General Framework for Assessing Potential Human Exposures to Chemical, Biological, and Physical Agents in the Residential Environment

  • Scott Baker
  • Jeffrey Driver
  • David McCallum

Abstract

Exposure assessments are used to relate contaminant sources into quantitative estimates of the amount of chemical that comes in contact with the visible exterior of an individual of potentially exposed population. The potentially exposed population is the one that does or plausibly could contact the source of contamination. This contact is the basis for estimating a potential dose used in the characterization of potential health risks. Defining exposure pathways is an important component of the exposure assessment. An exposure pathway is the course a chemical or physical agent takes from a source to an exposed individual. An exposure pathway describes a unique mechanism by which an individual or population is exposed to a chemicals or physical agents at or originating from a source. Each exposure pathway includes a source or release from a source, a transport/exposure medium (such as air) or media (in cases of intermedia transport, such as water to air) also is included.

Keywords

Combustion Permeability Formaldehyde Hydrolysis Dust 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AIHC (American Industrial Health Council). 1995. Exposure factors sourcebook. Washington, D.C. 118 pagesGoogle Scholar
  2. Calvin, G. 1992. Risk Management Case Histories-Detergents. Chapter 10 in: Richards, M.L. (ed.). Risk management of chemicals. The Royal Society of Chemistry. London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  3. CTFA (Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association). 1983. Summary of the results of surveys of the amount and frequency of use of cosmetic products by women. Report prepared by ENVIRON Corporation.Google Scholar
  4. Curry, K.K., D.J. Brookman, G.K. Whitmyre, J.H. Driver, R.J. Hackman, RJ. Hakkinen, and M.E. Ginevan. 1994. Personal exposures to toluene during the use of nail lacquers in residences: Description of the results of a preliminary study. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 4(4):443–456.Google Scholar
  5. Driver, J.H., R.G. Tardiff, L. Sedik, R.C. Wester, and H.I. Maibach. 1993. In vitro percutaneous absorption of [14C] ethylene glycol. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 3(3):277–284.Google Scholar
  6. Eberhart, D.C. 1994. Current activities in assessing human exposures to lawn chemicals. Presented at the Workshop on Residential Exposure Assessment, Annual Meeting of the International Society for Exposure Analysis and the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology. September 18, 1994. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  7. ECETOC (European Center for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals). 1994. Assessment of non-occupational exposure to chemicals. Technical Report Number 58. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  8. ISEA (International Society of Exposure Analysis). 1995. ISEA Newsletter, Summer 1995 Issue. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  9. Kasting, GB. and RJ. Robinson. 1993. Can we assign an upper limit to skin permeability? Pharmaceutical Res. 10:930–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McKone, T. 1992. Multipathway residential exposures: An overview. In: B. Hakkinen, J. Driver, and G. Whitmyre (eds.). Reference house workshop: Assessment of residential exposures. Annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis. December 6, 1992. 29 pages.Google Scholar
  11. Murray, D.M. and D.E. Burmaster. 1995. Residential air exchange rates in the United States: Empirical and estimated parametric distributions by season and climatic region. Risk Anal. 15(4):459–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 1994. CONTAM93. User manual. Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST, U.S. Department of Commerce. Gaitherssburg, Maryland.Google Scholar
  13. Pandian, M.D., WR. Ott, and J.V. Behar. 1993. Residential air exchange rates for use in indoor air and exposure modeling studies. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 3(4):407–416.Google Scholar
  14. Phillips, L.J., R.J. Fares, and L.G. Schweer. 1993. Distributions of total skin surface area to body weight ratios for use in dermal exposure assessments. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 3(3):331–338.Google Scholar
  15. Turnbull, D. and J.V. Rodricks. 1989. A comprehensive risk assessment of DEHP as a component of baby pacifiers, teethers and toys. In: Paustenbach, D.J. (ed.). The risk assessment of environmental and human health hazards: A textbook of case studies. John Wiley and Sons. New York, New York.Google Scholar
  16. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Methods for assessing exposure to chemical substances. Volume 7. Methods for assessing consumer exposure to chemical substances. EPA Publication No. 560/5-85-007. Exposure Assessment Branch, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  17. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991a. MCCEM. Multi-chamber concentration and exposure model. User’s guide. Version 2.3. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  18. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991b. Time spent in activities, locations, and microenvi-ronments: A California-national comparison. EPA Publication Number 600/4-91/006. Office of Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. Las Vegas, Nevada.Google Scholar
  19. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Dermal exposure assessment: Principles and applications. EPA Publication Number 600/8-91-011. Exposure Assessment Group, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  20. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Screening-level consumer inhalation exposure software (SCIES): Description and user’s manual. Version 3.0. Exposure Assessment Branch, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  21. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. Exposure factors handbook (Draft). EPA Publication Number Volume I 600/P-95/002Ba, Volume II 600/P-95/002Bb, and Volume III 600/P-95/002Bc.Google Scholar
  22. Vacarro, J.R. 1996. The use of unique study design to estimate exposure of adults and children to surface and airborne chemicals. American Society of Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  23. Vermiere, T.G., P. van der Poel, R.T.H. van de Laar, and H. Roelfzema. 1993. Estimation of consumer exposures to chemicals: applications of simple models. Sci. Total Environ. 136:155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Whitmyre, G.K., J.H. Driver, M.E. Ginevan, R.G. Tardiff, and S.R. Baker. 1992a. Human exposure assessment I: Understanding the uncertainties. Toxicol. Indust. Health 8(5):297–320.Google Scholar
  25. Whitmyre, G.K., J.H. Driver, M.E. Ginevan, R.G. Tardiff, and S.R. Baker. 1992b. Human exposure assessment II: Quantifying and reducing the uncertainties. Toxicol. Indust. Health 8(5):321–342.Google Scholar
  26. Wilkes, C.R. and M.J. Small. 1992. Inhalation exposure model for volatile chemicals from indoor uses of water. Atmos. Environ. 26A:2227–2236.Google Scholar
  27. Wilschut, A., WF. ten Barge, PJ. Robinson, and T.E. McKone. 1995. Estimating skin permeation: The validation of five mathematical skin permeation models. Chemosphere 30:1275–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. www.epa.gov/nerlpage/heasd/therdbase.htm. 1998. THERdbASE: Total human exposure risk database and advanced simulation environment. Version 1.2-September 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Baker
    • 1
  • Jeffrey Driver
    • 2
  • David McCallum
    • 3
  1. 1.International Copper AssociationNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.infoscientific.com, Inc. and risksciences.netManassasUSA
  3. 3.FOCUS GROUPTilghman IslandUSA

Personalised recommendations