## Literature Review of Measured TCE Concentrations in Indoor Air **(Version 1, November 12, 2013)**

**Introduction** On October 28, 2013, EPA requested Versar to conduct a literature review of reported indoor air concentrations of TCE. This effort focused on TCE's use as a degreaser by consumers in residential settings and as a clear protective coating spray by arts and crafts hobbyists. Additionally, literature search efforts were focused only on inhalation exposure pathways.


### Methodology Versar’s literature search efforts relied primarily on Google & Google Scholar, using word combinations such as TCE with residential, air, indoor air, concentration, exposure, inhalation, and consumer product. Moreover, special emphasis was given to summary review documents that compiled findings from multiple peer-reviewed sources.



### Results **[Lit. Search Summary Matrix] - Qualitative Summary**
A total of 37 articles were identified and reviewed for this effort. A 'Qualitative' summary of the literature review efforts are provided in [Lit. Search Summary Matrix]. This matrix table lists (vertically) all the articles that were reviewed and it also lists (horizontally) the media and exposure routes of TCE. 'Check marks' indicate the type of data available for TCE for each article reviewed. Finally, a 'Notes' column provides some additional details for each article reviewed.


### [Indoor Air Stats & QC] - Quantitative Summary A 'Quantitative' summary of the reported TCE concentrations are provided for each article in [Indoor Air Stats & QC]. This matrix table lists (vertically) all the articles that were reviewed and lists (horizontally) the descriptive statistics, and analytical data summary for TCE concentrations. Numerical estimates (if available) are summarized for each article in this matrix table. Finally, a brief description of the sampling methodology along with QA/QC procedures are provided for each article.


### Article Summaries

The individual article review sheets are on the number tabs with each number indexed to the number in the “Sheet Name” column on the summary sheets (Column A). Each individual article review sheet is organized into approximately three major areas, as follows: 1. Overview Area – this is the information in rows 1 – 6 on each review sheet 2. Data Categories – this is the data contained in rows 7 – 31 3. IA/PA data – this is the data starting in row 32 **Overview Area** The overview area contains a summary of the article reviewed, including: • The electronic filename, • The title and authors, • The abstract, and • The citation.**Data Categories**

The data categories contains the data displayed on each of the summary sheets. The summary checkmarks in [Lit. Search Summary] are tabulated in Column A between rows 8 and 25, with “x”s representing data availability in the respective article. The data included in [Indoor Air Stats & QC] that are summarized in the table on each individual review sheet (columns A-F, rows 8-25), also based on the data found in the article during our review. The "Notes" column in [Lit. Search Summary Matrix] contains a one or two sentence description of the purpose of the study described in and/or the type of data presented in the article. The methods area (cell C29, summarized in column U in the “Indoor Air Stats & QC” matrix table) contains a very brief summary of the methods used in the study and/or data presented in the article. **IA/PA Data Summary**
The area of each review spreadsheet contains notes and/or data taken from the article relative to indoor air (IA) or personal air (PA). The data in this area are primarily used to summarize the statistics and methods reported on the “Indoor Air Stats & QC” matrix table.**S h** **e e** **t N** **a m** **e**

**Authors & Date (PDF file name)**  **TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air**  **TCE personal air TCE in soil**  **TCE in water supply TCE in ground water supply**  **TCE in surface water supply TCE in breath**  **TCE in blood TCE in urine**  **Consumer product Vapor intrusion**  **Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure**  **Ingestion exposure Air modeling**  **PBPK modeling Lit review / summary** 

**Notes**

**1** Adgate etal 2004a.pdf   SHIELD study elementary school children Minneapolis, MN TCE measurements in school air **2** Adgate etal 2004b.pdf  Minnesota Children’s Pesticide Exposure Study; 6-day average VOC concentrations in residential air, Table 4 **3** Clayton et al 1999.pdf    Summary/Analysis of NHEXAS data
**4** Kinney et al 2002.pdf  TEACH (Toxic Exposure Assessment, a Columbia/Harvard) Study, innercity neighborhoods in NYC **5** Lindstrom & Pleil 1996.pdf    2-day study of residential microenvironmental TCE concentrations in Illinios due to groundwater contamination **6** Wu & Schaum 2000.pdf     General population TCE exposure assessment with some reported media concentrations **7** Gordon et al., 1999.pdf  Summary of sampling methods and analysis of NHEXAS data **8** Weisel et al., 2008.pdf  Indoor VOC concentrations (TCE) in NJ homes. Comparison with values measured in other studies **9** EPA 2001a.PDF     Summary of exposure/media data. Exposure assessment **10** Fitzpatrick & Fitzgerald 2002.pdf  Study of relationshp between TCE concentrations in GW and SVI as influenced by building construction, soil types, depth to GW, etc. **11** Yauck etal 2004.pdf This paper examines increased cogenital heart defects due to TCE exposure. This paper does not contain useful concentration data. **12** EPA 1993.pdf  TCE ground water concentrations at Superfund sites. **13** Loh etal 2006.pdf Contains non-residential measured data **14** Yu etal 2009.pdf   Model evaluation for SVI, model predictions for indoor air based on conceptual scenarios **15** EPA 2000.pdf   No useful indoor air concentration data **16** Zhu etal 2005.pdf  VOCs levels measured in indoor and outdoor air at 75 randomly selected houses, Ottawa Canada, winter of 2002/2003. **17** Hers etal 2001.pdf  Summary of SVI mechanisms and relevant parameters, including emissions, building characteristics. **18** Martin & Imbrigiotta 1994.pdf  Summary of ground water plume at the Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. No useful indoor air concentration data. **19** Xu and Weisel 2005.pdf  Did not study TCE **20** Wormuth etal 2007.pdf   Review of European exposure assessment practices, legislation, and case studies **21** Chiu etal 2006.pdf Discussion of scientific issues related to TCE risk assessment **22** Scott and Chiu 2006.pdf Epidemiology study **23** Sohn, McKone, Blancato 2004.pdf   PBPK modeling study; dose reconstruction **24** Daniels etal 2000.pdf  Uncertainties associated with modeling TCE expsoure **25** Kerger at al., 2000.pdf  No new TCE data **26** McKone & Knezovich 1991.pdf  Experimental TCE transfer efficiency measurements. No residential/indoor air measurements. **27** ATSDR 1997.pdf     Literature review of data for use in assessing exposure to TCE. No original data. **28** ATSDR 2013.pdf     Literature review of data for use in assessing exposure to TCE. No original data. **29** EPA 2011a.pdf TCE Literature review of data in support of IRIS. No original data. **30** CARB 1990.pdf    Lit. review for use by CA Dept of Health Services in its determina-tion of whether TCE should be identified as toxic air contaminant. **31** EPA 2011b.pdf   *** Very nice summary of indoor air measurement literature ***
**32** EPA 2012.pdf    TCE TSCA Risk Assessment for degreaser and Arts/Crafts Uses.
**33** EPA 2001b.PDF  Simulated TCE Exposure scenarios
**34** Cronin etal 1996  TCE PBPK modeling study
**35** Shah & Singh, 1988  Database of VOC measurements.
**36** McHugh etal, 2004  Analysis of the correlation between ground water and indoor air concentrations, estimated attenuation factors **37** Jia etal 2008 VOC sampling study conducted in Southeast Michigan in 1999

***** A = Highly relevant; B = Moderately relevant; C = Marginally relevant

1 Adgate, J. L., T. R. Church, A. D. Ryan, G. Ramachandran, A. L. Fredrickson, T. H. Stock, M. T. Morandi, and K. Sexton. 2004. Outdoor, Indoor, and Personal Exposure to Vocs in Children. Environ Health Perspect, 112(14), 1386-1392. 2 Adgate, J. L., L. E. Eberly, C. Stroebel, E. D. Pellizzari, and K. Sexton. 2004. Personal, Indoor, and Outdoor Voc Exposures in a Probability Sample of Children. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol, 14(S1), S4-S13. 3 Clayton, C. A., E. D. Pellizzari, R. W. Whitmore, R. L. Perritt, and J. J. Quackenboss. 1999. National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS): Distributions and Associations of Lead, Arsenic, and Volatile Organic Compounds in EPA Region 5. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol, 9(5), 381-392. 4 Kinney, P. L., S. N. Chillrud, S. Ramstrom, J. Ross, and J. D. Spengler. 2002. Exposures to Multiple Air Toxics in New York City. Environ Health Perspect, 110 Suppl 4, 539-546. 5 Lindstrom, A. B., and J. D. Pleil. 1996. A Methodological Approach for Exposure Assessment Studies in Residences Using Volatile Organic-Compound-Contaminated Water. J Air Waste Manage Assoc, 46(11), 1058-1066. 6 Wu, C., and J. Schaum. 2000. Exposure Assessment of Trichloroethylene. Environ Health Perspect, 108 Suppl 2, 359-363. 7 Gordon, S. M., P. J. Callahan, M. G. Nishioka, M. C. Brinkman, M. K. O'Rourke, M. D. Lebowitz, and D. J. Moschandreas. 1999. Residential Environmental Measurements in the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) Pilot Study in Arizona: Preliminary Results for Pesticides and Vocs. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol, 9(5), 456-470. 8 Weisel, C. P., S. Alimokhtari, and P. F. Sanders. 2008. Indoor Air Voc Concentrations in Suburban and Rural New Jersey. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(22), 8231-8238. 9 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001a. Trichloroethylene Health Risk Assessment: Synthesis and Characterization. EPA/600/P-01/002A. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 10 Fitzpatrick, N. A., and J. J. Fitzgerald. 2002. An Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion into Buildings through a Study of Field Data. Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal, 11(4), 603-623. 11 Yauck, J. S., M. E. Malloy, K. Blair, P. M. Simpson, and D. G. McCarver. 2004. Proximity of Residence to Trichloroethylene-Emitting Sites and Increased Risk of Offspring Congenital Heart Defects among Older Women. Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology, 70(10), 808-814. 12 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Evaluation of the Likelihood of Dnapl Presence at Npl Sites. EPA/540R-93-073. Hazardous Site Control Division, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/540r-93073-s.pdf. 13 Loh, M. M., E. A. Houseman, G. M. Gray, J. I. Levy, J. D. Spengler, and D. H. Bennett. 2006. Measured Concentrations of Vocs in Several Non-Residential Microenvironments in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(22), 6903-6911. 14 Yu, S., A. J. A. Unger, and B. Parker. 2009. Simulating the Fate and Transport of TCE from Groundwater to Indoor Air. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 107(3-4), 140-161. 15 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. National Air Toxics Program: The Integrated Urban Strategy, Report to Congress. EPA-453/R-99-007. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/urban/natprpt.pdf. 16 Zhu, J., R. Newhook, L. Marro, and C. C. Chan. 2005. Selected Volatile Organic Compounds in Residential Air in the City of Ottawa, Canada. Environmental Science & Technology, 39(11), 3964-3971. **Bibliography S** **h e** **e t** **N a** **m e** 

**Authors & Date (PDF file name)**  **TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air**  **TCE personal air TCE in soil**  **TCE in water supply TCE in ground water supply**  **TCE in surface water supply TCE in breath**  **TCE in blood TCE in urine**  **Consumer product Vapor intrusion**  **Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure**  **Ingestion exposure Air modeling**  **PBPK modeling Lit review / summary** 

**Notes**

17 Hers, I., R. Zapf-Gilje, L. Li, and J. Atwater. 2001. The Use of Indoor Air Measurements to Evaluate Intrusion of Subsurface Voc Vapors into Buildings. J Air Waste Manage Assoc, 51(9), 1318-1331. 18 Martin, M., and T. E. Imbrogiotta. 1994. Case Study on the Contamination of Ground Water with Trichloroethylene at the Building 24 Site at Picatinny Aresenal, New Jersey. In Symposium on Natural Attenuation of Ground Water (EPA/600/R-94/162) (pp. 109-115). Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/300038JE.pdf. 19 Xu, X., and C. P. Weisel. 2005. Human Respiratory Uptake of Chloroform and Haloketones During Showering. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol, 15(1), 6-16. 20 Wormuth, M., E. Demou, M. Scheringer, and K. Hungerbühler. 2007. Assessments of Direct Human Exposure-the Approach of Eu Risk Assessments Compared to Scenario-Based Risk Assessment. Risk Analysis, 27(4), 979-990. 21 Chiu, W. A., J. C. Caldwell, N. Keshava, and C. S. Scott. 2006. Key Scientific Issues in the Health Risk Assessment of Trichloroethylene. Environ Health Perspect, 114(9), 1445-1449. 22 Scott, C. S., and W. A. Chiu. 2006. Trichloroethylene Cancer Epidemiology: A Consideration of Select Issues. Environ Health Perspect, 114(9), 1471-1478. 23 Sohn, M. D., T. E. McKone, and J. N. Blancato. 2004. Reconstructing Population Exposures from Dose Biomarkers: Inhalation of Trichloroethylene (TCE) as a Case Study. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol, 14(3), 204-213. 24 Daniels, J. I., K. T. Bogen, and L. C. Hall. 2000. Analysis of Uncertainty and Variability in Exposure to Characterize Risk: Case Study Involving Trichloroethylene Groundwater Contamination at Beale Air Force Base in California. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 123(1-4), 273-298. 25 Kerger, B. D., C. E. Schmidt, and D. J. Paustenbach. 2000. Assessment of Airborne Exposure to Trihalomethanes from Tap Water in Residential Showers and Baths. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 637-652. 26 McKone, T. E., and J. P. Knezovich. 1991. The Transfer of Trichloroethyene (TCE) from a Shower to Indoor Air: Experimental Measurements and Their Implications. J Air Waste Manage Assoc, 41(6), 832-837. 27 ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1997. Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene. Division of Toxicology, Toxicology Information Branch, Atlanta, GA. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp19.pdf. 28 ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2013. Addendum to the Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene. Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Atlanta, GA. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tce_addendum.pdf. 29 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011b. Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene (Cas No. 79-01-6). EPA/635/R-09/011F. Integrated Risk Information System, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/0199index.html. 30 CARB (California Air Resources Board). 1990. Technical Support Document; Proposed Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Part A: Exposure Assessment. Stationary Source Division, Sacramento, CA. 31 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011b. Background Indoor Air Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in North American Residences (1990-2005): A Compilation of Statistics for Assessing Vapor Intrusion. EPA 530-R-10-001. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/oswer/vaporintrusion/documents/oswer-vapor-intrusion-background-Report-062411.pdf. 32 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Draft TSCA Workplan Chemical Risk Assessment for Trichloroethylene : Degreaser and Arts/Crafts Uses. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/TSCA_Workplan_Chemical_Risk_Assessment_of_DCM.pdf. 33 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001b. Sources, Emission and Exposure for Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Related Chemicals. EPA/600/R-00/099 National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 34 Cronin, W. J., E. J. Oswald, M. L. Shelley, J. W. Fisher, and C. D. Flemming. 1995. A Trichloroethylene Risk Assessment Using a Monte Carlo Analysis of Parameter Uncertainty in Conjunction with Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling. Risk Analysis, 15(5), 555-565. 35 Shah, J. J., and H. B. Singh. 1988. Distribution of Volatile Organic Chemicals in Outdoor and Indoor Air: A National Vocs Data Base. Environmental Science & Technology, 22(12), 1381-1388. 36 McHugh, T. E., J. A. Connor, and F. Ahmad. 2004. An Empirical Analysis of the Groundwater-to-Indoor-Air Exposure Pathway: The Role of Background Concentrations in Indoor Air. Environmental Forensics, 5(1), 33-44. 37 Jia, C., S. Batterman, and C. Godwin. 2008. Vocs in Industrial, Urban and Suburban Neighborhoods, Part 1: Indoor and Outdoor Concentrations, Variation, and Risk Drivers. Atmospheric Environment, 42(9), 2083-2100.**S h** **e e** **t N** **a m** **e**

