Open Access

Research Article

Materials and Methods Top

Conceptual model. A simplified, single-compartment model that can be used in the design of a field study is shown in Figure 1. In a single-compartment model, the body receives exposures from three major routes: inhalation, ingestion, and dermal. The ingestion route receives exposures from two pathways: dietary ingestion and nondietary ingestion (caused by hand-to-mouth or object-to-mouth activities). The body eliminates the exposure through urine and other biologic routes, such as exhaled air, feces, and other body fluids.

Figure 1.

Single-compartment model for exposures from different pathways.

To demonstrate how a specific pathway model can be evaluated using an overnight urine void, a hypothetical scenario (shown in Figure 2) is presented here. In this hypothetical case, a child receives discrete and varying amounts of dietary exposure, P_dietary (micrograms), from the meals (see Table 1 for a list of all terms used in this article). A child also receives a simplified constant rate for inhalation exposure, R_inhalation (micrograms per minute), assuming the child spends most of the time indoors (Lambert et al. 1993). In addition, the child receives a fairly constant nondietary ingestion exposure, R_nondietary (micrograms per minute), from hand-to-mouth or object-to-mouth activities that occur when the child is awake during the day. Finally, the child receives a constant rate of dermal exposure, R_dermal (micrograms per minute), during the day until he or she is bathed. The exposure amount and rates can be expressed as follows:

Figure 2.

Exposure functions for a hypothetical child. (A) Hypothetical inhalation exposure. (B) Hypothetical dietary intake. (C) Hypothetical nondietary exposure. (D) Hypothetical dermal exposure.

Here P_breakfast, P_lunch, and P_dinner are the amount of dietary intake from breakfast, lunch, and dinner, respectively, and T₁, T₂, and T₃ are the timing of the meals. E_dermal is the rate of dermal exposure before bathing, and T₄ is the time when the child is bathed. E_nondietary is the rate of nondietary exposure before bed, and T₅ is the time when the child goes to the bed. E_inhalation is the constant rate of inhalation exposure.

Assuming immediate and 100% absorption through all routes for a single-compartment linear model, the change in the amount of pollutant over time in the compartment can be expressed as follows:

[1]

where P_t is the amount of pollutant in the compartment, and k is the first-order biologic elimination constant, calculated by 0.693/T_1/2 (T_1/2 is the biologic half-life) (Schoenwald 2001). R_T is the sum of R_inhalation, R_nondietary, and R_dermal. Dietary exposures from the three meals can be viewed as additional multiple bolus intake at times T₁, T₂, and T₃.

Using the principle of superposition (Schoenwald 2001), the solution to Equation 1 can be expressed as follows:

[2]

The amount of pollutant metabolite eliminated into overnight void from 2000 hr to 0800 hr is:

[3]

where ɑ is the fraction of pollutant that is eliminated via urine, k is the first-order biologic elimination constant, P_t is the amount of pollutant in the compartment, M_pollutant is the molecular weight of the pollutant, and M_metabolite is the molecular weight of the urinary metabolite. Applying Equation 2 to Equation 3, the amount of metabolite in overnight urine, Y_overnight, becomes

[4]

Equation 4 demonstrates that the amount of metabolite in overnight urine is an additive result of exposure from dietary ingestion, nondietary ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposure. Therefore, if we design a study in which exposure from a specific route is varied while exposures from other routes remain the same, we will be able to investigate the exposure through this particular route. For example, if we alternate only daily dietary exposure status--that is, let the subject have dietary exposure on "dietary exposure day" (when dietary exposures are P_breakfast, P_lunch, and P_dinner) followed by "no dietary exposure day" (when dietary exposures P_breakfast = P_lunch = P_dinner = 0)--and let the exposures from other routes/pathways remain the same, then the difference of the urinary metabolites between these 2 days is a function only of dietary exposure because exposures from other routes/pathways can be canceled out. Equation 5 shows the difference in the amount of urinary metabolites measured in overnight voids after the dietary-exposure day and the no-dietary-exposure day:

[5]

Equation 5 indicates that if ΔY--the metabolite difference between overnight voids after the dietary-exposure day and the no-dietary-exposure day--is large enough to be measured, it can be used to evaluate dietary exposure differences on these days. It also indicates that to make the evaluation possible, the dietary exposures on the dietary-exposed day also need to be large; the biologic half-life of the chemical, T_1/2, needs to be short because k is proportional to 1/T_1/2; and a substantial fraction of the metabolites should be eliminated through the urinary pathway.

