the sheds-wood model: incorporation of observational data to estimate exposure to arsenic for children playing on cca-treated wood structures.

by:Cleanmo      2020-03-03
Background: wood treated with chromium-treated arsenic copper (CCA)
This compound was used on the outdoor wooden structure of the residence and on the public playground. The U. S.
Environmental Protection Bureau (EPA)
Hasconductor used a random human exposure and dose simulation model of wood preservative scenarios to evaluate the probability of exposure to arsenic in children (SHEDS-Wood).
The re-obtained data were evaluated from an experimental study conducted using adult volunteers, which was designed to obtain the maximum hand and wipe load estimated to remain
Skin transfer efficiency.
Latest analysis of arsenic hand
Loading data generated by children\'s studies that actively participate in CCA games
The structure after treatment shows that the transfer efficiency coefficient and the hand
Load estimates derived from experimental studies greatly overestimate the amount that occurs in the actual game.
Objective: Our goal is to evaluate the feasibility of using a child\'s hand
Loading data in the shed
Wood model and its impact on exposure assessment.
Methods: we used the data generated in the shed Children\'s Study
Distribution of wood, not used in the United StatesS. EPA.
We compared our estimate of the average daily dose of life (LADD)
Average daily dose (ADD)
And those from the United StatesS. EPA.
Results: Our analysis showed that data from the children\'s observation study could be used in shedsWood.
Our estimate of the mean (
And 95 percentile)
LADD and ADD are 27% respectively (10%)and 29% (15%)
Estimates from the United StatesS. EPA.
Conclusion: We suggest shed-
The woods model uses research data from children\'s active play in the game to estimate children\'s actual exposure to CCA more accurately.
Key words: arsenic, CCA, child exposure, probabilistic exposure model, observational study, shedWood.
HealthPerspect Environ. 115: 781-786 (2007). doi:10. 1289/ehp.
Provided by [9741]
Online February 21, 2007
Chromium copper arsenic salt (CCA)
Have chemical preservatives been used?
Treat the wood to prevent the wood from rotting due to moisture, insects, and microbial agents. CCA-
In outdoor residential structures, treated wood is widely used (e. g.
, Deck, porch, amusement facilities, landscaping)
Public playground for the past 30 years. In 2002, the U. S.
Environmental Protection Bureau (EPA)
Under pressure, a voluntary decision was announced.
The treated wood industry will gradually eliminate CCA products for the consumer market;
However, the existing outdoor wood structure is related to CCA-
The treated wood is still in use.
As part of the CCA re-registration review --
Processed wood in the United StatesS.
Under the Federal Act on pesticides, mycoides and Rodenticides (FIFRA), the U. S.
Research and Development Office of Environmental Protection Bureau (ORD)
National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)
Random human exposure and DoseSimulation models have been developed to evaluate exposure of wood preservatives to residential and playground (SHEDS-Wood)
And applied it to evaluate the sex of children with arsenic in CCA
Processing structure (U. S. EPA 2005; Xue etal. 2006;
Zartarian, etc. 2006). The SHEDS-
The Wood model is a probabilistic model designed to use from time-location-
Activity diary organized by InUS.
EPA comprehensive database of human activities (CHAD)(McCurdy etal. 2000).
Model input parameters are divided into four categories:)
Activity factors (
Include parameters such as the average number of days a child plays on or near the game set/deck, the time score the child actually plays on the game set/deck), b)
Exposure Factors (
Including the frequency of handsto-
Oral activity, washing events, dermal loading, residual skin transport efficiency), c)dose factors (
Including the absorption part of the skin and intestines and stomach), and d)
Center for Environmental Media (
Including soil and residual concentration).
The value assigned to the US input parameter. S.
EPA and Zartarian etal.
Evaluation from a) generated data
Experimental Research (e. g.
, For leather loading variables and residual skin transfer efficiency), b)
Observation and research (e. g.
, For manual frequencyto-
The activity of the mouth and the score of the mouth), or c)
Expert judgment (e. g.
, For the number of days on the playground and the time spent on the game platform).
Among these parameters, the model is most sensitive to the arsenic content accumulated in the hands of the child.
Sensitivity and uncertainty assessments conducted in the United StatesS. EPA (Xue et al. 2006)
Show the efficiency of residual skin transfer and residue on the surface of Wood--
Parameters used to estimate the maximum load in the United StatesS. EPA\'s (2005)
And Zartarian. \'s (2006)analyses--
Is the two most important variables that affect the estimation of absorbed doses. The U. S. EPA\'s SHEDS-
Wood model, and other assessments of arsenic exposure in children [treatedwood]e. g.