**Authors & Date**

**(PDF file name) Number of measurements**  **Minimum detection limit (MDL) Percent above MDL**  **Arithmetic mean Arithmetic std. dev.**  **Geometric mean Geometric std. dev.**  **Minimum 25th percentile**  **50th percentile 75th percentile**  **Maximum Blanks** **Spikes Duplicates**  **Methods (including QA/QC)** 

**1** Adgate etal 2004a.pdf, Winter Study **93 82.8**  **0.3 10%** Passive monitors (OVM Model 3520) analyzed by gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer **1** Adgate etal 2004a.pdf, Spring Study **101 0.2**  **89 0.6**  **0.4 0.6**  **0.7 1.1**  **Yes Yes**  Passive monitors (OVM Model 3520) analyzed by gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer **2** Adgate etal 2004b.pdf, Winter Study **284 0.2**  **94 0.7**  **0.4 0.5**  **0.8 1.4**  **Yes Yes**  Passive monitors (OVM Model 3520) analyzed by gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer **2** Adgate etal 2004b.pdf, Spring Study **101 0.2**  **89 0.6**  **0.4 0.6**  **0.7 1.1**  **Yes Yes**  Passive monitors (OVM Model 3520) analyzed by gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer **3** Clayton et al 1999.pdf **386 39.4**  **5.27 0.63**  Analytical Methods not reported, see Pellizzari et al. (1995

**4** Kinney et al 2002.pdf **36 0.15**  **1.26 3.59**  **0.15 Yes**  **10%**Personal samples, battery operated pump, VOC thermal desorption tube (multi-sorbent "Air toxics" tubes, TO-17) **4** Kinney et al 2002.pdf **38 0.15**  **0.32 0.52**  **0 Yes**  **10%**Personal samples, battery operated pump, VOC thermal desorption tube (multi-sorbent "Air toxics" tubes, TO-17) **5** Lindstrom & Pleil 1996.pdf **2 0.91**  **100 21.8**  **16.6 37.4**  **Yes** TO-14 (modified)

**6** Wu & Schaum 2000.pdf Review of ambient air data and modeling results, in support of TCE exposure assessments **7** Gordon et al., 1999.pdf **185 1.02**  **1 <1.8**  **<1.8 Yes**  **Yes Yes**  Analysis with GC/MS for the air, soil, and dust extracts (Model HP 5971 GC/MS; Hewlett Packard) **8** Weisel et al., 2008.pdf **100 2.7/1.1**  **8 <1.1**  **<1.1 <2.7**  **<2.7 13**  **Yes Yes**  **Yes** SUMMA Canisters with flow controller, TO-15

**9** EPA 2001a.PDF Outdoor air samples, SUMMA Canisters with flow controller, TO-15. No indoor air samples **10** Fitzpatrick & Fitzgerald 2002.pdf Reports 4 measured indoor concentrations due to SVI, none are residential **11** Yauck etal 2004.pdf This paper examines increased cogenital heart defects due to TCE exposure. This paper does not contain useful concentration data. **12** EPA 1993.pdf Summary of ground water concentrations (ranges) at 310 superfund sites. No useful air concentrations **13** Loh etal 2006.pdf Measured in non-residential microenvironments. No residential measurements. **14** Yu etal 2009.pdf Model evaluation for SVI. Conceptual model perditions for indoor concentrations, but no measurement data. **15** EPA 2000.pdf Summary of HAP emissions, efforts, studies, etc. No useful indoor air concentration data. **16** Zhu etal 2005.pdf 75 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.08 Yes Yes Yes Thermal desorption tubes were used to collect samples. Analysis by GC/MS. **17** Hers etal 2001.pdf Summary of SVI mechanisms and relevant parameters, including emissions, building characteristics. No useful indoor air **18** Martin & Imbrigiotta 1994.pdf Summary of ground water plume at the Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. No useful indoor air concentration data. **19** Xu and Weisel 2005.pdf Did not study TCE **20** Wormuth etal 2007.pdf No useful indoor air concentration data.**S h** **e e** **t N** **a m** **e**

**Authors & Date**

**(PDF file name) Number of measurements**  **Minimum detection limit (MDL) Percent above MDL**  **Arithmetic mean Arithmetic std. dev.**  **Geometric mean Geometric std. dev.**  **Minimum 25th percentile**  **50th percentile 75th percentile**  **Maximum Blanks** **Spikes Duplicates**  **Methods (including QA/QC)** 

**21** Chiu etal 2006.pdf No useful indoor air concentration data.

**22** Scott and Chiu 2006.pdf No useful indoor air concentration data.

**23** Sohn, McKone, Blancato 2004.pdf No useful indoor air concentration data.

**24** Daniels etal 2000.pdf No useful indoor air concentration data.

**25** Kerger at al., 2000.pdf **Yes Yes**  **Yes** No original TCE data (THM data). Air samples gathered in SUMMA canisters; analyzed per EPA Method TO-14 **26** McKone & Knezovich 1991.pdf Paper summarizes the results of laboratory measurements of TCE transfer efficiency. No residential/indoor air measurements. **27** ATSDR 1997.pdf Report summarizes the literature data for use in assessing exposure to TCE. No original data. **28** ATSDR 2013.pdf Update to previous report; summarizes the literature data for use in assessing exposure to TCE. No original data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x
x

x

**Notes DATA CATEGORIES** Personal VOC Concs

Location

**Sample Methods** Home Samples pg 1387 pg 1387

MDL

School Samples pg 1387 pg 1387

Outdoor **IA/PA Data Summary**Outdoor, Indoor, and Personal Exposure to VOCs in Children

John L. Adgate,1 Timothy R. Church,1 Andrew D. Ryan,1 Gurumurthy Ramachandran,1 Ann L. Fredrickson,1 Thomas H. Stock,2 Maria T. Morandi,2 and Ken Sexton3

We measured volatile organic compound (VOC) exposures in multiple locations for a diverse population of children who attended two inner-city schools in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Fifteen common VOCs were measured at four locations: outdoors (O), indoors at school (S), indoors at home (H), and in personal samples (P). Concentrations of most VOCs followed the general pattern O≈ S < P ≤ H across the measured microenvironments. The S and O environments had the smallest and H the largest influence on personal exposure to most compounds. A time-weighted model of P exposure using all measured microenvironments and time–activity data provided little additional explanatory power beyond that provided by using the H measurement alone. Although H and P concentrations of most VOCs measured in this study were similar to orlower than levels measured in recent personal monitoring studies of adults and children in the United States, pdichlorobenzene was the notable exception to this pattern, with upper-bound exposures more than 100 times greater than those found in other studies of children. Median and upper-bound H and P exposures were well above health benchmarks for several compounds, so outdoor measurements likely underestimate long-term health risks from children’s exposure to these compounds. Key words: air pollution, elementary school children, ethnicity, health risk, race, SHIELD study. Environ Health Perspect 112:1386–1392 (2004).
Environ Health Perspect 112:1386–1392 (2004). Available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 15 July 2004]

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

SHIELD study elementary school children Minneapolis, MN TCE measurements in school air **Adgate etal 2004a.pdf**Minnesota

Inner-city schools in Minneapolis
Passive monitors (OVM Model 3520). All extracts were analyzed by gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer with a Hewlett-Packard (HP) 5890 Series II Plus gas chromatograph with an HP 5972 mass spectrometer detector, HP 18593B autosampler, Vectra 486 computer with EnvironQuant ChemStation software, and NBS75K Spectra Library (all from Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA), using an RTX-1/60 m/0.25 μm inner diameter/1 mm film

48 hours, Continuous (one sample) OVM Model 3520, 3M Corp -- Charcoal-based passive diffusion monitors, https://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/validated/1005/1005.html http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3M-PPE-Safety-Solutions/Personal-Protective-Equipment/Products/Product-Catalog/~/3M-Organic-Vapor-Monitor-3520-with-Backup-Section-5-Case?N=4294930398+5011378&Nr=AND(hrcy_id%3AGSDCL4N0KBgs_VQ7TVCV6T7_N2RL3FHWVK_GPD0K8BC31gv)&rt=d Not Reported

Same method as home School days, passive monitor, uncapped at beginning of day, capped at end of school day, 5 school days, appoximately 31 hours total 5 randomly selected classrooms

Same method as home Outdoor air collected outdoors at school Continuous, starting Monday Morning, ending Friday afternoon at each school (~103 hours)Winter Study Spring Study

93 Number of measurments 88 NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR 82.8 Percent above MDL 73.7

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR 0.3 50th percentile 0.2 NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR 10% Duplicates 10% NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR

Stat & QC SummaryPersonal VOC Concs Figure 1

Individual VOCs Table 2

Results

p 1389, Table 2

% Detect 10th 50th 90th % Detect 10 Personal 90.3 0.1 0.3 0.8 72.7 0.1 Home 82.8 0.1 0.3 0.9 73.7 0.1 Outdoors 62.5 0 0.3 1 80 0.1 School 72.9 0.1 0.2 0.8 55.6 0
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3M-PPE-Safety-Solutions/Personal-Protective-Equipment/Products/Product-Catalog/~/3M-Organic-Vapor-Monitor-3520-with-Backup-Section-5-Case?N=4294930398+5011378&Nr=AND(hrcy_id%3AGSDCL4N0KBgs_VQ7TVCV6T7_N2RL3FHWVK_GPD0K8BC31gv)&rt=d School **TCE, Spring, μg/m3 (N=88)** (Jan 24 - Feb 18, 2000) (Apr 9 - May 12, 2000) Passive monitors (OVM Model 3520) analyzed by gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer

**TCE, Winter, μg/m3 (N=93)**50 90

0.2 0.8 0.2 1.7 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.3
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3M-PPE-Safety-Solutions/Personal-Protective-Equipment/Products/Product-Catalog/~/3M-Organic-Vapor-Monitor-3520-with-Backup-Section-5-Case?N=4294930398+5011378&Nr=AND(hrcy_id%3AGSDCL4N0KBgs_VQ7TVCV6T7_N2RL3FHWVK_GPD0K8BC31gv)&rt=d **TCE, Spring, μg/m3 (N=88)** (Apr 9 - May 12, 2000)Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors**  **Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x **DATA CATEGORIES**Probable exposed population

Location

Samplling period: 6 day continuous sampl take between May and Sept 1997 Indoor Sample deployed in room where family spent most of their time Children between ages of 3 and 12 Personal sample child's day pack during the day and beside bed at night Outdoor location not discussed

MDL Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**Personal, Indoor, and Outdoor VOC Exposures in a Probability Sample of Children

John l. Adgate, Lynn E. Eberly, Charles Stroebel, Edo D. Pellizzari and Ken Sexton As part ofthe Minnesota Children’s Pesticide Exposure Study we measured volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations in a probability sample of households with children. The 6-day average concentrations for 10common VOCs were obtained in urban and nonurban residences twice during this multiphase study: screeningphase indoor measurements were collected in 284 households, and in the intensive-phase matched outdoor (O), indoor (I), and personal (P) measurements were collected in a subset (N1⁄472) oft he screened households. Screening-phase households with smokers had significantly higher concentrations ofbe nzene and styrene compared to nonsmoking households; households with an attached garage had significantly higher levels of benzene, chloroform, styrene, and m/p- and o-xylene compared to households without an attached garage; and nonurban residences, which had a greater prevalence ofs mokers and attached garages, had significantly higher 1,1,1-trichloroethane, styrene, and toluene and significantly lower tetrachloroethylene concentrations compared to urban households. The screening-phase weighted distributions estimate the mean and variability in indoor VOC concentrations for more than 45,000 households with children in the census tracts sampled. Overall, median indoor concentrations of most VOCs measured in this study were similar to or lower than indoor levels measured previously in the United States. Intensive-phase outdoor VOC concentrations were generally lower than other major metropolitan areas, but urban concentrations were significantly higher than nonurban concentrations for all compounds except 1,1,1-trichloroethylene. A consistent pattern of P4I4O was observed for nine of 10 VOCs, with 1,1,1-trichloroethylene (I4P4O) being the only exception to this pattern. For most children, the indoor at-home microevironment was strongly associated with personal exposure after controlling for important covariates, but the ratio of median to upper bound exposures was smaller than that observed in studies of adults. There are relatively little data on VOC exposures in children, so these results are useful for estimating the central tendency and Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology (2004) 14, S4–S13

