Appendix of the Screening Assessment for the Challenge
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Archived
Dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane
(D6)
Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
540-97-6
Environment Canada
Health Canada
November 2008
Appendix
- Appendix 1: Upper-bounding Estimates of Daily Intake of D6 by the General Population in Canada (µg/kg-bw per Day by Various Age Groups)
- Appendix 2: Consumer Exposure Modelling
- Appendix 3: Summary of Health Effects Information for Dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6)
- Appendix 4: Review of D5 Probabilistic Exposure Assessment
- Figure 1. Contribution of scenarios to children's mean and 90th percentile dermal exposures
- Figure 2. Contribution of scenarios to children's mean and 90th percentile inhalation exposures
- Figure 3. Contribution of scenarios to children's (breastfed vs. non-breastfed) mean and 90th percentile ingestion exposures
- Figure 4. Contribution of scenarios to children's (2-4 and 4-11 years) mean and 90th percentile ingestion exposures
- Figure 5. Contribution of exposure route to children's mean and 90th percentile total exposure (general population)
- Figure 6. Contribution of exposure route to children's mean and 90th percentile total exposure (subsistence population)
- Figure 7. Contribution of scenarios to adults' mean and 90th percentile dermal exposures
- Figure 8. Contribution of scenarios to adults' mean and 90th percentile inhalation exposures
- Figure 9. Contribution of scenarios to adults' mean and 90th percentile ingestion exposures
- Figure 10. Contribution of exposure route to adults' mean and 90th percentile total exposure (general population)
- Figure 11. Contribution of exposure route to adults' mean and 90th percentile total exposure (subsistence population)
- Appendix 5: Multimedia Modelling Input Parameters for D6 in the Ecological Screening Assessment
Appendix 1: Upper-bounding Estimates of Daily Intake of D6 by the General Population in Canada (µg/kg-bw per Day by Various Age Groups)
Route of exposure | 0-6 months[1] | 0.5-4 years[5] | 5-11 years[6] | 12-19 years[7] | 20-59 years[8] | 60+ years[9] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Breast fed[2] |
Formula fed[3] | Fed solid food[4] | ||||||||
Ambient air[10] | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 | ||||
Indoor air[11] | 40.2 | 86.1 | 67.1 | 38.2 | 32.8 | 28.5 | ||||
Drinking water[12] | 0.47 | 0.01 | .002 | .005 | .002 | .002 | .001 | .001 | ||
Food and beverages[13] | 1.48 | 0.81 | 0.46 | 0.25 | 0.16 | 0.14 | ||||
Soil[14] | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | ||||
Total intake | 40.7 | 40.2 | 41.7 | 87.0 | 67.6 | 38.5 | 33.0 | 28.7 |
[2] The highest concentration of D6 detected in human breast milk was 4.8µg/L in Sweden (Kaj et al. 2005). Breast-fed children 0-6 months of age are assumed to have an intake rate of 0.75 kg of breast milk per day (Health Canada 1998).
[3] For exclusively formula-fed infants, intake of water is only that required to reconstitute formula. No data on detectable concentrations of D6 in drinking water were located. No data on concentrations of D6 in formula or baby food were identified for Canada. Approximately 50% of infants are introduced to solid foods by 4 months of age and 90% by 6 months of age (NHW 1990, in Health Canada 1998).
[4] The dietary intake is based on consumption of 0.3 litres of water and up to 1.18 kg of food daily. This intake pattern is presented as a hypothetical extreme case and does not reflect recommended infant feeding practice.
[5] Assumed to weigh 15.5 kg, to breathe 9.3 m3 of air per day, to drink 0.7 L of water per day and to ingest 100 mg of soil per day (Health Canada 1998).
[6] Assumed to weigh 31.0 kg, to breathe 14.5 m3 of air per day, to drink 1.1 L of water per day and to ingest 65 mg of soil per day (Health Canada 1998).
[7] Assumed to weigh 59.4 kg, to breathe 15.8 m3 of air per day, to drink 1.2 L of water per day and to ingest 30 mg of soil per day (Health Canada 1998).
[8] Assumed to weigh 70.9 kg, to breathe 16.2 m3 of air per day, to drink 1.5 L of water per day and to ingest 30 mg of soil per day (Health Canada 1998).
[9] Assumed to weigh 72.0 kg, to breathe 14.3 m3 of air per day, to drink 1.6 L of water per day and to ingest 30 mg of soil per day (Health Canada 1998).
[10] D6 has been measured in ambient air near point sources in Canada, the United States and Europe. The highest measured concentration not near a point source, 0.87 µg/m3 in Oslo, Norway, was used for the level of D6 in ambient air (Norden 2005).
[11] D6 was detected in 142 of 400 air samples taken in bedrooms in homes in Sweden. The maximum value of 164 µg/m3 was used for the level of D6 in indoor air (Kaj et al. 2005). The data set considered includes a survey of homes in Syracuse, New York, in which D6 was detected in 15% of 130 homes and at a maximum concentration of 106 µg/m3 (NYIEQ 2005). Canadians are assumed to spend 21 h per day inside (Health Canada 1998).
[12] No data on levels of D6 in Canadian drinking water were identified. D6 was not detected in two samples of surface water away from point sources in Norway. The higher limit of detection of 0.05 µg/L was used (Norden 2005).
[13] No data were identified for the concentration of D6 in foods in Canada. A value of 0.05 ppm D6 was used for dairy and two groups of processed foods. The maximum concentration of DMPS (CAS RN 9006-65-9, dimethylpolysiloxane) in certain processed food is limited by regulation to10 ppm.* A value of 0.5% D6 in DMPS was assumed and it was further assumed that one quarter of dairy and one half of processed food had been treated with antifoaming agents containing D6. The concentration of D6 in whole flounder filets in the Oslofjord area was measured at 0.9 ng/g wet weight (NILU 2007). The probable intake of D6 from food packaging for an adult was estimated to be less than 0.01 µg/kg-bw/day (as per email from Food Packaging and Incidental Additives Section, Health Products and Food Branch of Health Canada, dated 27 Feb 2008 unreferenced).
Amounts of foods consumed on a daily basis by each age group are described by Health Canada (1998).
[14] No Canadian data were available for D6 levels in soil. No D6 was detected in two soil samples from the Faroe Islands taken at an abandoned and an operating landfill. The higher limit of detection of 4 µg/kg was used (Norden 2005).
* Food and Drug Regulations, Division 16. C.R.C., c. 870.
Sample ConsExpo 4.1 Report
Product
