Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0147-0006
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-06-18T04:00Z

Page
1
of
6
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
April
29,
2004
Memorandum
SUBJECT:
Review
of
a
Literature
Study
(
Garrod
et
al
2000)
to
Determine
Unit
Exposures
for
Do­
It­
Yourself
(
DIY)
Antifoulant
Painting
of
Recreational
Boat
Hulls
(
Brush/
Roller)
and
Wood
Preservative
Painting
of
Home
Structures
(
Brush).
DP
Barcode
301375.

FROM:
Tim
Leighton,
Environmental
Scientist
Antimicrobials
Division
THRU:
Winston
Dang,
Senior
Scientist
Doreen
Aviado,
Biologist
Antimicrobials
Division
TO:
Debbie
Smegal,
Toxicologist
Antimicrobials
Division
Attached
is
a
review
of
a
study
conducted
through
the
UK's
Health
Safety
Executive
by
Garrod
et
al
2000.
Potential
Exposure
of
Amateurs
(
Consumers)
through
Painting
Wood
Preservative
and
Antifoulant
Preparations.
Ann.
Occup.
Hyg.,
Vol.
44,
No.
6,
pp.
421­
426.

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The
Garrod
et
al
(
2000)
study
was
submitted
by
the
registrant
during
the
30­
day
error
comment
period
of
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
RED)
process
for
Zinc
Omadine
 
(
i.
e.,
zinc
pyrithione).
The
Garrod
et
al
(
2000)
study
was
reviewed
by
the
Antimicrobials
Division
(
AD)
to
provide
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposures
(
UEs)
appropriate
for
use
in
developing
antifoulant
and
wood
preservative
outdoor
painting
exposure
scenarios
for
amateur
(
consumer)
applicators.
The
antifoulant
paint
in
this
study
was
applied
using
a
paint
brush
and
roller
to
boat
hulls
of
recreational
craft
stored
on
sling/
cradle/
trailers.
The
wood
preservative
was
applied
by
paint
brush
to
wood
surfaces
on
various
structures
around
the
home
(
i.
e.,
shed/
trellis/
house/
fence).
The
scenarios
monitored
in
this
study
(
i.
e.,
antifoulant
applications
via
brush/
roller
and
wood
preservative
brush­
on
treatments)
are
more
representative
for
do­
ityourself
(
DIY)
painters
than
the
surrogate
data
available
in
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(
PHED).
The
surrogate
data
in
PHED
are
based
on
an
indoor
painting
scenario
where
latex
paint
containing
a
fungicide
is
applied
to
interior
bathroom
walls
with
a
brush.
However,
only
the
air
concentration
data
are
available
from
Garrod
et
al
(
2000).
Those
estimates
are
Page
2
of
6
presented
below
in
Tables
1
and
2.
The
dermal
portion
of
the
study
monitored
mostly
exposure
on
the
outside
of
clothing
and
only
one
patch
was
used
underneath
clothing.
New
studies
measuring
both
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
are
recommended.

Introduction
A
total
of
25
test
subjects
were
monitored
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
to
selected
wood
preservative
and
antifoulant
pesticides
as
either
dichlofluanid,
zinc
octoate,
copper,
or
acypetacs
zinc.
Test
subjects
in
10
replicates
were
monitored
while
mixing/
loading/
applying
antifoulant
paint
by
hand
held
brush
and
roller
(
both
techniques
during
the
same
replicate)
to
boat
hulls
of
recreational
craft
stored
on
slings,
cradles,
and
trailers.
Although
the
length
of
the
boats
were
not
reported,
the
area
of
the
hull
painted
is
provided.
It
is
estimated,
based
on
the
area
painted,
that
the
boats
are
in
the
±
25
ft
range.
In
addition,
test
subjects
(
15
replicates)
were
also
monitored
while
applying
wood
preservatives
to
home
structures
(
i.
e.,
fence,
shed,
house)
using
a
hand
held
paint
brush.
The
specific
type
of
paint
(
e.
g.,
was
it
a
paint
or
a
stain,
solvent
content
unknown)
applied
to
the
home
structures
was
not
reported.
Preparation
and
cleanup
from
these
activities
were
not
monitored.