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary **Adgate etal 2004b.pdf**Minnesota Children’s Pesticide Exposure Study; 6-day average VOC concentrations in residential air, Table 4

Probable exposed population

Minnesota Detailed description of study design in Adgate J.L., Clayton C.A., Quackenboss J.J., Thomas K.W., Whitmore R.W., Pellizzari E.D., Lioy P.J., Shubat P., Stroebel C., Freeman N.C., and Sexton K. Measurement of multi-pollutant and multi-pathway exposures in a probability-based sample of children: practical strategies for effective field studies. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2000a: 10: 650–661. Samplling period: 6 day continuous sampl take between May and Sept 1997 Indoor Sample deployed in room where family spent most of their time Children between ages of 3 and 12 Personal sample child's day pack during the day and beside bed at night Outdoor location not discussed

OVM Model 3520, 3M Corp -- Charcoal-based passive diffusion monitors, https://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/validated/1005/1005.html http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3M-PPE-Safety-Solutions/Personal-Protective-Equipment/Products/Product-Catalog/~/3M-Organic-Vapor-Monitor-3520-with-Backup-Section-5-Case?N=4294930398+5011378&Nr=AND(hrcy_id%3AGSDCL4N0KBgs_VQ7TVCV6T7_N2RL3FHWVK_GPD0K8BC31gv)&rt=d Not Reported
VOCs were extracted from the monitors with 1.5ml ofa cetone/carbon disulfide (2:1 v/v), containing octafluorotoluene (PFT), hexafluorobenzene (PFB), and bromopentafluorobenzene (BFB) as internal standards at a concentration of5 mg/ml. The sample extract (1 ml) was injected into a fused silica capillary column (60m 0.32mm i.d. DB-5) programmed from 01C (3min) to 1501C at 41C/min.Screening Intensive

284 Number of measurments101 0.2 Minimum detection limit (MDL) 0.2 94 Percent above MDL 89

0.7 Arithmetic mean 0.6 NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR 0.4 25th percentile 0.4 0.5 50th percentile 0.6 0.8 75th percentile 0.7 1.4 Maximum 1.1

Yes Blanks Yes NR Spikes NR Stat & QC SummaryYes Duplicates Yes

NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR

N MDL, μg/m3 % > MDL Mean, μg/m3 Mean SE Mean 95% CI 25th50th ScreeningPersonal ScreeningIndoor 284 0.2 94 0.7 00.6-0.7 0.4 0.5 ScreeningOutdoors Intensive Personal 72 0.2 92 0.8 0.10.6-1.0 0.4 0.6 Intensive Indoor 101 0.2 89 0.6 00.6-0.6 0.4 0.6 Intensive Outdoors 100 0.2 70 0.6< 0.1 NA 0.3 0.6 Percentile Concentrations, μg/m3 Passive monitors (OVM Model 3520) analyzed by gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer75th 95th

0.8 1.4

0.8 1.9 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.1 Percentile Concentrations, μg/m3Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x
x

x

x x

x **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**Probability Sampling Design

Location

Methods MDLNational Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS): distributions and associations of lead, arsenic and

volatile organic compounds in EPA Region 5 C.A. Clatyton, E.D. Pellizzari, R.W. Whitmore, R.L. Perritt, and J.J. Quackenboss
The National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) Phase I field study conducted in EPA Region 5 provides extensive exposure data on approximately 250 study participants selected via probability sampling. Associated environmental media and biomarker (blood, urine) concentration data were also obtained to aid in the understanding of relationships ofthe exposures to both contaminant sources and doses. Distributional parameters for arsenic (As), lead (Pb), and four volatile organic compounds (VOCs)-benzene, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene-were estimated for each of the relevant media using weighted data analysis techniques. Inter-media associations were investigated through correlation analysis, and longitudinal correlations and models were used to investigate longitudinal patterns. Solid food appeared to be a major contributor to urine As levels, while Pb levels in household (HH) dust, personal air, and beverages all were significantly associated with blood Pb levels. Relatively high (>0.50) longitudinal correlations were observed for tap water Pb and As, as compared to only moderate longitudinal correlations for the personal air VOCs. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology (1999) 9, 381-392

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary Food
Summary/Analysis of NHEXAS data **Clayton et al 1999.pdf**Probability Sampling Design

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin Details on the study design and its rationale are given in Pellizzari et al. (1995). Pellizzari E., Lioy P., Quackenboss I., Whitmore R., Clayton A., Freeman N., Waldman I., Thomas K., Rodes C., and Wilcosky T. Population-based exposure measurements in EPA Region 5: a Phase I field study in support of the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey. Exp. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 1995: 5 (3): 327-358. Not Reported, see Pellizzari et al. (1995386Number of measurments

NRMinimum detection limit (MDL) 39Percent above MDL

5.3Arithmetic mean NRArithmetic std. dev. NRGeometric mean NRGeometric std. dev.

NRMinimum NR25th percentile 0.650th percentile NR75th percentile NRMaximum

NRBlanks NRSpikes NRDuplicates NRInternal audits NRExternal audits

Stat & QC Summary

Analytical Methods not reported, see Pellizzari et al. (1995N MDL, μg/m3 % > MDL Mean, μg/m3 50th 90th Personal Air, μg/m3 386 39.4 5.27 0.63 5.98 Indoor Air, μg/m3 402 36.1 3.84 0.56 2.28 Outdoor Air, μg/m3 97 0.32 1.11 0.32 1.57 Percentile Concentirations, μg/m3Percentile Concentirations, μg/m3Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors**  **Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x x **DATA CATEGORIES**Location

Outdoor Sample Outdoor samples were taken in 3 consecutive 48 hr periods each week Subject-based monitoring of personal air and home-based indoor air, same 3 consecutive 48 hr sampling periods 5 subjects monitored simultaneously each week 15 VOCs, PM2.5, black carbon, 28 particle trace elements, 2 aldehydes
Sampling Methods Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**Exposures to Multiple Air Toxics in New York City

Patrick L. Kinney, Steven N. Chillrud, Sonja Ramstrom, James Ross, and John D. Spengler Efforts to assess health risks associated with exposures to multiple urban air toxics have been hampered by the lack of exposure data for people living in urban areas. The TEACH (Toxic Exposure Assessment, a Columbia/Harvard) study was designed to characterize levels of and factors influencing personal exposures to urban air toxics among high school students living in inner-city neighborhoods of New York City and Los Angeles, California. This present article reports methods and data for the New York City phase of TEACH, focusing on the relationships between personal, indoor, and outdoor concentrations in winter and summer among a group of 46 high school students from the A. Philip Randolph Academy, a public high school located in the West Central Harlem section of New York City. Air pollutants monitored included a suite of 17 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and aldehydes, particulate matter with a mass median aerodynamic diameter≤ 2.5μm (PM2.5), black carbon, and a suite of 28 particle-associated trace elements. Sequential 48-hr ambient samples also were collected over 8 weeks in each season at an urban fixed site and an upwind, nonurban fixed site. Personal, indoor, and outdoor concentrations of particle elements were generally similar, suggesting that ambient sources may have driven indoor and personal exposures for most elements. More varied relationships among personal, home indoor, and home outdoor concentrations were observed for VOCs and aldehydes. For formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, and several VOCs, indoor concentrations far exceeded outdoor levels and appeared to dominate personal exposures. Strong seasonal differences in indoor to outdoor concentration ratios were observed for these compounds, reflecting the influence of home air exchange rates. For other VOCs, especially those related to motor vehicle exhaust, more consistent indoor, outdoor, and personal concentrations were observed, suggesting that ambient concentrations may have been the driving force for personal exposures to some VOCs. These results demonstrate exposures to a wide range of air toxic pollutants among young people attending school in inner-city New York.
Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol 110, Supplement 4

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling **Kinney et al 2002.pdf**Lit review / summary

TEACH (Toxic Exposure Assessment, a Columbia/Harvard) Study, inner-city neighborhoods in NYC

Inner City Neighborhoods, New York City Winter and Summer, 1999 2 sites: Roof of 7-story school; roof of 3-story Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades NY Outdoor samples were taken in 3 consecutive 48 hr periods each week Subject-based monitoring of personal air and home-based indoor air, same 3 consecutive 48 hr sampling periods 5 subjects monitored simultaneously each week 15 VOCs, PM2.5, black carbon, 28 particle trace elements, 2 aldehydes

Personal samples, battery operated pump, VOC thermal desorption tube (multi-sorbent "Air toxics" tubes, TO-17)Winter Summer

36 Number of measurments 38 0.15 Minimum detection limit (MDL) 0.15 NR Percent above MDL NR

1.26 Arithmetic mean 0.32 3.59 Arithmetic std. dev. 0.52 NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR 0.15 50th percentile 0 NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

Yes Blanks Yes

Stat & QC SummaryNR Spikes NR

10% Duplicates 10% NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR

N MDL % > MDL Mean SD Personal Air, μg/m3 Winter 36 0.15 2.62 8.3 Personal Air, μg/m3 Summer 40 0.15 0.51 0.93 Indoor Air, μg/m3 Winter 36 0.15 1.26 3.59 Indoor Air, μg/m3 Summer 38 0.15 0.32 0.52 Outdoor Air, μg/m3 Winter 36 0.15 0.36 0.26 Outdoor Air, μg/m3 Summer 31 0.15 0.24 0.31 Personal samples, battery operated pump, VOC thermal desorption tube (multi-sorbent "Air toxics" tubes, TO-17)Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x

x **DATA CATEGORIES**

NotesLocation

Indoor samples 10-minute integrated shower sample grab samples at 5 and 9.9 minutes

Sampling Methods **IA/PA Data Summary**A Methodological Approach for Exposure Assessment Studies in Residences Using Volatile Organic CompoundContaminated Water Andrew B. Lindstrom and Joachim D. Pleil This paper presents a methodological approach for assessing total exposures to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in residences using contaminated water supplies. This approach is founded on assessment of ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposures; both long-term (i.e., 12 to 24 hr) lowlevel exposures and short-term (i.e., =10 min) high-level exposures are considered. The methodology is based on the collection of water samples to establish the identity of the contaminants, maximum source terms, and possible dermal and ingestion exposures; integrated whole-air samples are collected to assess long- and short-term inhalation exposures; whole-air grab samples are used to confirm peak and typical inhalation exposures; and alveolar breath samples are used to confirm exposures and to estimate contaminant concentrations in the blood of the test subjects. While we do not suggest that this methodology should supersede any current investigative approach, this material is primarily offered as a consolidated reference to the many people or organizations who might contemplate a study of this type. Application of this investigative protocol should provide detailed exposure assessment information, while it supplies critical real world data for risk assessment specialists, toxicologists, and modeling experts. Data from a recent field study assessing exposures to trichloroethylene are presented to illustrate the utility and some of the limitations of this strategy. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 46: 1058-1066

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

2-day study of residential microenvironmental TCE concentrations in Illinios due to groundwater contamination **Lindstrom & Pleil 1996.pdf**Single Family Residence in Rockford, IL

10-minute integrated shower sample grab samples at 5 and 9.9 minutes

Grab samples, TO-14 (modified)Shower Living Room

2 Number of measurments 2 0.91 Minimum detection limit (MDL) 0.91 100 Percent above MDL 0

21.8 Arithmetic mean <MDL NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

16.6 Minimum <MDL NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR 37.4 Maximum <MDL

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR Yes Duplicates Yes NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR

Stat & QC Summary

TO-14 (modified)N MDL Mean Sample 1 Sample 2

Shower, μg/m3 5 min Grab 2 0.91 16.6 NC 16.6 Shower, μg/m3 9.9 min Grab 2 0.91 36.9 36.3 37.4 Shower, μg/m3 Integrated 2 1.34 21.8 22.8 20.7 Living Room, μg/m3 Grab 2 0.91 <MDL <MDL <MDL Living Room, μg/m3 Integrated 1.34 <MDL <MDL <MDL Outdoor Air, μg/m3 Grab 0.91 <MDL <MDL <MDL

NC = not collectedBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors**  **Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x

x

x x

x **DATA CATEGORIES**

NotesREVIEW ARTICLE

**IA/PA Data Summary**Exposure Assessment of Trichloroethylene

Chieh Wu and John Schaum This article reviews exposure information available for trichloroethylene (TCE) and assesses the magnitude of human exposure. The primary sources releasing TCE into the environment are metal cleaning and degreasing operations. Releases occur into all media but mostly into the air due to its volatility. It is also moderately soluble in water and can leach from soils into groundwater. TCE has commonly been found in ambient air, surface water, and groundwaters. The 1998 air levels in pg/M3 across 115 monitors can be summarized as follows: range = 0.01- 3.9, mean = 0.88. A California survey of large water utilities in 1984 found a median concentration of 3.0 pg/L. General population exposure to TCE occurs primarily by inhalation and water ingestion. Typical average daily intakes have been estimated as 11-33 pg/day for inhalation and 2-20 pg/day for ingestion. A small portion of the population is expected to have elevated exposures as a result of one or more of these pathways: inhalation exposures to workers involved in degreasing operations, ingestion and inhalation exposures occurring in homes with private wells located near disposal/contamination sites, and inhalation exposures to consumers using TCE products in areas of poor ventilation. More current and more extensive data on TCE levels in indoor air, water, and soil are needed to better characterize the distribution of background exposures in the general population and elevated exposures in special subpopulations.
Key words: exposure assessment, TCE, trichloroethylene. Environ Health Perspect 108 (suppl 2):359-363 (2000).