D6 hair styling – women – partitioning 20/80
Compound
Compound name: Dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane
CAS RN: 540-97-6
molecular weight: 445 g/mol
vapour pressure: 4.5 Pascal
KOW : 9.06 10Log
General exposure data
exposure frequency: 0.6 1/day
body weight: 69 kilogram
Inhalation model: exposure to vapour – constant rate
weight fraction compound: 0.35 fraction
exposure duration: 12 hour
room volume: 80 m3
ventilation rate: 1 1/hr
applied amount: 0.9 gram
release duration: 12 hour
Uptake model: fraction
uptake fraction: 0.02 fraction
inhalation rate: 22 m3/day
Dermal model: direct dermal contact with product – instant application
weight fraction compound: 0.35 fraction
exposed area: 1.44E3 cm2
applied amount: 3.8 gram
Uptake model: fraction
uptake fraction: 0.0017 fraction
Output
Inhalation (point estimates)
inhalation mean event concentration: 1.3 mg/m3
inhalation mean concentration on day of exposure: 0.15 mg/m3
inhalation air concentration year average: 0.09011 mg/m3/day
inhalation acute (internal) dose: 0.000958 mg/kg
inhalation chronic (internal) dose: 0.0005753 mg/kg/day
Dermal : point estimates
dermal load: 0.924 mg/cm2
dermal external dose: 19.3 mg/kg
dermal acute (internal) dose: 0.0328 mg/kg
dermal chronic (internal) dose: 0.0197 mg/kg/day
Integrated (point estimates)
total external dose: 19.3 mg/kg
total acute dose (internal): 0.0337 mg/kg
total chronic dose (internal): 0.0202 mg/kg/day
Table 1. D6 - Systemic Dose by Exposure to Personal Care Products - 69-kg woman
Product | Amount per appli-cation grams | Au-tho-rity | Fre-quen-cy per day | Au-tho-rity | Weight fraction VMS | Autho-rity | Re-ten-tion fac-tor | Inha-lation mg/kg-bw/day at 2.0% abs | Dermal mg/kg-bw/day at 0.17% abs |
Oral mg/kg-bw/day at 12% abs |
Total mg/kg-bw/day |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
anti-pers-pirant roll-on | 0.8 | RIVM | 1 | Maxim | 0.01 | NMI | 1 | 0.00001 | 0.00016 | ||
body lotion | 8 | RIVM | 1.5 | RIVM | 0.125 | Section 71 | 1 | 0.00091 | 0.0296 | ||
sun- screen |
6.1 | RIVM | 0.2 | RIVM | 0.444 | NMI | 1 | 0.00001 | 0.0107 | ||
face mois-turizer | 2.5 | RIVM | 2 | RIVM | 0.125 | Section 71 | 1 | 0.00038 | 0.0123 | ||
face makeup | 0.8 | RIVM | 1 | RIVM | 0.45 | Section 71 | 1 | 0.00022 | 0.0071 | ||
lipstick | 0.01 | Maxim | 4 | RIVM | 0.25 | Maxim | 1 | 0 | 0.00020 | 0.0139 | |
hair spray | 6.8 | RIVM | 1.2 | RIVM | 0.3 | CNS | 0.1 | 0.00146 | 0.00479 | ||
hair shampoo | 20 | RIVM | 0.7 | RIVM | 0.03 | CNS | 0.01 | 0 | 0.00008 | ||
hair condi-tioner | 20 | RIVM | 0.3 | RIVM | 0.35 | Section 71 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.00041 | ||
hair styling | 4.7 | Maxim | 0.6 | Maxim | 0.35 | Section 71 | 0.1 | 0.00058 | 0.00197 | ||
Totals | 0.00357 | 0.06731 | 0.0139 | 0.085 |
Consumer exposure modelling based on ConsExpo (RIVM 2006)
Basic assumptions:
- Body weight 69 kg
- Absorption by inhalation 2.0%; dermal absorption 0.17%; absorption by ingestion 12% (Dow Corning 2004).
- For products left on skin except lipstick, 80% of applied amount is available to be dermally absorbed, 20% evaporates.
- For lipstick, 20% is available for dermal absorption and 80% is available for absorption by ingestion.
Authorities:
- NMI: see in references NMI 2007
- RIVM: see in references RIVM 2006
- CNS: see in references CNS 2007
- Article 71: see in references Environment Canada 2007
- Maxim: see in references Maxim 1998
Endpoint | Lowest effect levels[1] / Results |
---|---|
Acute toxicity | Lowest oral LD50: > 2000 mg/kg-bw in Wistar rats (NOTOX 1990a). Other studies: US EPA 1994b. No inhalation studies identified. |
Short-term repeated-dose toxicity | Lowest-observed-effect level (LOEL) - oral:100 mg/kg-bw/day based on dose-related increase in female liver weights (absolute and relative liver weights statistically significant at 1000 mg/kg-bw/day) and increased periportal lipidosis in the liver of females (but not dose-related in incidence or severity) and follicular cell hypertrophy of the thyroid in both sexes (dose-related in females) in Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats administered D6 at 0, 100, 330 or 1000 mg/kg-bw/day in corn oil by oral gavage, 7 days/wk for 28 days (combined repeated-dose/reproductive and developmental study). Prothrombin time increased in males at 330 mg/kg-bw/day and higher (but no clinical indications of clotting abnormalities). At 1000 mg/kg-bw, there was significantly increased absolute and relative liver weight in females (Dow Corning 2006). No dermal or inhalation studies identified. |
Subchronic/Chronic toxicity | No data identified. |
Carcinogenicity | No data identified. |
Developmental toxicity | Highest no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) - oral: 1000 mg/kg-bw/day for developmental toxicity based on lack of developmental effects in SD rats administered D6 at 0, 100, 330 or 1000 mg/kg/day in corn oil by oral gavage daily, 7 days/week for up to 45 days [females exposed from 14 days prior to mating, throughout mating and gestation to post-partum day 3] (combined repeated-dose/reproductive and developmental study) (Dow Corning 2006). No dermal or inhalation studies identified. |
Reproductive toxicity | Lowest oral LOEL: 1000 mg/kg-bw/day for reproductive toxicity based on increased number (non-statistical) of sperm-positive, non-gravid females in SD rats administered D6 at 0, 100, 330 or 1000 mg/kg-bw/day in corn oil by oral gavage daily, 7 days/week for up to 45 days [females exposed from 14 days prior to mating, throughout mating and gestation to post-partum day 3] (combined repeated-dose/reproductive and developmental study) (Dow Corning 2006). No dermal or inhalation studies identified. |
Endocrine disruption in vitro | No data identified. |
Genotoxicity and related endpoints: in vivo | No in vivo data identified. |
Genotoxicity and mutagenicity: in vitro | Mutagenicity: Negative in bacterial reverse mutation: Salmonella typhimurium TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537 with and without activation and Escherichia coli strain WP2 uvrA with and without activation (NOTOX 1990c). |
Project: D5 Probabilistic Exposure Assessment
Task: Review D5 Probabilistic Exposure Assessment conducted by Silicones Environmental, Health and Safety Council (SEHSC)
For: Health Canada (Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch)
By: infoscientific, Henderson, Nevada, USA
Period: August-September, 2008
Executive summary
A review of the D5 probabilistic exposure assessment submitted by SEHSC was done and comments to assist in preparing the screening assessment report for D5 is provided in this report.
