ skin on their arms, legs and torso. Following each monitoring period, the inner whole body 

Carbaryl 

AHETF-AM-031 

[ “Determination of 

Carbaryl in Cotton Inner 

Dosimeters Sectioned into 

Two Parts” (6/5/08)] 

Carbaryl was extracted from sections (upper and lower) wwas considered one analyticthe sample extract was subjcleanup, then submitted to hchromatographic analysis uderivatization/fluorescence 
Page 26 of 53 

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

Exposure Monitoring Method Analytical Method 

Matrix Description Active Ingredient Identification Descri

dosimeters were carefully removed and sectioned into two pieces: lower body (below the waist) and upper body (above the waist). 

incorporating Florisil cleanusamples containing residue μg/sample to 500 

μg/sample 

provision was made to extenapplicability by eliminating 

Malathion 

AHETF-AM-018 

[ “Determination of 

Diazinon/Malathion in 

Cotton Inner Dosimeters 

Sectioned into Two Parts” 

Revised, 3/07] 

Malathion was extracted frosections with acetone. The wrap each sample was also remove any residues. Followsolvent from an aliquot of thwere suspended in water, ththe hexane was back-extractaliquot of the hexane extracBond Elut cleanup. 

Chlorothalonil 

ARTF-0001 

[“Determination of 

Chlorothalonil In Dermal 

Dosimeters, (10/17/97)”] 

Chlorothalonil residues werindividual fabric segments wThe aluminum foil pieces uwere also rinsed with the soresidues. The samples were shaker for approximately 30 ≥ 8 hours at ambient temperdecanted from each sample mL. From the remaining 43processed depending on the measurement, fortification s

OVS tubes 

Air sampling was conducted using OSHA Versatile Sampler (OVS) tubes connected by Tygon®-type tubing to a SKC model 110-100 personal air sampling pump set to approximately 2 liters per minute. The sample collector consisted of a glass fiber filter and two sections of XAD-2 sorbent housed in a 13 mm diameter glass tube. The sampler was clipped to the worker’s collar (intake facing downward) and the tube attached to their belt. Pump on/off 

Carbaryl 

AHETF-AM-013 

[ “Determination of 

Carbaryl in OVS Air 

Sampling Tubes” 

Revision #1 (3/18/04)] 

Air sampling tube contents and back sections and the seseparately. Carbaryl was exof each section of sorbent tualiquot of the extract was evreconstituted in acetonitrile:submitted to HPLC analysis derivatization/fluorescence provided for an optional Flothat was not needed for this 

Malathion AHETF-AM-009, Air sampling tube contents 
Page 27 of 53 

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

Exposure Monitoring Method Analytical Method 

Matrix Description Active Ingredient Identification Descri

times and starting and ending flow rates were recorded. 

Revision 4, 

[“Determination of 

Diazinon and Malathion in 

OVS Air Sampling 

Tubes”] 

and back sections and the seseparately. Malathion was eof each section of sorbent tualiquot of the extract was evreconstituted in acetone. Samgas chromatographic (GC) aphotometric detection in the (FPD/P). 

Chlorothalonil 

ARTF-003 

[“Determination of 

Chlorothalonil in OVS Air 

Sampling Tubes” 

(10/17/97)] 

Tube contents were divided sections and analyzed separsections were separated 3.5 rinse the glass portion and eextraction was completed by ~2 minutes. Aliquots/dilutiodepending on the type of samrecovery sample, etc.). 
Page 28 of 53 

Table S - 9. Field Control Samples with Detected Residues 

Study Control Sample Type # with detected residues Sample ID Residue Found (ug/sample) LOQ (ug/sample) 

AHE55 OVS tube (front section) 2 of 6 55-F2-03-AR-C1 (F) 0.0363 0.01 

55-F2-03-AR-C2 (F) 0.0404 0.01 

AHE57 

OVS tube (front section) 4 of 4 

57-F1-01-AR-C1 (F) 0.02006 0.005 

57-F1-AR-C2 (F) 0.00560 0.005 

57-F1-03-AR-C1 (F) 0.01845 0.005 57-F1-03-AR-C2 (F) 0.01964 0.005 

OVS tube (back section) 2 of 4 57-F1-03-AR-C1 (B) 0.00215 0.005 

57-F1-03-AR-C2 (B) 0.00855 0.005 

AHE58 

Inner Dosimeter 3 of 8 

58-FF-02-ID-C1 0.76 1.0 

58-FF-02-ID-C2 1.2 1.0 58-FF-03-ID-C2 0.32 1.0 

Inner Dosimeter 

(confirmatory samples) 5 of 5 

58-FF-02-ID-C1 1.2 1.0 

58-FF-02-ID-C1 1.1 1.0 58-FF-02-ID-C2 0.89 1.0 58-FF-02-ID-C2 1.3 1.0 58-FF-03-ID-C2 0.21 1.0 

OVS tube (front section) 6 of 8 

58-FF-02-AR-C1 (F) 0.0793 0.005 

58-FF-02-AR-C2 (F) 0.0634 0.005 58-FF-03-AR-C1 (F) 0.0119 0.005 58-FF-03-AR-C2 (F) 0.0019 0.005 58-FF-04-AR-C1 (F) 0.0063 0.005 58-FF-04-AR-C2 (F) 0.0089 0.005 

OVS tube (back section) 1 of 8 58-FF-02-AR-C2 (B) 0.001615 0.005 

AHE59 OVS tube (front section) 5 of 6 

59-FF-01-AR-C2 (F) 0.003176 0.01 

59-FF-02-AR-C1 (F) 0.024228 0.01 59-FF-02-AR-C2 (F) 0.015651 0.01 59-FF-04-AR-C1 (F) 0.021984 0.01 59-FF-04-AR-C2 (F) 0.013675 0.01 

Note: as only negative controls for matrices with detected residues are shown in this table, it follows that all other negative controls for 

presented in this table did not have detected residues (i.e., only a small percentage of all negative controls had detected residues). 
Page 29 of 53 

Table S - 10. Summary of Concurrent Laboratory Fortification Samples 

Study ID Exposure Matrix Fortification Range R

(mean ± 

AHE55 

Inner Dosimeters 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 98

Face/Neck Wipes 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 92

Hand Washes 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 10

OVS Air Samplers 0.01 – 100 ug/sample 103

AHE56a

Inner Dosimeters 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 102

Face/Neck Wipes 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 84

Hand Washes 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 90

OVS Air Samplers 0.01 – 100 ug/sample 92

AHE57 

Inner Dosimeters 1.0 – 2500 ug/sample 102

Face/Neck Wipes 1.0 – 2500 ug/sample 93.