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

General population TCE exposure assessment with some reported media concentrations

Contains model OA concentrations **Wu & Schaum 2000.pdf**Summary of TCE air emissions

Summary of AIRs ambient air TCE concentrations between 1985-1998, summarized by year, and land use (e.g., urban rural, agricultural, etc.) Modeled ambient air concentrations General US population exposure assessment Summary of measured blood concentrations (US, 1988-1994)NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR

Stat & QC Summary

Review of ambient air data and modeling results, in support of TCE exposure assessmentssupport of TCE exposure assessmentsBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x x **DATA CATEGORIES**Location

Air Samples

Analysis Methods Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**Residential environmental measurements in the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) pilot

study in Arizona: preliminary results for pesticides and VOCs Sydney M. Gordon, Patrick J. Callahan, Marcia G. Nishioka, Marielle C. Brinkman, Kary Kay O'Rourke, Michael D. Lebowitz and Demetrios J. Moschandreas A major objective of the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) performed in Arizona was to conduct residential environmental and biomarker measurements of selected pesticides (chlorpyrifos, diazinon), volatile organic compounds (VOCs; benzene, toluene, trichloroethene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene), and metals for total human exposure assessments. Both personal (e.g., blood, urine, dermal wipes, 24 h duplicate diet) and microenvironmental (e.g., indoor and outdoor air, house dust, foundation soil) samples were collected in each home in order to describe individual exposure via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal pathways, and to extrapolate trends to larger populations. This paper is a preliminary report of only the microenvironmental and dermal wipe data obtained for the target pesticides and VOCs, and provides comparisons with results from similar studies. Evaluations of total exposure from all sources and pathways will be addressed in future papers. The pesticides and VOCs all showed log-normal distributions of concentrations in the Arizona population sampled, and in most cases were detected with sufficient frequency to allow unequivocal description of the concentration by media at the 90th, 75th, and 50th (median) percentiles. Those combinations of pollutant and media, in which a large fraction of the measurements were below the detection limit of the analysis method used, included trichloroethene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde in outdoor air; chlorpyrifos and diazinon in outdoor air; and diazinon in dermal and window sill wipes. In general, indoor air concentrations were higher than outdoor air concentrations for all VOCs and pesticides investigated, and VOC levels were in good agreement with levels reported in other studies. In addition,the agreement obtained between co-located VOC samplers indicated that the low-cost diffusional badges used to measure concentrations are probably adequate for usein future monitoring studies. For the pesticides, the median levels found in indoor samples agreed well with other studies, although the levels corresponding to the upper 0.1 - 1% of the population were considerably higher than levels reported elsewhere, with indoor air levels as high as 3.3 and 20.5 0181g/m3 for chlorpyrifos and diazinon, respectively. These data showed excellent correlation (Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients of 0.998 and 0.998, respectively) between chlorpyrifos in indoor air and in the corresponding dermal wipes, and relatively poor correlation between chlorpyrifos in dust (μg/g or μg/m2) and dermal wipes (Pearson=0.055 μg/g and 0.015 μg/m2; Spearman=0.644 μg/g and 0.578 μg/m2). These data suggest the importance of dermal penetration of semi-volatiles as a route of residential human exposure.
Keywords: dermal wipes, exposure,foundation soil, house dust, indoor air, National Human Exposure Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology (1999) 9, 456-470

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine **Gordon et al., 1999.pdf**Consumer product

Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Summary of sampling methods and analysis of NHEXAS data

Arizona

polyurethane foam (PUF; 25 mmx76 mm) sorbent 4 l/min with a personal sampler pump (Model 224-PCXR8, SKC) Outdoor air was sampled to give an integrated 24-h sample over a 3-day period indoor air was sampled for an integrated 12-h period over 3 days personal air was sampled to give an integrated 8-h sample over a 1¬day period. Indoor and outdoor passive samples, a specially constructed galvanized steel stand was used to mount one OVM 3500 sampler badge (forthe VOCs). Two large-diameter galvanized steel protective funnels were inverted and attached to the crossbar so that they were about 45 cm (18 in.) apart
Analysis with GC/MS for the air, soil, and dust extracts (Model HP 5971 GC/MS; Hewlett Packard)##Number of measurments NR

1Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR 1Percent above MDL NR

<1.8Arithmetic mean NR NRArithmetic std. dev. NR NRGeometric mean NR NRGeometric std. dev. NR

Stat & QC SummaryNRMinimum NR

NR25th percentile NR NR50th percentile NR <1.875th percentile NR NRMaximum NR YesBlanks NR YesSpikes NR YesDuplicates NR NRInternal audits NR NRExternal audits NR

N %>MDL MDL Mean 75th Percentile 90th Percentile Indoor Air, μg/m3 Passive 185 1 1.02<1.8 <1.8 <1.8 Outdoor Air, μg/m3 Passive 68 0 1.02<1.8 <1.8 <1.8 Analysis with GC/MS for the air, soil, and dust extracts (Model HP 5971 GC/MS; Hewlett Packard)90th PercentileBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

? **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**Location

Indoor samples
grab samples at 5 and 9.9 minutes

Sampling MethodsIndoor Air VOC Concentrations in Suburban and Rural New Jersey

Clifford P. Weisel, Shahnaz Alimokhtari, and Paul F. Sanders Indoor VOC air concentrations of many compounds are higher than outdoor concentrations due to indoor sources. However, most studies have measured residential indoor air in urban centers so the typical indoor air levels in suburban and rural regions have not been well characterized. Indoor VOC air concentrations were measured in 100 homes in suburban and rural areas in NJ to provide background levels for investigations of the impact from subsurface contamination sources. Of the 57 target compounds, 23 were not detected in any of the homes, and 14 compounds were detected in at least 50% of the homes with detection limits of∼1 μg/m3. The common compounds identified included aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons from mobile sources, halogenated hydrocarbons commonly used in consumer products or from chlorinated drinking water, acetone and 2- butanone emitted from cosmetic products, and Freons. Typical concentrations were in the low μg/m3 range, though values of tens, hundreds or even thousands of μg/m3 were measured in individual homes in which activitiesrelatedto specificsources ofVOCs were reported. Compounds with known similar sources were highly correlated. The levels observed are consistent with concentrations found in the air of urban homes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 8231–8238

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Indoor VOC concentrations (TCE) in NJ homes. Comparison with values measured in other studies **Weisel et al., 2008.pdf**100 homes in suburban and rural NJ

Nomimal 24 hr sampled in breathing zone (3-ft)

SUMMA Canisters with flow controller, TO-15100 Number of measurments NR

2.7/1.1Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR 8 Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

<1.1 Minimum NR <1.1 25th percentile NR <2.7 50th percentile NR <2.7 75th percentile NR 13 Maximum NR Yes Blanks NR Yes Spikes NR Yes Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR

Stat & QC Summary

SUMMA Canisters with flow controller, TO-15N MDL for 1st 48 MDL for 2nd 52

25th Percentile'

50th Percentile' Indoor Air, μg/m3 100 8 2.7 1.1<1.1 <2.775th Percentile'

90th Percentile'

95th Percentile'

Min Max Mean <2.7 <2.7 2.74<1.1 13Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x x x

x

x

x x **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes**IA/PA Data Summary**Trichloroethylene Health Risk Assessment: Synthesis and Characterization

USEPA This assessment presents EPA’s most current evaluation of the potential health risks from exposure to TCE (trichloroethylene). TCE exposure is associated with several adverse health effects, including neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, developmental toxicity, liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, endocrine effects, and several forms of cancer. Mechanistic research indicates that TCE-induced carcinogenesis is complex, involving multiple carcinogenic metabolites acting through multiple modes of action. Under EPA’s proposed (1996) cancer guidelines, TCE can be characterized as “highly likely to produce cancer in humans.” For effects other than cancer, an oral RfD of 3×10–4 mg/kg-d was based on critical effects in the liver, kidney, and developing fetus. An inhalation RfC of 4×10–2 mg/m3 was based on critical effects in the central nervous system, liver, and endocrine system. Several cancer slope factors were developed, with most between 2×10–2 and 4×10–1 per mg/kg-d. Several sources of uncertainty have been identified and quantified. The mechanistic information suggests some risk factors that may make some populations more sensitive. There are suggestions that TCE could affect children and adults differently. In addition, several chemicals have the potential to alter TCE’s metabolism and clearance and subsequent toxicity; conversely, TCE exposure can augment the toxicity of other chemicals. Widespread environmental exposure to some of TCE’s metabolites makes it important to consider the cumulative effect of TCE along with other environmental contaminants. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC 20460 EPA/600/P-01/002A, August 2001, External Review Draft

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Summary of exposure/media data. Exposure assessment **EPA 2001a.PDF**Section 2.3: TCE has been detected in the air throughout the United States. Ambient air measurement data can

be obtained from the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)27, which contains about 1,200 measurements from 25 States during 1985–1998. Air levels in 1998 can be summarized as follows: range=0.01–3.9 μg/m3, mean=0.88, median=0.32, 90th percentile=1.76. Section 2.3: TCE has been reported in rainwater, surface water, groundwater, drinking water, and seawater. ATSDR reports that TCE is the most frequently reported organic contaminant in groundwater and has estimated that between 9% and 34% of drinking water supply sources have some TCE contamination. Most municipal water supplies that do not use contaminated groundwater, however, are in compliance with the maximum contaminant level of 5 μg/L. TCE has been reported in marine sediments, marine invertebrates, marine mammals, foods, human milk, and human urine and blood. The food with the highest reported meanNRNumber of measurments NR

NRMinimum detection limit (MDL) NR NRPercent above MDL NR

NRArithmetic mean NR NRArithmetic std. dev. NR NRGeometric mean NR NRGeometric std. dev. NR

NRMinimum NR NR25th percentile NR NR50th percentile NR NR75th percentile NR NRMaximum NR NRBlanks NR NRSpikes NR NRDuplicates NR NRInternal audits NR NRExternal audits NR

Stat & QC SummaryYear Study/Location N MDL Mean Median

Outdoor Air, μg/m3 1988AIRS, 25 states 1200 0.88 0.32 Outdoor Air, μg/m3 1990MODELED, EPA CEP 0.37 Outdoor Air, μg/m3 1990AIRS, 8 States, 59 monitoring stations 1.84
Drinking water ATSDR 9 - 34% have TCE Outdoor Air, μg/m3 1998AIRS 0.8 Outdoor air samples, SUMMA Canisters with flow controller, TO-15. No indoor air samples90th Percentile

Maximum 1.76 32Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

y

Reports Attenuation coefficients Reports 4 measured indoor concentrations due to SVI, none are residential **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**An Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion Into Buildings through a Study of Field Data

Nancy A. Fitzpatrick & John J. Fitzgerald A systematic examination of cases on file with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection was undertaken to identify a universe of sites with volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination in groundwater in close proximity to buildings. Such locations were grouped according to site variables, such as contaminants of concern and concentrations in various media; soil type; depth to groundwater; distance to building; and building construction. Indoor air, soil gas, and/or groundwater field data collected from these sites was then assembled and used to: (1) evaluate available transport models which describe the intrusion of vapors into buildings and predict indoor air contaminant concentrations resulting from the volatilization of VOCs in the subsurface; (2) examine the validity of established regulatory criteria; (3) identify specific trends and field conditions which appear to most influence vapor phase contaminant migration and intrusion processes; and (4) evaluate the possibility of vapor migration being inhibited by a “freshwater lens”. Soil and Sediment Contamination, 11(4):603-623 (2002)

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Study of relationshp between TCE concentrations in GW and SVI as influenced by building construction, soil types, depth to GW, etc.

Reports Attenuation coefficients Reports 4 measured indoor concentrations due to SVI, none are residential

**Fitzpatrick & Fitzgerald 2002.pdf**NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR
NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

Reports 4 measured indoor concentrations due to SVI, none are residentialBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

**DATA CATEGORIES**Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**Proximity of Residence to Trichloroethylene-Emitting Sites and Increased Risk of Offspring Congenital Heart

Defects among Older Women
Jennifer S. Yauck, Marsha E. Malloy, Kathleen Blair, Pippa M. Simpson, and D. Gail McCarver Previous studies suggest that trichloroethylene (TCE) is a selective cardiac teratogen. We tested the hypothesis that the odds of maternal residence close to TCE-emitting sites would be greater among infants with congenital heart defects (CHDs) than among infants without CHDs. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study of 4025 infants, identified from hospital and birth records, born from 1997 to 1999 to Milwaukee, Wisconsin mothers. A geographic information system was used to calculate distances between maternal residences and TCE sites. We used classification tree analysis to determine appropriate values by which to dichotomously categorize mothers by TCE exposure (exposed: residence within 1.32 miles of at least one TCE site) and age (older: 38 years), and logistic regression to test for CHD risk factors. RESULTS: The proportion of mothers who were both older and had presumed TCE exposure was more than six-fold greater among case infants than among control infants (3.3% [8/245] versus 0.5% [19/3780]). When adjusted for other variables, CHD risk was over three-fold greater among infants of older, exposed mothers compared to infants of older, nonexposed mothers (adjusted OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.2– 8.7). Older maternal age, alcohol use, chronic hypertension, and preexisting diabetes were each associated with CHDs (adjusted ORs, 1.9, 2.1, 2.8, 4.1; 95% CIs, 1.1–3.5, 1.1– 4.2, 1.2– 6.7, 1.5–11.2, respectively), but residence close to TCE sites alone was not. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that maternal age and TCE exposure interact to increase CHD risk, although the mechanism by which this occurs is unknown. A prospective study is underway to confirm this finding
Key words: trichloroethylene; congenital heart defects; maternal age; ethanol; diabetes; hypertension; Birth Defects Research (Part A) 70:808–814 (2004)

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary **Yauck etal 2004.pdf**This paper examines increased cogenital heart defects due to TCE exposure. This paper does not contain useful

concentration data.