Commission on Consumer Product Safety (CPSC)1990; Hemond andSolo-Gabriele 2004]
, Relying on exposure assessment using assumptions and modeling, rather than using actual arsenic levels in children\'s hands after playing with the structure made by CCAtreatedwood.
Report of the scientific advisory group of sopra (SAP)Meeting(U. S. EPA 2001), held 23-
October 25, 2001 review AmericanS.
Epa \'spreliminary assessment of CCA exposure
Treated wood, it is recommended that EPA handle it directly by hand
Load measurement in children\'s samples (preferably)or adults (
If the human subject is involved).
The best empirical data can actually be collected by sampling children who are actively involved in CCA treatment structure games.
\"Two recent observational studies improved the assessment of exposure by directly measuring arsenic levels in children\'s hands after exposure to CCA --treated wood.
First study by Kwon et al. (2004), with follow-
Proposed by Wang and others. (2005)
Including 130 children (
Play on the playground with CCA
Processed game sets and 64 game sets built using unused CCA play on the playground-treated wood); thesecond (Shalat et al. 2006)
Including 11 children playing on the residential gaming platform (
At least part of the seven kids on the wooden structure of cca
In non-treatment and fourCCA-
Processing structure).
Zartarian, etc. (2006)
Reviewed the hand
Load estimates from Kwon et al.
The study and notes that the data suggest that \"the experimental method used to measure the hand load may overestimate the amount that occurs in the actual competition.
\"We got the raw data from the authors of the first study (Kwon et al. 2004)
And make an assessment to determine if the data can be used in the shed
Wood, if so, what impact would they have on the estimation of the model\'s average daily dose for Life Prediction (LADD)
And intermediate
Average daily dose (ADD).
Materials and methods for shedsWood model. The SHEDS-
The Wood model estimates the age of use-and sex-
Activity diary 1-to 6-year-
Old children extracted from the Chad database.
Each diary used contains a different macro
The Children\'s Day activities. Themacro-
Activity lasts for a few minutes to an hour, during which potential contact with CCA
There may be processed playsets or decks.
Because of the macro
Activities reported in Chad are not detailed enough to specify whether and when to engage with CCA
The treated wood happens, the shed-
Wood model in contact with CCA
Treated Wood may be a subset of macro activities that occur in what it defines as \"appropriate locations. \" Pathway-
Specific exposure and dose time curves are then generated from the sequence of contact events.
Contact or encounter only where chemicals exist.
Once this contact occurs, the chemical will remain on the individual or on the individual until it is removed or discharged from the body.
During cleaning-
Wood involves skin absorption and oral administration (throughhand-to-mouth activity)
, Wash and bathe, and assume that occurs in sequence in this order.
In addition, the model assumes intestines and stomach (GI)
Tract is voided once a day at 0600, when the GI tract load is reset to zero. SHEDS-
Wood includes an adjustment to limit the net transfer of chemicals from wood to Wood, at which point the maximum hand load of arsenic has been reached after multiple contact with CCA-
Treated surface of wood
The data used to estimate the maximum hand load distribution was generated by an experimental study in which adult volunteers
Wooden blocks handled by hand (for 20 passes)
Polyester wipes are pulled back and forth across the block (
10 passes, 90 behind [degrees]
Rotate, pass another 10 times)[
American Committee on chemistryACC)2003].
Distribution of reasons-
The skin transfer efficiency parameter is derived as the hand-
Washing results of woodblock residue (cloth wipe)results. SHEDS-
The maximum hand load of the wood model is the product of the concentration of wood surface residue multiplied by the transfer efficiency (
Default optionor as a user-
Specify the distribution. TheU. S. EPA (2005)
Use the default shed
Wood model options in base analysis, and use the hand wipe data generated by the acc experimental study in the \"special analysis\" to evaluate the effect of directly using the \"soluble residue instead of the total residue multiplied by the transfer efficiency.
\"Rights and others. study. The Kwon et al. (2004)
The study was conducted in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and was partially supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Board, the City of Edmonton and the Environment Canada;
The University of Alberta Health Research Ethics Committee approved the research programme.
Of the 316 playgrounds owned and operated in Edmonton, 16 were selected for the study.
The selected playground represents other playgrounds in Edmonton city in terms of age, manufacturer and location.
Eight of them include CCA-
The other eight of the wooden structures that have been processed are not.