"User Only" daily exposures were estimated based on a Monte Carlo analysis using Crystal Ball. Mean exposure and 90th percentile exposure summaries were generated for different subpopulations (children and adults).
For dermal and inhalation exposure routes, the current assessment resulted in higher exposures than the assessment done by SEHSC. The primary reason was the consideration of "user only" subpopulation in the current assessment compared to the "user" and "non-user" subpopulations considered in the SEHSC assessment. The dermal exposure route had higher exposures for both children and adults. Diaper cream, body lotion and sunscreen contributed to higher exposures in the dermal route; soothing vapour in the inhalation route and antifoam and fish in the ingestion route.
Introduction
As a part of Canada's Chemicals Management Program, Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) has been identified by Health Canada as a material to be reviewed and considered in a screening level assessment.
SEHSC submitted information on D5 to assist Health Canada in preparing the screening assessment report for D5. The information provided included toxicity information not readily available in the literature and a comprehensive exposure assessment utilizing Monte Carlo analysis. The exposure assessment included information on the levels of D5 in different environmental media and on consumer product use patterns.
Health Canada contracted with infoscientific, USA to review the D5 probabilistic exposure assessment submitted by SEHSC and to provide comments to assist in preparing the screening assessment report for D5.
Description
SEHSC's Monte Carlo-based probabilistic assessment for D5 included the following age-dependent and exposure-route-dependent scenarios:
- Children - dermal route: body lotion, conditioner (leave in), conditioner (rinse off), diaper cream, shampoo (2-in-1), soothing vapour, spray detangler, sunscreen
- Children - ingestion route: antifoam, baby bottle nipple, fish (general population), fish (subsistence population), human milk, leafy vegetables (greens), meat, milk, pacifier, root vegetables, sipper tube, soil, straws, water
- Children - ingestion route: OTC (over-the-counter) drugs
- Children - inhalation route: indoor air, outdoor air, soothing vapour
- Adults - dermal route: after shave, body lotion, conditioner (leave in), conditioner (rinse off), foundation, hair spray, mascara, moisturizer, nail care, roll-on antiperspirant, shampoo, solid antiperspirant, soothing vapour, sunscreen, under-eye cream
- Adults - ingestion route: antifoam, fish (general population), fish (subsistence population), leafy vegetables (greens), lipstick, meat, milk, root crops, soil, water
- Adults - ingestion route: OTC drugs
- Adults - inhalation route: indoor air, outdoor air, soothing vapour
Separate route-specific and total exposure estimates were made for the following subpopulations:
- Children: ages 0 to 6 months, breastfed
- Children: ages 0 to 6 months, non-breastfed
- Children: ages 0 to 6 months, males
- Children: ages 0 to 6 months, females
- Children: ages 7 to 11 months, breastfed
- Children: ages 7 to 11 months, non-breastfed
- Children: ages 1 to 2 years, breastfed
- Children: ages 1 to 2 years, non-breastfed
- Children: ages 2 to 4 years
- Children: ages 6 months to 4 years, males
- Children: ages 6 months to 4 years, females
- Children: ages 4 to 11 years, males
- Children: ages 4 to 11 years, females
- Adults: ages 12 to 19 years, males
- Adults: ages 12 to 19 years, females
- Adults: ages 20 to 59 years, males
- Adults: ages 20 to 59 years, females
- Adults: ages 60+ years, males
- Adults: ages 60+ years, females
The following documents and data files were provided to assist with the review process:
- D5_Kids, an Excel file, compatible with Crystal Ball, that contained all the exposure calculations for children
- D5_Adults, an Excel file, compatible with Crystal Ball, that contained all the exposure calculations for adults
- UPDATED Final Submission for Health Canada - D5, a Word file that contains information related to toxicity and exposure for D5
- Attachment 1 - Exposure Assessment for D5, a Word file that is a report explaining the probabilistic exposure assessment, including inputs used and outputs generated
The following steps were taken during the process of reviewing the D5 probabilistic assessment submitted by SEHSC:
- reviewed documents provided by Health Canada
- identified product-based exposure scenarios, exposure pathways and exposure subpopulations
- used the Excel files provided by Health Canada (D5_Kids.xls and D5_Adults.xls; files created by SEHSC) as starting points
- assured the quality of Crystal Ball-based probabilistic calculations
- generated Crystal Ball-based probabilistic Monte Carlo outputs and compared them with those listed in documents submitted by SEHSC
- commented on the robustness of industry's (SEHSC) probabilistic assessment and recommended whether it should be considered further in the screening assessment for D5
It must be mentioned that the review process did not
- validate the list of scenarios that cover all D5 exposures to children and adults
- validate the input values used in the SEHSC assessment
- validate the sources of the input values
However, the review process did
- check cells designated as Crystal Ball Assumptions (check the assignment of distributional parameters for inputs)
- check cells designated as Crystal Ball Forecasts (check the assignment of results)
- check formulas for the different calculations
A few errors were detected in the calculations. All these errors, which appeared in the formula cells, were incorrect references to formula inputs (incorrect cell references were provided).
Each exposure scenario–dermal, ingestion or inhalation–has two use-related parameters associated with it: frequency of use/occurrence (number of times per day) and percentage of population engaged in scenario. For the parameter "frequency of use/occurrence," the values used in the SEHSC assessment were also used in the current assessment, except when the value was less than 1.0; in this case, a value of 1.0 was assigned.
