REPORT ON THE HEALTH RISK ASSOCIATED WITH EMISSIONS … documents... · 2014-06-13 · EPHECT is co-funded by European Union (Executive Agency for Health and Consumers- EAHC) framework

EPHECT is co-funded by European Union (Executive Agency for Health and Consumers- EAHC)

framework of the Health Programmes 2006-2013

WP7 -

EXPOSURE AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

REPORT ON THE HEALTH RISK

ASSOCIATED WITH EMISSIONS FROM

HOUSEHOLD USE OF SELECTED

CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Paolo Carrer, Marilena Trantallidi (UMIL - WP7 Leader, Italy)

Sani Dimitroulopoulou, George Efthimiou, Ioannis Sakellaris, John Bartzis (UOWM, Greece)

Peder Wolkoff (NRCWE, Denmark)

September 2013

i

REVIEWER

The present report was reviewed by Stylianos Kephalopoulos (European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection).

“© VITO, NRCWE, IDMEC, UOWM, TUM

All rights on the materials described in this document rest with VITO, NRCWE, UOWM, IDMEC and TUM.

This document is produced in the frame of the EPHECT –project. The EPHECT-project is co-funded by the European Union in

the framework of the health Programmes 2006-2013. The information and views set out in this document are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions

and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf, nor the authors may be held responsible for the use which may be made

of the information contained herein.

Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged.”

ii

DISTRIBUTION LIST

EPHECT associated partners

EPHECT collaborative partners

iii

Summary

iv

SUMMARY

In the framework of the European collaborative action EPHECT (Emissions, exposure patterns and

health effects of consumer products in the EU), irritative and respiratory health effects were

assessed in relation to acute and long-term exposure to key and emerging indoor air pollutants

emitted during household use of selected consumer products. In this context, a detailed health risk

assessment was carried out under Work Package 7 (WP7) for five selected ‘target’ compounds of

respiratory health relevance, namely acrolein, formaldehyde, naphthalene, d-limonene and α-

pinene. For acute exposure, a 30-min time period was chosen, reflecting exposure during use of the

product, whereas for long-term exposure, a 24-h time period was selected, reflecting exposure

during daily activity of the target population and considered as representative of all days of a year.

This report presents the methodology followed for health risk assessment in the framework of

EPHECT, as well as the main outcomes in terms of risk characterisation related to emissions of the

‘target’ pollutants following single or multiple use of selected consumer products.

Initially, the selection of ‘target’ compounds is presented, performed on the basis of a literature

review, evaluation of toxicological information and occurrence of the compounds in the

experimental product testing outcomes. Additionally, the evaluation of toxicological data concerning

the effects of short- and long- term inhalation exposure to the selected compounds is overviewed; as

a result of this evaluation, the derivation of health-based limits of exposure for acrolein, d-limonene

and α-pinene is described, and the selection of already established limits for formaldehyde and

naphthalene is justified for the purposes of EPHECT.

Further, the methodology developed to construct exposure scenarios related to the use of consumer

products by two ‘target’ population groups (housewives and retired people) in the four geographical

areas of Europe (North, West, South, East) - based on the analysis of the EPHECT Household Survey

data regarding the use of fifteen consumer product classes in the EU - is described. In view of a ‘most

representative worst-case scenario’ strategy and for the purposes of the exposure and health risk

assessment performed within EPHECT, the scenarios reflecting the worst cases for the use of the

product - while respecting the use preferences of the population group in each geographical area -

were used. Microenvironmental modelling was performed in order to estimate indoor air

concentrations (30-min max rolling average and 24-h mean) in each microenvironment resulting

from single product use (Level 1). Additionally, results of microenvironmental modelling were

combined with daily population home activity profiles in order to derive exposure estimates (30-min

max rolling average and 24-h mean) for each compound and across various home

microenvironments as a result of multiple product use (Level 2). Moreover, sensitivity analysis of the

modelling results was conducted to investigate the impact of internal dispersion between adjacent

rooms in the domestic environment as well as the impact of indoor air chemistry on the

concentrations of the ‘target’ pollutants (Level 3).

Finally, the last step undertaken in the context of the health risk assessment procedure, i.e. risk

characterisation, is presented; the outcome of Levels 1 and 2 was compared to the health-based

Summary

v

exposure limits of the five ‘target’ compounds, and expressed as percentage (%) of each exposure

limit.

The ‘target’ pollutants studied in WP7 represent a fraction of the compounds emitted from

consumer products that have been identified and quantified (or semi-quantified) throughout the

project. In addition, the products studied in EPHECT represent only a minor fraction of all consumer

products available in the European market; thus, they cannot be considered as representative for all

products of the consumer product classes that were investigated.

However, despite the above and other relevant limitations specified in this report, this is the first

study ever that provides exposure estimates and health risk assessment simultaneously for eight

population groups across Europe exposed to five priority respiratory health-relevant pollutants, as a

result of the use of fifteen consumer product classes in households, while reflecting regional

differences in uses, use scenarios and building ventilation conditions of each region.

In conclusion, in the framework of EPHECT a health risk assessment methodology was developed to

assess the potential adverse irritative and respiratory health effects associated with the household

use of selected consumer products, which should be considered along with its underlying

assumptions and limitations. Furthermore, the outcome of the health risk assessment may form the

basis and contribute to a future development of risk management guidance and formulation of policy

options for the efficient reduction of health risks associated with the household use of consumer

products in Europe.

Table of contents

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Distribution list ................................................................................................................................................ ii

Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... iv

Table of contents ............................................................................................................................................ vi

List of figures ................................................................................................................................................. viii

List of tables ..................................................................................................................................................... x

List of acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ xiii

CHAPTER 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 2 Aim of EPHECT WP7 ................................................................................................................ 2

CHAPTER 3 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 4 Selection of health-relevant emitted compounds ................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 5 Hazard identification and dose-response relationship .......................................................... 10

5.1 Acrolein ....................................................................................................................................................... 10

5.1.1 Short – term effects ............................................................................................................................. 11

5.1.2 Long – term effects .............................................................................................................................. 12

5.1.3 Critical effect and toxicological values for risk assessment within EPHECT ........................................ 14

5.2 Formaldehyde ............................................................................................................................................. 16




5.3 Naphthalene ............................................................................................................................................... 21




5.4 d-Limonene ................................................................................................................................................. 25




5.5 α-Pinene ...................................................................................................................................................... 29




5.6 Summary table of toxicological parameters for health risk assessment within EPHECT ............................ 32

Table of contents

vii

CHAPTER 6 Methodology of exposure assessment .................................................................................. 34

6.1 Description .................................................................................................................................................. 34

6.2 Description of models ................................................................................................................................. 37

6.2.1 CONC-CPM (Level 1 – Level 2) ............................................................................................................. 37

6.2.2 BAMA model (Comparison with Level 1) ............................................................................................. 37

6.2.3 Indoor Air chemical model MIAQ/UOWM (Level 3) ............................................................................ 38

6.3 Parameters for microenvironmental and exposure modelling ................................................................... 39

6.3.1 Short description of the Household survey ......................................................................................... 39

6.3.2 Development of scenarios for household use of selected consumer products .................................. 40

6.3.3 Room volumes ..................................................................................................................................... 46

6.3.4 Ventilation rates .................................................................................................................................. 47

6.3.5 Development of daily home activity profiles ...................................................................................... 48

6.4 Selection of emission testing results for exposure assessment ................................................................... 50

6.5 Background exposure ................................................................................................................................. 53

CHAPTER 7 LEVEL 1: Microenvironmental concentrations and risk characterisation related to single use

of consumer products .................................................................................................................................... 55

7.1 Results – single product use ........................................................................................................................ 55

7.1.1 Exposure scenario: ‘use of all-purpose cleaning agent’ (product class A1) ........................................ 55

7.1.2 Exposure scenario: ‘use of kitchen cleaning agent’ (product class A2) ............................................... 58

7.1.3 Exposure scenario: ‘use of floor cleaning agent’ (product class A3) ................................................... 60

7.1.4 Exposure scenario: ‘use of glass and window cleaning agent’ (product class A4) .............................. 61

7.1.5 Exposure scenario: ‘use of bathroom cleaning agent’ (product class A5)........................................... 63

7.1.6 Exposure scenario: ‘use of furniture polish’ (product class A6) .......................................................... 63

7.1.7 Exposure scenario: ‘use of floor polish’ (product class A7) ................................................................. 65

7.1.8 Exposure scenario: ‘use of combustible air freshener’ (product class A8).......................................... 66

7.1.9 Exposure scenario: ‘use of spray air freshener’ (product class A9) ..................................................... 69

7.1.10 Exposure scenario: ‘use of passive air freshener’ (product class A10) .............................................. 70

7.1.11 Exposure scenario: ‘use of electric air freshener’ (product class A11).............................................. 71

7.1.12 Exposure scenario: ‘use of coating product’ (product class A12)...................................................... 74

7.1.13 Exposure scenario: ‘use of hair styling product’ (product class A13) ................................................ 74

7.1.14 Exposure scenario: ‘use of deodorant spray’ (product class A14) .................................................... 75

7.1.15 Exposure scenario: ‘use of perfume’ (product class A15) ................................................................. 76

7.2 Comparison with BAMA modelling ............................................................................................................. 79

7.3 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 81

CHAPTER 8 LEVEL 2: Exposure assessment and risk characterisation related to aggregated use of

consumer products ........................................................................................................................................ 85

CHAPTER 9 LEVEL 3: Sensitivity analysis ................................................................................................ 118

9.1 MIAQ/UOWM parameterisation .............................................................................................................. 119

9.2 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 120

CHAPTER 10 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 125

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 128

List of figures

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 6.1: Exposure assessment in relation to other EPHECT activities. ______________________ 34

Figure 6.2: Household survey - regions, countries and number of interviews. _________________ 40

Figure 6.3: Method to develop the scenarios for household use of selected consumer products. __ 43

Figure 7.1: Results from CONC-CPM and BAMA modelling related to d-limonene emissions from ‘A5

bathroom cleaning agent’ for the population group of HW-N. _________________________ 80

Figure 7.2: Results from CONC-CPM and BAMA modelling related to d-limonene emissions from ‘A5

bathroom cleaning agent’ for the population group of HW-N. _________________________ 80

Figure 8.1: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (HW-N). ____________ 101

Figure 8.2: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (HW-N). ______________ 101

Figure 8.3: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (HW-N). ________________ 102

Figure 8.4: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to naphthalene (HW-N). _____________ 102

Figure 8.5: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (HW-W). ___________ 103

Figure 8.6: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (HW-W). _____________ 103

Figure 8.7: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to acrolein (HW-W). ________________ 103

Figure 8.8: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (HW-W). _______________ 104

Figure 8.9: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to benzene (HW-W). ________________ 104

Figure 8.10: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (HW-S). ___________ 105

Figure 8.11: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (HW-S). _____________ 105

Figure 8.12: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to acrolein (HW-S). ________________ 105

Figure 8.13: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (HW-S). _______________ 106

Figure 8.14: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to benzene (HW-S). _______________ 106

Figure 8.15: Indoor concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (HW-E). _____________ 107

Figure 8.16: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (HW-E). _____________ 107

Figure 8.17: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to acrolein (HW-E). ________________ 107

Figure 8.18: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (HW-E). _______________ 108

Figure 8.19: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to benzene (HW-E). _______________ 108

Figure 8.20: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (RET-N). __________ 109

Figure 8.21: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (RET-N). _____________ 109

Figure 8.22: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (RET-N). _______________ 110

Figure 8.23: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to naphthalene (RET-N). ____________ 110

Figure 8.24: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (RET-W). __________ 111

Figure 8.25: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (RET-W). ____________ 111

List of figures

ix

Figure 8.26: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (RET-W). ______________ 111

Figure 8.27: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (RET-S). ___________ 112

Figure 8.28: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (RET-S). _____________ 112

Figure 8.29: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to acrolein (RET-S). ________________ 112

Figure 8.30: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (RET-S). _______________ 113

Figure 8.31: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to benzene (RET-S). _______________ 113

Figure 8.32: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (RET-E). ___________ 114

Figure 8.33: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (RET-E). _____________ 114

Figure 8.34: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to acrolein (RET-E). ________________ 114

Figure 8.35: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (RET-E). _______________ 115

Figure 8.36: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to benzene (RET-E). _______________ 115

Figure 9.1: Configuration of the typical UK dwelling used in the MIAQ/UOWM simulations. _____ 119

Figure 9.2: Comparison of TERP concentrations predicted by MIAQ/UOWM and CONC-CPM.____ 121

Figure 9.3: Comparison of HCHO concentrations predicted by MIAQ/UOWM and CONC-CPM. ___ 122

Figure 9.4: TERP concentrations predicted by MIAQ/UOWM – no chemistry vs. indoor chemistry. 122

Figure 9.5: HCHO concentrations predicted by MIAQ/UOWM – no chemistry vs. indoor chemistry. 123

Figure 9.6: TERP concentrations predicted by MIAQ/UOWM (all TERP emissions in all MEs). ____ 123

Figure 9.7: HCHO concentrations predicted by MIAQ/UOWM (all HCHO emissions in all MEs). ___ 124

List of tables

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Qualitative assessment of initial EPHECT emission testing results. ___________________ 9

Table 6.1: Example of Household survey data used in the development of scenarios for the use of ‘A1

all-purpose cleaners’ across European regions. _____________________________________ 41

Table 6.2: Use of most popular products per product class by Housewives and Retired people in EU.

___________________________________________________________________________ 42

Table 6.3: The ‘most representative worst-case scenarios’ developed for the household use of 15

consumer product classes by Housewives and Retired people in EU. ____________________ 44

Table 6.4: Statistics of floor areas for the total dwelling stock in Europe. _____________________ 47

Table 6.5: Volumes of rooms per two types of European dwellings (m3). _____________________ 47

Table 6.6: Daily time allocation for Housewives and Retired people. ________________________ 48

Table 6.7: Consumer product sources in each ME and for each target population group and times

when sources are on (modelling approach).________________________________________ 49

Table 6.8: Selection of emission testing results for use in exposure and health risk assessment within

EPHECT. ____________________________________________________________________ 51

Table 6.9: Background exposure levels for private dwellings across Europe from the AIRMEX study

grouped together across the four EPHECT geographical areas. _________________________ 54

Table 7.1: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘all-purpose cleaning agent 1’. 56

Table 7.2: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘all-purpose cleaning agent 1’. _ 56

Table 7.3: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘all-purpose cleaning agent 2’. 57

Table 7.4: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘kitchen cleaning agent 1’. __ 58

Table 7.5: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘kitchen cleaning agent 1’. ____ 59

Table 7.6: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘kitchen cleaning agent 1’. ______ 59

Table 7.7: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘floor cleaning agent 1’. ____ 60

Table 7.8: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘floor cleaning agent 2’. ____ 61

Table 7.9: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘floor cleaning agent 2’. _______ 61

Table 7.10: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘floor cleaning agent 2’. _______ 61

Table 7.11: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘glass and window cleaning agent’.

___________________________________________________________________________ 62

Table 7.12: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘bathroom cleaning agent’. ___ 63

Table 7.13: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘furniture polish 1’. _______ 64

Table 7.14: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘furniture polish 1’. _________ 64

List of tables

xi

Table 7.15: Level 1 outcome related to naphthalene emissions from ‘furniture polish 2’. ________ 65

Table 7.16: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘floor polish 1’. __________ 65

Table 7.17: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘floor polish 1’. ____________ 65

Table 7.18: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘candle 1’. ______________ 66

Table 7.19: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘candle 1’. ________________ 66

Table 7.20: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘candle 1’. __________________ 67

Table 7.21: Level 1 outcome related to acrolein emissions from ‘candle 1’. ___________________ 67

Table 7.22: Level 1 outcome related to benzene emissions from ‘candle 1’. ___________________ 67

Table 7.23: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘candle 2’. ______________ 68

Table 7.24: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘candle 2’. ________________ 68

Table 7.25: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘candle 2’. __________________ 68

Table 7.26: Level 1 outcome related to acrolein emissions from ‘candle 2’. ___________________ 69

Table 7.27: Level 1 outcome related to benzene emissions from ‘candle 2’. ___________________ 69

Table 7.28: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘spray air freshener 1’. ______ 70

Table 7.29: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘spray air freshener 2’. ______ 70

Table 7.30: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘passive air freshener 2’. _____ 71

Table 7.31: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘passive air freshener 2’. _______ 71

Table 7.32: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘electric air freshener 1’. ___ 72

Table 7.33: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘electric air freshener 1’. _____ 72

Table 7.34: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘electric air freshener 1’. _______ 73

Table 7.35: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘electric air freshener 2’. _____ 73

Table 7.36: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘electric air freshener 2’. _______ 74

Table 7.37: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘textile coating product’. _____ 74

Table 7.38: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘hair styling product’. _______ 75

Table 7.39: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘deodorant spray 1’. ________ 75

Table 7.40: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘deodorant spray 1’. __________ 75

Table 7.41: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘perfume 1’. _____________ 76

Table 7.42: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘perfume 1’. _______________ 76

Table 7.43: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘perfume 1’. _________________ 77

Table 7.44: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘perfume 2’. _______________ 77

Table 7.45: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘perfume 2’. _________________ 78

Table 7.46: Input parameters for BAMA/FEA modelling. __________________________________ 79

Table 7.47: Results from BAMA modelling. _____________________________________________ 79

Table 8.1: Level 2 outcome – Housewives - North: ME concentrations and exposure estimates

(µg/m3). ____________________________________________________________________ 88

List of tables

xii

Table 8.2: Level 2 outcome – Housewives - West: ME concentrations and exposure estimates

(µg/m3). ____________________________________________________________________ 89

Table 8.3: Level 2 outcome – Housewives - South: ME concentrations and exposure estimates

(µg/m3). ____________________________________________________________________ 91

Table 8.4: Level 2 outcome – Housewives - East: ME Concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3).

___________________________________________________________________________ 93

Table 8.5: Level 2 outcome – Retired - North: ME Concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3). 95

Table 8.6: Level 2 outcome – Retired - West: ME Concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3). 96

Table 8.7: Level 2 outcome – Retired - South: ME Concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3). 97

Table 8.8: Level 2 outcome – Retired - East: ME Concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3). _ 99

Table 8.9: Level 2 outcome – Housewives: Comparison of 24-h mean and max 30-min exposure

estimates with corresponding CEL values. ________________________________________ 116

Table 8.10: Level 2 outcome – Retired: Comparison of 24-h mean and max 30-min exposure

estimates with corresponding CEL values. ________________________________________ 117

Table 9.1: 24-h mean concentrations (µg/m3) for the ‘target’ pollutants, with and without indoor

chemistry and compared with results from Level 2. _________________________________ 121

List of acronyms

xiii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

2-BE 2-butoxyethanol

ach Air changes per hour

AF Assessment Factor

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BAL Bronchoalveolar Lavage

BMC Benchmark Concentration

BAMA British Aerosol Manufacturers' Association

BUMAC Building Material and Consumer Product database

CEL Critical Exposure Limit

CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

CNS Central Nervous System

DAF Dosimetric Adjustment Factor

E East

EC European Commission

EC-HC Environment/Health Canada

EL Exposure Limit

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EU European Union

FEA European Aerosol Federation (Fédération Européenne des Aérosols)

FEV 1 Forced Expiratory Volume in one second

GV Guideline Value

HEC Human Equivalent Concentration

HSDB Hazardous Substances Data Bank

HSRB Human Studies Review Board

HW Housewives

IDMEC Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Portugal

JRC Joint Research Centre (European Commission)

LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level

LOP Limonene Oxidation Products

ME Microenvironment

MRL Minimal Risk Level

List of acronyms

xiv

N North

NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level

NRCWE National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Denmark

OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of the Californian Environmental Protection Agency

OSB Oriented Strand Board

PG Population Group

RAR Risk Assessment Report

RD0 Exposure concentration decreasing respiratory rate by 0 % (extrapolated threshold from RD50)

RD50 Exposure concentration decreasing respiratory rate by 50 %

RED Registration Eligibility Decision

REL Reference Exposure Level

RET Retired people

RfC Reference Concentration

RGDR Regional Gas Dose Ratio

S South

SCHER Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks

SOA Secondary Organic Aerosol

TC Tolerable Concentration

UOWM University of West Macedonia, Greece

UFPs Ultrafine particles

VAS Visual Analogue Scale

VITO Flemish Institute for Technological Research, Belgium

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

W West

WHO World Health Organization

WP Work Package

Chapter 1 Introduction

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

In the framework of the EPHECT project, Work Package 7 (WP7) involves the health risk assessment

performed in relation to key and emerging indoor air pollutants emitted during household use of

selected consumer products. As EPHECT focuses on air pollutants considered to be risk factors of

respiratory diseases, health risk assessment was conducted accounting only for irritative and

respiratory end-points. In this context, short- and long- term irritative and respiratory effects

reported in literature from human and animal inhalation exposure studies were evaluated in order to

assess the health risks associated to ‘target’ compounds emitted from selected consumer products.

For acute exposure, a 30-min time period was chosen, reflecting exposure during use of the product,

whereas for long-term exposure, a 24-h time period was selected, reflecting exposure during daily

activity of the target population and considered as representative of all days of a year. The ‘worst-

case scenario’ strategy followed for the purposes of health risk assessment considered housewives

and retired people (+ 65 years old) as the target population, as these groups spend the majority of

their time indoors and are, therefore, mostly exposed to emissions from the use of consumer

products.

The health risk assessment methodology followed in the framework of EPHECT should be considered

as a proposed approach to assess the potential adverse health effects associated with the household

use of selected consumer products, along with its underlying assumptions and limitations. A detailed

health risk assessment was carried out for five selected ‘target’ compounds of respiratory health

relevance (acrolein, formaldehyde, naphthalene, d-limonene and α-pinene). These pollutants

represent a fraction of the compounds emitted from consumer products that were identified and

quantified (or semi-quantified) throughout the project. Additionally, the products studied in EPHECT

represent only a minor fraction of all consumer products available in the European market; thus, they

cannot be considered as representative for all products of the consumer product classes under

investigation.

Chapter 2 Aim of EPHECT WP7

2

CHAPTER 2 AIM OF EPHECT WP7

The aim of EPHECT WP7 was to assess health risks of respiratory relevance concerning ‘target’ key

and emerging indoor air pollutants emitted during the household use of selected consumer products,

according to a proposed health risk assessment methodology which is described in this report.

Additionally, the toxicological data gathered in order to assess the health risks associated with the

pollutants considered in the project were inserted in the BUMAC database on consumer product

emissions which was developed within EPHECT. The outcome of the health risk assessment

performed in the framework of EPHECT may form the basis and contribute to a future development

of efficient risk management guidance and formulation of policy options to reduce the health risks

associated with the indoor use of consumer products in Europe.

Chapter 3 Methodology

3

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

In the framework of EPHECT, several compounds emitted from selected consumer products were

identified and quantified under EPHECT WP6 by the four laboratories (IDMEC, VITO, UOWM, NRCWE)

that participated in the emission testing. In line with the EPHECT objectives, a detailed health risk

assessment under WP7 was undertaken only for a limited number of the compounds emitted; these

‘target’ compounds were chosen among key and emerging indoor air pollutants associated with

irritative and respiratory effects. The selection was performed based on a literature review, on

evaluation of toxicological information and on the occurrence of the compounds in the experimental

product testing outcomes, and is explained in detail in Chapter 4. Within EPHECT, the classical

process for the risk assessment procedure was followed, comprising four steps: hazard identification,

dose-response relationship (or hazard characterisation), exposure assessment, and risk

characterisation (DG SANCO, 2000).

In the first two steps of the health risk assessment procedure, i.e. hazard identification and dose-

response relationship, toxicological data concerning the effects of short- and long- term inhalation

exposure to the selected compounds were evaluated. Data were retrieved from scientific literature

available in databases, toxicological reviews of leading health organizations, as well as publicly

available risk assessment reports. The objective was to identify the critical effect and the

corresponding ‘No Observed Adverse Effect Level’ (NOAEL) or the ‘Lowest Observed Adverse Effect

Level’ (LOAEL) value in order to obtain the ‘Critical Exposure Limit’ (CEL) value for each pollutant for

subsequent use in the risk characterisation of respiratory effects. The CEL value was obtained

according to the (NOAEL or LOAEL) / (Assessment Factor) approach. Assessment factors (AFs) were

applied for LOAEL-to-NOAEL extrapolation, for inter- and intraspecies extrapolation and for time

extrapolation (duration of study). For each compound subjected to risk assessment, the selected

critical study, critical end-point, NOAEL or LOAEL values, AFs and resulting CEL values are summarised

in Table 5.1 (Section 5.6).

In case health-based limits of exposure have been established by health organizations or as a result

of risk assessment requirements (e.g. EU Risk Assessment Reports, RARs), these were reported

together with the corresponding key-studies used for their derivation. As already established health-

based limits of exposure, the following may be indicated:

- Guideline Value, GV (World Health Organization, WHO)

- Exposure Limit, EL (European Commission, EC - INDEX project)

- Tolerable Concentration, TC (Environment/Health Canada, EC-HC)

- Reference Concentration, RfC (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA)

- Minimal Risk Level, MRL (U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR)

- Reference Exposure Level, REL (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of the Californian Environmental Protection Agency, OEHHA)

Chapter 3 Methodology

4

For the third step of the risk assessment procedure, i.e. exposure assessment, simulations were

carried out on three levels, which are further explained in Chapter 6: Level 1 (microenvironmental

modelling - single product use), Level 2 (exposure assessment - multiple product use / aggregated

exposure) and Level 3 (sensitivity analysis – multiple product use). Quantified emission rates, derived

from chamber testing emission data (WP6), were used as input to model 30-min average and 24-h

mean indoor air concentrations of the ‘target’ pollutants in home microenvironments (MEs) (Level 1).

The quantified emission rates were applied to the microenvironmental models according to scenarios

on the use of consumer products. These scenarios were developed based on the Household survey

on the use of fifteen product classes in Europe that was performed under WP5 (Johnson and Lucica,

2012), rather than reflecting the quantities and conditions used during the chamber testing. In order

to develop these scenarios, the initial Household survey data were further analysed so that

information regarding product use would be obtained for the two ‘target’ population groups, namely

housewives (HW) and retired people (RET) and across the four geographical areas of Europe (North,

West, South, East). In the framework of EPHECT, the scenarios reflecting the worst cases for the use

of the product - while respecting the use preferences of the population group in each geographical

area - were used for the purposes of the exposure and health risk assessment, in view of a ‘most

representative worst-case scenario’ strategy. Additionally, results of microenvironmental modelling

performed at Level 1 were combined with daily population home activity profiles in order to derive

exposure estimates for each compound, across home MEs, resulting from multiple product use. The

outcome of the exposure assessment was expressed as acute exposure, for which the max 30-min

rolling average was calculated, and long-term exposure, for which the 24-h mean was calculated.

For the final step of the risk assessment procedure, i.e. risk characterisation, for each pollutant, the

modelled indoor air concentrations and exposure estimates were compared to the corresponding

health-based limit of exposure. Regarding the selection of health-based limits of exposure, in the

case of compounds for which indoor air WHO guideline values for irritative and respiratory end-

points exist, these values were preferred. If established health-based limits of exposure were either

not available/not applicable or questioned by any recent studies, the outcome of exposure

assessment was then compared to the CEL values derived for the purposes of EPHECT from the

evaluation of toxicological data reported in short- and long- term human or animal studies.

Additionally, for each pollutant, the indoor air concentrations in each ME were compared to the

background exposure levels reported in European dwellings derived from the EU AIRMEX study

(Kotzias et al., 2009) in order to evaluate the contribution of the tested consumer products to the

background levels of exposure resulting from natural or anthropogenic activities.

Chapter 4 Selection of health-relevant emitted compounds

5

CHAPTER 4 SELECTION OF HEALTH-RELEVANT EMITTED COMPOUNDS

The selection of the key and emerging indoor air pollutants in the context of the health risk

assessment within EPHECT was performed according to a literature review, qualitative assessment of

the initial emission testing results and evaluation of toxicological information.

Initially, key compounds prioritised by concerted actions, projects and activities run by the European

Commission and the WHO, and reported as potentially occurring in and/or emitted from consumer

products and also being potentially hazardous to humans were considered. Specifically, key

pollutants prioritised by the Air Quality Guidelines for Europe (WHO, 2000), the WHO indoor air

quality guidelines (WHO, 2010), the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks opinion

on risk assessment on indoor air quality (SCHER, 2007) and the EU-INDEX project (Kotzias et al., 2005)

were selected for further investigation. Additionally, emerging pollutants of known health effects

identified from relevant literature and occurring in and/or emitted from consumer products were

included in the initial list of target compounds. The selection of emerging pollutants was mainly

based on the EPHECT WP4 document ‘Literature review on product composition, emitted compounds,

emissions rates and health end points from consumer products’ (Missia et al., 2012b). Other

compounds of special interest were also selected, such as compounds emitted in significant

amounts, abundant compounds in the indoor environment, characteristic compounds from each

product sub-category and common compounds for more than one product sub-category. Based on

the above criteria and considering only compounds associated with irritative and respiratory end-

points, the following ‘target’ pollutants were initially selected for health risk assessment:

1. acrolein (emerging)

2. 2-butoxyethanol (emerging)

3. benzalkonium chloride (emerging)

4. chloramine (emerging)

5. formaldehyde (key – WHO, EU-INDEX, SCHER)

6. naphthalene (key – WHO, EU-INDEX, SCHER)

7. d-limonene (key – EU-INDEX)

8. α-pinene (key – EU-INDEX)

9. ammonia (key – EU-INDEX)

In addition to the pollutants cited above, particles (fine and, most importantly, ultrafine) were also

included in the initial list of pollutants to be evaluated for use in the health risk assessment. They

were considered a type of emerging indoor air pollutants due to the concern on particle emissions


6

from certain consumer products and related respiratory effects; among the consumer products

studied in EPHECT, sprays and candles could be of such a concern (Missia et al., 2012b). Particle

(aerosol) formation may occur from: (i) the spraying process itself in the form of solvent droplets; (ii)

after the spraying activity and evaporation of solvents (primary aerosols); (iii) products containing

terpenes that, after reaction with ozone, form poly-oxygenated compounds of which some have low

vapour pressure leading to processes such as self-nucleation and condensation (secondary organic

aerosols, SOA) (Coleman et al., 2008; Destaillats et al., 2006); and (iv) candles, a type of consumer

product that emits a number of combustion products, i.e. inorganic, organic compounds, and some

of these as particles (Bothe and Donahue, 2010; Pagels et al., 2009).

As a first step for the confirmation of the initial list of ‘target’ pollutants, specific emission data from

initial chamber testing experiments performed by the four laboratories (EPHECT WP6) were

qualitatively evaluated. In Table 4.1, a qualitative assessment of results regarding nine compounds

(acrolein, formaldehyde, naphthalene, benzene, d-limonene, α-pinene, ammonia, benzalkonium

chloride and chloramine) emitted from selected consumer products is shown. The symbols ‘0’, ‘+’, ‘–’

correspond to compounds ‘analysed but not detected’, ‘analysed and detected’ and ‘not analysed’,

respectively. The ‘not expected’ indication in Table 4.1 refers to analyses not performed due to the

fact that specific product categories were not expected to emit certain compounds. Specifically,

product categories A6-A15 were not expected to emit ammonia, benzalkonium chloride and

chloramine and, therefore, these compounds were not analysed for these product categories. In the

case of ammonia, the emissions reported for samples A2, A3 and A11 were attributed to

contamination and thus disregarded. It was concluded that ammonia, benzalkonium chloride and

chloramine should be excluded from the initial list of pollutants for health risk assessment, as they

were not detected in the EPHECT chamber testing experiments.

For the other six pollutants, information regarding health-relevant parameters, toxicological data and

health-based limits of exposure was collected and evaluated. The aim was to further process the

initial list of key and emerging indoor air pollutants on the basis of availability of adequate

information in relevant databases for risk assessment purposes. Additionally, this step would also

include information about the existence of NOAEL or LOAEL values for the critical effect of each

compound relevant to typical indoor levels.

Having excluded ammonia, benzalkonium chloride and chloramine (absent in emission data from

chamber testing), adequate information was available for the remaining compounds, i.e. acrolein, 2-

butoxyethanol, formaldehyde, naphthalene, d-limonene and α-pinene. Regarding 2-butoxyethanol

(2-BE), however, the LOAEL values reported for sensory irritation were high in terms of indoor air

concentrations and, therefore, this compound was considered of low concern as far as risk for

irritative and respiratory effects from consumer product emissions is concerned. Short-term early

human studies (Mellon Institute of Industrial Research, 1955; Carpenter et al., 1956) documented

that 2-BE can cause eye, nose and throat irritation at concentrations as high as 100-200 ppm (492-

984 mg/m3). However, no adverse effects were reported in more recent volunteer studies at lower

concentrations (20-50 ppm) of acute inhalation exposure (Johanson et al., 1986; Johanson and

Boman, 1991; Kumagai et al., 1999; Jones et al., 2003). According to the EU Risk Assessment Report

(RAR, 2008), on the basis of human data a NOAEL of 50 ppm (245 mg/m3) for respiratory irritation

(based on effects of discomfort) could be taken forward for risk characterisation. However, SCHER

(2008) disagreed with this conclusion in its opinion, stating that 2-BE should not be considered a


7

respiratory irritant since no signs of sensory irritation were described in recent studies on human

volunteers repeatedly treated with 2-BE (up to 50 ppm, the highest dose tested). Regarding animal

studies, 2-BE was considered a weak irritant to the upper respiratory tract (RD50 estimated at 2825

ppm) in the Alarie test on mice following acute exposure (Kane et al., 1980). Animal repeated-dose

toxicity studies available did not show any signs of respiratory irritation. Taking into consideration

the moderate toxicity of 2-BE to both humans and animals as far as sensory irritation is concerned,

the high LOAEL values reported and the SCHER opinion, health risk assessment for 2-BE was

considered not relevant to be conducted in the framework of EPHECT.

