RESEARCH REPORT 004 - HSE: Information about … REPORT 004 HSE Health & Safety Executive Dermal exposure resulting from liquid contamination DSTL CBD Porton Down Salisbury Wiltshire

HSE Health & Safety

Executive

Dermal exposure resulting from liquid contamination

Prepared by DSTL for the Health and Safety Executive 2002

RESEARCH REPORT 004

HSEHealth & Safety

Executive

Dermal exposure resulting fromliquid contamination

DSTLCBD

Porton DownSalisbury

Wiltshire SP4 0JQUnited Kingdom

The Health and Safety Executive have published models that are used in pesticide regulation to predictthe amounts of in-use pesticide products that deposit on the surfaces of work clothing and exposedskin. In estimating human exposure, it is critical to know what fraction of the amount deposited on aworker actually reaches the skin. It is recognised that human trials (eg site surveys or workshop-basedstudies) introduce human factors into investigations of physical phenomena. Human trials thatreproducibly replicate test fluids penetrating clothing are impractical. Therefore the factor for clothingpenetration, which is usually, the most sensitive in making protection estimates has to be addressedthrough unscientific default values.

This project seeks to address this problem through the use of an articulated mannequin to replicate arealistic spraying activity and generate reproducible patterns of ‘challenge’ concentration and tomeasure the protection given against these challenges by clothing systems.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Itscontents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the author alone and donot necessarily reflect HSE policy.

HSE BOOKS

ii

© Crown copyright 2002Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ

First published 2002

ISBN 0 7176 2530 3

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittedin any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the priorwritten permission of the copyright owner.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction _________________________________________________________________1 1.1 Background _________________________________________________________________ 1

1.2 Objectives __________________________________________________________________ 2

2 Methodology ________________________________________________________________3 2.1 The mannequin ______________________________________________________________ 3

2.2 Sampling systems ____________________________________________________________ 3

2.3 Clothing systems utilised ______________________________________________________ 3

2.4 Experimental description______________________________________________________ 3

2.5 Spray solution _______________________________________________________________ 4

2.6 Analysis technique ___________________________________________________________ 4

2.7 Challenge Assessment_________________________________________________________ 4 2.7.1 Naked man - patch method __________________________________________________________ 4 2.7.2 Naked man total exposure measurement ________________________________________________ 4 2.7.3 Comparative methodology___________________________________________________________ 4

3 Experimentation and Results ___________________________________________________5 3.1 Low challenge level ___________________________________________________________ 5

3.2 High challenge level __________________________________________________________ 5

3.3 Mannequin wearing jeans and T shirt ___________________________________________ 5

3.4 Mannequin wearing Garment A over jeans and T shirt_____________________________ 5

3.5 Mannequin wearing Garment B ________________________________________________ 6

3.6 Mannequin wearing Garment C ________________________________________________ 6

3.7 Mannequin wearing Garment B with zip undone __________________________________ 6

3.8 Mannequin wearing Garment B with sleeves rolled up _____________________________ 6

4 Discussion and Conclusions ____________________________________________________7 Figures ______________________________________________________________________8

5.1 The Porton animated mannequin _______________________________________________ 8

5.2 Mannequin with knapsack sprayer______________________________________________ 9

5.3 Mannequin with knapsack sprayer in operation__________________________________ 10

5.4 Sampling positions on the mannequin __________________________________________ 11

5.5 Sampling tapes mounted on mannequin prior to dressing __________________________ 12

5.6 Contamination around the cuff area____________________________________________ 13

5.7 Fluorescent imaging showing contamination around head and back region of the mannequin ______________________________________________________________________ 14

5.8 Plate showing contamination of shirt worn under a protective garment ______________ 15

5.9 Dermal contamination on an unclothed mannequin resulting from low challenge ______ 16

iii

5.10 Dermal contamination on an unclothed mannequin resulting from a high challenge_____17

5.11 Comparison of the mean high and low level challenges._____________________________18

5.12 Dermal contamination on a mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear & a baseball cap _____________________________________________________________________19

5.13 Dermal contamination on a mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear, a boiler suit and a baseball cap _________________________________________________________________20

5.14 Dermal contamination on a mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and Garment B _______________________________________________________________________21

5.15 Dermal contamination on a mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and Garment C _______________________________________________________________________22

5.16 Dermal contamination on a mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and Garment B with the zip left undone___________________________________________________23

5.17 Dermal contamination on a mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and Garment B with the sleeves rolled up _________________________________________________24

5.18 Dermal contamination on a mannequin exposed to a low challenge wearing a variety ofclothing systems ___________________________________________________________________25

5.19 Dermal contamination on a mannequin exposed to a high challenge wearing a variety ofclothing systems ___________________________________________________________________26

5.20 Dermal contamination on a mannequin exposed to a low challenge wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and Garment B compared to badly worn ensembles ___________________27

5.21 Dermal contamination on a mannequin exposed to a high challenge wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and a Garment B compared to badly worn ensembles _________________28

6 Tables ____________________________________________________________________ 29 6.1 Literature survey data on operator exposure levels ________________________________29

6.2 Summary of high challenge level samplers _______________________________________31

6.3 Summary of low challenge level samplers ________________________________________33

6.4 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt and baseball cap with a low level challenge ________________________________________35

6.5 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt and baseball cap with a high level challenge _______________________________________37

6.6 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, baseball cap and Garment A with a low level challenge _____________________________39

6.7 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, baseball cap and Garment C with a high level challenge ____________________________41

6.8 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment B with a low level challenge ________________________________________43

6.9 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment B with a high level challenge _______________________________________45

6.10 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment C with a low level challenge ________________________________________47

6.11 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, Garment C with a high level challenge ___________________________________________49

iv

6.12 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment B with its zip left undone, exposed to a low level challenge______________ 51

6.13 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment B with its zip left undone, exposed to a high level challenge _____________ 53

6.14 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment B with its sleeves rolled up, exposed to a low level challenge ____________ 55

6.15 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment B with its sleeves rolled up, exposed to a high level challenge____________ 57

6.16 Contamination remaining on clothing after a low level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, baseball cap and underwear ______________________________________ 58

6.17 Contamination remaining on clothing after a high level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, baseball cap and underwear ______________________________________ 58

6.18 Contamination remaining on clothing after a low level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, baseball cap, Garment A and underwear ___________________________ 58

6.19 Contamination remaining on clothing after a high level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, baseball cap, Garment A and underwear ___________________________ 58

6.20 Contamination remaining on clothing after a low level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, Garment B and underwear _______________________________________ 58

6.21 Contamination remaining on clothing after a high level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, Garment B and underwear _______________________________________ 59

6.22 Contamination remaining on clothing after a low level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, Garment C and underwear_______________________________________ 59

6.23 Contamination remaining on clothing after a high level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, Garment C and underwear_______________________________________ 59

6.24 Contamination remaining on clothing after a low level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, underwear & Garment B with its zip undone________________________ 59

6.25 Contamination remaining on clothing after a high level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, underwear & Garment B with its zip undone________________________ 59

6.26 Contamination remaining on clothing after a low level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, underwear & Garment B with sleeves rolled up _____________________ 60

6.27 Contamination remaining on clothing after a high level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, underwear & Garment B with sleeves rolled up _____________________ 60

7 References _________________________________________________________________61

v

vi

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Research into the field of dermal exposure to chemicals originated from the agricultural industry and was directed primarily towards exposure to pesticides (Durham and Wolff 1962). Developments in measurement methods of dermal exposure have been slow when compared to the developments for exposure to particulate matter, gasses and vapours (Kromhout H & Vermeulen R. 2001).