The SEHSC assessment relies heavily on the parameter "percentage of population engaged in scenario" to estimate exposures for the general population, which includes users and non-users. The current assessment ignores this parameter completely. For example, in the case of a scenario where 20% of the population is engaged, in a probabilistic Crystal Ball run with 200 000 simulations, the SEHSC assessment will have 160 000 estimates with zero values and 40 000 estimates with values greater than zero. On the other hand, the current assessment will have 200 000 estimates with values greater than zero. As a result, both mean exposure estimates and 90th percentile exposure estimates generated by the current assessment will be greater than those generated by the SEHSC assessment. Conclusion: "user-only" exposures make a significant difference when comparing results generated by SEHSC and by infoscientific.
Exposure summary results were generated for 1) individual scenarios by specific exposure routes, 2) multiple scenarios by specific exposure routes (total exposure by specific exposure route) and 3) multiple scenarios aggregated over multiple routes (total exposure).
Total exposure within an exposure route is estimated by summing exposures for each scenario. Then total exposure across multiple exposure routes is estimated by summing exposures for each exposure route. Let us consider single Monte Carlo simulations within two separate probabilistic assessments: (1) a "user only" assessment (similar to the current assessment) and (2) a "user/non-user" assessment (similar to the SEHSC assessment).
In case (1), for each scenario, there is a finite probability that the individual represented in the simulation engages in that scenario. Thus, for multiple scenarios, the individual is involved only in a fraction of the scenarios and not all the scenarios considered. For those scenarios in which the individual engages, exposure estimates are generated. Total exposure is the sum of individual scenario exposures. This case can be extended to represent individuals in a general population.
By contrast, in case (2), for all scenarios, the probabilities for the individual represented in the simulation engaging in each equal 1.0 (100%). And, in this case, for multiple scenarios, the individual is involved in all the scenarios. Total exposure, which is the sum of individual scenario exposures, represents all the scenarios. The probability of an individual in a general population engaging in all the scenarios is unlikely.
Based on the above explanations for the two cases, in the current assessment, the "user only" summaries generated for individual scenarios are valid results. However, the summaries generated for total exposures, either within individual exposure routes or across exposure routes, are improbable and should be interpreted with caution. For total exposures, the estimates generated by SEHSC would be more applicable than the ones generated by the current assessment.
Adding exposures across exposure routes should be done after consideration of route-specific toxicological endpoints. If the route-specific toxicological endpoints are unequal, route-specific total exposures cannot be added without applying appropriate absorption/penetration factors and/or potency factors.
Exposure results and discussion: Children
Table 1. Children's mean exposures (based on 200 000 Crystal Ball simulations)
Mean exposures | Ages 0-6 months | 6 m - 4 yrs | 4 yrs - 11 yrs | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | F | M | F | M | F | ||
Dermal | 2-in-1 shampoo | 3.636E-07 | 2.178E-07 | 1.760E-07 | 1.038E-07 | 2.358E-07 | 1.417E-07 |
Body lotion | 3.625E-03 | 3.517E-03 | |||||
Conditioner leave in | 2.498E-04 | 1.492E-04 | |||||
Conditioner rinse off | 7.513E-06 | 4.497E-06 | |||||
Soothing vapour | 1.447E-05 | 1.495E-05 | 6.662E-06 | 6.464E-06 | |||
Diaper cream | 5.665E-03 | 5.944E-03 | 2.742E-03 | 2.832E-03 | |||
Spray detangler | 1.654E-07 | 9.776E-08 | 7.617E-08 | 4.228E-08 | |||
Sunscreen | 2.409E-03 | 2.529E-03 | 2.915E-03 | 3.011E-03 | 2.684E-03 | 2.605E-03 | |
Total Dermal | 8.075E-03 | 8.473E-03 | 5.672E-03 | 5.858E-03 | 6.573E-03 | 6.282E-03 | |
Inhalation | Indoor air | 2.403E-04 | 2.523E-04 | 2.251E-04 | 2.326E-04 | 1.515E-04 | 1.362E-04 |
Outdoor air | 4.775E-06 | 5.006E-06 | 4.472E-06 | 4.619E-06 | 3.012E-06 | 2.707E-06 | |
Soothing vapour | 2.921E-03 | 3.017E-03 | 1.965E-03 | 1.767E-03 | |||
Total Inhalation | 2.451E-04 | 2.573E-04 | 3.151E-03 | 3.255E-03 | 2.119E-03 | 1.905E-03 | |
Ingestion | Antifoam | 9.252E-04 | 8.539E-04 | ||||
Baby bottle nipple | |||||||
Fish, general | 4.499E-04 | 3.883E-04 | |||||
Greens | 2.069E-08 | 2.126E-08 | |||||
Human milk | |||||||
Meat | 7.121E-08 | 6.347E-08 | |||||
Milk | 1.027E-07 | 8.833E-08 | |||||
Pacifier | |||||||
Root vegetable | 1.129E-05 | 1.051E-05 | |||||
Sipper tube | 5.176E-05 | 5.176E-05 | |||||
Soil | 2.181E-06 | 2.116E-06 | |||||
Straws | 2.133E-05 | 2.069E-05 | |||||
Fish, subsistence | 3.770E-04 | 3.657E-04 | |||||
Water | 1.461E-07 | 1.418E-07 | |||||
OTC drugs | 5.434E-03 | 5.701E-03 | 1.316E-03 | 1.359E-03 | 2.213E-06 | 2.146E-06 | |
Total Ingestion, Subsistence | 4.372E-03 | 4.372E-03 | 2.794E-03 | 2.794E-03 | 1.389E-03 | 1.305E-03 | |
Total Ingestion, General | 2.654E-03 | 2.654E-03 | 2.428E-03 | 2.428E-03 | 1.462E-03 | 1.328E-03 | |
Total | Total, Subsistence Population | 1.813E-02 | 1.880E-02 | 1.293E-02 | 1.327E-02 | 1.008E-02 | 9.494E-03 |
Total, General Population | 1.641E-02 | 1.709E-02 | 1.257E-02 | 1.290e-02 | 1.016E-02 | 9.517E-03 |
Table 1 summarizes all the exposure results for children as mean values. When compared with similar results generated by the SEHSC assessment, all the values are higher in the current assessment. Compared to the SEHSC assessment, the current assessment results in a difference of 1.79 to 2.32 times for total dermal exposures, in a difference of 1.00 to 13.56 times for total inhalation exposures, and in a difference of 0.97 to 1.56 times for total ingestion (general population) exposures. The primary reason for the differences is that the SEHSC assessed users and non-users whereas the current assessment considered users only.
Wherever exposures are estimated for multiple age groups, the estimates for lower age groups are usually greater than the estimates for higher age groups. Within dermal exposure scenarios, diaper cream, sunscreen and body lotion are the highest contributions; within inhalation, soothing vapour is the highest contributor; and within ingestion, the highest contributor is over-the-counter drugs for lower age groups and fish (subsistence) for higher age groups.
Table 2. Mean ingestion exposures for breastfed (BF) and non-breastfed (nBF) infants
Mean exposures | Ages 0-6 months | 7-11 months | 1-2 years | 2-4 years | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BF | nBF | BF | nBF | BF | nBF | all | ||