Hand Washes 1.0 – 2500 ug/sample 108

OVS Air Samplers 0.01 – 1500 ug/sample 98.

AHE58b

Inner Dosimeters 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 104

Face/Neck Wipes 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 10

Hand Washes 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 10

OVS Air Samplers 0.005 – 250 ug/sample 104

AHE59c

Inner Dosimeters 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 108

Face/Neck Wipes 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 103

Hand Washes 1.0 – 2000 ug/sample 99.

OVS Air Samplers 0.01 – 100 ug/sample 101

a 1 inner dosimeter (133%), 2 OVS air samplers (318% and 337% - excluded from any analysis due to likely contamination) b 2 OVS air samples (325% and 311% - contamination likely) c 1 inner dosimeter (125%), 1 OVS air sample (125%) 
Page 30 of 53 

Table S - 11. Inner Whole Body Dosimeter Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Correspondin

Study ID Active Ingredient Monitoring Date Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Ad

by Measured Resi

Low level 

(5 ug) 

Mid level 

(100 ug) 

High level 

(2000 ug) ≤ 52.5 ug > 52.5 ug to ≤ 

AHE55 

Carbaryl 

10/28/08 

77.0 90.6 90.0 

0.778 0.852 

83.1 89.9 94.1 86.0 82.6 106 

10/30/08 

75.2 84.6 97.5 

73.4 84.0 106 72.0 79.6 108 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 77.8 85.2 100 

SD 5.57 4.28 7.45 

CV (%) 7.2 5.0 7.5 

Malathion 

10/29/08 

108 97.2 101 

1.02 0.92

97.8 93.0 97.0 

101 88.6 93.8 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 102 92.9 97.3 

SD 5.22 4.30 3.61 

CV (%) 5.1 4.6 3.7 

AHE56 

Carbaryl 

8/25/08 

92.8 81.6 81.4 

0.924 0.78

92.3 74.6 89.5 92.1 80.6 92.3 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 92.4 78.9 87.7 

SD 0.4 3.8 5.7 

CV (%) 0.43 4.8 6.5 

Malathion 

8/27/08 

87.2 99.8 110 

0.871 1.12 

85.4 111 108 88.6 126 103 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 87.1 112 107 

SD 1.6 13.2 3.8 

CV (%) 1.8 11.8 3.6 

AHE57 Chloro- thalonil 5/15/09 

87.8 86.0 111 

0.926 1.01 

93.0 87.8 107 92.3 99.5 105 

5/29/09 92.8 117 106 97.5 101 114 
Page 31 of 53 

Table S - 11. Inner Whole Body Dosimeter Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Correspondin

Study ID Active Ingredient Monitoring Date Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Ad

by Measured Resi

Low level 

(5 ug) 

Mid level 

(100 ug) 

High level 

(2000 ug) ≤ 52.5 ug > 52.5 ug to ≤ 

92.2 111 116 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 92.6 101 110 

SD 3.6 12.5 4.4 

CV (%) 3.9 12.3 4.0 

AHE59 Carbaryl 

4/30/09 

87.0 101 109 

0.897 0.99

90.6 99.4 106 83.5 95.4 105 

5/7/09 

102 109 96.6 

91.2 92.6 102 

100 103 97.6 

5/9/09 

75.3 111 97.0 

85.1 95.7 106 92.9 89.2 99.6 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 89.7 99.6 102 

SD 8.3 7.3 4.6 

CV (%) 9.3 7.3 4.5 

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

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

recovery mean. 
Page 32 of 53 

Table S - 12. AHE58 – Inner Whole Body Dosimeter Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corre

Factors 

Study 

ID 

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date 

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adju

by Measured Residu

Low 

level 

(ug) 

Mid level (ug) High level (ug) ≤52.5 >52.5 to 

≤175 

>175 

to 

≤1125 

>1

t

≤2

5 100 250 2000 2200 5000 

AHE58 Malathion 

6/26/09 

67.4 -- 89.8 -- -- 107 

1.14 0.966 0.953 1

66.4 -- 94.9 -- -- 117 82.8 -- 100 -- -- 42.7 

7/1/09 

138 -- 98.4 -- 108 -- 

126 -- 101 -- 233 -- 167 -- 87.5 -- 104 -- 

7/28/09 

132 88.2 -- 121 -- -- 

112 91.2 -- 136 -- -- 114 102 -- 119 -- -- 

8/7/09 

119 92.2 -- 117 -- -- 

124 105 -- 111 -- -- 123 101 -- 124 -- -- 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 114 96.6 95.3 121 b 148 88.9 

SD 29.3 6.9 5.9 8.4 73.4 40.3 

CV 

(%) 26 7.1 6.2 6.9 50 45 

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

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

b Per standard AHETF procedures, for average recoveries greater than 120%, field measurements are adjusted by a maximum factor of 
Page 33 of 53 

Table S - 13. Face/Neck Wipe Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adju

Study ID Active Ingredient Monitoring Date Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Ad

by Measured Resi

Low level 

(5 ug) 

Mid level 

(100 ug) 