The USA, Environmental Protection Agency (Mulhausen and Damiano 1998) and the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (European Chemicals Bureau 1996) have developed models that are used in pesticide regulation to predict the amounts of pesticide products that deposit on the surfaces of work clothing and exposed skin.

Measurement of dermal exposure and/or chemical uptake through the skin is a difficult process, involving the use of either artificial skin, wipe sampling methods from field studies or biological monitoring (ECETOC 1994). Such techniques are time consuming, expensive and the results are irreproducible.

In estimating human exposure, it is critical to know what fraction of the amount deposited on workers clothing actually reaches the skin (Evans 1999). This factor for clothing penetration, which is usually the most sensitive in making estimates, is usually determined by imprecise means. Consequently, no pattern of contaminant penetration has been established (Kromhout H & Vermeulen R. 2001).

The European Chemicals Bureau (ECB 1998) has addressed the impact and use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) as part of exposure assessment. Key issues related to PPE and protection against exposure to chemicals were identified by Brouwer et al (2001) as being;

§ Proper function, i.e. the equipment is designed and tested to result in reproducible, quantifiable reduction in exposure levels.

§ Proper use, i.e. wearers use PPE according to guidelines to ensure adequate protection under conditions of use.

The research described herein has consequently addressed these issues by measuring skin level contaminant penetration in various clothing systems from a simulated pesticide challenge.

Swatch testing of fabric samples against the ingress of contamination can only provide information regarding fabric filtration performance. It cannot provide information concerning the effects of seams, seals, closures and movement in real clothing systems. In order to avoid practical and ethical problems associated with using human subjects, an automated method using a moving mannequin would be far preferable.

The HSE have expressed beliefs that there should be little difference in deposition of contaminants resulting from either water-based or solvent-based products. However, even if there are discernable differences between these materials, the clear trend in UK industry is away from products based on volatile organic solvents. For the purposes of this research, the test fluid has therefore been water-based, containing a fluorophore, a surrogate analyte (strontium salt) and a surfactant; all of which display low toxicity to humans.

The Defence Science and Technology Laboratories (Dstl), Chemical and Biological Sciences (CBS), Porton Down have pioneered an articulated mannequin capable of typical ranges of human movement while wearing protective clothing. This has been shown to produce highly reproducible data, allowing firm conclusions to be drawn on the performance of clothing systems. It permits the routes for penetration to be established and dermal exposure to be determined and quantified.

Dstl Porton Down has considerable experience in investigating the modes of penetration through and around clothing, the effect of seams and closures, effects of physical pressure, and the “bellows effects”. Previous work has established leak paths for vapour penetration through clothing systems that swatch testing could never identify. This has had a large impact in terms of clothing design and material selection.

1

In addition to the practical work, a literature survey has been undertaken to determine the levels of gross contamination that workers are exposed to. A brief summary of this is outlined in Table 6.1.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives were to devise experimental methodology in order to standardise reproducible liquid challenges to work clothing, and to evaluate and quantify dermal deposition following these standard challenges.

2

2 Methodology

2.1 The mannequin

Dstl have developed a mannequin, based on male 50th percentile dimensions as determined from anthropometric surveys of 2,500 army and 2,500 naval personnel. The mannequin is articulated at the shoulder, elbow, and hip and knee joints with movement of the limbs being in the vertical plane. Movement is achieved through linkages to the hands and feet, which are attached to a motor driven pulley system, giving either a normal or an exaggerated marching motion. The relative radii of the pulleys govern the extent of the limb movement. Cycle time is adjustable, although testing is normally conducted at 30 cycles min-1, resulting in an equivalent walking speed of 5.4 km h-1 (3.4 mph, however only the arms were set in motion for this trial), Figures 5.1, 5.2 &5.3.

2.2 Sampling systems

Surgical tape1 strips (10 cm x 2.5 cm) were mounted on a clean adhesive backing substrate and the resulting assembly then attached to the Porton animated mannequin in the positions illustrated in Figures 5.4 & 5.5. The sampling tapes are none absorbent and will allow liquid run-off in a similar way to skin.

2.3 Clothing systems utilised

Three types of protective garment were selected;

1) A basic polyester/cotton coverall (size L) A 65 % polyester, 35% cotton overall (boiler suit) (Garment A).

2) A disposable garment (size L). made from a low air permeable, non-woven fabric (Garment B).

3) A disposable garment (size L) made from a high air permeable, non-woven polypropylene (Garment C)

2.4 Experimental description

The motion of the mannequin when set to its lower level of movement is compatible with a human spraying action. The spray lance was mounted in the right hand of the mannequin and compressed air used to maintain a constant pressure.

Two nozzle types, an anvil and a hollow cone, were utilised to generate the high and low challenge levels respectively.

Trials were conducted with the mannequin placed 0.5 m in front of an flat aluminium plate surface, with 3 m tall side walls and a top screen extending backwards over the mannequin.

Firstly, samplers were placed on the mannequin which was then subsequently dressed in the protective clothing system of interest. Once the Knapsack Sprayer2 was mounted on the mannequin, the resulting assembly was set in motion and spraying initiated. 10 l of fluid was sprayed in a single trial. At the end of each run the sprayer was turned off and the mannequin’s movement stopped. The system was left for sufficient time for the surface liquid to dry to avoid cross contamination. The mannequin was then carefully undressed and the garments preserved for later analysis. The sampling tapes were then removed from the mannequin and these were then cut and mounted onto microscope slides, (sample area of 1930 mm2). This allowed the samples to be handled easily, reducing further the risk of cross contamination. The slides were stored for up to a maximum of one week in the dark prior to analysis.

1 Blenderm 3 M Health Care Surgical Division St. Paul MN 55144-1000 2 Cooper Pegler CP 3 2002 Cooper Pegler Spraying Technology

3

2.5 Spray solution

The spray fluid consists of 5% (w/v) non-ionic surfactant (Agral3) and 5% fluorescent tracer (sodium fluorescein).

2.6 Analysis technique

For analysis, the slides were washed off with known aliquots of a pH buffered solution (20 % (v/v) isopropyl alcohol in 25 mMol NaOH). The quantity of contamination reaching skin level was then measured using fluorescent spectroscopy. This technique is highly sensitive, having a detection limit of 30 ml /m2 (initial spray solution).

2.7 Challenge Assessment

Two methods were utilised to measure the challenge to the clothing system.

2.7.1 Naked man - patch method

This was carried out utilising a ‘naked’ mannequin upon which the samplers were mounted. This technique was used to assess the distribution and variability of the spray challenge.

2.7.2 Naked man total exposure measurement

Suit systems were placed over the whole mannequin and exposed to a high and a low level of challenge spray using the two nozzle types described earlier. The challenge liquid was allowed to dry. The complete suit was removed and extracted with known aliquots of a pH buffered solution and the total mass deposited on the suit measured. This technique was used to calculate the total volume of spray challenging the whole protective system and allowed two challenge levels to be compared.