Ingestion | Antifoam | 1.060E-03 | 2.904E-03 | 1.145E-03 | 2.260E-03 | 1.259E-03 | 1.821E-03 | 1.390E-03 |
Baby bottle nipple | 4.871E-04 | 3.484E-04 | 2.900E-04 | 2.092E-04 | ||||
Fish, general | 3.341E-06 | 3.980E-04 | 1.700E-04 | 4.794E-04 | 4.800E-04 | 4.828E-04 | 5.023E-04 | |
Greens | 4.889E-08 | 3.968E-08 | 1.749E-08 | 3.329E-08 | 6.773E-08 | 2.030E-08 | 2.718E-08 | |
Human milk | 3.425E-04 | 2.009E-04 | 1.124E-04 | |||||
Meat | 5.972E-08 | 4.442E-08 | 5.182E-08 | 7.268E-08 | 5.008E-08 | 9.237E-08 | 9.152E-08 | |
Milk | 1.355E-07 | 1.343E-07 | 6.381E-08 | 1.957E-07 | 1.778E-07 | 2.985E-07 | 1.639E-07 | |
Pacifier | 4.873E-04 | 4.873E-04 | 3.485E-04 | 3.485E-04 | 2.902E-04 | 2.902E-04 | 2.093E-04 | |
Root vegetable | 1.961E-05 | 2.103E-05 | 2.126E-05 | 2.799E-05 | 1.702E-05 | 1.998E-05 | 1.571E-05 | |
Sipper tube | 2.436E-04 | 2.436E-04 | 1.743E-04 | 1.743E-04 | 1.451E-04 | 1.451E-04 | 1.046E-04 | |
Soil | 9.959E-06 | 9.959E-06 | 7.123E-06 | 7.123E-06 | 5.929E-06 | 5.929E-06 | 4.277E-06 | |
Straws | 4.873E-04 | 9.740E-05 | 6.967E-05 | 6.967E-05 | 5.799E-05 | 5.799E-05 | 4.184E-05 | |
Fish, subsistence | 1.721E-03 | 1.721E-03 | 1.231E-03 | 1.231E-03 | 1.025E-03 | 1.025E-03 | 7.393E-04 | |
Water | 6.673E-07 | 6.673E-07 | 4.773E-07 | 4.773E-07 | 3.973E-07 | 3.973E-07 | 2.866E-07 |
Table 2 summarizes all ingestion-related mean exposures specific to breastfed and non-breastfed infants. There are no significant differences in the results generated by the current assessment (shown in Table 2) and the SEHSC assessment. The two highest contributors to ingestion exposure for this subpopulation are antifoam and fish (subsistence).
Table 3. Children's 90th percentile exposures (based on 200 000 Crystal Ball simulations)
90th percentile exposures | Ages 0-6 months | 6 m - 4 yrs | 4 yrs - 11 yrs | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | F | M | F | M | F | ||
Dermal | 2-in-1 shampoo | 7.952E-07 | 4.747E-07 | 3.847E-07 | 2.260E-07 | 5.177E-07 | 3.132E-07 |
Body lotion | 7.894E-03 | 7.662E-03 | |||||
Conditioner leave in | 5.265E-04 | 3.203E-04 | |||||
Conditioner rinse off | 1.608E-05 | 9.733E-06 | |||||
Soothing vapour | 2.019E-05 | 2.085E-05 | 9.294E-06 | 9.019E-06 | |||
Diaper cream | 1.463E-02 | 1.535E-02 | 7.073E-03 | 7.312E-03 | |||
Spray detangler | 3.192E-07 | 1.882E-07 | 1.468E-07 | 8.138E-08 | |||
Sunscreen | 7.264E-03 | 7.613E-03 | 8.766E-03 | 9.062E-03 | 8.081E-03 | 7.860E-03 | |
Total Dermal | 1.849E-02 | 1.942E-02 | 1.244E-02 | 1.286E-02 | 1.391E-02 | 1.338E-02 | |
Inhalation | Indoor air | 5.001E-04 | 5.262E-04 | 4.700E-04 | 4.859E-04 | 3.185E-04 | 2.853E-04 |
Outdoor air | 1.137E-05 | 1.200E-05 | 1.071E-05 | 1.100E-05 | 7.186E-06 | 6.495E-06 | |
Soothing vapour | 4.379E-03 | 4.522E-03 | 2.964E-03 | 2.640E-03 | |||
Total Inhalation | 5.038E-04 | 5.298E-04 | 4.663E-03 | 4.813E-03 | 3.155E-03 | 2.808E-03 | |
Ingestion | Antifoam | 1.680E-03 | 1.567E-03 | ||||
Baby bottle nipple | |||||||
Fish, general | 1.008E-03 | 8.716E-04 | |||||
Greens | 3.873E-09 | 4.007E-09 | |||||
Human milk | |||||||
Meat | 1.425E-07 | 1.276E-07 | |||||
Milk | 1.991E-07 | 1.747E-07 | |||||
Pacifier | |||||||
Root vegetable | 2.966E-05 | 2.903E-05 | |||||
Sipper tube | 6.587E-05 | 6.587E-05 | |||||
Soil | 4.180E-06 | 4.056E-06 | |||||
Straws | 2.715E-05 | 2.634E-05 | |||||
Fish, subsistence | 8.404E-04 | 8.146E-04 | |||||
Water | 2.901E-07 | 2.813E-07 | |||||
OTC drugs | 1.304E-02 | 1.366E-02 | 3.627E-03 | 3.746E-03 | 5.306E-06 | 5.150E-06 | |
Total Ingestion, Subsistence | 7.195E-03 | 7.195E-03 | 4.406E-03 | 4.406E-03 | 2.333E-03 | 2.203E-03 | |
Total Ingestion, General | 4.326E-03 | 4.326E-03 | 3.804E-03 | 3.804E-03 | 2.488E-03 | 2.266E-03 | |
Total | Total, Subsistence Population | 3.317E-02 | 3.456E-02 | 2.201E-02 | 2.260E-02 | 1.756E-02 | 1.673E-02 |
Total, General Population | 3.102E-02 | 3.242E-02 | 2.155E-02 | 2.215E-02 | 1.773E-02 | 1.677E-02 |
Table 3 summarizes all the exposure results for children as 90th percentile values. When compared with similar results generated by the SEHSC assessment, all the values are higher in the current assessment. Compared to the SEHSC assessment, the current assessment results in a difference of 1.33 to 1.69 times for total dermal exposures, in a difference of 1.00 to 9.83 times for total inhalation exposures, and in a difference of 0.97 to 1.36 times for total ingestion (general population) exposures. The primary reason for the differences is that the SEHSC assessed users and non-users whereas the current assessment considered users only.
Table 4. 90th percentile ingestion exposures for breastfed (BF) and non-breastfed (nBF) infants
90th percentile exposures | Ages 0-6 months | 7-11 months | 1-2 years | 2-4 years | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BF | nBF | BF | nBF | BF | nBF | all | ||
Ingestion | Antifoam | 2.706E-03 | 5.188E-03 | 2.490E-03 | 3.981E-03 | 2.423E-03 | 3.240E-03 | 2.487E-03 |
Baby bottle nipple | 6.202E-04 | 4.434E-04 | 3.901E-04 | 2.663E-04 | ||||
Fish, general | 6.719E-06 | 9.746E-04 | 3.701E-04 | 1.082E-03 | 1.146E-03 | 1.063E-03 | 1.126E-03 | |
Greens | 1.028E-08 | 1.011E-08 | 2.465E-09 | 6.328E-09 | 1.852E-08 | 3.972E-09 | 4.953E-09 | |
Human milk | 4.587E-04 | 3.428E-04 | 1.952E-04 | |||||
Meat | 1.471E-07 | 9.750E-08 | 1.133E-07 | 1.476E-07 | 9.887E-08 | 1.841E-07 | 1.825E-07 | |
Milk | 3.244E-07 | 3.045E-07 | 1.349E-07 | 4.601E-07 | 3.777E-07 | 5.904E-07 | 3.267E-07 | |
Pacifier | 6.201E-04 | 6.201E-04 | 4.432E-04 | 4.432E-04 | 3.907E-04 | 3.907E-04 | 2.662E-04 | |
Root vegetable | 5.571E-05 | 6.142E-05 | 5.768E-05 | 7.632E-05 | 4.353E-05 | 5.262E-05 | 4.168E-05 | |
Sipper tube | 3.100E-04 | 3.100E-04 | 2.216E-04 | 2.216E-04 | 1.953E-04 | 1.953E-04 | 1.331E-04 | |
Soil | 1.909E-05 | 1.909E-05 | 1.365E-05 | 1.365E-05 | 1.146E-05 | 1.146E-05 | 8.200E-06 | |
Straws | 6.201E-04 | 1.240E-04 | 8.864E-05 | 8.864E-05 | 7.805E-05 | 7.805E-05 | 5.323E-05 | |
Fish, subsistence | 3.837E-03 | 3.837E-03 | 2.744E-03 | 2.744E-03 | 2.284E-03 | 2.284E-03 | 1.648E-03 | |
Water | 1.325E-06 | 1.325E-06 | 9.479E-07 | 9.479E-07 | 7.950E-07 | 7.950E-07 | 5.691E-07 |
Table 4 summarizes all ingestion-related 90th percentile exposures specific to breastfed and non-breastfed infants. There are no significant differences in the results generated by the current assessment (shown above) and the SEHSC assessment. The two highest contributors to ingestion exposure for this subpopulation are antifoam and fish (subsistence).
D5: Dermal exposures, males 0-6 months