Finally, as far as particles are concerned, of special interest to EPHECT in terms of possible health risk

assessment are the ultrafine ones (UFPs) formed from consumer products and ozone-initiated

reactions. Terpenes, commonly found in fragrances, easily undergo ozone-initiated reactions to

produce both gaseous (Calogirou et al., 1999) and ultrafine particle phase (SOA) products (Wainman

et al., 2000). Overall, there is no convincing evidence to support that ozone-initiated terpene

generated UFPs cause adverse respiratory effects at typical indoor scenarios. Regarding human

exposure studies, controlled 2.5 h exposure of women (n=130) to a typical indoor mixture of 23 VOCs

(TVOC = 26 mg/m3, limonene and α-pinene included) showed no effect on nasal lavage fluid with or

without the presence of ozone (~ 40 ppb), suggesting that VOCs and their oxidation products may

not cause acute nasal effects at low concentrations (Laumbach et al., 2005). In a parallel study,

subjective (e.g. symptom rating) and objective (e.g. lung function) health effects were marginal and

non-significant (Fiedler et al., 2005). A double-blind exposure study with healthy women (n=22)

exposed for 3 h to an ozone-initiated lime oil reaction mixture (30000 particles/cm3, 0.07 mg/m3) did

not show signs of adverse health effects; these included changes in heart rate, heart rate variability,

lung function (spirometry), oxidative stress and inflammation in the airways (rhinometry) (Bohgard et

al., 2011). Regarding animal studies, acute airway effects of UFPs from ozone-initiated limonene

chemistry were investigated in a mouse bioassay by denuding the reaction mixture, i.e. separating

the gaseous products from the particle phase prior to the exposure chamber. Airway effects were

absent with the denuder inserted; the size distribution slightly changed towards smaller particle sizes

(Wolkoff et al., 2008). The results of this study indicated that denuded SOA from an ozone-initiated

limonene reaction mixture did not cause respiratory effects in mice at concentrations up to 10

mg/m3. In the study of McDonald et al. (2010), F344 rats and ApoE-/- mice were exposed nose-only

for 7 days to denuded α-pinene SOA (200 g/m3), derived from UV radiation of a mixture of nitrogen

dioxide (+/- sulfur dioxide) and α-pinene. The biological response - including cardiovascular effects -

was mild. No pulmonary inflammation was observed in either species; rather, the authors suggested

the gaseous products to be of concern.

Of interest to EPHECT are particle emissions from candles, as well. In a double-blind study, candle

emission (907000 particles/cm3; 200 µg/m3) exposure for 3 h showed no health effects among

healthy women (n=22); the effects studied included changes in heart rate, lung function (spirometry),

oxidative stress and inflammation in the airways (rhinometry) (Bohgard et al., 2011); however, some

minor changes in the heart rate variability were observed. In a population-based cross-sectional

study (n=3471), the prevalence of rhinitis symptoms, atopy or increased levels of nitric oxide in

exhaled air (FeNO) as a measure of airway inflammation was not found to be associated with self-

reported use of candles, gas kitchen cookers and wood stoves (Hersoug et al., 2010). Overall, in view

of (i) the results of the human and animal inhalation exposure studies cited above (no evidence for

adverse respiratory effects), (ii) the limited experimental respiratory toxicology of consumer product


8

aerosols, and (iii) the fact that a direct parallel to the well-established adverse respiratory effects of

ambient particles is not applicable to this type of SOA due to differences in morphology, it was

decided that health risk assessment of particles generated from consumer products studied in

EPHECT would not be performed.

Concluding, based on (1) the ‘priority’ pollutants, (2) the EPHECT WP4 literature review (Missia et al.,

2012b), (3) the occurrence of the compounds in the EPHECT WP6 experimental product testing

outcomes, (4) the availability of adequate toxicological information in databases, and (5) the

existence of NOAEL or LOAEL values for the critical effect of each compound relevant to typical

indoor levels, the following ‘target’ pollutants were finally selected for health risk assessment:

1. acrolein

2. formaldehyde

3. naphthalene

4. d-limonene

5. α-pinene

In addition to the aforementioned five compounds, it was also agreed to consider (only) for exposure

assessment one additional compound, i.e. benzene, as it is considered a ‘priority’ pollutant in the

indoor environment (Kotzias et al., 2005; SCHER, 2007; WHO, 2010) and is emitted from consumer

products, such as combustible air fresheners. A detailed health risk assessment for benzene was not

judged relevant in the framework of EPHECT due to the fact that the critical end-point of benzene

toxicity is not related to irritative/respiratory effects. According to the WHO indoor air quality

guidelines (WHO, 2010), benzene is a genotoxic carcinogen to humans. No safe level of exposure to

benzene can be recommended and, therefore, it is proposed to reduce its indoor exposure levels to

as low as possible. It has been suggested that the guidelines for indoor air should not differ from

ambient air guidelines, as the risk of toxicity from inhaled benzene would be the same for either

indoor or outdoor exposure. The recommended unit risk for leukaemia per 1 μg/m3 air concentration

is 6 × 10–6 and the concentrations of airborne benzene associated with an excess lifetime risk of 1/10

000, 1/100 000 and 1/1000 000 are 17, 1.7 and 0.17 μg/m3, respectively. It has to be stated, though,

that the aforementioned unit risk is not health-based, since it has been calculated for ambient air

using cohort occupational exposure studies.


9

Table 4.1: Qualitative assessment of initial EPHECT emission testing results.

product class product lab acrolein formaldehyde naphthalene benzene limonene a-pinene ammonia benzalkonium chloramine

A1 all purpose cleaning agent 1 IDMEC 0 + < 1 µg/m3 0 + 0 0 0 0

all purpose cleaning agent 2 UOWM 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 -

A2 kitchen cleaning agent 1 IDMEC 0 0 < 1 µg/m3 0 + + 0 0 0

NRCWE 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 0

UOWM 0 0 - 0 + + + 0 -

VITO 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0

kitchen cleaning agent 2 UOWM 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

A3 floor cleaning agent 1 NRCWE 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

floor cleaning agent 2 NRCWE 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 0

floor cleaning agent 3 UOWM 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 -

A4 glass and window cleaner VITO 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0

A5 bathroom cleaning agent NRCWE 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0

A6 furniture polish 1 IDMEC 0 + < 1 µg/m3 < 1 µg/m3 + 0 not expected not expected not expected

furniture polish 2 NRCWE 0 0 + 0 0 0 not expected not expected not expected

A7 floor polish 1 IDMEC 0 + < 1 µg/m3 0 + 0 not expected not expected not expected

floor polish 2 NRCWE 0 0 0 0 0 0 not expected not expected not expected

A8 combustible air freshener - candle 1 IDMEC + + 0 + + + not expected not expected not expected

combustible air freshener - candle 2 VITO + + < 1 µg/m3 + + + not expected not expected not expected

A9 spray air freshener 1 NRCWE 0 + 0 0 + 0 not expected not expected not expected

spray air freshener 2 VITO 0 0 0 0 + 0 not expected not expected not expected

A10 passive air freshener 1 NRCWE 0 0 0 0 < 1 µg/m3 0 not expected not expected not expected

passive air freshener 2 VITO 0 0 0 0 + + not expected not expected not expected

A11 electic air freshener 1 IDMEC 0 + 0 0 + + not expected not expected not expected

NRCWE 0 0 0 0 + 0 not expected not expected not expected

UOWM 0 0 - 0 + + + (not expected) not expected not expected

VITO 0 0 0 0 + + not expected not expected not expected

electic air freshener 2 VITO 0 0 0 0 + + not expected not expected not expected

A12 textile coating NRCWE 0 0 0 0 + 0 not expected not expected not expected

A13 hair styling product VITO 0 0 0 0 + 0 not expected not expected not expected

A14 deodorant spray 1 VITO 0 0 0 0 + + not expected not expected not expected

deodorant spray 2 VITO 0 0 0 0 0 0 not expected not expected not expected

A15 perfume 1 IDMEC 0 + 0 0 + + not expected not expected not expected

NRCWE 0 0 0 0 + 0 not expected not expected not expected

UOWM 0 0 0 0 + + not expected not expected not expected

VITO 0 0 0 0 + 0 not expected not expected not expected

perfume 2 NRCWE 0 0 0 0 + + not expected not expected not expected

Chapter 5 Hazard identification and dose-response relationship

10

CHAPTER 5 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP

5.1 Acrolein

CAS N°: 107-02-8

EC N°: 203-453-4

Synonyms 2-propenal, propenal, acrylaldehyde, acraldehyde, acrylic

aldehyde, allyl aldehyde

HSDB (2009

revision)

Description colourless or yellowish liquid with sharp disagreeable odour

Molecular formula C3H4O

Molecular weight 56.06 g/mol

Melting point -87.7 °C

Boiling point 52.6 °C

Flashpoint -18 °C (open cup), -26 °C (closed cup)

Density (20 °C) 0.84 g/cm3

Relative vapour density (air=1) 1.94

Vapour pressure (25 °C) 274 mm Hg

Solubility in organic solvents soluble in ethanol, ether, acetone

Solubility in water (25 °C) 2.12E+05 mg/L

Odour threshold 3.6 ppb (8.3 µg/m3) Nagata

(2003)

Conversion factor (20°C) 1 ppm = 2.33 mg/m3 WHO

(2002) Conversion factor (25°C) 1 ppm = 2.29 mg/m3


11

5.1.1 Short – term effects

The primary adverse effect associated with acute exposure to acrolein is sensory irritation, i.e.

irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory tract. Acrolein is well-absorbed by inhalation and is

retained primarily in the upper respiratory tract because of its high solubility and reactivity (Egle,

1972).

The study of Darley et al. (1960) was selected by the OEHHA (2008) as the best available acute

inhalation exposure study employing human subjects for the derivation of an acute Reference

Exposure Level (acute REL). Thirty-six volunteers were exposed to 0.06, 1.3-1.6, and 2.0-2.3 ppm

acrolein for 5 minutes. Acrolein was dissolved in water and delivered to the eyes in a stream of

oxygen through face masks. Carbon-filter respirators were worn during exposure so that only the

eyes would be exposed to the test material. The subjects rated the degree of eye irritation every 30

seconds during exposure as none (0), medium (1) or severe (2). The individuals’ maximum values

were used in the analysis that revealed a concentration-dependent incidence of eye irritation. The

irritation indices amounted to 0.471 at 0.06 ppm, 1.182 at 1.3-1.6 ppm and 1.476 at 2.0-2.3 ppm. The

LOAEL for eye irritation in human volunteers was estimated by the unspecified method to be 0.06

ppm (0.14 mg/m³) acrolein during the 5-min exposures. Using an Assessment Factor (AF) of 6,

associated with the use of a LOAEL for mild effects in the absence of a NOAEL in acute REL

derivations, and an AF of 10 for intraspecies variability, an acute REL of 2.3 μg/m3 (1.0 ppb) was

derived. The final value, though, for the acute REL for acrolein reported in the OEHHA (2008) report

was 2.5 μg/m3 (1.1 ppb), that is the geometric mean of the acute REL (2.3 μg/m3) from the study of

Darley et al. (1960) and the one (2.7 μg/m3) derived from a supportive study described below

(Weber-Tschopp et al., 1977), where similar effect levels were reported.

A chamber study was performed by Weber-Tschopp et al. (1977) to examine the acute irritant effects

of acrolein vapour on humans. Three experiments were conducted using male and female college

student volunteers. Subjective irritations and annoyance as well as eye blinking rate and respiratory

frequency were determined periodically during the exposures. In general, subjective irritations,

annoyance and eye blinking rate increased as a function of acrolein concentration, as well as of

exposure duration up to a certain degree. Respiratory frequency decreased with increasing acrolein

concentration. In the first experiment, 54 volunteers were continuously exposed to acrolein vapour

for 40 min, during which acrolein concentration gradually increased from 0 to 0.6 ppm during the

first 35 minutes and then remained constant. Statistically significant results were reported at 0.09

ppm (0.21 mg/m3) for eye irritation, 0.15 ppm (0.34 mg/m3) for nose irritation, 0.26 ppm (0.59

mg/m3) for increase in eye blinking rate and 0.6 ppm (1.3 mg/m3) for decrease in respiratory rate

(~25 % decrease). In the second experiment, 46 volunteers were exposed during 60 minutes to a

constant concentration of 0.3 ppm (0.69 mg/m3) of acrolein vapour. Eye, nose and throat irritation

and eye blink frequency increased with increasing exposure duration. Irritations proved to be

considerable after 10-20 minutes already; throat irritation, specifically, reached significance after 10

minutes of exposure. The respiratory frequency significantly decreased after 40 minutes. After 40

minutes the subjective irritation reached a constant intensity while eye blink frequency reached a

definite rate after almost 10 minutes. In the third experiment, 42 volunteers were exposed for 1.5

minutes each time to successive concentrations of 0, 0.15, 0.3, 0.45 and 0.6 ppm (0, 0.3, 0.7, 1.0 and

1.4 mg/m3) with 8 min recovery time between exposures. Eye and nasal irritation were significantly

higher than controls beginning at 0.3 and 0.45 ppm, respectively. Considering all experiments, the


12

authors suggested that significant changes in the measured parameters occurred in the range of 0.09

(eye irritation) to 0.30 ppm (respiration rate, throat irritation) with nasal irritation at 0.15 ppm and

increase in eye blinking rate at 0.26 ppm.

The second experiment of the Weber-Tschopp et al. (1977) study, with a fixed exposure level and

duration, was used by the ATSDR (2007) for the derivation of an acute Minimal Risk Level (acute

MRL) of 0.003 ppm (7 μg/m3). The LOAEL of 0.3 ppm for nasal and throat irritation and decreased

respiratory rate in humans was selected and divided by an AF of 100 (10 for the use of a LOAEL

instead of a NOAEL and 10 for human variability).

5.1.2 Long – term effects

No studies regarding effects of long-term exposure to acrolein on humans are available. In animals,

the predominant effects from the repeated inhalation studies at the LOEALs consist of

histopathological changes in the epithelium of the respiratory system and changes in respiratory

tract function. Effects at higher concentrations include signs of chronic inflammatory changes, and

epithelial metaplasia and hyperplasia of the respiratory tract.

In the WHO Concise International Chemical Assessment Document for acrolein (WHO, 2002), based

on documentation prepared under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA, 1999), a

Tolerable Concentration (TC) was derived from the study of Cassee et al. (1996), on the basis of a

benchmark concentration (BMC) for degeneration (moderate to severe disarrangement, necrosis,

thickening and desquamation) in the nasal respiratory epithelium of rats. Wistar rats (5-6/group)

were exposed 6 h/day, for 3 consecutive days, in a nose-only exposure chamber to acrolein

concentrations of 0, 0.25, 0.67 or 1.4 ppm (0, 0.6, 1.5 or 3.2 mg/m3). Following 3 days of exposure

and examination for nasal lesions, 4/5 animals exposed to 0.25 ppm presented slight

histopathological effects (characterized mainly as disarrangement of the respiratory epithelium) and

1/5 developed a moderate level of effect. Based on a LOAEL of 0.25 ppm (0.6 mg/m3), a modelled

BMC05 (the concentration associated with a 5 % increase in the incidence of lesions in the nasal

respiratory epithelium) of 0.14 mg/m3 was derived. After incorporation of an AF of 100 (10 for

interspecies and 10 for intraspecies variability) and adjustment by a factor of 6/24 from intermittent

to continuous exposure, the calculated TC for acrolein was 0.4 µg/m3. Consistent with data on

respiratory irritation induced by other aldehydes and no indication for acrolein that severity of the

critical effects increases with duration of exposure, an additional AF to address the use of a short-

duration study as the basis for the TC was considered inappropriate. Since the number of the

administered concentrations was limited and the number of animals examined in each of the

exposed groups was small, a TC was also developed on the basis of the observed LOAEL to compare

with the BMC approach. An AF of 1000 (10 for interspecies variation, 10 for intraspecies variation

and 10 for use of LOAEL instead of NOAEL and adjustment for intermittent to continuous exposure)

was applied to the LOAEL of 0.25 ppm (0.6 mg/m3) to derive a similar TC of 0.6 µg/m3 (CEPA, 1999).

In the EU RAR (2001), the study of Lyon et al. (1970) was proposed as the basis for risk assessment,

according to which a LOAEL of 0.22 ppm (0.5 mg/m3) for dogs was identified. Fifteen rats (7-8/sex),

15 guinea pigs (7-8/sex), 4 male beagle dogs and 9 male squirrel monkeys were exposed continuously

(24 h/day) to acrolein concentrations of 0, 0.22, 1.0, and 1.8 ppm (0, 0.5, 2.3, and 4.1 mg/m3) during

90 days. At 0.22 ppm, all animals appeared normal. Lungs from 2/4 dogs demonstrated


13

histopathological inflammatory changes, including moderate emphysema. It is not clear whether

these observations from the 0.22 ppm group were treatment-related since there was no discussion

on the condition of the control dogs. At 1.0 ppm, ocular and nasal discharges were reported in the

dogs and monkeys and focal inflammatory reactions were reported in the lungs of dogs. Guinea pigs

showed various degrees of pulmonary inflammation while rats (3/9) had occasional pulmonary

hemorrhage. At 1.8 ppm, the dogs and monkeys experienced severe irritation as evidenced by

excessive salivation and ocular discharge. At this concentration, all monkeys showed squamous

metaplasia and the lungs from the two dogs showed confluent bronchopneumonia. Non-specific

inflammatory changes were observed in sections of the lung of all animals. Based on this study,

acrolein concentration 0.22 ppm (0.5 mg/m3) was considered NOAEL for rats and LOAEL for dogs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in its Toxicological Review of Acrolein (U.S. EPA, 2003),

considered the study of Feron et al. (1978) the most suitable for the development of a Reference

Concentration (RfC). Feron et al. (1978) exposed 4 groups, each consisting of 20 hamsters, 12 rats,

and 4 rabbits (equal numbers of each sex) to 0, 0.4, 1.4 and 4.9 ppm (0, 0.9, 3.2 and 11 mg/m3)

acrolein for 13 weeks (6 h/day, 5 d/week) in whole-body exposure chambers. Histopathology was

performed on all major organs/tissues, including three transverse sections of the nasal cavity. Of the

three species, rats seemed to be the most sensitive. One male rat of the 0.4 ppm group

demonstrated minimal metaplastic and inflammatory changes in the nasal tract. As these effects

were consistent with the pathology demonstrated at the higher concentrations, in which severity

was increased, the level of 0.4 ppm (0.9 mg/m3) was considered as a minimal LOAEL (i.e., exposure

level close to the expected NOAEL) for nasal lesions for rats. The duration-adjusted LOAEL to a

continuous exposure was 0.4 ppm x 6/24 x 5/7 = 0.07 ppm (0.16 mg/m3). Applying the Regional Gas

Dose Ratio (RGDR) for category 1 gas of 0.14 to the duration-adjusted minimal LOAEL of 0.16 mg/m3,

yielded a LOAEL of 0.02 mg/m3 dosimetrically adjusted to a Human Equivalent Concentration (HEC).

A total AF of 1000 (10 for intraspecies, 101/2 for interspecies, 10 for sub-chronic duration and 101/2 for

use of a minimal LOAEL) was applied to the LOAELHEC for the derivation of an RfC of 0.02 µg/m3

(0.0087 ppb).

OEHHA (2008) selected the study of Dorman et al. (2008) for the derivation of a chronic Reference

Exposure Level (chronic REL) based on the observation of lesions in the rat respiratory epithelium

(nasal respiratory epithelial hyperplasia as the critical effect). In this study, the nasal and

pulmonary effects in male F344 rats (n=12 rats/exposure concentration/time point) following

acrolein whole-body exposure for 13 weeks (6 h/day, 5 d/week) were described. Rats were exposed

to air concentrations of 0, 0.02, 0.06, 0.2, 0.6 and 1.8 ppm acrolein, and respiratory tract

histopathology was evaluated after 4, 14, 30 and 65 days of exposure, and at 60 days following the

end of the 13-week exposure. Acrolein exposure was associated with inflammation, hyperplasia, and

squamous metaplasia of the respiratory epithelium. Mild hyperplasia of the respiratory epithelia was

first observed after 4 days of exposure to concentrations equal or higher than 0.6 ppm. At 0.6 ppm,

minimal nasal epithelial hyperplasia was identified in the dorsal meatus of 7/12 rats and mild

epithelial hyperplasia was identified in the lateral wall of 12/12 rats. At the highest concentration

tested (1.8 ppm), histologic evaluation of the nasal cavity showed olfactory epithelial inflammation

and olfactory neuronal loss. The NOAEL identified from this study for pathology of nasal respiratory

epithelia was 0.2 ppm in the lateral walls of level II, and for olfactory epithelia, 0.6 ppm. For the

derivation of a chronic REL, a time adjustment was applied to the NOAEL (0.2 x 6/24 x 5/7 = 36 ppb)

to extrapolate to continuous exposure. Using a Dosimetric Adjustment Factor (DAF) of 0.85 to


14

estimate mass flux, a HEC of 30 ppb was obtained. The DAF is a factor derived by the OEHHA based

on the modelled comparative flux of formaldehyde in the upper respiratory tracts of rats, rhesus

monkeys and humans. Although the use of DAF is expected to correct for toxicokinetic differences

between species, an interspecies kinetic AF of 2 was used because the DAF was based on an

analogue (formaldehyde). The default interspecies AF of 101/2 was applied to compensate for the

absence of data on toxicodynamic differences between species. An intraspecies AF of 10 was

employed by default in the absence of human kinetic data. Considering also the sub-chronic AF of

101/2, the application of a cumulative AF of 200 to the NOAEL resulted in a chronic REL of 0.15 ppb

(0.35 μg/m³).

Results of the Dorman et al. (2008) study were also used in the study of Schroeter et al. (2008), in

which computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models of rat and human nasal passages were developed

to predict interspecies nasal dosimetry of inhaled acrolein. The CFD models were used to overcome

the limitations of the simplifying interspecies AFs by using flux predictions as a tissue-dose surrogate

to derive a tissue dose-based NOAEL (i.e., the highest predicted tissue dose where lesions were not

observed), which could then be translated to a tissue dose-based NOAEL human equivalent

concentration (NOAELHEC) based on equivalent flux predictions between species. The NOAELHEC for

inhaled acrolein was estimated to be 8 ppb, based on which a revised RfC of 0.27 ppb could be

derived with the application of an AF of 3 for interspecies extrapolation (to account for possible

species differences in pharmacodynamics) and an AF of 10 for human variability.

5.1.3 Critical effect and toxicological values for risk assessment within EPHECT

Regarding acute exposure to acrolein, the study of Weber-Tschopp et al. (1977) is preferred to the

one of Darley et al. (1960) for the selection of toxicological values for the purposes of risk assessment

in the framework of EPHECT. The Darley et al. (1960) study only evaluated eye irritation for 5-min

exposures and several study details were lacking. The experimental procedures and study discussion

were more robust in the Weber-Tschopp (1977) study, where eye irritation and effects on the

respiratory tract were evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative measures. According to the

Registration Eligibility Decision document (RED) for acrolein (U.S. EPA, 2008), the study of Weber-

Tschopp et al. (1977) on adult human subjects provides the most comprehensive description and the

best information available regarding acute effects in humans. Additionally, it has been reviewed by

the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) during the June 28, 2007 meeting and has been judged

ethically and scientifically acceptable. Based on the results of this study, risk assessment can be

based on the LOAEL of 0.09 ppm (0.21 mg/m3) for subjective ocular irritation, the first adverse effect

reported, as the critical effect.

An AF of 5 has been suggested for the variation in thresholds of sensory irritation within the human

population, in order to protect the general population (Nielsen et al., 2007). This factor was obtained

from the standard deviation of nasal pungency thresholds by assuming a log normal distribution of

the thresholds in the general population (Hau et al., 2000). As far as sensitive groups are concerned,

there are no experimental data that support the use of an additional AF for their protection from

sensory irritation (Dourson et al., 2010; Ginsberg et al., 2010). Regarding the LOAEL-to-NOAEL

extrapolation, an AF of 2 has been suggested by Nielsen et al. (2007) for sensory irritation. The use of

smaller AFs instead of the default one, i.e. 10, has also been supported by Alexeeff et al. (2002) on

the basis of the distribution of LOAEL-to-NOAEL ratios from different types of mild acute inhalation


15

effects. Based on the LOAEL of 0.09 ppm (0.21 mg/m3) for subjective ocular irritation reported in the

Weber-Tschopp et al. (1977) study and a total AF of 10 (5 for human variability and 2 for LOAEL-to-

NOAEL extrapolation), a CEL value for acute exposure to acrolein of 9 ppb (20.7 µg/m3) can be

derived.

In a less conservative approach, the NOAEL and LOAEL values for subjective ocular irritation in the

Weber-Tschopp et al. (1977) study can be considered close to equal, resulting in an AF of 1 for the

LOAEL-to-NOAEL extrapolation. Observing the dose-response curve for the continuous exposure (40

min), a difference between the NOAEL and LOAEL cannot be clearly defined. Additionally, irritation

was also reported in the blank experiment, fact that leads to uncertainty about the LOAEL/NOAEL

ratio and the real significance in comparison to clean air exposure. According to this approach, a CEL

value for acute exposure to acrolein of 18 ppb (41.4 µg/m3) can be derived.

As an alternative to the use of an estimated value (subjective ocular irritation) for the CEL value

derivation regarding acrolein acute exposure, a measurable level can be used. Results of the Weber-

Tschopp et al. (1977) study revealed a NOAEL of 0.17 ppm (0.39 mg/m3) for increase in eye blinking

rate (reflecting trigeminal stimulation) during the 40-min continuous exposure experiment. With the

application of an AF of 5 for human variability according the aforementioned rationale, a CEL value of

34 ppb (78.2 µg/m3) can be derived.

For long-term health effects of acrolein, risk assessment can be based on the NOAEL of 0.2 ppm for

lesions in the nasal respiratory epithelium as the critical effect, derived from the study of Dorman et

al. (2008) on rats. Among the existing animal studies, this most recent study is preferred for the

following reasons: (1) a NOAEL was identified that eliminates the need for an AF for the LOAEL-to-

NOAEL conversion, and (2) the range of concentrations and times was more adequate for the

evaluation of the critical effect and the dose-response relationship. For the derivation of the CEL

value, adjustment from sub-chronic to chronic duration is not considered necessary. In fact, effects

observed in the Dorman et al. (2008) study after 4 days of exposure were similar to effects occurring

after 14, 30 and 65 days of exposure, indicating that concentration was more significant in producing

adverse effects than the duration of exposure (TCEQ, 2010, appendix 1). To support this assumption,

the close agreement of both NOAELs and LOAELs from acute and sub-chronic animal and human

studies can be stated, as well as results from chronic studies with structurally-similar chemicals that

induce similar responses in the olfactory epithelium, which showed little progression in lesions (TCEQ,

2010).

For the long-term CEL value derivation, the NOAEL of 0.2 ppm for lesions in the nasal respiratory

epithelium is adjusted to extrapolate from intermittent to continuous exposure (0.2 ppm x 6/24 x 5/7

= 36 ppb). Following the approach used in the evaluation of long-term effects of formaldehyde in the

WHO indoor air quality guidelines (2010), an AF of 3 can be applied for interspecies variability

(local/non-systemic critical effect and directly attributed to acrolein itself) and an AF of 2 for

intraspecies variability (no evidence for susceptibility among different population groups). In this

way, the resulting CEL value for long-term exposure to acrolein is 6 ppb (13.8 µg/m3). It is suggested,

however, for conservative reasons to round down this value to 10 g/m3 (4ppb).


16

5.2 Formaldehyde

CAS N°: 50-00-0

EC N°: 200-001-8

Synonyms formic aldehyde, methanal, methyl aldehyde,

methylene oxide, oxomethane, oxymethylene

HSDB

(2010

revision)

Description nearly colourless gas with pungent, suffocating odour

Molecular formula CH2O


Melting point -92 °C

Boiling point -19.5 °C

Flashpoint 85 °C (closed cup)

Relative density (air=1) 1.067

Vapour pressure (25 °C) 3890 mm Hg

Solubility in organic solvents soluble in ethanol, ether, acetone

Solubility in water (20 °C) 4.00E+05 mg/L

Odour threshold 110 ppb (0.135 mg/m3)

Berglund

et al.

(2012)




17


Acute inhalation of formaldehyde at indoor exposure concentrations can cause sensory irritation in

the eyes and upper airways. Eye irritation is generally the most sensitive indicator of exposure. At

higher exposure levels, stimulation of the trigeminal nerves in the nasal passages and the upper

respiratory tract represents the next step of sensory irritation (i.e., nose and throat irritation)

(Paustenbach et al., 1997). Formaldehyde is mostly deposited and readily absorbed in the regions of

the upper respiratory tract with which it comes into initial contact due to its high water solubility and

reactivity with biological macromolecules (Heck et al., 1983; Swenberg et al., 1983). In general,

subjects have difficulty in separating the integrated input of odour and sensory irritation at low

concentration levels and, thus, excessive reporting of sensory irritation may occur (Dalton and Jaén,

2010; Shusterman, 2007). This fact, together with odour adaptation, has to be carefully considered

when sensory irritation is evaluated based only on subjective symptoms (Arts et al., 2006).

Formaldehyde has a detectable odour at the concentrations of interest for chemesthesis; a

significant fraction of the population can perceive formaldehyde at or below 0.1 mg/m3 without

interfering background (Wolkoff and Nielsen, 2010), as recently confirmed by the study of Berglund

et al. (2011), which set up an odour threshold of 110 ppb (0.135 mg/m3).

Among the numerous human studies reporting effects of short-term exposure to formaldehyde, the

study of Lang et al. (2008) was selected by the WHO (2010) for the derivation of a short-term

guideline value (GV) (30-min exposure). The study involved exposure of 21 volunteers for 4 h to 10

different conditions on 10 consecutive working days. The conditions included: (1) formaldehyde

concentrations of 0, 0.19, 0.38, and 0.63 mg/m3 (2) formaldehyde concentrations at 0.38 and 0.63

mg/m3 with peak concentrations of 0.75 and 1.25 mg/m3, respectively, and (3) presence of 36 mg/m3

ethyl acetate (used as masking agent) and formaldehyde concentrations 0, 0.18, 0.38, and 0.63 with

0.63 and 1.25 mg/m3 formaldehyde peaks. Exposure and effect measurements were conducted in a

double-blind fashion, i.e. neither the subject nor the investigator/assistant was aware of the

exposure condition. Measurements included eye blinking frequency, conjunctival redness, nasal flow

and resistance, pulmonary function and reaction times. In addition, subjective ratings of discomfort

were examined and the influence of personality factors on the subjective scoring was evaluated. The

results of the study showed that eye irritation was the most critical effect based on significant

increases in eye blinking frequency and conjunctival redness at a concentration of 0.63 mg/m3 with

peaks of 1.25 mg/m3. These effects were not evident at a constant concentration of 0.63 mg/m3

without the peaks. Subjective measurements of irritation were recorded at formaldehyde levels of

0.38 mg/m3 for the eyes and 0.63 mg/m3 with peaks up to 1.25 mg/m3 for the nose. Taking into

account the odour of formaldehyde, the influence of the presence of ethyl acetate with its

characteristic odour and the use of ‘negative affectivity’ (e.g. anxiety) as covariate in the statistical

analyses, only the concentration of 0.63 mg/m3 with peaks of 1.25 mg/m3 was considered an effect

level (LOAEL). The authors concluded that the NOAEL for subjective and objective eye irritation due

to formaldehyde exposure was 0.63 mg/m3 (0.5 ppm) in case of a constant exposure level and 0.38

mg/m3 (0.3 ppm) with peaks of 0.75 mg/m3 (0.6 ppm) in case of short-term peak exposures. In

addition, results indicated no significant treatment-related effects on nasal flow and resistance,

pulmonary function and reaction times. Based on the results of this study, the NOAEL of 0.63 mg/m3

for the eye blink response was adjusted using an AF of 5, obtained from the standard deviation of

nasal pungency thresholds by assuming a log normal distribution of the thresholds in the general

population (Hau et al., 2000), leading to a value of 0.12 mg/m3. The factor of 5 was applied since no


18

other susceptibility is justified; increased risk was not reported neither for asthmatics (Paustenbach

et al., 1997; Wolkoff and Nielsen, 2010; WHO, 2010) nor for children (Wolkoff and Nielsen, 2010;

WHO, 2010). Rounding down the resulting value, 0.1 mg/m3 (0.08 ppm) was considered by the WHO

(2010) as the short-term GV (30-min average concentration) for formaldehyde. This guideline value

has been strengthened recently, following the review of Nielsen et al. (2013), whose aim was to

evaluate the literature regarding formaldehyde toxicity published since the WHO (2010) guideline

was established.

The NOAEL values identified in the study of Lang et al. (2008) are in overall agreement with the

results of the study of Mueller et al. (2013), with the condition that methodological differences (e.g.

in examination times, rating scales, formaldehyde concentrations) are considered. The objective of

the study was to examine the chemosensory effects of formaldehyde on hypo- and hypersensitive

males at concentrations relevant to the workplace. Forty-one male volunteers were exposed for 5

consecutive days (4h/day) in a randomised schedule to formaldehyde concentrations of 0 ppm

(control), 0.5 ppm, 0.7 ppm, 0.3 ppm with four 15-min peak exposures of 0.6 ppm, and 0.4 ppm with

four 15-min peak exposures of 0.8 ppm. The indicator for sensitivity to sensory nasal irritation was

subjective pain perception induced by nasal application of carbon dioxide. Subjective rating of

symptoms and complaints, conjunctival redness, eye blinking frequency, self-reported tear film

break-up time and nasal flow rates were examined before and after exposure. The influence of

personality factors on the volunteers’ subjective scoring was examined as well. The results of the

study revealed that formaldehyde exposures to 0.7 ppm for 4 h and to 0.4 ppm for 4 h with 15-min

peaks of 0.8 ppm caused no significant sensory irritation of the measured conjunctival and nasal

parameters and were, therefore, considered as NOAELs. No differences between hypo- and hyper-

sensitive subjects were reported. However, subjective complaints were more pronounced in

hypersensitive subjects; statistically significant differences were noted for olfactory symptoms,

especially for the ‘perception of impure air’.


In the review of Golden (2011), the fact that there are no meaningful differences in terms of

formaldehyde-induced sensory irritation among short-term and long-term exposure is commented.

Formaldehyde appears to be an exception to Haber’s Law, which states that, the incidence and/or

severity of a toxic effect depends on both exposure and duration. In fact, formaldehyde toxicity is

independent of the total dose (c x t); it depends on the dose rate [(c x t)/t = c] or concentration. The

increasing severity of damage in higher concentrations - being a function of concentration - can be

explained by the saturation of detoxification pathways for formaldehyde at high concentrations

(OECD, 2002).

Regarding long-term human exposure to formaldehyde, only studies of humans chronically exposed

to airborne formaldehyde concentrations under occupational or residential conditions exist; certain

ones have been used by international health organizations for the derivation of health-based limits of

exposure. These studies report eye and upper respiratory tract irritation (Garry et al. 1980; Holness

and Nethercott 1989; Horvath et al. 1988; Ritchie and Lehnen 1987), mild histological changes in the

nasal epithelium (Ballarin et al. 1992; Boysen et al. 1990; Edling et al. 1988; Holmstrom et al. 1989),

and either no or only mild changes in pulmonary function variables (Alexandersson and Hedenstierna

1988, 1989; Bracken et al. 1985; Holness and Nethercott 1989; Horvath et al. 1988; Khamgaonkar

and Fulare 1991; Kriebel et al. 1993; Malaka and Kodama 1990). However, studies in uncontrolled


19

environments cannot be considered as reliable as controlled chamber studies. A variety of

substances and conditions can cause histological changes in the nasal mucosa; therefore, an

association between formaldehyde exposure alone and histopathological changes in human nasal

mucosa is not clearly supported (OECD, 2002).

The occupational exposure study of Holmstrom et al. (1989) was selected by the ATSDR (1999) for

the derivation of a chronic MRL of 10 µg/m3 (8 ppb). It was based on a minimal LOAEL of 0.24 ppm

for mild histological changes in nasal epithelial specimens from a group of 70 chemical plant workers

- involved for an average of 10.4 years in the production of formaldehyde and formaldehyde resins -

and an AF of 30 (3 for the use of a minimal LOAEL and 10 for human variability). However, this study

has limitations for use in health risk assessment, attributed to high peak exposures, confounding by

wood dust and lack of exposure-dependent effects (WHO, 2010; Golden, 2011; Nielsen et al. 2013).