In reality, however, dietary exposure is hardly zero on the dietary exposure days, because pesticide residues in foods are inevitable. Nonetheless, with a careful design, the pesticide residue can be canceled out and the strategy can still be used, as demonstrated in the following evaluation of the children's dietary intake model.

Children's dietary intake model. The major problem of assessing children's dietary exposure is that young children often touch foods with their hands before consumption, thereby increasing contamination of the food and their intake of contaminants through the diet (Melnyk et al. 2000). Because direct methods for sampling the foods as they enter the mouths of young children are not available, a deterministic dietary intake model was developed (Akland et al. 2000). In this model, three terms are considered: a) the original contaminant residue on the food before handling (term 1), b) surface-to-food contamination as the food comes in contact with contaminated surfaces (term 2), and c) surface-to-hand-to-food contamination as the child touches the contaminated surfaces and then handles and eats foods (term 3). Term 1 has also been referred to as "direct dietary ingestion," and terms 2 and 3 as "indirect dietary ingestion." In this model, it is assumed that the activity parameters (A_S/F, A_H/F, and A_S/H) are determined by food types and individual child, and transfer efficiencies (T_S/F, T_H/F, and T_S/H) are determined by food types, surface types, and the chemical properties of the contaminants.

Details of the children's dietary intake model have been discussed previously (Akland et al. 2000). The following is the model for a specific food item consumed after multiple touches by hands and/or surfaces.

[6]

where, assuming the pollutant of interest is a pesticide, P_food is the dietary intake of a pesticide for one food (micrograms), U is the pesticide residue concentration (micrograms pesticide per gram food), W_T is the total amount of the individual food consumed (grams), L_S is the loading of the contaminant on the surface (micrograms pesticide per square centimeter), F_S is the food surface area that comes in contact with the contaminated surface (square centimeters), T_S/F is the surface-to-food mass transfer efficiency (dimensionless), A_S/F is the surface-to-food contact frequencies, T_S/H is the surface-to-hand mass transfer efficiency (dimensionless), A_S/H is the surface-to-hand contact frequencies, T_H/F is the hand-to-food mass transfer efficiency (dimensionless), A_H/F is the hand-to-food contact frequency, H_S is the total hand surface area (square centimeters), and PH is the proportion of hand surface area in contact with contaminated food. Total dietary exposure for a meal is therefore

[7]

Laboratory experiments have demonstrated measurable surface-to-food, surface-to-hand, and hand-to-food pesticide transfers (Akland et al. 2000; Edwards and Lioy 1999). Using the children's dietary intake model Equation 6, Akland et al. (2000) estimated that the extra pesticide intake resulting from young children's eating behaviors, terms 2 and 3, could account for up to 80% of total dietary intake if the surface loading of pesticide residue is 5 ng/cm² or higher (Akland et al. 2000).

If proved, this result would have profound implications in pesticide regulation and exposure mitigation. However, as shown in Equation 6, the model prediction was based upon the estimation of food surfaces, the surface pesticide loading, the transfer efficiencies, and observation of children's eating behaviors. A natural question for the model prediction is whether this model estimation is reasonable.

Using PK modeling to design a field study: children's dietary intake model as an example.General concept for design. The children's dietary intake model is a pathway model. Exposures from other routes/pathways (e.g., nondietary ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposure) also contribute to the total urinary pesticide metabolite measurements. Therefore, using urinary biomarker measurements to evaluate the dietary intake model is difficult. To circumvent the problem, the strategy demonstrated in Equation 5 can be followed, as outlined below.

According to the children's dietary intake model Equation 6, the dietary exposure consists of three terms: residue in food before handling (term 1), surface-to-food transfer (term 2), and surface-to-hand-to-food transfer (term 3). On a day when the child is allowed to eat in an unrestricted normal setting, the child receives environmental exposures through inhalation, dietary ingestion, nondietary ingestion, and dermal exposure, and the dietary exposure includes term 1 + term 2 + term 3. Suppose we restrict a child with clean hands to a clean area and require the same foods to be eaten as on the normal day; then term 2 + term 3 are artificially forced to be approximately zero and only term 1 remains. For the convenience of discussion, henceforth the day when the child is restricted to a clean area with clean hands is referred to as "nonexposed day," and the day when the child is allowed to eat at regular places with uncleaned hands is referred to as "exposed day." Note that on the nonexposed day, the child still receives inhalation, nondietary ingestion, and dermal exposures. On both the exposed day and the nonexposed day, the child receives the same term 1 because the same foods are eaten on both days. The exposures the child does not receive on the nonexposed day are the surface-to-food transfer (term 2) and surface-to-hand-to-food transfer (term 3).