This paper examines increased cogenital heart defects due to TCE exposure. This paper does not contain useful concentration data.NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR Stat & QC SummaryNR Internal audits NR

NR External audits NR This paper examines increased cogenital heart defects due to TCE exposure. This paper does not contain useful concentrationBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

X **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**Evaluation of the Likelihood of DNAPL Presence at NPL Sites

USEPA This document presents the results of a survey undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (Superfund). The survey was designed to estimate the proportion of National Priorities List (NPL) sites where Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) may be present. Earlier studies by OERR suggested that DNAPLs may be more common at hazardous waste sites thanpreviously thought, and may act as a continuing source of contamination thus reducing the ability of pump-andtreat systems to attain cleanup goals within expected timeframes (Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies, Phase II, EPA 9355.4-05). This study represents the first systematic nation-wide review of NPL sites designed to estimate the extent of subsurface DNAPL contamination. Key words: trichloroethylene; congenital heart defects; maternal age; ethanol; diabetes; hypertension; geographic USEPA, EPA 540-R-93-073; PB93-963343 September 1993

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

TCE ground water concentrations at Superfund sites.

TCE ground water concentrations at Superfund sites. Presents a summay of ground water concentrations (ranges) at 310 superfund sites (Table 3-6) **EPA 1993.pdf**No useful air concentrationsNR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

Summary of ground water concentrations (ranges) at 310 superfund sites. No useful air concentrationsBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

**DATA CATEGORIES**

NotesMeasured in the following non-residential microenvironments

**IA/PA Data Summary**Measured Concentrations of VOCs in Several Non-Residential Microenvironments in the United States

MIRANDA M. LOH, E. ANDRES HOUSEMAN, GEORGE M. GRAY, JONATHAN I.LEVY, JOHN D.SPENGLER, AND DEBORAH H. BENNETT Individuals spend about 25% of their time in non-residential indoor microenvironments. For some of these microenvironments, particularly stores and restaurants, exposures to volatile organic compounds (VOCs), have not been well characterized. In the Boston Exposure Assessment in Microenvironments (BEAM) study, sampling using scripted activities was conducted in stores, restaurants, and transportation in the summer of 2003 and winters of 2004 and 2005. A suite of VOCs including hydrocarbons, several chlorinated compounds, and aldehydes was analyzed. Nine store types were sampled using a composite design to enable a greater number of stores to be visited. Stores had higher concentrations of formaldehyde, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and styrene than other microenvironments, particularly in certain store types. Geometric mean formaldehyde levels were highest in the housewares stores, at 53 íg/m3 (95% CI ) 43, 66). Geometric mean toluene levels were highest in multipurpose stores, at 76 íg/m3 (95% CI ) 50, 118). The levels observed in stores were several times higher than levels found in transportation microenvironments, and indicate strong indoor sources. In contrast, benzene did not have significantly higher levels in stores than typically found outdoors. Concentrations of formaldehyde and benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and styrene were strongly influenced by the presence of smoking in the dining Microenvironment. Chloroform levels were higher in restaurants than in other microenvironments, with a geometric mean of 1.1 íg/m3 (95% CI ) 0.7, 1.8). The VOC concentrations found in stores and restaurants in this study are a potentially important source of exposure for sensitive individuals or Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 6903-6911

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary **Loh etal 2006.pdf**Contains non-residential measured data

Measured in the following non-residential microenvironments

hardware multipurpose grocery drug stores sporting goods furniture stores housewares stores department stores electronics dining nonsmoking dining smoking transportationNR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR

Stat & QC SummaryNR External audits NR

geometric max CV
mean trichloroethene 0.43 0.33 0.57 115 3.69 2.58 5.94 Measured in non-residential microenvironments. No residential measurements.

Stores 95% CI 95% CIgeometric max CV

mean 0.23 0.08 0.63 118 10.29 2.8 215 Dining 95% CI 95% CIBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x **DATA CATEGORIES**

NotesLocation

**IA/PA Data Summary**Simulating the fate and transport of TCE from groundwater to indoor air

Soonyoung Yu, Andre J.A. Unger, Beth Parker This work provides an exploratory analysis on the relative importance of various factors controlling the fate and transport of volatile organic contaminants (in this case, TCE) from a DNAPL source zone located below the water table and into the indoor air. The analysis is conducted using the multi-phase compositional model CompFlow Bio, with the base scenario problem geometry reminiscent of a field experiment conducted by Rivett [Rivett, M.O., (1995), Soil–gas signatures from volatile chlorinated solvents: Borden field experiments. Groundwater, 33(1), 84–98.] at the Borden aquifer where groundwater was observed to transport a contaminant plume a substantial distance without vertical mass transport of the contaminant across the capillary fringe and into the vadose zone. Results for the base scenario model indicate that the structure of the permeability field was largely responsible for deflecting the groundwater plume upward towards the capillary fringe, permitting aqueous phase diffusion to transport the TCE into the vadose zone. Alternative permeability realizations, generated as part of a Monte Carlo simulation process, at times deflected the groundwater plume downwards causing the extended thickness of the saturated zone to insulate the vadose zone from exposure to the TCE by upward diffusive transport. Comparison of attenuation coefficients calculated using the CompFlow Bio and Johnson and Ettinger [Johnson, P.C. and Ettinger, R.A., (1991), Heuristic model for predicting the intrusion rate of contaminant vapors into buildings. Environmental Science and Technology, 25, 1445–1452.] heuristic model exhibited fortuitous agreement for the base scenario problem geometry, with this agreement diverging for the alternative permeability realizations as well as when parameters such as the foundation slab fracture aperture, the indoor air pressure drop, the capillary fringe thickness, and the infiltration rate were varied over typical Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 140–161

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary **Yu etal 2009.pdf**Model evaluation for SVI, model predictions for indoor air based on conceptual scenarios

Model evaluation for SVI
Conceptual Model predicted indoor air concentrations for conceptual casesNR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR Stat & QC SummaryNR External audits NR

Model evaluation for SVI. Conceptual model perditions for indoor concentrations, but no measurement data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors**  **Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes**IA/PA Data Summary**NATIONAL AIR TOXICS PROGRAM: THE INTEGRATED URBAN STRATEGY, Report to Congress

On July 19, 1999, we published a notice in the Federal Register entitled “National Air Toxics Program: The Integrated Urban Air Strategy” (Strategy) that outlined the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) plans for addressing cumulative health risks in urban areas1. The Strategy presented our plan for future actions to reduce emissions of air toxics and improve our understanding of the health risks posed by toxics in urban areas.
The Strategy presents a framework for further reducing HAP emissions from all types of sources found in urban areas, including major industrial sources, smaller stationary sources, and cars and trucks. Air toxics can pose special threats in urban areas because of the large number of people and the variety of sources that emit HAP. Individually, some of these sources may not emit large amounts of toxic pollutants. However, all of these pollution sources combined can potentially pose significant health threats. We are also concerned about the impact of toxics emissions on minority and low income communities which are often located close to industrial and commercial urbanized areas. Accordingly, there are three goals for the Strategy: 1. Reduce, by 75 percent, the incidence of cancer associated with air toxics from both large and small industrial/commercial sources. 2. Substantially reduce noncancer health risks (e.g., birth defects and reproductive effects) associated with air toxics from small industrial/commercial sources. 3. Address disproportionate impacts of air toxics hazards across urban areas, such as those in areas known as “hot spots,” and minority and low-income communities in urban areas. USEPA EPA-453/R-99-007 July 2000

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary **EPA 2000.pdf**No useful indoor air concentration data

Summary of HAP efforts, studies, etc

No useful indoor air concentration data Summary of HAP emmissions, efforts, studies, etcNR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR Stat & QC SummaryNR External audits NR

Summary of HAP emmissions, efforts, studies, etc. No useful indoor air concentration data. Summary of HAP emissions, efforts, studies, etc. No useful indoor air concentration data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x **DATA CATEGORIES**

NotesLocation

Methods MDL **IA/PA Data Summary**Selected Volatile Organic Compounds in Residential Air in the City of Ottawa, Canada

IPING ZHU, RON NEWHOOK, LEONORA MARRO, AND CECILIA C . CHAN Airborne levels of selected volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) that are priorities for exposure assessment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) 1999 were measured in both indoor air and outdoor air of 75 residential houses, in the city of Ottawa, Canada, during the winter of 2002/2003. The houses were randomly selected using Ottawa 2001 population census data. VOCs were collected on adsorbent tubes and measured by thermal desorption GC/MS. Among 37 chemicals monitored, 17 were detected with a frequency greater than 80% in indoor air; 9 were between 30% and 80%; 7 were between 1% and 30%; and 4 were not detected. Concentrations of VOCs in both indoor and outdoor air are presented. Virtually all of the target VOCs were detected more frequently and were present at significantly higher levels, in indoor air than in outdoor air. As an indication of the contribution of indoor levels of these chemicals, ratios of the concentration found in indoor air to outdoor air (I/O) and the indoor source strength expressed in estimated emission rate per house are also presented. Compared with earlier published studies including a 1991/1992 Canadian national survey of VOCs in residential air, levels of target analytes in indoor air in this study were lower for a number of chemicals, indicating a possible trend toward decreased inhalation exposure to these chemicals in residential environments. This study has yielded up-to-date information on levels of a variety of priority airborne chemicals in residential air, which is being used to estimate current exposure to these substances as input to health risk assessments and Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 3964-3971

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

VOCs levels measured in indoor and outdoor air at 75 randomly selected houses, Ottawa Canada, winter of 2002/2003. **Zhu etal 2005.pdf**Ottawa, Canada

Battery operated Gilian 5 personal samplers (Sensidyne, Florida) were used for collecting indoor air, while mass flow controlled pumps were used for outdoor samples. Thermal desorption tubes (Air Toxics, Supelco) used for the study were the standard 3 1/2 in. long stainless steel tubes with brass caps and Teflon ferrules on both ends. The tubes were packed with Carbopack B and Carboxen 1000 adsorbent material. An Agilent gas chromatograph (model 6890) coupled with an Agilent mass spectrometer (model 5973N) (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA) was used to analyze the target chemicals. The analytical column for separating targets was SP-624 (60 m, 0.25mmi.d., 250 ímfilm thickness) (Supelco). The targets in the thermal desorption tubes were released to the GC/MS through a Perkin-Elmer Turbomatrix thermal desorber with an autosampler and an internal standard assembly (Perkin-Elmer, Inc., Norwalk, CT). Reported75 Number of measurments NR

0.02 Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

0.06 Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR 0.01 50th percentile NR 0.08 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR Yes Blanks NR Yes Spikes NR Yes Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR
NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

Thermal desorption tubes were used toSummary of HAP emmissions, efforts, studies, etc. No useful indoor air concentration data.

N MDL, μg/m3

% > MDL Mean, μg/m3 50th 75th Indoor Air, μg/m375 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.08 Outdoor Air, μg/m3 Percentile Concentirations, μg/m3 Thermal desorption tubes were used to collect samples. Analysis by GC/MS.90th0.19 Percentile Concentirations, μg/m3Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**The Use of Indoor Air Measurements To Evaluate Intrusion of Subsurface VOC Vapors into Buildings

Ian Hers, Reidar Zapf-Gilje, Loretta Li and Jim Atwater The implementation of a risk-based corrective action approach often requires consideration of soil vapor migration into buildings and potential inhalation exposure and risk to human health. Due to the uncertainty associated with models for this pathway, there may be a desire to analyze indoor air samples to validate model predictions, and this approach is followed on a somewhat frequent basis at sites where risks are considered potentially significant. Indoor air testing can be problematic for a number of reasons. Soil vapor intrusion into buildings is complex, highly dependent on site-specific conditions, and may vary over time, complicating the interpretation of indoor air measurements when the goal is to deduce the subsurface-derived component. An extensive survey of indoor air quality data sets highlights the variability in indoor volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations and numerous sources that can lead to elevated VOC levels. The contribution from soil vapor is likely to be small relative to VOCs from other sources for most sites. In light of these challenges, we discuss how studies that use indoor air testing to assess subsurface risks could be improved. To provide added perspective, we conclude by comparing indoor air concentrations and risks arising from subsurface VOCs, predicted using standard model equations for soil vapor fate and intrusion into buildings, to those associated J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 51:1318-1331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2001.10464356

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Summary of SVI mechanisms and relevant parameters, including emissions, building characteristics. **Hers etal 2001.pdf**Summary of SVI mechanisms and relevant parameters, including emissions, building characteristics. No useful indoor air measurements.NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR

Stat & QC Summary

Summary of SVI mechanisms and relevant parameters, including emissions, building characteristics. No useful indoor air measurements.Summary of SVI mechanisms and relevant parameters, including emissions, building characteristics. No useful indoor air measurements.

