Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0301-0010
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-09-10T04:00Z

PHENOLS
OCCUPATIONAL/
RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
(
OPPTS
248.4000)
September
9,
2004
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Antimicrobials
Division
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1801
South
Bell
Street
Arlington,
VA
22202
September
7,
2004
Page
2
of
20
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This
document
is
the
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Chapter
of
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
(
RED)
for
Phenol
&
Salts
and
addresses
potential
exposure
and
risks
to
humans
from
use
of
these
chemicals
in
occupational
and
residential
settings.

Phenols
and
salts
are
active
ingredients
in
disinfectant
and
deodorizer
formulations
used
as
a
material
preservative,
and
in
commercial,
institutional,
industrial
and
medical
premises
as
well
as
in
homes
and
food
handling
establishments.
Phenols
and
salts
are
formulated
as
soluble
concentrate,
towelette,
ready­
to­
use
solution
and
aerosol
spray.
Based
on
product
labels,
all
formulations
are
liquid.
Application
methods
include
applying
the
liquid
onto
surfaces,
spraying
surfaces
and
rooms
and
wiping
surfaces
with
impregnated
towelettes.

The
endpoints
used
in
this
document
to
assess
the
risks
of
phenol
and
salts
are
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
developmental
NOAEL
to
estimate
oral
and
dermal
risks
and
the
inhalation
LOAEL
for
inhalation
risks.
An
uncertainty
factor
or
"
target"
margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
of
100
was
selected
for
the
incidental
oral
and
dermal
risk
assessments,
based
on
10x
for
differences
among
humans
(
intra
species
variability)
and
10x
for
differences
between
the
test
animals
and
humans
(
inter
species
extrapolation).
For
the
inhalation
risk
assessment,
an
uncertainty
factor
of
300
is
applied
for
short­
and
intermediate­
term
risk
assessments
(
10x
interspecies
extrapolation,
10x
intraspecies
variation,
3x
for
use
of
a
LOAEL).
For
long­
term
inhalation
risk
assessments,
an
uncertainty
factor
of
1000
would
be
applied
to
the
risk
assessment
(
10x
interspecies
extrapolation,
10x
intraspecies
variation,
3x
for
use
of
a
LOAEL,
3x
for
lack
of
a
long­
term
study),
but
no
long­
term
uses
were
identified.

In
summary,
the
residential
uses
of
phenol
that
are
of
concern
include:
the
dermal
route
of
exposure
for
painting
with
an
airless
sprayer
(
dermal
MOE
=
12,
target
MOE
100
and
inhalation
MOE
=
290,
target
MOE
300)
and
the
dermal
route
of
exposure
for
painting
with
a
paintbrush/
roller
(
dermal
MOE
=
31).
All
of
the
other
residential
uses
did
not
indicate
a
risk
of
concern.
The
short­
and
intermediate­
term
duration
occupational
uses
of
phenol
that
are
of
concern
include
the
airless
painting
and
wiping
scenario.
The
dermal
MOE
for
airless
sprayers
for
workers
wearing
chemical
resistant
gloves
is
21
(
target
MOE
is
100)
and
the
inhalation
route
(
MOE
=
88
with
a
target
of
300).
The
wiping
scenarios
indicates
a
dermal
MOE
of
70
(
target
MOE
of
100).
All
of
the
other
occupational
uses
of
phenol
are
not
of
concern.

1.0
Background
Purpose
This
document
presents
the
results
of
the
Agency's
review
of
the
potential
human
health
effects
of
occupational
and
residential
exposure
to
phenol
and
phenol
salts.
This
document
is
for
use
in
the
Agency's
development
of
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
(
RED)
for
Phenol
and
Salts.
Page
3
of
20
Criteria
for
Conducting
Exposure
Assessments
An
occupational
and/
or
residential
exposure
risk
assessment
is
required
for
an
active
ingredient
if
(
1)
certain
toxicological
criteria
are
triggered
and
(
2)
there
is
potential
exposure
to
handlers
(
mixers,
loaders,
applicators,
etc.)
during
use
or
to
persons
entering
treated
sites
after
application.

1.1
Summary
of
Toxicity
Concerns
Relating
to
Exposures.

Acute
Toxicology
According
to
the
toxicity
memorandum
dated
March
20,
2004
(
USEPA,
2004),
information
on
the
acute
toxicity
of
phenol
is
available
in
the
open
scientific
literature
and
studies
submitted
to
the
Office
of
Toxic
Substances.

The
acute
oral
toxicity
of
phenol
has
been
described
in
IRIS
as
varying
widely,
from
doses
of
14
mg/
kg
to
930
mg/
kg
(
USEPA,
2002).
Data
assembled
by
the
Antimicrobials
Division
shows
oral
LD50
values
in
the
range
of
297­
1120
mg/
kg,
which
corroborates
to
some
extent
the
results
reported
in
IRIS.

Acute
dermal
toxicity
of
phenol
as
reported
in
IRIS
showed
a
dermal
LD50
of
669.4
mg/
kg
from
application
of
undiluted
phenol
for
24
hours
to
the
skin
of
rats
(
Conning
and
Hayes,
1970).
Decreasing
the
concentration
of
phenol
appears
to
result
in
higher
dermal
LD50
values;
for
example,
application
of
a
50%
aqueous
solution
showed
an
LD50
value
of
2350
mg/
kg
(
OTS
#
0515564/
86­
070001402).

Data
on
acute
inhalation
toxicity
of
phenol
are
limited.
In
a
study
submitted
to
OTS
(
OTS#
0515567/
86­
870001405),
rats
were
exposed
for
8
hours
to
2.5
L/
min
of
100%
phenol,
with
no
mortality
reported.
In
a
two
week
inhalation
toxicity
study,
neurotoxicity
was
observed
at
a
concentration
of
0.1
mg/
L
but
no
mortality
was
observed.

Phenol
has
also
been
shown
to
be
a
significant
eye
and
skin
irritant.
Strong
sensitization
has
also
been
observed
in
a
dermal
sensitization
study
(
USEPA,
2004).

Other
Endpoints
of
Concern
Phenol
­
Report
of
the
Antimicrobials
Division
Toxicology
Endpoint
Selection
Committee
(
May
20,
2004)
indicates
that
there
are
toxicological
endpoints
of
concern
for
phenol.
The
endpoints
and
associated
uncertainty
factors
used
in
assessing
risks
for
phenol
are
presented
in
Table
2.

The
endpoint
used
for
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
incidental
oral
risk
assessment
is
the
developmental
NOAEL
is
60
mg/
kg/
day
(
UF
=
100),
based
on
reduced
fetal
body
weight.
An
uncertainty
factor
or
"
target"
margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
of
100
was
selected
for
the
incidental
Page
4
of
20
oral
risk
assessment,
based
on
10x
for
differences
among
humans
(
intra
species
variability)
and
10x
for
differences
between
the
test
animals
and
humans
(
inter
species
extrapolation).