The occupational exposure study of Wilhelmsson and Holmstrom (1992) was selected by the OEHHA

(2008) for the derivation of a chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 (7 ppb) for the protection of adverse non-cancer

effects (histophatological changes in the nasal cavity). The data of this study, however, originated

from the Holmstrom et al. (1989) study discussed above. Nasal obstruction and discharge, frequency

of cough, wheezing and symptoms of bronchitis were reported in 66 workers in a formaldehyde

production plant exposed for 1-36 years (mean = 10 years) to a mean concentration of 0.26 mg/m3

(0.21 ppm) formaldehyde. The chronic REL was based on a NOAEL of 0.09 mg/m3 (mean

formaldehyde concentration of the control group) for nasal obstruction and discomfort, lower airway

discomfort and eye irritation, and an AF of 10 for intraspecies variability (potential asthma

exacerbation in children). Results of this study were supported by the human nasal biopsy study of

Edling et al. (1988), in which histopathological changes in the nasal mucosa of workers (n=75)

occupationally exposed to formaldehyde (one wood laminating plant) or formaldehyde plus wood

dust (two particle board plants) were reported. The authors attributed the pathological changes in

the nasal mucosa and the other adverse effects to formaldehyde alone in the 0.1-1.1 mg/m3 range.

However, such irritant results - demonstrated in the occupational exposure study - may be more

related to recurrent acute injury rather than to a true chronic injury (OEHHA, 1999). The nasal cavity

endpoint may be a recurrent acute effect, as implied by the concentration-dependent nature of the

nasal lesions in the supporting animal studies and suggested in the supporting human nasal biopsy

study of Edling et al. (1988). In the latter study, histological scores in the exposed group did not

increase with increasing employment duration. Additionally, as stated in the review of Golden

(2011), the fact that the chronic REL value derived by OEHHA (2008) is close to the rural air ambient

formaldehyde concentrations (i.e., ~8 ppb), questions the way to interpret such value in terms of

providing realistic public health protection.

In animals, the principal effect observed after repeated inhalation exposure to formaldehyde is

histopathological changes to the nasal tract due to irritation. Repeated dose sub-chronic and chronic

toxicity animal studies evidenced nasal lesions with similar NOAEL and LOAEL values in the range of

1-2 mg/m3 and 2-10 mg/m3, respectively, regardless of exposure duration (Rusch et al., 1983; Kerns

et al., 1983; Woutersen et al., 1989; Wilmer et al., 1989; Monticello et al., 1996; Kimbell et al., 1997).

These findings, together with results from studies with various exposure regimes leading to

comparable cumulative doses using different concentrations (Rusch et al., 1983; Wilmer et al.,1989),

led to the conclusion that below concentrations of 12 mg/m3 (10 ppm) epithelial damage in the nasal

cavity is concentration - dependent rather than total dose - dependent.


20

Concluding, there are several limitations in deriving a long-term exposure level for formaldehyde

from long-term exposure studies. In the review of Paustenbach et al. (1997), it was concluded that

any occupational or environmental guideline for formaldehyde should be based primarily on

controlled studies in humans, since nearly all other studies are compromised by the presence of

other contaminants. Similarly, in the review of Golden (2011), it was stated that, since studies

investigating formaldehyde and sensory irritation in either residential or occupational environments

involve various confounding co-exposures, there is uncertainty as to whether they form a valid basis

for reaching conclusions on the effects of exposure to formaldehyde alone.

The long-term limit of exposure for formaldehyde can be derived from acute studies, as the

prerequisite of lack of increase of formaldehyde-induced sensory irritation upon repeated daily

exposures is fulfilled (Nielsen et al., 2013). This observation was addressed from repeated exposures

of airborne limonene-ozone reaction products in mice. In this mixture, formaldehyde was responsible

for a considerable part of the sensory irritating effect (Wolkoff et al., 2008). One-hour exposures,

conducted on 10 consecutive days, revealed no increase in sensory irritation, airflow limitation and

deep lung effects at exposures from low to high sensory irritation levels (Wolkoff et al., 2012).

Therefore, in the absence of cumulative effects following exposure to low concentrations of

formaldehyde, a health-based limit for acute exposure could also protect from long-term effects due

to repetitive short-term peak exposures (Wolkoff et al., 2012). The short-term WHO (2010) GV of 0.1

mg/m3 (0.08 ppm), supported by the study of Mueller et al. (2013) which also considered sensitive

subjects, has been judged adequate to protect from sensory irritation even in the case of long-term

exposure to formaldehyde. This value is in accordance with the following reviews: (1) the earlier one

of Paustenbach et al. (1997), in which it was concluded that, if concentrations of formaldehyde are

kept below 0.1 ppm (0.12 mg/m3) in the indoor environment (where exposure might occur 24 h/day),

irritation is prevented in virtually all persons, and (2) the recent one of Golden (2011), in which a

similar value (0.1 ppm or 0.12 mg/m3) was derived for the protection of even particularly susceptible

individuals from both irritation effects and any potential cancer hazard for a life-time of exposure.

For long-term effects from formaldehyde exposure other than sensory irritation and including

cancer, evaluations based on the (NOAEL/AF) approach, as well as estimates from biologically

motivated models, yield similar results, with values of approximately 0.2 mg/m3. As these values are

above the WHO guideline for short-term effects, the use of the short-term GV of 0.1 mg/m3 (0.08

ppm) will also prevent effects on lung function as well as long-term health effects, including

nasopharyngeal cancer (WHO, 2010).


Regarding exposure to formaldehyde emissions from consumer products, risk assessment will be

based on sensory irritation as the critical effect and the short-term GV (30-min average

concentration) of 0.1 mg/m3 (0.08 ppm) reported in the WHO indoor air quality guidelines (2010).

This health-based limit of exposure is considered protective against both acute and long-term effects

of formaldehyde exposure and should not be exceeded at any 30-min interval during the day. The

WHO (2010) GV has been strengthened recently (Nielsen et al., 2013), following the evaluation of

scientific literature regarding formaldehyde toxicity since the guideline was published.


21

5.3 Naphthalene

CAS N°: 91-20-3

EC N°: 202-049-5

Synonyms naphthalin, naphthaline, naphthene

HSDB

(2005

revision)

Description white crystalline powder, solid or flakes with odour of

mothballs

Molecular formula C10H8


Melting point 80.2 °C

Boiling point 217.9 °C


Relative vapour density

(air=1) 4.42

Vapour pressure (25 °C) 0.085 mm Hg

Solubility in organic solvents soluble in ethanol and ether

Solubility in water (25 °C) 31 mg/L

Odour threshold 440 µg/m3

Amoore

and

Hautala

(1983)




22


Regarding respiratory critical effects from short-term exposure to naphthalene, no human data are

available. There is evidence that naphthalene is a respiratory toxicant in animals following acute

exposure. Substantial injury of the nasal olfactory epithelium was reported by Lee et al. (2005) in rats

after 4 h at 18 mg/m3 (3.4 ppm). Olfactory epithelium necrosis was observed in two rat strains after 6

h of whole-body exposure to 5 mg/m3 naphthalene, the lowest concentration tested (Dodd et al.,

2008). The preliminary report of the latter study indicated a possible threshold for injury in the 0.5 -

1.6 mg/m3 range.

In the study of West et al. (2001), mice and rats were exposed for 4 h to naphthalene vapour at

concentrations of 0-110 ppm. Exposures as low as 2 ppm (11 mg/m3) produced proximal airway

injury in mice, with increased severity in a concentration-dependent fashion up to 75 ppm. Terminal

airways of exposed mice exhibited little or no injury at low concentrations (1-3 ppm). Exposures of

8.5 ppm or higher were required to produce injury to Clara cells in the terminal airways. At 10 ppm

(53 mg/m3) significant cell disruption was noted at all airway levels in mice. In rats, however, the lung

epithelium was not affected at exposure concentrations up to 100 ppm. According to the ATSDR

(2005), data are inadequate for deriving an acute MRL for naphthalene based on the study of West et

al. (2001) since only histological examination of the lung was performed and not of the nasal tissue.


No reliable human toxicity data are reported for long-term exposure to naphthalene. In animals, the

critical non-neoplastic effect is lesions in the nasal olfactory and, at higher concentrations, also in the

respiratory epithelia.

In a sub-acute study (Huntingdon Research Centre, unpublished data, 1993a), groups of 5 male and 5

female rats were exposed nose-only to 0, 5, 17, 55, 153 or 372 mg/m3 (0, 1, 3, 10, 29 or 71 ppm)

vaporized naphthalene for 4 weeks (6 h/day, 5 d/week). Local lesions with signs of proliferative

repair were observed in the nasal olfactory epithelium at all doses down to 5 mg/m3 (1 ppm). A

similar investigation (sub-chronic) was conducted in the same laboratory (Huntingdon Research

Centre, unpublished data, 1993b). Groups of 10 male and 10 female rats were exposed nose-only to

0, 11, 51 or 306 mg/m3 (0, 2, 10 or 58 ppm) vaporized naphthalene for 13 weeks (6h/day, 5d/week).

Microscopic analysis of the nasal epithelium revealed treatment-related effects at all dose levels. The

severity of effects was dose-related. At the lowest dose, no relevant treatment-related changes were

observed in the nasal respiratory epithelium or in the lung. Signs of damage to the olfactory

epithelium were reported for all dose levels down to 11 mg/m3 (2 ppm). These studies were

reviewed by the European Chemicals Bureau (RAR, 2003), according to which the available data did

not allow the identification of a NOAEL. The experimental exposure concentration of 5 mg/m3 from

the 4-week study, adjusted to a continuous exposure of 0.9 mg/m3 (5 mg/m3 × 6/24 × 5/7), was

considered the LOAEL and was proposed as a basis for risk characterisation regarding repeated

inhalation toxicity.

Male and female B6C3F1 mice were exposed to naphthalene vapour for 6 h/day, 5 d/week over 104

weeks (NTP, 1992). Naphthalene concentrations in air were 0, 53 or 159 mg/m3 (0, 10 or 30 ppm).

Lesions were observed in the nose and lungs of exposed mice, including increased incidences of nasal

inflammation, olfactory epithelial metaplasia and respiratory epithelial hyperplasia. The complete

lack of nasal effects among control animals and the nearly total effect among animals exposed at the


23

two different concentrations point out a causal relationship between naphthalene exposure and nasal

effects. From the results of this study, a chronic REL of 2 ppb (9 µg/m3) was derived by the OEHHA

(2000) based on a LOAEL of 10 ppm for nasal inflammation, olfactory epithelial metaplasia and

respiratory epithelial hyperplasia, adjusted at 1.8 ppm for continuous exposure (10 ppm x 6/24 x

5/7). A cumulative AF of 1000 was used (10 for interspecies variability, 10 for intraspecies variability

and 10 for the use of a LOAEL). The strengths of the REL for naphthalene included the large number

of animals tested (75/group/sex for 0 and 10 ppm, 150/group/sex for 30 ppm) and the 2-year length

of the study. The most important limitation of the study was that the lowest concentration tested

caused adverse effects in most (96 %) of the animals tested. The study proved the risk of lifetime

exposures to 10 ppm, but did not provide information regarding the concentration-response

relationship at lower concentrations. With slightly different assumptions, the same study was used by

the U.S. EPA (1998) to develop a RfC of 3 µg/m3 based on a chronic LOAEL of 53 mg/m3 (10 ppm) for

nasal effects (olfactory epithelial metaplasia and respiratory epithelial hyperplasia), converted to a

HEC of 9.3 mg/m3 . A cumulative AF of 3000 was used (10 for interspecies, 10 for intraspecies, 10 for

extrapolation from LOAEL to NOAEL and 3 for lack of information in the database). Based on the

assumption that nasal effects observed in mice were consistent with health effects reported among

exposed workers, the NTP 1992 study was also selected for the derivation of a long-term Exposure

Limit (EL) of 10 µg/m3 in the EU-INDEX project (Kotzias et al., 2005). The LOAEL of 53 mg/m3 was

adjusted at about 10 mg/m3 (53 mg/m3 x 6/24 x 5/7) to convert from discontinuous to continuous

exposure and divided by an AF of 1000 (10 for interspecies variability, 10 for intraspecies variability

and 10 for the use of a LOAEL).

In a similar study, male and female rats (49/sex/dose) were exposed to naphthalene vapour

concentrations of 0, 53, 159 or 318 mg/m3 (0, 10, 30 or 60 ppm) for 6 h/day, 5 d/week for 105 weeks

(NTP, 2000). In the nasal olfactory epithelium, hyperplasia, chronic inflammation and hyaline

degeneration were seen in almost all animals, even in the lowest-dose group. The nasal respiratory

epithelium was less sensitive, with 40-60 % incidence for hyperplasia, inflammation and

hyalinization. The LOAEL for severe lesions in the olfactory region and, less pronounced, respiratory

epithelium of rats chronically exposed to naphthalene was again 53 mg/m3 (10 ppm). On the basis of

the chronic LOAEL of 10 ppm (53 mg/m3) for nasal lesions from the NTP 1992/2000 studies, ATSDR

(2005) derived a chronic MRL of 0.0007 ppm (3.5 µg/m3). The LOAEL was extrapolated to a HEC of

0.2 ppm (1 mg/m3) and then divided by an AF of 300 (10 for the use of a LOAEL, 3 for interspecies

variability and 10 for intraspecies variability). The NTP 2000 study was used by the WHO (2010) for

the derivation of a long-term GV for naphthalene. The LOAEL of 53 mg/m3 (10 ppm) for severe nasal

effects was selected in the absence of adequately published data related to less severe effects. After

adjustment for continuous exposure at about 10 mg/m3 (53 mg/m3 x 6/24 x 5/7) and incorporation of

an AF of 1000 (10 for interspecies variability, 10 for intraspecies variability and 10 for use of a LOAEL),

a long-term GV of 10 µg/m3 was established for naphthalene (annual average concentration).


Risk assessment in relation to naphthalene exposure will only be performed for long-term effects,

based on respiratory tract lesions as the critical effect. The long-term WHO indoor air quality (2010)

GV of 10 µg/m3 (annual average concentration), equal to the formerly proposed long-term Exposure

Limit in the EU-INDEX project (Kotzias et al., 2005), will be used for risk characterisation within

EPHECT. However, it should be underlined that the use of the aforementioned value represents a


24

conservative approach, as for its derivation, the use of critical AFs did not take place; instead, the

default values of 10 were used for inter- and intraspecies variability, as well as for the LOAEL-to-

NOAEL conversion, both in the case of the EU-INDEX project and in the WHO indoor air quality

guidelines.


25

5.4 d-Limonene

CAS N°: 5989-27-5

EC N°: 227-813-5

Synonyms

R- (+) – limonene, (+) – limonene, (R) - (+) - p-mentha-

1,8-diene, R-1-methyl-4-(1-methylethenyl)-

cyclohexene

HSDB

(2006

revision)

Description liquid with lemon-like odour



Melting point -95.5 °C (-74.3 °C also reported by Lide, 1991)

Boiling point 175.5 - 176 °C


Relative density (water=1) 0.8402 (25 °C)


(air=1) 4.7


Solubility in organic solvents miscible in ethanol and ether

Solubility in water (25 °C) 13.8 mg/L

Odour threshold 8 ppb (45 µg/m3) Cain et al.

(2007)

Conversion factor 1 ppm = 5.56 mg/m3

WHO

(1998)


26


Regarding acute human inhalation exposure to d-limonene, the chamber study of Falk-Filipsson et al.

(1993) can be cited. Eight volunteers were exposed to 10 mg/m3 (control level), 225 mg/m3 and 450

mg/m3 d-limonene for 2 h during light physical exercise on a bicycle ergometer at a workload of 50

W. Before, during and after each exposure, the subjects rated the intensity of discomfort in the eyes,

nose and throat; the subjects did not experience any irritative symptoms. In addition, symptoms

related to the central nervous system (CNS), which may interfere with the determination of effects

on the respiratory tract, were not reported. During the study of pulmonary function, measurements

revealed a statistically significant decrease in vital capacity (-2 %) following exposure to 450 mg/m3

(81 ppm); however, this change might have been of no functional significance according to the

authors. Furthermore, as the main purpose of the study was to investigate the toxicokinetics of d-

limonene, there was a limitation in the number of subjects, fact that may have reduced the ability to

assess the acute effects on pulmonary function and subjective ratings. This study was selected in the

EU-INDEX project (Kotzias et al., 2005) in the attempt to derive a level at which health effects from

acute exposure could be expected. A value of 4.5 mg/m3 was derived from the LOAEL of 450 mg/m3

for the decline in vital capacity and an AF of 10 for intraspecies variability and an AF of 10 for the

LOAEL-to-NOAEL conversion were used. However, it was concluded that a guideline value for d-

limonene could not be recommended due to insufficient toxicological data available.

In an earlier study conducted by Doty et al. (1978), high concentrations of 47 nasally-inhaled

chemicals commonly used in olfactory research were used by three groups of human observers (n =

15/group) to establish several psychometric ratings (e.g. perceived intensity, warmth). Sensory

irritation was reported when volunteers sniffed the headspace of undiluted limonene (enantiomer

composition not stated) with saturated vapour concentration of about 2000 ppm, cf Kasanen et al.

(1999).

In the animal study of Larsen et al. (2000), d-limonene produced sensory irritation in BALB/c mice, as

evidenced by the reflexively induced decrease in respiratory rate due to the stimulation of the

trigeminal nerve endings in the upper respiratory tract. The effects of airborne d-limonene were

studied over 30-min nose-only exposure periods at concentrations ranging from 197 to 1599 ppm by

continuous monitoring of tidal volume, mid-expiratory flow rate and respiratory rate. Tidal volume

was not influenced below 629 ppm. Mild bronchoconstriction was suggested to occur above 1000

ppm. Pulmonary irritation and general anaesthetic effects were absent below 1599 ppm. Respiratory

rate was found to decrease in a concentration-dependent manner; the decrease reached a plateau

level within the first 10 minutes of exposure and remained constant during the remaining exposure

period. Based on the first 10 minutes, the exposure concentration decreasing respiratory rate by 50

% (RD50) was estimated to be 1076 ppm (5983 mg/m3) and the extrapolated threshold concentration

RD0, considered as the NOEL, was 102 ppm (567 mg/m3).

A tentative threshold value for sensory irritation can be obtained on the basis of the RD50 value from

the mouse bioassay, the algorithm log RD50 = 1.16 (log LOAEL) + 0.77 developed by Kuwabara et al.

(2007) and relevant assessment factors (Wolkoff, 2013). Using the RD50 value of 1076 ppm (5983

mg/m3) reported by Larsen et al. (2000), a human LOAEL of 89 ppm (391 mg/m3) for sensory

irritation can be determined. With the application of a total AF of 50, as proposed by Wolkoff (2013),

to the RD50-derived LOAEL value (10 for LOAEL-to-NOAEL extrapolation and 5 for extrapolation to

concentrations below the threshold for sensory irritation), a tentative threshold value of 1.78 ppm


27

(7.8 mg/m3) can be obtained for short-term effects of d-limonene exposure to protect the general

population.


In the absence of long-term human exposure studies concerning d-limonene exposure, the short-

term study of Falk-Filipsson et al. (1993) (see 5.4.1 Short – term effects) was used in an attempt to

derive a long-term EL of 450 µg/m3 in the EU-INDEX project (Kotzias et al., 2005). The cumulative AF

of 1000 (10 for intraspecies variability, 10 for the use of LOAEL and 10 for extrapolation to chronic

exposure) was applied to the LOAEL of 450 mg/m3 for the decline in vital capacity. In the EU-INDEX

project, however, it was suggested that it was not possible to recommend this long-term EL as a

guideline value for d-limonene due to the lack of sufficient toxicological data.

Effects regarding repeated-dose toxicity of d-limonene can be evaluated from the animal study of

Wolkoff et al. (2012); with the aim to examine the effects of repeated inhalation exposure to ozone-

initiated Limonene Oxidation Products (LOP) in mice, sensory irritation, bronchoconstrictive and

alveolar level effects were investigated. Apart from the LOP exposures tested, exposure to d-

limonene alone was studied as well. Naïve mice were exposed to 52 ppm d-limonene (289 mg/m3) 1

h/day for 10 consecutive days. The results of the study showed that there were no consistent effects

on the respiratory parameters studied (respiratory rate, time of break, mid-expiratory flow rate, tidal

volume, time of pause and time of inspiration) and that inflammation of the respiratory tract was not

observed. The respiratory rate did not change in mice exposed to d-limonene over the 10-day period.

In general, no accumulation of effects on the parameters was apparent with increasing number of

exposures.


Considering sensory irritation as the critical effect from acute exposure to d-limonene, there is a

significant difference in the concentration level where no effect is reported in humans (81 ppm; Falk-

Filipsson et al., 1993), and in the one where sensory irritation occurs (2000 ppm; Doty et al., 1978).

According to Larsen et al. (2000), this observation, together with the different test conditions in the

two studies and the lack of information in the Doty et al. (1978) study, renders the establishment of

an exact threshold for sensory irritation in humans difficult; however, it should be above 80 ppm.

The no-effect levels derived from the Falk-Filipsson et al. (1993) study of d-limonene in the EU-INDEX

project (Kotzias et al., 2005) - not recommended as guidelines, though, due to the lack of sufficient

toxicological data - are not considered appropriate for the purposes of health risk assessment in the

framework of EPHECT. They are based on a decline of the vital capacity as the critical effect; this

statistically significant change, however, was of low magnitude (-2 %) and might have been of no

functional significance, as stated by the authors of the Falk-Filipsson et al. (1993) study. The decrease

in forced vital capacity was not consistent with the absence of change in total lung capacity and

airway conductance, which are two more reliable measures of restriction (NAS, 2008).

In the framework of EPHECT, risk assessment regarding acute exposure to d-limonene will be

performed based on sensory irritation as the critical effect and the NOAEL value of 450 mg/m3 (81

ppm), for subjective eye, nose and throat irritation, from the Falk-Filipsson et al. (1993) study. An

intraspecies AF of 5 will be applied, as suggested for the variation in thresholds of sensory irritation

within the human population, in order to protect the general population (Nielsen et al., 2007) and


28

obtained from the standard deviation of nasal pungency thresholds by assuming a log-normal

distribution (Hau et al., 2000). Since no experimental data on sensory irritation support an additional

AF for sensitive sub-groups (Dourson et al., 2010; Ginsberg et al., 2010), the resulting value of 90

mg/m3 (16 ppm) can be considered as the CEL value for acute exposure to d-limonene.

Regarding long-term effects, in the absence of adequate data of long-term exposure to d-limonene,

risk will be assessed by extrapolation from short-term data. Following a conservative approach, the

application of a default AF of 10 for the duration of exposure to the NOAEL value of 450 mg/m3 (81

ppm) for sensory irritation from the Falk-Filipsson et al. (1993) study, additionally to the AF of 5 for

intraspecies variability, leads to a CEL value for long-term exposure to d-limonene of 9 mg/m3 (1.6

ppm).


29

5.5 α-Pinene

CAS N°: 80-56-8

EC N°: 201-291-9

Synonyms 2- pinene, alpha-pinene,

2,6,6-trimethybicyclo[3.1.1] hept-2-ene

HSDB

(2009

revision)

Description colourless transparent liquid with characteristic

odour of pine/turpentine



Melting point -62.5 °C

Boiling point 156 °C


Relative density (water=1) 0.8592 (20 °C)


(air=1) 4.7


Solubility in organic solvents soluble in ethanol, chloroform, ether, glacial acetic acid

Solubility in water (25 °C) 2.49 mg/L

Odour threshold 18 ppb (100 µg/m3) Nagata

(2003)

Conversion factor (25 °C) 1 ppm = 5.56 mg/m3

Nielsen et

al. (2005)


30


Acute effects from inhalation exposure of humans to α-pinene are described in the study of Falk et

al. (1990). Eight volunteers were exposed to 10, 225 and 450 mg/m3 (+)-α-pinene in an exposure

chamber for 2 h during light physical exercise (50 W on a bicycle ergometer). Before, during and after

each exposure, the subjects rated the intensity of irritation for the eyes, nose and throat and the

effects on the central nervous system (CNS) on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) from ‘no effect’

to ‘almost unbearable’. Five subjects experienced irritation of their eyes, nose and throat at 450

mg/m3, and thus considered LOAEL. Although the intensity of the ratings was low (about 10 % of the

scale), the ratings of irritation indicated a statistically significant exposure-response relationship; no

such relationship was found for the CNS effects. No exposure-related changes in the lung function

were observed neither during the exposure in the chamber nor 20 minutes after exposure.

Nevertheless, as this investigation was designed to study the toxicokinetics of α-pinene, it was

claimed by the authors that further studies with more subjects and spirometric measurements

performed during exposure may be necessary for adequate evaluation of results in symptom rating

and the measurements of pulmonary function. The study of Falk et al. (1990) was chosen in the EU-

INDEX project (Kotzias et al., 2005) in the formulation of the proposal of 4.5 mg/m3 as the level at

which health effects from acute exposure could be expected (LOAEL of 450 mg/m3 for eye, nose and

throat irritation, AF of 10 for intraspecies variability and AF of 10 for the LOAEL-to-NOAEL

conversion). However, EU-INDEX concluded that there were insufficient toxicological data available

to recommend a guideline value for α-pinene.

In the chamber study of Johard et al. (1993), eight volunteers were exposed to a mixture of α-pinene,

β-pinene and Δ3-carene (10:1:5) in a concentration of 450 mg/m3. The total exposure time was 12 h

(3 h on 4 different days) completed within a 2-week period. During half of the exposure time, light

physical exercise (50 W on a bicycle ergometer) was performed. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was

performed 15 to 25 days prior to the first exposure (first BAL) and 20 h after the last exposure

(second BAL). The Bronchial Challenge Test (bronchial provocation with metacholine) was conducted

in 7 of the subjects more than one month after the second BAL. Metacholine was inhaled with 5 deep

inhalations in 6 dilution steps ranging from 0.075 to 50 mg/mL. Forced Expiratory Volume in one

second (FEV 1) was measured with a wedge spirometer before and 3 minutes after the inhalation of

each concentration. The challenge was stopped at a decrease in FEV 1 of 20 % of the pre-challenge

value or after inhalation of the highest concentration (50 mg/mL). Results of the study revealed that

repetitive short-term terpene exposures at 450 mg/m3 induced an acute alveolar cellular reaction in

healthy subjects; a significant increase of the total alveolar cell concentration in the BAL fluid 20 h

after exposure was reported, predominantly due to an increase in the number of alveolar

macrophages. A significant increase of the number of mast cells was observed as well. In the

Bronchial Challenge Test, there was no lung function decrement; FEV 1 did not decrease below 20 %

of the pre-challenge value in any of the participants. The authors of the study stated that the findings

reflected a moderate response in the alveolar inflammatory cells.

In the human exposure study of Gminski et al. (2011a), chemosensory irritation and pulmonary

effects were evaluated as a result of acute exposure to emissions from Oriented Strand Board (OSB),

a material that predominantly emits α-pinene among other volatile organic compounds. Twenty-four

volunteers were exposed to OSB emissions for 2 h under controlled conditions in a test chamber.

During exposure, subjects performed six 20-min sessions of cycle ergometry at 50 W. Exposure


31

concentrations to α-pinene were up to 2.2 ± 0.3 mg/m3. Chemosensory irritation, exhaled nitric oxide

concentration (for indication of presence of inflammatory effect), eye blink frequency, lung function

and subjective perception of eyes, nose and throat irritation were examined before, during and after

exposure. Overall, no sensory irritation or pulmonary effects were reported.

In another chamber study, Gminski et al. (2011b) examined the effects of short-term exposure to

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) emitted from pinewood panels. The aim was to investigate

sensory irritation, lung function impairment and subjective health complaints after exposure to VOC

emissions from pine-wood at worst case concentrations in the indoor air. Fifteen human volunteers

were exposed for 2 h, under controlled conditions, to VOC concentrations of about 5, 8 and 13

mg/m3. The pinewood loading rates investigated yielded approximate average exposure

concentrations of 3.5, 5.0 and 9.5 mg/m3 for terpenes, which consisted predominantly of α-pinene

(up to 70 %) and Δ3-carene (up to 28 %). The results of the study showed that there were no

concentration-dependent effects with respect to sensory irritation, pulmonary function, exhaled

nitric oxide and eye blink frequency.

Regarding acute respiratory effects in animals following exposure to α-pinene, the study of Nielsen et

al. (2005) revealed that sensory irritation was the critical effect when BALB/c mice were exposed to

α-pinene vapours in the range 100 - 3691 ppm. The respiratory effects studied over 30-min nose-only

exposure periods (4 mice/exposure concentration) included sensory irritation, airflow

limitation/bronchoconstriction, pulmonary irritation and depression of the central nervous system

(CNS). The respiratory rate decreased due to sensory irritation, showing a concentration-effect

relationship. The concentration depressing the respiratory rate by 50 % (RD50) for the 30 min of the

exposure period was estimated to be 2125 ppm and the extrapolated threshold decrease of 0 %

(RD0), which can be used as the extrapolated NOAEL for sensory irritation, was 72 ppm. The NOAEL

obtained for the time of break, the increase of which is an indication of sensory irritation, was 133

ppm (in agreement with the RD0 value). A significant airflow limitation was observed at

concentrations above 217 ppm with an experimentally determined NOAEL of 100 ppm. Neither

pulmonary irritation nor CNS effects were detected in the concentration range tested.

Based on the RD50 value of 2125 ppm (11815 mg/m3) from the Nielsen et al. (2005) study and the

algorithm log RD50 = 1.16 (log LOAEL) + 0.77 (Kuwabara et al., 2007), a human LOAEL of 160 ppm (703

mg/m3) for sensory irritation can be calculated (Wolkoff, 2013). With the application of a total AF of

50 (Wolkoff, 2013) to the RD50-derived LOAEL value (10 for LOAEL-to-NOAEL extrapolation and 5 for

extrapolation to concentrations below the threshold for sensory irritation), a tentative threshold

value of 3.2 ppm (14 mg/m3) can be obtained for the protection of the general population from acute

exposure to α-pinene.


No long-term human studies were identified as far as exposure to α-pinene is concerned. The short-

term human study of Falk et al. (1990) (see 5.5.1 Short – term effects) was used in an attempt to

derive a long-term EL for α-pinene in the EU-INDEX project (Kotzias et al., 2005). Considering sensory

irritation as the critical effect, the LOAEL of 450 mg/m3 for eye, nose and throat irritation was used

and the cumulative AF of 1000 (10 for intraspecies variability, 10 for use of LOAEL and 10 for

extrapolation to chronic exposure) was incorporated, resulting in a long-term EL of 450 µg/m3.


32

Nevertheless, due to lack of sufficient toxicological data, the EU-INDEX project concluded that it was

not possible to recommend a guideline value for α-pinene.

Regarding long-term animal studies, two 90-day animal inhalation studies (6 h/day, 5 d/week) were

performed with α-pinene in male and female mice and rats at concentrations 0, 25, 50, 100, 200 and

400 ppm under the National Toxicology Program (NTP, 2006). All organs and tissues, including the

nasal cavity, nasal turbinates and lungs, underwent histopathological examination. Neither study

reported any adverse effects associated with respiratory endpoints.


Sensory irritation is the critical effect related to acute exposure to α-pinene, as seen in the human

study of Falk et al. (1990) and confirmed by the animal study of Nielsen et al. (2005). In the

framework of EPHECT, risk assessment in relation to α-pinene exposure will be performed based on

the LOAEL value of 450 mg/m3 (81 ppm) for subjective eye, nose and throat irritation, reported in the

Falk et al. (1990) study.

For acute effects, a cumulative AF of 10 will be applied, as a result of an AF of 2 for the LOAEL-to-

NOAEL conversion and an AF of 5 for intraspecies variability. The use of an AF of 2 for the use of a

LOAEL has been suggested by Nielsen et al. (2007) for sensory irritation and supported by Alexeeff et

al. (2002) on the basis of the distribution of LOAEL-to-NOAEL ratios from different types of mild acute

inhalation effects. The use of an AF of 5 for intraspecies variability has been proposed by Nielsen et

al. (2007) for the variation in thresholds of sensory irritation within the human population, in order

to protect the general population, obtained from the standard deviation of nasal pungency

thresholds by assuming a log normal distribution (Hau et al., 2000). No experimental data on sensory

irritation support an additional AF for sensitive population groups (Dourson et al., 2010; Ginsberg et

al., 2010). Considering the cumulative AF of 10, the resulting CEL value for acute inhalation effects

from α-pinene exposure is 45 mg/m3 (8 ppm).

For long-term effects, the selection of AFs for the LOAEL-to-NOAEL conversion and intraspecies

variability can be based on the same rationale as in the case of acute exposure, i.e. 2 and 5,

respectively. To extrapolate for the duration of the study, a conservative approach can be followed;

in the absence of adequate data of long-term exposure to α-pinene, risk assessment can be

performed on the basis of short-term exposure data with the application of the default AF of 10.

Therefore, the incorporation of a cumulative AF of 100 to the LOAEL value of 450 mg/m3 (81 ppm)

reported in the Falk et al. (1990) study results in a CEL value for long-term inhalation effects from α-

pinene exposure of 4.5 mg/m3 (0.8 ppm).

5.6 Summary table of toxicological parameters for health risk assessment within EPHECT

In Table 5.1, the critical end-point, the critical study, the NOAEL or LOAEL value and the AFs selected

for each compound to be used in the procedure of health risk assessment in the framework of

EPHECT are summarised, together with the resulting CEL values.


33

Table 5.1: Summary of critical end-point, critical study and toxicological parameters for compounds used in health risk assessment within EPHECT.

Target pollutant End-point Study NOAEL or LOAEL Assessment Factors (AFs) Critical Exposure Limit (CEL)

acrolein short-term expo

increase in eye blinking rate

Weber-Tschopp et al. (1977) (human study)

NOAEL: 0.39 mg/m3 (0.17 ppm) intra-species: 5 78 µg/m3 (34 ppb)

subjective eye irritation

Weber-Tschopp et al. (1977) (human study)

LOAEL: 0.21 mg/m3 (0.09 ppm) LOAEL-to-NOAEL: 21 intra-species: 5

21 µg/m3 (9 ppb)1

acrolein long-term expo

nasal respiratory epithelium lesions

Dorman et al. (2008) (animal study)

NOAELadj: 82.8 µg/m3 (36 ppb) inter-species: 3 intra-species: 2 duration: 1

10 µg/m3 (4 ppb)

formaldehyde short-term expo

subjective and objective eye irritation

Lang et al. (2008)2 (human study)

NOAEL: 0.63 mg/m3 (0.5 ppm) intra-species: 5

100 µg/m3 (80 ppb)

WHO IAQ GV (30-min)

formaldehyde long-term expo

short-term WHO guideline value of 100 µg/m3 considered protective against long-term effects

naphthalene short-term expo

inadequate data to establish CEL

naphthalene long-term expo

severe nasal effects

NTP (2000) (animal study)

LOAELadj: 10 mg/m3 LOAEL-to-NOAEL: 10 inter-species: 10 intra-species: 10

10 µg/m3 (1.9 ppb)

WHO IAQ GV (annual)3

d-limonene short-term expo

subjective eye, nose, throat irritation

Falk-Filipsson et al. (1993) (human study)

NOAEL: 450 mg/m3 (81 ppm) intra-species: 5 90 mg/m3 (16 ppm)

d-limonene long-term expo inadequate data of long-term exposure. Extrapolation from short-term expo data.

intra-species: 5 duration: 10

9 mg/m3 (1.6 ppm)

α-pinene short-term expo

subjective eye, nose, throat irritation

Falk et al. (1990) (human study)

LOAEL: 450 mg/m3 (81 ppm) LOAEL-to-NOAEL: 2 intra-species: 5

45 mg/m3 (8 ppm)

α-pinene long-term expo inadequate data of long-term exposure. Extrapolation from short-term expo data.