High level 

(2000 ug) ≤ 52.5 ug > 52.5 ug to ≤ 

AHE55 

Carbaryl 

10/28/08 

72.7 83.3 93.0 

0.760 0.84

63.3 81.6 92.4 79.1 81.7 87.8 

10/30/08 

69.7 88.7 99.8 

83.9 89.8 104 87.3 79.4 110 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 76.0 84.1 97.9 

SD 9.07 4.20 8.29 

CV (%) 11.9 5.0 8.5 

Malathion 

10/29/08 

118 96.6 107 

1.17 1.06 

116 111 110 118 109 107 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 117 106 108 

SD 1.15 7.8 1.73 

CV (%) 9.8 7.4 1.6 

AHE56 

Carbaryl 

8/25/08 

86.9 89.3 102 

0.877 0.872 

89.2 79.4 100 87.0 92.8 91.6 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 87.7 87.2 97.9 

SD 1.3 7.0 5.5 

CV (%) 1.5 8.0 5.6 

Malathion 

8/27/08 

105 81.2 81.0 

1.04 0.77

101 73.4 71.4 107 78.0 65.6 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 104 77.5 72.7 

SD 3.2 3.9 7.8 

CV (%) 3.1 5.0 10.7 

AHE57 Chloro- thalonil 5/15/09 

101 80.3 81.2 

0.967 0.77

101 79.1 84.1 109 79.6 80.0 

5/29/09 94.7 74.9 88.0 92.4 76.0 91.3 
Page 34 of 53 

Table S - 13. Face/Neck Wipe Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adju

Study ID Active Ingredient Monitoring Date Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Ad

by Measured Resi

Low level 

(5 ug) 

Mid level 

(100 ug) 

High level 

(2000 ug) ≤ 52.5 ug > 52.5 ug to ≤ 

82.3 73.5 89.9 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 96.7 77.3 85.7 

SD 9.1 2.8 4.7 

CV (%) 9.4 3.6 5.5 

AHE59 Carbaryl 

4/30/09 

100 95.8 103 

1.01 .994 

96.8 105 104 

103 97.9 99.9 

5/7/09 

103 103 86.0 

101 108 108 109 93.9 95.5 

5/9/09 

96.2 100 114 

97.8 93.6 124 98.3 97.6 124 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 101 99.4 106 

SD 4.0 5.0 12.6 

CV (%) 4.0 5.0 11.9 

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

Example: 52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100 ug. Residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the 
Page 35 of 53 

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

Study 

ID 

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date 

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adju

by Measured Residu

Low 

level 

(ug) 

Mid level (ug) High level (ug) ≤52.5 >52.5 to 

≤175 

>175 

to 

≤1125 

>1

t

≤2

5 100 250 2000 2200 5000 

AHE58 Malathion 

6/26/09 

95.0 -- 96.8 -- -- 104 

1.04 0.914 0.992 1

102 -- 100 -- -- 104 

81.8 -- 93.3 -- -- 106 

7/1/09 

95.0 -- 100 -- 104 -- 

94.2 -- 101 -- 99.3 -- 91.8 -- 104 -- 100 -- 

7/28/09 

124 92.8 -- 110 -- -- 

123 94.2 -- 115 -- -- 123 97.8 -- 112 -- -- 

8/7/09 

105 78.4 -- 109 -- -- 

110 94.0 -- 102 -- -- 

--

b 91.2 -- 106 -- -- 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 104 91.4 99.2 109 101 105 

SD 14.4 6.7 3.7 4.6 2.5 1.2 

CV 

(%) 13.8 7.3 3.7 4.2 2.5 1.1 

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

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

b Sample not taken. 
Page 36 of 53 

Table S - 15. Hand Wash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustm

Study ID Active Ingredient Monitoring Date Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Ad

by Measured Resi

Low level 

(5 ug) 

Mid level 

(100 ug) 

High level 

(2000 ug) ≤ 52.5 ug > 52.5 ug to ≤ 

AHE55 

Carbaryl 

10/28/08 

95.4 83.0 108 

0.891 0.914 

89.3 101 107 97.3 97.5 106 

10/30/08 

77.4 82.9 106 

90.3 99.8 105 85.2 84.3 90.0 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 89.1 91.4 104 

SD 7.21 8.87 6.77 

CV (%) 8.1 9.7 6.5 

Malathion 

10/29/08 

85.8 94.4 93.2 

0.969 0.98

103 98.4 94.4 102 103 103 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 96.9 98.7 96.9 

SD 9.65 4.3 5.35 

CV (%) 10.0 4.4 5.5 

AHE56 

Carbaryl 

8/25/08 

93.4 94.1 106 

0.958 0.952 

96.5 95.1 85.6 97.7 96.2 111 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 95.8 95.2 101 

SD 2.2 1.1 13.3 

CV (%) 2.3 1.2 13.2 

Malathion 

8/27/08 

96.2 103 89.4 

1.02 1.05 

107 101 90.8 105 110 92.8 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 102 105 91.0 

SD 5.5 4.9 1.7 

CV (%) 5.4 4.7 1.9 

AHE57 Chloro- thalonil 5/15/09 

117 120 105 

1.17 1.16 

115 106 102 113 117 110 

5/29/09 119 121 108 119 118 109 
Page 37 of 53 

Table S - 15. Hand Wash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustm

Study ID Active Ingredient Monitoring Date Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Ad

by Measured Resi

Low level 

(5 ug) 

Mid level 

(100 ug) 

High level 

(2000 ug) ≤ 52.5 ug > 52.5 ug to ≤ 

118 116 110 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 117 116 107 

SD 2.2 5.4 3.2 

CV (%) 1.9 4.7 3.0 

AHE59 Carbaryl 

4/30/09 

113 109 110 

1.08 1.04 

110 104 107 110 99.0 108 

5/7/09 

107 105 98.2 

109 107 91.4 103 107 97.2 

5/9/09 

107 102 109 

110 109 113 104 90.5 120 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 108 104 106 