2.7.3 Comparative methodology

Strontium chloride was added to the spray solution and protective clothing systems challenged in the same way as described as above. After drying, these suits were supplied to the Health and Safety Laboratories in Sheffield for comparative analysis using XRF.

3 Agral- ZenecaCrop Protection Fernhurst, Haslemere, Surrey GU27 3 JG

4

3 Experimentation and Results

Two levels of challenge contamination were developed using methods detailed above in 2.7.

3.1 Low challenge level

The data for the low challenge concentration are displayed in Figure 5.9 and Table 6.3. These demonstrate that it is possible to reproducibly generate realistic challenges to a protective suit system at a low challenge level. This challenge is constant for the upper body declining towards the midriff area. The challenge against the leg area is similar to that for the upper body. The challenge to the rear of the mannequin follows a similar pattern to that of the frontal body region, though the drop around the midriff region is greater. The maximum challenge level seen is approximately 2 ml/m2 with the mean value being 0.49 ml/m2 (volumes refer to the spray solution test fluid). A summary of the challenge details is given below.

Mean run time = 9 min 59 s Contamination density = 0.98 ml/m2

Challenge rate = 14.7 ml/hr Contamination rate = 0.25 ml/l applied

3.2 High challenge level

The data for the high challenge concentration is displayed in Figure 5.10 and Table 6.2. These demonstrate that it is similarly possible to reproducibly generate realistic challenges to a protective suit system at a high challenge level. This challenge is constant for the upper body declining towards the midriff area and leg area. The challenge to the rear of the mannequin follows a similar pattern to that of the frontal body region, though the drop around the midriff region is greater. The maximum challenge level seen is approximately 25 ml/m2 with the mean value being 4.2 ml/m2. A summary of the challenge details is given below.

Mean run time = 5 min 1 s Contamination density = 6.8 ml/m2

Challenge rate = 204 ml/hr Contamination rate = 1.7 ml/l applied

The data above clearly shows that it is possible to generate reproducible challenges to mannequin mounted clothing systems at two different challenge levels. The mean values for these challenge levels are shown in Figure 6.4.

3.3 Mannequin wearing jeans and T shirt

The resultant dermal contamination on the mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and a baseball cap after exposure to both challenge levels, is illustrated in Figure 5.11 and in Tables 6.4 and 6.5. These show that in general the higher challenge level results in a higher dermal contamination, although the level of protection provided by this clothing system is not the same for both challenge levels. The graph illustrates that the most important areas of dermal contamination lie in unprotected regions, i.e. the face and the head and also in areas such as the lower arms, which was subject to high levels of contamination due to ingress around the cuffs (illustrated in Figure 5.6). The right arm was subjected to higher levels of contamination than the left arm since the spray lance was held in this hand. The rear of the head also received significant levels of contamination. The higher level of challenge also produced a significant amount of dermal contamination on the upper region of the back. This is a result of liquid being forced through the clothing by pressure contact from the sprayer straps. This is illustrated in Figures 5.7 and 5.8.

3.4 Mannequin wearing Garment A over jeans and T shirt

The resultant dermal contamination on the mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear, Garment A and a baseball cap after exposure to both challenge levels, is illustrated in Figure 5.13 and in Tables 6.6 and 6.7. The major areas of

5

dermal contamination are on the unprotected areas of the face. There was also significant liquid ingress around the cuff areas of the system and there was more dermal contamination on the arm holding the sprayer lance. There is contamination on the rear shoulders resulting from the pressure of the knapsack straps, although this is reduced compared to the shirt alone (case discussed in Section 3.3).

3.5 Mannequin wearing Garment B

The resultant dermal contamination on the mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear, and Garment B after exposure to both challenge levels, is illustrated in Figure 5.14 and in Tables 6.8 and 6.9. These again illustrate that the unprotected areas, (the front of the face) are exposed to far higher levels of contamination than the rest of the body. The higher challenge results in the higher dermal contamination than the lower challenge. The higher contamination levels detected on sampler numbers 4, 5 & 6 (neck and sides of face) which were covered by the hood clearly indicates that leakage had occurred. At the higher challenge rate there is also evidence of leakage around the cuffs.

With this protective clothing system the level of contamination on areas of the skin covered by personal protective equipment could be viewed as insignificant when compared to those areas not protected (face region) by the protective clothing system.

3.6 Mannequin wearing Garment C

The resultant dermal contamination on the mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear, and Garment C after exposure to both challenge levels, is illustrated in Figure 5.15 and in Tables 6.10 and 6.11. As with the specialist protective garment above, the unprotected areas, (the front of the face) are exposed to higher levels of contamination than the rest of the body. Again, a higher challenge level results in a higher dermal contamination. The areas around the body / suit interface receive the highest levels of contamination in areas under the suit. There is also a small degree of liquid ingress to the rear shoulder. With this protective clothing system the level of contamination on areas of the skin covered by personal protective equipment could be viewed as insignificant when compared to those areas not protected (face region) by PPE.

3.7 Mannequin wearing Garment B with zip undone

The resultant dermal contamination on the mannequin wearing shirt, trousers underwear, and Garment B with its zip undone, after exposure to both challenge levels, is illustrated in Figure 5.16 and in Tables 6.12 and 6.13. These show that the unprotected regions of the face receive high levels of dermal contamination. In this dress state samplers 6 and 7 (neck), which are normally covered by the suit, receive increased levels of contamination. Surprisingly there was not an increase in contamination around the front of the mannequin. However, samplers 68 to 74 (rear of head) received a dramatically increased level of contamination.

3.8 Mannequin wearing Garment B with sleeves rolled up

The resultant dermal contamination on the mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear, and Garment B with its sleeves rolled up, after exposure to both challenge levels, is illustrated in 5.17 and in Tables 6.14 and 6.15. These show a clear increase in dermal contamination around the lower arms when compared to that for the correctly worn protective ensemble. The contamination is particularly high on the right forearm.

6

4 Discussion and Conclusions

Two levels of liquid spray challenge to a mannequin have been generated in a reproducible manner (Figures 5.9 and 5.10 and Tables 6.2 and 6.3).

Both types of challenge deposit a higher level of contamination on the upper body than on the lower body. Less dermal contamination is seen on the back of the body than on the front, as would be generally expected in occupational environments. Although more contamination may be seen on the legs in occupational scenarios than in the current experimentation methods (due to an operator’s forward motion through the spray plume), the overall levels of contamination are in agreement with those seen in previous studies, Table 6.1. Increased variability (in terms of spatial heterogeneity) was seen at the higher challenge level. This was partially due to drop coagulation.

All the clothing ensembles evaluated afforded a significant decrease in dermal contamination. At the higher level of challenge, the protection given by clothing systems is proportionally higher than to the lower level of challenge.

Significant levels of contamination were however deposited on unprotected areas e.g. around the face. There is evidence for dermal contamination under protective garments resulting from penetration through skin / clothing interfaces (e.g. around the face and cuffs). This is particularly evident around the right cuff since the spray lance was held in this hand for all spraying activities. This further illustrates that a higher challenge results in a higher level of dermal contamination.