LOAEL-to-NOAEL: 2 intra-species: 5 duration: 10

4.5 mg/m3 (0.8 ppm)

1 LOAEL-to-NOAEL: 1 may be used as a less conservative approach resulting in a CEL value of 42 µg/m

3 (18 ppb)

2 supported by Mueller et al. (2013)

3 conservative approach – use of default assessment factors.

Chapter 6 Methodology of exposure assessment

34

CHAPTER 6 METHODOLOGY OF EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Description

The exposure assessment is based on the concept that the exposure of an individual to a pollutant is equal

to the concentration of this pollutant within the specific microenvironment (ME), while the individual being

in this ME (Ott et al., 1986). The exposure approach followed in EPHECT calculates personal exposures by

combining the indicative movement of a typical individual through a series of home MEs with the modelled

ME concentrations. The integrated mean daily exposure E of an individual can be then represented as a

linear combination of concentrations in n distinct MEs (Ci), weighted by the time ti spent in each of these

MEs (Duan, 1982; Dimitroulopoulou et al., 2001), as follows:

n

E = (Ci ti) / 24 (Equation 1) i

The indoor air quality simulations were performed using two models, which are further discussed in Section

6.2: the CONC-CPM model (a model developed within EPHECT and which is similar to the BAMA/FEA model

used by industry for sprays, but more widely applicable to emissions from a variety of products) and the

Indoor Air Chemical Model MIAQ/UOWM (a chemical model further developed for the purposes of

EPHECT) (Missia et al., 2012a).

The exposure assessment was carried out based on the outcome of all the other activities that were

performed within the framework of EPHECT (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1: Exposure assessment in relation to other EPHECT activities.

The results from the EPHECT WP5 Household survey (Johnson and Lucia, 2012) on the use of fifteen

consumer product classes in Europe were primarily used. These were further analysed in order to develop

scenarios for the use of consumer products by two population groups, namely housewives (HW) and


35

retired people (RET), in four geographical areas of Europe – North (N), West (W), South (S) and East (E). The

specific population groups spend a major part of their time, on a daily basis, in their home environment and

are assumed to use the consumer products on their own. A short description of the Household survey is

given in Section 6.3.

Furthermore, the modelling approach in EPHECT used the quantified emission rates, which were derived

from the analysis of emission data resulting from chamber testing (Stranger et al., 2012; Stranger et al.,

2013). These emission rates were used as input to microenvironmental models, to simulate the indoor

concentrations of the ‘target’ pollutants emitted from the selected consumer products. The emission rates

were applied according to the scenarios considered on the use of consumer products, which were

developed based on Household survey data within EPHECT), rather than in the quantities and conditions

used for the emission testing. Within the EPHECT framework, a ‘most representative worst-case scenario’

strategy was followed. This means, that the scenarios reflecting the realistic worst cases of product use,

under the most representative conditions of use in Europe, were employed for the exposure and health risk

assessment.

The simulations involved in the exposure assessment were carried out on three levels, as follows:

• Level 1 – Microenvironmental modelling : 1 product / 1 compound / 1 microenvironment (ME)

[Single product use];

• Level 2 – Exposure assessment: Many products / 1 compound / Combination of MEs

[Multiple product use - aggregated exposure];

• Level 3 – Sensitivity analysis: Many products / All compounds simultaneously / 1 U.K. dwelling

[Multiple product use – combined exposure to all compounds].

More specifically:

1. On Level 1, microenvironmental modelling was performed using the CONC_CPM model to simulate the

indoor air ‘target’ pollutant concentrations in home MEs (living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom)

resulting from single product use (one product used in one ME). The implication of this approach is that the

MEs are isolated from each other, hence, there is no dispersion of pollutants between adjacent rooms. The

model was applied across the four European geographical areas (N, W, S, E), with the following parameters

as input:

(i) emission rates from chamber testing, according to the developed scenarios described in Section 6.3.2;

(ii) room volumes for each ME, derived from data across EU countries, as reported by Dol and Haffner

(2010) (see Section 6.3.3), and

(iii) ventilation data derived from the literature review of ventilation rates in European dwellings, carried

out within the framework of EPHECT (Dimitroulopoulou, 2012) (see Section 6.3.4).

The outcome of Level 1 simulations is expressed as indoor air concentrations (µg/m3) in home

microenvironments and calculated as max 30-min rolling average concentrations and 24-h mean

concentrations. The ‘max 30-min rolling average’ is the maximum value of indoor air concentrations

averaged over 30 minutes (i.e. 1 - 30, 2 - 31 min etc.) during the day.


36

2. On Level 2, exposure assessment was carried out to provide estimates of exposure to each of the ‘target’

pollutants in home MEs, as a result of use of several consumer products in one ME. In this approach, and

across the four European geographical areas (N, W, S, E), the results of microenvironmental modelling

derived from Level 1 simulations, were combined with home activity profiles of the two population groups

studied in EPHECT (HW, RET), which were developed based on the studies of Torfs et al. (2008) and

Dimitroulopoulou et al. (2001). The description of the development of these profiles is reported under

Section 6.3.5. The outcome of the Level 2 exposure assessment is expressed as exposure estimates (µg/m3)

across home MEs: max 30-min rolling average exposure estimates, in the case of acute exposure, and 24-h

mean exposure estimates, in the case of long-term exposure.

3. On Level 3, sensitivity analysis was carried out using the updated Indoor Air Chemical Model

MIAQ/UOWM. The aim was to investigate the impact of the internal dispersion as well as of indoor

chemistry on the concentrations of the ‘target’ pollutants in each ME, as a result of using several consumer

products.

The Level 3 simulations were carried out for a typical UK home, since detailed data were available in order

to parameterise explicitly the ventilation model that predicts internal flows within this home MEs.

Ventilation modelling for the UK home was performed using the COMIS model, a Multizone Airflow model

(Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) (Sakellaris et al., 2012). The outcome of Level 3 simulations

(microenvironmental concentrations) is expressed as 24-h mean indoor air concentrations, allowing also a

direct comparison with the resulting 24-h microenvironmental concentrations from Level 1 and 2

simulations.


37

6.2 Description of models

6.2.1 CONC-CPM (Level 1 – Level 2)

The CONC-CPM model is used to predict indoor air pollutants concentrations based on the results of the

CONC-EMIS model. The latter was applied to calculate emission rates resulting from the use of consumer

products in the home environments, based on the results from the chamber testing (Stranger et al., 2013).

The CONC-CPM model is able to simulate both instantaneous releases as well as constant releases over a

period of time. For this reason, CONC-CPM is applicable for simulations of air pollutant concentrations not

only from sprays (instantaneous releases), but also from products emitting constantly (e.g. candles).

The model simulates indoor air pollutant concentrations by solving the following equation:

i

j

jittsjji ttVCCEtV

CtC1

00 )](exp[])([1

)( (Equation 2)

Where

k

skiks CC

1

k

ik

dt

Restriction: 1 jt t

0C is the room initial concentration

jE is the pollution emission rate within time step jt

is the room ventilation rate

d is the pollutant decay rate

k denotes the surrounding microenvironment k (i.e. outdoors and surrounding spaces).

6.2.2 BAMA model (Comparison with Level 1)

BAMA (British Aerosol Manufacturers' Association) and FEA (European Aerosol Federation) have developed

a simple mathematical model that can be used to rapidly predict concentrations for a wide range of use

conditions (FEA, 2010). This is a spreadsheet that calculates indoor concentrations Ct at 1-min minute

intervals after spraying.

The model is based on the following equation:

Ct = (p x d x s / 100 x V) exp[-(N x t/60)] (Equation 3)

where:

Ct is the concentration of airborne material at time t minutes (g/l);

p is the amount of an ingredient in a formulation (%);

d is the spray discharge rate (g/s);

s is the duration of spraying (s);

V is the volume of the room (l);

N is the ventilation rate (h-1).


38

BAMA used this model successfully for a number of years as an internal tool to answer questions about the

safety of ingredients used in aerosols. In 2001, Building Research Establishment Ltd (BRE) in the UK tested

the validity of the model by comparing data generated by the model against measurements made in a

controlled environment chamber (Rowley and Crump, 2005). Since it has been validated, BAMA/FEA model

was used in EPHECT to validate the results from CONC-CPM model (Level 1) for sprays.

6.2.3 Indoor Air chemical model MIAQ/UOWM (Level 3)

The new MIAQ/UOWM was derived from the replacement of the original MIAQ chemical scheme by the

CB05 scheme from the CMAX model (Comprehensive Air Quality Model). CB05 is a lumped structure type

that is the fifth in the series of carbon bond mechanisms and differs from its predecessors notably in the

detailed of the organic compound representation. The used CB05 mechanism contains 61 species and 160

reactions, including 23 photolytic reactions and 4 aerosol reactions. The analytical description of the

updated MIAQ/UOWM model is given elsewhere (Missia et al., 2012a).


39

6.3 Parameters for microenvironmental and exposure modelling

6.3.1 Short description of the Household survey

As part of the EPHECT project, a multi-country survey was carried out in order to produce findings on

consumer behaviour, regarding the 15 selected classes of household consumer products. The results served

as basis for the development of scenarios for the use of consumer products, in the frame of the exposure

and health risk assessment procedure within EPHECT.

The survey focused on creating an inventory of information on consumption and use habits for the 15

selected product classes, i.e. all-purpose cleaners, kitchen cleaners, floor cleaners, glass and window

cleaners, bathroom cleaners, furniture polish, floor polish, combustible air fresheners, spray air fresheners,

electric air fresheners, passive air fresheners, coating products for leather and textiles, hair styling product,

spray deodorants, perfumes.

The aim of the study was to identify consumer behaviour patterns regarding the 15 selected product

classes, by identifying the most frequently used products, as well as by collecting detailed information on

product use (e.g. how and when people use the product, in which rooms of the house, how often, how

much product is used each time, whether or not the product is diluted into water or mixed with other

products before use, whether or not people wear gloves or ventilate when using the products, etc.).

The survey was conducted in 2011, in ten countries across Western, Southern, Eastern and Northern

Europe (Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, the UK and Sweden)

through online methodology. A total of 4335 people were interviewed across the ten countries (between

350 and 500 in each country) (Figure 6.2). The target population in each country consisted of people aged

18 and older, who take part in household cleaning tasks and who use at least one of the 15 product classes.

Prior to designing the survey, desk research was carried out in each of the ten countries in order to identify

the different products available on the market. Literature on related topics was also reviewed, in the

objective of collecting information from previous studies, which would serve as input for the questionnaire

design.

The survey questionnaire consisted of 16 sections. The first section included screening questions, as well as

socio-demographic questions. The aim was to collect personal information regarding the respondent, such

as age, gender, region, number of people living in the household, number of children living in the

household, occupation, education level, type of dwelling, and number of rooms in the house. Each of the

other 15 sections corresponded to the 15 selected product classes, and included, for each of these,

questions on product use (e.g. frequency of use, room where the product is used, type of format – whether

gel, liquid, spray - brand, quantities used each time).

In terms of survey administration, each respondent was able to answer questions for up to five sections at

the most (and therefore to evaluate a maximum of five product classes), in order to ensure that the

questionnaire length was kept manageable and that the interview did not exceed 25 minutes for each

respondent.

Once fieldwork was finalised, the data were analysed, at the 1st stage, by providing the overall results for

the total number of respondents, as well as by country and by European region, enabling the identification

of consumer behaviour for each of the 15 product classes across the ten countries, as well as for each

individual country, and therefore to detect regional differences. At the 2nd stage, further analysis was


40

carried out in order to provide information for exposure modelling. For this purpose, data were analysed

focusing on the two population groups used for the risk assessment in the framework of EPHECT, namely

housewives (HW) and retired people (RET). The aim was to provide information about these population

groups, across the four European regions (N, W, S, E), with the purpose of identifying specific aspects

related to their use habits (e.g. which products they use, how often, when, in which rooms, etc.), as well as

to the characteristics of their households (e.g. type of dwelling, number of rooms, etc.).

Figure 6.2: Household survey - regions, countries and number of interviews.

6.3.2 Development of scenarios for household use of selected consumer products

An example of the results from the 2nd phase of the Household survey data analysis, to provide the basis

for the development of scenarios for modelling purposes, is given in Table 6.1, for ‘A1 All-purpose cleaners’.

The re-analysis was performed in terms of product use per EU geographical region and per target

population group. Therefore, it provided the percentages of the home-based population groups of

housewives (HW) and retired people (RET, + 65 years old), using a specific consumer product, in the North

(N), West (W), South (S) and East (E) of Europe. The data for office workers were not considered for the

purpose of the EPHECT exposure and risk assessment, since it is not a home-based population group.

However, they may be used as reference for future work.

The questions considered for the development of scenarios were related to the use of the product and

provided information on:

which format;

how often;

when;

which room;

how many rooms;

how much

a consumer product is used in the domestic environment.


41

Table 6.1: Example of Household survey data used in the development of scenarios for the use of ‘A1 all-purpose cleaners’ across European regions.

Total Northern Europe Western Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe

Office worker

Retired Housewives

Office worker

Retired Housewives

Office worker

Retired Housewives

Office worker

Retired Housewives

Which format

Liquid 80% 92% 87% 66% 83% 86% 78% 60% 70% 55% 84% 93% 100%

Spray 47% 42% 37% 66% 42% 31% 55% 67% 70% 79% 40% 39% 35%

When*

Mostly in the afternoon (12am -6pm) 28% 23% 18% 68% 27% 17% 24% 29% 10% 23% 29% 11% 29%

Mostly in the morning (6am-12am) 27% 15% 36% - 28% 53% 31% 42% 80% 60% 15% 21% 13%

Mostly in the evening (6pm-12pm) 16% 25% 10% 32% 21% 4% 8% 20% - 4% 24% 5% -

Mostly at night (12pm-6am) % 2% - - - - - - - - 1% - -

How many rooms

Average number of rooms 4.3 5.0 5.0 3.3 4.4 3.9 6.2 4.7 5.8 4.7 3.9 3.9 4.3

Products

Product 1 - Spray 3% - - - - - - 12% 19% 16% - - -

Product 2 - Liquid 31% 57% 64% 32% 20% 16% 15% 30% 41% 17% 22% 23% 45%

Base N=746 N=126 N=225 N=142 N=253

Quantities

Liquid Less than 1 cap 49% 59% 54% 100% 50% 46% 35% 56% 71% 33% 42% 40% 29%

1 cap to less than 2 caps 40% 32% 35% - 41% 44% 50% 39% 29% 59% 42% 46% 62%

2 caps to less than 3 caps 8% 9% 11% - 8% 7% 11% 1% - 7% 8% 10% 10%

3 caps and more 3% - - - 1% 2% 4% 4% - - 8% 4% -

Base N=612 N=112 N=188 N=89 N=223

Spray 1 spraying 16% 8% 13% - 16% 13% - 29% 9% 18% 12% 13% -

2 to 3 sprayings 58% 61% 65% 51% 69% 58% 57% 59% 82% 54% 49% 56% 34%

4 to 5 sprayings 12% 12% 9% - 7% 21% 27% 5% 9% 18% 16% 6% 33%

More than 5 sprayings 14% 19% 13% 49% 8% 8% 16% 7% - 10% 23% 25% 34%

Base N=338 N=51 N=93 N=97 N=97

*‘12 am’ refers to midday and ‘12 pm’ to midnight


42

The development of scenarios for the product use was then carried out in the following steps:

Step 1: We identified which consumer product (whose emissions were analysed in the EPHECT chamber

testing) is used in which European region (N, W, S, E) and by which population group (HW, RET). Table 6.2

indicates the use of the most popular products within the 15 EPHECT product classes by each population

group (PG) across Europe, based on the re-analysis of the EPHECT Household survey data.

Table 6.2: Use of most popular products per product class by Housewives and Retired people in EU.

Product class

Most popular products (format)

North

West

South

East

HW* RET** HW RET HW RET HW RET

A1: All-purpose cleaners Product 1 (spray) Product 2 (liquid)

- X

- X

- X

- X

X X

X X

- X

- X

A2: Kitchen cleaning agents

Product 1 (cream) - - X X X X X X

A3: Floor cleaning agents Product 1 (liquid) Product 2 (cream)

- -

- X

X -

X -

X -

X -

X -

X -

A4: Glass and window cleaning agents

Product (spray) X X X X X X X X

A5: Bathroom cleaning agents

Product (spray) X X X X - X X X

A6: Furniture polish Product 1 (spray) Product 2 (cream)

- X

- X

X -

X -

X -

X -

X -

X -

A7: Floor polish

Product 1 (liquid) - - X - - - - -

A8: Combustible air fresheners

Product 1 (unit) Product 2 (unit)

- -

- -

X X

- -

X X

X X

X X

X X

A9: Air fresheners (pressurised can)

Product 1 (spray) Product 2 (spray)

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

A10: Passive air fresheners

Product 2 (unit) - X X X X - X X

A11: Electric air fresheners Product 1 (unit) Product 2 (unit)

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

A12: Textile Coating products

Product (spray) X X - - X - - X

A13: Hair styling products

Product (spray) X X X X X - - X

A14: Deodorants (spray)

Product 1 (spray) - - X X - - X X

A15: Perfumes Product 1 (spray) Product 2 (spray)

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

- -

X X

X X

* HW: Housewives ** RET: Retired people (+65 years old)


43

Two points need to be clarified:

In the case of product class ‘A2 kitchen cleaning agent’, another ‘product 2’ (see Table 4.1) also

underwent chamber emission testing. However, it was not eventually used for the exposure

assessment within EPHECT, as data for the use of this product were only available for office workers in

East Europe, according to the Household survey.

In the case of product class ‘A7 floor polish’, there were no data available for the use of any of the two

products tested in chambers in the context of EPHECT. ‘Product 1’ only appeared to be used by office

workers in West Europe. Thus, in order to include the A7 product class in health risk assessment within

EPHECT, it was decided to consider the data about the general use of this product class by housewives

of West Europe, rather than the data on the use of the specific product brand.

Step 2: For each product class (A1-A15), excel spreadsheets were set up, containing up to 8 sheets, one for

each population group. Based on the re-analysis of Household survey data (e.g. Table 6.1), we inserted in

these sheets the percentages of people in a population group using a consumer product in each:

- Time period (midnight - 6am, 6am - midday, midday - 6pm, 6pm - midnight);

- Room (living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom);

- Format (liquid, spray, unit);

- Quantity, depending on the format (number of caps, number of sprayings, time in s/min/h).

Step 3: The above percentages (%) were multiplied, to give the fraction of people who use the consumer

product, under the specific conditions (Figure 6.3). This means that the % of people using the product in

each time period was multiplied by the % of people using the product in each room, which was then

multiplied by the % of people using the product in a specific format, which was finally multiplied by the % of

people using the product in specific quantities/time, depending on the format. Thus, for instance, for a

consumer product in liquid format, the maximum number of scenarios, meaning that the product is used in

all the periods of the day (4), all the rooms (4), and available quantities (4), is equal to 4 x 4 x 4 = 64.

When

(% of people using the

product in these time

periods)

Room


product in these MEs)

Format


product in this format)

How much


product in these units,

depending on the format)

midnight - 6am

6am - midday

midday – 6pm

6 pm - midnight

Living Room

Kitchen

Bedroom

Bathroom

Liquid

Spray

Cream

Unit

Liquid: no of caps

(4 options)

Spray: no of sprayings

(4 options)

Cream: no of tablespoons

(4 options)

Unit: time (s /min /h)

Figure 6.3: Method to develop the scenarios for household use of selected consumer products.


44

The above scenarios were to be used as the basis for microenvironmental and exposure modelling. Given

the large number of scenarios generated and following the EPHECT strategy, it was decided to select the

most representative of the worst-case scenarios, among the MEs where the consumer product is used. In

this way, the scenarios indicating the realistic use of the largest quantities of a product by most people

were selected. In the cases of equal probability of a scenario to happen (e.g. floor cleaning), all the MEs

were considered. Table 6.3 presents all the ‘most representative worst-case scenarios’, resulting from the

above development. In order to be coherent with the indications of time used in the EPHECT WP5

Household survey, ‘12 am’ refers to midday and ‘12 pm’ to midnight.

Table 6.3: The ‘most representative worst-case scenarios’ developed for the household use of 15 consumer product classes by Housewives and Retired people in EU.

Housewives Retired people

A1. All-purpose cleaner – Product 1 – Spray

HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 sprayings HW-S: (6am – 12am) / LR / 3 sprayings HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 3 sprayings HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 3 sprayings

RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 sprayings RET-S: (6am – 12am) / LR / 3 sprayings RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 3 sprayings RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 3 sprayings

A1. All-purpose cleaner – Product 2 – Liquid

HW-N: (12am – 6pm) / Bathroom / 1 cap HW-N: (12am – 6pm) / Kitchen / 1 cap

RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 1 cap RET-N: (6am – 12am) / LR / 1 cap RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 1 cap RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 1 cap

HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 2 caps HW-W: (6am – 12am) / LR / 2 caps HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 2 caps HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 2 caps

RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 2 caps RET-W: (6am – 12am) / LR / 2 caps RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 2 caps RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 2 caps

HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 2 caps HW-S: (6am – 12am) / LR / 2 caps HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 2 caps HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 2 caps

RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 1 cap RET-S: (6am – 12am) / LR / 1 cap RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 1 cap RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 1 cap

HW-E: (12am – 6pm) / Bathroom / 2 caps HW-E: (12am – 6pm) / LR / 2 caps HW-E: (12am – 6pm) / Kitchen / 2 caps HW-E: (12am – 6pm) / Bedroom / 2 caps

RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 2 caps RET-E: (6am – 12am) / LR / 2 caps RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 2 caps RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 2 caps

A2. Kitchen cleaning agent – Product 1 - Cream

HW-W: (12am – 6pm) / Kitchen / 2 tbsp HW-W: (12am – 6pm) / Bathroom / 2 tbsp

RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 1 tbsp RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 1 tbsp

HW-S: (12am – 6pm) / Kitchen / 1 tbsp HW-S: (12am – 6pm) / Bathroom / 1 tbsp

RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 2 tbsp

HW-E: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 2 tbsp HW-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 2 tbsp

RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 3 tbsp RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 2 tbsp

A3. Floor cleaning agent - Product 1 – Liquid

HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 2 caps HW-W: (6am – 12am) / LR / 2 caps HW-W:: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 2 caps HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 2 caps

RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 2 caps RET-W: (6am – 12am) / LR / 2 caps RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 2 caps RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 2 caps

HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 2 caps HW-S: (6am – 12am) / LR / 2 caps HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 2 caps HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 2 caps

RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 2 caps RET-S: (6am – 12am) / LR / 2 caps RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 2 caps RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 2 caps


45

HW-E: (12am – 6pm) / Bathroom / 2 caps HW-E: (12am – 6pm) / LR / 2 caps HW-E: (12am – 6pm) / Kitchen / 2 caps HW-E: (12am – 6pm) / Bedroom / 2 caps

RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 2 caps RET-E: (6am – 12am) / LR / 2 caps RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 2 caps RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 2 caps

A3. Floor cleaning agent - Product 2 – Cream

RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 1 tbsp RET-N: (6am – 12am) / LR / 1 tbsp RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 1 tbsp RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 1 tbsp

A4. Glass and window cleaner – Spray

HW-N: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 sprayings HW-N: (6am – 12am) / LR / 3 sprayings HW-N: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 3 sprayings HW-N: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 3 sprayings

RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 sprayings RET-N: (6am – 12am) / LR / 3 sprayings RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 3 sprayings RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 3 sprayings

HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 5 sprayings HW-W: (6am – 12am) / LR / 5 sprayings HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 5 sprayings HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 5 sprayings

RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 5 sprayings RET-W: (6am – 12am) / LR / 5 sprayings RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 5 sprayings RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 5 sprayings

HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 sprayings HW-S: (6am – 12am) / LR / 3 sprayings HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 3 sprayings HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 3 sprayings

RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 sprayings RET-S: (6am – 12am) / LR / 3 sprayings RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 3 sprayings RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 3 sprayings

HW-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 5 sprayings HW-E: (6am – 12am) / LR / 5 sprayings HW-E: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 5 sprayings HW-E: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 5 sprayings

RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 sprayings RET-E: (6am – 12am) / LR / 3 sprayings RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Kitchen / 3 sprayings RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 3 sprayings

A5. Bathroom cleaning agent - Spray

HW-N: (12am – 6pm) / Bathroom / 3+3 sprayings

RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3+3 sprayings

HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom /3+3 sprayings

RET-W: (6am – 12am)/ Bathroom / 3+3 sprayings

RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 5+5 sprayings

HW-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 5+5 sprayings

RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3+3 sprayings

A6. Furniture polish – Product 1 – Spray

HW-W: (6am – 12am) / LR / 3 sprayings HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 3 sprayings

RET-W: (6am – 12am) / LR / 3 sprayings RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 3 sprayings

HW-S: (6am – 12am) / LR / 3 sprayings HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 3 sprayings

RET-S: (6am – 12am) / LR / 3 sprayings RET-S: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 3 sprayings

HW-E: (6am – 12am) / LR / 5 sprayings HW-E: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 5 sprayings

RET-E: (6am – 12am) / LR / 5 sprayings RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 5 sprayings

A6. Furniture polish – Product 2 – Cream

HW-N: (6am – 12am) / LR / 1 tbsp HW-N: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 1 tbsp

RET-N: (6am – 12am) / LR / 2 tbsp RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 2 tbsp

A7. Floor polish - Product 1 - Liquid

HW-W: (6am – 12am) / LR / 4 caps HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 4 caps

A8. Combustible air freshener - Products 1 and 2 – Unit

HW-W: (6pm – 12pm) / LR / 2 candles / 3h

HW-S: (6pm – 12pm) / LR / 1 candle / 1h RET-S: (6pm – 12pm) / Kitchen / 1 candle / 2h

HW-E: (6pm – 12pm) / LR / 2 candles / 3h RET-E: (6pm – 12pm) / Bedroom / 1 candle / 2h


46

A9. Spray air freshener – Products 1 and 2 – Spray (pressurized can)

HW-N: (12am – 6pm) / Bathroom / Spray 2 sec RET-N: (6am – 12pm) / Bathroom / Spray 5 sec

HW-W: (12am – 6pm) / Bathroom / Spray 5 sec RET-W: (6am – 12pm) / kitchen / Spray 5 sec

HW-S: (12am – 6pm) / Bathroom / Spray 5 sec RET-S: (6am – 12am) / LR / Spray 5 sec

HW-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / Spray 2 sec RET-E: (12am – 6pm) / Bathroom / Spray 2 sec

A10. Passive air freshener – Product 2 - Unit

RET-N: (6am – 6pm) / Bathroom / 12 hours

HW-W: (6am – 12pm) / LR / 18 hours RET-W: (6am – 12pm) / Bathroom / 18 hours

HW-S: (6am – 12pm) / LR / 18 hours

HW-E: (6am – 12am + 6pm – 12am) / Bathroom / 12 hours

RET-E: (6am – 12pm) / Bathroom / 18 hours

A11. Electric air freshener – Products 1 and 2 - Unit

HW-N: (6am – 12am + 6pm – 12am) / Bathroom / 12 hours

RET-N: (12am – 6am) / LR / 1 hour

HW-W: (6am – 6pm) / Bathroom / 12 hours RET-W: (12am – 12pm) / Bathroom / 12 hours

HW-S: (6am – 6pm) / Bathroom / 12 hours RET-S: (12am – 6am) / Bathroom / 6 hours + (12am – 6pm) / LR / 6 hours

HW-E: (12am – 6am + 12am – 6pm) / Bathroom / 1 hour

RET-E: (6pm – 12pm) / Bathroom / 1 hour

A12. Textile coating – Spray

HW-N: (6am – 12am) / LR / Spray for 5 sec RET-N: (6am – 12am) / LR / Spray for 5 sec

HW-S: (6am – 12am) / LR / Spray for 5 sec

RET-E: (6am – 12am) / LR / Spray for 5 sec

A13. Hair styling product - Spray

HW-N: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / Spray for 5 sec

RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / Spray for 5 sec

HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / Spray for 5 sec

RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / Spray for 5 sec

HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / Spray for 5 sec

RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / Spray for 5 sec

A14. Deodorant – Product 1 - Spray

HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / Spray for 5 sec

RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / Spray for 5 sec

HW-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / Spray for 5 sec

RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / Spray for 5 sec

A15. Perfume – Products 1 and 2 - Spray

HW-N: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 pumps RET-N: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 pumps

HW-W: (6am – 12am) / Bedroom / 3 pumps RET-W: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 pumps

HW-S: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 pumps

HW-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 pumps RET-E: (6am – 12am) / Bathroom / 3 pumps Nomenclature: HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; W: West; S: South; E: East; LR: Living room; tbsp: tablespoon

6.3.3 Room volumes

The floor areas for the dwellings per geographical area were derived from the report of Housing Statistics in

EU 2010 (Dol and Haffner, 2010). This contains information on the 27 Member States of the European

Union. Table 6.4 shows the average and the range of floor areas of dwellings per European region. The

results show that a dwelling with an average floor area of 90 m2 can be assumed for North, West and South

Europe. Instead, for East Europe, the floor area is assumed to be 64 m2.


47

There are no statistics for the floor areas or volumes of individual rooms in a dwelling. The allocation of the

room floor areas for a home of 90 m2 is based on Torfs et al. (2008), whereas the room floor areas for a

home of 64 m2 were adjusted accordingly and proportionally. The height of a dwelling may vary in the

range of 2.5-3.5 m. In the current study, the average of 3 m height is assumed. Therefore, Table 6.5

presents the volumes of the rooms that may be allocated to dwellings with floor areas of 90 m2 and 64 m2.

Table 6.4: Statistics of floor areas for the total dwelling stock in Europe.

Statistics North (m2/dwelling)

West (m2/dwelling)

South (m2/dwelling)

East (m2/dwelling)

average 95.5 97.9 93.2 64.1

range 79.4 - 114.4 81.3 - 133.5 81.3 - 106.4 38.7 - 77.7

Table 6.5: Volumes of rooms per two types of European dwellings (m3).

Room Dwelling of 90m2 (or 270 m3)

Dwelling of 64m2 (or 192 m3)

Living room 90 64

Dining room 30 21

Kitchen 30 21

Main bedroom 45 32

2nd bedroom 36 26

Bathroom 24 17

Hall 12 8

Guest bathroom 3 3

6.3.4 Ventilation rates

Average home ventilation data were derived from a literature review of ventilation rates in European

dwellings, which was carried out within the framework of the EPHECT project (Dimitroulopoulou, 2012).

This review concluded that although ventilation requirements receive major attention in building

regulations, across Europe, EU dwellings are often under ventilated. Ventilation in practice is often poor,

with values of ventilation rates below 0.5 h-1, which is frequently used in national standards/regulations in

Europe, as a threshold below which health impacts may occur. In the presence of indoor sources, the low

ventilation rates result in increased concentrations of pollutants and hence exposure to health risk.

Based on this review, ventilation rates of 0.3 ach, 0.35 ach, 0.5 ach and 0.75 ach were attributed to

dwellings in Northern, Western, Southern and Eastern Europe, respectively, using ventilation data available

for the following countries:

• Northern Europe: Sweden, Denmark, Germany;

• Western Europe: France, UK;

• Southern Europe: Spain, Greece;

• Eastern Europe: Czech Republic.

A ventilation rate of 0.1 ach was additionally used in the simulations to represent potential ventilation

conditions resulting from future building regulations on energy saving, when the golden rule of “Built tight,

ventilate right” is not followed by the building’s occupants (i.e. not proper use of ventilation systems in

dwellings).


48

6.3.5 Development of daily home activity profiles

The indicative daily home activity profiles of a representative housewife and a retired person (+65 years

old), were developed based on the aggregated profile for UK Homemakers (HW or RET) (15-min intervals)

(Dimitroulopoulou et al., 2001) and adjusting the times that people spend in the various MEs according to

the data for Belgian population groups (based on Glorieux et al. (2002) Flemish data, as reported in Torfs et

al., 2008). These indicative daily profiles are for weekdays, in the absence of data to set up a profile for the

weekends.

Table 6.6 presents the time fractions of a day allocated in the various MEs in the current modelling

approach, compared to Torfs et al. (2008) work, for the two home-based target population groups. The

modelling time interval in the UK profile was 15 minutes, so the times are rounded up to 15 minutes.

Furthermore, Table 6.7 presents the times when the consumer product sources are on, for all the target

population groups using all the consumer products (as indicated by the Household survey) in the home

MEs. The sources are on within the time intervals indicated from the scenarios on the use of consumer

products (see Table 6.3).

Table 6.6: Daily time allocation for Housewives and Retired people.

ME Housewives Retired people

Torfs et al. (2008) (h) (Not working)

Current Modelling approach (h)

Torfs et al. (2008) (h)

Current Modelling approach (h)

Home 19.4 19.50 19.4 19.50

Bathroom 1.0 1.00 0.8 1.00

Kitchen 2.8 2.75 2.4 2.50

Bedroom 8.3 8.50 8.3 8.25

Living room 4.9 5.00 5.8 5.75

Undefined indoor home 2.4 2.25 1.9 2.00

Work, school, day care 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.25

Undefined elsewhere 1.1 1.00 0.9 1.00

Outdoors 0.9 1.00 1.4 1.25

Traffic 0.8 0.75 0.6 0.50

Other indoor MEs 1.5 1.50 1.5 1.50


49

Table 6.7: Consumer product sources in each ME and for each target population group and times when sources are on (modelling approach).