The
dermal
samples
were
monitored
using
6
patches
on
the
outside
of
the
test
subject's
clothing
and
one
patch
on
the
inside
of
the
clothing.
The
location
of
the
patches
were
not
reported.
However,
the
article
did
state
that
"...
the
method
as
described
in
Llewellyn
et
al
(
1996)
was
used."
Presumably
this
reference
indicates
the
location
of
the
patches
on
the
body.
Nonetheless,
only
outside
dermal
exposure
measurements
are
available
in
this
study.
One
inside
patch
is
indeterminate
for
inside
clothing
dermal
exposure
estimates.
Cotton
gloves
were
worn
as
dosimeters.
Some
test
subjects
wore
work
gloves
over
these
dosimeters.
Socks
were
used
as
dosimeters
to
measure
foot
exposure
as
well.

Inhalation
exposure
was
monitored
using
personal
air
pumps
in
the
test
subject's
breathing
zone.
The
pumps
for
the
wood
preservative
replicates
were
run
at
0.5
L/
min
"...
through
a
glass
fibre
GF/
A
filter
held
in
a
combination
open­
face
sampling
head
with
a
standard
45
mg
"
Tenax
®
"
tube".
The
replicates
in
the
boat
hull
painting
scenarios
used
pumps
run
at
2
L/
min
with
"...
cellulose
acetate
filters
held
in
a
seven
hole
head
mounted
within
30
cm
of
the
breathing
zone."

QA/
QC
samples
consisted
of
laboratory
recoveries.
The
laboratory
recovery
results
were
mostly
in
the
90
percent
range
with
the
zinc
octoate
ranging
from
69
to
89
percent.
One
replicate
using
the
zinc
octoate
was
corrected
for
recovery.
No
other
replicates
were
corrected.
The
article
did
not
mention
field
fortifications
or
storage
stability
samples
(
nor
did
it
discuss
shipment
or
storage
of
field
samples).
Limits
of
detection
(
LOD)
were
reported
for
all
four
chemicals
for
all
matrices.

Sampling
Results
The
results
of
the
air
sampling
measurements
are
presented
in
Tables
1
(
antifoulant
paint)
and
2
(
wood
preservative).
These
data
are
taken
from
Table
2
of
Garrod
et
al
(
2000).
Garrod's
Page
3
of
6
table
reports
individual
replicates
including
active
ingredient
(
grams/
L
or
%
w/
w),
volume
of
product
used,
surface
area
painted
(
m2),
replicate
duration,
air
concentration
(
mg/
m3),
outside
dermal
exposure
(
mg),
percent
clothing
penetration,
hand
exposure
(
mg),
and
foot
exposure
(
mg).
In
an
effort
to
determine
the
best
variable
to
normalize
the
unit
exposures,
and
ultimately
recommend
a
surrogate
normalized
air
concentration
for
these
painting
scenarios,
correlation
coefficients
were
calculated
using
the
"
correl"
function
in
Excel.
The
correlations
for
the
air
concentrations
(
mg/
m3/
replicate)
versus
percent
ai
in
the
paint
formulation,
total
lbs
ai
applied,
area
painted,
and
sampling
times
are
presented
in
Table
3.

The
dermal
portion
of
the
study
is
not
presented
in
this
review
because
outside
dosimetry
measurements
were
collected
(
using
6
patches
 
EPA
suggests
10
patches)
and
patch
locations
on
the
body
were
not
presented.
Only
one
inside
clothing
dosimeter
was
worn
and
the
placement
of
that
patch
on
the
body
was
not
reported).
In
addition,
no
field
and/
or
storage
stability
samples
were
reported
(
although
the
compounds
are
believed
to
be
stable).
It
is
unclear
from
the
results
table
in
Garrod
et
al
(
2000)
if
the
"
dermal"
exposure
values
include
the
results
of
the
hands
and
feet
(
i.
e.,
hands
and
feet
are
reported
separately).
Finally,
the
percent
penetration
is
only
based
on
one
inside
patch
and
is
considered
incomplete
to
estimate
penetration
for
total
dermal
exposure.

Table
1.
Air
concentration
Measured
While
Painting
Recreation
Sized
Boat
Hulls
With
Antifoulant
Paints.

