HEALTH CONSULTATION
Review of Dust Sampling Data for 45th Street Artists' Cooperative
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
EMERYVILLE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Figure 1. Map of Emeryville showing location of Site.
Figure 2. Location of 45th Street Artists' Cooperative.
Figure 3. Floor plan of 45th Street Artists' Cooperative.
TABLE 1. AGE CATEGORIES AND EXPOSURE PARAMETERS USED IN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Age Category | Weight (kg) | Dust Intake (mg/day) | Soil Intake (mg/day) | Water Intake (L/day) | Inhalation Rate (m3/day) | Dust Exposure Parameters* |
Infant (0-1 yo) |
10 | 100 | 100 | 1 | 4 | 99%/1%/0% |
Toddler (1-6 yo) |
15 | 100 | 100 | 1 | 4 | 95%/5%/0% |
Young Child (6-12 yo) |
30 | 75 | 75 | 1 | 15 | 75%/23%/2% |
Older Child (12-18 yo) |
50 | 50 | 50 | 1 | 15 | 70%/25%/5% |
Adult (18+ yo) |
70 | 50 | 50 | 2 | 20 | 70%/25%/5% |
* This column represents the fraction of the daily dust intake that comes from the floor, window sills, and "Other" locations. For example, 95% of a toddler's daily intake of dust comes from the floor (95 mg), and 5% of a toddler's daily intake of dust comes from window sills. It is assumed that children this young would not come into contact with dust from "Other" locations.
kg = kilogram
mg/day = milligrams per day
L/day = liter per day
m3/day = cubic meters per day
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF DUST SAMPLING FOR ARSENIC
AND LEAD
(Sampling conducted October 1998 and October 1999)
Dust Wipe Samples |
Microvac Samples (mg/kg) |
|||
Arsenic (As) |
Lead (Pb) |
Arsenic (As) |
Lead (Pb) |
|
Unit A | 3/9 <20-130 |
6/9 <20-17,000 |
110 | 4,800 |
B | 1/9 <10-28 |
2/9 <20-310 |
950 | 5,000 |
C | 2/7 <20-86 |
3/7 <20-560 |
<500 | <500 |
D | 1/4 <20-30 |
3/4 <20-120 |
68 | 430 |
E | 0/10 <20-<40 |
4/10 <20-74 |
73 | 300 |
F | 3/9 <20-110 |
3/9 <20-1,200 |
140 | 880 |
G | 0/7 <30-<70 |
0/7 <30-<70 |
<100 | <100 |
H | 3/5 <20-56 |
4/5 <20-470 |
150 | 950 |
I | 2/6 <10-28 |
3/6 <10-110 |
110 | 1,800 |
J | 6/9 <10-700 |
8/9 <10-1,200,000 |
320 | 3,600 |
K | 2/8 <20-99 |
3/8 <20-620 |
<90 | 640 |
L | 4/9 <10-120 |
6/9 <10-580 |
150 | 210 |
Hallways | 3/11 <5-180 |
3/11 <5-860 |
130 | 690 |
Offices/ Community Room | 1/5 <5-37 |
3/5 <5-150 |
48 | 240 |
Bathrooms | 0/3 <5 |
1/3 <5 - 53 |
<200 | 6400 |
µg/ft2 = micrograms per square feet
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF PAINT TESTS
(Sampling conducted October 1998 and October 1999)
Paint Chip Data parts per million (ppm) * |
XRF Data # |
||
Arsenic (As) |
Lead (Pb) |
Pb |
|
Unit A | 56 | 1,100 | 54 location, 2 LBP/2 det; 4 LCP/3 det |
B | <20 | 130 | 129 location, 12 LBP/4 det; 20 LCP/8 det |
1000 | 37 | ||
C | 65 | 19,000 | 59 location, 12 LBP/2 det; 3 LCP/3 det |
62 | 18,000 | ||
D | 63 | 46 | 44 location, 7 LBP/4 det; 6 LCP/3 det |
E | 45 | <100 | 129 location, 2 LBP/2 det; 10 LCP/0 det |
68 | 7,400 | ||
F | 32 | 1,700 | 73 location, 3 LBP/3det; 6 LCP/0 det |
G | No sample | No sample | 67 location, 3 LBP/3 det ; 20 LCP/10 det |
H | 40 | 520 | 30 location, 6 LBP/6 det; 4 LCP/4 det |
I | 140 | 19,000 | 49 location, 1 LBP/1 det ; 13 LCP/13 det |
42 | 280 | ||
45 | 6,100 | ||
29 | 1,700 | ||
J | 24 | 310 | 63 location, 10 LBP/7 det; 13 LCP/5 det |
39 | 47,000 | ||
K | 54 | 3,600 | 83 location, 3 LBP/0 det; 10 LCP/1 det |
L | 32 | 1,200 | 43 location, 1 LBP/0 det; 3 LCP/3 det |
65 | 2,100 | ||
81 | 2,500 | ||
55 | 1,800 | ||
Hallways | 56 | 1,100 | 148 location, 9 LBP/5 det; 4 LCP/3 det |
43 | 1,100 | ||
Offices/ Community Room | 26 | 2,900 | 28 locations, 4 LBP/4 det; 4 LCP/1 det |
Bathrooms | 45 | <100 | 22 locations, 2 LBP/2 det; 5 LCP/1 det |
* For most units, one paint chip was tested. In a few units
more than one samples was tested and each sample result is presented and is
listed. In one unit, no paint chip sample was collected. There is no comparison
value for the amount of arsenic in the paint chip. If the paint chip sample
contains lead at a concentration of 5,000 mg/kg or greater it is considered
to have come from lead-based paint.