It can be seen that wearing a long sleeved shirt and a pair of jeans reduces dermal contamination. However, a significant amount of contamination is still able to reach he skin. Wearing another layer of clothing (eg the boiler suit) further reduces dermal contamination over normal clothes. However, wearing a boiler suit still results in significant dermal contamination resulting from:

1) Contamination in unprotected areas e.g. the face.

2) Contamination resulting from leakage around the cuffs and around the neck.

3) Direct fabric penetration around the back induced by pressure from the knapsack sprayer straps.

Specialist protective over-garments such as Garments B and C tested in this study further improve protection and reduce dermal contamination to very low levels. A comparison of all the protection levels evaluated against both challenges is illustrated in Figures 5.18 & 5.19. Both forms of specialist protective garment confer a dramatic improvement in terms of dermal protection over the boiler suit.

Due to the heterogeneous nature of the contamination distribution, it is evident that a high number of samplers are needed to cover the body to give detailed and valid assessment of dermal exposure. A lower number of sampling patches on the arms may not have detected the ingress at the cuffs. Similarly, lower sampler coverage on the back may have provided less information on the contamination on the back resulting from the pressure of the knapsack straps.

This study also illustrates (Figures 5.20 and 5.21) the importance of wearing protective garments in the correct manner. High levels of dermal contamination are shown to result from incorrect wearing of garments. In particular, exposed unprotected areas of skin have been shown to receive very high levels of contamination. This could be crucial in determining the overall toxic loading an operator receives during spraying. Each incorrect manner of wearing a protective garment is also shown to result in a different pattern of dermal contamination.

The data in Tables 6.16 to 6.27 indicates that a significant amount of the spray fluid is retained on the workers normal clothing even though a protective garment may have been worn. This illustrates that small amounts of fluid are penetrating through or around these garments. Therefore, hygiene is an essential part of reducing dermal exposure. Contamination resulting from wearing clothing that has been previously contaminated should be investigated further.

Data from this study may be used to create more informed risk assessments as they allow the protection factor afforded by clothing layers to be established in an inexpensive, realistic and reproducible manner.

7

5 Figures

5.1 The Porton animated mannequin

8

5.2 Mannequin with knapsack sprayer

9

5.3 Mannequin with knapsack sprayer in operation

10

5.4 Sampling positions on the mannequin

11

5.5 Sampling tapes mounted on mannequin prior to dressing

12

5.6 Contamination around the cuff area

13

5.7 Fluorescent imaging showing contamination around head and back region of the mannequin

14

5.8 Plate showing contamination of shirt worn under a protective garment

15

0 2 4 6 8 14 16 18 20 26 28 30 32 40 42 44 52 54 56 58 64 66 68 70 76 78 80 82 88 90 92 94

2

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

10 12 22 24 34 36 38 46 48 50 60 62 72 74 84 86

Con

tam

inat

ion

ml/m

replicate 1 replicate 2 replicate 3

Sampler No.

5.9 Dermal contamination on an unclothed mannequin resulting from low challenge

16

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2C

onta

min

atio

n m

l/m

replicate 1 replicate 2 replicate 3

Sampler No.

5.10 Dermal contamination on an unclothed mannequin resulting from a high challenge

17

l/m 2

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

Con

tam

inat

ion

m

low High

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Sampler No.

5.11 Comparison of the mean high and low level challenges.

18

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0 2 4 6 8

2

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

Con

tam

inat

ion

ml/m

low challenge

high challenge

Sampler |No.

5.12 Dermal contamination on a mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear & a baseball cap

19

0 2 4 6 8

2

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

Con

tam

inat

ion

ml/m

low challenge high challenge

Sampler No.

5.13 Dermal contamination on a mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear, a boiler suit and a baseball cap

20

2

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00 C

onta

min

atio

n m

l/m


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

Sampler No

5.14 Dermal contamination on a mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and Garment B

21

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

2C

onta

min

atio

n m

l/m


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

Sampler No.

5.15 Dermal contamination on a mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and Garment C

22

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

2C

onta

min

atio

n m

l/m


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

Sampler No.

5.16 Dermal contamination on a mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and Garment B with the zip left undone

23

2

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

Con

tam

inat

ion

ml/m

high challenge low challenge

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

Sampler No.

5.17 Dermal contamination on a mannequin wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and Garment B with the sleeves rolled up

24

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

2C

onta

min

atio

n m

l/mchallenge shirt and jeanes Garment A Garment B Garment C

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

Sampler No.

5.18 Dermal contamination on a mannequin exposed to a low challenge wearing a variety of clothing systems

25

Con

tam

inat

ion

ml/m

2

jeanes

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00 challenge shirt and Garment At Garment B Garment C

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

Sampler No.

5.19 Dermal contamination on a mannequin exposed to a high challenge wearing a variety of clothing systems

26

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

2C

onta

min

atio

n m

l/m

correctly worn zip undone sleeves rolled up

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

Sampler No.

5.20 Dermal contamination on a mannequin exposed to a low challenge wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and Garment B compared to badly worn ensembles

27

20.00

18.00

16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

Con

tam

inat

ion

ml/m

2

correctly worn zip undone sleeves rolled up

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

Sampler No.

5.21 Dermal contamination on a mannequin exposed to a high challenge wearing shirt, trousers, underwear and a Garment B compared to badly worn ensembles

28

6 Tables

Reference Task Dosimetry Method Dose Cano et al (2000) Pesticide applicator whole body 60-63 ml/hr Gonzalez et a (1999)l Assistant Whole body 8-220 ml/hr Fenske and Elkner (1990)

Pesticide applicator Various 6 mg/hr

Santos et al (1999) Bystander Whole body 0.13-0.504 ml/hr Gonzalez et al (1999) 15 Applicators Whole body 8-220 ml/hr Glass R (1998) Greenhouse applicators Whole body 50-2000 ml/hr

Lloyd G.A. ( 1986) Agricultural applicators Patch samples <0.1-520 ml/hr

Franklin C.A. (1985) Various Various 2.4-755.0 mg/hr

Nigg et al (1990) Pesticide Applicator Patch samples 148-1152 mg/kg pesticide applied

Stamper et al (1989) Greenhouse Drencher Patch samples 0-121 mg/kg pesticide applied

Neto et al (1992) Pesticide applicator Patch samples 0 to 2385 ml/hr

Lloyd G.A. (1979) Pesticide applicator Various 0.5-64 ml/hr

Durham and Wolf (1962)

Pesticide applicator Patch samples 55-1755 mg/hr

Abbott et al (1987) Pesticide applicator Whole body 10.1-157.8 mg/hr

Kangas et al (1993) Pesticide applicator Patch samples 1.9-6.4 mg/hr/m2

Sanderson et al (1995)

Pesticide applicator Patch samples <0.01-32 mg/cm2

Popendorf and Selim (1995)

Disinfectant Applicator Patch samples 1-12 g/hr

Methner & Fenske (1994).