D5: Dermal exposures, females 0-6 months

D5: Dermal exposures, males 6 months - 4 years

D5: Dermal exposures, females 6 months - 4 years

D5: Dermal exposures, males 4-11 years

D5: Dermal exposures, females 4-11 years

Figure 1 shows the contribution of scenarios to dermal exposures for children's mean and 90th percentile exposures. As seen in the bar charts, diaper cream, sunscreen, and body lotion are the highest contributors to dermal exposures.
D5: Inhalation exposures, males 6 months - 4 years

D5: Inhalation exposures, females 6 months - 4 years

D5: Inhalation exposures, males 4-11 years

D5: Inhalation exposures, females 4-11 years

Figure 2 shows the contribution of scenarios to inhalation exposures for children's mean and 90th percentile exposures. As seen in the bar charts, soothing vapour is the highest contributor to inhalation exposures.
Figure 3. Contribution of scenarios to children's (breastfed vs. non-breastfed) mean and 90th percentile ingestion exposures
D5: Ingestion exposures, 0-6 months, breastfed

D5: Ingestion exposures, 0-6 months, non-breastfed

D5: Ingestion exposures, 7-11 months, breastfed

D5: Ingestion exposures, 7-11 months, non-breastfed

D5: Ingestion exposures, 1-2 years, breastfed

D5: Ingestion exposures, 1-2 years, non-breastfed

Figure 3 shows the contribution of scenarios to ingestion exposures for children's (breastfed and non-breastfed) mean and 90th percentile exposures. As seen in the bar charts, the highest contributors to ingestion exposures for this subpopulation are antifoam and fish (for the general and subsistence population).
Figure 4. Contribution of scenarios to children's (2-4 and 4-11 years) mean and 90th percentile ingestion exposures
D5: Ingestion exposures, 2-4 years

D5: Ingestion exposures, males, 4-11 years

D5: Ingestion exposures, females, 4-11 years

Figure 4 shows the contribution of scenarios to ingestion exposures for children's (2-4 and 4-11 years) mean and 90th percentile exposures. Exposure estimates are based on 200 000 Crystal Ball simulations. As seen in the bar charts, the highest contributors to ingestion exposures for this subpopulation are antifoam and fish (for general and subsistence population).
Figure 5. Contribution of exposure route to children's mean and 90th percentile total exposure (general population)
D5: Exposures, males, 0-6 months (general population)

D5: Exposures, females, 0-6 months (general population)

D5: Exposures, males, 6 mth - 4 yr (general population)

D5: Exposures, females, 6 mth - 4 yr (general population)

D5: Exposures, males, 4-11 years (general population)

D5: Exposures, females, 4-11 years (general population)

Figure 5 shows the contribution of exposure route to children's mean and 90th percentile total exposures for the general population. The highest exposure route is dermal. In the case of children 0-6 months old, dermal exposure is followed by over-the-counter drugs and then by ingestion; however, in the case of children 6 months - 4 years old and children 4-11 years old, dermal exposure is followed by inhalation and then by ingestion.
Figure 6. Contribution of exposure route to children's mean and 90th percentile total exposure (subsistence population)
D5: Exposures, males, 0-6 months (subsistence population)

D5: Exposures, females, 0-6 months (subsistence population)

D5: Exposures, males, 6 mth - 4 yr (subsistence population)

D5: Exposures, females, 6 mth - 4 yr (subsistence population)

D5: Exposures, males, 4-11 years (subsistence population)

D5: Exposures, females, 4-11 years (subsistence population)

