4.7 Article

Analysis of aggregate exposure to chlorpyrifos in the NHEXAS-Maryland investigation

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
卷 110, 期 3, 页码 235-240

出版社

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.02110235

关键词

aggregate exposure; chlorpyrifos; dust; indoor air; reliability; soil; solid food

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As part of the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) in Maryland, we collected indoor air, carpet dust, exterior soil, and duplicate diet samples from a stratified random sample of 80 individuals to evaluate aggregate daily exposure, contributions of specific pathways of exposure, and temporal variation in exposure to chlorpyrifos. We collected samples from each participant in up to six equally spaced sampling cycles over a year and analyzed them for chlorpyrifos. We used chlorpyrifos concentrations in each medium and self-reported rates of time spent inside at home, time and frequency of contact with carpet, frequency of contact with soil, and weights of the duplicate diet samples to derive exposure to chlorpyrifos from each medium as well as average daily aggregate exposure (nanograms per day). The mean aggregate daily exposure to chlorpyrifos of 36 measurements obtained from 31 people was 1,390 ng/day (SD, 2,770 ng/day). Exposure from inhalation of indoor air accounted for 84.7% of aggregate daily exposure to chlorpyrifus on average. Chlorpyrifos concentrations in indoor air and carpet dust and the corresponding exposure rates were significantly correlated. Repeated short-term measurements of chlorpyrifos in carpet dust from individual residences were strongly correlated over time (reliability coefficient, R = 0.90), whereas the short-term measurements of chlorpyrifos in indoor air (R = 0.55) and solid food (R = 0.03) had moderate to weak reliability. Exposure to chlorpyrifos through those media and in aggregate based on direct measurements reported in this study can be used to understand better the accuracy of pesticide safety assessments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据