The
short­
and
intermediate­
term
developmental
NOAEL
is
60
mg/
kg/
day
(
UF
=
100),
based
on
reduced
fetal
body
weight.
A
dermal
absorption
factor
of
50%
is
used
since
an
oral
endpoint
was
selected.
An
uncertainty
factor
or
"
target"
margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
of
100
was
selected
for
the
dermal
risk
assessment,
based
on
10x
for
differences
among
humans
(
intra
species
variability)
and
10x
for
differences
between
the
test
animals
and
humans
(
inter
species
extrapolation).

The
endpoint
used
for
inhalation
risk
assessment
is
an
LOAEL
of
0.1
mg/
L,
based
on
alterations
in
sliding
angle
from
tilting
plane
test,
and
significant
increases
in
liver
enzymes.
An
uncertainty
factor
of
300
is
applied
to
this
risk
assessment
for
short­
and
intermediate­
term
risk
assessments
(
10x
interspecies
extrapolation,
10x
intraspecies
variation,
3x
for
use
of
a
LOAEL).
For
longterm
risk
assessments,
an
uncertainty
factor
of
1000
is
applied
to
the
risk
assessment
(
10x
interspecies
extrapolation,
10x
intraspecies
variation,
3x
for
use
of
a
LOAEL,
3x
for
lack
of
a
long­
term
study).

Table
2.
Toxicological
Endpoints
for
Phenol
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
used
in
risk
assessment
UF
/
MOE
Uncertainty
Factors
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
Incidental
Oral
Short
and
intermediateterm
NOAEL
=
60
mg/
kg/
day
MOE
=
100
Developmental
toxicity
study
in
rats
(
NTP,
1983).
Based
on
significant
reductions
from
the
control
in
mean
fetal
body
weight/
litter
at
120
mg/
kg/
day.

Dermal1
Short
and
intermediateterm
NOAEL
=
60
mg/
kg/
day
MOE
=
100
Developmental
toxicity
study
in
rats
(
NTP,
1983).
Based
on
significant
reductions
from
the
control
in
mean
fetal
body
weight/
litter
at
120
mg/
kg/
day.
Page
5
of
20
Table
2.
Toxicological
Endpoints
for
Phenol
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
used
in
risk
assessment
UF
/
MOE
Uncertainty
Factors
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
Inhalation
All
durations
LOAEL
=
0.1
mg/
L
(
equivalent
to
26.08
mg/
kg/
day)
MOE
=
300
(
ST,
IT)

MOE
=
1000
(
LT)
Dalin
and
Kristofferson:
Physiological
Effects
of
a
Sub­
lethal
Concentration
of
Inhaled
Phenol
on
the
Rat.
Ann.
Zool.
Fennici
11:
193­
199,
1974
LOAEL
of
0.1
mg/
L,
based
on
alterations
in
sliding
angle
from
tilting
plane
test,
and
significant
increases
in
liver
enzymes
1A
dermal
absorption
factor
of
50%
should
be
used
since
an
oral
endpoint
was
selected.
2
Using
the
"
Route­
to­
Route
Extrapolation"
Memo
from
John
Whalen
dated
October
9,
1998,
the
LOAEL
of
0.1
mg/
L
is
equivalent
to
26.08
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
the
following
equation:
0.1
mg/
L
x
100%
absorption
x
10.26
L/
hr/
kg
(
rat
respiratory
volume)
x
6
hr/
day
(
rat
exposure
duration)
/
0.236
kg
(
rat
body
weight)
Page
6
of
20
1.2
Summary
of
Use
Patterns
and
Formulations
Table
3
lists
the
active
EPA
registration
numbers
of
the
products
containing
phenol
and
phenol
salts
evaluated
in
this
document.
The
scenarios
considered
in
the
risk
assessment
are
shown
in
Table
4.
These
scenarios
were
selected
based
on
examination
of
product
labels
describing
uses
for
the
product.
Most
of
the
scenarios
fall
under
the
"
Medical
premises
and
equipment"
category.

Table
3.
EPA
Registration
Numbers
for
Phenol
Products
Use
Category
Formulation
EPA
Registration
Numbers
Disinfectant/
Deodorizer
Aerosol
Spray
8383­
4,
69658­
3,
75480­
1,
8383­
3
Concentrate
8383­
6
Towelette
8383­
7
Material
Preservative
Ready­
to­
Use
8383­
1
Table
4.
Use
scenarios
for
phenol
and
phenol
salts.

Use
Site
Category
Scenario
Commercial,
institutional
and
industrial
premises
and
equipment
°
Applying
liquid
on
hard,
non­
porous
surfaces
in
commercial
establishments.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
non­
porous
surfaces
(
aerosol
spray)
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
carpets.

Medical
premises
and
equipment
°
Applying
liquid
on
non­
porous
surfaces
in
medical
treatment
and
patient
rooms,
operating
rooms,
emergency
rooms,
recovery
rooms
and
bathrooms,
and
on
medical
and
dental
equipment.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
medical
devices
prior
to
sterilization
and
on
surfaces
in
hospitals
and
nursing
homes.
°
Wiping
chemical­
laden
towelette
on
non­
porous
surfaces
in
medical
treatment
and
patient
rooms,
operating
rooms,
emergency
rooms,
recovery
rooms
and
bathrooms,
and
on
medical
and
dental
equipment.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
non­
porous
surfaces
in
medical
treatment
and
patient
rooms,
operating
rooms,
emergency
rooms,
recovery
rooms
and
bathrooms.(
aerosol
spray)
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
medical
equipment,
toilet
seats,
shower
stalls,
etc.(
aerosol
spray)
°
Spraying
deodorizer
in
rooms
(
aerosol
spray)
°
Pouring
liquid
into
hemodialysis
machines
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
carpets.
Page
7
of
20
Use
Site
Category
Scenario
Food
handling/
storage
establishments
premises
and
equipment
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
sinks,
drain
boards,
cabinets,
garbage
cans,
under
sinks
and
faucets
Residential
and
Public
Access
premises
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
non­
food
contact
areas
(
spray
for
3­
4
seconds­
Noviguard)
°
Spraying/
applying
disinfectant
on
carpets.
°
Applying
liquid
on
surfaces
in
hotels,
airplanes,
trains,
boats,
etc.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
surfaces
in
day
care
centers,
health
clubs,
schools,
etc.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
non­
porous
surfaces
(
aerosol
spray)
°
Wiping
chemical­
laden
towelette
on
non­
porous
surfaces.
°
Toddler
exposure
to
residues
of
disinfectant
on
carpets
Material
Preservative
°
Adding
(
pouring)
liquid
to
polishes,
cleansers,
paints
and
protectants.

Phenol
and
phenol
salts
are
active
ingredients
in
disinfectant,
deodorizer
and
cleaner
formulations.
At
least
one
product
reviewed
is
also
an
industrial
additive
used
as
a
preservative
for
polishes,
cleansers,
paints
and
protectants.
These
formulations
have
bactericidal,
virucidal,
fungicidal
and
tuberculocidal
properties,
kill
mold
and
mildew
and
eliminate
odors.