Study
Replicate
No.
Amount
AI
Paint
(%)
Applied
(
Gallons)
Sampling
Time
(
hr)
Area
Painted
(
m2)
Air
Conc
a
(
mg/
m3/
replicate)
Air
Conc
b
(
mg/
m3/%
ai)

Antifoulant
Paint
 
Brush/
Roller
(
Copper)

6
29.8
1.3
1.53
23
ND
(
0.0005)
ND
(
1.7E­
5)

7
29.8
1.3
1.25
23
0.03
1.0E­
3
8
21.6
1
1.75
23
0.05
2.3E­
3
9
27
1
1.87
15
ND
(
0.0004)
ND
(
1.5E­
5)

10
28
1.3
1.72
30
0.11
3.9E­
3
11
7.4
0.5
1.22
14
ND
(
0.0007)
ND
(
9.5E­
5)

12
28.7
0.9
1.22
15
ND
(
0.0007)
ND
(
2.4E­
5)

13
29.2
0.9
0.58
15
ND
(
0.001)
ND
(
3.4E­
5)

14
26.3
0.5
1.47
20
0.03
1.1E­
3
25
8.7
1
1.03
7.4
ND
(
0.0008)
ND
(
9.2E­
5)

mean
23.7
±
8.6
0.98
±
0.30
1.36
±
0.39
18.5
±
6.5
0.022
±
0.036
0.00087
±
0.001
50th%
tile
27.5
1.04
1.36
17.5
0.001
9E­
5
75th%
tile
29.1
1.24
1.67
23
0.03
0.0011
90th%
tile
29.8
1.30
1.76
23.7
0.056
0.0025
Page
4
of
6
a
The
air
concentrations
reported
in
units
of
mg/
m3/
replicate
are
presented
as
monitored
in
the
study
using
½
LOD
for
non
detects
(
ND).
For
those
values
reported
as
ND,
the
mg/
m3/
replicate
value
in
parentheses
represents
½
the
LOD.

b
The
air
concentrations
reported
in
units
of
mg/
m3/%
ai
are
presented
as
the
mg/
m3/
replicate
divided
by
the
%
ai
in
the
paint
(
using
½
LOD
for
non
detects).
For
those
values
reported
as
ND,
the
mg/
m3/%
ai
value
in
parentheses
represents
½
the
LOD.

Table
2.
Air
Concentration
Measured
While
Painting
Home
Structures
With
Wood
Preservative.

Study
Replicate
No.
Amount
AI
Paint
(%)
Applied
(
Gallons)
Sampling
Time
(
hr)
Area
Painted
(
m2)
Air
Conc
a
(
mg/
m3/
replicate)
Air
Conc
b
(
mg/
m3/%
ai)

Wood
Preservative
 
Brush
(
Dichlofluanid,
zinc
octoate
(
n=
1),
acypetacs
zinc
(
n=
1))

1
0.357
1
2.88
25
0.0002
(
ND)
5.6E­
4
(
ND)

2
8.1
1.3
1.53
12
1.16
0.14
3
0.33
1
1.93
16
0.0003
(
ND)
9.1E­
4
(
ND)

4
0.33
1
3
20
0.5
1.5
5
0.33
1
3.03
20
6.2
19
15
0.21
1
3.25
14
0.72
3.4
16
0.4
0.5
1.27
10
0.0005
(
ND)
1.3E­
3
(
ND)

17
1.5
1.6
4.02
25
8.03
5.4
18
0.375
2.2
2.78
30
0.0002
(
ND)
5.3E­
4
(
ND)

19
0.4
2.1
2.6
25
0.0003
(
ND)
7.5E­
4
(
ND)

20
0.345
2
2.42
20
0.0003
(
ND)
8.7E­
4
(
ND)

21
0.37
1
2.17
13
2.1
5.7
22
0.375
1.3
1.6
15
0.0004
(
ND)
1.1E­
3
(
ND)

23
0.33
0.9
2.58
25
0.0003
(
ND)
9.1E­
4
(
ND)

24
0.39
0.3
2.3
12
0.0003
(
ND)
7.7E­
4
(
ND)

mean
±
std
0.9
±
2.0
1.2
±
0.5
2.49
±
0.73
18.8
±
6.2
1.25
±
2.48
2.33
±
5.0
50th%
tile
0.4
1.04
2.58
20
0.0004
0.0011
75th%
tile
0.4
1.43
2.94
25
0.94
2.47
90th%
tile
1.1
2.0
3.2
25
4.6
5.5
a
The
air
concentrations
reported
in
units
of
mg/
m3/
replicate
are
presented
as
monitored
in
the
study
using
½
LOD
for
non
detects.
For
those
values
reported
as
ND,
the
mg/
m3/
replicate
value
in
parentheses
represents
½
the
LOD.

b
The
air
concentrations
reported
in
units
of
mg/
m3/%
ai
are
presented
as
the
mg/
m3/
replicate
divided
by
the
%
ai
Page
5
of
6
in
the
paint
(
using
½
LOD
for
non
detects).
For
those
values
reported
as
ND,
the
mg/
m3/%
ai
value
in
parentheses
represents
½
the
LOD.