# For each unit, the number of locations that were tested
is listed first. Out of the total locations tested, the number of locations
where lead based paint (LBP) is listed followed by the number of the LBP where
the paint is deteriorated (det). Out of the total locations tested, the number
of locations where lead containing paint (LCP) is listed followed by the number
of LCP locations where the paint is deteriorated (det).
TABLE 4. ESTIMATED BLOOD LEAD LEVELS (µg/dL) FOR INDIVIDUALS
EXPOSED TO LEAD IN DUST
Infant/Toddler | Young Child | Older Child | Adult | |
Unit A | 6.8 | 9.7 | 9.5 | 3.1 |
B | 7 | 7.5 | 6.9 | 2.5 |
C | 4.9 | 5 | 4.8 | 2 |
D | 6.5 | 5.9 | 5.3 | 2.1 |
E | 6.5 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 2 |
F | 10.7 | 8.4 | 6.7 | 2.4 |
G | 4.8 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 1.9 |
H | 10.7 | 8.4 | 6.7 | 2.4 |
I | 12.3 | 10.8 | 8.8 | 3 |
J | 6.9 | 10.1 | 9.9 | 3.2 |
K | 5.3 | 5.6 | 5.4 | 2.1 |
L | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 1.9 |
Hallways | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 1.8 |
Offices/ Community Room | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 1.8 |
Bathrooms | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 1.6 |
TABLE 5. ESTIMATED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS (mg/kg)
FOR INDIVIDUALS AND CANCER RISK ESTIMATIONS FOR ADULTS EXPOSED TO ARSENIC IN
HOUSE DUST*
Infant | Toddler | Young Child | Older Child | Adult | Increased Lifetime Cancer Risk | |
Screening Value | 30 | 45 | 120 | 300 | 420 | 3.5 in 100,000# |
Unit A
|
33 | 32 | 29 | 30 | 30 | 3 in 100,000 |
B | 94 | 194 | 201 | 212 | 212 | 2 in 10,000 |
C | 79 | 82 | 98 | 97 | 97 | 1 in 10,000 |
D | 39 | 38 | 34 | 38 | 32 | 4 in 100,000 |
E | 58 | 56 | 45 | 43 | 43 | 5 in 100,000 |
F | 95 | 91 | 74 | 70 | 70 | 7 in 100,000 |
G | 26 | 26 | 23 | 22 | 22 | 2 in 100,000 |
H | 90 | 86 | 69 | 66 | 66 | 7 in 100,000 |
I | 36 | 37 | 44 | 44 | 44 | 5 in 100,000 |
J | 27 | 36 | 77 | 82 | 82 | 9 in 100,000 |
K | 11 | 12 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 2 in 100,000 |
L | 14 | 16 | 26 | 29 | 29 | 3 in 100,000 |
Hallways | 14 | 13 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 2 in 1,000,000 |
Office/ Community Room | 10 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 2 in 1,000,000 |
Bathrooms | 16 | 16 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 2 in 1,000,000 |
* Numbers in bold face represent exposure concentrations that exceed the respective screening value for that age category for arsenic.