HW-N Time HW-W Time HW-S Time HW-E Time RET-N Time RET-W Time RET-S Time RET-E Time

Bathroom A11 06:00 A11 06:00 A11 06:00 A11/A10 06:00 A10 06:00 A10 06:00 Α11 00:00 A10 06:00

A13 07:00 A14 07:00 A13 07:00 A9 07:00 A13 07:00 A14 07:00 A1 09:15 A14 07:00

A15 07:05 A13 07:05 A15 07:05 A14 07:05 A15 07:05 A13 07:05 A4 09:20 A13 07:05

A5 09:15 A15 07:10 A1 10:00 A15 07:10 A9 07:10 A15 07:10 A3 09:25 A15 07:10

A4 09:20 A1/A5 10:00 A4 10:05 A5 10:00 A5 09:15 A6 09:00 A5 09:29 A1 / A2 09:15

A9 16:15 A4 10:05 A3 10:10 A4 10:05 A4 09:20 A1 / A2 09:15 A4 09:20

A1 16:16 A3 10:10 A9 16:15 A2 10:10 A3 09:25 A4 09:20 A3 09:25

A11 18:00 A9 16:15 A2 16:16 A11 16:15 A3 09:25 A5 09:29

A2 16:16 A1 16:15 A5 09:29 A11 16:15

A3 16:20 A11 12:00 A9 17:45

A10 18:00

LR A6 08:30 A10 06:00 A10 06:00 A6 08:30 A11 06:00 A6 08:30 A9 08:30 A6 08:30

A12 08:45 A6 08:30 A6 08:30 A12 08:45 A6 08:30 A1 09:30 A6 08:35 A12 08:35

A4 09:30 A1 08:40 A12 08:35 A4 09:00 A12 08:45 A4 09:35 A1 09:30 A1 09:30

A4 08:50 A1 08:45 A1 15:00 A1 09:30 A3 09:40 A4 09:35 A4 09:35

A3 09:00 A4 08:50 A3 15:05 A4 09:35 A3 09:40 A3 09:40

A7 09:10 A3 09:00 A8 19:15 A3 09:40 A11 14:30

A8 19:15 A8 19:15

Kitchen A4 09:45 A1 09:45 A1 09:45 A2 09:45 A1 09:45 A9 08:00 A1 09:45 A1 09:45

A1 13:45 A4 09:50 A4 09:50 A4 09:50 A4 09:50 A1 09:45 A2 09:48 A2 09:48

A3 09:55 A3 09:55 A1 14:45 A3 09:55 A2 09:48 A4 09:50 A4 09:50

A2 13:45 A2 13:45 A3 14:50 A4 09:50 A3 09:55 A3 09:55

A3 09:55 A8 18:00

Bedroom A6 09:00 A6 09:15 A6 09:15 A6 09:30 A6 09:00 A6 09:00 A6 09:00 A6 09:00

A4 10:00 A1 09:25 A1 09:25 A4 09:40 A1 10:00 A1 10:00 A1 10:00 A1 10:00

A4 09:30 A4 09:30 A1 15:15 A4 10:05 A4 10:05 A4 10:05 A4 10:05

A3 09:35 A3 09:35 A3 15:20 A3 10:10 A3 10:10 A3 10:10 A3 10:10

A7 09:40 A8 23:15

A1: all-purpose cleaning agent / A2: kitchen cleaning agent / A3: floor cleaning agent / A4: window cleaner / A5: bath cleaner / A6: furniture polish / A7: Floor polish / A8: combustible air fresheners / A9: spray air freshener / A10: passive air freshener / A11: electric air freshener / A12: textile coating / A13: hair styling product / A14: deodorant spray / A15: perfume


50

6.4 Selection of emission testing results for exposure assessment

For exposure assessment and subsequent risk characterisation in the frame of the EPHECT health risk

assessment procedure, all products analysed were considered, provided that at least one reliable result was

reported as far as the emissions of ‘target’ pollutants studied in EPHECT are concerned. However, it was

decided that data of the two following cases would be excluded from the health risk assessment procedure:

(i) chamber testing concentrations for a given compound lower than 1 µg/m3, and

(ii) terpene concentrations from the small chamber experiments (0.05 m3).

Regarding the second case, the inter-laboratory studies under EPHECT WP6 revealed that the small

chamber produces substantially lower total emissions for terpenes (more than one order of magnitude),

fact that renders these results non-reliable for use in health risk assessment. This observation could be

attributed to the limited mass transfer capability from the product to the air caused by the very small

volume of the chamber. Concerning aldehyde results from the small chamber of 0.05 m3, these instead

were taken into consideration in the context of the health risk assessment performed; however, it was

suggested that further investigation is required on this issue (Stanger et al., 2013).

Furthermore, following a ‘worst-case scenario’ strategy for health risk assessment, in case the same

product was analysed by several laboratories (e.g., intercomparison experiments for a kitchen cleaning

agent, an electric air freshener and a perfume) or several times by the same laboratory (e.g., duplicate

analyses), emissions that resulted in highest exposures were taken into consideration.

On the basis of the above, an update of Table 4.1 - containing the preliminary qualitative assessment of

emissions - was performed. The resulting Table 6.8 indicates, first of all, the products selected for use in the

EPHECT health risk assessment, namely the products from each product class for which at least one reliable

result was reported that also fulfilled the aforementioned criteria (i) and (ii). Moreover, the ‘+’ symbol

indicates, for each product, the ‘target’ pollutants subjected to risk assessment and the corresponding

laboratory whose emissions resulted in the highest concentrations following the exposure assessment. For

example, in the case of product class A14, the product used in risk assessment was ‘deodorant spray 1’ (no

emissions were reported for ‘deodorant spray 2’), analysed by VITO laboratory, and the ‘target’ pollutants

whose risks were assessed were d-limonene and α-pinene. As discussed in Chapter 4, apart from the

‘target’ pollutants (acrolein, formaldehyde, naphthalene, d-limonene, α-pinene), benzene emissions were

also included in Table 6.8, for the purposes of exposure assessment only.


51

Table 6.8: Selection of emission testing results for use in exposure and health risk assessment within EPHECT.

product class product lab acrolein formaldehyde naphthalene benzene limonene a-pinene

A1 all purpose cleaning agent 1 IDMEC + +

all purpose cleaning agent 2 UOWM +

A2 kitchen cleaning agent 1 IDMEC +

NRCWE +

VITO +

A3 floor cleaning agent 1 NRCWE +

floor cleaning agent 2 NRCWE + + +

A4 glass and window cleaner VITO +

A5 bathroom cleaning agent NRCWE +

A6 furniture polish 1 IDMEC + +

furniture polish 2 NRCWE +

A7 floor polish 1 IDMEC + +

A8 combustible air freshener - candle 1 IDMEC + + + + +

combustible air freshener - candle 2 VITO + + + + +

A9 spray air freshener 1 NRCWE +

spray air freshener 2 VITO +

A10 passive air freshener 2 VITO + +

A11 electic air freshener 1 IDMEC +

NRCWE + +

VITO

electic air freshener 2 VITO + +

A12 textile coating NRCWE +

A13 hair styling product VITO +

A14 deodorant spray 1 VITO + +

A15 perfume 1 IDMEC + +

NRCWE

VITO +

perfume 2 NRCWE + +


53

6.5 Background exposure

In the context of exposure assessment and risk characterisation, a relevant issue addressed was the

comparison of the potential exposures for each pollutant and for each scenario to the typical

background indoor air levels reported in literature as a result of natural or anthropogenic activities.

The aim was to evaluate the contribution of the tested consumer products in terms of emissions to

pre-existing background levels of exposure.

The JRC’s European Indoor Air Monitoring and Exposure Assessment Project (AIRMEX) (2003-2008)

was considered as the most adequate source of information for the identification of background

exposure levels to use in the framework of EPHECT. The aim of the AIRMEX project was the

identification and quantification of the principal air contaminants present in public buildings, schools,

kindergartens and private houses, and the evaluation of the extent to which human exposure to

these pollutants is affected while working and/or residing in these areas (Kotzias et al., 2009). The

study focused on selected VOCs (hydrocarbons, aromatic compounds, alcohols and carbonyls)

monitored in 11 European cities over a 5-year period.

An elaboration of the data collected in the frame of the AIRMEX project is reported by Geiss et al.

(2011). All data are summarised in terms of min-max values, arithmetical averages and percentiles of

concentrations for each compound and in each microenvironment (outdoors, indoors, personal). The

data are not claimed to be exhaustive and representative for all possible European situations.

However, this information is considered by the authors useful as reference for typical European

exposure scenarios and as a good indication of the average European exposure to VOCs for the

investigated period.

Of interest to EPHECT were the data regarding formaldehyde, d-limonene, α-pinene and benzene,

resulting from measuring campaigns in 103 dwellings situated at 9 cities across Europe, namely

Helsinki (FI), Nicosia (CY), Thessaloniki (EL), Budapest (HU), Arnhem (NL), Nijmegen (NL), Brussels

(BE), Dublin (IE) and Leipzig (DE) (JRC, 2013). As the EPHECT exposure assessment methodology is

based on four geographical areas (North, West, South, East, Europe), the AIRMEX background

exposure levels (min-max values) for private houses were grouped according to the aforementioned

regions. For each compound, these concentration ranges reported across the four geographical areas

are indicated in the Tables of the present report containing the outcome of microenvironmental

modelling and risk characterisation (Level 1 - Chapter 7) for comparison purposes and evaluation of

the consumer products’ contribution to the background exposure.

Such comparison should be interpreted with caution, as grouping of data on a geographical basis

resulted in very few countries per region. Therefore, as complementary information, mean values of

background exposure levels - as reported by Geiss et al. (2011) - for the 9 European cities are

indicated, as well. Another limitation in the use of the AIRMEX study is that there is no indication of

ventilation rates, whereas the exposure assessment in the framework of EPHECT was performed

using ventilation rates reported in literature, i.e. 0.3, 0.35, 0.5 and 0.75 ach for North, West, South

and East Europe, respectively, plus the additionally assumed 0.1 ach ventilation rate (see Section

6.3.4). An overview of the AIRMEX background exposure data per compound and per geographical


54

area, as grouped for the purposes of EPHECT, together with mean values of background exposure

levels, as reported by Geiss et al. (2011), is presented in Table 6.9.

Table 6.9: Background exposure levels for private dwellings across Europe from the AIRMEX study grouped together across the four EPHECT geographical areas.

Compound

Background exposure (µg/m3)1

N W E S E.U.

min max min max min max min max mean2

formaldehyde 11 45 4 57 11 41 7 52 22

d-limonene 0 70 1 88 8 493 2 219 29

α-pinene 3 80 0 66 3 214 1 74 15

benzene 1 4 0 8 1 24 2 32 3 1 Data from EU AIRMEX study (JRC 2013) available at http://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/airmex/viewdata/index.cfm. 2 Geiss et al. (2011)

http://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/airmex/viewdata/index.cfm

Chapter 7 LEVEL 1: Microenvironmental concentrations and risk characterisation related to single use of consumer products

55

CHAPTER 7 LEVEL 1: MICROENVIRONMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS AND RISK CHARACTERISATION RELATED TO SINGLE USE OF CONSUMER

PRODUCTS

7.1 Results – single product use

On Level 1, indoor air ‘target’ pollutant concentrations have been calculated in each

microenvironment (ME) on the basis of the methodology of microenvironmental modelling described

in Chapter 6. This methodology foresees the use of one consumer product in each home ME (living

room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom) by the population groups of Housewives (HW) and Retired

people (RET) according to the exposure scenarios constructed for the four geographical areas of

Europe (N, W, E, S). Level 1 results are expressed as ‘max 30-min rolling average’ indoor air

concentrations for acute exposure and ‘24-h mean’ concentrations for long-term exposure in each

ME. For the purpose of risk characterisation, the microenvironmental concentrations are expressed

as percentage (%) of the corresponding Critical Exposure Limit (CEL) value, reported in Chapter 5, for

each ‘target’ pollutant – except for benzene (see Chapter 4). The outcome of Level 1 simulations is

presented in Tables 7.1-7.45 along with the ‘target’ compound and the consumer product under

assessment, the laboratory that performed the analysis, the parameters of the exposure scenario

together with the related population group and geographical area, as well as the concentration range

of typical background exposure levels (see Section 6.5) reported in literature. The presentation of

results is given according to the order of the product classes (A1-A15) selected for the purposes of

EPHECT.

7.1.1 Exposure scenario: ‘use of all-purpose cleaning agent’ (product class A1)

Regarding product class A1, formaldehyde and d-limonene emissions reported in the case of ‘all-

purpose cleaning agent 1’ are presented in Tables 7.1-7.2. Concerning ‘all-purpose cleaning agent 2’,

only formaldehyde emissions from the small chamber (UOWM laboratory) are reported (Table 7.3),

according to the criteria mentioned in Section 6.4; however, these should be evaluated with caution

as further investigation is required (Stranger et al., 2013).


56

Table 7.1: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘all-purpose cleaning agent 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean formaldehyde background exposure: 22 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) 4 WHO 2010 guideline value used also for 24-h exposure (see Section 5.2.3) - should not be exceeded at any 30-min interval during the day

Table 7.2: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘all-purpose cleaning agent 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(sprayings)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL4

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

A1 - All purpose cleaning agent 1 (spray)Formaldehyde

Background exposure1

(min-max, µg/m3)

Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

lab: IDMEC

LR 90 3

K 30 3

BR 45 3

HW S 7 - 52

WC 24 3

LR 90 3

K 30 3

BR 45 3

RET S 7 - 52

WC 24 3

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(sprayings)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

A1 - All purpose cleaning agent 1 (spray)d-Limonene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: IDMEC

LR 90 3

K 30 3

BR 45 3

HW S 2 - 219

WC 24 3

LR 90 3

K 30 3

BR 45 3

RET S 2 - 219

WC 24 3


57

Table 7.3: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘all-purpose cleaning agent 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean formaldehyde background exposure: 22 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) 4 WHO 2010 guideline value used also for 24-h exposure (see Section 5.2.3) - should not be exceeded at any 30-min interval during the day

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(caps)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL4

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.3 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 2 100 2 1 100 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 2 100 2 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.3 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.3 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.3 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.3 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 2 100 2 1 100 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 2 100 2 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

A1 - All purpose cleaning agent 2 (liquid)Formaldehyde


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: UOWM

HW

N 11 - 45

WC 24 1

K 30 1

S 7 - 52

WC 24 2

LR 90 2

K 30 2

BR 45 2

E 11 - 41

WC 17 2

LR 64 2

K 21 2

BR 32 2

W 4 - 57

WC 24 2

LR 90 2

K 30 2

BR 45 2

RET

N 11 - 45

WC 24 1

LR 90 1

K 30 1

BR 45 1

S 7 - 52

WC 24 1

LR 90 1

K 30 1

BR 45 1

E 11 - 41

WC 17 2

LR 64 2

K 21 2

BR 32 2

W 4 - 57

WC 24 2

LR 90 2

K 30 2

BR 45 2


58

7.1.2 Exposure scenario: ‘use of kitchen cleaning agent’ (product class A2)

‘Kitchen cleaning agent 1’, belonging to product class A2, was subjected to an inter-laboratory study

(Stranger et al., 2013). According to the strategy described under Section 6.4, the highest modelled

indoor air pollutant concentrations derived among the four participant laboratories are reported in

Tables 7.4-7.6. Emissions from ‘kitchen cleaning agent 2’ were not considered for exposure

assessment, as data for the use of this product were not available from the Household survey for the

population groups studied in EPHECT (see Section 6.3.2).

Table 7.4: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘kitchen cleaning agent 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; K: Kitchen 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean formaldehyde background exposure: 22 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) 4 WHO 2010 guideline value used also for 24-h exposure (see Section 5.2.3) - should not be exceeded at any 30-min interval during the day

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(tablespoons)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL4

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1K 30 1

17 2

K 21 3

W 4 - 57

WC 24 1

RET

S 7 - 52 K 30 2

E 11 - 41

WC

W 4 - 57

WC 24 2

K 30 2

11 - 41

WC 17 2

K 21 2

HW

S 7 - 52

WC 24 1

K 30 1

E

A2 - Kitchen cleaning agent 1 (liquid)Formaldehyde


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: NRCWE


59

Table 7.5: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘kitchen cleaning agent 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; K: Kitchen 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

Table 7.6: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘kitchen cleaning agent 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; K: Kitchen 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean α-pinene background exposure: 15 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(tablespoons)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.5 530 90000 < 1 50 9000 < 1

0.1 582 90000 < 1 226 9000 3

0.5 424 90000 < 1 40 9000 < 1

0.1 466 90000 < 1 181 9000 2

0.75 1413 90000 2 94 9000 1

0.1 1643 90000 2 638 9000 7

0.75 1144 90000 1 76 9000 < 1

0.1 1330 90000 1 517 9000 6

0.35 1097 90000 1 142 9000 2

0.1 1164 90000 1 452 9000 5

0.35 878 90000 1 114 9000 1

0.1 931 90000 1 362 9000 4

0.5 848 90000 < 1 80 9000 < 1

0.1 931 90000 1 362 9000 4

0.75 1413 90000 2 94 9000 1

0.1 1643 90000 2 638 9000 7

0.75 1715 90000 2 114 9000 1

0.1 1996 90000 2 775 9000 9

0.35 549 90000 < 1 71 9000 < 1

0.1 582 90000 < 1 226 9000 3

0.35 439 90000 < 1 57 9000 < 1

0.1 466 90000 < 1 181 9000 2K 30 1

17 2

K 21 3

W 1 - 88

WC 24 1

RET

S 2 - 219 K 30 2

E 8 - 493

WC

W 1 - 88

WC 24 2

K 30 2

8 - 493

WC 17 2

K 21 2

HW

S 2 - 219

WC 24 1

K 30 1

E

A2 - Kitchen cleaning agent 1 (liquid)d-Limonene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: VITO

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(tablespoons)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.5 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.5 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.75 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.75 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.35 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.35 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.5 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.75 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.75 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.35 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.35 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1K 30 1

17 2

K 21 3

W 0 - 66

WC 24 1

RET

S 1 - 74 K 30 2

E 3 - 214

WC

W 0 - 66

WC 24 2

K 30 2

3 - 214

WC 17 2

K 21 2

HW

S 1 - 74

WC 24 1

K 30 1

E

A2 - Kitchen cleaning agent 1 (liquid)a-Pinene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: IDMEC


60

7.1.3 Exposure scenario: ‘use of floor cleaning agent’ (product class A3)

Regarding product class A3, among the three consumer products analysed, emissions of ‘target’

compounds were only reported for ‘floor cleaning agent 1’ and ‘floor cleaning agent 2’. Results are

presented in Tables 7.7-7.10.

Table 7.7: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘floor cleaning agent 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean formaldehyde background exposure: 22 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) 4 WHO 2010 guideline value used also for 24-h exposure (see Section 5.2.3) - should not be exceeded at any 30-min interval during the day

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(caps)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL4

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.5 62 100 62 6 100 6

0.1 68 100 68 26 100 26

0.5 16 100 16 2 100 2

0.1 18 100 18 7 100 7

0.5 49 100 49 5 100 5

0.1 54 100 54 21 100 21

0.5 33 100 33 3 100 3

0.1 36 100 36 14 100 14

0.75 82 100 82 5 100 5

0.1 96 100 96 37 100 37

0.75 22 100 22 1 100 1

0.1 25 100 25 10 100 10

0.75 67 100 67 4 100 4

0.1 78 100 78 30 100 30

0.75 44 100 44 3 100 3

0.1 51 100 51 20 100 20

0.35 64 100 64 8 100 8

0.1 68 100 68 26 100 26

0.35 17 100 17 2 100 2

0.1 18 100 18 7 100 7

0.35 51 100 51 7 100 7

0.1 54 100 54 21 100 21

0.35 34 100 34 4 100 4

0.1 36 100 36 14 100 14

0.5 62 100 62 6 100 6

0.1 68 100 68 26 100 26

0.5 16 100 16 2 100 2

0.1 18 100 18 7 100 7

0.5 49 100 49 5 100 5

0.1 54 100 54 21 100 21

0.5 33 100 33 3 100 3

0.1 36 100 36 14 100 14

0.75 82 100 82 5 100 5

0.1 96 100 96 37 100 37

0.75 22 100 22 1 100 1

0.1 25 100 25 10 100 10

0.75 67 100 67 4 100 4

0.1 78 100 78 30 100 30

0.75 44 100 44 3 100 3

0.1 51 100 51 20 100 20

0.35 64 100 64 8 100 8

0.1 68 100 68 26 100 26

0.35 17 100 17 2 100 2

0.1 18 100 18 7 100 7

0.35 51 100 51 7 100 7

0.1 54 100 54 21 100 21

0.35 34 100 34 4 100 4

0.1 36 100 36 14 100 14

A3 - Floor cleaning agent 1 (liquid)Formaldehyde


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: NRCWE

HW

S 7 - 52

WC 24 2

LR 90 2

K 30 2

BR 45 2

E 11 - 41

WC 17 2

LR 64 2

K 21 2

BR 32 2

W 4 - 57

WC 24 2

LR 90 2

K 30 2

BR 45 2

RET

S 7 - 52

WC 24 2

LR 90 2

K 30 2

BR 45 2

E 11 - 41

WC 17 2

LR 64 2

K 21 2

BR 32 2

W 4 - 57

WC 24 2

LR 90 2

K 30 2

BR 45 2


61

Table 7.8: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘floor cleaning agent 2’.

RET: Retired people; N: North; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean formaldehyde background exposure: 22 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) 4 WHO 2010 guideline value used also for 24-h exposure (see Section 5.2.3) - should not be exceeded at any 30-min interval during the day

Table 7.9: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘floor cleaning agent 2’.

RET: Retired people; N: North; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

Table 7.10: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘floor cleaning agent 2’.

RET: Retired people; N: North; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean α-pinene background exposure: 15 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

7.1.4 Exposure scenario: ‘use of glass and window cleaning agent’ (product class A4)

D-limonene emissions from the only consumer product analysed belonging to product class A4 are

reported in Table 7.11.

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(tbsp)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL4

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 20 100 20 3 100 3

0.1 20 100 20 8 100 8

0.3 5 100 5 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 5 100 5 2 100 2

0.3 16 100 16 2 100 2

0.1 16 100 16 6 100 6

0.3 10 100 10 2 100 2

0.1 11 100 11 4 100 4

A3 - Floor cleaning agent 2 (liquid)Formaldehyde


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: NRCWE

LR 90 1

K 30 1

BR 45 1

RET N 11 - 45

WC 24 1

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(tbsp)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 35 90000 < 1 5 9000 < 1

0.1 37 90000 < 1 14 9000 < 1

0.3 9 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 10 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.3 28 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.1 29 90000 < 1 11 9000 < 1

0.3 19 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.1 20 90000 < 1 8 9000 < 1

A3 - Floor cleaning agent 2 (liquid)d-Limonene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: NRCWE

LR 90 1

K 30 1

BR 45 1

RET N 0 - 70

WC 24 1

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(tbsp)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 18 45000 < 1 3 4500 < 1

0.1 19 45000 < 1 8 4500 < 1

0.3 5 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 5 45000 < 1 2 4500 < 1

0.3 15 45000 < 1 2 4500 < 1

0.1 15 45000 < 1 6 4500 < 1

0.3 10 45000 < 1 1 4500 < 1

0.1 10 45000 < 1 4 4500 < 1

A3 - Floor cleaning agent 2 (liquid)a-Pinene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: NRCWE

LR 90 1

K 30 1

BR 45 1

RET N 3 - 80

WC 24 1


62

Table 7.11: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘glass and window cleaning agent’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(sprayings)

Ventilatio

n rate

(ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 3 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.3 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.3 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 2 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.3 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 3 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 2 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.75 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 7 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.75 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.75 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 5 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.75 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 3 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.35 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 5 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.35 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.35 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 4 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.35 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 2 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.3 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 3 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.3 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.3 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 2 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.3 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 3 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 2 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.75 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 7 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.75 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.75 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 5 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.75 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 3 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.35 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 5 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.35 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.35 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 4 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.35 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 2 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

90 5

K 30 5

BR 45 5

5

BR 32 5

W 1 - 88

WC 24 5

LR

E 8 - 493

WC 17 5

LR 64 5

K 21

3

K 30 3

BR 45 3

BR 45 3

S 2 - 219

WC 24 3

LR 90

3

LR 90 3

K 30 3

5

BR 45 5

RET

N 0 - 70

WC 24

W 1 - 88

WC 24 5

LR 90 5

K 30

5

K 21 5

BR 32 5

BR 45 3

E 8 - 493

WC 17 5

LR 64

LR 90 3

K 30 3

30 3

BR 45 3

S 2 - 219

WC 24 3

HW

N 0 - 70

WC 24 3

LR 90 3

K

A4 - Glass and window cleaning agent (spray)d-Limonene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: VITO


63

3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

7.1.5 Exposure scenario: ‘use of bathroom cleaning agent’ (product class A5)

Regarding product class A5, d-limonene emissions reported in the case of ‘bathroom cleaning agent’

are presented in Table 7.12.

Table 7.12: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘bathroom cleaning agent’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

7.1.6 Exposure scenario: ‘use of furniture polish’ (product class A6)

The outcome related to formaldehyde and d-limonene emissions reported in the case of ‘furniture

polish 1’ is presented in Tables 7.13-7.14, whereas the outcome related to naphthalene emissions

from ‘furniture polish 2’ is presented in Table 7.15.

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(pumps)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.75 5 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 5 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.35 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.3 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.75 3 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 3 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.35 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 3 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 4 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1WC 24 5+5

WC 17 3+3

WC 24 3+3

3+3

RET

N 0 - 70 WC 24 3+3

E 8 - 493

3+3

E 8 - 493 WC 17 5+5

lab: NRCWE

HW

N 0 - 70 WC 24

W 1 - 88 WC 24

W

S

1 - 88

2 - 219

A5 - Bathroom cleaning agent (spray - pump)d-Limonene


(min-max, µg/m3)



64

Table 7.13: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘furniture polish 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; LR: Living room; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean formaldehyde background exposure: 22 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) 4 WHO 2010 guideline value used also for 24-h exposure (see Section 5.2.3) - should not be exceeded at any 30-min interval during the day

Table 7.14: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘furniture polish 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; LR: Living room; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(sprayings)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL4

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 2 100 2 1 100 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 2 100 2 1 100 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

A6 - Furniture polish 1 (spray)Formaldehyde


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: IDMEC

HW

S 7 - 52

LR 90 3

BR 45 3

E 11 - 41

LR 64 5

BR 32 5

W 4 - 57

LR 90 3

BR 45 3

RET

S 7 - 52

LR 90 3

BR 45 3

E 11 - 41

LR 64 5

BR 32 5

W 4 - 57

LR 90 3

BR 45 3

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(sprayings)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.5 15 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 16 90000 < 1 6 9000 < 1

0.5 29 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.1 32 90000 < 1 12 9000 < 1

0.75 32 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 37 90000 < 1 15 9000 < 1

0.75 64 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.1 75 90000 < 1 29 9000 < 1

0.35 15 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 16 90000 < 1 6 9000 < 1

0.35 30 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.1 32 90000 < 1 12 9000 < 1

0.5 15 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 16 90000 < 1 6 9000 < 1

0.5 29 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.1 32 90000 < 1 12 9000 < 1

0.75 32 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 37 90000 < 1 15 9000 < 1

0.75 64 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.1 75 90000 < 1 29 9000 < 1

0.35 15 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 16 90000 < 1 6 9000 < 1

0.35 30 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.1 32 90000 < 1 12 9000 < 1

A6 - Furniture polish 1 (spray)d-Limonene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: IDMEC

HW

S 2 - 219

LR 90 3

BR 45 3

E 8 - 493

LR 64 5

BR 32 5

W 1 - 88

LR 90 3

BR 45 3

RET

S 2 - 219

LR 90 3

BR 45 3

E 8 - 493

LR 64 5

BR 32 5

W 1 - 88

LR 90 3

BR 45 3


65

Table 7.15: Level 1 outcome related to naphthalene emissions from ‘furniture polish 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; LR: Living room; BR: Bedroom 1 No data available in EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) not reported for short-term exposure

7.1.7 Exposure scenario: ‘use of floor polish’ (product class A7)

Regarding product class A7, among the two consumer products analysed, emissions of ‘target’

compounds were only reported for ‘floor polish 1’ (formaldehyde and d-limonene). Results are

presented in Tables 7.16-7.17.

Table 7.16: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘floor polish 1’.

HW: Housewives; W: West; LR: Living room; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean formaldehyde background exposure: 22 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) 4 WHO 2010 guideline value used also for 24-h exposure (see Section 5.2.3) - should not be exceeded at any 30-min interval during the day

Table 7.17: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘floor polish 1’.

HW: Housewives; W: West; LR: Living room; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(tablespoons)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 2 - - < 1 10 4

0.1 3 - - 1 10 10

0.3 5 - - < 1 10 7

0.1 5 - - 2 10 20

0.3 5 - - < 1 10 7

0.1 5 - - 2 10 20

0.3 10 - - 1 10 15

0.1 10 - - 4 10 40

A6 - Furniture polish 2 (liquid)Naphthalene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: NRCWE

HW N -

LR 90 1

BR 45 1

RET N -

LR 90 2

BR 45 2

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(caps)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL4

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

LR 90 4

A7 - Floor polish 1 (liquid)Formaldehyde


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: IDMEC

BR 45 4

HW W 4 - 57

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(caps)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.35 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.35 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1


lab: IDMEC

A7 - Floor polish 1 (liquid)

BR 45 4

LR 90 4

HW W 1 - 88

d-LimoneneBackground exposure1

(min-max, µg/m3)


66

7.1.8 Exposure scenario: ‘use of combustible air freshener’ (product class A8)

Regarding product class A8, two candles of the same brand but of different scent, i.e. ‘candle 1’ and

‘candle 2’, were analysed by two different laboratories. Both products emitted acrolein,

formaldehyde, d-limonene, α-pinene and benzene. Results are reported in Tables 7.18-7.22 (‘candle

1’) and 7.23-7.27 (‘candle 2’).

Table 7.18: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘candle 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean formaldehyde background exposure: 22 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) 4 WHO 2010 guideline value used also for 24-h exposure (see Section 5.2.3) - should not be exceeded at any 30-min interval during the day

Table 7.19: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘candle 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

RoomVolume

(m3)Time (h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)CEL3 (µg/m3) % CEL

Concentration


0.5 2 100 2 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 3 100 3 1 100 1

0.75 9 100 9 1 100 1

0.1 20 100 20 9 100 9

0.35 10 100 10 2 100 2

0.1 14 100 14 6 100 6

0.5 10 100 10 1 100 1

0.1 15 100 15 6 100 6

0.75 8 100 8 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 14 100 14 6 100 6

7 - 52

11 - 41

4 - 57

7 - 52

11 - 41


(min-max, µg/m3)

2 1

RET

S K 30 2 1

E BR 32

2

W LR 90 3 2

HW

S LR 90 1 1

E LR 64 3

A8 - Candle 1 (solid)Formaldehyde Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

lab: IDMEC

RoomVolume

(m3)Time (h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration


Concentration

(µg/m3)CEL (µg/m3) % CEL

0.5 5 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 6 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.75 22 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.1 49 90000 < 1 21 9000 < 1

0.35 25 90000 < 1 5 9000 < 1

0.1 35 90000 < 1 15 9000 < 1

0.5 25 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.1 36 90000 < 1 15 9000 < 1

0.75 19 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 34 90000 < 1 14 9000 < 1

1 - 88


(min-max, µg/m3)

2 - 219

2 - 219

8 - 493

8 - 493 32 2 1

2

RET

S K 30 2 1

E BR

1

E LR 64 3 2

lab: IDMEC

HW

S LR 90 1

W LR 90 3

A8 - Candle 1 (solid)d-Limonene Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean


67

Table 7.20: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘candle 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean α-pinene background exposure: 15 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

Table 7.21: Level 1 outcome related to acrolein emissions from ‘candle 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 No data available in EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

Table 7.22: Level 1 outcome related to benzene emissions from ‘candle 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean benzene background exposure: 3 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 No Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) reported – benzene emissions assessed only in terms of exposure

RoomVolume

(m3)Time (h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration


Concentration


0.5 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.75 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 4 45000 < 1 2 4500 < 1

0.35 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 3 45000 < 1 1 4500 < 1

0.5 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 3 45000 < 1 1 4500 < 1

0.75 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 3 45000 < 1 1 4500 < 1

1 - 74

3 - 214

3 - 214

0 - 66

1 - 74


(min-max, µg/m3)

32 2 1BR

2

RET

S K 30 2 1

E

1

E LR 64 3 2

lab: IDMEC

HW

S LR 90 1

W LR 90 3

A8 - Candle 1 (solid)a-Pinene Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

RoomVolume

(m3)Time (h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration


Concentration


0.5 < 1 21 < 1 < 1 10 < 1

0.1 < 1 21 1 < 1 10 < 1

0.75 < 1 21 4 < 1 10 1

0.1 2 21 8 < 1 10 8

0.35 < 1 21 4 < 1 10 2

0.1 1 21 6 < 1 10 6

0.5 < 1 21 4 < 1 10 1

0.1 1 21 6 < 1 10 6

0.75 < 1 21 3 < 1 10 < 1

0.1 1 21 6 < 1 10 5-

-

-

-

-


(min-max, µg/m3)

32 2 1

2

RET

S K 30 2 1

E BR

1

E LR 64 3

lab: IDMEC

HW

S LR 90 1

W LR 90 3

A8 - Candle 1 (solid)Acrolein Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

2

RoomVolume

(m3)Time (h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration


Concentration


0.5 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.1 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.75 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.1 2 - - < 1 - -

0.35 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.1 1 - - < 1 - -

0.5 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.1 1 - - < 1 - -

0.75 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.1 1 - - < 1 - -

2 - 32

1 - 24

0 - 8

2 - 32

1 - 24

A8 - Candle 1 (solid)Benzene Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2


(min-max, µg/m3)

24-h mean

lab: IDMEC

HW

S LR 90 1 1

E LR 64 3

BR 32

2

W LR 90 3 2

2 1

RET

S K 30 2 1

E


68

Table 7.23: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘candle 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean formaldehyde background exposure: 22 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) 4 WHO 2010 guideline value used also for 24-h exposure (see Section 5.2.3) - should not be exceeded at any 30-min interval during the day

Table 7.24: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘candle 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

Table 7.25: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘candle 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean α-pinene background exposure: 15 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

RoomVolume

(m3)Time (h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration


Concentration


0.5 2 100 2 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 2 100 2 1 100 1

0.75 8 100 8 1 100 1

0.1 18 100 18 8 100 8

0.35 9 100 9 2 100 2

0.1 13 100 13 6 100 6

0.5 9 100 9 1 100 1

0.1 13 100 13 6 100 6

0.75 7 100 7 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 13 100 13 5 100 5

7 - 52

11 - 41

7 - 52

4 - 57

11 - 41


(min-max, µg/m3)

LR 90

A8 - Candle 2 (solid)Formaldehyde Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

lab: VITO

1 1S

LR 64 3 2EHW

LR 90 3 2W

RET

1

1

S

E

K 30 2

BR 32 2

RoomVolume

(m3)Time (h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration


Concentration


0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.75 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.35 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.75 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

1 - 88


(min-max, µg/m3)

1

1

2

A8 - Candle 2 (solid)

S LR 90 1

d-Limonene Scenario parameters

LR 90 3

2 - 219

8 - 493HW

2

RET

S K 30 2

1

2 - 219

8 - 493

30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

E LR 64 3

lab: VITO

W

E BR 32 2

RoomVolume

(m3)Time (h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration


Concentration


0.5 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.75 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 3 45000 < 1 1 4500 < 1

0.35 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.5 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.75 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

1 - 74

3 - 214

3 - 214

0 - 66

1 - 74


(min-max, µg/m3)

32BR 2 1

RET

S K 30 2 1

E

W LR 90 3 2

64 3

1

2

lab: VITO

HW

S LR 90 1

E LR

A8 - Candle 2 (solid)a-Pinene Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean


69

Table 7.26: Level 1 outcome related to acrolein emissions from ‘candle 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 No data available in EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

Table 7.27: Level 1 outcome related to benzene emissions from ‘candle 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean benzene background exposure: 3 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 No Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) reported – benzene emissions assessed only in terms of exposure

7.1.9 Exposure scenario: ‘use of spray air freshener’ (product class A9)

Regarding product class A9 and as far as emissions of ‘target’ pollutants are concerned, ‘spray air

freshener 1’ and ‘spray air freshener 2’ emitted d-limonene. Results are reported in Tables 7.28-7.29.

