12.02.2013 Views

Environmental Health Criteria 214

Environmental Health Criteria 214

Environmental Health Criteria 214

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT<br />

downwind of potential sources of toxins. The toxins were found to be<br />

below regulatory levels, with the exception of hydrogen fluoride and<br />

hydrogen chloride.<br />

Fifty-six VOCs and 8 airborne trace metals were sampled at<br />

residences, office, cars and recreation areas. Each personal exposure<br />

study had a 24-h exposure profile prepared using the concentrations in<br />

each environment and the time spent in that environment. It was found<br />

that the period of highest exposure to VOCs was during the commute,<br />

with outdoors the lowest. The highest exposure to heavy metals was<br />

inside the home.<br />

Heavy metal concentrations in garden produce and soil were below<br />

regulatory limits, but cadmium and mercury levels were higher in the<br />

Windsor area than in rural areas. Indoor air exposure had<br />

disproportionately higher health risk than did outside air. Inhalation<br />

was found to be more important than dermal absorption and ingestion<br />

for these compounds.<br />

The exposures to dioxins and furans were each less than one<br />

quarter of the tolerable daily dose. Mercury was 60% of the tolerable<br />

daily dose, and could be a health risk because of its persistence in<br />

the environment and bioaccumulation. The additive risks for all of the<br />

studied air pollutants were approximately 1 × 10- 5 .<br />

12.7.4 Pesticide exposure study<br />

The Non-Occupational Pesticide Exposure Study (NOPES) was<br />

designed to examine human exposure to 32 pesticides and pesticide<br />

degradation products in two cities in the USA: Springfield,<br />

Massachusetts and Jacksonville, Florida (Whitemore et al., 1994). The<br />

two goals of the project were to develop instrumentation, laboratory<br />

procedures and surveys needed for a study of non-occupational exposure<br />

to pesticides and to determine non-occupational exposure to<br />

pesticides.<br />

The NOPES study used TEAM in determining exposure levels. A<br />

probability sampling design was used to make statistical conclusions<br />

on the health risks of the pesticides. More participants were chosen<br />

from high-exposure groups in order to facilitate estimation of risk<br />

levels. Jacksonville was chosen as the high-use region and Springfield<br />

as the low-use area. The two sites were studied during the summer of<br />

1986 (Jacksonville only), the spring of 1987 and the winter of 1988.<br />

The study population varied between 49 and 72 people. The study<br />

examined skin, food and water as routes of exposure, but focused on<br />

air as the primary route of exposure. Twenty-four-hour personal,<br />

indoor and outdoor samples were collected on polyurethane foam and<br />

analysed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and gas<br />

chromatography/electron capture detection. Personal samples were used<br />

as well as fixed monitors inside and outside the home. A questionnaire<br />

was administered after the end of the 24-h period to determine the<br />

activities of the subjects.<br />

The lowest concentrations were found in the winter and the<br />

highest concentrations in the summer, with the spring levels<br />

intermediate. Readings from the indoor monitors were correlated with<br />

personal monitors, but neither was comparable to the lower<br />

measurements from the outdoor monitors. The relative importance of<br />

dietary and respiratory routes of exposure varied between pesticides:<br />

most of the chemicals had the diet as the main routes of uptake, but<br />

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc<strong>214</strong>.htm<br />

Page 231 of 284<br />

6/1/2007

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!