Pesticide applicator Whole body 2-939 mg/hr

May & Calumpang (1996)

Pesticide applicator Patch samples 0-29580 mg/body part

Archibald B.A. et al (1994)

Pesticide applicator Whole body 0-332 mg/hr

Bonsall J.L. Pesticide applicator Whole body 0.13-10.4 mg/cm2

Garrod (1999) Timber Treatment Patch samples 547-132000mg/cycle

Franklin et al (1981) Pesticide applicator Patch samples 1.8-18.8 ng/cm2/kg

Souter et al (2000) Pesticide applicator Patch samples 0.3-86 ml/man

Tannahill et al (1996) Various Various 1.9-47.8 mg/man

Llewellyn et al (1996)

Pesticide applicator Patch samples <0.001-79 mg

6.1 Literature survey data on operator exposure levels

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 replicate 2 replicate 3 mean 20.70 7.58 5.90 11.39 11.84 0.12 1.97 4.64 0.10 0.25 0.50 0.28 0.58 1.90 0.33 0.94 0.35 4.58 0.46 1.80 0.75 0.25 0.35 0.45 5.38 10.08 16.49 10.65

24.36 4.51 10.78 13.22 12.37 8.23 0.47 7.02 16.29 11.52 6.72 11.51 3.93 2.76 5.56 4.08 0.16 0.13 3.62 1.30

14.04 9.96 3.92 9.31 6.11 7.73 6.12 6.65

13.87 12.13 8.63 11.54 17.21 18.83 9.18 15.07 0.48 2.46 1.17 1.37

17.89 10.55 7.99 12.14 9.02 0.98 4.16 4.72 0.16 10.09 2.07 4.11

21.14 0.22 1.21 7.52 13.09 17.61 10.73 13.81 9.15 15.29 4.70 9.71 8.39 9.01 9.07 8.83 0.14 0.23 0.13 0.16 0.76 4.43 0.81 2.00

17.75 6.29 4.99 9.68 6.69 8.21 12.14 9.01 1.14 0.51 1.68 1.11 0.24 5.61 9.08 4.98 6.83 12.05 11.80 10.23 8.12 7.87 4.28 6.76 0.15 1.85 0.58 0.86 0.26 8.47 0.29 3.01 6.68 9.64 0.13 5.48

12.57 9.35 3.56 8.49 6.57 11.06 7.76 8.46 9.79 6.28 6.86 7.64 0.21 0.45 0.16 0.27 0.09 0.08 0.96 0.38 0.12 0.32 0.65 0.36 5.86 0.25 0.47 2.19 3.73 10.32 0.39 4.81 0.04 0.76 0.64 0.48 0.09 1.90 0.60 0.86 0.12 0.10 1.01 0.41 0.10 0.11 0.71 0.31 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.21 0.09 0.52 0.27 0.09 1.47 0.35 0.64 0.06 0.10 0.33 0.16 0.37 1.54 0.59 0.83 0.11 6.53 8.19 4.94 0.10 5.19 1.49 2.26 0.09 0.26 1.01 0.45 0.35 0.80 0.39 0.51

30

57 1.13 2.00 1.08 1.40 58 0.23 0.17 6.01 2.13 59 0.16 0.15 0.35 0.22 60 0.09 0.17 1.08 0.45 61 0.22 0.09 1.04 0.45 62 0.30 0.18 0.31 0.26 63 0.33 0.31 0.52 0.39 64 0.13 2.66 0.90 1.23 65 0.19 0.15 0.85 0.40 66 0.23 0.24 0.99 0.49 67 14.15 22.68 7.37 14.73 68 0.09 2.76 8.75 3.87 69 6.90 22.52 7.78 12.40 70 4.99 0.36 12.06 5.80 71 7.51 6.94 9.90 8.11 72 5.72 1.96 9.23 5.64 73 9.70 10.01 4.81 8.17 74 7.56 5.75 4.07 5.79 75 7.29 11.87 3.94 7.70 76 8.98 7.99 6.92 7.96 77 13.93 13.96 10.44 12.77 78 8.21 18.00 4.08 10.10 79 0.08 0.16 0.43 0.22 80 0.02 0.20 0.06 0.09 81 0.02 0.02 8.40 2.81 82 0.02 1.35 1.51 0.96 83 0.81 2.52 0.36 1.23 84 0.04 0.46 0.07 0.19 85 0.02 0.22 0.13 0.12 86 0.00 0.24 11.73 3.99 87 0.11 0.37 0.69 0.39 88 0.12 0.34 0.05 0.17 89 0.01 0.21 0.02 0.08 90 0.07 0.19 3.85 1.37 91 0.07 0.19 1.25 0.50 92 0.14 0.43 0.90 0.49 93 0.05 0.23 0.56 0.28 94 0.08 0.45 1.02 0.52

mean 4.43 4.55 3.60 4.19

6.2 Summary of high challenge level samplers

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 replicate 2 replicate 3 mean 0.73 0.36 0.80 0.63 0.59 0.68 1.52 0.93 0.43 0.93 0.25 0.54 0.47 0.20 0.76 0.48 0.22 0.32 0.19 0.24 0.46 0.74 0.89 0.70 0.37 0.57 0.20 0.38 0.07 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.46 0.22 0.72 0.47 0.25 1.13 0.45 0.61 0.18 0.67 0.83 0.56 0.12 0.53 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.42 0.42 0.39 1.32 0.47 1.15 0.98 4.69 1.49 1.23 2.47 0.35 0.32 0.53 0.40 0.47 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.29 1.93 0.95 1.06 0.33 0.41 1.00 0.58 0.15 0.43 0.56 0.38 0.31 0.27 3.09 1.23 0.17 0.27 0.28 0.24 0.25 0.28 0.41 0.31 0.23 0.50 0.32 0.35 0.86 0.39 0.61 0.62 0.34 0.36 0.70 0.47 0.29 1.01 0.29 0.53 0.43 1.07 0.38 0.62 0.13 0.19 0.29 0.20 0.62 0.23 0.80 0.55 0.46 0.51 0.57 0.51 0.21 0.99 3.13 1.44 0.61 0.37 0.97 0.65 0.34 0.38 0.55 0.42 0.52 0.17 0.18 0.29 0.74 0.21 0.46 0.47 0.29 0.60 0.49 0.46 0.32 0.15 0.24 0.24 0.60 0.37 0.66 0.54 0.13 0.41 1.90 0.81 0.40 0.51 0.62 0.51 0.07 0.42 0.39 0.29 0.15 0.28 0.36 0.26 0.26 0.19 0.41 0.29 0.23 0.31 0.38 0.31 0.36 0.13 0.30 0.26 0.18 0.28 0.22 0.23 0.12 0.35 0.04 0.17 0.16 0.06 0.18 0.13 0.20 0.43 0.12 0.25 0.16 0.37 0.21 0.25 0.61 0.46 1.20 0.76 0.49 0.64 0.52 0.55 0.50 0.55 0.83 0.63 0.44 0.50 0.94 0.63 0.32 1.74 1.33 1.13 0.72 0.56 0.55 0.61