# Increased lifetime cancer risk from levels of arsenic typically found in San Francisco Bay Area soils.
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
To evaluate potential adverse health effects due to exposure to lead and arsenic in dust, we need to know the concentration (milligrams of contaminant per kilogram of dust) of those contaminants in dust on various locations in your unit. We have data from dust wipe samples (milligrams of contaminant per square foot of surface) which tell us the distribution of dust in your unit, and we have a composite microvac sample, which tells us the overall concentration (milligrams of contaminant per kilogram of dust) in the unit. To arrive at an estimate of the concentration of contaminant on the three major components of your unit (floor, sill, other), we made the following calculations for both lead and arsenic. We used the data from Unit J as an example.
1. Estimate concentration of arsenic and lead on each component
Sum the dust wipe samples for each component (floor, sill, other)
Sum the total from each componentFor Lead
Floor (ug/ft2) Sill (ug/ft2) Other (ug/ft2) 28 120,000 42 41 200 3,500 140 390 <10* Total per component 604 120,200 3,542 Total of all components 124,346 * <10 means chemical not detected at a limit of detection of 10 ug. By convention, a value of ½ of the limit of detection is used when a number is required
For Arsenic
Floor (ug/ft2) Sill (ug/ft2) Other (ug/ft2) <10 700 <10 11 24 120 12 38 <10 Total per component 71 724 125
Total of all components 920 The locations sampled by microvac were adjacent to the areas sampled by wipe sampling, and the same size as the area sampled by wipe sampling. Therefore, assume the fraction of the total surface loading for each component to the total surface loading for all components is the same for the microvac sample
For Lead For Arsenic Floor: 604/124,346 = 0.005 71/920 = 0.077 Sill: 120,200/124,346 = 0.967 724/920 = 0.787 Other: 3542/124,346 = 0.028 125/920 = 0.136 The concentration of lead in the microvac sample (remember that this is a composite sample representing the overall concentration of lead in your unit) is 3,600 mg/kg. Therefore, the estimated concentration of lead in the dust on each component is:
For Lead
Floor: 0.005 x 3,600mgPb/kgdust = 18mgPb/kgdust
Sill: 0.967 x 3,600mgPb/kgdust = 3480mgPb/kgdust
Other: 0.028 x 3,600mgPb/kgdust = 101mgPb/kgdustThe concentration of arsenic in the microvac sample (remember that this is a composite sample representing the overall concentration of arsenic in your unit) is 320 mg/kg. Therefore, the estimated concentration of lead in the dust on each component is:
For arsenic
Floor: 0.077 x 320mgPb/kgdust = 25mgPb/kgdust
Sill: 0.787 x 320mgPb/kgdust = 252mgPb/kgdust
Other: 0.136 x 320mgPb/kgdust = 44mgPb/kgdustWe now have an approximate concentration of lead and arsenic on the floor, window sills, and other components (other components such as tops of I-beams and ceiling rafters, the back of storage closets, the tops of high shelves, and other similar remote locations).
2. Residents in a studio are not exposed to dust from just one component, but from several. In addition, the age of the person being exposed to dust will influence where they are most exposed. We evaluated these factors as follows:
Evaluate five different age categories. These categories are (1) infants, 0-1 year old; (2) toddlers, 1-6 years old; (3) young children, 6-12 years old, (4) older children, 12-18 years old; and (5) adults, 18+ years old.
Evaluate where a person from each age category would be exposed to dust in a studio. We assumed that a person of a particular age category incidentally ingests a certain amount of house dust per day, and that this person would ingest a certain percentage from each component, depending upon their age. We made the following assumptions:
Infant Toddler Young Child Older Child Adult Daily Dust Ingestion Rate (mg). 100 100 75 50 50 Floor 99% 95% 80% 70% 70% Sill 1% 5% 17% 25% 25% Other 0 0 1% 5% 5% The rationale for these assumptions are as follows: most of an infant's exposure to dust would be on the floor. They might be exposed to some dust from a window sill if a parent puts a toy or book there. Basically the same applies to toddlers, but because they are a little bigger and somewhat more mobile, they can reach window sills themselves. Neither infants nor toddlers would be expected to come into contact with "other" components (such things as ceiling beams and rafters, or hard to reach areas such as the back of closets or high shelves). As we get older, we incidentally ingest less dust, and our behaviors change such that we now come into more frequent contact with window sills and other components than we did when we were younger.
3. To estimate an exposure concentration, we use the concentration of lead and arsenic on each component (estimated in section 1 above), and the amount of dust that a person of a particular age ingests from each component (estimated in section 2 above) as follows.
4. For lead, the exposure concentrations calculated above are used as the input for house dust in the computer model, which calculates the estimated blood lead level. This estimated blood lead level is based on exposure to lead from multiple sources, including drinking water, air, food, and soil, as well as house dust.