SD 3.2 5.9 8.8 

CV (%) 3.0 5.7 8.3 

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

Example: 52.5 is the midpoint between 5 and 100 ug. Residue results ≤ 52.5 ug would use the adjustment factor corresponding to the 
Page 38 of 53 

Table S - 16. AHE58 – Hand Wash Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Ad

Study 

ID 

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date 

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adju

by Measured Residu

Low 

level 

(ug) 

Mid level (ug) High level (ug) ≤52.5 >52.5 to 

≤175 

>175 

to 

≤1125 

>1

t

≤2

5 100 250 2000 2200 5000 

AHE58 Malathion 

6/26/09 

103 -- 87.8 -- -- 62.3 

1.11 0.863 0.869 1

108 -- 90.9 -- -- 65.1 105 -- 82.2 -- -- 60.0 

7/1/09 

93.2 -- 109 -- 119 -- 

122 -- 48.6b -- 126 -- 124 -- 103 -- 120 -- 

7/28/09 

89.8 92.2 -- 89.8 -- -- 

128 87.4 -- 111 -- -- 126 85.8 -- 111 -- -- 

8/7/09 

112 85.2 -- 107 -- -- 

115 76.2 -- 96.8 -- -- 

--

c 91.0 -- 101 -- -- 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 111 86.3 86.9 103 122 62.5 

SD 13.0 5.7 21.2 8.5 3.8 2.6 

CV 

(%) 11.7 6.6 24.4 8.3 3.1 4.2 

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

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

b Sample is unusually low, though without clear explanation – thus, it was included in calculation of the 250 ug level average. c Sample not taken. 
Page 39 of 53 

Table S - 17. OVS Air Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustm

Study ID Active Ingredient Monitoring Date 

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Ad

by Measured Re

Low 

level 

(0.05 

ug) 

Mid 

level 

(0.5 ug) 

High 

level 

(100 ug) 

Highest 

level 

(1000 

ug) 

≤ 0.275 ug > 0.275 ug to 

AHE55 

Carbaryl 

10/28/08 

112 90.9 106 -- 

0.99 0.91

104 89.9 108 -- 

97.8 91.6 105 -- 

10/30/08 

90.6 93.1 111 -- 

94.0 90.8 89.3 -- 97.8 91.6 104 -- 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 99.4 91.3 104 -- 

SD 7.6 1.08 7.56 -- 

CV (%) 7.6 1.2 7.3 -- 

Malathion 

10/29/08 

203b 88.3 99.6 -- 

--

c 0.85

157b 80.8 91.0 -- 150b 86.8 88.3 -- 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean -- 85.3 93.0 -- 

SD -- 3.97 5.90 -- 

CV (%) -- 4.7 6.3 -- 

AHE59 Carbaryl 

4/30/09 

84.1 110 104 -- 

1.2 1.07 

92.7 110 110 -- 96.7 11.8d 105 -- 

5/7/09 

134 97.2 94.8 -- 

130 107 108 -- 141 109 103 -- 

5/9/09 

133 115 106 -- 

184 104 101 -- 163 101 103 -- 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 129 107 104 -- 

SD 33.1 5.7 4.4 -- 

CV (%) 25.7 5.3 4.2 -- 

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

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 mean. 

b Contamination suspected, thus results not used. 
Page 40 of 53 

Table S - 17. OVS Air Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustm

Study ID Active Ingredient Monitoring Date 

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Ad

by Measured Re

Low 

level 

(0.05 

ug) 

Mid 

level 

(0.5 ug) 

High 

level 

(100 ug) 

Highest 

level 

(1000 

ug) 

≤ 0.275 ug > 0.275 ug to 

c Due to suspected contamination of fortification samples, samples ≤ 0.275 ug will be adjusted using the mid-level fortification adjustmd Excluded from calculation of average recovery due to improper sample preparation. 
Page 41 of 53 

Table S - 18. OVS Air Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adjustm

Study ID Active Ingredient Monitoring Date 

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Ad

by Measured Re

Low 

level 

(0.05 

ug) 

Mid 

level 

(0.5 ug) 

High 

level 

(5 ug) 

Highest 

level 

(1000 

ug) 

≤ 0.275 ug > 0.275 ug to 

AHE56 

Carbaryl 

8/25/08 

96.0 94.7 78.8 -- 

0.975 0.914 

98.0 89.7 86.5 -- 98.6 89.9 74.1 -- 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 97.5 91.4 79.8 -- 

SD 1.4 2.8 6.2 -- 

CV (%) 1.4 3.1 7.8 -- 

Malathion 

8/27/08 

75.4 93.1 93.6 -- 

0.784 0.832 

75.2 72.2 85.5 -- 84.6 84.3 81.9 -- 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 78.4 83.2 87.0 -- 

SD 5.4 10.5 6.0 -- 

CV (%) 6.9 12.6 6.9 -- 

AHE57 Chloro- thalonil 

5/15/09 

120 82.1 96.0 -- 

0.979 0.80

91.1 86.9 91.8 -- 86.9 79.7 72.9 -- 

5/29/09 

94.1 82.8 91.8 -- 

96.7 68.6 98.5 -- 98.7 81.4 76.1 -- 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 97.9 80.3 87.8 -- 

SD 11.6 6.2 10.7 -- 

CV (%) 11.8 7.7 12.2 -- 

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

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 mean. 
Page 42 of 53 

Table S - 19. AHE58 – OVS Air Samples: Summary of Field Fortification Recovery Samples and Corresponding Adj

Study 

ID 

Active 

Ingredient Monitoring Date 

Field Fortification Recovery (%) Field Recovery Adju

by Measured Resi

Low level 

(ug) 