Use
site
categories
for
these
formulations
include
material
preservatives,
commercial,
institutional
and
industrial
premises
and
equipment,
medical
premises
and
equipment,
food
handling
establishments
and
residential
and
public
access
premises.
A
review
of
product
labels
indicate
that
most
of
these
formulations
are
intended
for
use
in
hospitals,
clinics,
medical
and
veterinary
offices,
nursing
homes,
laboratories,
industrial
clean
rooms,
ambulances,
hotels,
restaurants,
schools,
transportation
facilities,
health
spas
and
toilets.

Formulation
Types
and
Percent
Active
Ingredient
Concentrations
of
phenol
and
phenol
salts
in
products
range
from
1.6
%
to
8.2%
(
1.6%
being
the
most
common
concentration).
All
formulations
are
in
liquid
form
and
include
ready­
to­
use
solutions,
pressurized
liquids
and
impregnated
materials
(
towelettes).

1.3
Methods
Used
for
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Based
on
the
review
of
product
labels,
the
use
patterns
specific
to
phenol
and
phenol
salts
are
associated
with
the
following
application
methods:

Commercial
uses
°
Applying
liquid
on
hard,
non­
porous
surfaces
in
commercial
establishments
with
wipes
and
sprays.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
non­
porous
surfaces.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
carpets.
Page
8
of
20
Medical
uses
°
Applying
liquids
with
wipes
and
sprays
on
non­
porous
surfaces
in
medical
treatment
and
patient
rooms,
operating
rooms,
emergency
rooms,
recovery
rooms
and
bathrooms,
and
on
medical
and
dental
equipment.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
medical
devices
prior
to
sterilization
and
on
surfaces
in
hospitals
and
nursing
homes.
°
Wiping
chemical­
laden
towelette
on
non­
porous
surfaces
in
medical
treatment
and
patient
rooms,
operating
rooms,
emergency
rooms,
recovery
rooms
and
bathrooms,
and
on
medical
and
dental
equipment.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
non­
porous
surfaces
in
medical
treatment
and
patient
rooms,
operating.
rooms,
emergency
rooms,
recovery
rooms
and
bathrooms.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
medical
equipment,
toilet
seats,
shower
stalls,
etc.
°
Spraying
deodorizer
in
rooms.
°
Pouring
liquid
into
hemodialysis
machines.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
carpets.

Food
handling
uses
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
sinks,
drain
boards,
cabinets,
garbage
cans,
under
sinks
and
faucets
Residential
uses
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
non­
food
contact
areas
.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
carpets.
°
Applying
liquids
with
wipes
and
sprays
on
surfaces
in
hotels,
airplanes,
trains,
boats,
etc.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
surfaces
in
day
care
centers,
health
clubs,
schools,
etc.
°
Spraying
disinfectant
on
non­
porous
surfaces.

Material
Preservative
uses
°
Adding
(
pouring)
liquid
during
the
manufacturing
of
polishes,
cleansers,
paints
and
protectants.

2.0
MATERIAL
PRESERVATIVES
/
COMMERCIAL,
INSTITUTIONAL,
INDUSTRIAL
/
MEDICAL
PREMISES
AND
EQUIPMENT
Six
short­
and
intermediate­
term
exposure
scenarios
have
been
considered
in
this
assessment:

°
Material
preservatives
(
pouring)
in
the
manufacturing
of
paint,
°
Use
of
disinfectant
solutions
in
hemodialysis
machines,
°
Application
of
paint
treated
with
a
material
preservative
using
airless
sprayer,
°
Application
of
paint
treated
with
a
material
preservative
using
paintbrush/
roller,
°
Use
of
disinfectant/
deodorizing
spray
on
hard
non­
porous
surfaces,
and
°
Use
of
disinfectant
towelette
on
hard
non­
porous
surfaces
Page
9
of
20
Occupational
Handlers
Inhalation
and
dermal
exposures
were
addressed
for
occupational
populations
using
surrogate
data
from
the
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA,
1992)
and
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(
PHED).
Using
surrogate
unit
exposure
data,
application
rates
from
labels,
and
EPA
estimates
of
daily
amount
handled,
exposure
and
risks
to
handlers
were
assessed.
At
this
time,
EPA
has
not
identified
postapplication
scnearios
for
commercial
uses
that
are
not
addressed
by
the
residential
postapplication
exposure
assessment
(
e.
g.,
the
contacting
treated
surfaces
are
represented
by
children's
incidental
oral
and
dermal
exposures
while
crawling
on
treated
surfaces
such
as
carpets).

For
hemodialysis
machines,
the
label
indicates
that
the
product
can
be
used
in
single­
patient
and
multiplepatient
delivery
systems.
The
use
of
this
product
in
multi­
patient
delivery
systems
was
chosen
for
evaluation
since
it
involves
a
greater
volume
of
product
(
1.0
L
vs.
0.150
mL)
than
the
single­
patient
delivery
system.
It
was
assumed
that
the
machines
are
disinfected
daily
and
on
average,
a
worker
handles
3
machines
per
day.
The
"
gloved
liquid
pour
disinfectant"
unit
exposure
data
from
the
CMA
study
were
used
in
the
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
assessment.

One
phenol
product
is
listed
for
use
as
an
industrial
additive,
and
lists
paint
as
a
possible
use.
The
label
recommends
that
between
2%­
5%
by
active
ingredients
be
added.
As
a
conservative
measure,
it
is
assumed
that
the
treated
paint
is
comprised
of
5%
active
ingredient,
by
weight.
Assuming
that
paint
has
a
density
of
10
lbs
per
gallon,
the
concentration
of
phenols
in
paint
is
0.5
lbs
a.
i./
gallon.
For
the
material
preservative
use
of
phenol,
primary
handlers
adding
the
product
during
the
manufacturing
of
paint
has
been
selected
to
represent
the
high
end
of
exposure
for
the
primary
handlers.
It
is
assumed
that
paint
is
produced
in
1,000
gallon
batches
(
i.
e.,
10,000
lbs).
In
addition,
painting
has
been
selected
to
represent
the
high
end
of
the
exposures
for
the
secondary
handlers.
Two
painting
scenarios
were
considered
in
this
assessment:
use
of
an
airless
sprayer
and
use
of
a
paintbrush/
roller
to
paint
the
exterior
of
a
house.
The
PHED
unit
exposure
data
were
used
in
the
dermal
(
gloved)
and
inhalation
exposure
assessment.
In
a
commercial/
industrial
setting,
it
was
assumed
that
worker
using
an
airless
sprayer
would
handle
50
gal/
day
while,
a
worker
using
a
paintbrush/
roller
would
handle
5
gal/
day.