Theoretically, if inhalation, nondietary ingestion, and dermal exposures can be kept approximately the same on the exposed day and the nonexposed day, then according to Equation 5, the difference in the amount of urinary metabolites in overnight voids after the exposed day and the nonexposed day is a function of terms 2 and 3:

[8]

Compared with Equation 5, term 1 has been canceled out because the child's diet is restricted so that the same foods were eaten on the exposed day and the nonexposed day. An effective method to maintain the same exposure on the exposed day and the nonexposed day for other exposure routes/pathways while alternating the exposure for the pathway of interest is to conduct the study longitudinally so that data from several exposed-day/nonexposed-day pairs can be collected from the same subjects. This way the participant can serve as his or her own control so that ɑ and k can be assumed to be the same variable and behavior pattern variations can be kept at a minimum.

Computer simulation. Equations 5 and ⁸ demonstrate how, in theory, a route/pathway exposure model can be evaluated with a study design using metabolites in overnight urinary voids where the exposure status of the route/pathway of interest is varied while the exposures from the other routes/pathways are kept the same. For field studies, the following questions are the keys for study design: How long should the half-life of a selected pesticide be? What is the minimum level of surface pesticide loading to produce a measurable metabolite concentration in the overnight void? What is the minimum level of surface pesticide loading to make indirect dietary ingestion a measurable quantity in overnight urine? Will exposures from other pathways "mask" the exposure caused by surface-to-food and surface-to-hand-to-food transfer? How large a sample size is needed?

An important assumption for the analytical solutions, Equations 5 and 8, is that exposures from inhalation, nondietary ingestion, and dermal remain constant. In reality, however, this may not be true. To investigate whether a varying inhalation-nondietary-dermal profile will mask the urinary metabolite difference caused by dietary exposure, which is the key to the study design, we need to let the exposure rates vary across time. To demonstrate, however, we only set nondietary ingestion exposure to vary across time because of its significance (Zartarian et al. 2000). Inhalation and dermal exposures remained constant.

The varying exposure rates make it impossible to use analytical solutions to Equations 5 and 8. Therefore, we conducted a computer simulation to answer the above questions needed for a field study. To conduct the computer simulation, we set all the input parameters at values for a likely scenario based upon published literature. The parameters of interest were then varied (one at a time) to observe their impact on the output variable (i.e., urinary metabolite concentration). Computer simulation was based upon numerical solution to Equation 3 using Euler's method (Grossman 1986):

[9]

Details of the estimation/simulation of the exposure rates are given below.

For the inhalation exposure rate, exposure via inhalation per hour was estimated as follows:

[10]

where C_A is the air concentration (micrograms per liter) and V is the ventilation rate for children (liters per hour).

The nondietary ingestion exposure rate mentioned here is the exposure incurred when children put contaminated hands or toys into their mouth. To simulate the varying profile, the time that a child is awake (assuming from 0800 hr to 2000 hr) was divided into equal time intervals. The nondietary exposures received in these time intervals were assumed to be normally distributed. The mean of the R_nondietary was calculated by the following formula:

[11]

where H_S is the total hand/toy surface area (square centimeters), PH_M is the proportion of total hand/toy surface area coming in contact with mouth, L_H is the surface loading of the contaminant on the hand/toy (micrograms pesticide per square centimeter), and Fr_H/M is the frequency of mouthing activity during the time interval. Using published data, we estimated a mean of 0.0267 µg/min for R_nondietary. A standard deviation of 0.0179 µg/min was assumed so that > 50% of the simulated values were within one standard deviation (Table 2). Because nondietary ingestion exposure was unlikely when the child is asleep, we assumed zero nondietary exposures between 2000 hr and 0800 hr. The simulation of normally distributed R_nondietary for a 1-min time interval can be summarized in the following formula:

[12]

We ignored dermal exposure in the computer simulation for two reasons. First, exposure to diazinon (which was the pesticide of interest) through skin absorption has been reported in the literature to be minimal, although this may not be the case for other chemicals. Using radiolabeled diazinon in an acetone solution or lanolin grease on the forearm or abdomen, Wester et al. (1993) reported a total of only 2.2% skin absorption over 24 hr. Second, the purpose of the study was to guide study design rather than to establish a definitive relationship between exposure and metabolites.