130 children (
Play on the playground with CCA
Processed game sets and 64 game sets built using unused CCA play on the playground-treated wood)
Participated in the study.
An average of seven to nine children attend each playground.
Obtaining written and informed consent from parents;
Children who did not obtain parental consent were excluded from the study.
The time to arrive at the playground, the time to play and the age of the children participating in the event were recorded.
After the children finished playing, their hands were de-
Ionising water and hands-
Filter the washing samples and analyze the filtration liquid.
The right to publish the data summary. (2004).
Responding to comments from Kissel (2005)
The arsenic content in the refractory residue collected on the filter was analyzed and the results were published by Wang et al. (2005)in rejoinder.
From here on, we will use \"Kwon et al \".
\"Refer to data from Kwonet al.
Wang and others. studies. Hand-loading data.
Raw data of total arsenic (
Soluble arsenic in hands is refractory to arsenic)
The study authors obtained hand washing from 130 children (
Personal communication Li XC).
Total arsenic in hands-washing water(
Refractory arsenic and water on the filter-
Soluble arsenic in filtration solution)was 934 [+ or -]
For the children playing in the cinema, 940 Ng was prepared.
Playground and 265 [+ or -]
311 ng for children in AfricaCCA-
Treated playground
We used total arsenic data available for children playing on CCA
Processed playground, no adjustment of this data to reflect the level of background arsenic detected during non-child playCCA-
Treated playground
Of the 66 children playing on eight CCA --
Treatment deck, 53 were1-
Age range considered in the US assessment. S. EPA (2005)
And Zartarian. (2006).
The remaining 13 children (
A child of 8 months old, 12 children [
Greater than or equal to]7years of age)
Beyond the age range considered in the United StatesS.
Assessment by Epa;
Therefore, their data is not included in our analysis.
In addition, the data is also excluded from a 2-year-
In older children, their soluble arsenic values were significantly lower than those measured for other children, and no levels of undissolved arsenic were reported.
In this analysis, we used total arsenic data for the remaining 52 children
6 years old playing on CCA
Treated playgroundData analysis. The Kwon et al. hand-
The loading data is the total arsenic quality (for two hands)
And the biggest hand
Loading parameters in the shed-
The wood model is expressed as the quality of arsenic per square meter of the skin. Hence, hand-
Loading level of rights and others.
The study transformed the total arsenic load from two hands into micrograms of skin per square centimeter for shed --
Wood model, using formulas and assumptions similar to the model.
Specifically, assume 50.
5% of the time spent on the playground is actually spent on the game structure, not the \"close\" game structure ([F. sub. playset])
And 74% of the surface area of the hand skin is exposed to the surface residue of the wood every 20 minutes ([F. sub. contact,res,j])(
These percentages correspond to the distribution average used in the shed
Wood of these parameters.
Estimation of hands (HSA)
Surface area of body (TBSA)
Is exported using a formula similar to that used in the shedWood (Table 1).
Therefore, the arsenichand load per square centimeter is deduced as: hand load ([micro]g/[cm. sup. 2])= [
Total arsenic quality (ng)/1,000]/([TBSA ([m. sup. 2])]x 10,000 x [HAS (%)]x Minimum{[[F. sub. contact,res,j]/20 (rate/min)
Time on the playground (min)x[F. sub. playset]], 1})[1]
Because it is assumed that 74% of the skin surface of the hand will contact the wood surface residue every 20 minutes, which means that 100% of the hands will contact the residue after about 30 minutes, for children who spend more than 1 hour on the playground, the above formula limits this parameter to 1.
We used linear regression analysis to evaluate the association between the arsenic hand load and the time spent on the playground and the old shed
Estimated wood for LADD and intermediateterm (90-day)
Add children playing on CCA
Treated wood frame
Results Arsenic cream hand washing data were associated with playground time.
Table 2 summarizes the total arsenic distribution in hands
Data from Kwon and others. study (nanograms)
And genetically modified distribution (
Micrograms per square centimeter)
And distribute these with hands
Loading allocation used in the United StatesS. EPA inSHEDS-Wood (U. S. EPA 2005).
Geometric mean value of hand and 95 percentile estimate
Load distribution from Kwon et al. study (0. 0016 [micro]g/[cm. sup. 2]and 0. 0091 [micro]g/[cm. sup. 2])
More than an order of magnitude lower than the number of allocations used in the United StatesS. EPA in SHEDS-Wood (0. 0334 [micro]g/[cm. sup. 2]and 0. 1061[micro]g/[cm. sup. 2]).