Formaldehyde emissions from ‘spray air freshener 1’ - initially reported in Table 4.1 - were not

considered for exposure and health risk assessment within EPHECT, due to their ‘unexpected’

concentration pattern.

RoomVolume

(m3)Time (h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration


Concentration


0.5 < 1 21 < 1 < 1 10 < 1

0.1 < 1 21 < 1 < 1 10 < 1

0.75 < 1 21 < 1 < 1 10 < 1

0.1 < 1 21 2 < 1 10 2

0.35 < 1 21 1 < 1 10 < 1

0.1 < 1 21 1 < 1 10 1

0.5 < 1 21 1 < 1 10 < 1

0.1 < 1 21 1 < 1 10 1

0.75 < 1 21 < 1 < 1 10 < 1

0.1 < 1 21 1 < 1 10 1-

-

-

-

-


(min-max, µg/m3)

HW

S LR 90 1

A8 - Candle 2 (solid)30-min max rolling average2 24-h meanAcrolein Scenario parameters

1

E LR 64 3 2

lab: VITO

2 1

LR 90 3 2W

RET

S

E

K 30

BR 32 2 1

RoomVolume

(m3)Time (h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration


Concentration


0.5 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.1 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.75 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.1 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.35 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.1 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.5 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.1 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.75 < 1 - - < 1 - -

0.1 < 1 - - < 1 - -

2 - 32

1 - 24

0 - 8

2 - 32

1 - 24


(min-max, µg/m3)

RET

S K 30 2

W

1

E BR 32 2 1

LR 90 3 2

S LR 90 1 1

E LR 64 3 2

A8 - Candle 2 (solid)Benzene Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

lab: VITO

HW


70

Table 7.28: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘spray air freshener 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

Table 7.29: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘spray air freshener 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living room; K: Kitchen 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

7.1.10 Exposure scenario: ‘use of passive air freshener’ (product class A10)

Regarding product class A10, among the two consumer products analysed, only ‘passive air freshener

2’ (gel) emitted certain ‘target’ pollutants (d-limonene and α-pinene). Results are reported in Tables

7.30-7.31. Exposure related to the scenarios in the case of HW-E is discontinuous, i.e. there is a time

interval among the two 6-h exposure periods.

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(sec)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 7 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 8 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.5 17 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 19 90000 < 1 7 9000 < 1

0.75 9 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 11 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.35 18 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 19 90000 < 1 7 9000 < 1

0.3 18 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.1 19 90000 < 1 7 9000 < 1

0.5 5 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 5 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.75 9 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 11 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.35 14 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 15 90000 < 1 6 9000 < 11 - 88


(min-max, µg/m3)

2 - 219

8 - 493

1 - 88

0 - 70

0 - 70

2 - 219

8 - 493

WC 24 5

LR 90

17

d-Limonene Scenario parameters

W WC 24

2

2

5

N

WC

lab: NRCWE

2

5

E

30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

WC 24 5

WC 24

RET

S

W

A9 - Air freshener 1 (pressurized can)

HW

N

S

WC 17

K 30 5

E

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(sec)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 5 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 5 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.5 12 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 13 90000 < 1 5 9000 < 1

0.75 6 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 8 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.35 13 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 13 90000 < 1 5 9000 < 1

0.3 13 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 13 90000 < 1 5 9000 < 1

0.5 3 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 4 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.75 6 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 8 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.35 10 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 11 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 11 - 88

0 - 70

2 - 219

8 - 493

1 - 88

0 - 70


(min-max, µg/m3)

A9 - Air freshener 2 (pressurized can)d-Limonene Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

lab: VITO

S WC 24 5

5

W WC 24 5

24 2

RET

N WC 24

E WC 17 2

W K 30 5

HW

N WC

E WC 17 2

5

S LR 902 - 219

8 - 493


71

Table 7.30: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘passive air freshener 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; N: North; LR: Living room; WC: Bathroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

Table 7.31: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘passive air freshener 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; S: South; E: East; W: West; N: North; LR: Living room; WC: Bathroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean α-pinene background exposure: 15 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

7.1.11 Exposure scenario: ‘use of electric air freshener’ (product class A11)

Regarding product class A11, two products were analysed. ‘Electric air freshener 1’ was subjected to

an inter-laboratory study (Stranger et al., 2013). In Tables 7.32-7.34, the highest modelled indoor air

pollutant concentrations derived among the four laboratories that participated in the study are

reported, according to the strategy described under Section 6.4. The outcome related to the

emissions from ‘electric air freshener 2’ is presented in Tables 7.35-7.36. Exposure related to the

scenarios in the case of HW-N and HW-E is discontinuous, i.e. there is a time interval among the two

6-h exposure periods (case of North) and the two 30-min exposure periods (case of East).

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(h)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentratio

n (µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.5 4 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.1 15 90000 < 1 10 9000 < 1

0.75 13 90000 < 1 6 9000 < 1

0.1 55 90000 < 1 35 9000 < 1

0.35 5 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.1 15 90000 < 1 10 9000 < 1

0.3 22 90000 < 1 11 9000 < 1

0.1 47 90000 < 1 28 9000 < 1

0.75 13 90000 < 1 10 9000 < 1

0.1 79 90000 < 1 53 9000 < 1

0.35 19 90000 < 1 14 9000 < 1

0.1 56 90000 < 1 38 9000 < 1

A10 - Passive air freshener 2 (gel)d-Limonene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: VITO

HW

S 2 - 219 LR 90 18

E 8 - 493 WC 17 6+6

W 1 - 88 LR 90 18

RET

N 0 - 70 WC 24 12

E 8 - 493 WC 17 18

W 1 - 88 WC 24 18

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(h)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentratio

n (µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.5 2 45000 < 1 2 4500 < 1

0.1 10 45000 < 1 7 4500 < 1

0.75 8 45000 < 1 4 4500 < 1

0.1 36 45000 < 1 23 4500 < 1

0.35 3 45000 < 1 2 4500 < 1

0.1 10 45000 < 1 7 4500 < 1

0.3 14 45000 < 1 7 4500 < 1

0.1 31 45000 < 1 18 4500 < 1

0.75 8 45000 < 1 6 4500 < 1

0.1 52 45000 < 1 35 4500 < 1

0.35 13 45000 < 1 9 4500 < 1

0.1 37 45000 < 1 25 4500 < 1

A10 - Passive air freshener 2 (gel)a-Pinene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: VITO

HW

S 1 - 74 LR 90 18

E 3 - 214 WC 17 6+6

W 0 - 66 LR 90 18

RET

N 3 - 88 WC 24 12

E 3 - 214 WC 17 18

W 0 - 66 WC 24 18


72

Table 7.32: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘electric air freshener 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living Room 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean formaldehyde background exposure: 22 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) 4 WHO 2010 guideline value used also for 24-h exposure (see Section 5.2.3) - should not be exceeded at any 30-min interval during the day

Table 7.33: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘electric air freshener 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living Room 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL4

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 17 100 17 9 100 9

0.1 34 100 34 21 100 21

0.5 12 100 12 6 100 6

0.1 40 100 40 24 100 24

0.75 3 100 3 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 5 100 5 3 100 3

0.35 16 100 16 8 100 8

0.1 40 100 40 24 100 24

0.3 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 11 100 11 3 100 3

0.1 26 100 26 13 100 13

0.5 3 100 3 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 5 100 5 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 8 100 8 3 100 3

0.35 16 100 16 8 100 8

0.1 40 100 40 24 100 24

A11 - Electric air freshener 1 (liquid)Formaldehyde


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: NRCWE

HW

N 11 - 45 WC 24 6+6

E 11 - 41 WC 17

1

S 7 - 52 WC 24 12 1

0.5+0.5 1

W 4 - 57 WC 24 12 1

RET

N 11 - 45 LR 90 1 1

S 7 - 52

WC 24 6 1

LR 90 6 1

E 11 - 41 WC 17 1 1

W 4 - 57 WC 24 12 1

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 7 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.1 14 90000 < 1 9 9000 < 1

0.5 5 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 17 90000 < 1 10 9000 < 1

0.75 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 3 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.35 7 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.1 17 90000 < 1 10 9000 < 1

0.3 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 5 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 11 90000 < 1 5 9000 < 1

0.5 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 3 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.75 2 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 3 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.35 7 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.1 17 90000 < 1 10 9000 < 1

A11 - Electric air freshener 1 (liquid)d-Limonene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: NRCWE

HW

N 0 - 70 WC 24 6+6

E 8 - 493 WC 17

1

S 2 - 219 WC 24 12 1

0.5+0.5 1

W 1 - 88 WC 24 12 1

RET

N 0 - 70 LR 90 1 1

S 2 - 219

WC 24 6 1

LR 90 6 1

E 8 - 493 WC 17 1 1

W 1 - 88 WC 24 12 1


73

Table 7.34: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘electric air freshener 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living Room 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean α-pinene background exposure: 15 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

Table 7.35: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘electric air freshener 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living Room 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 4 45000 < 1 2 4500 < 1

0.1 8 45000 < 1 5 4500 < 1

0.5 3 45000 < 1 1 4500 < 1

0.1 10 45000 < 1 6 4500 < 1

0.75 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.35 4 45000 < 1 2 4500 < 1

0.1 10 45000 < 1 6 4500 < 1

0.3 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.5 3 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 6 45000 < 1 3 4500 < 1

0.5 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.75 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.35 4 45000 < 1 2 4500 < 1

0.1 10 45000 < 1 6 4500 < 1

A11 - Electric air freshener 1 (liquid)a-Pinene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: IDMEC

HW

N 3 - 80 WC 24 6+6

E 3 - 214 WC 17

1

S 1 - 74 WC 24 12 1

0.5+0.5 1

W 0 - 66 WC 24 12 1

RET

N 3 - 80 LR 90 1 1

S 1 - 74

WC 24 6 1

LR 90 6 1

E 3 - 214 WC 17 1 1

W 0 - 66 WC 24 12 1

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 38 90000 < 1 22 9000 < 1

0.1 79 90000 < 1 50 9000 < 1

0.5 27 90000 < 1 14 9000 < 1

0.1 94 90000 < 1 56 9000 < 1

0.75 7 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 14 90000 < 1 7 9000 < 1

0.35 38 90000 < 1 19 9000 < 1

0.1 94 90000 < 1 56 9000 < 1

0.3 3 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 3 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.5 26 90000 < 1 7 9000 < 1

0.1 60 90000 < 1 30 9000 < 1

0.5 7 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 16 90000 < 1 8 9000 < 1

0.75 12 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 18 90000 < 1 7 9000 < 1

0.35 38 90000 < 1 19 9000 < 1

0.1 94 90000 < 1 56 9000 < 1

A11 - Electric air freshener 2 (liquid)d-Limonene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: VITO

HW

N 0 - 70 WC 24 6+6

E 8 - 493 WC 17

1

S 2 - 219 WC 24 12 1

0.5+0.5 1

W 1 - 88 WC 24 12 1

RET

N 0 - 70 LR 90 1 1

S 2 - 219

WC 24 6 1

LR 90 6 1

E 8 - 493 WC 17 1 1

W 1 - 88 WC 24 12 1


74

Table 7.36: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘electric air freshener 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; LR: Living Room 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean α-pinene background exposure: 15 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

7.1.12 Exposure scenario: ‘use of coating product’ (product class A12)

The outcome of microenvironmental modelling and risk characterisation related to d-limonene

emissions from the only product studied belonging to product class A12, i.e. the ‘textile coating

product’, is reported in Table 7.37.

Table 7.37: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘textile coating product’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; LR: Living room 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

7.1.13 Exposure scenario: ‘use of hair styling product’ (product class A13)

Regarding product class A13, one ‘hair styling product’ was analysed; the outcome related to its d-

limonene emissions is reported in Table 7.38.

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(h)

Number

(units)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 5 45000 < 1 3 4500 < 1

0.1 11 45000 < 1 7 4500 < 1

0.5 4 45000 < 1 2 4500 < 1

0.1 13 45000 < 1 8 4500 < 1

0.75 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.35 5 45000 < 1 3 4500 < 1

0.1 13 45000 < 1 8 4500 < 1

0.3 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.5 3 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 8 45000 < 1 4 4500 < 1

0.5 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 1 4500 < 1

0.75 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 1 4500 < 1

0.35 5 45000 < 1 3 4500 < 1

0.1 13 45000 < 1 8 4500 < 1

A11 - Electric air freshener 2 (liquid)a-Pinene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: VITO

HW

N 3 - 80 WC 24 6+6

E 3 - 214 WC 17

1

S 1 - 74 WC 24 12 1

0.5+0.5 1

W 0 - 66 WC 24 12 1

RET

N 3 - 80 LR 90 1 1

S 1 - 74

WC 24 6 1

LR 90 6 1

E 3 - 214 WC 17 1 1

W 0 - 66 WC 24 12 1

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(sec)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.5 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.3 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.75 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 < 1 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1


(min-max, µg/m3)

5

HW

N

A12 - Textile coating product (pressurized can)d-Limonene Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

lab: NRCWE

2 - 219

5

RET

N LR

5

90 5

E LR 64

LR 90

S LR 90

8 - 493

0 - 70

0 - 70


75

Table 7.38: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘hair styling product’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; W: West; E: East; WC: Bathroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

7.1.14 Exposure scenario: ‘use of deodorant spray’ (product class A14)

Regarding product class A14, among the two consumer products analysed, only ‘deodorant spray 1’

emitted certain ‘target’ pollutants (d-limonene and α-pinene). Results are reported in Tables 7.39-

7.40.

Table 7.39: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘deodorant spray 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

Table 7.40: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘deodorant spray 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean -pinene background exposure: 15 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(sec)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 4 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 4 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.5 3 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 4 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.35 4 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 4 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.3 4 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 4 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.75 5 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 5 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.35 4 90000 < 1 < 1 9000 < 1

0.1 4 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

A13 - Hair styling product (spray)d-Limonene Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

lab: VITO


(min-max, µg/m3)

5

WC

N WC 24 5

WC 24 5S

W WC 24

5

RET

WC 24 5

HW

WC 24

17 5

N

E

W

0 - 70

2 - 219

1 - 88

0 - 70

8 - 493

1 - 88

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(sec)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.75 67 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.1 79 90000 < 1 30 9000 < 1

0.35 52 90000 < 1 7 9000 < 1

0.1 56 90000 < 1 22 9000 < 1

0.75 67 90000 < 1 4 9000 < 1

0.1 79 90000 < 1 30 9000 < 1

0.35 52 90000 < 1 7 9000 < 1

0.1 56 90000 < 1 22 9000 < 11 - 88

8 - 493

1 - 88

8 - 493

A14 - Deodorant 1 (spray)d-Limonene Scenario parameters 30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

lab: VITO


(min-max, µg/m3)

HW

E WC 17 5

17 5

W WC 24

W WC 24

WC

5

5

RET

E

RoomVolume

(m3)

Time

(sec)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.75 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.35 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.75 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.35 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0 - 66

3 - 214


(min-max, µg/m3)

a-Pinene Scenario parameters

5

A14 - Deodorant 1 (spray)30-min max rolling average2 24-h mean

lab: VITO

5

HW

E WC 17

W

24

WC 24

0 - 66

3 - 214

5

RET

E WC 17 5

W WC


76

7.1.15 Exposure scenario: ‘use of perfume’ (product class A15)

Regarding product class A15, two consumer products were analysed. ‘Perfume 1’ was selected for an

inter-laboratory study (Stranger et al., 2013); the resulting highest modelled indoor air

concentrations of ‘target’ pollutants (formaldehyde, d-limonene, α-pinene) are reported in Tables

7.41-7.43, according to the strategy described under Section 6.4. The outcome related to d-limonene

and α-pinene emissions from ‘perfume 2’ is presented in Tables 7.44-7.45.

Table 7.41: Level 1 outcome related to formaldehyde emissions from ‘perfume 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean formaldehyde background exposure: 22 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6) 4 WHO 2010 guideline value used also for 24-h exposure (see Section 5.2.3) - should not be exceeded at any 30-min interval during the day

Table 7.42: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘perfume 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(pumps)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL4

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.5 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.3 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.75 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.35 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 100 < 1

0.1 1 100 1 < 1 100 < 1W 4 - 57 WC 24 3

3

E 11 - 41 WC 17 3

HW

N 11 - 45 WC

RET

N 11 - 45 WC 24

E 11 - 41 WC 17 3

W 4 - 57 BR 45 3

24 3

S 7 - 52 WC 24 3

FormaldehydeBackground exposure1

(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: IDMEC

A15 - Perfume 1 (spray - pump)

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(pumps)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 15 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 16 90000 < 1 6 9000 < 1

0.5 14 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 16 90000 < 1 6 9000 < 1

0.75 19 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 22 90000 < 1 9 9000 < 1

0.35 8 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 8 90000 < 1 3 9000 < 1

0.3 15 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 16 90000 < 1 6 9000 < 1

0.75 19 90000 < 1 1 9000 < 1

0.1 22 90000 < 1 9 9000 < 1

0.35 15 90000 < 1 2 9000 < 1

0.1 16 90000 < 1 6 9000 < 1W 1 - 88 WC 24 3

3

E 8 - 493 WC 17 3

HW

N 0 - 70 WC

RET

N 0 - 70 WC 24

E 8 - 493 WC 17 3

W 1 - 88 BR 45 3

24 3

S 2 - 219 WC 24 3

A15 - Perfume 1 (spray - pump)d-Limonene


(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: VITO


77

Table 7.43: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘perfume 1’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean α -pinene background exposure: 15 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

Table 7.44: Level 1 outcome related to d-limonene emissions from ‘perfume 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean d-limonene background exposure: 29 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(pumps)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.5 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.75 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.35 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.3 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.75 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.35 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 < 1 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1W 0 - 66 WC 24 3

3

E 3 - 214 WC 17 3

HW

N 3 - 80 WC

RET

N 3 - 80 WC 24

E 3 - 214 WC 17 3

W 0 - 66 BR 45 3

24 3

S 1 - 74 WC 24 3

a-PineneBackground exposure1

(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: IDMEC


RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(pumps)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 82 90000 < 1 12 9000 < 1

0.1 86 90000 < 1 33 9000 < 1

0.5 78 90000 < 1 7 9000 < 1

0.1 86 90000 < 1 33 9000 < 1

0.75 105 90000 < 1 7 9000 < 1

0.1 122 90000 < 1 47 9000 < 1

0.35 43 90000 < 1 6 9000 < 1

0.1 46 90000 < 1 18 9000 < 1

0.3 82 90000 < 1 12 9000 < 1

0.1 86 90000 < 1 33 9000 < 1

0.75 105 90000 < 1 7 9000 < 1

0.1 122 90000 < 1 47 9000 < 1

0.35 81 90000 < 1 11 9000 < 1

0.1 86 90000 < 1 33 9000 < 1W 1 - 88 WC 24 3

3

E 8 - 493 WC 17 3

HW

N 0 - 70 WC

RET

N 0 - 70 WC 24

E 8 - 493 WC 17 3

W 1 - 88 BR 45 3

24 3

S 2 - 219 WC 24 3

d-LimoneneBackground exposure1

(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: NRCWE



78

Table 7.45: Level 1 outcome related to α-pinene emissions from ‘perfume 2’.

HW: Housewives; RET: Retired people; N: North; S: South; E: East; W: West; WC: Bathroom; BR: Bedroom 1 EU AIRMEX project (Kotzias et al., 2009); EU mean α-pinene background exposure: 15 µg/m3 (AIRMEX - Geiss et al., 2011) 2 Maximum value of average indoor air concentrations over 30 minutes (1-30, 2-31 min etc.) during the day 3 Critical Exposure Limit (see Section 5.6)

RoomVolume

(m3)

Number

(pumps)

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL3

(µg/m3)% CEL

Concentration

(µg/m3)

CEL

(µg/m3)% CEL

0.3 3 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 3 45000 < 1 1 4500 < 1

0.5 3 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 3 45000 < 1 1 4500 < 1

0.75 4 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 5 45000 < 1 2 4500 < 1

0.35 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 2 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.3 3 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 3 45000 < 1 1 4500 < 1

0.75 4 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 5 45000 < 1 2 4500 < 1

0.35 3 45000 < 1 < 1 4500 < 1

0.1 3 45000 < 1 1 4500 < 1W 0 - 66 WC 24 3

3

E 3 - 214 WC 17 3

HW

N 3 - 80 WC

RET

N 3 - 80 WC 24

E 3 - 214 WC 17 3

W 0 - 66 BR 45 3

24 3

S 1 - 74 WC 24 3

a-PineneBackground exposure1

(min-max, µg/m3)


lab: NRCWE



79

7.2 Comparison with BAMA modelling

The results from the CONC-CPM model for instantaneous releases have been compared with the

results from the BAMA/FEA model for sprays. Several simulations were made concerning

instantaneous emissions from sprays. The results which were generated from the BAMA and CONC-

CPM modelling applications are identical in the case of instantaneous releases. For illustrative

purposes, the results from one simulation are presented below.

The scenario for the simulation refers to the use of ‘A5 bathroom cleaning agent (spray)’, using the

data from the NRCWE chamber testing. According to the developed scenarios, this product is used in

the bathroom by the population group of HW-N, who applies three pumps on two bathroom surfaces

(6 pumps in total).

The BAMA/FEA model requires as input the percentage of the ingredient. In order to parameterise

the model to simulate the emissions of d-limonene, it is assumed that 100 % of limonene is emitted

instantaneously (i.e. in 1 s) with a discharge rate equal to the emission rate that corresponds to the

specific scenario. The input parameters for the BAMA/FEA modelling are presented in Table 7.46.

Table 7.46: Input parameters for BAMA/FEA modelling.

BAMA Input Data

Room Volume (Litres) 24000

Air Changes per Hour 0.3

Percent Ingredient (%) 100

Discharge Rate (gm/sec) 5.54E-05

Duration of Spray (sec) 1

The results from BAMA modelling are presented in Table 7.47.

Table 7.47: Results from BAMA modelling.

BAMA Results

24hr TWA mg/m3

Multiple Use 0.0003208

Figures 7.1 and 7.2 illustrate the results from CONC-CPM and BAMA modelling, which are identical.


80

Figure 7.1: Results from CONC-CPM and BAMA modelling related to d-limonene emissions from ‘A5 bathroom cleaning agent’ for the population group of HW-N.

Figure 7.2: Results from CONC-CPM and BAMA modelling related to d-limonene emissions from ‘A5 bathroom cleaning agent’ for the population group of HW-N.


81

7.3 Discussion

Regarding single product use, main results can be primarily evaluated per ‘target’ pollutant. The

highest estimated indoor air concentrations per compound reported for Level 1 simulations are

summarised below, both in the case that literature ventilation rates (referred to as ‘normal

ventilation conditions’) were used for their derivation (see Section 6.3.4), as well as in the case of 0.1

ach ventilation rate. It should be stressed that these values do not take into account contributions

from other sources.

(i) For short-term exposure (30-min), the maximum results, expressed as % of the corresponding

Critical Exposure Limit (CEL) value used for the purposes of EPHECT (see Chapter 5), are the

following:

acrolein emitted from ‘A8 candle 1’ reached about 4 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation

conditions, and 8 % of the CEL value in case of 0.1 ach;

formaldehyde emitted from ‘A3 floor cleaning agent 1’ reached about 82 % of the CEL value,

under normal ventilation conditions, and 96 % of the CEL value in case of 0.1 ach;

d-limonene emitted from ‘A2 kitchen cleaning agent 1’ reached about 2 % of the CEL value, under

normal ventilation conditions, and 2 % of the CEL value in case of 0.1 ach;

α-pinene emitted from ‘A3 floor cleaning agent 2’ reached about 0.04 % of the CEL value, under

normal ventilation conditions, and 0.04 % of the CEL value in case of 0.1 ach;

benzene emitted from ‘A8 candle 1’ reached indoor air concentration of 0.9 µg/m3, under normal

ventilation conditions, and 2 µg/m3 in case of 0.1 ach.

(ii) For long-term exposure (24-h), the maximum results, expressed as % of the corresponding CEL

value, are the following:

acrolein emitted from ‘A8 candle 1’ reached about 2 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation

conditions, and 8 % of the CEL value in case of 0.1 ach;

formaldehyde emitted from ‘A3 floor cleaning agent 1’ reached about 8 % of the CEL value, under

normal ventilation conditions and 37 % of the CEL value in case of 0.1 ach;

naphthalene emitted from ‘A6 furniture polish 2’ reached about 15 % of the CEL value, under


d-limonene emitted from ‘A2 kitchen cleaning agent 1’ reached about 2 % of the CEL value, under


α-pinene emitted from ‘A10 passive air freshener 2’ reached about 0.2 % of the CEL value, under

normal ventilation conditions, and 0.8 % of the CEL value in case of 0.1 ach;

benzene emitted from ‘A8 candle 1’ reached indoor air concentration 0.2 µg/m3, under normal

ventilation conditions, and 0.8 µg/m3 in case of 0.1 ach.


82

Main results can also be evaluated per consumer product class. The cases where Level 1 results

exceeded 1 % of the corresponding CEL value are listed below:

A2 kitchen cleaning agent:

For acute exposure, ‘A2 kitchen cleaning agent 1’ emitted d-limonene in concentrations (1715 µg/m3)

that reached about 2 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions, and 2 % of the CEL

value in case of 0.1 ach ventilation rate.

For long-term exposure, ‘A2 kitchen cleaning agent 1’ emitted d-limonene in concentrations (142

µg/m3) that reached about 2 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions, and 9 % of the

CEL value in case of 0.1 ach ventilation rate.

A3 floor cleaning agent:

For acute exposure, ‘A3 floor cleaning agent 1’ emitted formaldehyde in concentrations (82 µg/m3)


value in case of 0.1 ach ventilation rate. Additionally, formaldehyde concentrations (20 µg/m3) from

‘A3 floor cleaning agent 2’ reached about 20 % of the CEL value, both under normal ventilation

conditions and in case of 0.1 ach ventilation rate.

For long-term exposure, ‘A3 floor cleaning agent 1’ emitted formaldehyde in concentrations (8

µg/m3) that reached about 8 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions, and 37 % of the

CEL value in case of 0.1 ach ventilation rate. Additionally, formaldehyde concentrations (3 µg/m3)

from ‘A3 floor cleaning agent 2’ reached about 3 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation

conditions, and 8 % of the CEL value in case of 0.1 ach ventilation rate.

A6 furniture polish:

For long-term exposure, ‘A6 furniture polish 2’ emitted naphthalene in concentrations (1 µg/m3) that

reached about 15 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions, and 40 % of the CEL value

in case of 0.1 ach ventilation rate.

A8 combustible air fresheners:

For acute exposure, ‘A8 candle 1’ and ‘A8 candle 2’ emitted formaldehyde in concentrations (10

µg/m3 / 9 µg/m3) that reached about 10 % and 9 % of the CEL value, respectively, under normal

ventilation conditions, and 20 % and 18 % of the CEL value, respectively, in case of 0.1 ach ventilation

rate. Additionally, acrolein concentrations (0.9 µg/m3) from ‘A8 candle 1’ reached about 4 % of the

CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions, and 8 % of the CEL value in case of 0.1 ach ventilation

rate.

For long-term exposure, ‘A8 candle 1’ and ‘A8 candle 2’ emitted formaldehyde in concentrations (2

µg/m3) that reached about 2 % of the CEL value, in both cases, under normal ventilation conditions,

and 9 % and 8 % of the CEL value, respectively, in case of 0.1 ach ventilation rate. In addition,

acrolein concentrations (0.2 µg/m3) from ‘A8 candle 1’ reached about 2 of the % CEL value, under

normal ventilation conditions, and 8 % of the CEL value in case of 0.1 ach ventilation rate.


83

A11 electric air freshener:

For acute exposure, ‘A11 electric air freshener 1’ emitted formaldehyde in concentrations (17 µg/m3)


value in case of 0.1 ach ventilation rate.

For long-term exposure, formaldehyde emissions from ‘A11 electric air freshener 1’ resulted in

concentrations (9 µg/m3) that reached about 9 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation

conditions, and 24 % of the CEL value in case of 0.1 ach ventilation rate.

Following a comparison of the estimated microenvironmental concentrations with the background

levels of exposure reported in the AIRMEX study (Kotzias et al., 2009; Geiss et al., 2011; JRC, 2013)

and considering the limitations stated in Section 6.5, emissions of benzene and α-pinene were not

considered to contribute significantly to the background levels, in contrast to some cases of

formaldehyde and d-limonene emissions. The maximum estimated benzene concentration level

reported for the population group RET-S (0.9 µg/m3 – A8 candle 1) was lower than the corresponding

range of typical background exposure levels of 2 – 32 µg/m3 (see Table 7.5) and lower than the mean

benzene background exposure of 3 µg/m3 reported in the E.U. For α-pinene, the maximum estimated

concentration level reported for the population group RET-N (18 µg/m3 – A3 floor cleaning agent 2)

was in the range of typical background exposure levels of 3 – 80 µg/m3 in Northern Europe (see Table

7.38) and similar to the mean α-pinene EU background exposure of 15 µg/m3. As far as formaldehyde

emissions are concerned, the maximum estimated concentration (82 µg/m3 - A3 floor cleaning agent

1) reported in the case of HW-E and RET-E (see Table 7.35) was higher both than the range of typical

background concentrations for Eastern Europe (11 – 41 µg/m3) and the mean formaldehyde EU

background exposure level (22 µg/m3). For d-limonene, for the population group RET-E, the

maximum estimated concentration level (1715 µg/m3 – A2 kitchen cleaning agent 1) was higher than

the corresponding range of typical background exposure levels of 8 – 493 µg/m3 (see Table 7.33) and

higher than the mean background exposure level of 29 µg/m3 reported in the EU.

Overall, for each of the five ‘target’ pollutants emitted from the selected consumer products tested,

the estimated worst-case indoor air concentration in each microenvironment, resulting from the

most representative conditions of single product use in Europe, was lower than the corresponding

limit of exposure, both in the case of acute (30-min) and long-term (24-h) exposure, in all cases.

However, elevated microenvironmental concentrations of ‘target’ pollutants were reported in some

cases (e.g. formaldehyde emissions from A3 floor cleaning agents, A11 electric air fresheners and A8

candles), as summarised above. Such estimated significant values should be evaluated with caution,

as these may also be attributed to the exposure scenario parameters used in the

microenvironmental modelling, following a ‘most-representative worst-case scenario’ approach (e.g.

use of 2 caps of a liquid product in the exposure scenario according to people’s preference in line

with the EPHECT WP5 Household study (Johnson and Lucica, 2012), whereas the product’s package

indications may refer to the use of 1 cap, only).

Although the elevated concentrations reported did not exceed the limits of exposure in the case of

single product use, concern may be raised as far as aggregated exposure to each ‘target’ compound

is concerned, following a combined use of consumer products. Therefore, exposure assessment and


84

subsequent risk characterisation were performed, considering population activity profiles and

multiple product use across various home microenvironments in the course of the day (Level 2

simulations - see Chapter 8).

Chapter 8 LEVEL 2: Exposure assessment and risk characterisation related to aggregated use of consumer products

85

CHAPTER 8 LEVEL 2: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT AND RISK CHARACTERISATION RELATED TO AGGREGATED USE OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Following the methodology of exposure assessment presented in Chapter 6, in Level 2 simulations

the concentrations of the ‘target’ pollutants have been calculated in each microenvironment (ME) as

result of the use of several consumer products by the population groups of Housewives (HW) and

Retired people (RET) within each ME during the day.

The 24-h mean and the max 30-min rolling average have been calculated both for the

microenvironmental concentrations as well as for the exposure of each population group moving

across the domestic MEs during the day. The results are presented in Tables 8.1 - 8.4 for HW and in

Tables 8.5 – 8.8 for RET, for each geographical area in Europe.

Furthermore, Figures 8.1 - 8.19 for HW and Figures 8.20 - 8.36 for RET illustrate the diurnal variation

of both the concentrations of the target pollutants in each ME, as well as the exposure of each

population group to these pollutants, while moving across those MEs during the day. The notes

below each Figure indicate the use of consumer products that emit the specific pollutants within

each ME. Finally, Tables 8.9 - 8.10 present the comparison of the short-term (30-min) and long-term

(24-h) exposure estimates against the Critical Exposure Limit (CEL) values used for the purposes of

EPHECT (see Chapter 5).

The main results from the aggregated exposure assessment per population group and compound

may be summarised as follows:

(i) The maximum results for the short-term exposure (30-min), expressed as % of the corresponding

CEL value, are as follows:

acrolein: 4 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions and 6 % of the CEL value in

case of 0.1 ach, for HW-W and HW-E;

formaldehyde: 34 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions and 59 % of the CEL

value in case of 0.1 ach, for HW-E;

d-limonene: 1 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions and 2 % of the CEL value in

case of 0.1 ach, for RET-E;

α-pinene: 0.02 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions and 0.06 % of the CEL

value in case of 0.1 ach, for RET-N;

benzene: max exposure of 0.9 µg/m3, under normal ventilation conditions and of 2 µg/m3 in case

of 0.1 ach, for HW-E.


86

(ii) The max results for the long-term exposure (24-h), expressed as % of the corresponding CEL

value, are as follows:

acrolein: 1 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions and 1 % of the CEL value in

case of 0.1 ach, for HW-W and HW-E;

formaldehyde: 3 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions and 11 % of the CEL

value in case of 0.1 ach, for HW-E;

naphthalene: 4 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions and 8 % of the CEL value

in case of 0.1 ach, for RET-N;

d-limonene: 1 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions and 2 % of the CEL value in

case of 0.1 ach, for RET-E;

α-pinene: 0.02 % of the CEL value, under normal ventilation conditions and 0.05 % of the CEL

value in case of 0.1 ach, for RET-N;

benzene: 0.1 µg/m3 max exposure, under normal ventilation conditions and 0.1 µg/m3 in case of

0.1 ach, for HW-E.

The results show that the 24-h mean exposures to pollutants emitted from consumer products in the

domestic environment are well below the CEL values, across all the population groups and pollutants,

even in the case that a very low ventilation rate (0.1 ach) is assumed. The max 30-min exposures are

also below the CEL values, however they may represent a significant fraction under low ventilation

conditions. As an example, we can refer to the short term exposure of HW-E to formaldehyde (up to

60 % in case of 0.1 ach).