N Median Mean Maximum90th Percentile

Lory AFB, Colorado 0.17 0.5 2.6 Redfields, CO <0.26 0.59 50 6.8 Denver, CO 16 Health Canada 0.5 165 EPA TEAM Study

Fall 1981 13 47 Summer 1982 6.3 59 Winter 1983 4.6 7 Feb 1984 7.8 50 May 1984 6.4 11 June 1984 3.8 4 US National Survey 0.7 5 Tennessee Houses 0.5 690th PercentileBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

**IA/PA Data Summary DATA CATEGORIES** 

NotesContamination of Ground Water with Trichloroethylene at the Building 24 Site at Picatinny Aresenal, New Jersey

Mary Martin and Thomas E. Imbrigiotta Ground water at the Building 24 site at Picatinny Arsenal in Morris County, New Jersey, is contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE). Estimated average linear ground-water flow velocities are 0.3 to 1.0 m/d, and estimated travel time from the source area to Green Pond Brook is 2 y to 5 y. The total mass of dissolved TCE within the 130,000-m2 plume area is estimated to be 970 kg. About 65 percent of the mass is in areas where TCE concentrations exceed 10,000 mg/L, whereas about 30 percent is in areas where TCE concentrations are 1,000 to 10,000 mg/L. The average flux of TCE discharged to Green Pond Brook from the plume area, estimated from measured TCE concentrations in samples of water from the unconfined aquifer and measured base-flow discharge in Green Pond Brook, is 1 to 2 mg/s. Biotransformation is the most important mechanism by which Symposium on Natural Attenuation of Ground Water, 2004. USEPA: EPA/600/R-94/162, pp109 http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/300038JE.pdf

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Summary of ground water plume at the Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. No useful indoor air concentration data.

Summary of ground water plume at the Picatinny Arsenl, NJ. No useful indoor air concentration data. **Martin & Imbrigiotta 1994.pdf**NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

Summary of ground water plume at the Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. No useful indoor air concentration data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes**IA/PA Data Summary**Human respiratory uptake of chloroform and haloketones during showering

XU XU AND CLIFFORD P. WEISEL Inhalation is an important exposure route for volatile water contaminants, including disinfection by-products (DBPs). A controlled human study was conducted on six subjects to determine the respiratory uptake of haloketones (HKs) and chloroform, a reference compound, during showering. Breath and air concentrations ofth e DBPs were measured using gas chromatography and electron capture detector during and following the inhalation exposures. A lower percentage oft he HKs (10%) is released from shower water to air than that ofc hloroform (56%) under the experiment conditions due to the lower volatility ofth e HKs. Breath concentrations ofth e DBPs were elevated during the inhalation exposure, while breath concentrations decreased rapidly after the exposure. Approximately 85–90% oft he inhaled HKs were absorbed, whereas only 70% oft he inhaled chloroform was absorbed for the experiment conditions used. The respiratory uptake ofth e DBPs was estimated using a linear one-compartment model coupled with a plug flow stream model for the shower system. The internal dose of chloroform normalized to its water concentration was approximately four times that of the HKs after a 30-min inhalation exposure. Approximately 0.3–0.4% oft he absorbed HKs and 2–9% oft he absorbed chloroform were expired through lung excretion after the 30-min exposure. The inhalation exposure from a typical 10–15min shower contributes significantly to the total dose for chloroform in chlorinated drinking water but only to a moderate extent for HKs. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology (2005) 15, 6–16 www.nature.com/jea

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Did not study TCE **Xu and Weisel 2005.pdf**Did not study TCENR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

Did not study TCEBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x x x **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes**IA/PA Data Summary**Assessments of Direct Human Exposure—The Approach of EU Risk Assessments Compared to Scenario-Based

Risk Assessment
Matthias Wormuth, Evangelia Demou, Martin Scheringer, and Konrad Hungerbuhler The awareness of potential risks emerging from the use of chemicals in all parts of daily life has increased the need for risk assessments that are able to cover a high number of exposure situations and thereby ensure the safety of workers and consumers. In the European Union (EU), the practice of risk assessments for chemicals is laid down in a Technical Guidance Document; it is designed to consider environmental and human occupationaland residential exposure. Almost 70 EU risk assessment reports (RARs) have been finalized for high-productionvolume chemicals during the last decade. In the present study, we analyze the assessment of occupational and consumer exposure to trichloroethylene and phthalates presented in six EU RARs. Exposure scenarios in these six RARs were compared to scenarios used in applications of the scenario-based risk assessment approach to the same set of chemicals. We find that scenarios used in the selected EU RARs to represent typical exposure situations in occupational or private use of chemicals and products do not necessarily represent worst-case conditions. This can be due to the use of outdated information on technical equipment and conditions in workplaces or omission of pathways that can cause consumer exposure. Considering the need for exposure and risk assessments under the new chemicals legislation of the EU, we suggest that a transparent process of collecting data on exposure situations and of generating representative exposure scenarios is implemented to improve the accuracy of risk assessments. Also, the data sets used to assess human exposure should be harmonized, summarized in a transparent fashion, and made accessible for all risk assessors and the public. Risk Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2007

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Review of European exposure assessment practices, legislation, and case studies **Wormuth etal 2007.pdf**NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC SummaryNo useful indoor air concentration data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

**DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes**IA/PA Data Summary**Key Scientific Issues in the Health Risk Assessment of Trichloroethylene

Weihsueh A. Chiu, Jane C. Caldwell, Nagalakshmi Keshava, and Cheryl Siegel Scott Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a common environmental contaminant at hazardous waste sites and in ambient and indoor air. Assessing the human health risks of TCE is challenging because of its inherently complex metabolism and toxicity and the widely varying perspectives on a number of critical scientific issues. Because of this complexity, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drew upon scientific input and expertise from a wide range of groups and individuals in developing its 2001 draft health risk assessment of TCE. This scientific outreach, which was aimed at engaging a diversity of perspectives rather than developing consensus, culminated in 2000 with 16 state-of-the-science articles published together as an Environmental Health Perspectives supplement. Since that time, a substantial amount of new scientific research has been published that is relevant to assessing TCE health risks. Moreover, a number of difficult or controversial scientific issues remain unresolved and are the subject of a scientific consultation with the National Academy of Sciences coordinated by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-sponsored by a number of federal agencies, including the U.S. EPA. The articles included in this minimonograph provide a scientific update on the most prominent of these issues: the pharmacokinetics of TCE and its metabolites, mode(s) of action and effects of TCE metabolites, the role of peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor in TCE toxicity, and TCE cancer epidemiology. Key words: epidemiology, mode of action, peroxisome proliferators, pharmacokinetics, trichloroethylene, risk assessment. doi:10.1289/ehp.8690 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 9 May 2006] Environ Health Perspect. 2006 September; 114(9): 1445–1449.

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Discussion of scientific issues related to TCE risk assessment **Chiu etal 2006.pdf**No useful indoor air concentration data.NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

No useful indoor air concentration data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

**DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes**IA/PA Data Summary**Trichloroethylene Cancer Epidemiology: A Consideration of Select Issues

Cheryl Siegel Scott and Weihsueh A. Chiu A large body of epidemiologic evidence exists for exploring causal associations between cancer and trichloroethylene (TCE) exposure. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2001 draft TCE health risk assessment concluded that epidemiologic studies, on the whole, support associations between TCE exposure and excess risk of kidney cancer, liver cancer, and lymphomas, and, to a lesser extent, cervical cancer and prostate cancer. As part of a mini-monograph on key issues in the health risk assessment of TCE, this article reviews recently published scientific literature examining cancer and TCE exposure and identifies four issues that are key to interpreting the larger body of epidemiologic evidence: a) relative sensitivity of cancer incidence and mortality data; b) different classifications of lymphomas, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma; c) differences in data and methods for assigning TCE exposure status; and d) different methods employed for causal inferences, including statistical or meta-analysis approaches. The recent epidemiologic studies substantially expand the epidemiologic database, with seven new studies available on kidney cancer and somewhat fewer studies available that examine possible associations at other sites. Overall, recently published studies appear to provide further support for the kidney, liver, and lymphatic systems as targets of TCE toxicity, suggesting, as do previous studies, modestly elevated (typically 1.5–2.0) site-specific relative risks, given exposure conditions in these studies. However, a number of challenging issues need to be considered before drawing causal conclusions about TCE exposure and cancer from these data. Key words: cancer, drinking water exposures, epidemiology, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 114, No. 9, September 2006

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Epidemiology study **Scott and Chiu 2006.pdf**No useful indoor air concentration data.NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

No useful indoor air concentration data.No useful indoor air concentration data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes**IA/PA Data Summary**Reconstructing population exposures from dose biomarkers: inhalation of trichloroethylene (TCE) as a case study

MICHAEL D. SOHN, THOMAS E. MCKONE, AND JERRY N. BLANCATO Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling is a well-established toxicological tool designed to relate exposure to a target tissue dose. The emergence of federal andstate programs for environmental health tracking andt he availability of exposure monitoring through biomarkers creates the opportunity to apply PBPK models to estimate exposures to environmental contaminants from urine, blood, and tissue samples. However, reconstructing exposures for large populations is complicatedby often having too few biomarker samples, large uncertainties about exposures, andlarge interindividual variability. In this paper, we use an illustrative case study to identify some of these difficulties, and for a process for confronting them by reconstructing population-scale exposures using Bayesian inference. The application consists of interpreting biomarker data from eight adult males with controlled exposures to trichloroethylene (TCE) as if the biomarkers were random samples from a large population with unknown exposure conditions. The TCE concentrations in blood from the individuals fell into two distinctly different groups even though the individuals were simultaneously in a single exposure chamber. We successfully reconstructedthe exposure scenarios for both subgroupsFalthough the reconstruction of one subgroup is different than what is believed to be the true experimental conditions. We were however unable to predict with high certainty the concentration of TCE in air. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology (2004) 14, 204–213

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

PBPK modeling study; dose reconstruction **Sohn, McKone, Blancato 2004.pdf**No useful indoor air concentration data.NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

No useful indoor air concentration data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x x x **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes**IA/PA Data Summary**ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY IN EXPOSURE TO CHARACTERIZE RISK: CASE STUDY INVOLVING

TRICHLOROETHYLENE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AT BEALE AIR FORCE BASE IN CALIFORNIA
J. I. DANIELS, K. T. BOGEN and L. C. HALL Quantitative assessments of potential human-health consequences from contaminants in environmental media routinely involve conservative deterministic, screening-level calculations of exposure and risk. Because these calculations generally are based on multiple upper-bound point estimates of input parameters, particularly for exposure attributes, they can yield results for decision makers that actually overstate the need for costly remediation. Alternatively, quantifying uncertainty and variability in exposure can provide a more informative and quantitative characterization of health risk. To illustrate, uncertainty and variability in exposure were analyzed for a hypothetical population at a specific site in California where there is trichloroethylene (TCE) contaminated ground water and a potential for its residential use. When uncertainty and variability in exposure were addressed jointly, the 95th-percentile upper-bound value of individual excess lifetime cancer risk was a factor approaching 10 lower than the most conservative deterministic estimate. Also, the probability of more than zero additional cases of cancer can be estimated, and in this case study it is less than 0.5 for a prospective residential population of up to 26,900 individuals present for any 7.6-y interval of a 70-y time period. Clearly, this probabilistic approach can provide reasonable and equitable risk-acceptability criteria for contaminated sites. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 123: 273–298, 2000.

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Uncertainties associated with modeling TCE expsoure **Daniels etal 2000.pdf**No useful indoor air concentration data.NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

No useful indoor air concentration data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

X **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes**IA/PA Data Summary**Assessment of Airborne Exposure to Trihalomethanes from Tap Water in Residential Showers and Baths

B. D. Kerger, C. E. Schmidt, and D. J. Paustenbach This study evaluates airborne concentrations of common trihalomethane (1'HM) compounds in bathrooms during showering and bathing in homes supplied with chlorinated tap water. Three homes in an urban area were selected, each having three bedrooms, a füll bath, and approximately 1,000 square feet of living area. THMs were concurrently measured in tap water and air in the shower/bath enciosure and the bathroom vanity area using Summa can-isters. Chloroform (TCM), bromodichloromethane (BDCM), and chiorodibromomethane (CDBM) were quantified using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method TO-14. Air samples were collected prior to, during, and after the water-use event for 16 shower and 7 bath events. Flow rate and temperature were measured, but not controlled. The in¬crease in average airbome concentration (± standard error) during showers (expressed as g/m3 in shower enciosure or bathroom air per .&gfL in water) was 3.3 ± 0.4 for TCM, 1.8 ± 0.3 for BDCM, and 0.5 ± 0.1 for CDBM (n = 12), and during baths was 1.2 ± 0.4 for TCM, 0.59 ± 0.21 for BDCM, and 0.15 ± 0.05 for CDBM (n = 4). The relative contribution of each chemical to the airborne concentrations was consistent for all shower and bath events, with apparent release ofTCM > BDCM> CDBM. The resuits are therefore consistent with their relative concentration in tap water and their vapor pressures. When the shower findings for TCM are normahzed for water concentration, flow rate, shower volume, and duration, the average exposure concentrations in these urban residences are about 30% lower than those reported by other investigators using EPA analytical methods. This difference is likely attrib-utable primarily to greater air exchange rates in residential showerlbath stalls compared to more "airtight" laboratory shower chambers. This appears to be the first field study to thor-oughly evaluate THM exposures from residential Risk Analysis, Vol 20, No 5, 2000

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary **Kerger at al., 2000.pdf**No new TCE data

THM data reported, but no original TCE data. Air samples were gathered in SUMMA canisters and analyzed per EPA Method TO-14NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

Yes Blanks NR Yes Spikes NR Yes Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR Stat & QC SummaryNR External audits NR

No original TCE data (THM data). Air samples gathered in SUMMA canisters; analyzed per EPA Method TO-14Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

X **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**The Transfer of Trichloroethyene (TCE) from a Shower to Indoor Air: Experimental Measurements and Their

Implications

Thomas E. McKone and John P. Knezovich Experiments were performed to measure the transfer of trlchloroethylene (TCE), a volatile organic compound (VOC), from tap water In showers to Indoor air. In these experiments, the loss of TCE from tap water in the shower is based on the difference between Influent and effluent concentrations. We have developed and previously published a three-compartment model, which we use to simulate the 24-h concentration history of VOCs in the shower, bathroom, and remaining household volumes resulting from the use of contaminated tap water. An important input to this model is the transfer efficiency of the VOC from water to air. The experiments reveal that the transfer efficiency of TCE from shower water to air has an arithmetic mean value of 61 percent and an arithmetic standard deviation of 9 percent. Analysis of the results shows that there Is no statistically significant difference between the transfer efficiency measured with hot (37°C) or cold (22°C) shower water and that there Is no statistically significant change In transfer efficiency with time during a 20-mln shower. The implications for exposure assessment are considered. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 41: 832-837

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Experimental TCE transfer efficiency measurements. No residential/indoor air measurements. **McKone & Knezovich 1991.pdf**Paper summarizes the results of laboratory measurements of TCE transfer efficiency. No residential/indoor air

measurements.NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

Paper summarizes the results of laboratory measurements of TCE transfer efficiency. No residential/indoor air measurements.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract Citation:** 

x

x

x
x
x
x

x
x
x

x

**IA/PA Data Summary DATA CATEGORIES** 

NotesTOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry TRICHLOROETHYLENE U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Trichlorothylene. September 1997

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Literature review of data for use in assessing exposure to TCE. No original data.