Regression analysis showed that the total arsenic level ([R. sup. 2]= 0. 0048)
With the length of play time (Figure 1)
, Which indicates that the manual loading is stable
The level of state after a short game.
This result is consistent with the United States. S.
Saturated conclusions drawn by EPA in the ACCexperimental adult study (U. S. EPA 2005).
Therefore, the hand load distribution derived from this study can be used for shed-
The wood presents the maximum manual load of arsenic, not the distribution used in the United StatesS.
EPA and distribution from experimental data.
LADD and ADD estimates.
We exported LADD and intermediate-term (90-day)
Add for the upper layer-bound (\"warmclimate\")
The scene of the shed
Use wood with the same value and distribution as used in the United StatesS. EPA\'s (2005)
In addition to the maximum skin load parameters, the evaluation of all input parameters, for which we used the maximum value of the arsenic hand load (
Micrograms per square centimeter)
Right, etc. data.
Table 3 summarizes the values and distributions used for in-shed input parametersWood.
Tables 4 and 5 summarize LADD and intermediate-
Use the term ADD for manual loading Max export based on Kwon et al.
Study and compare these estimates with estimates from the United StatesS. EPA (2005)
Kids playing on CCA
Treated deck and game set.
By setting the maximum skin loading parameter to a value derived from Kwon et al, the average LADD estimate is obtained.
The study is 27% of the US estimates. S. EPA.
Large differences observed between the United StatesS.
Environmental Protection Agency estimates of the upper layer
Percentile exposure distribution and estimates derived using Kwon et al. study data.
Specifically, by setting the maximum skin load parameter values obtained from Kwon et al, the 90 and 99 percentile estimates are obtained.
The study is estimated at 14% and 10% in the United States. S. EPA.
Similarly, by setting the maximum skin load parameter to a value obtained from Kwon et al, the mean, 90, and 95 percentages increased the estimate.
The study was 29%, 19% and 15%, respectively, estimated by the United StatesS. EPA (2005).
Discuss data used in the US. S. EPA (2005)
And Zartarian. (2006)inSHEDS-
Wood representing transfer efficiency and maximum skin load comes from an experimental study for adults that aims to achieve maximum hand and wipe load for CCA-treated wood.
In particular, the study used wet hands, heavy objects, a large number of passes and did not allow the brushoff.
Such research does not reproduce the typical appeal of children in the game scene.
SAP in Chopra (U. S. EPA 2001)
Direct hand is recommended-
Load measurement for children who obtained and used \"active participation in playing on the structure of CCA processing. The Kwon et al. study (2004; Wang et al. 2005)
These data are provided and show experimental data used in the USS. EPA (2005)
And Zartarian. (2006)
Overestimates the residue of arsenic.
The skin transfer efficiency factor and the arsenic hand load that occurs in the actual game.
Geometric mean and maximum-
The load level combined with soluble and refractory arsenic is 0. 3 [micro]g and 4. 7 [micro]G, respectively.
If we conservatively assume that only the palm of the child\'s hand touches the residue, then the geometric mean and maximum values of the adjusted hand load will change to 0. 004 [micro]g/[cm. sup. 2]and 0. 036[micro]g/[cm. sup. 2]
The estimates, respectively, are much lower than those derived from the lognormal distribution used in the United States. S. EPA (2005)
AndZartarian, etc. (2006)(
Geometric mean: 0. 033 [micro]g/[cm. sup. 2];
99 Points: 0. 272 [micro]g/[cm. sup. 2]).
Use assumptions similar to those used in sheds
The wood used for the body and watch area, the time used for the structure, and the fraction of the surface area of the hand skin exposed to the residue, to calculate the hand load per square centimeter will result in a lower level (Table 2).
Besides, hands-
Loading levels observed at Kwon et al.
The study was consistent with that observed in small but similar studies conducted by Shalat et al. (2006).
Zartarian, etc. (2006)
The conclusion is that the United StatesS. EPA-
The estimated dose added is equivalent to the dose taken by Kwon et al. study(Kwon et al. 2004; Wang et al. 2005).
However, their conclusion is based on the assumption that all arsenic in the hands of the child is ingested and fully absorbed.
This conservative assumption contradicts the input used in the shed --Wood by the U. S. EPA (2005)
AndZartarian, etc. (2006)
Model exposure--
That is to say, the score of skin absorption, the score of stomach absorption, and the score of the watch area with the mouse mouthwash
Event parameters.