The
sprays
and
the
solution
used
to
treat
the
towelette
contain
1.62
percent
phenol/
sodium
phenate.
It
was
assumed
that
the
density
of
this
solution
is
the
same
as
the
density
of
water.
The
gloved
CMA
unit
exposure
data
for
wiping
were
used
in
the
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
assessment.
The
label
for
the
towelette
product
did
not
describe
the
quantity
of
product
to
be
used;
rather,
the
directions
state
that
the
towelette
is
to
be
used
to
wipe
the
surface,
and
then
the
surface
should
be
wiped
dry.
In
the
absence
of
more
specific
use
information,
it
was
assumed
that
1
liter
(
which
is
equivalent
to
two
16oz
cans)
of
the
solution
used
to
wet
the
towelette
is
used
by
the
exposed
individual
per
day.
Similarly,
the
aerosol
spray
directions
state
that
the
product
can
be
sprayed
2­
4
seconds
to
deodorize
a
room,
but
no
data
were
available
describing
the
quantity
of
product
that
is
emitted
by
spraying
for
this
time.
Therefore,
1
liter
of
solution
was
also
assumed
for
use
of
the
aerosol
spray.
The
PHED
unit
exposure
data
were
used
to
calculate
the
dermal
(
gloved)
and
inhalation
exposures
in
the
aerosol
spray
assessment.

The
results
of
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
MOE
analysis
for
these
scenarios
are
presented
in
Table
4.
The
estimated
short­
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
MOEs
for
the
following
scenarios
were
below
the
target
MOE
of
100,
and
are
therefore
of
concern:

°
Painting
using
an
airless
sprayer
(
MOE
=
21)
Page
10
of
20
°
Wiping
hard
surfaces
using
a
towelette
(
MOE
=
70)

The
estimated
short­
and
intermediate­
term
inhalation
MOEs
for
the
following
scenarios
were
below
the
target
MOE
of
300,
and
are
therefore
of
concern:

°
Painting
using
an
airless
sprayer
(
MOE
=
88)

The
aerosol
inhalation
exposure
and
risk
estimates
from
CMA
and
PHED
discussed
above
do
not
account
for
the
potential
vapor
inhalation
exposure
to
phenol
(
phenol
has
a
relatively
high
vapor
pressure).
Therefore,
the
potential
vapor
inhalation
exposure
to
handlers
are
addressed
by
modeling
of
the
air
concentrations.
Because
the
occupational
handlers
for
cleaning
products
use
the
same
weight
fraction
of
phenol
as
the
residential
handlers,
the
same
type
of
application
techniques
(
i.
e.,
wipes,
sprays),
and
will
clean
in
various
rooms
to
accommodate
the
additional
amount
handled
(
e.
g.,
moving
room­
to­
room
in
a
hotel
or
painting
various
town
homes),
the
air
concentrations
and
vapor
inhalation
risk
estimates
will
be
similar
to
those
experienced
by
the
residents
as
presented
below
in
the
residential
section
(
i.
e.,
EFAST
assessment).
Based
on
these
assumptions,
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
vapor­
derived
inhalation
risks
are
not
of
concern
(
i.
e.,
MOEs
greater
than
the
target
MOE
of
300
for
the
average
daily
dose).
For
commercial
painters,
WPEM
(
see
below
for
model
description)
estimated
a
peak
instantaneous
concentration
of
23
mg/
m3.
WEPM
also
estimates
an
average
daily
dose
for
professional
painters
of
0.36
mg/
kg/
day
which
corresponds
to
a
MOE
of
72
(
i.
e.,
LOAEL
26
mg/
kg/
day
/
0.36
mg/
kg/
day).
This
inhalation
risk
estimate
is
of
concern
(
ST/
IT
target
MOE
is
300
and
long­
term
MOE
is
1,000)
Page
11
of
20
Table
4.
Calculation
of
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
MOE
for
Occupational
Usesa
Exposure
Scenario
Method
of
Applicat
ion
Dermal
Unit
Exposur
e
(
mg/
lb
ai)
b
Inhalati
on
Unit
Exposur
e
(
mg/
lb
ai)
c
Appl.
Rate
d
(
lb
a.
i./
gal)
Amount
Treated
Absorbed
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
da
y)
f
Dermal
MOE
g
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day
)
h
Inhalatio
n
MOE
i
Material
Preservative
(
Paint)
Liquid
Pour
0.135
(
CMA
gloves)
0.00361
(
CMA)
5%
by
weight
10,000
lbs
of
paint
0.56
110
0.030
870
Hemodialysis
Liquid
Pour
36.5
(
CMA
gloves)
1.89
(
CMA)
0.187
lbs
a.
i./
delivery
system
3
delivery
systems/
d
ay
0.171
350
0.015
1700
Painting
Airless
Sprayer
14
(
PHED
gloves)
0.83
(
PHED)
0.5
50
gal/
day
2.9
21
0.296
88
Paintbru
sh/
Roller
24
(
PHED
gloves)
0.28
(
PHED)
0.5
5
gal/
day
0.50
120
0.010
2600
Hard
Surface
Disinfection
Towelett
e
2870
(
CMA
no
gloves)
67.3
(
CMA)
0.0357
lbs
a.
i./
liter
used
1
liter
of
product
0.854
70
0.0343
760
Aerosol
Spray
81
(
PHED
gloves)
1.3
(
PHED)
0.0357
lbs
a.
i./
liter
used
1
liter
of
product
0.024
290
0.00066
39,000
a
MOEs
rounded
to
2
significant
figures.
b
Dermal
unit
exposures
are
from
CMA
and
PHED,
gloves
worn
as
indicated.
c
Inhalation
unit
exposures
are
from
CMA
and
PHED.
d
Application
rates
are
based
on
the
phenol
labels.
It
is
assumed
that
both
the
phenol
and
sodium
phenate
present
in
products
are
active
ingredients.
f
Abs.
dermal
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
*
Dermal
Absorption
Factor
(
0.5)
*
Appl.
rate
(
lb
ai/
gallon)
*
gallons
handled
/
Body
weight
(
60
kg).
g
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Daily
Dose
[
Where
short­
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
NOAEL
=
60
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
is
100.
h
Inhalation
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
unit
exposure
(

g/
lb
ai)
*
0.001
mg/

g
unit
conversion
*
max
appl
rate
(
lb
ai/
gal)
*
gallons
handled
*
1
inhalation
absorption]
/
Body
weight
(
70
kg).
i
MOE
=
LOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Daily
Dose
[
LOAEL
for
all
durations
=
0.1
mg/
L
(
which
equals
0.1
mg/
L
*
10.26
L/
hr/
kg
*
6
hrs/
day
/
0.236
kg
=
26.08
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
is
300
for
short­
and
intermediate­
term.