Applying Equations 7, 10, and 12 to Equation 9, the model used to conduct the computer simulation was obtained. Table 2 lists the parameters used to estimate inhalation and nondietary intake.

Parameters for the children's dietary intake model were obtained from a previous study (Akland et al. 2000). Table 3 demonstrates how to use the children's dietary model to estimate exposure for three example foods: Cheerios, apple, and tortilla. In these examples, the pesticide residue was assumed to be 6 ng/g for all foods (National Research Council 1993). Parameters T_S/H, A_S/H, T_H/F, A_H/F, and PH were also estimated from the previous study (Akland et al. 2000). Because Cheerios are normally eaten with utensils, only term 1 is calculated for total dietary ingestion. Apple and tortilla, however, were estimated for terms 2 and 3, because these foods are normally handled by children. Other foods used to estimate a hypothetical child's exposed day's total dietary intake included rice (two tablespoons), chicken nuggets (four pieces), and ham (one slice). On the next unexposed day, only term 1 from the foods remained, and terms 2 and 3 were assumed to be zero. The examples shown in Table 3 demonstrate that by varying surface loading, different pesticide transfers are obtained. Therefore, the minimum level of surface pesticide loading to make indirect dietary ingestion a measurable quantity in overnight urine can be estimated.

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Computer simulation was conducted using Microsoft Excel 2002 (Microsoft, Seattle, WA). Equations for calculating R_inhalation, R_nondietary, and P_dietary were keyed in, and variables of interest, such as biologic half-life, dust loading, air concentration, and nondietary intake, were set in such a way that they could be easily varied to conduct the simulation. The simulation results were also plotted using Microsoft Excel.

Sample size calculation. Once the results from the simulation were obtained, sample size was calculated based upon a one-sided t-test of hypothesis: Y_{overnight void after exposed day} = Y_{overnight void after nonexposed day} versus Y_{overnight void after exposed day} > Y_{overnight void after nonexposed day} (Kleinbaum et al. 1988).

Results Top

Urinary measurements and biologic half-life. Figure 3 shows the urinary metabolite measurements in overnight voids as point estimates (when the urine samples are collected at 0800 hr) after three exposed-day/nonexposed-day pairs with various lengths of biologic half-life of the selected chemical. The results indicated that the success of the validation depends heavily on the biologic half-life of the chosen chemical. If the chemical has a relatively short half-life, as does malathion (3-4 hr; Lyon et al. 1987) or diazinon (~ 6 hr; Iverson et al. 1975), it is possible to detect a change in the urine metabolite concentration. The amount in the plasma also returns to nonexposed levels, which makes the evaluation of the model possible. However, if the biologic half-life is longer than 16 hr, a large sample size is required because the difference between urinary metabolites after exposed days and nonexposed days becomes small and the amount in the plasma is carried over from day to day with no recovery. When the biologic half-life is as long as or longer than 27 hr (e.g., chlorpyrifos), the chance of successful validation using the exposed-day/nonexposed-day design is even smaller because there is minimal difference in the urinary metabolite concentrations. Nonetheless, an alternative design, such as 1 exposed day followed by 2 nonexposed days to let the body further eliminate the metabolites, might be possible. This alternative design, however, substantially increases field difficulties because on the 2 nonexposed days the field team would need to ensure that no term 2 or term 3 intakes occur.

Figure 3.

Effect of biologic half-life on urinary measurements in the nonexposed-day/exposed-day design. (A) Half-life = 4 hr. (B) Half-life = 8 hr. (C) Half-life = 16 hr. (D) Half-life = 27 hr.

Pesticide loading. Surface pesticide loading is the source for surface-to-food and surface-to-hand-to-food transfer. Results of variations in the surface loading and urinary metabolites for a compound with a biologic half-life of 8 hr are shown in Figure 4. The results indicate that even if the chemical's half-life is short, a preferable loading of 4 ng/cm² or above is still needed to generate observable differences in urinary metabolites in the overnight voids after the exposed day and the nonexposed day. This level of loading can be found after indoor pesticide application (Byrne et al. 1998). However, when the loading decreases to ≤1 ng/cm², it is very difficult to see the differences in the urinary metabolite amount in overnight voids after exposed and nonexposed days. In the Minnesota Children's Pesticide Exposure Study, the mean surface chlorpyrifos loading measured by a surface press ranged from 0.03 to 32.6 ng/cm², with a mean of 0.48 ng/cm² (Lioy et al. 2000). These results answer the question about exposure scenario: Households with surface pesticide loading > 4 ng/cm² are preferred for efficient design, and houses that have frequent indoor pesticide applications are most likely to meet the criterion.