The average level of arsenic in the background of children\'s hands, derived from children\'s non-CCA-
Treatment playground, 26% of the average level detected in the hands of children playing on CCA
Treated playground
In our analysis, we did not adjust the total arsenic in our hands.
Wash clothes for kids playing in CCA
The playground after processing to reflect the background level, therefore, may be overestimated in CCA-
Treated playground
Like all observational studies, Kwon et al. study (Kwon etal. 2004; Wang et al. 2005)
There are certain limitations.
However, these simulations do not prevent the use of data to inform the exposure assessment.
Potential limitations of Kwon et al.
The study included a relatively small number of children, the study recorded the time spent on the playground, not on the game floor, and the study did not include a surface wipe analysis of the structure;
Therefore, it is not possible to confirm the level of cancellation of learning from the game structure of Kwon et al.
The study was not lower than that measured in other studies.
We will discuss these issues below. Sample size. Using a one-
Side tolerance interval method, similar to the method described in Hahn and Meeker (1991)
Proposed by the United StatesS. EPA(1991)
, To estimate the minimum sample required when the number estimated from the survey is the percentage of the distribution, it can demonstrate the number of children playing on the playground with cca-
The processed playback set (CPSC 2003 (
Samples collected from buildings in the metropolitan area of Washington, DC); Shalat et al. 2006(
Samples collected from buildings in Florida); Ursitti et al. 2004(
Samples collected from buildings in Toronto, Canada)].
Therefore, we have no reason to believe the arsenic levels that can be removed from the structure of Kwon et al.
The study will be different from those in the study. Kissel (2005)
Point out the potential limitations of the right metal.
The research is, hands-
The load levels derived from this study may not affect the amount already taken.
However, even if we adjust the grade we get from Kwon et al.
Distribution mean using hand-to-
Oral dermal transfer scores assumed in the shed-wood(0. 78)--
So, in fact, the children of the right to assume.
Studied the entire hand area where they had been exposed to arsenic residues. -
The level of American use. S. EPA (2005)
It\'s still 50-
80% higher than these adjusted levels.
Therefore, the potential number of mouse movements is unlikely to explain the difference between the exposure estimates we observed and those derived from the USS. EPA (2005)
Especially since we used conservatively the maximum value obtained from Kwon et al.
The data we analyzeThe follow-
Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis conducted in the United StatesS.
EPA and Xue et al. (2006)
Show residue-
Arsenic residue on wood surface--
Parameters used to estimate the maximum load in the United StatesS. EPA (2005)
And Zartarian. (2006)analyses--
Is the two most important variables that affect the estimation of absorbed doses.
So the hand
Load data collected from children during active games, such as data collected by Kwon et al. (2004), Wang et al. (2005)
And Shalat and others. (2006)
, Applied to improve the accuracy of dose and exposure estimates derived by American AirlinesS.
EPA using sheds-Wood model.
We got total arsenic.
Load data from the weight metal.
Research and analyze the data to assess if it can be used in the shed
Wood representing the maximum number of hands
Load parameters.
Our analysis shows that the measured hand load has nothing to do with the time spent on the playground, which indicates that after a short period of play, the hand load reaches the highest level, therefore, these data can be used in sheds
Wood models that replace the value used in the United StatesS. EPA (2005)
And Zartarian. (2006)
It depends on the experimental study.
Using data collected by sampling actual children playing onCCA
Processed structures such as data from Kwon and others. study, inSHEDS-
The average LADD and ADD estimates from Wood are 27% and 29% of estimates from the United States, respectively. S. EPA.
A big difference was observed in the last percentile, and our estimates were 14% and 19% (90 percentile)
And 10% and 15%, respectively, estimated by the United StatesS. EPA (2005).
Based on our analysis of children\'s hands
Data loading of American children\'s observation studyS.
EPA\'s current assessment overestimates the likelihood that children will be exposed to migrating arsenic from CCA
Up to 10-treated wood-fold(U. S. EPA 2005).
We suggest the US governmentS.
EPA uses data from this observation study in sheds
To estimate the actual exposure of migrating arsenic in children more accurately.
Our proposal is in line with the proposal of Sopra SAP, that is, the best empirical data for manual loading is collected from children who are actively involved in the processing of wood frame games. REFERENCES ACC. 2003.
Assessment of metal exposure in CCA
Complete research. Available: [
Visit March 26, 2007]. CPSC (
Consumer goods Safety Committee). 1990.