Mid level 

(ug) High level (ug) ≤0.275 >0.275 to ≤50.25 

0.05 0.5 100 250b

AHE58 Malathion 

6/26/09 

683c 114 -- 91.7 

1.11 0.952 

272c 87.6 -- 74.8 

96.3c 86.2 -- 102 

7/1/09 

205c 100 -- --d

197c 103 -- 185e236c 89.7 -- 212e

7/28/09 

106 95.6 109 -- 

115 90.6 90.6 -- 103 92.7 110 -- 

8/7/09 

118 80.6 113 -- 

104 98.5 112 -- 117 104 111 -- 

Summary 

Statistics 

Mean 111 95.2 108 89.5 

SD 6.9 9.2 8.4 13.7 

CV 

(%) 6.2 9.7 7.8 15.3 

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

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

b High-level samples prepared with 250 ug, but were supposed to have been prepared with 100 ug. This does not compromise results. c Due to improper fortification sample preparation these results were excluded from calculating the recovery average. d Sample lost during analysis. e Due to improper fortification sample preparation these results were excluded from calculating the recovery average. 
Page 43 of 53 

Table S - 20. Inner Dosimeter Field Sample Results 

Study 

ID 

MU 

ID 

Active 

Ingredient 

Analytical Method 

Levels 

(ug/sample)a

Lower Body Upper Bod

Raw 

Exposure 

(ug)b

Field Fortification Raw 

Exposure 

(ug)b

Field F

LOQ LOD Adjustment Factorc Adjusted Exposure (ug)d Adjustme

Factorc 

AHE55 

A1 Malathion 1.0 0.3 9.0 1.02 8.824 121 0.929 

A2 

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3 

1.7 0.778 2.185 35.6 0.778 

A3 53.0 0.852 62.21 8.9 0.778 A4 < LOQ -- 0.5 < LOQ -- A5 20.8 0.778 26.74 9.5 0.778 

AHE56 

A1 

Malathion 1.0 0.3 

34.6 0.871 39.72 < LOQ -- 

A2 12.2 0.871 14.01 15.3 0.871 A3 26.6 0.871 30.54 12.3 0.871 A4 Carbaryl 1.0 0.3 7.8 0.924 8.442 2.0 0.924 A5 27.8 0.924 30.09 1324 0.877 

AHE57 

A1 

Chlorothalonil 1.0 0.3 

2.749 0.926 2.916 9.113 0.926 

A2 6.758 0.926 7.343 < LOD -- A3 16.83 0.926 18.14 23.8 0.926 A4 11.88 0.926 12.85 4.285 0.926 A5 15.04 0.926 16.20 41.84 0.926 

AHE58 

A1 

Malathion 1.0 0.3 

1.75 1.14 1.579 48.1 1.14 

A2 2.51 1.14 2.193 5.07 1.14 A3 2.93 1.14 2.544 1.96 1.14 A4 1.38 1.14 1.228 9.2 1.14 A5 101.4 0.966 104.6 12.32 1.14 

AHE59 

A1 

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3 

< LOQ -- 0.5 1.164 0.897 

A2 < LOD -- 0.15 < LOQ -- A3 47.78 0.897 53.29 29.25 0.897 A4 2.318 0.897 2.564 11.81 0.897 

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used. b Calculated from chromatogram peak response (e.g., ug/mL) c From Supplemental Tables K-L. d Adjusted Exposure = Raw exposure ÷ Field Fortification Adjustment Factor e Total = Lower Body Adjusted Exposure + Upper Body Adjusted Exposure 
Page 44 of 53 

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

Study 

ID 

MU 

ID 

Active 

Ingredient 

Analytical 

Method Levels 

(ug/sample)a

Raw 

Exposure 

(ug)b

Face/Neck Exposure Adjustments Estimated 

Exposure to No

Wiped Portion 

Head 

(ug)f

Field Fortification 

Adjustment 

Factorc

PPE 

Adjustment 

Factord

Adjusted 

Exposure 

(ug)e LOQ LOD 

AHE55 

A1 Malathion 1.0 0.3 < LOQ -- 1.1 0.55 0.34 

A2 

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3 

< LOQ -- 1.1 0.55 0.34 

A3 3.4 0.760 1.0 4.474 2.7 A4 < LOD -- 1.1 0.17 0.10 A5 < LOQ -- 1.1 0.55 0.34 

AHE56 

A1 

Malathion 1.0 0.3 

< LOD -- 1.0 0.15 0.09 

A2 < LOQ -- 1.0 0.50 0.30 A3 < LOQ -- 1.0 0.50 0.30 A4 Carbaryl 1.0 0.3 < LOD -- 1.0 0.15 0.09 A5 < LOQ -- 1.0 0.50 0.30 

AHE57 

A1 

Chlorothalonil 1.0 0.3 

< LOD -- 1.0 0.15 0.09 

A2 < LOD -- 1.0 0.15 0.09 A3 1.55 0.967 1.0 1.655 1.009 A4 < LOD -- 1.0 0.15 0.09 A5 < LOQ -- 1.0 0.50 0.30 

AHE58 

A1 

Malathion 1.0 0.3 

2.37 1.04 1.3 2.963 1.83 

A2 < LOQ -- 1.0 0.5 0.30 A3 < LOD -- 1.0 0.15 0.09 A4 1.6 1.04 1.0 1.538 0.91 A5 < LOD -- 1.0 0.15 0.09 

AHE59 

A1 

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3 

< LOD -- 1.0 0.15 0.09 

A2 < LOQ -- 1.0 0.5 0.30 A3 < LOQ -- 1.0 0.5 0.30 A4 < LOQ -- 1.0 0.5 0.30 

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used. b Calculated from chromatogram peak response (e.g., ug/mL) c From Supplemental Tables M-N. d PPE characterized in Supplemental Table E. PPE Adjustment Factor discussed in Section 3.2.2. e Adjusted Exposure = Raw Exposure ÷ FF Adjustment Factor * PPE Adjustment Factor f Exposure to non-wiped portion of head = Adjusted Exposure * (2.95/4.84, for males) or (3.05/5.01, for females). MU-specific gender g Total Head Exposure = Adjusted face/neck wipe exposure + Extrapolated non-wiped head exposure. h MEA = method efficiency adjustment. Total head measurement corrected by a factor of 50% to account for potential collection meth
Page 45 of 53 

Table S - 22. Hand Wash Field Sample Results 

Study 

ID 

MU 

ID 

Active 

Ingredient 

Analytical 

Method 

Levels 

(ug/sample)a

Hand Wash Sampleb 

# 1 # 2 # 3 

Raw 

Exposure 

(ug)c

Field 

Fort. Adj. 