Although there is no consistency for maximum exposure to all the pollutants by only one population

group, the group of HW-E appears to experience the highest exposures to acrolein, formaldehyde

and benzene, followed by the group of RET-N, who experiences the highest exposures to

naphthalene and α-pinene. However, high exposure may be attributed to the scenarios that indicate

the largest quantities for the product use, according to the ‘most-representative worst-case scenario’

strategy followed for the exposure and health risk assessment within EPHECT.

At this point, the limitations of the modelling approach need to be discussed.

The greatest limitation stems from the lack of representative daily activity profiles for the population

groups of HW and RET across Europe. The profiles developed for the current assessment are based

on data from Belgium. Any variation to these profiles may lead to variation in exposure estimates,

especially for the population groups in South Europe (spending more time outdoors) compared to

those in Northern Europe (spending more time indoors). Research is needed to define more

accurately the daily activity profiles of population groups in EU, and provide subsequently more

precise exposure estimates.

The presence of ‘undefined times’ (2.25 h for HW and 2 h for RET) in the daily activity profiles (see

Table 6.6), as well as the absence of the population groups from the home environment (being in

other indoor MEs, outdoors or travelling), may lead to their absence from a room at the time of the


87

peak concentration. Thus, the exposure to the maximum concentration may be missed. This may be

avoided, as much as possible, assuming that the source is on at the beginning of the time that the

groups are in this ME. Furthermore, it always depends on how long the pollutant concentration takes

to build up (i.e. the emission profile of the pollutant). So, for instance, in the case of bathroom,

where the highest concentrations are always simulated due to its smaller volume, since both

population groups are supposed to be there only 1h per day, at various times, their exposure is

practically minimised.

Finally, another issue is the lack of dispersion of the pollutants among the various indoor MEs, which

may lead to elevated concentrations in adjacent MEs. The CONC-CPM model simulates the

concentrations of each pollutant in each ME separately, implying that the MEs are isolated from each

other. In this way, it does not allow for the dispersion of the pollutants from one ME to the other.

This can only be overcome with indoor models that allow the movement of air between indoor MEs,

such as the MIAQ-UOWM model (Level 3 simulations – see Chapter 9).

Despite the above limitations, we need to emphasise the added value of providing for the first time

ever exposure estimates and health risk assessment simultaneously for eight population groups

across Europe exposed to five priority respiratory health-relevant pollutants, as a result of using

fifteen consumer products in the home environment.


88

Table 8.1: Level 2 outcome – Housewives - North: ME concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3).

Population Group: HW-N

Pollutant Microenvironment Product used 24-h mean Conc (0.5 ach)

Max 30-min Conc (0.5 ach)

24-h mean Conc (0.1 ach)


formaldehyde Bathroom A1(2), A11(1), A15(1) 10 33 19 60

Kitchen A1(2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 16 1 28

d-limonene Bathroom A4, A5, A9(1), A11(1), A13, A15(1) 9 21 18 34

A4, A5, A9(2), A11(1), A13, A15(1) 9 21 18 33

A4, A5, A9(1), A11(1), A13, A15(2) 19 89 42 93

A4, A5, A9(2), A11(1), A13, A15(2) 19 89 42 93

A4, A5, A9(1), A11(2), A13, A15(1) 28 76 54 143

A4, A5, A9(2), A11(2), A13, A15(1) 28 76 53 143

A4, A5, A9(1), A11(2), A13, A15(2) 38 101 78 157

A4, A5, A9(2), A11(2), A13, A15(2) 38 101 78 157

Living Room A4, A12 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Kitchen A4 < 1 2 2 4

Bedroom A4 < 1 < 1 1 2

Exposure 3 39 5 74

α-pinene Bathroom Α11(1), Α15(1) 2 8 5 14

Α11(1), Α15(2) 3 8 6 15

Α11(2), Α15(1) 3 10 6 19

Α11(2), Α15(2) 4 10 7 19

Exposure < 1 5 < 1 9

naphthalene Living Room A6 < 1 3 1 3

Bedroom A6 1 5 3 5



89

Table 8.2: Level 2 outcome – Housewives - West: ME concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3).

Population Group: HW-W





formaldehyde Bathroom A1(2), A2(1), A3(1), A7, A11(1), A15(1) 17 78 43 89

A1(2), A2(2), A3(1), A7, A11(1), A15(1) 17 78 43 89

Living Room A1(2), A3(1), A6(1), A7, A8(1) 4 17 8 25

A1(2), A3(1), A6(1), A7, A8(2) 4 17 8 18

Kitchen A1(2), A2(1), A3(1), A7 7 51 18 54

Bedroom A1(2), A3(1), A6(1), A7 5 34 13 36

Exposure 3 27 8 38

d-limonene Bathroom A2(1), A4, A5, A9(1), A11(1), A13, A14, A15(1) 149 1127 309 1235

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(2), A11(1), A13, A14, A15(1) 148 1122 308 1229

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(1), A11(1), A13, A14, A15(2) 157 1130 334 1263

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(2), A11(1), A13, A14, A15(2) 157 1125 333 1258

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(1), A11(2), A13, A14, A15(1) 164 1158 347 1307

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(2), A11(2), A13, A14, A15(1) 163 1153 346 1301

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(1), A11(2), A13, A14, A15(2) 173 1161 372 1336

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(2), A11(2), A13, A14, A15(2) 172 1156 370 1330

Living Room A4, A6(1), A7, A8(1), A10 9 30 18 54

A4, A6(1), A7, A8(2), A10 6 18 13 21

Kitchen A2(1), A4 111 879 257 934

Bedroom A4, A6(1), A7 4 30 12 32

Exposure 63 879 101 934

acrolein Living Room A8(1) < 1 < 1 < 1 1

A8(2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 < 1 < 1 1

α-pinene Bathroom A2(1), A11(1), A14, A15(1) 2 4 6 11

A2(1), A11(1), A14, A15(2) 3 6 7 12

A2(1), A11(2), A14, A15(1) 3 6 7 14

A2(1), A11(2), A14, A15(2) 3 7 8 15


90

Population Group: HW-W





Living Room A8(1), A10 2 5 5 12

A8(2), A10 2 5 5 12

Kitchen A2(1) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure 1 5 2 12

benzene Living Room A8(1) < 1 < 1 < 1 1

A8(2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 < 1 < 1 1


91

Table 8.3: Level 2 outcome – Housewives - South: ME concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3).

Population Group: HW-S





formaldehyde Bathroom A1(2), A2(1), A3(1), A11(1), A15(1) 12 73 43 89

A1(2), A2(2), A3(1), A11(1), A15(1) 12 73 43 89

A1(1), A2(1), A3(1), A11(1), A15(1) 12 73 42 89

A1(1), A2(2), A3(1), A11(1), A15(1) 12 73 42 89

Living Room A1(2), A3(1), A6(1), A8(1) 2 17 7 18

A1(1), A3(1), A6(1), A8(1) 2 17 7 18

A1(2), A3(1), A6(1), A8(2) 2 17 7 18

A1(1), A3(1), A6(1), A8(2) 2 17 7 18

Kitchen A1(2), A2(1), A3(1) 5 50 18 55

A1(2), A2(2), A3(1) 5 50 18 55

A1(1), A2(1), A3(1) 5 49 18 54

A1(1), A2(2), A3(1) 5 49 18 54

Bedroom A1(2), A3(1), A6(1) 3 33 13 36

A1(1), A3(1), A6(1) 3 33 12 36

Exposure 2 26 8 50

d-limonene Bathroom A1(1), A2(1), A4, A9(1), A11(1), A13, A15(1) 55 553 155 628

A1(1), A2(1), A4, A9(2), A11(1), A13, A15(1) 54 548 153 622

A1(1), A2(1), A4, A9(1), A11(1), A13, A15(2) 61 554 179 656

A1(1), A2(1), A4, A9(2), A11(1), A13, A15(2) 61 548.7 178 650

A1(1), A2(1), A4, A9(1), A11(2), A13, A15(1) 66 575 192 693

A1(1), A2(1), A4, A9(2), A11(2), A13, A15(1) 66 570 191 689

A1(1), A2(1), A4, A9(1), A11(2), A13, A15(2) 72 576 217 722

A1(1), A2(1), A4, A9(2), A11(2), A13, A15(2) 72 571 216 718

Living Room A1(1), A4, A6(1), A8(1), A10, A12 4 17 13.9 26

A1(1), A4, A6(1), A8(2), A10, A12 4 17 13 20

Kitchen A1(1), A2(1), A4 40 425 128 467

Bedroom A1(1), A4, A6(1) 3 29 11 32


92

Population Group: HW-S





Exposure 27 425 54 467

acrolein Living Room

A8(1) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

A8(2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

α-pinene Bathroom Α2(1), Α11(1), Α15(1) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Α2(1), Α11(1), Α15(2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Α2(1), Α11(2), Α15(1) 2 4 6 13

Α2(1), Α11(2), Α15(2) 2 5 8 14

Living Room

Α8(1), Α10 2 3 5 10

Α8(2), Α10 2 3 5 10

Kitchen Α2(1) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 3 2 10

benzene Living Room A8(1) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

A8(2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1


93

Table 8.4: Level 2 outcome – Housewives - East: ME Concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3).

Population Group: HW-E





formaldehyde

Bathroom A1, A2, A3, A11, A15 6 85 33 106

Living Room A1, A3, A6, A8 (1) 3 22 10 34

A1, A3, A6, A8 (2) 3 22 10 32

Kitchen A1, A2, A3 5 67 21 79

Bedroom A1, A3, A6 3 45 14 53

Exposure 3 34 11 59

d-limonene Bathroom Α2, Α4, Α5, Α9 (1), Α10, Α11(1), Α14, Α15 (1) 105 1427 578 1732

Α2, Α4, Α5, Α9 (2), Α10, Α11(1), Α14, Α15 (1) 105 1426 577 1730

Α2, Α4, Α5, Α9 (1), Α10, Α11(1), Α14, Α15 (2) 110 1436 613 1806

Α2, Α4, Α5, Α9 (2), Α10, Α11(1), Α14, Α15 (2) 110 1435 612 1804

Α2, Α4, Α5, Α9 (1), Α10, Α11(2), Α14, Α15 (1) 108 1439 596 1765

Α2, Α4, Α5, Α9 (2), Α10, Α11(2), Α14, Α15 (1) 108 1439 594 1763

Α2, Α4, Α5, Α9 (1), Α10, Α11(2), Α14, Α15 (2) 113 1448 630 1839

Α2, Α4, Α5, Α9 (2), Α10, Α11(2), Α14, Α15 (2) 113 1448 629 1837

Living Room Α4, Α6, Α8 (1) 5 32 20 59

Α4, Α6, Α8 (2) 2 32 13 38

Kitchen A2, A4 77 1144 434 1331

Bedroom A4, A6 5 65 26 75

Exposure 27 919 116 105

acrolein Living Room

A8 (1) < 1 < 1 1 2

A8 (2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 < 1 < 1 2

α-pinene Bathroom A10 or A11(1), A2, A14, A15 (1) 4 12 19 39

A10 or A11(1), A2, A14, A15 (2) 4 9 17 38

A10 or A11(2), A2, A14, A15 (1) 4 12 19 40

A10 or A11(2), A2, A14, A15 (2) 4 9 18 39

Living Room A8 (1) 1 2 3 4


94

Population Group: HW-E





A8 (2) < 1 1 2 3

Kitchen A2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 5 1 18

benzene Living Room A8 (1) < 1 < 1 1 2

A8 (2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 < 1 < 1 2


95

Table 8.5: Level 2 outcome – Retired - North: ME Concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3).

Population Group: RET-N






Living Room A1(2), A3(2), A11(1) 1 6 2 7

Kitchen A1(2), A3(2) 2 16 6 16

Bedroom A1(2), A3(2) 2 11 4 11

Exposure < 1 6 2 12

d-limonene Bathroom A3(2), A4, A5, A9(1), A10, A13, A15(1) 22 71 50 91

A3(2), A4, A5, A9(2), A10, A13, A15(1) 21 68 48 86

A3(2), A4, A5, A9(1), A10, A13, A15(2) 32 110 75 147

A3(2), A4, A5, A9(2), A10, A13, A15(2) 31 104 73 142

Living Room A3(2), A4, A11(1), A12 2 10 4 10

A3(2), A4, A11(2), A12 2 11 5 13

Kitchen A3(2), A4 5 28 10 30

Bedroom A3(2), A4 3 19 7 20

Exposure 3 45 7 65

α-pinene Bathroom A3(2), Α10, A15(1) 10 30 23 41

A3(2), Α10, A15(2) 10 29 22 40

Living Room A3(2), Α11(2) < 1 5 2 6

Kitchen A3(2) 4 15 9 16

Bedroom A3(2) 3 10 6 10

Exposure < 1 10 2 13

naphthalene Living Room A6(2) 1 3 3 5

Bedroom A6(2) 2 8 6 9



96

Table 8.6: Level 2 outcome – Retired - West: ME Concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3).

Population Group: RET-W





formaldehyde Bathroom A1(2), A3(1), A11(1), A15(1) 15 64 35 68

A2(1), A3(1), A11(1), A15(1) 14.9 64 35 68

Living Room A1(2), A3(1), A6(1) 2 17 6 18

Kitchen A1(2), A2(1), A3(1) 7 51 18 54

Bedroom A1(2), A3(1), A6(1) 5 34 12 37

Exposure 2 15 7 39

d-limonene Bathroom A2(1), A4, A5, A10, A11(1), A13, A14, A15(1) 96 596 253 664

A2(1), A4, A5, A10, A11(1), A13, A14, A15(2) 105 628 277 721

A2(1), A4, A5, A10, A11(2), A13, A14, A15(1) 108 625 276 705

A2(1), A4, A5, A10, A11(2), A13, A14, A15(2) 117 657 301 762

Living Room A4, A6(1) 2 15 6 16

Kitchen A2(1), A4, A9(1) 59 447 157 479

A2(1), A4, A9(2) 58 444 156 475

Bedroom A4, A6(1) 4 30 12 32

Exposure 20 357 45 401

α-pinene Bathroom A2(1), A10, A11(2), A14, A15(1) 11 18 24 51

A2(1), A10, A11(2), A14, A15(2) 10 18 23 50

Kitchen A2(1) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 9 1 25


97

Table 8.7: Level 2 outcome – Retired - South: ME Concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3).

Population Group: RET-S






A1(1), A3(1), A11(1) 8.7 64 35 86

Living Room A1(2), A3(1), A6(1), A11(1) 2 17 7 18

A1(1), A3(1), A6(1), A11(1) 2 17 7 18

Kitchen A1(1) or A1(2), A2(1) or A2(2), A3(1), A8(1) or A8(2)

6

50 21

54

Bedroom A1(2), A3(1), A6(1) 3 33 12 37

A1(1), A3(1), A6(1) 3 33 12 37

Exposure 2 16 7 39

d-limonene Bathroom A1(1), A4, A5, A11(1) 2 5 8 12

A1(1), A4, A5, A11(2) 8 26 32 60

Living Room A1(1), A4, A6(1), A9(1), A11(1) 2 19 8 21

A1(1), A4, A6(1), A9(2), A11(1) 2 18 8 20

A1(1), A4, A6(1), A9(1), A11(2) 4 19 12 24

A1(1), A4, A6(1), A9(2), A11(2) 4 18 11 23

Kitchen A1(1), A2(1), A4, A8(1) 83 848 309 931

A1(1), A2(1), A4, A8(2) 80 848 303 931

Bedroom A1(1), A4, A6(1) 3 29 11 32

Exposure 16 374 58 645

acrolein Kitchen A8(1) < 1 < 1 1 1

A8(2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

α-pinene Bathroom Α11(1) < 1 3 3 6

Α11(2) < 1 4 4 8

Living Room Α11(1) < 1 < 1 1 2

Α11(2) < 1 < 1 2 2

Kitchen Α2(1), A8(1) < 1 2 < 1 3


98

Population Group: RET-S





Α2(1), A8(2) < 1 1 < 1 2


benzene Kitchen A8(1) < 1 < 1 1 1

A8(2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1


99

Table 8.8: Level 2 outcome – Retired - East: ME Concentrations and exposure estimates (µg/m3).

Population Group: RET-E





formaldehyde Bathroom A1(2), A3(1), A11(1), A15(1) 6 83 35 97

A2(1), A3(1), A11(1), A15(1) 6 83 34 97

Living Room A1(2), A3(1), A6(1) 2 22 9 26

Kitchen A1(2), A2(1), A3(1) 5 67 26 78

A1(2), A2(2), A3(1) 5 67 27 78

Bedroom A1(2), A3(1), A6(1), A8(1) 3 44 18 52

A1(2), A3(1), A6(1), A8(2) 3 44 18 52

Exposure 1 22 9 57

d-limonene Bathroom A2(1), A4, A5, A9(1), A10, A11(1), A13, A14, A15(1)

111 1444 623 1758

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(2), A10, A11(1), A13, A14, A15(1)

110 1444 623 1758

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(1), A10, A11(1), A13, A14, A15(2)

116 1462 658 1839

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(2), A10, A11(1), A13, A14, A15(2)

116 1462 657 1839

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(1), A10, A11(2), A13, A14, A15(1)

111 1444 627 1758

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(2), A10, A11(2), A13, A14, A15(1)

111 1444 626 1758

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(1), A10, A11(2), A13, A14, A15(2)

117 1462 661 1839

A2(1), A4, A5, A9(2), A10, A11(2), A13, A14, A15(2)

117 1462 661 1839

Living Room A4, A6(1), A12 2 32 13 38

Kitchen A2(1), A4 115 1716 648 1996

Bedroom A4, A6(1), A8(1) 5 33 26 69


100

Population Group: RET-E





A4, A6(1), A8(2) 5 33 26 69

Exposure 44 955 155 1375

acrolein Bedroom A8(1) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

A8(2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

α-pinene Bathroom A2(1), A10, A11(1), A14, A15(1) 6 11 28 55

A2(1), A10, A11(1), A14, A15(2) 6 10 27 54

A2(1), A10, A11(2), A14, A15(1) 6 11 28 55

A2(1), A10, A11(2), A14, A15(2) 6 10 27 54

Kitchen Α2(1) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Bedroom A8(1) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

A8(2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 5 2 27

benzene Bedroom A8(1) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

A8(2) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Exposure < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1


101

Housewives - North

Figure 8.1: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (HW-N).

Figure 8.2: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (HW-N).

Bathroom (bath): A11, A15, A1 / Kitchen(K): A1

Bathroom (bath): A11, A13, A15, A5, A4, A9 / Living room (LR): A12, A4 / Kitchen (K): A4, A1 / Bedroom (Bed): A4


102

Housewives - North

Figure 8.3: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (HW-N).

Figure 8.4: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to naphthalene (HW-N).

Bathroom (bath): A11, A15

Living room (LR): A6 / Bedroom (B): A6


103

Housewives - West

Figure 8.5: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (HW-W).

Figure 8.6: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (HW-W).

Figure 8.7: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to acrolein (HW-W).

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

0:0

0

2:0

0

4:0

0

6:0

0

8:0

0

10

:00

12

:00

14

:00

16

:00

18

:00

20

:00

22

:00C

on

cen

trat

ion

(μ

g/m

3)

HW-W_acrolein, 0.35ach

LR 24h expo

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

0:0

0

2:0

0

4:0

0

6:0

0

8:0

0

10

:00

12

:00

14

:00

16

:00

18

:00

20

:00

22

:00C

on

cen

trat

ion

(μ

g/m

3)

HW-W_acrolein, 0.1ach

LR 24h expo

Bathroom (bath): A11, A14, A13, A15, A5, A4, A9, A2 / Living room (LR): A10, A6, A4, A7, A8

Kitchen (K): A4, A2 / Bedroom (Bed): A6, A4, A7

Bathroom (bath): A11, A15, A1, A3, A2 / Living room (LR): A6, A1, A3, A7, A8

Kitchen (K): A1, A3, A2 / Bedroom (Bed): A6, A1, A3, A7

Living room (LR): A8


104

Housewives - West

Figure 8.8: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (HW-W).

Figure 8.9: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to benzene (HW-W).

Bathroom (bath): A11, A14, A15, A2 / Living room (LR): A10, A8 / Kitchen (K): A2



105

Housewives - South

Figure 8.10: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (HW-S).

Figure 8.11: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (HW-S).

Figure 8.12: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to acrolein (HW-S).

Bathroom (bath): A11, A13, A15, A1, A4, A9, A2 / Living room (LR): A10, A6, A12, A1, A4, A8

Kitchen (K): A1, A4, A2 / Bedroom (Bed): A6, A1, A4

Bathroom (bath): A11, A15, A1, A3, A2 / Living room (LR): A6, A1, A3, A8




106

Housewives – South

Figure 8.13: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (HW-S).

Figure 8.14: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to benzene (HW-S).

Bathroom (bath): A11, A15, A2 / Living room (LR): A10, A8 / Kitchen (K): A2



107

Housewives - East

Figure 8.15: Indoor concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (HW-E).

Figure 8.16: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (HW-E).

Figure 8.17: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to acrolein (HW-E).

Bathroom (bath): A11, A15, A2, A1, A3 / Living room (LR): A6, A1, A3, A8


Bathroom (bath): A10, A11, A9, A14, A15, A5, A4, A2 / Living room (LR): A6, A4, A8

Kitchen (K): A2, A4 / Bedroom (Bed): A6, A4



108

Housewives - East

Figure 8.18: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (HW-E).

Figure 8.19: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to benzene (HW-E).

Bathroom (bath): A10, A11, A14, A15, A2 / Living room (LR): A8 / Kitchen (K): A2



109

Retired - North

Figure 8.20: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (RET-N).

Figure 8.21: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (RET-N).

Bathroom (bath): A10, A5, A4, A3, A13, A15, A9 / Living room (LR): A11, A12, A4, A3


Bathroom (bath): A15, A1, A3 / Living room (LR): A11, A1, A3



110

Retired - North

Figure 8.22: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (RET-N).

Figure 8.23: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to naphthalene (RET-N).

0

10

20

30

40

0:0

0

2:0

0

4:0

0

6:0

0

8:0

0

10

:00

12

:00

14

:00

16

:00

18

:00

20

:00

22

:00Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

μg/

m3

)

RET-N_a-pinene, 0.3ach

bath LR K

Bed 24h expo

0

10

20

30

40

50

0:0

0

2:0

0

4:0

0

6:0

0

8:0

0

10

:00

12

:00

14

:00

16

:00

18

:00

20

:00

22

:00Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

μg/

m3

)

RET-N_a-pinene, 0.1ach

Bath LR K

Bed 24h expo

Living room (LR): A6 / Bedroom (B): A6

Bathroom (bath): A10, A3, A15 / Living room (LR): A3, A11

Kitchen (K): A3 / Bedroom (Bed): A3


111

Retired - West

Figure 8.24: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (RET-W).

Figure 8.25: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (RET-W).

Figure 8.26: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (RET-W).

Bathroom (bath): A11, A1, A2, A3, A15 / Living room (LR): A6, A1, A3


Bathroom (bath): A10, A11, A2, A5, A4, A14, A13, A15 / Living room (LR): A6, A4

Kitchen (K): A2, A4, A9 / Bedroom (Bed): A6, A4

Bathroom (bath): A10, A11, A2, A14, A15 / Kitchen (K): A2


112

Retired - South

Figure 8.27: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (RET-S).

Figure 8.28: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (RET-S).

Figure 8.29: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to acrolein (RET-S).

Bathroom (bath): A11, A1, A3 / Living room (LR): A6, A1, A3, A11

Kitchen (K): A1, A2, A3, A8 / Bedroom (Bed): A6, A1, A3

Bathroom (bath): A11, A1, A4, A5 / Living room (LR): A9, A6, A1, A4, A11

Kitchen (K): A1, A2, A4, A8 / Bedroom (Bed): A6, A1, A4

Kitchen (K): A8


113

Retired - South

Figure 8.30: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (RET-S).

Figure 8.31: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to benzene (RET-S).

Bathroom (bath): A11 / Living room (LR): A11 / Kitchen (K): A2, A8

Kitchen (K): A8


114

Retired - East

Figure 8.32: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to formaldehyde (RET-E).

Figure 8.33: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to d-limonene (RET-E).

Figure 8.34: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to acrolein (RET-E).

Bathroom (bath): A1, A2, A3, A15, 11 / Living room (LR): A6, A1, A3

Kitchen (K): A1, A2, A3 / Bedroom (Bed): A6, A1, A3, A8

Bathroom (bath): A10, A2, A4, A5, A14, A13, A15, A9 / Living room (LR): A6, A12, A4

Kitchen (K): A2, A4 / Bedroom (Bed): A6, A4, A8

Bedroom (B): A8


115

Retired - East

Figure 8.35: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to α-pinene (RET-E).

Figure 8.36: Indoor air concentrations and 24-h exposure to benzene (RET-E).

Bathroom (bath): A10, A2, A14, A15, A11 / Kitchen (K): A2 / Bedroom: A8

Bedroom (B): A8


116

Table 8.9: Level 2 outcome – Housewives: Comparison of 24-h mean and max 30-min exposure estimates with corresponding CEL values.

Population Group

Ventilation rate (ach)

Pollutant 24-h CEL (µg/m3)

30-min CEL (µg/m3)

24-h mean exposure (vent rate)

% CEL Max 30-min exposure (vent rate)

% CEL 24-h mean exposure (0.1 ach)

% CEL Max 30-min exposure (0.1 ach)

% CEL

HW-N 0.3 or 0.1 formaldehyde 100 100 < 1 < 1 16 16 1 1 28 28

d-limonene 9000 90000 3 < 1 39 < 1 5 < 1 74 < 1

α-pinene 4500 45000 < 1 < 1 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 9 < 1

naphthalene 10 < 1 2 4 < 1 4 4

HW-W 0.35 or 0.1 formaldehyde 100 100 3 3 27 27 8 8 38 38

d-limonene 9000 90000 63 < 1 879 < 1 101 1 934 1

acrolein 10 21 < 1 1 < 1 4 < 1 1 1 6

α-pinene 4500 45000 1 < 1 5 < 1 2 < 1 12 < 1

benzene < 1 < 1 < 1 1

HW-S 0.5 or 0.1 formaldehyde 100 100 2 2 26 26 8 8 50 50

d-limonene 9000 90000 27 < 1 425 < 1 54 < 1 467 < 1

acrolein 10 21 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

α-pinene 4500 45000 < 1 < 1 3 < 1 2 < 1 10 < 1

benzene < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

HW-E 0.75 or 0.1 formaldehyde 100 100 3 3 34 34 11 11 59 59

d-limonene 9000 90000 27 < 1 919 1 116 1 105 < 1

acrolein 10 21 < 1 1 < 1 4 < 1 1 1 6

α-pinene 4500 45000 < 1 < 1 5 < 1 1 < 1 18 < 1

benzene < 1 < 1 < 1 2


117

Table 8.10: Level 2 outcome – Retired: Comparison of 24-h mean and max 30-min exposure estimates with corresponding CEL values.

Population

Group

Ventilation

rate (ach)

Pollutant 24-h CEL

(µg/m3)

30-min CEL

(µg/m3)

24-h mean

exposure

(vent rate)

% CEL Max 30-min

exposure

(vent rate)

% CEL 24-h mean

exposure

(0.1 ach)

% CEL Max 30-min

exposure

(0.1 ach)

% CEL

RET-N 0.3 or 0.1 formaldehyde 100 100 < 1 < 1 6 6 2 2 12 12

d-limonene 9000 90000 3 < 1 45 < 1 7 < 1 65 < 1

α-pinene 4500 45000 < 1 < 1 10 < 1 2 < 1 13 < 1

naphthalene 10 < 1 4 8 < 1 8 8

RET-W 0.35 or 0.1 formaldehyde 100 100 2 2 15 15 7 7 39 39

d-limonene 9000 90000 20 < 1 357 < 1 45 < 1 401 < 1

α-pinene 4500 45000 < 1 < 1 9 < 1 1 < 1 25 < 1

RET-S 0.5 or 0.1 formaldehyde 100 100 2 2 16 16 7 7 39 39

d-limonene 9000 90000 16 < 1 374 < 1 58 < 1 645 < 1

acrolein 10 21 < 1 < 1 < 1 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 2

α-pinene 4500 45000 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 4 < 1

benzene < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

RET-E 0.75 or 0.1 formaldehyde 100 100 1 1 22 22 9 9 57 57

d-limonene 9000 90000 44 < 1 955 1 155 1.72 1375 2

acrolein 10 21 < 1 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1

α-pinene 4500 45000 < 1 < 1 5 < 1 2 < 1 27 < 1

benzene < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Chapter 9 LEVEL 3 – Sensitivity analysis

118

CHAPTER 9 LEVEL 3: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

As discussed in Chapter 6, the CONC-CPM modelling approach assumes that the microenvironments

(MEs) are isolated from each other. To investigate further the implication of this approach, the

indoor air chemical model MIAQ/UOWM (Missia et al., 2012a) was used. The aim was to investigate

the impact of internal dispersion between adjacent rooms in the domestic environment as well as

the impact of indoor air chemistry on the concentrations of the ‘target’ pollutants.

The MIAQ/UOWM model has a lumped chemical scheme. This means that a group of chemical

compounds is represented in the mechanism by one variable. In this way, a smaller set of equations

are needed to represent the dynamics of the chemical system. So, for the ‘target’ compounds,

formaldehyde is represented again by “formaldehyde” (HCHO), however limonene and α-pinene are

represented together by one ‘species’, which is “terpenes” (TERP) (meaning that their emissions are

grouped together), acrolein is represented by “higher aldehydes” (ALDX) and benzene is represented

by “toluene” (TOL).

The population group examined in this exercise is HW in the UK, due to the fact that there are

available data for the aggregated activity profile of this group in the UK (Dimitroulopoulou et al.,

2001), already employed in the exposure assessment of Level 2, as well as airtightness data to

parameterise the COMIS model for a UK dwelling (Orme et al., 1998; Orme and Leksmono, 2002).


119

9.1 MIAQ/UOWM parameterisation

The MIAQ/UOWM model was set up to simulate the concentrations of the ‘target’ pollutants in a UK

dwelling as represented in Figure 9.1. The input parameters are, among others, ventilation and

emission data.

Figure 9.1: Configuration of the typical UK dwelling used in the MIAQ/UOWM simulations.

Regarding ventilation, the input parameters for infiltration, exfiltration and internal airflows were

derived from ventilation modelling using the COMIS model (Sakellaris et al., 2012). The current

modelling approach assumes a wind of northern direction with a speed of 4 m/s. So, there is a

positive wind pressure on the building façade, where the bathroom is located.

The results from COMIS modelling provided a whole house ventilation rate of 0.3 ach, which verified

that the parameterisation of the COMIS model was appropriate for a UK dwelling. The same results

showed that for a northerly wind, the air was infiltrated inside the dwelling from the MEs of

Bathroom, Bedroom and Hall and exfiltrated from Living room and Kitchen. This may lead to the

accumulation of the pollutants in the latter MEs.

Regarding the emissions from consumer products, these were taken to be the same as for HW in

West Europe (HW-W). However, the emission rates had to be converted to cm3/min, which are the

units in MIAQ/UOWM. For this purpose, in the case of an instantaneous release, the total mass was

assumed to be emitted in 1 min.

In order to carry out a sensitivity analysis in terms of internal dispersion and indoor chemistry, the

MIAQ-UOWM model was set up to simulate the following scenarios:

1. Simulations with no indoor chemistry, assuming emissions only in one ME (Bathroom);

2. Simulations with indoor chemistry, assuming emissions only in one ME (Bathroom);

3. Simulations with no indoor chemistry, assuming emissions in all MEs, (according to HW-W);

4. Simulations with indoor chemistry, assuming emissions in all MEs, (according to HW-W).


120

9.2 Results and Discussion

1. Simulations with no indoor chemistry, assuming emissions only in one ME (Bathroom)

For the 1st scenario, the consumer products A11, A14, A13, A15, A5, A4, A3, A9, A2 were assumed to

be used in Bathroom only. In the absence of indoor chemistry and due to dispersion of the pollutants

indoors, the maximum concentrations both of “terpenes” (TERP) and “formaldehyde” (HCHO) in the

Bathroom are now much lower than those predicted by CONC-CPM, which assumes that this ME is

isolated from the others (Figures 9.2, 9.3). Furthermore, MIAQ/UOWM results show that the

concentrations of the target pollutants are increased in the other MEs, where there are no indoor

sources. As a result of the internal flows, the pollutants are accumulated in the MEs of Hall, Living

Room and Kitchen, as expected.

However, it is interesting that the sum of all the concentrations of HCHO and TERP in all MEs and in

every time-step generates a concentration profile similar to that produced from CONC-CPM for the

actual compounds, where the ME is assumed to be isolated from the others. The maximum

concentration is slightly lower, since the MIAQ/UOWM model generates averaged hourly outputs,

whereas CONC-CPM outputs per minute.

2. Simulations with indoor chemistry, assuming emissions only in one ME (Bathroom)

For the 2nd scenario, it was assumed again that emissions from consumer products occurred only in

the Bathroom. The concentrations of TERP and HCHO are presented on Figures 9.4 and 9.5, with or

without indoor chemistry. The effect of indoor dispersion can also be seen in the concentrations of

the pollutants. However, in the case of indoor chemistry, the new element is the reaction of terpenes

(TERP) with ozone. This has as a result the TERP peak and 24-h concentrations to be reduced

substantially, together with the ozone levels (data not shown here). Furthermore, when terpenes

(TERP) react with ozone, the formaldehyde concentrations are increased, since it is one of the final

products from this reaction.

3-4. Simulations with no indoor chemistry, assuming emissions in all MEs, (according to HW-W) and

with indoor chemistry, assuming emissions in all MEs, (according to HW-W)

Finally, for the 3rd and 4th scenarios, all the consumer products were assumed to be used in the home

environment, according to the scenario for the product use by HW West (see Table 8.2). The

concentrations of TERP and FORM are illustrated in Figures 9.6 and 9.7, whereas the concentrations

for all ‘target’ pollutants (as represented in the chemical scheme) are presented in Table 9.1.

Here, we need to clarify that, although the emissions of acrolein were initially allocated to “higher

aldehydes” (ALDX), the concentrations of this ‘species’ were increased since “higher aldehydes” are

products of reactions of terpenes with ozone, and not due to further emissions. Finally, benzene’s

(TOL) concentrations remain unchanged, since it does not react with ozone.

Apart from the above comments concerning the 1st and 2nd scenarios, which are also valid here, the

results show that although in Level 2, Bathroom was the ME with the highest concentrations of

formaldehyde and limonene (see Figures 8.5 - 8.6 and Table 9.1), in the current simulations, the ME

with the highest concentrations overall is Kitchen, where the pollutants seem to be finally

accumulated, as a result of the internal flows.


121

Table 9.1: 24-h mean concentrations (µg/m3) for the ‘target’ pollutants, with and without indoor chemistry and compared with results from Level 2.