Occupational
Postapplication
The
potential
occupational
postapplication
exposure
to
phenol
is
based
on
the
relatively
high
vapor
pressure.
Postapplication
inhalation
exposure
is
expected
for
workers
remaining
in
areas
of
treatment
(
e.
g.,
medical
personnel,
janitors,
etc).
At
this
time,
air
concentration
measurements
taken
after
phenol
treatments
are
not
available.
In
addition,
modeled
results
for
inhalation
exposure
are
not
specific
for
occupational
uses.
Therefore,
the
air
concentration
for
the
1.62%
product
in
the
EFAST
model
estimate
listed
in
the
residential
section
below
was
used.
The
average
daily
air
concentration
for
the
1.62%
products
is
0.352
mg/
m3.
Using
an
8­
hour
Page
12
of
20
workday,
the
dose
is
estimated
to
be
0.050
mg/
kg/
day
(
i.
e.,
0.352
mg/
m3
x
1.25
m3/
hr
breathing
rate
x
8
hr/
day
x
(
1/
70
kg
BW)).
The
short­
and
intermediate­
term
inhalation
MOE
is
520,
and
therefore,
not
of
concern.
(
i.
e.,
LOAEL
of
26
mg/
kg/
day
/
0.05
mg/
kg/
day).

2.1
RESIDENTIAL
AND
PUBLIC
ACCESS
PREMISES
Residential
Handlers
The
following
scenarios
were
considered
for
residential
handlers
of
phenol­
containing
products:

°
Application
of
paint
treated
with
a
material
preservative
using
an
airless
sprayer
and
a
paintbrush/
roller,
°
Use
of
disinfectant/
deodorizing
spray
on
hard
non­
porous
surfaces,
and
°
Use
of
disinfectant
towelette
on
hard
non­
porous
surfaces.

Inhalation
and
dermal
exposures
were
addressed
for
residential
handlers
using
surrogate
data
from
the
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA,
1992)
and
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(
PHED).
Using
surrogate
unit
exposure
data,
application
rates
from
labels,
EPA
estimates
of
daily
amount
handled,
and
two
exposure
models,
exposure
and
risks
to
residential
handlers
were
assessed.

As
previously
discussed,
one
phenol
product
is
listed
for
use
as
an
industrial
additive,
and
lists
paint
as
a
possible
use.
The
concentration
of
phenols
in
paint
is
0.5
lbs
a.
i./
gallon.
Two
painting
scenarios
were
considered
in
this
assessment:
use
of
an
airless
sprayer
and
use
of
a
paintbrush/
roller
to
paint
the
exterior
of
a
house.
The
PHED
unit
exposure
data
as
cited
in
the
Residential
Exposure
SOPs
were
used
in
the
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
assessment.
These
data
are
based
on
the
clothing
scenario
of
short
pants
and
short
sleeves.
In
a
residential
setting,
it
was
assumed
that
homeowner
using
an
airless
sprayer
would
handle
15
gal/
day
while,
a
resident
using
a
paintbrush/
roller
would
handle
2
gal/
day.

The
sprays
and
the
solution
used
to
treat
the
towelette
contain
1.62
percent
phenol/
sodium
phenate.
The
no
gloved
CMA
unit
exposure
data
for
wiping
were
used
in
the
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
assessment
for
the
towelette
product.
The
PHED
unit
exposure
data
as
cited
in
the
Residential
Exposure
SOPs
were
used
in
the
dermal
exposure
assessment
for
the
aerosol
product.
These
data
are
based
on
the
clothing
scenario
of
short
pants
and
short
sleeves.
The
PHED
unit
exposure
data
were
used
in
the
inhalation
exposure
assessment
for
the
aerosol
product.
For
both
the
towelette
and
aerosol
products,
it
was
assumed
that
0.5
liter
(
which
is
equivalent
to
one
16oz
can)
is
used
by
the
exposed
individual
per
day.
The
0.5
liter
assumption
for
the
wipes
is
a
screening­
level
estimate
(
indicating
no
risk
of
concern).
However,
additional
refinements
should
be
determined
to
refine
the
aggregate
risks.

Because
phenol
has
a
relatively
high
vapor
pressure
(
0.341
mmHg
@
25
C),
there
is
also
the
concern
for
potential
vapor
inhalation
exposure.
To
determine
the
potential
inhalation
exposure
resulting
from
the
vapor
of
phenol
as
a
general
purpose
cleaner,
the
model
EFAST
(
Exposure
and
Fate
Assessment
Screening
Tool)
was
used
to
estimate
the
air
concentration.
OPPT/
EETD
has
developed
the
model,
EFAST,
to
estimate
air
concentrations.
More
information
and
access
to
the
EFAST
model
is
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opptintr/
exposure/.
In
summary,
EFAST
Version
1.0
bases
its
air
concentration
Page
13
of
20
estimates
on
physical/
chemical
properties.
The
air
concentration
estimates
for
the
phenols
are
based
on
the
model's
standard
input
parameters.
The
following
information
is
presented
in
the
EFAST
model:

"....
it
is
assumed
to
contact
the
target
surface,
and
to
subsequently
volatilize
at
a
rate
that
depends
upon
the
chemical's
molecular
weight
and
vapor
pressure."

EFAST
presents
a
peak
air
concentration
as
well
as
a
daily
air
concentration.
The
peak
air
concentration
estimate
"...
is
the
highest
instantaneous
air
concentration
that
is
modeled
during
the
exposure
event."
This
peak
air
concentration
is
not
expected
for
any
appreciable
length
of
time.

EFAST
was
used
to
model
the
air
concentration
from
general
purpose
cleaners
using
a
weight
fraction
of
0.0162.
EFAST
indicates
a
peak
concentration
of
7.29
mg/
m3
from
this
activity.
Because
the
peak
concentration
does
not
represent
a
daily
inhalation
exposure,
the
daily
dose
rather
than
the
peak
estimate
from
EFAST
is
used
to
compare
to
the
short­
term
inhalation
toxicological
endpoint.
If
a
shortterm
toxicological
endpoint
of
less
than
one
day
were
to
be
generated
it
should
be
compared
to
the
peak
air
concentration
estimate.
However,
because
the
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern
is
based
on
greater
than
one
day
of
exposure,
the
daily
dose
rate
of
0.065
mg/
kg/
day
from
EFAST
is
used
in
this
assessment.
The
daily
dose
rate
is
based
on
the
average
daily
concentration
of
0.35
mg/
m3.

The
results
of
the
MOE
analysis
using
the
CMA
data
for
the
general
purpose
cleaners
are
presented
in
Table
5.
The
calculated
short­
term
dermal
MOEs
are
not
of
concern
for
the
general
purpose
cleaners
(
MOE
=
140
and
1,800,
for
wiping
and
mopping,
respectively).
The
calculated
short­
term
inhalation
MOEs
from
the
CMA
data
for
the
wiping
and
mopping
are
not
of
concern
(
MOE
=
1,500
and
79,000,
respectively).
The
results
of
the
EFAST
model
for
general
purpose
cleaners
indicate
a
short­
term
inhalation
MOE
from
the
vapor
of
phenol
to
be
400.
Therefore,
the
short­
term
vapor
inhalation
portion
of
phenol
is
also
not
of
concern
for
the
general
purpose
cleaners
(
i.
e.,
above
the
target
MOE
of
300).