Factord

Raw 

Exposure 

(ug)c

Field 

Fort. Adj. 

Factord

Raw 

Exposure 

(ug)c

Field Fort. 

Adj. 

Factord

LOQ LOD 

AHE55 

A1 Malathion 1.0 0.3 136 0.987 72.2 0.986 -- -- 

A2 

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3 

34.9 0.891 41.0 0.892 -- -- 

A3 13.2 0.891 354 0.914 -- -- A4 1.5 0.891 9.1 0.892 -- -- A5 1.3 0.891 43.9 0.892 -- -- 

AHE56 

A1 

Malathion 1.0 0.3 

1.2 1.03 < LOQ -- -- -- 

A2 19.5 1.03 -- -- -- -- A3 < LOQ -- 7.2 1.03 -- -- A4 Carbaryl 1.0 0.3 30.0 0.958 -- -- -- -- A5 773 0.952 -- -- -- -- 

AHE57 

A1 

Chlorothalonil 1.0 0.3 

8.383 1.17 -- -- -- -- 

A2 < LOD -- < LOQ -- -- -- A3 10.865 1.17 -- -- -- -- A4 19.751 1.17 -- -- -- -- A5 24.126 1.17 -- -- -- -- 

AHE58 

A1 

Malathion 1.0 0.3 

79.3 0.863 -- -- -- -- 

A2 32.85 1.11 -- -- -- -- A3 2.92 1.11 -- -- -- -- A4 11.84 1.11 -- -- -- -- A5 23.65 1.11 -- -- -- -- 

AHE59 

A1 

Carbaryl 1.0 0.3 

9.301 1.08 -- -- -- -- 

A2 20.33 1.08 3.807 1.08 -- -- A3 5.909 1.08 4.90 1.08 109.1 1.04 A4 28.09 1.08 1363 1.06 -- -- 

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used. b Hand washes were conducted prior to lunch or bathroom breaks and at the end of the day. c Calculated from chromatogram peak response (e.g., ug/mL) d From Supplemental Tables O-P. e Total Hand Exposure = [Hand Wash #1 ÷ FF Adjustment Factor] + [Hand Wash #2 ÷ FF Adjustment Factor] + [Hand Wash #3 ÷ FF Af MEA = method efficiency adjustment. Total hand measurement corrected by a factor of 50% to account for potential collection metho
Page 46 of 53 

Table S - 23. OVS Air Sample Field Results and Inhalation Exposure 

Study 

ID 

MU 

ID 

Active 

Ingredient 

Analytical 

Method Levels 

(ug/sample)a

Measured Residue 

Front Section Back Section 

Br

R

(L

Raw 

Exposure 

(ug)b

Field 

Fort. 

Adj. 

Factorc

Adj. 

Exp.d

Raw 

Exposure 

(ug)b

Field 

Fort. Adj. 

Factorc

Adj. 

Exp.d LOQ LOD 

AHE55 

A1 Malathion 0.01 0.003 0.2472 0.853 0.2896 < LOD -- 0.0015 8

A2 

Carbaryl 0.01 0.003 

0.1407 0.944 0.1419 < LOD -- 0.0015 8

A3 1.330 0.913 1.457 < LOD -- 0.0015 8A4 0.1086 0.994 0.1097 < LOD -- 0.0015 8A5 0.3103 0.913 0.3395 < LOD -- 0.0015 8

AHE56 

A1 

Malathion 0.01 0.003 

0.0267 0.784 0.0341 < LOD -- 0.0015 8

A2 0.1900 0.784 0.2423 < LOD -- 0.0015 8A3 0.3800 0.832 0.4567 < LOD -- 0.0015 8A4 Carbaryl 0.01 0.003 0.0224 0.975 0.0227 < LOD -- 0.0015 8A5 0.4271 0.914 0.4379 < LOQ -- 0.005 8

AHE57 

A1 

Chlorothalonil 0.005 0.0015 

0.0364 0.979 0.0367 < LOD -- 0.00075 8

A2 0.0302 0.979 0.0304 < LOD -- 0.00075 8A3 0.0273 0.979 0.0279 < LOD -- 0.00075 8A4 0.1642 0.979 0.1652 < LOQ -- 0.0025 8A5 0.315 0.803 0.3923 < LOQ -- 0.0025 8

AHE58 

A1 

Malathion 0.005 0.0015 

0.8096 0.952 0.8508 < LOD -- 0.00075 8

A2 1.471 0.952 1.544 < LOD -- 0.00075 8A3 0.1092 1.11 0.0982 < LOQ -- 0.0025 8A4 1.161 0.952 1.218 < LOD -- 0.00075 8A5 0.0799 1.11 0.0720 < LOD -- 0.00075 8

AHE59 

A1 

Carbaryl 0.01 0.003 

0.3517 1.07 0.3290 < LOD -- 0.0015 8

A2 Invalid sample – sample time unknown. A3 0.3486 1.07 0.3262 < LOD -- 0.0015 8A4 0.3086 1.07 0.2888 < LOD -- 0.0015 8

a When < LOQ or < LOD is reported, 1⁄2 LOQ or 1⁄2 LOD is used. b Calculated from chromatogram peak response (e.g., ug/mL) c From Supplemental Tables Q-S. d Adjusted Exposure = Raw Exposure ÷ FF Adjustment Factor e Total Exposure = [Adjusted front section + Adjusted back section] * [Breathing Rate ÷ Pump Flow Rate] 
Page 47 of 53 

