U.S. EPA EFH 2011 — Chapter 17 (Consumer Products)

Chapter 17 of the U.S. EPA’s 2011 Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH) compiles consumer-product use and exposure data — frequency of use, amount used per application, duration of contact, and amount applied per use day — for a broad set of cosmetic, personal-care, baby-care, household cleaning, painting, solvent, pesticide, and other consumer-product categories. The chapter does not measure or report heavy-metal contamination of any product; its purpose is to supply standardized exposure parameters (g/day, g/application, mg/kg-day, applications/day, hours/year) that downstream exposure assessments multiply by chemical-concentration data to estimate dose. For the Heavy Metal Index, the chapter’s primary value is as the canonical reference for the “amount applied” and “frequency of use” parameters of cosmetic and baby-care exposure-pathway calculations. The chapter is non-exhaustive by design and EPA explicitly declines to recommend specific exposure values in §17.2, directing users to derive parameters from the cited underlying surveys. Underlying surveys span 1983-2008 and include CTFA (1983), Westat (1987a/b/c), Abt (1992), U.S. EPA NHAPS (1996), Bass et al. (2001), Weegels and van Veen (2001), Loretz et al. (2005/2006/2008), Hall et al. (2007), and Sathyanarayana et al. (2008).

Key numbers

Cosmetic and baby products — amount per application and frequency of use (Table 17-3, CTFA 1983 survey of 47 employees / 1,129 retrospective customers / 19,035 nationwide consumers per §17.3.1; values are CTFA-survey columns unless noted):

Footnote ᵉ on Table 17-3: “Fewer than 10 % of individuals surveyed used these products. Value listed is lowest frequency among individuals reporting usage.” Footnote ᵇ: Market Research Bureau averages are not true averages because the most-frequent-user class is indicated by “1 or more”; the 90th percentile values are therefore underestimates.

Lipstick / body lotion / face cream — distributional statistics for n=360 women, ages 19-65, 10 U.S. cities, 2000 study, 2-week diary (Loretz et al. 2005; Table 17-39 of EFH):

Frequency of use of cosmetic products — n=300-311 women diary entries (Loretz et al. 2005; Table 17-38 of EFH):

Personal-care products — average applications per use day (Loretz et al. 2006; Table 17-40 of EFH):

Personal-care products — average amount applied per application, g (Loretz et al. 2006; Table 17-41 of EFH):

Personal-care products — average amount applied per use day, g (Loretz et al. 2006; Table 17-42 of EFH):

European exposure model — Hall et al. 2007, n=44,100 households / 18,057 individuals across 15 EU countries (Tables 17-43 through 17-50 of EFH; mean ± SD and key percentiles in g/day and mg/kg-day):

Facial cleanser / hair conditioner / eye shadow — Loretz et al. 2008, n=295-299 women in same diary cohort (Tables 17-51 through 17-53 of EFH):

Baby-care product use — Sathyanarayana et al. 2008, n=163 infants ages 2-28 months, recruited from Future Families cohort in Los Angeles / Minneapolis / Columbia, MO (Table 17-54 of EFH):

Population: 84 male (52 %) / 79 female (48 %); age strata 2-8 mo (26 %), 9-16 mo (50 %), 17-24 mo (18 %), 24-28 mo (6 %); infant weight ≤10 kg (52 %) / >10 kg (48 %); race 80 % White, 10 % Hispanic/Latino, 5 % Asian, 3 % Black, 2 % Native American.

Household products — Westat 1987a survey of household solvent products, n=4,920 users, frequency of use (per year) percentiles (Table 17-4 of EFH; selected entries):

Household cleaning products — Weegels and van Veen 2001, n=30 Delft households (Table 17-37 of EFH):

Hair spray — Weegels and van Veen 2001 (Table 17-37 of EFH; hair spray uses different metrics):

Methods (brief)

Chapter structure (EPA non-original tertiary compilation): Chapter 17 is a literature-review chapter of the EFH 2011 edition (EPA/600/R-09/052F). It summarizes thirteen primary surveys and EPA’s NHAPS reanalysis, organizes them by product category (cosmetic and baby products; cleaning products; painting products; methylene-chloride consumer use; household activity; pesticides; and a Dutch household-product study), and tabulates frequency-of-use and amount-applied distributions extracted from each. EPA notes in §17.2 that “Because of the large range and variation among consumer products and their exposure pathways, it is not feasible to recommend specific exposure values as has been done in other chapters of this handbook” — the chapter is therefore methodology-explanation plus pass-through tables rather than EPA-recommended point estimates.