Report summarizes the literature data for use in assessing exposure to TCE. No original data.
A survey of indoor air showed median concentrations of trichloroethylene as high as 27 μg / m3 (5.0 ppb) in a North Carolina office building; 0.74 μg / m3 (0.14 ppb) in a Washington, DC, school; and 0.82 μg / m3 (0.15 ppb) in a Washington, DC, home for the elderly (Hartwell et al. 1985). The level of trichloroethylene in the air of an indoor university laboratory was 0.008 ppm (8.0 ppb) (Nicoara et al. 1994). Based on the properties of trichloroethylene and a three-compartment model, the levels of trichloroethylene in indoor air have been estimated (McKone 1987). If the tap water contained 1 mg/L, the air in the shower during use was estimated to be 3.3 ppm, while in the rest of the house it was estimated to be 0.02 ppm during the day (7 am-l 1 pm) and **ATSDR 1997.pdf**NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

Report summarizes the literature data for use in assessing exposure to TCE. No original data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x

x
x
x
x

x x x

x

**IA/PA Data Summary DATA CATEGORIES** 

NotesADDENDUM TO THE TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Atlanta, GA 30333 Toxicological profiles are developed in response to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 which amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund). CERCLA mandates that the Administrator of ATSDR prepare toxicological profiles on substances on the CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances and that the profiles be revised “no less often than once every three years”. CERCLA further states that the Administrator will “establish and maintain inventory of literature, research, and studies on the health effects of toxic substances” [Title 42, Chapter 103, Subchapter I, § 9604 (i)(1)(B)]. The purpose of this addendum is to provide, to the public and federal, state, and local agencies a non-peer reviewed supplement of the scientific data that were published in the open peerreviewed literature since the release of the profile in 1997. Chapter numbers in this addendum coincide with the Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene (1997). This document should be used in conjunction with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, ADDENDUM TO THE TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE. January 2013

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Literature review of data for use in assessing exposure to TCE. No original data.

Update to previous report; summarizes the literature data for use in assessing exposure to TCE. No original data. **ATSDR 2013.pdf**The U.S. EPA reports the annual mean concentrations of trichloroethylene measured at approximately 300

locations across the United States between 1998 and 2008. Annual mean trichloroethylene concentrations at most of these locations were between 0.01 and 0.3 ppb. Some locations had annual mean levels as high as 0.7–3.4 ppb (EPA 2011f). McCarthy et al. (2006) have estimated the upper limit for the remote background concentration of trichloroethylene in North America to be 0.02 μg/m3. The mean and median concentrations of trichloroethylene in air samples collected at 25 sites across Minnesota between 1991 and 1998 were 0.43 and 0.21 μg/m3 (0.08 and 0.04 ppb), respectively (Pratt et al. 2000). Gordon et al. (1999) detected trichloroethylene in the indoor air of two out of 185 homes in Arizona with a maximum concentration of 24 μg/m3 (4.39 ppb). Weisel et al. (2008) detected trichloroethylene in the air of 8 out of 100 homes located in both suburban and rural areas of New Jersey with maximum and 95th percentile values of 13 and 2.74 μg/m3 (2.38 and 0.50 ppb), respectively Loh et al. (2006) measured geometric mean and maximum trichloroethylene concentrations of 0.43 and 115 μg/m3 (0.08 and 21.1 ppb), respectively, in the air of over 100 stores in the greater Boston, Massachusetts area and 0.23 and 118 μg/m3 (0.04 and 21.6 ppb), respectively, in the air of 20 dining establishments in the same region. Martin et al. (2007) measured the concentrations of trichloroethylene at buildings located near an industrial facility in Clark County, Georgia. Levels in indoor were 0.92 μg/m3 (0.17 ppb) at an elementary school, 0.59–1.85 μg/m3 (0.11–0.34 ppb) at a local business, and 0.21–4.66 μg/m3 (0.04–0.85 ppb) in three homes. Levels measured in outdoor air at these same locations were 0.72 μg/m3 (0.13 ppb), 1.30–4.59 μg/m3 (0.24–0.84 ppb), and 0.03–0.05 μg/m3 (0.005–0.009 ppb), respectively. Mean concentrations of trichloroethylene measured during the Minnesota Children’s Pesticide Exposure Study (MCPES) were 0.8 μg/m3 (0.15 ppb) in 73 personal air samples, 0.6 μg/m3 (0.11 ppb) in 101 indoor air samples, and 0.6 μg/m3 (0.11 ppb) in 100 outdoor air samples collected from households with children (Adgate et al. 2004a). During the School Health Initiative: Environment, Learning, Disease (SHIELD) study, the concentrations of trichloroethylene were measured in the outdoor home air, indoor school air, indoor home air, and personal air of 113 children from two inner-city schools in Minneapolis, Minnesota (Adgate et al. 2004b). Median concentrations of trichloroethylene in each of these sampling groups during both summer and winter were between 0.1 and 0.3 μg/m3 (0.02–0.05 ppb). The mean concentrations of trichloroethylene measured in the winter during the Toxic Exposure Assessment, Columbia/Harvard (TEACH) study were 0.36 μg/m3 (0.07 ppb) in home outdoor air, 1.26 μg/m3 (0.23 ppb) in home indoor air, and 2.62 μg/m3 (0.48 ppb) in personal air associated with 36 students from west central Harlem in New York City (Kinney et al. 2002). Trichloroethylene concentrations measured in the summer were 0.24 μg/m3 (0.04 ppb) in home outdoor air, 0.32 μg/m3 (0.06 ppb) in home indoor air, and 0.51 μg/m3 (0.09 ppb) in personal air associated with 31–40 students from the same area. Clayton et al. (1999) reported mean trichloroethylene levels of 5.27 μg/m3 (0.96 ppb) in 386 personal air samples, 2.84 μg/m3 (0.52 ppb) in 402 indoor air samples, and 1.11 μg/m3 (0.20 ppb) in 97 outdoor air samples collected in EPA (0.16 and 0.31 ppb), respectively, in the indoor air of four large buildings at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. The levels were attributed to vapor intrusion from underlying contaminated groundwater. Some elevated outdoor air levels of trichloroethylene reported are associated with waste disposal sites. Average trichloroethylene levels of 0.08–2.43 ppb were detected in ambient air at six landfill sites in New Jersey; the maximum concentration was 12.3 ppb (Harkov et al. 1985).
Sapkota et al. (2005) measured median and maximum trichloroethylene concentrations of 3.11 and 6.89 μg/m3 (0.57 and 1.26 ppb), respectively, in the indoor air of a tollbooth at the Baltimore Harbor Toll Plaza and 0.06 and 0.56 μg/m3 (0.01 and 0.10 ppb), respectively, in the air outside the tollbooth.NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

Update to previous report; summarizes the literature data for use in assessing exposure to TCE. No original data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
x
x **DATA CATEGORIES**Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**TOXICOLOGICAL REVIEW OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE (CAS No. 79-01-6) In Support of Summary Information on the

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency There is substantial potential for human exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE), as it has a widespread presence in ambient air, indoor air, soil, and groundwater. At the same time, humans are likely to be exposed to a variety of compounds that are either metabolites of TCE or which have common metabolites or targets of toxicity. Once exposed, humans, as well as laboratory animal species, rapidly absorb TCE, which is then distributed to tissues via systemic circulation, extensively metabolized, and then excreted primarily in breath as unchanged TCE or carbon dioxide, or in urine as metabolites.
For cancer, the inhalation unit risk is 2 × 10-2 per ppm [4 × 10-6 perμg/m3], based on human kidney cancer risks reported by Charbotel et al. (2006) and adjusted, using human epidemiologic data, for potential risk for NHL and liver cancer. The oral unit risk for cancer is 5 × 10-2 per mg/kg/day, resulting from physiologically based pharmacokinetic model-based route-to-route extrapolation of the inhalation unit risk based on the human kidney cancer risks reported in Charbotel et al. (2006) and adjusted, using human epidemiologic data, for potential risk for NHL and liver cancer. There is high confidence in these unit risks for cancer, as they are based on good quality human data, as well as being similar to unit risk estimates based on multiple rodent bioassays. There is both sufficient weight of evidence to conclude that TCE operates through a mutagenic mode of action for kidney tumors and a lack of TCE-specific quantitative data on early-life susceptibility. Generally, the application of age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAFs) is recommended when assessing cancer risks for a carcinogen with a mutagenic mode of action. However, because the ADAF adjustment applies only to the kidney cancer component of the total risk, it is likely to have a minimal impact on the total cancer risk except when EPA/635/R-09/011F September 2011 www.epa.gov/iris

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary **EPA 2011a.pdf**TCE Literature review of data in support of IRIS. No original data.

TCE Literature review of data in support of IRIS. No original data.NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR Stat & QC SummaryNR Duplicates NR

NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR TCE Literature review of data in support of IRIS. No original data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract Citation:** 

x

x
x

x

x

**IA/PA Data Summary DATA CATEGORIES** 

NotesTechnical Support Document; Proposed Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

California Air Resources Board
State of Californial, Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division. Technical Support Document, Proposed Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant. August 1990.

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Lit. review for use by CA Dept of Health Services in its determina-tion of whether TCE should be identified as toxic air contaminant.

TCE Literature review -- no original data. **CARB 1990.pdf**NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR
NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

TCE Literature review -- no original data.Back to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x **DATA CATEGORIES**x

Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**Background Indoor Air Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in North American Residences

(1990–2005): A Compilation of Statistics for Assessing Vapor Intrusion

USEPA Indoor air typically contains volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) from consumer products, building materials, and outdoor (ambient) air. Indoor air concentrations resulting from these sources are commonly referred to as “background” when assessing the potential for intrusion of subsurface contaminant vapors into the indoor air of overlying buildings. Any indoor air sample collected for site-specific assessment of subsurface vapor intrusion is likely to detect chemicals from these other sources. In many cases, the compounds detected in indoor air may be the same as those present in contaminated soil or groundwater that may enter the building through subsurface vapor intrusion. The presence of indoor and outdoor sources of VOCs can often make it challenging to assess the contribution of vapor intrusion to indoor air concentrations because it is often difficult to distinguish background from subsurface contaminant contributions.
This technical report presents a summary of indoor air studies that measured background concentrations of VOCs in the indoor air of thousands of North American residences and an evaluation and compilation of the statistical information reported in these studies. The objective of this compilation is to illustrate the ranges and variability of VOC concentrations in indoor air resulting from sources other than vapor intrusion. Similar compilations have been previously published, but these have been based on generally older data or limited statistical information.
The compilation of statistical information developed for this technical report is based on 15 indoor air studies conducted between 1990 and 2005. These were selected from a total of 18 indoor air quality studies conducted between 1981 and 2005, which reported summary statistics for distribution of indoor air concentrations measured in residences that are not expected or known to be located over contaminated soil or groundwater or that have effective vapor intrusion mitigation systems in place. The information compiled for this technical report includes percentiles (e.g., 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th percentiles), number of samples, percent EPA 530-R-10-001 June 2011

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure **EPA 2011b.pdf**Ingestion exposure

Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

*** Very nice summary of indoor air measurement literature ***

No useful indoor dataNR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR Stat & QC SummaryNR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR

No useful indoor dataBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x

x x **DATA CATEGORIES**x

Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**TSCA Workplan Chemical Risk Assessment for Trichloroethylene: Degreaser and Arts/Crafts Uses

USEPA Trichloroethylene (TCE) was identified for risk assessment as part of the United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)’s Existing Chemicals Management Program. The US EPA reviewed readily available information on TCE including uses, physical and chemistry properties, fate, exposure potential, and associated hazards to humans and the environment.
TCE is a volatile organic compound (VOC) that is produced or imported into the US in large quantities (>250 million lbs (lbs) per year) and has multiple uses. The majority, roughly 84 percent, of TCE is used as an intermediate chemical for manufacturing refrigerant chemicals, but no emission information was available because it is processed in a closed system. Much of the remaining ~15 percent is used as a solvent for metals degreasing, leaving a relatively small percentage to account for all other uses, including its use in consumer products.
This assessment is focused on TCE’s use as a degreaser in small commercial settings1 and by consumers in residential settings and its use as a clear protective coating spray by arts and crafts hobbyists. Due to TCE’s high volatility, all exposures were evaluated for the inhalation exposure pathway only. The US EPA recognizes that dermal exposure can occur, but this exposure pathway is considered less significant and was not considered within the scope of this risk assessment. For the exposure assessment, OPPT reviewed available data from three separate sources (i.e., National Emissions Inventory [NEI], Toxics Release Inventory [TRI], and the North American Industry Classification System [NAICS]) and developed estimates for exposures for the small commercial degreaser use. There were no reliable data regarding the hobbyist scenarios, so OPPT estimated hobbyist exposures using a standard exposure assessment modeling approach (i.e., EPA’s Exposure and Fate Assessment Screening Tool [E-FAST], Consumer Exposure Module [CEM]). Modeling and evaluation were used to develop exposure estimates for the following exposure scenarios: small commercial degreaser worker; consumer/hobbyist degreaser user; and consumer/hobbyist clear protective United States Environmental Protection, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. TSCA Workplan Chemical Risk Assessment for Trichloroethylene: Degreaser and Arts/Crafts Uses. December, 2012.