Table S - 24. Dermal and Inhalation Exposures 

Study 

ID 

MU 

ID 

AaiH 

(lbs)c

BW 

(kg) 

Dermala,b 

Inner WBD 

(μg) 

Hand 

(μg) 

Head 

(μg) 

Total Exposure Unit 

Exposure 

(ug/lb ai)f

(μg)d (μg/kg) e

NonMEA MEA Non- MEA MEA Non- MEA MEA Non- MEA MEA Non- MEA MEA 

AHE55 

A1 8 112 139.1 211.2 422 0.89 1.78 351 563 3.13 5.03 43.9 70.4 

A2 15 94 47.9 85.09 170 0.89 1.78 134 220 1.43 2.34 8.9 14.7 A3 24 106 73.7 402.1 804 7.17 14.40 483 892 4.56 8.42 20.1 37.2 A4 40 93 1.0 11.88 23.8 0.27 0.54 13.2 25.3 0.14 0.27 0.33 0.63 A5 75 92 39.0 50.67 101 0.89 1.78 90.5 142 0.98 1.54 1.2 1.9 

AHE56 

A1 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 

A2 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 A3 24.6 102 44.7 7.49 15 0.8 1.60 52.9 61.2 0.52 0.60 2.2 2.5 A4 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 A5 75.7 91 1540 812.8 1626 0.8 1.60 2354 3168 25.75 34.81 31.1 41.8 

AHE57 

A1 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 

A2 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 A3 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 A4 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 A5 90.3 91 61.3 20.62 41.2 0.8 1.60 82.7 104 0.90 1.14 0.92 1.2 

AHE58 

A1 63.5 77 43.8 91.89 184 4.79 9.60 141 237 1.83 3.08 2.2 3.7 

A2 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 A3 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 A4 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 A5 7.3 108 115.4 21.31 42.8 0.24 0.48 138 159 1.28 1.47 18.9 21.8 

AHE59 

A1 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 

A2 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 A3 15.9 85 85.8 114.9 230 0.80 1.60 202 318 2.38 3.74 12.7 20.0 A4 34.5 67 15.7 1312 2624 0.80 1.60 1329 2641 19.84 39.42 38.5 76.6 

a See Supplemental Tables T-V. b MEA = method efficiency adjusted; 50% method efficiency assumed – “Non-MEA” measurement multiplied by 2. c See Supplemental Table F. d Total Dermal Exposure = Inner Dosimeter + Hands + Head. e Total Exposure (μg) ÷ Body Weight (kg) f Unit Exposure (μg/lb ai) = Exposure (μg) ÷ AaiH (lbs). g See Supplemental Table W. 
Page 48 of 53 

Table S - 25. Select Excerpts from Field Observations 

Study ID MU ID Airblast cab entrances/exits (#) Observation 

AHE55 

A1 4 

1113: “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 16 

1207: “...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 10 

1032: “...exits cab...no gloves worn since no contact with equipment.” 

1144: “...exits cab without gloves...shuts the door...contacting the side edge.” 1214: “...opens door with bare hands...” 

A4 4 

1032: “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 8 1032: “...exits cab wearing gloves. Opens up back of sprayer...” 1529: “...exits cab. Not wearing gloves.” 

AHE56 

A1 12 

0833: “Donning gloves while exiting cab...” 

0911: “Out of tractor with gloves on...” 0934: “Donned gloves while exiting tractor...” 

A2 14 1119: “...exited cab, donned gloves.” 1149: “Exited cab, wearing fresh gloves...” A3 16 

1137: “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 gloves on...leaning against sprayer” 1347: “Out of cab, gloves on...holds onto...other application equipment.” 

A4 6 

0134: “...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 22 

0640: “Waited inside truck during M/L.” 

0710: “...gets out of the truck to adjust spray pressure while wearing gloves.” 0742: “Rain had started...” 0835-0843: “Donned clean gloves. Left shirt sleeve cuff is open...states that the button po
Page 49 of 53 

Table S - 25. Select Excerpts from Field Observations 

Study ID MU ID Airblast cab entrances/exits (#) Observation 

nozzles...reached down into nozzle area with right arm up to arm pit...lean on fan casing...

nozzles” 

1017: “...out of truck wearing gloves.” 1025: “...continued to blow out spray nozzles...left shirt sleeve opening near mid-forearm, 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.” 

AHE57 

A1 4 1430: “Arrived at mix/load area and got out of the cab with fresh gloves.” 1528: “Put on clean gloves when he left the tractor...” 

A2 4 0710: “...stayed inside cab...” 0829: “Dons gloves before entering cab and discards gloves outside the cab.” A3 6 

1403: “...shirts sleeve unbuttoned...also unbuttoned...above waist.” 

1534: “...exited the cab with clean gloves on.” 1648: “...drop of spray...landed on his hand...wiped his hand on right pant leg.” 

A4 8 

1534: “Donned nitrile gloves and stood near tractor...” 

1710: “Exited tractor with clean gloves...reentered cab...again exited tractor...inner dosim

back...near his waist...” 

A5 6 0630: “...exited tractor with clean gloves.” 0806: “...got out of the cab with clean gloves.” 

AHE58 

A1 14 

1005-1012: “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...” 

A2 8 0948: “Mixer overfilled tank. Two-three gallons spilled at top of tank. Re-entered tractorA3 10 Nothing noteworthy. A4 12 

0330: “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 4 0814: “Turned off water near tank with bare hand...” 0930: “Touched inner dosimeter (cuff) with bare hand.” 

AHE59 

A1 10 

Gen. obs.: “...did not wear the chemical resistant gloves during the mixing/loading proces

0858: “Climbed back into cab, opened door with bare hands.” 0951: “Opened cab door and tied ribbon marker to tree (observer unable to determine whethis process).” 