Figure 4.

Effect of surface loading on urinary metabolite measurements in the nonexposed-day/exposed-day design. (A) Surface loading = 1 ng/cm². (B) Surface loading = 2 ng/cm². (C) Surface loading = 4 ng/cm². (D) Surface loading = 8 ng/cm².

Impact of exposure from other routes/pathways. Figure 5 attempts to answer whether exposure from nondietary ingestion will mask the dietary exposure and interfere with the validation process. As shown in Figure 5, when nondietary ingestion exposure is normally distributed with a mean ± SD of 1.6 ± 1.1 µg/hr, the mask effect is small enough to allow the biomarker differences caused by dietary exposure difference to be observed. However, when nondietary ingestion exposure reaches a mean of 3.2 µg/hr, the mask effect becomes obvious because the difference in urine metabolite concentrations becomes small and inconsistent. The 1.6 µg/hr nondietary ingestion exposure was calculated by assuming a mouthing frequency of 10/hr (Reed et al. 1999; Zartarian et al. 1997), which was high compared with the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency default (Reed et al. 1999), and for each event the child mouths a 40-cm² surface (hand or toy) with a relatively high pesticide loading of 4 ng/cm². Because these assumptions reflect high-end exposure, we can safely assume that the average level of nondietary activity will not significantly interfere with the model validation process. Nonetheless, to conduct a successful study, the subjects selected into the study would preferably be children who do not have frequent mouthing activities, such as thumb sucking.

Figure 5.

Effect of nondietary exposure on urinary measurements in the nonexposed-day/exposed-day design. (A) Nondietary ~ normal distribution, mean ± SD = 0.0266 ± 0.0179. (B) Nondietary ~ normal distribution, mean ± SD = 0.0532 ± 0.0258.

Similarly, we estimated the effect of inhalation exposure (Figure 6). The results indicate that inhalation exposure does not cause a large effect on the biomarker differences, even when the hypothetical air concentration was increased to 5 µg/m³, a level only seen immediately after indoor pesticide application (Akland et al. 2000).

Figure 6.

Effect of inhalation exposure on urinary metabolite measurements in the nonexposed-day/exposed-day design. (A) Air concentration = 0.5 µg/m³. (B) Air concentration = 5 µg/m³.

Sample size. Based upon a pesticide with a biologic half-life of 8 hr and assuming a variance of 2 due to measurement errors, a minimum sample size of five pairs of the exposed day and the nonexposed day would be required in homes with pesticide loading ≥ 4 ng/cm² to achieve a power of 80% for detecting 3-µg urinary metabolite differences.

Discussion Top

Evaluating a pathway model is difficult because the biomarker measurements also have contributions from other exposure routes/pathways. Here we demonstrate that a thoughtful design guided by PK modeling can make the evaluation possible. The computer simulation for the children's dietary intake model indicated three important aspects for a successful design: longitudinal design of the study, short half-life of the selected chemical, and high pesticide surface loading. Under normal circumstances, inhalation and nondietary ingestion exposure would not mask the dietary exposure as long as they can be kept nearly constant for the nonexposed day and the exposed day.

Using the results from the computer simulation, we selected diazinon and conducted a study with three children in homes with surface loading of > 4 ng/cm². Each child was followed for at least 6 days, yielding three or more nonexposed-day/exposed-day pairs. The study results (unpublished data) indicated that this design was successful. Using PK modeling as a guidance, field efforts to collect data to evaluate the model can be well planned, and the cost can be substantially reduced.

In this study, we used a single-compartment PK model. The single-compartment model may not be as accurate as a multicompartment PK model in prediction, but it has a practical advantage--only two parameters are essential to build a model: the biologic half-life of the chemical and the proportion of the chemical eliminated in overnight void. In many cases, these parameters are the only information one can obtain from the literature. Because of this practical advantage, the single-compartment model was recently used again by other researchers to assess pesticide exposure based on urinary biomarkers (Rigas et al. 2001). Because the purpose of this modeling approach is to provide guidance for the design of field studies, it is perhaps not necessary to expend large efforts to develop a complicated model at the front end of the study design. Our field study also indicated that the single-compartment model was adequate for designing the model evaluation study we had conducted.