Underlying-survey methodologies (verbatim from §17.3 sub-sections):

• CTFA 1983 — three surveys: a 1-week prospective survey of 47 female employees and relatives ages 13-61; a retrospective survey of 1,129 customers by a single cosmetic manufacturer; and a market-research-bureau survey of 19,035 female consumers (9,684 tabulated) over a 9½-month period.
• Westat 1987a (solvent products) — random-digit-dial telephone (Waksberg method), 6,700 contacted, 4,920 responses (response rate 73 %).
• Westat 1987c (cleaning products) — telephone survey, 193 households, response rate 78 %; primary cleaner was female in 83 % of responding households; supplemented by a 30-household re-interview reliability check and a 50-household 4-week diary subset.
• Westat 1987b (interior painters) — n=777 households surveyed, 27 % had a primary painter household member in the prior 12 months; n=208 primary-painter households; response rate 90 %.
• Abt 1992 — nationwide telephone survey of ~5,000 households on methylene-chloride consumer use during April-May 1991, with follow-up mailed questionnaire (259 of 527 returned).
• U.S. EPA 1996 NHAPS — 24-hour activity-diary survey of >9,000 individuals (including 2,000 children) in 48 contiguous states, October 1992-September 1994; EPA reanalyzed NHAPS pesticide data into the standardized age categories from EPA (2005) for use in EFH.
• Bass et al. 2001 — Arizona household survey of pesticide use, n=107 households (predominantly Hispanic) with children <10 yr, March 1999; response rate ~74 %.
• Weegels and van Veen 2001 — Dutch household study, n=30 households in Delft using dishwashing detergent / all-purpose cleaner / hair-styling products with in-home observation, diaries, video, and direct product-mass measurement over 3 weeks.
• Loretz et al. 2005 — nationwide diary survey, n=360 women ages 19-65 in 10 U.S. cities (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Minneapolis, St. Louis, San Bernardino, Tampa Bay, Seattle), 2-week diary with returned-and-weighed product mass for lipstick, body lotion, face cream.
• Loretz et al. 2006 — same diary methodology, n=360 women, 2000-2001, for hairspray, spray perfume, liquid foundation, shampoo, body wash, solid antiperspirant; completion rates 91-94 % depending on product (91 % hairspray; 91 % spray perfume; 94 % liquid foundation; 94 % shampoo, body wash, solid antiperspirant).
• Hall et al. 2007 — European cosmetic-manufacturer probabilistic model from market-information databases and a controlled product-use study of 44,100 households / 18,057 individuals across 15 EU countries (sample representative of 249 million inhabitants); covers body lotion, deodorant/antiperspirant, lipstick, facial moisturizer, shampoo, toothpaste.
• Loretz et al. 2008 — same diary methodology, n=295-299 women ages 18-69 in four U.S. Census regions, 2-week diary for facial cleanser, hair conditioner, eye shadow.
• Sathyanarayana et al. 2008 — Future Families cohort study of n=163 infants born 2000-2005 in Los Angeles / Minneapolis / Columbia (MO); questionnaire data on baby lotion, baby powder, baby shampoo, diaper cream, baby wipes use; study purpose was phthalate exposure, but the EFH cites it for baby-product use prevalence.