A2 4 

Gen. obs.: “The applicator was not observed to handle anything except the door and door hbare hand.” 

1000: “Arrives at mixing/loading station remained sitting inside cab.” 
Page 50 of 53 

Table S - 25. Select Excerpts from Field Observations 

Study ID MU ID Airblast cab entrances/exits (#) Observation 

A3 12 

0821: “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 han

A4 26 

Gen. obs.: “Exchange of tractor and sprayer...” 

0822: “Inner dosimeter cuff is observed at right wrist, out from right shirt sleeve. Long sleinto pants. 0833: “Spoke to mixer loader through opened back window of tractor cab. Closed window1102: “...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 with bare hands, turned off a couple nozzles...” 
Page 51 of 53 

Table S - 26. Protocol Amendments and Deviations 

Study 

ID Summary of Amendments Summary of Deviations Field Phase Ana

AHE55 

The study report indicates that the protocol was amended/changed three times prior to execution of the field phase, however it did not summarize these changes. The IIRB Correspondence Report shows only one amendment, to address EPA and HSRB comments following the June 2008 HSRB meeting. 

Reported: • On two occasions MUs were selected randomly 

using a coin flip rather than writing names and picking from hats, per AHETF protocol. 

Unreported: • Rather than growers being reimbursed for the 

pesticide used in the study as required by section 2.4 of the protocol, the Local Site Coordinator purchased the product and delivered it to the application sites. 

• The witness for the consent process for a nonreader was selected by the prospective subject, 

contrary to the protocol requirement that the witness should not have an association with the grower or worker. 

• Despite protocol indicating that wearing chemicalresistant gloves while outside the cab would be 

enforced, observations indicate that this occurred. 

• 4 of 5 MUs did not achieve 4 hours of “spray 

time”. 

None reported 

AHE56 

The study report indicates that the protocol was amended/changed twice prior to execution of the field phase, however it did not summarize these changes. The IIRB Correspondence Report shows only one amendment, to address EPA and HSRB comments following the June 2008 HSRB meeting. 

Reported: • The original list of eligible growers was exhausted 

before successfully recruiting enough workers for monitoring. Two growers ultimately monitored were referred to the AHETF by other growers, and did not appear on the eligible grower list. This was a reported deviation since the protocol did not provide guidance on recruitment beyond eligible growers list. 

• Informed consent form signed by MU A5 after 

donning inner dosimeter garment. 

• Travel fortification samples were not prepared 

until monitoring day 4. 

• MU A4 took bathroom break without handwash 

• OVS samplin

15% criteria back-calculatstandard. 

• Travel spikes 

• For Set 2a OV

aliquot was u(deviation repcorrespondenAppendix B 
Page 52 of 53 

Table S - 26. Protocol Amendments and Deviations 

Study 

ID Summary of Amendments Summary of Deviations Field Phase Ana

sample being taken. 

• Air flow rotometer measurement taken after 

removal of sampling gear from workers. 

Unreported: • No MU achieved 4 hours of “spray time”. 

AHE57 

The study report indicates that the protocol was amended/changed twice prior to execution of the field phase. One amendment was to address EPA and HSRB comments following the October 2008 HSRB meeting. The second amendment was to edit a sentence on purity analysis. 

Reported: • One subject applied 10.68 lbs (1.68 lbs above 

stratum 5-9 lbs); was monitored for 2 hours (the protocol prescribes a minimum of 4 hours of application time); and applied only 2 tank loads (the protocol prescribes a minimum of 3 tank loads). 

Unreported: • Two subjects applied amounts outside the desired 

AaiH stratum. 

• No subject achieved 4 hours of “spray time”. 

• Inner dosime

concurrent rediluted to 5 mwere diluted supposed to bmanner). 

• Protocol lists 

not used. 

• Aliquot devia

0001 for 2-pidosimeters. 

• Back-calcula

values for the sample and thwipe standard theoretical va(reported in Iin study repo

AHE58 

1 • Inclusion criteria added to allow for 

workers who normally wear two layers of clothing, provided the worker is willing to substitute the normally worn inner layer with the AHETF-provided one-piece dosimeter. 

• Recruitment area expanded to any county 

in CA or WA if protocol-specified counties do not provide sufficient number of eligible growers. 

• Removed efficient configuration 

requirement if recruitment area is 

Reported: • Inner dosimeters were not folded after 

administration of field fortifications and prior to covering with cloth. 

• Low level field fortifications conducted in 

duplicate on day 4 instead of triplicate. 

• MU A5 monitored for 3 hours 8 minutes (less than 

prescribed 4 hours). 

• Field fortifications done at (known) levels 

different than specified in protocol. 

• Concentratio

fortification svolume based gravimetricalfield fortifica
Page 53 of 53 

Table S - 26. Protocol Amendments and Deviations 

Study 

ID Summary of Amendments Summary of Deviations Field Phase Ana

expanded. 

Unreported: • Despite protocol indicating that wearing chemicalresistant gloves while outside the cab would be 

enforced, observations indicate that this occurred. 

• The following MUs handled amounts of active 

ingredient outside the desired range indicated in the protocol: MU A2, A3, A4. 

2 Added a malathion product to possible test 

substances 

AHE59 

Two carbaryl products were added to possible test substances 

Reported: • Post-monitoring photographs of worker clothing 

were not taken.

• Though use of two additional carbaryl products 

was approved by EPA and product risk statements (PRS) were IIRB approved before monitoring, the amendment (Amendment 1) adding the additional carbaryl products was not approved until after the monitoring had taken place. 

Unreported: • Despite protocol indicating that wearing chemicalresistant gloves while outside the cab would be 

enforced, observations indicate that this occurred. 

• The following MUs handled amounts of active 

ingredient outside the desired range indicated in the protocol: MU A2, A3. 

• Only 1 of 4 MUs achieved 4 hours of “spray 

time”. 

• Curve standa

than 15% critAppendix B