The
results
of
the
painting
assessment
using
the
PHED
are
also
presented
in
Table
5.
As
indicated
in
Table
5,
the
dermal
risks
are
of
concern
for
homeowners
painting
with
either
a
brush
and/
or
airless
sprayer
(
shortterm
dermal
MOEs
=
31
and
12
for
the
brush
and
sprayer,
respectively).
The
target
MOE
for
the
dermal
route
is
100.
The
inhalation
estimates
for
the
aerosol
portion
of
the
inhalation
exposure
do
not
pose
a
risk
of
concern
(
i.
e.,
short­
term
inhalation
MOEs
=
6,500
and
290,
respectively,
target
MOE
=
300).

In
addition
to
the
aerosol
inhalation
risks
presented
in
Table
5
for
painters,
phenol
has
a
relatively
high
vapor
pressure
(
0.341
mmHg
@
25
C),
and
therefore,
EPA
is
also
the
concern
for
potential
vapor
inhalation
exposure.
To
determine
the
potential
inhalation
exposure
resulting
from
the
vapor
of
phenol,
the
WPEM
(
Wall
Paint
Exposure
Assessment
Model)
was
used
to
estimate
the
air
concentration.
OPPT/
EETD
has
developed
the
model,
WPEM,
to
estimate
air
concentrations
from
painting.
More
information
and
access
to
WPEM
is
available
at
http://
epa.
gov/
opptintr/
exposure/
docs/
wpem.
htm.
In
summary,
WPEM
bases
its
air
concentration
estimates
on
models
developed
from
small
chamber
data
on
paints.

WPEM
is
a
user­
friendly,
flexible
software
product
that
uses
mathematical
models
developed
from
small
chamber
data
to
estimate
the
emissions
of
chemicals
from
oil­
based
(
alkyd)
and
latex
wall
paint.
This
is
then
combined
with
detailed
use,
workload
and
occupancy
data
(
e.
g.,
amount
of
time
spent
in
the
painted
room,
etc,)
to
estimate
exposure.
The
output
of
WPEM
was
evaluated
in
a
home
used
by
EPA
for
testing
Page
14
of
20
purposes
and,
in
general,
the
results
were
within
a
factor
of
2.
The
WPEM
provides
exposure
estimates
such
as
Lifetime
and
Average
Daily
Doses,
Lifetime
and
Average
Daily
Concentrations,
and
peak
concentrations.
Specific
input
parameters
include:
the
type
of
paint
(
latex
or
alkyd)
being
assessed,
density
of
the
paint
(
default
values
available),
and
the
chemical
weight
fraction,
molecular
weight,
and
vapor
pressure.
(
WPEM
website).

Phenol
was
assessed
using
WPEM
for
latex
paints
indoors.
The
following
were
used
in
estimating
the
short­
term
vapor
inhalation
exposure
from
phenol
in
paints
using
the
WPEM:
a
vapor
pressure
of
0.341
mmHg
@
25C,
a
mw
of
94.11,
a
paint
weight
fraction
of
0.05,
and
default
model
parameters.
WPEM
estimated
a
peak
instantaneous
concentration
of
22.2
mg/
m3
and
a
acute
potential
dose
rate
(
representing
the
highest
24
hour
exposure)
of
0.98
mg/
kg/
day.
Although
the
peak
instantaneous
concentration
is
available,
it
is
not
representative
of
the
shortterm
inhalation
toxicological
endpoint.
The
highest
24­
hour
inhalation
dose
estimate
of
0.98
mg/
kg/
day
corresponds
to
a
short­
term
inhalation
MOE
of
27
(
i.
e.,
LOAEL
26
mg/
kg/
day
/
0.98
mg/
kg/
day).
Page
15
of
20
Table
5.
Calculation
of
Short­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
MOE
Using
CMA
and
PHED
Data
for
Residential
Handlers
a
Exposure
Scenario
Method
of
Applicati
on
Dermal
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
b
Inhalatio
n
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
c
Appl.
Rate
d
(
lb
a.
i./
gal)
Amount
Treated
Absorbed
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
f
Dermal
MOE
g
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
h
Inhalatio
n
MOE
i
Painting
Airless
Sprayer
79
(
Res
SOP
PHED)
0.83
(
Res
SOP
PHED)
0.5
15
gal/
day
4.94
12
0.089
290
Paintbrus
h/
Roller
230
(
Res
SOP
PHED)
0.28
(
Res
SOP
PHED)
0.5
2
gal/
day
1.92
31
0.0040
6500
Hard
Surface
Disinfection
Towelette
2870
(
CMA
no
glove)
67.3
(
CMA)
0.0357
lbs
a.
i./
liter
used
0.5
liter
of
product
0.427
140
0.017
1500
Aerosol
Spray
220
(
Res
SOP
PHED)
1.3
(
PHED)
0.0357
lbs
a.
i./
liter
used
0.5
liter
of
product
0.033
1800
0.00033
79,000
a
MOEs
rounded
to
2
significant
figures.
b
Dermal
unit
exposures
are
from
CMA
and
PHED
(
short­
pants
and
short­
sleeves
for
residential
uses
 
Residential
SOPs).
c
Inhalation
unit
exposures
are
from
CMA
and
PHED
study.
d
Application
rates
are
based
on
the
phenol
labels.
It
is
assumed
that
both
the
phenol
and
sodium
phenate
present
in
products
are
active
ingredients
f
Abs.
dermal
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
*
Dermal
Absorption
Factor
(
0.5)
*
Appl.
rate
(
lb
ai/
gallon)
*
gallons
handled
/
Body
weight
(
60
kg).
g
Dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Daily
Dose
[
Where
short­
term
dermal
NOAEL
=
60
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
is
100.
h
Inhalation
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
unit
exposure
(

g/
lb
ai)
*
0.001
mg/

g
unit
conversion
*
max
appl
rate
(
lb
ai/
gal)
*
gallons
handled
*
1
inhalation
absorption]
/
Body
weight
(
70
kg).
i
Inhalation
MOE
=
LOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Daily
Dose
[
LOAEL
for
all
durations
=
0.1
mg/
L
(
which
equals
0.1
mg/
L
*
10.26
L/
hr/
kg
*
6
hrs/
day
/
0.236
kg
=
26.08
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
is
300
for
short­
term
Residential
Post­
application
Exposure
The
residential
post­
application
scenario
considered
in
this
assessment
is
exposure
to
residue
from
carpets
that
have
been
machine­
cleaned
with
a
product
containing
phenol
(
and
phenol
salts).
It
is
believed
that
the
carpet
shampoo
represents
the
high
end
of
the
exposures
to
toddlers
from
use
of
phenol.
The
carpets
have
been
assessed
rather
than
hard
surface
floors
because
the
products
appear
not
to
be
used
to
mop
floors.
Residential
carpets
are
believed
to
be
machine
washed
on
an
intermittent
basis
(
perhaps
a
few
times
per
year),
facilities
such
as
day
care
centers
may
clean
the
carpets
more
often
but
are
still
believed
to
be
of
a
short­
term
duration
(
i.
e.,
carpets
machine
washed
no
more
than
weekly).
Therefore,
only
the
short­
term
risks
have
been
presented.
The
Page
16
of
20
potential
for
inhalation
exposure
to
vapors
of
phenol
after
carpet
cleaning
are
also
of
potential
concern
as
are
the
potential
inhalation
exposure
to
vapors
after
painting
indoors.