DislodgeableArsenic on the wood of playground equipment and estimated risk of skin cancer. Memorandum. Available: [
Visit January 18, 2007]. CPSC (
Consumer goods Safety Committee). 2003.
Determination of migrating arsenic from mcca-to hands and agent handsTreated Wood. Available: [
Visit March 26, 2007].
Hahn GJ, Mikel WQ. 1991.
Statistical interval--
Practitioner\'s Guide.
John Willie and his sons.
Hymond HF, SoloGabriele HM. 2004.
Children exposed to arsenic from CCA
Treated wooden deck and playground structure. RiskAnal 24(1):51-64. Kissel JC. 2005.
Arsenic in children\'s hands [Letter].
Environmental health forecast 113: a364.
Jane JC, Bai Jing, Richter KY, Ling finsk. 1998.
Investigation of skin-soil contact in control trials. J Soil Contam7(6):737-752.
Right, Zhang H, Wang z, Jhangri GS, Lu X, Fok N, etc. 2004.
The children had arsenic in their hands after playing in the playground.
Environmental health survey 112: 1375-1380.
Leki Jo, Nelle Ka, Carnales LA, Ferguson AC, carbrea NL, hertado Al, etc. 2000.
Quantify micro-activity data for children from existing video tapes. Reference No. U2F112OT-RT-99-001182.
Stanford, California: Stanford University.
Glen kadi Y, Smith L, Glen G2000.
Comprehensive human activity Database of National Exhibition Research Laboratory.
Environmental Epidemiology 10: 566-578.
SL Shalat, Solo
Gabriele HM, fleing LE, Buckley BT, Black K, Jimenez M, etc. 2006.
A preliminary study on children\'s exposure to cca
Processed wood on playground equipment.
Sci Total Environ367 (1):80-88.
Van der Linden, Watson R. , Campbell M. 2004.
Evaluation and management of arsenic exposure in CCA
Processed wood game structure.
J Public Health 95: 429-433. U. S. EPA. 1991.
Guidelines for the use of individual exposure assessment of expected residues.
Washington, D. C. S.
Environmental Protection Bureau. U. S. EPA. 2001.
A set of scientific issues that EPA is considering are: preliminary assessment of the state
Exposure to chromium, copper, arsenic and salt on children\'s diet and exposure (CCA)-
AndCCA-treated wooden playground structure
Pollute the soil. SAP Report No. 2001-12.
Arlington, Virginia: United States of AmericaS.
Environmental Protection Bureau. Available:[
Visit January 29, 2007]. U. S. EPA. 2005.
Probability exposure assessment of children exposed to CCA
Game sets and decks treated with random human exposure and dose simulation models using wood preservative scenarios (SHEDS-WOOD). Final Report. EPA/600/X-05/009.
Washington, D. C. S.
Environmental Protection Bureau.
Wang z, Quan, Zhang H, Jhangri GS, Lu X, Li X, etc. 2005.
Arsenic in children\'s hands: Wang et al. respond [Letter].
Environmental health survey 113: A364-A365.
Xue J, Zartarian VG, Ozkaynak H, Dang W, Glen G, Smith L, etc. 2006.
Probabilistic arsenic exposure assessment in children exposed to CCA
Part 2: The processed set and deck of the game.
Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Risk Anal 26(2):533-541.
Zartarian VG, Xue J, Ozkaynak H, Dang W, Glen G, Smith L, etc. 2006.
Probabilistic arsenic exposure assessment in children exposed to CCA
Processed game sets and decks.
Part 1: Model methodology, variability results, and model evaluation. Risk Anal 26(2):515-531. Leila M. Barraj, (1)Joyce S. Tsuji, (2)and Carolyn G. Scrafford(1)(1)
Center for Chemical supervision and food safety
Washington, D. C; (2)
Centre for toxicology and mechanical biology, index company
Address correspondence between Bellevue and Los Angeles, Washington, United StatesM.
Barraj, center for chemical regulations and Food Safety of Exponent, Inc.
Suite 1100, 1730 Rhode Island Avenue.
20036 Northwest, Washington, D. C. Telephone: (202)772-4909. Fax: (202)772-4979. E-
Email: lbarraj @ exponentcom We thank B.
Sceurman for technical assistance.
The Scientific Committee on wood conservation provided funding for the study.
The authors announced that the study was funded by the Scientific Committee on wood preservatives, a trade association of manufacturers of water-based wood preservatives.
Received on September 19, 2006;
Accepted February 21, 2007
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Leave Your Message inputting...