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion **EPA 2012.pdf**Inhalation exposure

Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

TCE TSCA Risk Assessment for degreaser and Arts/Crafts Uses.

No useful indoor dataNR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR Stat & QC SummaryNR 50th percentile NR

NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR

No useful indoor dataBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x **DATA CATEGORIES**Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**SOURCES, EMISSION AND EXPOSURE FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) AND RELATED CHEMICALS

EPA/600/R-00/099 March 2001 This report is an exposure assessment of Trichloroethylene (TCE), its metabolites, and other chemical compounds known to produce identical metabolites. In addition to TCE, other parent compounds considered here are 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform), tetrachloroethylene (PCE or PERC), 1,2-dichloroethylene (cis- , trans-, and mixed isomers), 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, and 1,1-dichloroethane. The metabolites are chloral, chloral hydrate, monochloroacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, and dichloro-vinyl cysteine (DCVC). Although listed here, no information was found for the metabolite, DCVC. The parent compounds are used in many diverse manufacturing industries such as food processing, textiles, wood products, furniture and fixtures, paper, printing and publishing, chemicals, petroleum, rubber, leather, stone and clay, primary metals, fabricated metals, industrial machinery, electronics, and transportation equipment. They are primarily used as solvents, carriers, or extractants; in dry cleaning of textiles; in metal cleaning and degreasing; in textile manufacturing; as insulating fluids/coolants; and as chemical intermediates. The metabolites have more restricted uses in industry as chemical intermediates, herbicides, and pharmaceuticals. The major routes of exposure for these chemicals are inhalation, ingestion, and dermal absorption. The following paragraphs summarize available information concerning the general population, occupational, and consumer exposure to these chemicals. A summary of the potential exposure pathways and potential exposed populations for each chemical is presented in Table A-1. Although inhalation seems to be the dominant route of exposure for most of the chemicals, exposure can also occur through the ingestion of contaminated foods and drinking water and through dermal contact (spills). Using media levels of the chemicals considered here, one may predict the EPA/600/R-00/099 March 2001

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary **EPA 2001b.PDF**Simulated TCE Exposure scenarios

No original indoor air dataNR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR Stat & QC SummaryNR Internal audits NR

NR External audits NR
No original indoor air dataBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

x **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes**IA/PA Data Summary**A Trichloroethylene Risk Assessment Using a Monte Carlo Analysis of Parameter Uncertainty in Conjunction with

Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling Cronin, W. J., Oswald, E. J., Shelley, M. L., Fisher, J. W. and Flemming, C. D.A Monte Carlo simulation is incorporated into a risk assessment for trichloroethylene (TCE) using physiologicallybased pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling coupled with the linearized multistage model to derive human carcinogenic risk extrapolations. The Monte Carlo technique incorporates physiological parameter variability to produce a statistically derived range of risk estimates which quantifies specific uncertainties associated with PBPK risk assessment approaches. Both inhalation and ingestion exposure routes are addressed. Simulated exposure scenarios were consistent with those used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their TCE risk assessment. Mean values of physiological parameters were gathered from the literature for both mice (carcinogenic bioassay subjects) and for humans. Realistic physiological value distributions were assumed usingexisting data on variability. Mouse cancer bioassay data were correlated to total TCE metabolized and areaunder-the-curve (blood concentration) trichloroacetic acid (TCA) as determined by a mouse PBPK model. These internal dose metrics were used in a linearized multistage model analysis to determine dose metric values corresponding to 10-6 lifetime excess cancer risk. Using a human PBPK model, these metabolized doses were then extrapolated to equivalent human exposures (inhalation and ingestion). The Monte Carlo iterations with varying mouse and human physiological parameters produced a range of human exposure concentrations Cronin, W. J., Oswald, E. J., Shelley, M. L., Fisher, J. W. and Flemming, C. D. (1995), A Trichloroethylene Risk Assessment Using a Monte Carlo Analysis of Parameter Uncertainty in Conjunction with Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling. Risk Analysis, 15: 555–565. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00752.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00752.x/abstract

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

TCE PBPK modeling study **Cronin etal 1996**No original indoor air dataNR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

No original indoor air dataNo original indoor air dataBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

**DATA CATEGORIES**x

Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**Distribution of volatile organic chemicals in outdoor and indoor air: a national VOCs data base

Jitendra J. Shah , Hanwant B. Singh The release of many volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) into the ambient environment is a necessary outcome of their use. Many of these chemicals are implicated in the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer and threaten to alter the climate of the earth ( 1 ) . Others are suspected of causing human cancer. The association between human cancer and exposure to synthetic chemicals is a matter of active debate and concern (2-5). A Surgeon General's report states, "Toxic chemicals are adding to the disease burden of the United States in a significant although as yet not precisely defined way" (6).
Determining human exposure to a complex array of chemicals is a key factor in quantifying the relationship between environmental factors and human disease. Because people may spend as much as 80-90% of their time indoors (7), and because new energy conservation methods could lead to a deterioration of indoor air quality, we need to characterize both outdoor and indoor air environments.
Monitoring activities have intensified over the last two decades in the United States. in an because of the public awareness and fear of cancer. These activities have generated a significant body of VOC data widely scattered in scientific journals and reports. Critics charge that too few chemicals are monitored, the data generated are of varying and often questionable quality, and the results are not readily available to users. At least part of the problem stems from the complexity of the air mixture and the sophistication that is requid for ultratrace analysis of organic chemicals.
In 1980, EPA recognized the need to organize the available data into a single, cohesive format so their quantity, quality, and significance could be assessed. A VOC national ambient data base was first prepared in the early 1980s and published by EPA (8). In 1986, when the data base needed to be expanded to include the large amount of ambient VOC data published since 1980, EPA contracted to upgrade and expand the earlier study (9). Concurrently, powerful personal computers (PCs) that could be conveniently used for such data bases became available. As a result of this study, outdoor as well as indoor data are now available in a unified form for FCs and can be used to screen for many environmental problems, including exposure to VOCs. Here we present a first Environ. Sci. Technol., 1988, 22 (12), pp 1381–1388 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es00177a001?journalCode=esthag

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure **Shah & Singh, 1988**Dermal exposure

Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Database of VOC measurements.

No original indoor air dataNR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR Stat & QC SummaryNR 75th percentile NR

NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR
No original indoor air dataBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors**  **Abstract**

**Citation:**

x

x **DATA CATEGORIES**

Notes

**IA/PA Data Summary**An Empirical Analysis of the Groundwater-to-Indoor-Air Exposure Pathway: The Role of Background

Concentrations in Indoor Air To further our understanding of the groundwater-to-indoor-air exposure pathway, a database of 270 paired groundwater and indoor air measurements of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from 31 sites has been compiled and analyzed. Using regression analyses, these data have been analyzed to (1) detect evidence of indoor air impacts from dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons or chlorinated solvents in underlying groundwater, (2) estimate the true attenuation factor for volatilization from groundwater to indoor air, and (3) assess the utility of popular groundwater-to-indoor-air transport models for evaluating this exposure pathway. Key findings include the following: (1) > 95% of the indoor air concentrations fall within or below the range of national background indoor air values; (2) there is no correlation between petroleum constituent concentrations measured in groundwater and the concentrations of these VOCs in indoor air of overlying structures; and (3) for chlorinated solvent cases, a correlation between groundwater and overlying indoor air is observed; however, the average true attenuation factor, after correcting for background, is approximately 6.9 × 10−5, well below the default 1 × 10−3 value used by USEP A Vapor Intrusion Guidance to determine groundwater screening levels. Environmental Forensics, 5:33-44, 2004 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15275920490424024#.UnksXietzS8

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling PBPK modeling Lit review / summary

Analysis of the correlation between ground water and indoor air concentrations, estimated attenuation factors

No original indoor air data **McHugh etal, 2004**NR Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

NR Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR NR Maximum NR

NR Blanks NR NR Spikes NR NR Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR Stat & QC Summary

No original indoor air dataBack to Summary

Back to Stats **Title and Authors** 

**Abstract**

**Citation:**

**DATA CATEGORIES**Location

VOC sampling used passive thermal desorpon Collected samples were analyzed for 98 target compounds, including aromatic, halogenated, aliphatic, carbonyl and terpenoid compounds, using an automated thermal desorption–gas chromatography– mass spectrometry (ATD–GC–MS) system. Subject-based monitoring of personal air and home-based indoor air, same 3 consecutive 48 hr sampling periods 5 subjects monitored simultaneously each week 15 VOCs, PM2.5, black carbon, 28 particle trace elements, 2 aldehydes
Sampling Methods **Notes**

**IA/PA Data Summary**VOCs in industrial, urban and suburban neighborhoods, Part 1: Indoor and outdoor concentrations, variation,

and risk drivers Chunrong Jia, Stuart Batterman, Christopher Godwin Information regarding indoor and ambient concentrations and exposures of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is limited in terms of the number and types of compounds measured, the spatial and temporal variation of concentrations, and the significance of indoor and outdoor emission sources. This study characterizes a wide range of VOCs across three communities that represent a gradient of population density and industrial activity. Monitoring was conducted in two seasons inside and outside of 159 residences in industrial, urban and suburban cities located in southeast Michigan, USA. Passive samplers were deployed at each location, and analyzed for 98 compounds. Outdoors, 46 different VOCs were detected. Benzene, toluene, p,m-xylene and carbon tetrachloride had the highest concentrations (medians from 1 to 2 μg m−3). Concentraons were elevated in winter in the suburban community, and levels were the highest in the industrial community. Indoors, 53 VOCs were detected, and benzene, toluene, p,m-xylene, n-heptane, α-pinene and d-limonene had the highest concentrations (medians from 1 to 17 μg m−3). Seasonal changes were small or inconsistent. Median indoor levels among the three communities generally followed outdoor rankings. Indoor/outdoor ratios varied from 1 to 10 for most compounds, but up to 100 for several compounds, e.g., d-limonene. Over a quarter of residences had benzene, naphthalene, chloroform and carbon tetrachloride at levels giving a chronic lifetime cancer risk above 10−5 and sometimes much higher; outdoors, these compounds gave risks exceeding 10−6. The study idenfies a number of indoor emission sources associated with specific and sometimes very high VOC exposures, reports on several VOCs that have not been measured in previous indoor and outdoor studies, and shows the importance of both indoor and outdoor sources. Measured concentrations were at an intermediate level with respect to recent measurements elsewhere in the US, suggesting that study results are broadly representative.
Keywords Indoor air; Ambient air; Benzene; Exposure; Emissions; Risk; Naphthalene; Seasonality; Volatile organic Atmospheric Environment, Volume 42, Issue 9, March 2008, Pages 2083–2100 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231007011028

TCE in indoor air TCE in outdoor air TCE personal air TCE in soil TCE in water supply TCE in ground water TCE in surface water TCE in breath TCE in blood TCE in urine Consumer product Vapor intrusion Inhalation exposure Dermal exposure Ingestion exposure Air modeling **Jia etal 2008**PBPK modeling

Lit review / summary

VOC sampling study conducted in Southeast Michigan in 1999

Southeast Michigan Winter and Summer, 1999 VOC sampling used passive thermal desorpontube samplers, which obtained a 2Lsampling volume over the sampling period (Baerman Collected samples were analyzed for 98 target compounds, including aromatic, halogenated, aliphatic, carbonyl and terpenoid compounds, using an automated thermal desorption–gas chromatography– mass spectrometry (ATD–GC–MS) system. Subject-based monitoring of personal air and home-based indoor air, same 3 consecutive 48 hr sampling periods 5 subjects monitored simultaneously each week 15 VOCs, PM2.5, black carbon, 28 particle trace elements, 2 aldehydes

Personal samples, battery operated pump, VOC thermal desorption tube (multi-sorbent "Air toxics" tubes, TO-17)226 Number of measurments NR

NR Minimum detection limit (MDL) NR NR Percent above MDL NR

0.03 Arithmetic mean NR NR Arithmetic std. dev. NR NR Geometric mean NR NR Geometric std. dev. NR

NR Minimum NR NR 25th percentile NR NR 50th percentile NR NR 75th percentile NR 0.23 Maximum NR Stat & QC SummaryYes Blanks NR

NR Spikes NR Yes Duplicates NR NR Internal audits NR NR External audits NR

sampling volume over the sampling period (Baermanet al., 2002). Collected samples were analyzed for 98 target compounds, including aromatic, halogenated, aliphatic, carbonyl and terpenoid compounds, using an automated thermal desorption–gas chromatography– mass spectrometry (ATD–GC–MS) system.

N= Compound DF Ave Med Max TCE 49 0.03 0 0.23 Personal samples, battery operated pump, VOC thermal desorption tube (multi-sorbent "Air toxics" tubes, TO-17)

226 All seasonsCollected samples were analyzed for 98 target compounds, including aromatic, halogenated, aliphatic, carbonyl and terpenoid compounds, using an automated thermal desorption–gas chromatography– mass spectrometry (ATD–GC–MS) system.

Ave Med Ave Med Ave Med Ave Med Ave 0.01 0 0.05 0.04 0.01 0 0.05 0.05 0.01 Winter 29 Spring

40 Summer 40 Winter

42 Summer

30Med Ave Med

0 0.04 0.04 Spring 40 Fall

45