Dermal
Exposure
There
is
the
potential
for
dermal
exposure
to
undressed
toddlers
crawling
on
the
carpets.
To
determine
toddler
exposure
to
residues
in
treated
carpet,
the
following
equation
was
used:

PDD
FR
x
SA
BW
=

where
PDD
=
Potential
daily
dose
FR
=
Flux
rate
of
chemical
from
material
(
mg/
m2/
day)
SA
=
Surface
area
of
the
body
which
is
in
contact
with
carpet
(
m2)
BW
=
Body
weight
(
kg)

The
following
conservative
assumptions
were
made
in
calculating
the
exposures/
risks
due
to
limited
data:

$
Toddlers
(
3
years
old)
are
used
to
represent
the
1
to
6
year
old
age
group
and
are
assumed
to
weigh
15
kg,
the
median
for
male
and
female
toddlers
(
USEPA,
2000b).
A
body
surface
area
of
0.657
m2
has
been
assumed,
which
is
the
median
value.

$
The
label
did
not
provide
information
on
the
volume
of
disinfectant
to
be
used
for
carpet
cleaning.
Based
on
information
about
other
carpet
sanitizing
solutions,
it
was
assumed
that
2
ounces
of
disinfectant
are
mixed
with
a
gallon
of
water
(
for
rotary
floor
machines),
and
that
the
resulting
solution
is
applied
at
a
rate
of
1000
sq.
ft.
per
gallon.
°
No
data
could
be
found
regarding
the
quantity
of
solution
residue
left
in
the
carpet
after
treatment.
As
a
conservative
measure,
it
has
been
assumed
that
25%
of
the
shampoo
remains
after
the
final
vacuuming
process.
°
No
leaching
data
were
available
that
could
be
used
to
estimate
a
flux
rate
of
the
chemical
from
the
carpet.
Therefore,
Residential
SOPs
estimate
of
5%
of
the
amount
on
the
carpet
is
available
for
dermal
transfer.

The
calculation
of
the
short­
term
dermal
dose
and
the
dermal
MOE
are
shown
in
Table
6.
The
dermal
MOEs
calculated
is
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
and
therefore
not
of
concern.
Page
17
of
20
Table
6.
Short­
term
Risks
Associated
with
Postapplication
Dermal
Exposure
to
Disinfectant
on
Carpets.

Parameter
Value
Rationale
Application
Rate
1000
ft2/
gallon
of
solution
USEPA
Assumption
%
a.
i.
in
Formulated
Product
1.62%
Maximum
rate
listed
on
label
(#
8383­
3)

Formulated
Product
in
solution
2
oz/
gallon
Assumption
Density
of
cleaning
solution
1.0
g/
mL
Assumed
to
be
similar
to
density
of
water
Flux
Rate
of
Chemical
from
Carpet
0.13
mg/
m2/
day
(
Density)
*
(%
a.
i.)
*
(
Formulated
Product
in
Sol.)
*
(
25%
remaining)*
(
5%
transfer)
/
(
App.
Rate)
*
(
Conversion
Factors)

Surface
Area
of
Body
in
Contact
with
Carpet
0.657
m2
Median
surface
area
of
toddler
Dermal
Absorption
50%

Body
Weight
15
kg
Median
body
weight
of
toddler
Potential
Dermal
Exposure
0.0028
mg/
kg/
day
FR
*
SA
*
DA/
BW
Dermal
NOAEL
60
mg/
kg/
day
Dermal
MOE
21,000
(
Derm.
NOAEL)
/
(
Daily
Derm.
Dose).
Target
MOE
=
100.

Incidental
Ingestion
In
addition
to
dermal
exposure,
infants
crawling
on
treated
carpets
will
also
be
exposed
to
phenold
via
incidental
oral
exposure.
To
calculate
incidental
ingestion
exposure
to
phenols
due
to
hand­
to­
mouth
transfer,
the
scenarios
established
in
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
were
used.
These
scenarios
use
assumptions
that
are
similar
to
those
used
in
calculating
exposures
due
to
dermal
contact
of
phenols
from
toddlers
crawling
on
treated
carpets.
The
assumptions
above
in
the
dermal
assessment
(
Table
6)
estimates
the
transferable
residues
as
0.013
µ
g/
cm2
.
The
estimated
potential
ingestion
dose
rate
immediately
after
application
would
be
calculated
as
follows:

PDR
norm=
ISR
t
x
SA
x
FQ
x
SE
x
ET
x
0.001
mg/
µ
g
BW
where:

PDR
norm
=
Potential
dose
rate
(
mg/
kg/
day);
ISR
t
=
Indoor
Surface
Residue
(
µ
g/
cm2)
at
time
0;
SA
=
Surface
area
of
the
hands
that
contact
both
the
treated
area,
and
the
Page
18
of
20
individuals
mouth
(
cm2/
event);
FQ
=
Frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
(
events/
hr);
SE
=
Saliva
extraction
efficiency;
and
ET
=
Exposure
Time
(
4
hrs/
day)
BW
=
Body
weight
(
15
kg)

The
surface
area
used
for
each
hand­
to­
mouth
event
is
20
cm2.
It
is
assumed
that
there
are
20
hand­
to­
mouth
exposure
events
per
hour
(
90th
percentile).
The
short­
term
incidental
oral
NOAEL
of
60
mg/
kg/
day
should
be
used
as
the
toxicity
endpoint
for
this
scenario
because
of
the
intermittent
nature
of
carpet
shampoos.
The
potential
dose
rate
(
PDR)
using
this
equation
is
0.0007
mg/
kg/
day
resulting
in
a
hand­
to­
mouth
MOE
for
toddlers
of
86,000.

Inhalation
Exposure
Carpet
Treatments:
Post­
application
inhalation
exposure
to
adults
and
toddlers
after
phenol
use
(
as
a
carpet
cleaner)
is
concern
because
of
the
relatively
high
vapor
pressure
of
phenol
(
i.
e.,
0.341
mm
Hg
@
25C).
No
postapplication
air
concentration
data
have
been
submitted
to
determine
potential
inhalation
risk
to
the
vapor
phase.
Therefore,
EFAST
was
used
to
present
a
screening­
level
estimate
of
the
potential
short­
term
inhalation
risk.
The
post­
application
estimates
are
based
on
the
EFAST
results
for
the
air
concentration
and
inhalation
dose
from
the
adult
handlers.
The
toddler
risk
estimates
are
corrected
for
the
lower
body
weight
(
i.
e.,
15
kg).