This article demonstrated the case of designing a study to appropriately capture data in order to evaluate a dietary exposure model. However, we envision a similar strategy being used in other situations, such as nondietary ingestion exposure models, dermal exposure models, or inhalation exposure models.

References Top

1. Akland GG, Pellizzari ED, Hu Y, Roberds M, Rohrer CA, Leckie JO, et al. 2000. Factors influencing total dietary exposures of young children. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 10:710–722. Find this article online
2. Byrne SL, Shurdut BA, Saunders DG. 1998. Potential chlorpyrifos exposure to residents following standard crack and crevice treatment. Environ Health Perspect 106:725–731. Find this article online
3. Choudhury H, Harvey T, Thayer WC, Lockwood TF, Stiteler WM, Goodrum PE, et al. 2001. Urinary cadmium elimination as a biomarker of exposure for evaluating a cadmium dietary exposure--biokinetics model. J Toxicol Environ Health A 63:321–350. Find this article online
4. Edwards RD, Lioy PJ. 1999. The EL sampler: a press sampler for the quantitative estimation of dermal exposure to pesticides in housedust. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 9:521–529. Find this article online
5. Iverson F, Grant D, Lacroix J.. 1975. Diazinon metabolism in the dog. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 13:611–618. Find this article online
6. Kleinbaum D, Kupper L, Muller K. 1988. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Boston:PWS-KENT.
7. Lambert WE, Samet JM, Hunt WC, Skipper BJ, Schwab M, Spengler JD. 1993. Nitrogen dioxide and respiratory illness in children. Part II: Assessment of exposure to nitrogen dioxide. Res Rep Health Eff Inst 58:33–50. Find this article online
8. Lioy PJ, Edwards RD, Freeman N, Gurunathan S, Pellizzari E, Adgate JL, et al. 2000. House dust levels of selected insecticides and a herbicide measured by the EL and LWW samplers and comparisons to hand rinses and urine metabolites. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 10:327–340. Find this article online
9. Lu C, Fenske RA. 1999. Dermal transfer of chlorpyrifos residues from residential surfaces: comparison of hand press, hand drag, wipe, and polyurethane foam roller measurements after broadcast and aerosol pesticide applications. Environ Health Perspect 107:463–467. Find this article online
10. Lyon J, Taylor H, Ackerman B.. 1987. A case report of intravenous malathion injection with determination of serum half-life. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 25:243–249. Find this article online
11. Melnyk LJ, Berry MR, Sheldon LS, Freeman NC, Pellizzari ED, Kinman RN. 2000. Dietary exposure of children in lead-laden environments. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 10:723–731. Find this article online
12. National Research Council. 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
13. Oreskes N.. 1998. Evaluation (not validation) of quantitative models. Environ Health Perspect 106: suppl 61453–1460. Find this article online
14. Ponce RA, Bartell SM, Kavanagh TJ, Woods JS, Griffith WC, Lee RC, et al. 1998. Uncertainty analysis methods for comparing predictive models and biomarkers: a case study of dietary methyl mercury exposure. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 28:96–105. Find this article online
15. Reed KJ, Jimenez M, Freeman NC, Lioy PJ. 1999. Quantification of children's hand and mouthing activities through a videotaping methodology. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 9:513–520. Find this article online
16. Rigas ML, Okino MS, Quackenboss JJ. 2001. Use of a pharmacokinetic model to assess chlorpyrifos exposure and dose in children, based on urinary biomarker measurements. Toxicol Sci 61:374–381. Find this article online
17. Schoenwald R. 2001. Pharmacokinetic Principles of Dosing Adjustments. Lancaster, PA:Technomic.
18. Wester RC, Sedik L, Melendres J, Logan F, Maibach HI, Russell I. 1993. Percutaneous absorption of diazinon in humans. Food Chem Toxicol 31:569–572. Find this article online
19. Zaragoza L, Hogan K.. 1998. The integrated exposure uptake biokinetic model for lead in children: independent validation and verification. Environ Health Perspect 106: suppl 61551–1556. Find this article online
20. Zartarian VG, Ferguson AC, Ong CG, Leckie JO. 1997. Quantifying videotaped activity patterns: video translation software and training methodologies. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 7:535–542. Find this article online
21. Zartarian VG, Ozkaynak H, Burke JM, Zufall MJ, Rigas ML, Furtaw EJ. 2000. A modeling framework for estimating children's residential exposure and dose to chlorpyrifos via dermal residue contact and nondietary ingestion. Environ Health Perspect 108:505–514. Find this article online