Limitations EPA highlights in the chapter: Many CTFA and Westat tables are based on >20-year-old data and may not reflect current usage patterns. CTFA Market Research Bureau averages are biased toward high-end users because the most-frequent-user class is reported as “1 or more” rather than a counted value, which both underestimates the average and underestimates the 90th-percentile estimate. NHAPS adult data are not broken into finer age categories and are based on 24-hour recall. Bass et al. (2001) is Arizona-specific and predominantly Hispanic. Loretz studies oversample regular users of the specific test products. Hall et al. (2007) is EU population, not U.S., and is not broken by age. Sathyanarayana sample is small and from three states only. EPA Office of Toxic Substances (1986) Standard Scenarios for Estimating Exposure to Chemical Substances During Use of Consumer Products (Volumes I and II, EPA/560/5-85/007) is identified as a complementary reference.

No analytical chemistry is performed in this chapter. No metals concentrations are reported. The chapter’s role for HMI is as the exposure-parameter input (mass/day, mass/application, contact duration, frequency/year) to multiply against contamination concentrations from primary literature for estimated-daily-intake or estimated-weekly-intake calculations.

Implications

Certification: Provides the canonical U.S. EPA-endorsed exposure-factor reference for cosmetic and personal-care product use parameters. For HMTc certification work in the personal-care categories (Cat 2 children’s personal care; baby lotion, baby shampoo, baby wipes, diaper cream, baby powder; adult cosmetics that may be applied to a child by a caregiver — lipstick, body lotion, face cream, facial moisturizer, deodorant, shampoo, toothpaste, facial cleanser, hair conditioner, eye shadow), this chapter provides the “exposure side” arithmetic that downstream contamination concentrations (reported in ppb of Pb, Cd, As, Hg, Ni, Al, Cr-VI, Sn) multiply against to produce mg/kg-day metal dose estimates. The Loretz et al. 2005/2006/2008 percentile distributions are particularly load-bearing because they are U.S.-population diary data with returned-and-weighed product mass, not recall-based estimates.

Courses: The chapter is a clean teaching example of (a) the structural difference between recall surveys (CTFA 1983, Westat 1987a/b/c, Abt 1992, NHAPS 1996, Bass 2001) and diary-with-weight-back surveys (Loretz 2005/2006/2008, Weegels and van Veen 2001), (b) the bias direction of “1 or more” use-frequency coding in market-research-bureau data, (c) the use of geometric-mean / geometric-standard-deviation / lognormal-distribution parametric summaries (e.g., Loretz 2005 lipstick GM=0.01 g/use day, GSD=3.45), and (d) the contrast between “per use day” and “per application” parameterization for chronic-exposure modeling. The 90th-percentile-vs-mean contrast (e.g., baby powder 5.36 applications/day mean vs 8.43 upper 90th for the CTFA survey of women applying to babies) is a useful single-finding hook for variability and high-end-user discussions.

App: The exposure parameters here populate the “how much product is on a baby per day” denominator for downstream metal-dose estimates in the consumer app’s personal-care section. For consumer-facing translation, the Sathyanarayana prevalence data (94 % of infants use baby wipes; 54 % baby shampoo; 36 % baby lotion; 33 % diaper cream; 14 % baby powder) anchor which baby-care exposure pathways are population-relevant rather than niche.

Speciation caution: None applicable — this chapter reports no chemical-concentration data.

Limitations for downstream pooling: The chapter pools surveys spanning 1983-2008. CTFA 1983 baby-product frequency values (e.g., baby powder 5.36/day mean) reflect 1980s baby-care practice. The chapter at §17.1.2 explicitly notes that the EPA 1987 household-product list (Table 17-1) “may have declined (e.g., aerosol products may have declined)” — the example EPA gives is aerosol products, not baby powder; HMI’s own downweighting judgment on CTFA 1983 baby-product frequencies is based on the >20-year gap rather than a direct EPA statement about that specific product class. For HMI EDI calculations, the Loretz 2005-2008 and Sathyanarayana 2008 datasets are the most recent and the most useful; CTFA 1983 should be downweighted for current-practice estimates on independent grounds (data age) rather than on the basis of an EPA statement that does not specifically address baby products.

Wiki pages this source may touch

• baby-lotion-cream
• baby-oil
• baby-powder-cornstarch
• baby-talcum-powder
• baby-shampoo-body-wash
• baby-wipes
• diaper-cream-non-zno
• diaper-cream-zno
• children-personal-care
• childrens-makeup
• childrens-nail-polish
• childrens-lip-balm-mineral-bearing
• childrens-lip-balm-plain
• lipstick
• body-hand-leave-on-skin-care
• face-neck-leave-on-skin-care
• facial-cleansers
• body-wash-shower-gel
• shampoo-adult
• conditioner-adult-rinse-out
• toothpaste
• mouthwash-oral-rinse
• deodorants
• eye-makeup
• makeup-foundation-powders-blush
• fragrance-preparations
• leave-on-hair-preparations
• permanent-hair-dyes-tints
• hair-dye-rinse-off
• hair-removal-products
• shaving-cream-gel-foam
• manicuring-preparations-leave-on
• sun-suntan-products
• hand-soap

Verification notes

• 2026-06-01 ingest (Claude Opus, MFK_ep-010-us-epa-efh-chapter17-consumer-products-2025): fresh page from the Manual Fetch Kimi / June 1 / 01_Exposure_Pathways folder. Three identity checks all negative against wiki/sources/ (no DOI to check — EPA EFH chapters do not carry DOIs; raw_handle MFK_ep-010-… negative; cite-key us-epa-2011-efh-chapter17-consumer-products negative; ad-hoc grep for “Exposure Factors Handbook Chapter 17” surfaced cross-references in other source pages but no existing dedicated page for this chapter). raw_sha256 e7550915… freshly computed.
• Document date: The PDF filename suffix “-2025” appears to be a file-cataloging date rather than a publication date. Every page footer in the PDF reads “Exposure Factors Handbook | September 2011”; the cited EPA publication identifier is EPA/600/R-09/052F (2011 edition). The cite-key year is therefore 2011, not 2025.
• metals: [] is intentional: the chapter does not measure, report, or recommend heavy-metal concentrations. It is an exposure-factors reference for product-use parameters only.
• ingredients: [] is intentional: the chapter does not provide ingredient-level contamination data. Product slugs are populated because the chapter’s data are exposure parameters at the product-form level (baby lotion as a class, lipstick as a class, etc.) that downstream product-page exposure modeling needs.
• Part 12 brand-firewall check: the chapter does not name any cosmetic, personal-care, or baby-care brands. The CTFA 1983 survey is described as “a major manufacturer and a market research bureau” without naming the manufacturer. The Hall et al. 2007 model is built from “market information databases” without brand attribution. No brand-firewall action required.
• Part 2 wiki/HMTc firewall check: the chapter is methodological (frequency, amount, duration) and contains no HMTc-threshold-relevant claims, no synthesis claims about prior literature, and no consumer-risk advisories. EPA explicitly declines (§17.2) to recommend specific exposure values. The Implications section above stays within “this source provides parameter X for downstream Y” and does not propose any threshold values.
• The 13 underlying surveys cited in this chapter (CTFA 1983, Westat 1987a/b/c, Abt 1992, EPA 1996 NHAPS, Bass 2001, Weegels and van Veen 2001, Loretz 2005/2006/2008, Hall 2007, Sathyanarayana 2008, Steenbekkers 2001) are NOT separately ingested as part of this single-PDF cycle. If any of those primary studies are later available as standalone PDFs in the Manual Fetch Kimi folder structure, they should be ingested as separate sources and this EFH chapter cross-linked from them.
• Tables included in the Key numbers section: 17-3 (CTFA cosmetic and baby product amount/frequency), 17-4 selected entries (Westat 1987a household solvents — relevant to home-environment exposure context only, not direct HMI scope), 17-37 (Weegels and van Veen 2001 Dutch household), 17-38 (Loretz 2005 cosmetic frequency), 17-39 (Loretz 2005 lipstick/body lotion/face cream amount), 17-40 (Loretz 2006 personal care frequency), 17-41 (Loretz 2006 personal care amount per application), 17-42 (Loretz 2006 personal care amount per use day), 17-43-50 (Hall 2007 EU model — body lotion / deodorant spray under arms only / deodorant spray torso+arms / deodorant non-spray / lipstick / facial moisturizer / shampoo / toothpaste; selected mean/median/95th/99th percentile in g/day and mg/kg-day; full p01-p99.9 percentile distributions are in the underlying PDF Tables 17-43-50), 17-51-53 (Loretz 2008 facial cleanser / hair conditioner / eye shadow), 17-54 (Sathyanarayana 2008 baby-care product use prevalence). Tables 17-1 (consumer-product household-inventory list from EPA 1987), 17-2 (Simmons Study product category list), 17-5-17-7 (Westat 1987a exposure time / amount / time exposed after use for solvent products), 17-8-17-12 (Westat 1987c cleaning-product exposure time and frequency), 17-13-17-15 (Westat 1987b interior-painting frequency / time / amount), 17-16-17-21 (Abt 1992 methylene-chloride product use: adhesive removers / spray paint / paint removers/strippers), 17-22-17-35 (EPA 1996 NHAPS minutes-near-product data for microwave ovens / freshly applied paints / cleaning agents / floor wax / glue / solvents / stain removers / gasoline / pesticides / fragrances / aerosol products / humidifiers / professional vs consumer pesticide application), 17-36 (Bass 2001 pesticide use demographics) are not transcribed in Key numbers as they are out of HMI’s primary scope (home solvents, paints, pesticides, household cleaning), but are accessible in the raw PDF for any future exposure-pathway extension into those domains.
• Jurisdictions: [US, EU] — the chapter is U.S. EPA-published but the Hall et al. 2007 underlying study is European; the chapter explicitly cites both U.S. and EU underlying data.
• The matrices field uses [cosmetic-personal-care, cosmetics, childrens-cosmetic] from the existing wiki/sources matrices vocabulary. This is an exposure-factors reference at the product-class level, not a per-matrix contamination measurement.
• 2026-06-01 audit application (Claude Opus, this session, applying findings from a fresh-context general-purpose audit subagent): subagent verdict REVISE. Two ❌ findings on Check 1 (numerical fidelity), one ❌ finding on Check 3 (methods fidelity), and one ⚠️ formatting issue on Check 1. All four verified by independent re-read of PDF pages 13 (Table 17-3), 17-7 (§17.3.10 Loretz 2006), 17-1 (§17.1.2), and 17-35 (Table 17-37). Findings applied: (a) Table 17-3 “Baby lotion — baby use” Upper 90th Market Research Bureau column corrected from ”—” to “1.0ᵈ” (footnote d = “Usage data reflects entire household use for both baby lotion and baby oil”; PDF p17-13 reads “1.0ᵈ” not ”—”); (b) Loretz 2006 completion-rate range corrected from “83-91 %” to “91-94 %” with the four-product breakdown (91 % hairspray, 91 % spray perfume, 94 % liquid foundation, 94 % shampoo/body wash/solid antiperspirant); the prior “83-91 %” appears to have been confused with Loretz 2005’s completion rates (86.4/83.3/85.6 %); (c) Limitations-for-downstream-pooling paragraph corrected: PDF §17.1.2 specifically names “aerosol products” as the example of declining use after the 1987 EPA list compilation, not baby powder. The wiki now attributes the baby-powder downweighting to data age (>20 years) rather than misquoting EPA as having directly addressed baby-powder use specifically; (d) Table 17-37 hair-spray row split out of the household-cleaning-products table into its own sub-table, because the PDF Table 17-37 hair spray section has three distinct duration measurements (release seconds, nebula contact seconds, nebula × gram released seconds × grams) plus frequency, and a “Mean duration of contact (min)” column-label was unit-inconsistent for any of them. The new sub-table preserves all four PDF rows for hair spray with explicit units, and the household-cleaning sub-table now uses “(SD)” inline notation to also include SD values for amount and duration (5(3), 27(30), 11(5), 20(22), 74(204)) that the previous version had omitted. Findings rejected (false positives): none — all four findings verified against the PDF and applied as-is.

Page history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page. The full version history lives in git; when DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.