HCHO (formaldehyde)

TERP (limonene / α-pinene)

ALDX (acrolein)

TOL (benzene)

MEs No chem

Chem Level 2

No chem

Chem Level 2

No chem

Chem Level 2

No chem

Chem Level 2

Living Room

5 5 4 33 15 9 / 2 < 1 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Hall 2 2 - 21 13 - < 1 1 - < 1 < 1 -

Bathroom 3 4 17 30 19 173 / 3 < 1 1 - < 1 < 1 -

Bedroom < 1 < 1 5 4 2 4 / 0 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 -

Kitchen 7 9 7 91 40 111 / <1 < 1 7 - < 1 < 1 -

The current Level 3 investigations can be considered as only preliminary; further research is needed

to investigate the impact of the different outdoor meteorological conditions (wind speed and

direction) as well as building characteristics on the internal airflows and consequently on the

concentrations of the pollutants in the domestic environment.

Figure 9.2: Comparison of TERP concentrations predicted by MIAQ/UOWM and CONC-CPM.


122

Figure 9.3: Comparison of HCHO concentrations predicted by MIAQ/UOWM and CONC-CPM.

Figure 9.4: TERP concentrations predicted by MIAQ/UOWM – no chemistry vs. indoor chemistry.


123

Figure 9.5: HCHO concentrations predicted by MIAQ/UOWM – no chemistry vs. indoor chemistry.

Figure 9.6: TERP concentrations predicted by MIAQ/UOWM (all TERP emissions in all MEs).


124

Figure 9.7: HCHO concentrations predicted by MIAQ/UOWM (all HCHO emissions in all MEs).

Chapter 10 Conclusions

125

CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS

In the framework of the EPHECT project, irritative and respiratory health effects were assessed in

relation to acute (30-min) and long-term (24-h) exposure to key and emerging indoor air pollutants

emitted during household use of selected consumer products.

In this context, a detailed health risk assessment was carried out for five selected ‘target’ compounds,

namely acrolein, formaldehyde, naphthalene, d-limonene and α-pinene. The compound benzene was

additionally assessed in terms of exposure, only.

A methodology was developed to construct exposure scenarios for the use of consumer products by

two population groups (housewives and retired people) in the four geographical areas of Europe

(North, West, South, East), based on the analysis of the EPHECT Household Survey data regarding the

use of fifteen consumer product classes in the EU. In view of a ‘most representative worst-case

scenario’ strategy and for the purposes of the exposure and health risk assessment performed within

EPHECT, the scenarios reflecting the worst cases for the use of the product - while respecting the use

preferences of the population group in each geographical area - were used. Microenvironmental

modelling was performed in order to estimate indoor air concentrations (30-min max rolling average

and 24-h mean) in each microenvironment resulting from single product use (Level 1). Additionally,

results of microenvironmental modelling were combined with daily population home activity profiles

in order to derive exposure estimates (30-min max rolling average and 24-h mean) for each

compound and across home microenvironments (MEs) as a result of multiple product use (Level 2).

Finally, sensitivity analysis of the modelling results was conducted to investigate the impact of

internal dispersion between adjacent rooms in the domestic environment as well as the impact of

indoor air chemistry on the concentrations of the ‘target’ pollutants (Level 3).

The final step undertaken in the context of the health risk assessment procedure was the risk

characterisation, in which the outcome of Levels 1 and 2 was compared to the health-based

exposure limits (Critical Exposure Limit, CEL values) of the five ‘target’ compounds, and expressed as

percentage (%) of the corresponding CEL values.

The main conclusions related to the health risk assessment performed in the framework of EPHECT

may be summarised as follows:

Regarding single product use (Level 1), for each of the five ‘target’ pollutants emitted from the

selected consumer products tested, the estimated worst-case indoor air concentration in each

microenvironment, resulting from the most representative conditions of use in Europe, was

lower than the corresponding CEL, both in the case of acute (30-min) and long-term (24-h)

exposure, in all cases. However, elevated microenvironmental concentrations of ‘target’

pollutants were reported in some cases.

The highest contributions to the 30-min exposures, resulting from single product use, were found

for formaldehyde (82 % of the CEL value) emitted from floor cleaning agent, for acrolein (4 % of

the CEL value) emitted from a candle, for d-limonene (2 % of the CEL value) emitted from a


126

kitchen cleaning agent, and for α-pinene (0.04 % of the CEL value) emitted from a floor cleaning

agent. For the 24-h exposures, naphthalene emitted from a furniture polish reached about 15 %

of the CEL value, formaldehyde emitted from a floor cleaning agent reached about 8 % of the CEL

value, acrolein emitted from a candle reached about 2 % of the CEL value, d-limonene emitted

from a kitchen cleaning agent also 2 % of the CEL value and α-pinene emitted from a passive air

freshener reached about 0.2 % of the CEL value. Concerning the 25 consumer products studied in

EPHECT, benzene was found to be emitted only from candles.

Regarding multiple product use (Level 2) during the course of the day and following a ‘most

representative worst-case scenario’ strategy, aggregated exposure estimates across all

population groups and ‘target’ compounds did not exceed their CEL values, neither in the case of

acute (30-min) nor in the case of long-term (24-h) exposure. Nevertheless, considerable

contributions to short-term exposures may be obtained at low ventilation conditions (up to 60 %

of the CEL value for formaldehyde, under ventilation conditions of 0.1 ach, resulting from the use

of eight product classes, i.e. A1: all-purpose cleaning agent; A2: kitchen cleaning agent; A3: floor

cleaning agent; A6: furniture polish; A7: floor polish; A8: combustible air freshener; A11: electric

air freshener; A15: perfume).

Regarding the outcome of the sensitivity analysis (Level 3), the impact of internal dispersion

between adjacent rooms in the domestic environment as well as the impact of indoor air

chemistry on the concentrations of the ‘target’ pollutants was verified. However, further work is

needed to investigate the role of other parameters, such as outdoor meteorological conditions

and building characteristics on the internal airflows and consequently on the concentrations of

the pollutants in the domestic environment.

The principal limitations related to the health risk assessment conducted in the framework of EPHECT

concern the following aspects:

The consumer products studied represent only a minor fraction of all consumer products

available in the European market; thus, they cannot be considered as representative for all

products of the consumer product classes that were investigated. Variations were observed in

product composition as well as in product emissions between different products belonging to the

same product class.

The five ‘target’ pollutants that were investigated represent a fraction of the compounds emitted

from consumer products; secondary reaction products, TVOC and other pollutants - identified

and quantified (or semi-quantified) during the project – were not considered.

Toxicological data were not available for all compounds in terms of long-term inhalation

exposure. Concerning the ‘target’ compounds d-limonene and α-pinene, the derivation of their

long-term exposure limits was based on extrapolation from short-term exposure data.

The construction of daily activity profiles for the assessment of aggregated exposure resulting

from multiple product use (Level 2 simulations) was based on data only from Belgium due to the

lack of available data for the population groups across Europe. Any variation to these profiles

may lead to variation in exposure estimates, especially for the population groups of Southern

Europe (spending on average more time outdoors) and those of Northern Europe (spending on

average more time indoors).


127

The CONC-CPM model does not consider the movement of air between indoor MEs; it simulates

the concentrations of each pollutant in each ME separately, implying that the MEs are isolated

from each other. The lack of dispersion of the pollutants among the various indoor MEs may lead

to elevated concentrations in adjacent rooms.

Despite the above limitations, this is the first study ever that provides exposure estimates and health

risk assessment simultaneously for eight population groups across Europe exposed to five priority

respiratory health-relevant pollutants, as a result of the use of fifteen consumer product classes in

households, while respecting regional differences in uses, use scenarios, and ventilation conditions of

each region.

In conclusion, in the framework of EPHECT a health risk assessment methodology was developed to

assess the potential adverse irritative and respiratory health effects associated with the household

use of selected consumer products, which should be considered along with its underlying

assumptions and limitations. Furthermore, the outcome of the health risk assessment may form the

basis and contribute to a future development of risk management guidance and formulation of policy

options for the efficient reduction of health risks associated to the household use of consumer

products in Europe.

References

128

REFERENCES

Alexandersson R and Hedenstierna G (1988) Respiratory hazards associated with exposure to formaldehyde

and solvents in acid-curing paints. Arch. Environ. Health; 43 (3): 222-227.

Alexandersson R and Hedenstierna G (1989) Pulmonary function in wood workers exposed to

formaldehyde: A prospective study. Arch. Environ. Health; 44 (1): 5-11.

Alexeeff GV, Broadwin R, Liaw J, Dawson SV (2002) Characterisation of the LOAEL-to-NOAEL uncertainty

factor for mild adverse effects from acute inhalation exposures. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 36:

96–105.

Amoore JE, Hautala E (1983) Odor as an aid to chemical safety: odor thresholds compared with threshold

limit values and volatilities for 214 industrial chemicals in air and water dilution. Journal of

Applied Toxicology; 3: 272–290.

Arts JHE, Rennen MAJ, de Heer C (2006) Inhaled formaldehyde: evaluation of sensory irritation in relation

to carcinogenicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 44: 144–160.

ATSDR (1999) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for formaldehyde.

U.S. Department of Health Service.

ATSDR (2005) Toxicological profile for naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2- methylnaphthalene. US

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

ATSDR (2007) Toxicological Profile for Acrolein. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Atlanta,

GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services.

Ballarin C, Sarto F, Giacomelli L et al. (1992) Micronucleated cells in nasal mucosa of formaldehyde-exposed

workers. Mutat Res; 280: 1-7.

Berglund B, Höglund A, Esfandabad HS (2012) A bisensory method for odor and irritation detection of

formaldehyde and pyridine. Chem. Percept.; 5: 146–157.

Bohgard M, Nielsen J, Hagerman I, Dierschke K, Isaxon C, Andersson UBK, Assarsson E, Berglund M,

Gudmundsson A, Jönsson BA, Pagels J and Wierzbicka A (2011) Physiological effects on humans

when exposed to nanometer sized airborne particles in well controlled chamber studies. Paper

739. Austin, Texas, Indoor Air 2011. The 12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and

Climate. 5-6-2011.

Bothe M and Donahue NM (2010) Organic Aerosol Formation in Citronella Candle Plumes. Air Qual Atmos

Health; 3: 3133-3137.

Boysen M, Zadig E, Digernes V et al. (1990) Nasal mucosa in workers exposed to formaldehyde: a pilot

study. Br J Ind Med; 47: 116-121.

Bracken MJ, Leasa DJ, Morgan WKC (1985) Exposure to formaldehyde: Relationship to respiratory

symptoms and function. Can J Public Health; 76: 312-316.

Cain WS, Schmidt R and Wolkoff P (2007) Olfactory detection of ozone and d-limonene: reactants in indoor

spaces. Indoor Air; 17: 337–347.

References

129

Calogirou A, Larsen BR and Kotzias D (1999) Gas-Phase Terpene Oxidation Products: a Review. Atmos

Environ; 33: 1423-1439.

Carpenter et al. (1956) The Toxicity of Butyl Cellosolve Solvent, AMA Arch. Ind. Health; 14: 114-131.

Cassee FR, Groten JP, Feron VJ (1996) Changes in the nasal epithelium of rats exposed by inhalation to

mixtures of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein. Fund. Appl. Toxicol.; 29: 208-218.

CEPA (1999) Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Priority substances list assessment report: acrolein.

Environment Canada - Health Canada.

Clausen PA, Wilkins CK, Wolkoff P, Nielsen GD (2001) Chemical and biological evaluation of a reaction

mixture of R-(+)-limonene/ozone: Formation of strong airway irritants. Environ. Int. 26, 511–522.

Coleman BK, Lunden MM, Destaillats H and Nazaroff WW (2008) Secondary Organic Aerosols From Ozone-

Initiated Reactions With Terpene-Rich Household Products. Atmospheric Environment; 42: 8234-

8251.

Dalton PH, Jaén C (2010) Responses to odors in occupational environments. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol;

10: 127–132.

Darley EF, Middleton JT, Garber MJ (1960) Plant damage and eye irritation from ozone-hydrocarbon

reactions. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 8: 483-485.

Destaillats H, Lunden MM, Singer BC, Coleman BK, Hodgson AT, Weschler CJ and Nazaroff WW (2006)

Indoor Secondary Pollutants From Household Product Emissions in the Presence of Ozone: A

Bench-Scale Chamber Study. Environ Sci Technol; 40: 4421-4428.

DG SANCO (2008) First report on the harmonisation of risk assessment procedures. Part 1: The Report of

the Scientific Steering Committee's Working Group on Harmonisation of Risk Assessment

Procedures in the Scientific Committees advising the European Commission in the area of human

and environmental health. 26-27 October 2000.

Dimitroulopoulou C, Ashmore MR, Byrne M, Kinnersley R (2001) Modelling of indoor exposure to nitrogen

dioxide in the UK. Atmospheric Environment; 35 (2): 269-279.

Dimitroulopoulou C (2012) Ventillation in European dwellings: A review. Building and environment; 47:

109-125.

Dodd DE et al. (2008) Nasal epithelial lesions in rats following an acute inhalation exposure to naphthalene

vapor at low concentrations. Toxicologist, p. 510 (abstract).

Dol and Haffner (2010) Housing Statistics in the European Union 2010 (Eds) Kees Dol and Marietta Haffner,

OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology for The Hague:

Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.

Dorman DC, Struve MF, Wong BA, Marshall MW, Gross EA, Willson GA (2008) Respiratory tract responses in

male rats following subchronic acrolein inhalation. Inhalation Toxicology; 20 (3): 205-216.

Doty RL, Brugger WE, Jurs PC, Orndorff MA, Snyder PJ, Lowry LD (1978) Intranasal trigeminal stimulation

from odorous volatiles: psychometric responses from anosmic and normal humans. Physiology &

behavior; 20 (2): 175-185.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Brugger%20WE%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=662939

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Jurs%20PC%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=662939

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Orndorff%20MA%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=662939

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Snyder%20PJ%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=662939

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Lowry%20LD%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=662939

References

130

Dourson ML, Kohrman-Vincent MJ, Allen BC (2010) Dose response assessment for effects of acute exposure

to methyl isothiocyanate. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.; 58: 181–188.

Duan, N (1982). Models for human exposure to air pollution. Environmental International; 8: 305-309.

Edling C, Hellquist H, Odkvist L (1988) Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and histopathological

changes in the nasal mucosa. Br. J. Ind. Med.; 45 (11): 761-765.

Egle, JL (1972) Retention of inhaled formaldehyde, propionaldehyde and acrolein in the dog. Arch. Environ.

Health; p.119-124.

EU RAR (2001) Risk Assessment Report. Acrolein. Final report.

EU RAR (2003) European Union Risk Assessment Report. Naphthalene. European Chemicals Bureau. Joint

Research Centre. Existing Substances, 1st Priority List. EUR 20763 EN, Volume: 33. p. 230.

EU RAR (2008) Risk Assessment Report. 2-Butoxyethanol. Part II – Human Health. Final approved version.

Falk AA, Hagberg MT, Löf A et al. (1990) Uptake, distribution and elimination of a-pinene in man after

exposure by inhalation. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health; 16: 372–378.

Falk-Filipsson A, Löf A, Hagberg M, Wigaeus Hjelm E, Wang Z (1993) d-Limonene exposure to humans by

inhalation: Uptake, distribution, elimination, and effects on the pulmonary function. Journal of

Toxicology and Environmental Health; 38 (1): 77-88.

FEA (2010) Indoor Air Emissions from Aerosol Products, Briefing paper, Sept 2010.

Feron VJ, Kryusse A, Til HP et al. (1978) Repeated exposure to acrolein vapor: subacute studies in hamsters,

rats and rabbits. Toxicology; 9: 47-57.

Fiedler N, Laumbach R, Kelly-McNeil K, Lioy P, Fan Z-H, Zhang J, Ottenweller J, Ohman-Strickland P and

Kipen H (2005) Health Effects of a Mixture of Indoor Air Volatile Organics, Their Ozone Oxidation

Products, and Stress. Environ Health Perspec 113:1542-1548.

Garry VF, Oatman L, Pleus R et al. (1980) Formaldehyde in the home: Some environmental disease

perspectives. Minn Med 63:107-111.

Geiss O, Giannopoulos G, Tirendi S, Barrero-Moreno J, Larsen BR, Kotzias D (2011) The AIRMEX study – VOC

measurements in public buildings and schools/kindergartens in eleven European cities:

Statistical analysis of the data. Atmospheric Environment; 45: 3676-3684.

Ginsberg G, Foos B, Dzubow RB, Firestone M (2010). Options for incorporating children’s inhaled dose into

human health risk assessment. Inhal. Toxicol. 22: 627–647.

Gminski R, Marutzky R, Kevekordes S, Fuhrmann F, Bürger W, Hauschke D, Ebner W, Mersch-Sundermann V

(2011a) Chemosensory irritations and pulmonary effects of acute exposure to emissions from

oriented strand board. Hum. Exp. Toxicol; 30 (9): 1204-1221.

Gminski R, Marutzky R, Kevekordes S, Fuhrmann F, Bürger W, Hauschke D, Ebner W, Mersch-Sundermann V

(2011b) Sensory irritations and pulmonary effects in human volunteers following short-term

exposure to pinewood emissions. J Wood Sci; 57: 436–445.

Golden R (2011) Identifying an indoor air exposure limit for formaldehyde considering both irritation and

cancer hazards. Crit Rev Toxicol 41: 672-721.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011004158



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Marutzky%20R%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Kevekordes%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Fuhrmann%20F%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=B%C3%BCrger%20W%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Hauschke%20D%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Ebner%20W%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Mersch-Sundermann%20V%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Marutzky%20R%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Kevekordes%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Fuhrmann%20F%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=B%C3%BCrger%20W%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Hauschke%20D%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Ebner%20W%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Mersch-Sundermann%20V%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21071553

References

131

Hau KM, Connell DW, Richardson BJ (2000) Use of partition models in setting health guidelines for volatile

organic compounds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology; 31: 22–29.

Heck H d’A, Chin TY, Schmitz MC (1983) Distribution of [14C] formaldehyde in rats after inhalation

exposure. IN: Gibson, JE (ed). Formaldehyde toxicity. Washington DC, Hemisphere Publishing.

Hersoug L-G, Husemoen LL, Thomsen SF, Sigsgaard T, Thuesen BH and Linneberg A (2010) Association of

Indoor Air Pollution With Rhinitis Symptoms, Atopy and Nitric Oxide Levels in Exhaled Air. Int

Arch Allergy Immunol; 153: 403-412.

Holmstrom M, Wilhelmsson B, Hellquist H et al. (1989) Histological changes in the nasal mucosa in persons

occupationally exposed to formaldehyde alone and in combination with wood dust. Acta Oto-

Laryngologica; 107, 120-129.

Holness DL, Nethercott JR (1989) Health status of funeral service workers exposed to formaldehyde. Arch

Environ Health; 44: 222-228.

Horvath EP, Anderson H, Pierce WE et al. (1988) Effects of formaldehyde on the mucous membranes and

lungs: A study of an industrial population. J Am Med Assoc.; 259: 701-707.

Huntingdon Research Centre (1993a) Naphthalene 4-week inhalation study in rats. Report LDA 1/921559

unpublished, as cited in ECB (EU RAR 2003).

Huntingdon Research Centre (1993b) Naphthalene 13-week inhalation study in rats. Report LDA 2/930704

unpublished, as cited in ECB (EU RAR 2003).

Johanson G and Boman A (1991) Percutaneous absorption of 2-butoxyethanol vapour in human subjects. Br

J Ind Med; 48: 788-792.

Johanson G, Kronborg H, Naslund PH and Nordqvist MB (1986) Toxicokinetics of inhaled 2-butoxyethanol in

man. Scan. J.Work Environ. Health; 12: 594-602.

Johard U, Larsson K, Lof A and Eklund A (1993) Controlled Short-Time Terpene Exposure Induces an

Increase of the Macrophages and the Mast Cells in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid. American

Journal of Industrial Medicine; 23: 793-799.

Johnson A and Lucica E (2012) Survey on indoor use and use patterns of consumer products in EU member

states. Survey report. EPHECT project.

Jones K, Cocker J, Dodd LJ, Fraser I (2003) Factors affecting the extent of dermal absorption of solvent

vapours: a human volunteer study. Ann. Occup. Hyg; 47 (2): 145-150.

JRC (2013) Data of AIRMEX study http://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/airmex/viewdata/index.cfm. Last accessible

May 2013.

Kane et al. (1980) Evaluation of Sensory Irritation from Some Industrial Solvents, Am. Ind.Hyg. Assoc. J.; 41:

451-455.

Kasanen JP, Pasanen P, Liesivuori J, Kosma VM, Alarie Y (1999) Evaluation of sensory irritation of delta3-

carene and turpentine, and acceptable levels of monoterpenes in occupational and indoor

environment. J Toxicol Environ Health; 57 (2): 89-114.

http://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/airmex/viewdata/index.cfm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Pasanen%20P%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=10344226

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Liesivuori%20J%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=10344226

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Kosma%20VM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=10344226

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Alarie%20Y%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=10344226

References

132

Kerns WD, Donofrio DJ, Pavkov KL (1983) The chronic effects of formaldehyde inhalation in rats and mice: A

preliminary report. In: Gibson JE, ed. Formaldehyde toxicity. Washington, DC: Hemisphere

Publishing Corporation, 111-131.

Kerns WD, Pavkov KL, Donofrio DJ, Gralla EJ, and Swenberg JA (1983) Carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in

rats and mice after long-term inhalation exposure. Cancer Res. 43:4382-4392.

Khamgaonkar MB, Fulare MB (1991) Pulmonary effects of formaldehyde exposure - an environmental-

epidemiological study. Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci; 33: 9-13.

Kimbell JS, Gross EA, Richardson RB, Conolly RB, and Morgan KT (1997) Correlation of regional

formaldehyde flux predictions with the distribution of formaldehyde-induced squamous

metaplasia in F344 rat nasal passages. Mutat. Res.; 380: 143-154.

Kotzias D, Koistinen K, Kephalopoulos S, Schlitt C, Carrer P, Maroni M et al. (2005) Final Report of the INDEX

Project, Critical Appraisal of the Setting and Implementation of Indoor Exposure Limits in the EU.

Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxenbourg. EUR 21590 EN.

Kotzias D, Geiss O, Tirendi S, Barrero-Moreno J, Reina V, Gotti A, Cimino-Reale B, Marafante E, Sarigiannis D

(2009) Exposure to multiple air contaminants in public buildings, schools and kindergartens – the

European indoor air monitoring and exposure assessment (AIRMEX) study. Fresenius

Environmental Bulletin; 18 (5a): 670 – 681.

Kriebel D, Sama SR and Cocanour B (1993) Reversible pulmonary responses to formaldehyde: A case study

of clinical anatomy students. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis.; 148: 1509-1515.

Kumagai S, Oda H, Matsunaga I, Kosada H and Akasaka S (1999) Uptake of 10 polar organic solvents during

short-term respiration. Tox. Sci.; 48: 255-263.

Kuwabara Y, Alexeeff GV, Broadwin R, Salmon AG (2007) Evaluation and application of the RD50 for

determining acceptable exposure levels of air-borne sensory irritants for the general public.

Environ. Health Perspect.; 115: 1609–1616.

Lang I, Bruckner T, Triebig G (2008) Formaldehyde and chemosensory irritation in humans: a controlled

human exposure study. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology; 50: 23–36.

Larsen ST, Hougaard KS, Alarie Y, Wolkoff P, Clausen PA, Wilkins CK, Nielsen GD (2000) Effects of r-(+)- and

s-(−)-limonene on the respiratory tract in mice. Hum. Exp. Toxicol.; 19, 457–466.

Laumbach RJ, Fiedler N, Gardner CR, Laskin DL, Fan Z-H, Zhang J, Weschler CJ, Lioy P, Devlin RB, Ohman-

Strickland P, Kelly-McNeil K and Kipen H (2005) Nasal Effects of a Mixture of Volatile Organic

Compounds and Their Ozone Oxidation Products. J Occup Environ Med; 47: 1182-1189.

Lee MG, Phimister A, Morin D, Buckpitt A, Plopper C (2005) In situ naphthalene bioactivation and nasal

airflow cause region-specific injury patterns in the nasal mucosa of rats exposed to naphthalene

by inhalation. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics; 314: 103–110.

Lide DR, ed.(1991) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 72nd Ed., Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, p. 3-308

Lyon JP, Jenkins LJ, Jones RA, Coon RA and Siegel J (1970) Repeated and continuous exposure of laboratory

animals to acrolein. Toxicol. Apppl. Pharmacol. l1: 726-732.

Malaka T, and Kodama AM (1990) Respiratory health of plywood workers occupationally exposed to

formaldehyde. Arch. Environ. Health; 45 (5): 288-294.

References

133

McDonald JD, Doyle-Eisele M, Campen M J, Seagrave J, Holmes T, Lund A, Surratt J D, Seinfeld JH, Rohr AC

and Knipping EM (2010) Cardiopulmonary Response to Inhalation of Biogenic Secondary Organic

Aerosol. Inhal Toxicol; 22: 253-265.

Mellon Institute of Industrial Research (1955) Butyl cellosolve III. Repeated inhalation. Report n° 18-24.

Monticello TM, Swenberg JA, Gross EA, Leininger JR, Kimbell JS, Seilkop S, Starr TB, Gibson JE, and Morgan

KT (1996) Cancer Res. 56: 1012-1022.

Missia D, Efthymiou G, Dimitroulopoulou C, Bartzis J (2012a) Updated IAQ model, EPHECT project

(Milestone M3).

Missia D, Kopanidis T, Bartzis J, Ventura G, Oliveira Fernandes E, Carrer P, Wolkoff P, Stranger M, Goelen E

(2012b) Literature review on product composition, emitted compounds and emissions rates and

health end points from consumer products. EPHECT project.

Mueller JU, Bruckner T, Triebig G (2013) Exposure study to examine chemosensory effects of formaldehyde

on hyposensitive and hypersensitive males. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health; 86 (1): 107-117.

Nagata Y (2003) Measurement of odor threshold by triangle odor bag method. Odor Measurement Review,

Japan Ministry of the Environment. p. 118-127.

NAS (2008) National Academy of Sciences. Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations for Selected

Airborne Contaminants: Volume 5. The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C.

Nielsen GD, Larsen ST, Hougaard KS, et al. (2005) Mechanisms of acute inhalation effects of (+) and (−)-α-

pinene in BALB/c mice. Pharmacol. Toxicol.; 96: 1–9.

Nielsen GD, Larsen ST, Wolkoff P (2013) Recent trend in risk assessment of formaldehyde exposures from

indoor air. Arch Toxicol; 87: 73 - 98NTP (1992) National Toxicology Program. Toxicology &

Carcinogenesis Studies of Naphthalene in B6C3F1 Mice. Technical Report Series No. 410. NIH

Publication No. 92-3141.

Nielsen GD, Wolkoff P, Alarie Y (2007) Sensory irritation: risk assessment approaches. Regul. Toxicol.

Pharmacol.; 48: 6–18.

NTP (2000) National Toxicology Program. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of naphthalene CAS No. 91-

20-3 in F344/N rats inhalation studies. NTP TR 500, NIH Publ. No. 01-4434.

NTP (2006) National Toxicology Program (Draft) Initial study results from a 90 day toxicity study on alpha-

pinene in mice and rats. Study number SRL-13 wk 03AP/M and SRL-13 k03AP/R.

OECD (2002) SIDS Initial Assessment Report for SIAM 14 formaldehyde. Paris, France. UNEP publications.

OEHHA (1999) (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) Determination of chronic reference

exposure levels for airborne toxicants. Chronic Toxicity Summary. Formaldehyde.

OEHHA (2000) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Chronic Toxicity Summary. Naphthalene.

OEHHA (2008) TSD for Noncancer RELs. Appendix D. Individual Acute, 8-Hour, and Chronic Reference

Exposure Level Summaries. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Orme M, Liddament MW, Wilson A (1998) Numerical Data for Air Infiltration & Natural Ventilation

Calculations. AIVC Technical Report.

Orme M and Leksmono N (2002) AIVC Guide 5 Ventilation Modelling Data Guide.

http://www.citeulike.org/author/Bruckner:T

http://www.citeulike.org/author/Triebig:G

References

134

Ott WR, Wallace L, Mage D, Akland G, Lewis R, Sauls H, Rodes C, Kleffman D, Kuroda D, Morehouse K

(1986). The Environmental Protection Agency’s Research Program on Total Human Exposure.

Environm. International; 12: 475-494.

Pagels J, Wierzbicka A, Nilsson E, Isaxon C, Dahl A, Gudmundsson A, Swietlicki E and Bohgard M (2009)

Chemical Composition and Mass Emission Factors of Candle Smoke Particles. Aerosol Science;

40: 193-208.

Paustenbach DJ, Alarie Y, Kulle T, Schachter N, Smith R, Swenberg J, et al. (1997) A recommended

occupational exposure limit for formaldehyde based on irritation. J Toxicol Environ Health; 50:

217–263.

Ritchie IM, Lehnen RG (1987) Formaldehyde-related health complaints of residents living in mobile and

conventional homes. Am J Public Health; 77: 323-328.

Rowley J, Crump D (2005) Measurements of the dispersal of aerosol sprays in a room and comparison to a

simple decay model; Journal of Environmental Monitoring; 7: 960-963.

Rusch GM, Clary JJ, Rinehart WE and Bolte HF (1983) A 26-week inhalation study with formaldehyde in the

monkey, rat, and hamster. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.; 68 (3): 329-343.

Sakellaris I, Dimitroulopoulou C, Bartzis J (2013) Home ventilation modelling, EPHECT project (Milestone

M5)

SCHER (2007) Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks. Opinion on risk assessment on

indoor air quality. Brussels: European Commission: Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-

General.

SCHER (2008) Opinion on the risk assessment report on 2- butoxyethanol (EGBE), CAS 111-76-2, Human

health part.

Schroeter JD, Kimbell JS, Gross EA (2008) Application of Physiological Computational Fluid Dynamics Models

to Predict Interspecies Nasal Dosimetry of Inhaled Acrolein. Inhalation Toxicology; 20: 227–243.

Shusterman D (2007) Trigeminally-mediated health effects of air pollutants: sources of interindividual

variability. Hum Exp Toxicol; 26: 149–157.

Stranger M, Maes F, Goelen E, Nørgaard AW, Wolkoff P, Ventura G, Fernandes E, Tolis E, Bartzis J (2012)

Quantification of the product emissions by laboratory testing, Part I: Consumer product test

protocol, EPHECT project.

Stranger M, Maes F, Goelen E, Nørgaard AW, Wolkoff P, Ventura G, Fernandes E, Tolis E, Efthimiou G,

Kalimeri K, Bartzis J, Letzel T (2013). Quantification of the product emissions by laboratory

testing, Part II: Results of product testing experiments, EPHECT project.

Swenberg JA, Gross EA, Martin J, Popp JA (1983) Mechanisms of formaldehyde toxicity. In Gibson JE (ed.)

Formaldehyde and toxicity. Washington DC, Hemisphere Publishing.

TCEQ (2010) Acrolein Final Development Support Document. Texas Commission on Environmental quality.

Torfs et al. (2008) Exposure and risk assessment of air fresheners. Final report. 2008/IMS/R/222, VITO.

U.S. EPA (1998) Toxicological Review of Naphthalene CAS No. 91-20-3 in Support of Summary Information

on the Integrated Risk Information System IRIS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

References

135

U.S. EPA (2003) Toxicological review of acrolein in support of summary information on the Integrated Risk

Information System (IRIS). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington DC.

U.S. EPA (2008) Registration Eligibility Decision Document (RED) for Acrolein. List B. Case No. 2005.

Wainman T, Zhang J, Weschler C J and Lioy P J (2000) Ozone and Limonene in Indoor Air: A Source of

Submicron Particle Exposure. Environ Health Perspect; 108: 1139-1145.

Weber-Tschopp A, Fischer T, Gierer R, Grandjean E (1977) Experimentally Induced Irritating Effects of

Acrolein on Man. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health; 40: 117-130. (in German)

West JAA et al. (2001) Inhaled naphthalene causes dose dependent Clara cell toxicity in mice but not in

rats. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology; 173: 114–119.

WHO (1998) Limonene. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document (CICAD) 5. World Health

Organization, Geneva.

WHO (2000) Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. 2 ed. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional

Office for Europe.

WHO (2002) Acrolein. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 43. World Health

Organization, Geneva.

WHO (2010) Selected pollutants. WHO indoor air quality guidelines. Copenhagen: World Health

Organization, Regional Office for Europe.

Wilhelmsson B, and Holmstrom M (1992) Possible mechanisms of formaldehyde-induced discomfort in the

upper airway. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health; 18 (6): 403-407.

Wilmer JW, Woutersen RA, Appelman LM, Leeman WR, and Feron VJ (1989) Subchronic (13-week)

inhalation toxicity study of formaldehyde in male rats: 8-hour intermittent versus 8-hour

continuous exposures. Toxicol. Lett. 47 (3): 287-293.

Wolkoff P, Clausen PA, Jensen B, Nielsen GD, Wilkins CK (1997) Are we measuring the relevant indoor

pollutants? Indoor Air; 7: 92 - 106.

Wolkoff P, Clausen PA, Wilkins CK, Hougaard KS, Nielsen GD (1999) Formation of strong airway irritants in a

model mixture of (+)- α- pinene/ozone. Atmos Environ; 33: 693- 698.

Wolkoff P, Clausen PA, Wilkins CK, Nielsen GD (2000) Formation of strong airway irritants in terpene/ozone

mixtures. Indoor Air ; 10 (2): 82-91.

Wolkoff P, Clausen PA, Larsen K, Hammer M, Larsen ST, Nielsen GD (2008) Acute airway effects of ozone-

initiated d-limonene chemistry: importance of gaseous products. Toxicol Lett.; 181:171–176.

Wolkoff P and Nielsen GD (2010) Non-cancer effects of formaldehyde and relevance for setting an indoor

air guideline. Environ Int.; 36 (7): 788-799.

Wolkoff P, Clausen PA, Larsen ST, Hammer M, Nielsen GD (2012) Airway effects of repeated exposures to

ozone-initiated limonene oxidation products as model of indoor air mixtures. Toxicol Lett.;

209(2): 166-172.

Wolkoff, P (2013) Indoor air pollutants in office environments: Assessment of comfort, health, and

performance. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health; 216 (4): 371-394.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Nielsen%20GD%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20557934

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20557934

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Wolkoff%20P%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22212438

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Clausen%20PA%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22212438

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Larsen%20ST%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22212438

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Hammer%20M%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22212438

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Nielsen%20GD%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22212438

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22212438

References

136

Woutersen RA, van Garderen-Hoetmer A, Bruijntjes JP, Zwart A, and Feron VJ (1989) Nasal tumours in rats

after severe injury to the nasal mucosa and prolonged exposure to 10 ppm formaldehyde. J.

Appl. Toxicol.; 9 (1): 39-46.

137

Documents

REPORT ON THE HEALTH RISK ASSOCIATED WITH EMISSIONS … documents... · 2014-06-13 · EPHECT is co-funded by European Union (Executive Agency for Health and Consumers- EAHC) framework