Figure 6 shows the contribution of exposure route to children's mean and 90th percentile total exposures for the subsistence population. The highest exposure route is dermal. In the case of children 0-6 months old, dermal exposure is followed by over-the-counter drugs and then by ingestion; however, in the case of children 6 months - 4 years old and children 4-11 years old, dermal exposure is followed by inhalation and then by ingestion.
Exposure results and discussion: Adults
Table 5. Adults' mean exposures (based on 200 000 Crystal Ball simulations)
Mean exposures | 12-19 years | 20-59 years | 60+ years | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Males | Females | Males | Females | Males | Females | ||
Dermal | After shave | 1.07E-04 | 8.25E-05 | 8.45E-05 | |||
Body lotion | 3.11E-03 | 3.46E-03 | 2.40E-03 | 2.83E-03 | 2.45E-03 | 2.93E-03 | |
Soothing vapour | 3.07E-06 | 3.41E-06 | 2.37E-06 | 2.80E-06 | 2.42E-06 | 2.90e-06 | |
Foundation | 1.47E-04 | 1.21E-04 | 1.25E-04 | ||||
Hair spray | 1.09E-04 | 6.44E-05 | 8.36E-05 | 5.28E-05 | 8.56E-05 | 5.46E-05 | |
Leave-in condition | 6.21E-05 | 3.70E-05 | 4.78E-05 | 3.04E-05 | 4.89E-05 | 3.14E-05 | |
Rinse-off conditioner | 1.86E-06 | 1.11E-06 | 1.43E-06 | 9.08E-07 | 1.47E-06 | 9.40E-07 | |
Mascara | 3.45E-05 | 2.83E-05 | 2.93E-05 | ||||
Moisturizer | 1.18E-03 | 9.70E-04 | 1.00E-03 | ||||
Nail care | 1.14E-04 | 9.31E-05 | 9.65E-05 | ||||
Roll-on antiperspirant | 5.58E-04 | 4.13E-04 | 4.29E-04 | 3.38E-04 | 4.40E-04 | 3.51E-04 | |
Shampoo | 1.17E-07 | 6.95E-08 | 9.04E-08 | 5.70E-08 | 9.26E-08 | 5.90e-08 | |
Solid antiperspiramt | 6.54E-04 | 4.47E-04 | 5.03E-04 | 3.66E-04 | 5.15E-04 | 3.79E-04 | |
Sunscreen | 1.88E-03 | 2.09E-03 | 1.45E-03 | 1.71E-03 | 1.48E-03 | 1.77E-03 | |
Under-eye cream | 4.24E-05 | 4.39E-05 | |||||
Total Dermal | 6.49E-03 | 7.99E-03 | 5.00E-03 | 6.59E-03 | 5.11E-03 | 6.83E-03 | |
Inhalation | Indoor air | 8.48E-05 | 6.94E-05 | 6.13E-05 | 5.28E-05 | 5.36E-05 | 4.91E-05 |
Outdoor air | 1.69E-06 | 1.38E-06 | 1.22E-06 | 1.05E-06 | 1.07E-06 | 9.77E-07 | |
Soothing vapour | 1.10E-03 | 9.01E-04 | 7.96E-04 | 6.86E-04 | 6.95E-04 | 6.37E-04 | |
Total inhalation | 1.19E-03 | 9.72E-04 | 8.59E-04 | 7.40E-04 | 7.50E-04 | 6.87E-04 | |
Ingestion | Fish, general population | 3.08E-04 | 2.24E-04 | 2.39E-04 | 2.36E-04 | 2.35E-04 | 2.68E-04 |
Leafy vegetables | 1.90e-08 | 1.75E-08 | 2.21E-08 | 2.51E-08 | 2.45E-08 | 2.71E-08 | |
Root crops | 8.39E-06 | 6.83E-06 | 7.49E-06 | 6.30E-06 | 7.33E-06 | 6.59E-06 | |
Lipstick | 1.26E-05 | 1.03E-05 | 1.07E-05 | ||||
Meat | 5.47E-08 | 3.76E-08 | 4.68E-08 | 3.32E-08 | 3.28E-08 | 2.86E-08 | |
Milk | 4.63E-08 | 3.20E-08 | 1.97E-08 | 1.89E-08 | 2.05E-08 | 1.97E-08 | |
Soil | 5.90e-07 | 6.55E-07 | 4.54E-07 | 5.37E-07 | 4.65E-07 | 5.56E-07 | |
Fish, subsistence population | 4.07E-04 | 4.51E-04 | 3.13E-04 | 3.70E-04 | 3.20E-04 | 3.83E-04 | |
Water | 1.01E-07 | 1.13E-07 | 1.02E-07 | 1.20E-07 | 1.04E-07 | 1.24E-07 | |
Antifoam | 8.09E-04 | 7.98E-04 | 7.07E-04 | 6.38E-04 | 5.89E-04 | 5.63E-04 | |
OTC drugs | 1.02E-06 | 1.13E-06 | 7.84E-07 | 9.26E-07 | 8.02E-07 | 9.59E-07 | |
Total Ingestion, General | 1.13E-03 | 1.04E-03 | 9.55E-04 | 8.92E-04 | 8.32E-04 | 8.49E-04 | |
Total Ingestion, Subsistence | 1.23E-03 | 1.27E-03 | 1.03E-03 | 1.03E-03 | 9.17E-04 | 9.65E-04 | |
Total | General Population | 8.80E-03 | 1.00E-02 | 6.81E-03 | 8.22E-03 | 6.70E-03 | 8.36E-03 |
Subsistence Population | 8.90e-03 | 1.02E-02 | 6.88E-03 | 8.36E-03 | 6.78E-03 | 8.48E-03 |
Table 5 summarizes all the exposure results for adults as mean values. When compared with similar results generated by the SEHSC assessment, almost all the values are higher in the current assessment. Compared to the SEHSC assessment, the current assessment results in a difference of about 2.16 times for total dermal exposures, in a difference of about 13.55 times for total inhalation exposures, and in a difference of about 1.24 times for total ingestion (general population) exposures. The primary reason for the differences is that the SEHSC assessed users and non-users whereas the current assessment considered users only.
Table 6. Adults' 90th percentile exposures (based on 200 000 Crystal Ball simulations)
90thpercentile exposures | 12-19 years | 20-59 years | 60+ years | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Males | Females | Males | Females | Males | Females | ||
Dermal | After shave | 1.62E-04 | 1.24E-04 | 1.27E-04 | |||
Body lotion | 6.77E-03 | 7.51E-03 | 5.21E-03 | 6.16E-03 | 5.33E-03 | 6.38E-03 | |
Soothing vapour rub | 4.29E-06 | 4.76E-06 | 3.30E-06 | 3.90e-06 | 3.38E-06 | 4.04E-06 | |
Foundation | 3.69E-04 | 3.02E-04 | 3.13E-04 | ||||
Hair spray | 2.70E-04 | 1.54E-04 | 2.08E-04 | 1.26E-04 | 2.13E-04 | 1.31E-04 | |
Leave-in condition | 1.92E-04 | 1.07E-04 | 1.48E-04 | 8.79E-05 | 1.51E-04 | 9.10E-05 | |
Rinse-off conditioner | 5.74E-06 | 3.18E-06 | 4.42E-06 | 2.61E-06 | 4.52E-06 | 2.70E-06 | |
Mascara | 6.19E-05 | 5.08E-05 | 5.26E-05 | ||||
Moisturizer | 2.79E-03 | 2.29E-03 | 2.37E-03 | ||||
Nail care | 1.16E-04 | 9.44E-05 | 9.75E-05 | ||||
Roll-on antiperspirant | 1.07E-03 | 7.92E-04 | 8.26E-04 | 6.48E-04 | 8.45E-04 | 6.72E-04 | |
Shampoo | 2.50E-07 | 1.59E-07 | 1.92E-07 | 1.30E-07 | 1.97E-07 | 1.35E-07 | |
Solid antiperspirant | 8.73E-04 | 9.63E-04 | 6.72E-04 | 7.90e-04 | 6.87E-04 | 8.18E-04 | |
Sunscreen | 3.38E-03 | 3.75E-03 | 2.60E-03 | 3.07E-03 | 2.66E-03 | 3.18E-03 | |
Under-eye cream | 7.33E-05 | 7.59E-05 | |||||
Total Dermal | 1.04E-02 | 1.29E-02 | 8.01E-03 | 1.06E-02 | 8.20E-03 | 1.10E-02 | |
Inhalation | Indoor air | 1.76E-04 | 1.43E-04 | 1.27E-04 | 1.09E-04 | 1.11E-04 | 1.01E-04 |
Outdoor air | 4.02E-06 | 3.31E-06 | 2.93E-06 | 2.52E-06 | 2.56E-06 | 2.33E-06 | |
Soothing vapour | 1.62E-03 | 1.29E-03 | 1.13E-03 | 9.69E-04 | 9.93E-04 | 9.03E-04 | |
Total inhalation | 1.72E-03 | 1.37E-03 | 1.20E-03 | 1.03E-03 | 1.05E-03 | 9.58E-04 | |
Ingestion | Fish, general population | 6.91E-04 | 5.20E-04 | 5.39E-04 | 5.25E-04 | 5.20E-04 | 5.92E-04 |
Leafy vegetables | 3.75E-09 | 3.39E-09 | 4.00E-09 | 4.47E-09 | 4.60E-09 | 4.78E-09 | |
Root crops | 2.24E-05 | 1.81E-05 | 2.04E-05 | 1.75E-05 | 2.03E-05 | 1.85E-05 | |
Lipstick | 3.13E-05 | 2.57E-05 | 2.66E-05 | ||||
Meat | 1.08E-07 | 7.57E-08 | 9.41E-08 | 6.64E-08 | 6.51E-08 | 5.70E-08 | |
Milk | 9.47E-08 | 6.81E-08 | 4.11E-08 | 4.00E-08 | 4.14E-08 | 4.14E-08 | |
Soil | 7.96E-07 | 8.83E-07 | 6.12E-07 | 7.23E-07 | 6.27E-07 | 7.49E-07 | |
Fish, subsistence population | 9.09E-04 | 1.01E-03 | 6.99E-04 | 8.27E-04 | 7.17E-04 | 8.56E-04 | |
Water | 1.91E-07 | 2.12E-07 | 1.74E-07 | 2.06E-07 | 1.78E-07 | 2.13E-07 | |
Antifoam | 1.46E-03 | 1.24E-03 | 1.26E-03 | 1.15E-03 | 1.03E-03 | 1.00E-03 | |
OTC drugs | 2.45E-06 | 2.72E-06 | 1.88E-06 | 2.23E-06 | 1.93E-06 | 2.31E-06 | |
Total Ingestion, General | 1.94E-03 | 1.56E-03 | 1.65E-03 | 1.54E-03 | 1.40E-03 | 1.44E-03 | |
Total Ingestion, Subsistence | 2.09E-03 | 1.95E-03 | 1.76E-03 | 1.76E-03 | 1.54E-03 | 1.64E-03 | |
Total | General Population | 1.28E-02 | 1.50E-02 | 9.95E-03 | 1.23E-02 | 9.87E-03 | 1.26E-02 |
Subsistence Population | 1.30E-02 | 1.52E-02 | 1.00E-02 | 1.25E-02 | 9.96E-03 | 1.27E-02 |
Table 6 summarizes all the exposure results for adults as 90th percentile values. When compared with similar results generated by the SEHSC assessment, almost all the values are higher in the current assessment. Compared to the SEHSC assessment, the current assessment results in a difference of about 1.55 times for total dermal exposures, in a difference of about 9.44 times for total inhalation exposures, and in a difference of about 1.17 times for total ingestion (general population) exposures. The primary reason for the differences is that the SEHSC assessed users and non-users whereas the current assessment considered users only.
D5: Dermal exposures, males 12-19 years