32

58 0.35 0.57 1.17 0.70 59 0.59 1.09 0.38 0.69 60 0.42 0.19 1.83 0.81 61 0.49 0.23 0.49 0.40 62 0.42 0.46 1.62 0.83 63 1.31 0.28 0.69 0.76 64 0.70 0.35 0.82 0.62 65 0.51 2.09 0.63 1.08 66 0.48 2.02 1.88 1.46 67 0.80 0.83 1.10 0.91 68 0.32 0.68 0.52 0.51 69 0.31 0.19 0.47 0.32 70 0.98 0.32 0.44 0.58 71 0.24 0.28 0.31 0.28 72 0.30 0.17 0.89 0.45 73 0.12 0.20 0.57 0.30 74 0.16 0.35 0.62 0.38 75 0.44 0.05 0.23 0.24 76 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 77 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.08 78 0.43 0.18 0.26 0.29 79 0.36 0.32 0.18 0.29 80 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04 81 0.20 0.02 0.05 0.09 82 0.14 0.01 0.11 0.09 83 0.27 0.59 0.40 0.42 84 0.17 0.29 0.25 0.23 85 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.04 86 0.20 0.02 0.03 0.08 87 0.25 0.15 0.79 0.40 88 0.31 0.14 0.45 0.30 89 0.47 0.23 0.48 0.39 90 0.63 0.25 0.82 0.57 91 0.40 0.16 1.00 0.52 92 0.58 0.24 0.31 0.38 93 1.26 1.44 0.60 1.10 94 0.78 0.70 2.32 1.26

mean 0.44 0.47 0.65 0.52

6.3 Summary of low challenge level samplers

33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

contamination ml/m2

Pad no. Replicate 1 replicate 2 Replicate 3 mean 0.12 0.30 0.73 0.38 0.36 0.70 0.91 0.66 0.65 0.48 0.87 0.67 0.32 0.75 3.68 1.59 0.37 0.16 0.22 0.25 0.31 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.97 1.34 1.05 1.12 0.11 0.30 0.01 0.14 0.03 0.57 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.25 0.21 0.07 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.74 0.20 0.12 0.35 0.12 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.26 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.75 0.01 0.09 0.28 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.19 0.03 0.08 0.81 0.70 0.09 0.53 0.92 1.76 0.08 0.92 0.18 1.51 0.13 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01

34

57 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 58 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 59 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 65 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.08 66 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 67 0.11 0.10 0.51 0.24 68 0.08 0.09 4.39 1.52 69 0.05 0.24 0.69 0.33 70 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.03 71 0.15 0.13 1.61 0.63 72 0.29 0.28 0.68 0.42 73 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.04 74 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 75 0.01 0..00 0.00 0.01 76 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.03 77 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 78 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 79 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 80 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 83 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 84 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.02 88 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 89 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 94 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.07

mean 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.14

6.4 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt and baseball cap with a low level challenge

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 Replicate 2 replicate 3 mean 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.34 1.36 0.69 0.35 0.80 0.25 0.64 0.27 0.39 0.62 0.62 0.54 0.59 0.20 0.55 0.30 0.35 0.41 0.74 0.91 0.69 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.76 0.98 0.95 0.90 0.13 0.06 0.18 0.12 0.06 0.38 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.12 0.09 0.81 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.98 0.01 0.34 0.01 0.87 0.01 0.30 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.04 1.69 0.01 0.58 0.02 0.77 0.00 0.26 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.40 0.00 0.23 0.04 0.39 0.00 0.15 0.02 0.66 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.11 0.37 0.45 0.04 0.29 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02 3.04 1.45 0.03 1.51 2.24 0.26 0.02 0.84 0.85 2.47 0.10 1.14 0.01 0.33 0.28 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03

36

57 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 58 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.03 59 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 60 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 61 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 62 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 63 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 64 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 65 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.06 66 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 67 0.02 0.15 0.07 0.08 68 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02 69 0.24 1.94 0.24 0.81 70 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 71 0.25 0.11 0.28 0.21 72 0.32 0.26 0.14 0.24 73 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 74 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.04 75 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 76 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 77 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 78 0.02 0.46 0.00 0.24 79 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.19 80 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.13 81 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.17 82 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.24 83 0.02 4.42 0.00 2.22 84 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.19 85 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.14 86 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.15 87 0.04 0.36 0.00 0.20 88 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.22 89 0.02 0.47 0.00 0.24 90 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.19 91 0.02 0.27 0.03 0.11 92 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.03 93 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.05 94 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02

mean 0.14 0.49 0.13 0.19

6.5 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt and baseball cap with a high level challenge

37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 replicate 2 Replicate 3 mean 0.13 0.38 0.44 0.32 0.22 0.28 0.99 0.50 0.35 1.18 0.95 0.83 0.07 0.33 0.47 0.29 0.20 0.25 0.39 0.28 0.06 0.22 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 1.60 2.17 0.03 1.27 1.17 0.95 0.02 0.71 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

38

58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 60 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.05 61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 67 0.00 0.28 0.46 0.37 68 0.25 3.14 0.21 1.20 69 0.24 0.10 0.21 0.18 70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71 0.29 0.04 0.49 0.27 72 0.19 0.08 0.57 0.28 73 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 74 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 75 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 76 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 77 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 78 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.07 79 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 80 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 81 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.04 82 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01

mean 0.08 0.38 0.10 0.08

6.6 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, baseball cap and Garment A with a low level challenge

39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 replicate 2 replicate 3 mean 0.02 0.07 0.31 0.14 0.04 0.11 0.40 0.18 0.05 0.28 0.64 0.32 0.12 0.05 1.36 0.51 0.06 0.21 0.31 0.19 0.02 0.10 1.00 0.37 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.40 0.02 0.14 0.19 0.58 0.34 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.00 1.14 0.03 0.39 0.10 0.68 0.04 0.28 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.56 0.03 0.20 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.78 0.01 0.27 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02

40

57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 59 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 60 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 61 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 62 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 63 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 67 0.03 0.16 0.08 0.09 68 2.08 0.07 0.32 0.82 69 0.07 1.71 0.55 0.78 70 0.00 0 0.02 0.01 71 0.03 1.59 0.19 0.60 72 0.20 0.05 0.09 0.11 73 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.07 74 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 75 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.22 76 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 77 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.07 78 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 79 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 80 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.03 81 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.38 82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 88 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 92 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 93 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.02 94 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.02

mean 0.07 0.22 0.09 0.08

6.7 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, baseball cap and Garment C with a high level challenge

41

Contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 replicate 2 Replicate 3 mean 1 1.10 4.64 0.02 1.92 2 0.24 1.04 0.02 0.43 3 0.31 0.09 0.03 0.14 4 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 5 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 6 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 7 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 8 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

10 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 19 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 20 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 21 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 22 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

725 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 29 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 34 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 52 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 55 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

42

56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 65 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 74 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 92 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

mean 0.03 0.12 0.00 0.03

6.8 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment B with a low level challenge

43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 replicate 2 Replicate 3 mean 3.25 7.91 1.16 4.10 6.11 6.41 1.25 4.59 1.00 0.64 0.16 0.60 0.12 0.40 0.11 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.05 0.17 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.26 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02

44

56 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 57 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 58 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 62 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 63 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 64 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 67 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 68 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 69 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.03 70 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 71 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 74 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 84 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.05 85 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 86 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 92 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 93 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 94 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02

mean 0.23 0.30 0.04 0.12

6.9 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment B with a high level challenge