Table
3.
Correlation
Coefficients
for
Air
Concentration
and
Study
Parameters
Parameters
Air
Concentration
(
mg/
m3/
replicate)

Antifoulant
Paint
Wood
Preservative
Percent
ai
in
formulated
paint
0.23
0.10
Total
pounds
ai
0.23
0.10
Area
painted
(
m2)
0.80
0.16
Sampling
time
(
minutes)
0.46
0.58
Correlation
coefficient
is
based
on
the
"
correl"
function
in
Excel.

Conclusions
This
study
is
the
only
data
available
to
EPA
to
estimate
Do­
It­
Yourself
(
DIY)
boat
hull
painting
with
an
antifoulant
paint.
It
is
also
the
only
outdoor
paint
brush
study
available
for
painting
(
PHED
paint
brush
study
is
an
interior
bathroom
latex
paint
study).
The
results
of
the
inhalation
portion
of
the
study
have
been
presented
above
because
the
sampling
methodology
is
deemed
acceptable.
Nonetheless,
there
are
uncertainties
associated
with
these
values
including:
(
1)
no
field
and/
or
storage
stability
samples
were
generated;
(
2)
storage
and
shipment
of
samples
were
not
discussed;
(
3)
the
size
(
length)
of
the
boat
was
not
presented;
and
(
4)
the
formulation
of
the
paint
applied
was
not
reported
(
e.
g.,
solvents,
type
and
percent).
The
correlation
coefficients
presented
in
Table
3
above
do
not
indicate
a
strong
correlation
with
the
study
parameters.

The
dermal
exposure
results
are
not
presented
in
this
review
because
of
the
study
design
(
e.
g.,
outside
dosimetry,
6
patches
 
EPA
suggests
10
patches,
and
patch
location
not
presented;
only
one
inside
clothing
patch).
In
addition,
it
is
unclear
from
the
results
table
presented
in
Garrod
et
al
(
2000)
if
the
dermal
exposure
column
is
for
the
torso
only
or
if
the
data
in
this
column
also
includes
the
exposures
of
the
hands
and
feet.
The
confusion
results
from
the
fact
that
the
exposures
for
the
hands
and
feet
are
reported
in
separate
columns.
Finally
(
and
most
importantly),
the
percent
clothing
penetration
is
only
based
on
one
inside
patch
and
is
considered
incomplete
to
estimate
penetration.

Recommendations
The
results
of
the
air
sampling
for
the
DIY
antifoulant
boat
hull
painting
and
wood
preservative
painting
(
homeowners)
can
be
used
to
estimate
screening­
level
inhalation
exposure/
risk.
However,
it
is
recommended
that
new
studies
be
designed
with
various
products
and
more
replicates
to
determine
if
there
is
a
correlation
between
painting
boat
hulls
and/
or
home
structures
with
a
wood
perservative
and
exposure
(
both
dermal
and
inhalation).
If
exposure/
risk
Page
6
of
6
assessors
need
the
data
from
this
study
to
develop
screening­
level
inhalation
assessments,
the
individual
data
points
are
available
in
Tables
1
and
2
above
to
normalize
the
air
concentrations
as
deemed
necessary.
UEs
are
presented
in
this
review
normalized
by
the
percent
active
ingredient
applied
(
weak
correlation).
For
example,
if
the
air
concentration
data
are
required
for
a
surrogate
product
containing
10
percent
active
ingredient,
a
UE
reported
in
units
of
mg/
m3/%
ai
is
multiplied
by
10
(
not
0.1).
When
using
these
data
as
a
surrogate,
it
is
important
to
compare
the
percent
ai
used
in
this
study
versus
the
product
being
assessed.
The
antifoulant
paints
in
this
study
ranged
from
7
to
30
percent
and
the
wood
preservatives
ranged
from
0.2
to
8
percent.
Clarification
of
the
dermal
exposures
are
not
worth
pursuing
at
this
time
because
they
represent
exposure
to
the
outside
of
clothing.

Reference
Garrod
ANI,
Guiver
R,
Rimmer
DA.
2000.
Potential
Exposure
of
Amateurs
(
Consumers)
through
Painting
Wood
Preservative
and
Antifoulant
Preparations.
Ann.
Occup.
Hyg.,
Vol.
44,
No.
6,
pp.
421­
426.