5. For arsenic, this calculated exposure concentration is compared to a screening value for arsenic for each age category. A screening value is the maximum concentration of arsenic in a medium (house, dust, in this example) to which a person could be exposed without adverse health effects being expected to occur. If the exposure concentration is less than or equal to the screening value, then we would not expect adverse health effects to occur. If the exposure concentration is greater than the screening value, adverse health effects do not automatically occur. Such a situation would be examined more thoroughly to determine the likelihood of adverse health effects.
Screening values are calculated as follows:
In which sv is the screening value, MRL is the ATSDR Minimal Risk Level (mgAs/kg/day), BW is body weight (kg), and IR is the ingestion rate (mgdust/day). Plugging in actual values, the screening values for the five age categories are
6. Arsenic is a known human carcinogen. The risk of developing cancer is measured by the increased lifetime cancer risk. This is the number of excess cases of cancer, over and above the number of background number of cancers. In the United States, the background cancer rate is between 25% and 33%. This means that at a minimum, in a population of 1,000,000 people, one would expect to see 250,000 cases of cancer. If exposure to a chemical at a level that would cause a 1 in 1,000,000 increase in the lifetime cancer risk, then in that same population of 1,000,000, we would expect to see 250,001 cases of cancer.
The measure of the potency of a carcinogen is the cancer slope factor (units of (mg/kg/day)-1). For arsenic, the cancer slope factor is 1.5 (mg/kg/day)-1. The increased lifetime cancer risk is calculated as
risk = dose x slope_factor,
in which dose is the milligrams of arsenic ingested per kilogram of body weight per day. The dose is calculated as
For an adult over an average 70 year lifetime to the exposure concentration for an adult in your unit, the increased lifetime cancer risk is
= (5.8 x 10-5mg/kg/day) x 1.5(mg/kg/day)-1
= 9 x 10-5
or, 9 in 100,000 people, or, 90 in 1,000,000 people. Qualitatively, this is considered to be a very low increased lifetime cancer risk.
The concentration of arsenic in the soils of the San Francisco Bay Area are relatively high in comparison to the rest of the country, in the range of 13 - 22 mg/kg. At 13 mg/kg, the increased lifetime cancer risk is
= 3 x 10-5
or, 3 in 100,000.
At 22 mg/kg of arsenic, the increased lifetime cancer risk is
= 5 x 10-5
or, 5 in 100,000
APPENDIX D: THE DUST AND
LEAD-BASED PAINT SAMPLING CONDUCTED AT THE 45TH STREET ARTISTS' COOPERATIVE
1420 45th Street
Emeryville, Alameda County, California
Between October 1998 and October 1999
Click here to view Appendix D in PDF format. [PDF, 1283kb]
If adequate information about the level of exposure, frequency of exposure, and length of exposure to a particular carcinogen is available, an estimate of excess cancer risk associated with the exposure can be calculated by use of the slope factor for that carcinogen. Specifically, to obtain risk estimates, the estimated, chronic exposure dose (which is averaged over a lifetime or 70 years) is multiplied by the slope factor for that carcinogen.
Cancer risk is the likelihood or chance, of getting cancer. We say "excess cancer risk" because we have a "background risk" of about one-in-four chances of getting cancer. In other words, in a million people, it is expected that 250,000 individuals would get cancer from a variety of causes. If we say that there is a "one-in-a-million" excess cancer risk from a given exposure to a contaminant, we mean that if one million people are exposed to a carcinogen at a certain level over their lifetimes, then one cancer above the background chance, or the 250,001st cancer, may appear in those million persons from that particular exposure. In order to take into account the uncertainties in the science, the risk numbers used are plausible upper limits of the actual risk based on conservative assumptions. In actuality, the risk is probably somewhat lower than calculated, and, in fact, may be zero.
ATSDR defines an exposure pathway as having 5 parts:
Source of contamination,
Environmental Media and Transport Mechanism,
Point of Exposure,
Route of Exposure, and
Receptor Population.
When all 5 parts of an exposure pathway are present, it is called a Completed Exposure Pathway.
This Health Consultation, Review of Dust Sampling Date for 45th Street Artists' Cooperative, Emeryville, California, was prepared by the California Department of Health Services under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the public health assessment was begun.
Tammie McRae, MS
Technical Project Officer, SPS, SSAB, DHAC
The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this health consultation and concurs with the findings
Richard Gillig
for Bobbie Erlwein
Chief, State Program Section, DHAC, ATSDR