45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 replicate 2 replicate 3 mean 0.07 0.25 0.05 0.12 1.99 1.38 0.04 1.14 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

46

56 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 57 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 58 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 59 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 60 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 61 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 62 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 63 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 64 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 65 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 66 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 67 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 68 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 69 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 74 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 75 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 76 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mean 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02

6.10 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment C with a low level challenge

47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 replicate 2 replicate 3 mean 0.75 0.81 0.07 0.54 1.07 1.30 0.09 0.82 0.82 0.10 0.10 0.34 0.18 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.71 0.11 0.13 0.32 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.86 0.08 0.13 0.36 0.24 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.50 0.01 0.00 0.17 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

48

56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 61 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 62 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 65 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 66 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 67 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.08 68 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.04 69 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.03 70 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 71 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 72 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 73 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 74 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 79 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.18 80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02

mean 0.19 0.05 0.01 0.05

6.11 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, Garment C with a high level challenge

49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 replicate 2 replicate 3 mean 5.33 0.62 12.35 6.10 5.64 0.25 3.29 3.06 0.11 0.57 2.30 0.99 6.50 1.49 0.68 2.89 0.19 0.37 0.10 0.22 2.15 0.70 0.14 1.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.02 0.03 0.00 0.68 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00. 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.02

50

56 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 60 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 61 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 62 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 63 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 66 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 67 1.65 1.72 2.93 2.10 68 2.56 21.27 2.75 8.86 69 0.36 6.83 0.16 2.45 70 0.06 0.13 0.01 0.07 71 0.19 1.79 0.47 0.82 72 0.34 0.12 0.19 0.22 73 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 74 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.02 75 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 76 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 77 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 78 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 79 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.04 82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 84 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.05 85 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 86 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11 87 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 88 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.03 89 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.02 90 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 91 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 94 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01

mean 0.33 0.61 0.60 0.33

6.12 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment B with its zip left undone, exposed to a low level challenge

51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 replicate 2 Replicate 3 mean 2.82 0.24 20.00 7.69 1.40 1.33 15.13 5.95 0.24 0.28 1.08 0.54 0.10 0.09 0.35 0.18 0.21 0.07 0.26 0.18 4.99 0.03 0.44 1.82 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01

52

56 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 59 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 60 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67 3.19 3.90 10.44 5.84 68 4.68 4.26 17.88 8.94 69 1.92 0.09 10.37 4.13 70 3.76 0.05 2.06 1.96 71 1.82 0.34 0.28 0.81 72 0.97 0.09 0.09 0.38 73 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 74 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 75 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 76 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.02 77 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 78 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 79 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.35 82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 85 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 86 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 87 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 88 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 94 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.04

mean 0.35 0.24 1.36 0.42

6.13 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment B with its zip left undone, exposed to a high level challenge

53

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 replicate 2 Replicate 3 mean 0.04 0.06 1.04 0.38 0.38 12.01 9.49 7.30 0.01 0.52 0.24 0.26 0.01 0.06 0.28 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.37 0.15 0.01 0.20 0.06 0.09 0.01 0.17 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.37 3.78 7.86 4.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.11 1.31 0.49 2.75 17.07 6.41 8.74 0.74 0.45 3.52 1.57 0.03 0.15 0.41 0.20 0.28 0.56 10.18 3.68 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.02 1.67 9.62 20.92 10.74 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.15 33.79 11.32 2.58 8.46 19.04 10.03 1.20 9.22 44.96 18.46 0.03 0.25 21.70 7.33 2.43 12.11 22.86 12.46 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.27 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.41 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02

54

58 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 59 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 60 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 61 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 62 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 63 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 64 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 65 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 66 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 67 0.00 0.13 2.17 1.15 68 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 69 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 70 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 71 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.03 72 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 73 0.00 0.33 0.01 0.17 74 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 75 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 76 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 77 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 78 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 79 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.02 80 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.03 81 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.03 82 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 83 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 84 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 85 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 86 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.04 87 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 88 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.02 89 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 90 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 91 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 92 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 93 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 94 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

mean 0.20 0.85 2.42 1.07

6.14 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment B with its sleeves rolled up, exposed to a low level challenge

55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

contamination ml/m2

Pad no. replicate 1 replicate 2 replicate 3 mean 1.48 4.46 5.56 3.83 2.61 3.94 3.15 3.23 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 3.39 1.01 1.73 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 1.72 1.86 0.79 1.45 0.18 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.03 0.02 1.05 0.36 1.07 1.28 0.03 0.80 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.45 0.76 1.01 0.74 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.86 1.01 0.67 0.59 0.75 1.24 0.86 0.79 0.02 1.33 0.71 0.21 0.97 1.11 0.76 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

56

58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 90 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mean 0.17 0.30 0.29 0.17

6.15 Summary of contamination of samplers with mannequin wearing underwear jeans, shirt, and Garment B with its sleeves rolled up, exposed to a high level challenge

57

Contamination mg Clothing replicate 1 replicate 2 Replicate 3 mean

Cap 3.49 6.17 0.00 3.22 Shirt 3.90 8.27 0.00 4.06 Jeans 0.17 0.14 0.00 0.10

Underwear 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02

6.16 Contamination remaining on clothing after a low level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, baseball cap and underwear

Contamination mg Clothing replicate 1 replicate 2 Replicate 3 mean Cap 4.24 7.97 8.97 7.06 Shirt 4.83 8.15 6.60 6.53 Jeans 0.12 0.20 0.26 0.19 Underwear 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.02

6.17 Contamination remaining on clothing after a high level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, baseball cap and underwear


Cap 2.20 2.16 0.00 1.45 shirt 0.18 0.91 0.00 0.36 jeans 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.04

Underwear 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.05 Protective suit 2.90 3.01 0.00 1.97

6.18 Contamination remaining on clothing after a low level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, baseball cap, Garment A and underwear


Cap 8.15 12.54 4.73 8.47 shirt 3.80 7.80 1.46 4.35 jeans 0.06 0.05 0.16 0.09


6.19 Contamination remaining on clothing after a high level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, baseball cap, Garment A and underwear

Contamination mg Clothing replicate 1 replicate 2 replicate 3 mean

shirt 0.15 0.59 0.33 0.36 jeans 0.07 0.05 0.16 0.10


6.20 Contamination remaining on clothing after a low level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, Garment B and underwear

58


Shirt 1.62 1.57 8.02 3.74 Jeans 0.06 0.34 0.70 0.37


6.21 Contamination remaining on clothing after a high level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, Garment B and underwear


Shirt 1.52 0.16 0.07 0.59 Jeans 0.11 0.17 0.08 0.12


6.22 Contamination remaining on clothing after a low level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, Garment C and underwear


Shirt 6.17 7.86 8.21 7.41 Jeans 0.14 0.58 0.46 0.39


6.23 Contamination remaining on clothing after a high level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, Garment C and underwear


Shirt 6.17 7.86 8.21 7.41 Jeans 0.14 0.58 0.46 0.39


6.24 Contamination remaining on clothing after a low level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, underwear & Garment B with its zip undone


Shirt 1.97 3.46 1.83 2.42 Jeans 0.35 0.03 0.03 0.14


6.25 Contamination remaining on clothing after a high level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, underwear & Garment B with its zip undone

59

Contamination mg Clothing Replicate 1 replicate 2 replicate 3 mean

shirt 0.13 0.11 2.00 0.75 Jeans 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10


6.26 Contamination remaining on clothing after a low level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, underwear & Garment B with sleeves rolled up

Contamination mg Clothing replicate 1 Replicate 2 replicate 3 mean

Shirt 0.90 0.77 2.62 1.43 Jeans 0.09 0.31 0.15 0.18


6.27 Contamination remaining on clothing after a high level challenge to a mannequin wearing jeans, shirt, underwear & Garment B with sleeves rolled up

60

7 References

Author Date

Abbott I.M., Bonsall J.L., 1987 Chester G., Hart T.B. & Turnbull G.J.