EFAST
was
used
to
model
the
air
concentration
from
carpet
cleaning
using
the
general
purpose
cleaner
portion
of
the
model
(
i.
e.,
specific
assessment
of
carpet
cleaners
are
not
available).
The
weight
fraction
is
0.002
(
1.62%
ai
x
2
fl
oz/
128
oz
per
gallon
conc
x
8
lb
per
gallon
density
of
carpet
wash/
water
=
weight
fraction
of
0.002
or
0.2
percent).
EFAST
indicates
a
peak
concentration
of
0.90
mg/
m3.
Because
the
peak
concentration
does
not
represent
a
daily
inhalation
exposure,
the
daily
dose
rather
than
the
peak
estimate
from
EFAST
is
used
to
compare
to
the
short­
term
inhalation
toxicological
endpoint.
If
a
short­
term
toxicological
endpoint
of
less
than
one
day
were
to
be
generated
it
should
be
compared
to
the
peak
air
concentration
estimate.
However,
because
the
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern
is
based
on
greater
than
one
day
of
exposure,
the
daily
dose
rate
of
0.008
mg/
kg/
day
from
EFAST
is
used
in
this
assessment
for
adults
based
on
an
average
daily
air
concentration
of
0.044
mg/
m3.
The
toddler's
dose
is
extrapolated
from
the
adult
value
presented
in
EFAST
and
is
estimated
as
0.038
mg/
kg/
day
for
toddlers
(
i.
e.,
0.008
mg/
kg/
day
x
71.8
kg
adult
BW
x
(
1/
15
kg
toddler
BW)).
The
inhalation
MOE
for
adults
is
not
of
concern
(
i.
e.,
MOE
=
LOAEL
of
26
mg/
kg/
day
/
0.008
mg/
kg/
day
=
3,300,
target
MOE
of
300).
Based
on
the
same
scenario,
the
toddler
inhalation
risk,
scaled
to
the
weight
of
the
toddler
is
not
of
concern
(
i.
e.,
MOE
=
LOAEL
of
26
mg/
kg/
day
/
0.038
mg/
kg/
day
=
680,
target
MOE
of
100).
The
risks
for
the
toddlers
were
scaled
by
body
weight
but
not
breathing
rate.
The
breathing
rate
of
a
toddler
is
lower
than
that
of
an
adult
and
there
for
the
MOEs
would
be
slightly
higher.
Page
19
of
20
Painting:

In
addition
to
the
estimates
provided
above
for
post­
application
inhalation
exposure,
estimates
are
provided
for
post­
application
inhalation
exposure
to
paints
because
of
the
high
vapor
pressure
of
phenol.
The
WPEM
used
in
the
painting
scenario
above
was
also
used
for
the
postapplication
assessment.
The
toddler
post­
application
assessment
from
WPEM
uses
a
body
weight
of
20.3
kg,
a
slight
deviation
from
EPA's
estimate
of
15
kg.
WPEM
estimated
a
peak
instantaneous
concentration
of
5.28
mg/
m3
after
painting
and
a
acute
potential
dose
rate
(
representing
the
highest
24
hour
exposure)
of
1.3
mg/
kg/
day.
Although
the
peak
instantaneous
concentration
is
available,
it
is
not
representative
of
the
short­
term
inhalation
toxicological
endpoint.
WPEM
also
estimates
an
average
daily
dose
over
a
5
day
period
with
a
daily
air
concentration
of
0.022
mg/
m3
and
a
dose
of
0.011
mg/
kg/
day
which
corresponds
to
a
MOE
of
2,400
(
i.
e.,
LOAEL
26
mg/
kg/
day
/
0.011
mg/
kg/
day).
The
short­
term
target
MOE
is
300,
and
therefore,
the
inhalation
risk
is
not
of
concern.

3.0
Limitations
and
Uncertainties
There
are
a
number
of
uncertainties
associated
with
this
assessment.
In
general,
conservative
values
were
used
in
cases
where
data
were
lacking.
Assessments
for
these
scenarios
should
be
considered
as
screening
assessments,
if
data
are
presented/
developed
they
could
be
used
to
refine
the
risks.
Examples
of
the
uncertainties
include:

°
Surrogate
dermal
and
inhalation
data
from
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
database
were
used
to
assess
handler
exposure.
Note
that
CMA
surrogate
data
have
the
following
deficiencies:

The
inhalation
concentrations
were
typically
below
the
detection
limits,
so
the
unit
exposures
for
the
inhalation
exposure
route
could
not
be
accurately
calculated.

The
quality
of
the
CMA
data
were
assessed
using
the
same
grading
criteria
as
PHED
and
the
grades
were
all
at
C,
D,
E
lower
than
PHED
standards
(
e.
g.,
most
of
PHED
is
at
grades
A,
B,
C).

Grade
C,
D,
E
data
frequently
may
have
QA/
QC
problems
including
lack
of
either/
or
field
fortification,
laboratory
recoveries,
and
storage
stability
information.

Grade
C,
D,
E
data
have
an
insufficient
amount
of
replicates.

Grade
C,
D,
E
data
may
have
higher
variabilities
(
e.
g.,
high
CVs).

°
The
estimates
used
for
the
amount
of
product
applied
is
based
on
best
professional
judgement
(
e.
g.,
production
of
paints,
number
of
gallons
of
paint
applied
by
airless
sprayers
and
brush/
roller,
number
of
wipes
used,
etc).
Page
20
of
20
4.0
REFERENCES
Conning,
D.
M.
and
M.
J.
Hayes.
1970.
The
dermal
toxicity
of
phenol:
an
investigation
of
the
most
effective
first­
aid
measures.
Br
J
Ind
Med.
27:
155­
159.
As
cited
in
ATSDR,
1998
USEPA.
2004.
Phenol
­
Report
of
the
Antimicrobials
Division
Toxicology
Endpoint
Selection
Committee.
Dated
May
20,
2004.
Memorandum
from
Timothy
F.
McMahon,
Chair,
ADTC,
Antimicrobials
Division.

USEPA.
2002.
Toxicological
Review
of
Phenol.
Integrated
Risk
Information
Sytem
(
IRIS).
September
2002.
EPA/
635/
R­
02/
006.

USEPA.
2000.
Residential
SOPs.
EPA
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
 
Human
Health
Division.
Dated
April
5,
2000.

USEPA.
1999.
Evaluation
of
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
Antimicrobial
Exposure
Assessment
Study.
Memorandum
from
Siroos
Mostaghimi,
Ph.
D.,
USEPA,
to
Julie
Fairfax,
USEPA>
Dated
November
4,
1999.
DP
Barcode
D247642.