D5: Dermal exposures, females 12-19 years

D5: Dermal exposures, males 20-59 years

D5: Dermal exposures, females 20-59 years

D5: Dermal exposures, males 60+ years

D5: Dermal exposures, females 60+ years

Figure 7 (above) shows the contribution of scenarios to dermal exposures for adults' mean and 90th percentile exposures. As seen in the bar charts, body lotion, sunscreen, and moisturizer are the highest contributors to dermal exposures.
D5: Inhalation exposures, males 12-19 years

D5: Inhalation exposures, females 12-19 years

D5: Inhalation exposures, males 20-59 years

D5: Inhalation exposures, females 20-59 years

D5: Inhalation exposures, males 60+ years

D5: Inhalation exposures, females 60+ years

Figure 8 shows the contribution of scenarios to inhalation exposures for adults' mean and 90th percentile exposures. As seen in the bar charts, soothing vapour is the highest contributor to inhalation exposures.
D5: Ingestion exposures, males 12-19 years

D5: Ingestion exposures, females 12-19 years

D5: Ingestion exposures, males 20-59 years

D5: Ingestion exposures, females 20-59 years

D5: Ingestion exposures, males 60+ years

D5: Ingestion exposures, females 60+ years

Figure 9 shows the contribution of scenarios to ingestion exposures (general population) for adults' mean and 90th percentile exposures. As seen in the bar charts, antifoam and fish are the highest contributors to ingestion exposures.
Figure 10. Contribution of exposure route to adults' mean and 90th percentile total exposure (general population)
D5: Exposures, males 12-19 years (general population)

D5: Exposures, females 12-19 years (general population)

D5: Exposures, males 20-59 years (general population)

D5: Exposures, females 20-59 years (general population)

D5: Exposures, males 60+ years (general population)

D5: Exposures, females 60+ years (general population)

Figure 10 shows the contribution of exposure route to adults' mean and 90th percentile total exposures for the general population. The highest exposure route is dermal. Dermal is followed by ingestion and inhalation.
Figure 11. Contribution of exposure route to adults' mean and 90th percentile total exposure (subsistence population)
D5: Exposures, males 12-19 years (subsistence population)

D5: Exposures, females 12-19 years (subsistence population)

D5: Exposures, males 20-59 years (subsistence population)

D5: Exposures, females 20-59 years (subsistence population)

D5: Exposures, males 60+ years (subsistence population)

D5: Exposures, females 60+ years (subsistence population)

Figure 11 shows the contribution of exposure route to adults' mean and 90th percentile total exposures for the subsistence population. The highest exposure route is dermal. Dermal is followed by ingestion and inhalation.
Model input parameter | Value |
---|---|
Molecular weight (g/mol) | 445 |
Melting point (°C) | -3 |
Boiling point (°C) | 245 |
Data temperature (°C) | 25 |
Density (kg/m3) | 963 |
Vapour pressure (Pa) | 4.6 (0.0345 mm Hg) |
Henry's Law constant (Pa·m3/mol) | 4 950 000 (48.9 atm·m3/mol) |
Log Kaw (Air-water partition coefficient; dimensionless) |
3.3 |
Log Kow (Octanol-water partition coefficient; dimensionless) |
9.06 |
Log Koc (Organic carbon-water partition coefficient - L/kg) |
6.1 |
Water solubility (mg/L) | 0.00513 |
Log Koa (Octanol-air partition coefficient; dimensionless) |
5.76 |
Soil-water partition coefficient (L/kg) | 25 178 |
Sediment-water partition coefficient (L/kg) | 50 357 |
Suspended particles-water partition coefficient (L/kg) | 251 780 |
Fish-water partition coefficient (L/kg) | 1660 |
Aerosol-water partition coefficient; dimensionless | 100 |
Vegetation-water partition coefficient; dimensionless | 12 589 |
Half-life in air (days) | 5.96 |
Half-life in water (days) | 401 |
Half-life in sediment (days) | 49 |
Half-life in soil (days) | 5.25 |
Half-life in vegetation (days) | 74 |
























































































































Page details
- Date modified: