Table 6.

Residential use: Predicted ratio in GM dust pesticide concentrations in treated versus untreated agricultural homes.

Model	Predicted ratio for treated vs. untreated homes (95% CI)a	Between-statistic variance, in log-μg/g (SE)
All summary measures (n = 88)	1.3 (1.1, 1.4)	0.15 (0.04)
Probability active ingredient used in treatment typeb
All studies
Probability: 0% (n = 28)	1.0 (0.8, 1.2)	0.15 (0.07)
Probability: 1–19% (n = 45)	1.3 (1.1, 1.4)	0.08 (0.04)
Probability: ≥ 20% (n = 15)	1.5 (1.2, 1.9)	0.16 (0.08)
Deziel et al. 2015ac
Probability: 0% (n = 20)	1.0 (0.9, 1.2)	0.03 (0.04)
Probability: 1–19% (n = 34)	1.2 (1.1, 1.3)	0.06 (0.03)
Probability: ≥ 20% (n = 12)	1.5 (1.1, 1.9)	0.17 (0.09)
Excluding Deziel et al. 2015ac
Probability: 0% (n = 8)	0.9 (0.5, 1.6)	0.56 (0.83)
Probability: 1–19% (n = 11)	1.8 (1.5, 2.2)	0.01 (0.05)
Probability: ≥ 20% (n = 3)	2.0 (1.3, 2.9)	(single study)
Herbicides
Probability: 0% (n = 2)	1.0 (0.9, 1.3)	(single study)
Probability: 1–19% (n = 4)	1.0 (0.7, 1.4)	0.04 (0.08)
Probability: ≥ 20% (n = 5)	1.5 (0.9, 2.5)	0.33 (0.23)
Insecticides
Probability: 0% (n = 26)	1.0 (0.8, 1.3)	0.17 (0.08)
Probability: 1–19% (n = 41)	1.3 (1.2, 1.5)	0.08 (0.04)
Probability: ≥ 20% (n = 10)	1.5 (1.3, 1.9)	0.05 (0.05)
aRatios of dust pesticide concentrations of homes treated versus not treated for home, garden, and yard pests based on meta-regression models. Calculated as the exponentiated regression coefficient for the intercept from the meta-regression model. bProbability was assigned to each active ingredient-pest treatment relationship, based on the likelihood the active ingredient was used for a specific pest treatment based on the National Cancer Institute Pesticide Exposure Matrix (http://dceg.cancer.gov/tools/design/pesticide) (Colt et al. 2007). cDeziel et al. (2015a) was analyzed separately because it was the largest study containing 74 of the 88 summary statistics.