Archibald B.A.,Solomon K.R.. & 1994 Stephenson G.R.

Bonsall J.L. 1985

Brouwer D.H., Semple S., 2001 Marquart J. and Cherrie J. W.

Durham W.F. and Wolff T. 1962

ECETOC 1994

European Chemicals Bureau 1996

European Chemicals Bureau 1998

Evans P.G. 1999

Fenske R.A. and Elkner K.P. 1990

Title

Worker Exposure to a Herbicide Applied with Ground Sprayers in the United Kingdom

Estimating Pirimicarb Exposure to Greenhouse Workers Using Video Imaging

Measurement of Occupational Exposure to Pesticides

A Dermal Model for Spray Painters Part I Subjective Exposure Modelling of Spray Paint Deposition

Source

Am. Ind. Assoc. J. 48 (2) pp167-175

Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 27 pp126-129

In Turnbull G.J. ed. Occupational Hazzards of Pesticide Use. London Taylor and Francis

Ann.Occup.Hyg. 45 1 pp 25-33

Measurement of the Exposure of Workers to Pesticides Bul. WHO 26 pp 245-

Assessment of Non-Occupational Exposure To Chemicals

Technical Guidance Documents in Support of the Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for New Notified Substances and the Commission Regulation (EC) on risk assessment for existing chemicals

Technical Meeting Report

PPE and Dermal Exposure

Multi-Route Exposure Assessment and Biological Monitoring of Urban Pesticide Applicators During Structural Controls Using Chlorpyrifos

56

ECETOC Report Brussels

European Chemicals Bureau Ispra Italy

ECB4/32/98)

Paper presented to the International Syposium in Occupational Exposure Data-bases and Their Application for the Next Millenium November 1-3 London 1999

Toxicology and Industrial Healthpp349-371

61

6

Franklin C.A. 1985

Franklin C.A., Fenske R.A., 1981 Greenhalgh R. Mathieu L. Denley H.V., Leffingwell J.T. & Spear R.C.

Garrod A.N.I., Martinez M., 1999 Pearson J., Proud A. & Rimmer D.A.

Glass R. 1998

Gonzalez E.F.J., Cano C.M.L., 1999 Vidal M.J.L., Frenich G.A., Marquez C.M., Lopez A.E., Rodriguez C.L. Glass C.R. & Mathers J.J.

Gonzalez et al 1999

Kangas J., Laitinen S., 1993 Jauhianen A. & Savolainen K.

Kromhout H.A11 & Vermeulen 2001 R.

Llewellyn D.M.,, Brazier A., 1996 Brown R., Cocker J., Evans M.L., Hampton J., Nutley B.P. & White J.

Lloyd G.A. 1986

Lloyd G.A. 1979

May S. & Calumpang F. 1996

Methner M.M. & Fenske R.A. 1994

Occupational Exposure To Pesticides and its Role in In Honetcutt R.C. Risk Assessment Procedures in Canada Zweig G. & Ragsdale

N.N. (eds) Dermal Exposure Related to Pesticide Use. Washington D.C.American Chemical Society pp 429-444 (ACS Symposium Series 273)

Correlation of Urinary Pesticide Metabolite Excretion J. Tox. Env. Health 7with Estimated Dermal Contact in the Course of pp 715-731Occupational Exposure to Guthion

Exposure to Preservatives in the Industrial pre- Ann.Occup.Hyg.43 8treatment of Timber pp 543-555

Evaluation of the Potential Dermal Exposure of Proceedings of the 9th Agricultural Workers to Pesticides Using Tracers and International Congress Whole Body Dosimetry on Pesticide Chemistry

London pp695-699

Exposure of Sprayers and Plant Handlers to Mevinphos Am. Ind. Assoc. J. 54in Finnish Greenhouses (4) pp150-157

Temporal, Personal and Spatial Variability in Dermal Ann.Occup.Hyg. 45 4Exposure pp 257-265

Occupational Exposure To Permethrin During its Use Ann.Occup.Hyg. 40 5as a Public Hygiene Insecticide pp 499-599

Efficiency of protective clothing for pesticides spraying In Barker R.L. & Coletta G.C (eds) Performance of protective clothing. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials pp121-135

Developments in Personal Protection Prot. Brit. Crop Cont. Conf. Pp821-831

Exposure of Four Filipino Farmers to Parathion-Metyl Pesticide Sci. 46 pp93-While Spraying String Beans 102

Pesticide Exposure During Greenhouse Applications , Appl. Occup. Environ. Part II. Chemical Permeation Through Protective Hyg. 9 (8) pp 567-574Clothing in Contact with Treated Foliage

62

Mulhaused J.R. and Damiano J. 1998 A Strategy for Assessing and managing Occupational American Industrial Exposures Appendix II Dermal Exposure Assessments Hygiene Association

Fairfax VA.

Neto M., Matuo T. & Matuo Y.K. 1992 Dermal Exposure of Pesticide Applicators in Staked Bull. Envirom. Contam. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) Crops : Toxicol 48 pp 529-534 Efficiency of a Safety Measure in the Application Equipment

Nigg H. N., Stamper J.H. & 1990 Handgun Applicator Exposure to Erhion in Florida Bull. Envirom. Contam. Mahon W. D Citrus Toxicol 45 pp 463-468

Popendorf W. &Selim M. 1995 Exposures While Applying Commercial Disinfectants Am. Ind. Assoc. J. 56 pp 1111-1120

Sanderson W.T., Ringenburg V. 1995 Exposures of Commercial Pesticide Applicators to the Am. Ind. Assoc. J. 56 & Biagini R. Herbicide Alachlor pp 890-897

Soutar A. Cherrie B. & Cherrie 2000 Field Evaluation of Protective Clothing Against Non- IOM Research Report J.W. Agricultural Pesticides TM/00/04

Stamper J.H., Nigg H.N., 1989 Pesticide Exposure to a Greenhouse Drencher Bull. Envirom. Contam. Mahon W.D., Nielsen A.P. & Toxicol 42 pp 209-217Royer M.D.

Tanahill S.N., Robertson A., 1996 A Comparison of Two Different Methods of Assessment IOM Research Report Cherrie B.,Donnan P., of Dermal Exposure to Non-Agricultural Pesticide in TM/96/07 MacConnell E.L.A. & Macleod Three Sectors G.J.

63

Printed and published by the Health and Safety ExecutiveC30 1/98

64


65


Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C1.25 8/02

ISBN 0-7176-2530-3

RR 004

780717625307£25.00 9