If you cannot find anything that addresses your concerns, please contact us to see how we can help.
All NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation reports and other NIOSH publications are available at no cost.
You can either download a copy of the publication from the website or contact us for a copy.
For HHE reports, please send an email to HHERequestHelp@cdc.gov.
Information about all other NIOSH publications is available at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pubs/.
We carefully review our reports prior to publication, but we do make errors from time to time.
We regret any typographical or other minor errors that you might find. If you find a substantive factual or data-related error, let us know.
Please send an email to HHERequestHelp@cdc.gov with the report number (ex. HHE 2013-0500-7500),
the authors' names, the error you are reporting, and the page number of the error. We will look into your comments,
fix confirmed errors, and repost the report. Thank you for your interest in the HHE Program.
HHE Search Results
111 HHE reports were found based on your search terms. Reports are listed in order of year published with the most recently published reports listed first.
Year Published and Title
(2015) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of an unpleasant odor at an aircraft ejection seat manufacturer. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the employer at an ejection seat manufacturing facility. Employees were concerned about an odor in the facility and health symptoms thought to be related to it. The odor reportedly permeated and remained in materials and goods of employees for weeks after they left the facility. Some employees described the odor as a musty smell and others as a chemical smell. In this facility, stock aluminum is cut and machined into smaller parts in f... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the employer at an ejection seat manufacturing facility. Employees were concerned about an odor in the facility and health symptoms thought to be related to it. The odor reportedly permeated and remained in materials and goods of employees for weeks after they left the facility. Some employees described the odor as a musty smell and others as a chemical smell. In this facility, stock aluminum is cut and machined into smaller parts in fully enclosed computer numerical control (CNC) metalworking machines that use semi-synthetic, water-miscible cutting oils. The manufacturing process also includes painting parts in a down-draft paint booth, sewing, and assembly. We evaluated indoor environmental quality; sampled air for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), metalworking fluid, endotoxin, and microbial contaminants; analyzed metalworking fluid for microbial diversity and endotoxin; and interviewed employees about their work and health during our site visit in May 2014. We found that 2-methoxy-3,5-dimethylpyrazine (3,5-MDMP) was likely causing the odor. This chemical may be produced by bacteria found in the metalworking fluid. The metalworking fluid also contained high endotoxin concentrations. Metalworking fluid exposures in air reached about half of the NIOSH recommended limit. Metalworking fluid was not well contained around the stock metal cutting machine. Additionally, ventilation systems and water diversion systems were not well-maintained, condensation pans in air handling units had standing water and debris, gutters were rusted through, and air recirculation rates were high in some departments indicating poor general ventilation. The most common work-related symptoms reported by employees were fatigue, headache, eye irritation, runny nose or congestion, and cough. Employees who wore gloves used latex gloves when working with metalworking fluid. To eliminate the odor and reduce employee exposures to metalworking fluids, we recommended the employer (1) isolate the CNC department from the rest of the facility with barrier walls or relocate it to a separate room, (2) install a dedicated ventilation system in the CNC department, (3) implement maintenance programs for managing metalworking fluid in the machines and recycling system, (4) develop and carry out a plan for metalworking machine decontamination, and (5) improve metalworking fluid containment at the stock metal cutting machine. We also recommended the employer provide and employees wear non-latex gloves when handling goods or doing tasks that require contact with metalworking fluids, and employees wash with soap and water if they get metalworking fluid on their skin and after removing gloves.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2015) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of indoor environmental quality and health concerns in a public elementary school. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a union representing employees at an elementary school because of concerns about possible exposure to mold in the school building. In 2014, some elementary school employees went on medical leave reportedly because of illness from mold exposure after receiving results from fungal immunoglobulin G (IgG) blood tests and urine mycotoxin tests. Knowledge of these results prompted over 20 additional school employees to have their blood teste... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a union representing employees at an elementary school because of concerns about possible exposure to mold in the school building. In 2014, some elementary school employees went on medical leave reportedly because of illness from mold exposure after receiving results from fungal immunoglobulin G (IgG) blood tests and urine mycotoxin tests. Knowledge of these results prompted over 20 additional school employees to have their blood tested for IgG to fungi. Some of these employees and their physicians interpreted their blood test results as meaning they had high levels of mold in their bodies. Other employees had recurring upper respiratory and sinus infections and throat and eye irritation that they attributed to their work environment. During our evaluation, we (1) checked for moisture, water damage, and mold inside the building and in the crawl spaces beneath the building, (2) evaluated the ventilation systems, (3) measured carbon dioxide, temperature, and relative humidity, and (4) asked employees about their work, medical history, and work-related health concerns. We found no moisture, signs of water damage, or mold in the school or crawl spaces, except for three classrooms with minor mold growth. Some classroom unit ventilators did not work, had incorrectly installed or missing air filters, or were blocked. Carbon dioxide levels were high in some classrooms. Our employee interviews and review of medical records found symptoms often associated with damp buildings or inadequate ventilation but that are common in the general population. We found no evidence that problems such as neuropathy, thrush, and cancer were related to the school. Lacking an explanation for all symptoms led some employees to seek answers from unvalidated medical tests. To address indoor environmental quality concerns, we recommended the school (1) stop environmental sampling and blood testing for molds and urine testing for mycotoxins; (2) hire a licensed professional mechanical engineer to assess the ventilation systems; (3) encourage employees to report water leaks or water damage; and (4) create a system for employees to report building concerns and to receive feedback on how issues were resolved. We recommended employees report work-related health concerns and see an occupational medicine physician about health problems they think may be work related.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2015) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of indoor environmental quality in police evidence intake, processing, and storage areas at a medical examiner's office. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from employees in a medical examiner's office building. Employees in the police evidence intake, processing, and storage areas were concerned about inadequate ventilation. We visited in March 2015 to evaluate the areas of concern on the subbasement 1 and fifth floors. We measured temperature, relative humidity, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide; visually assessed the building's heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems; measured ... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from employees in a medical examiner's office building. Employees in the police evidence intake, processing, and storage areas were concerned about inadequate ventilation. We visited in March 2015 to evaluate the areas of concern on the subbasement 1 and fifth floors. We measured temperature, relative humidity, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide; visually assessed the building's heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems; measured airflow at supply diffusers; interviewed employees about their work history and health and safety concerns; and reviewed work-related injury and illness reports. We found that most temperature measurements were either above or below the recommended range for employee comfort. Some relative humidity measurements were below the ASHRAE guidelines. Carbon monoxide concentrations were low. Airflow from the supply diffusers on the subbasement floor was less than originally designed. Employees reported that they were often too hot or too cold, airflow and air circulation were inadequate, the workplace was not clean enough, and they lacked training on handling chemical or biological spills. Some employees reported upper and lower respiratory symptoms, skin symptoms, and other nonspecific. To improve the indoor environmental quality, we recommended the medical examiner's office (1) keep temperature and relative humidity within comfort guidelines, (2) supply air as designed and meet current ventilation guidelines, (3) improve housekeeping, (4) prohibit eating and drinking where evidence is handled and processed, and (5) develop standard operating procedures for cleaning spills. We recommended employees report work-related health concerns to their supervisor and seek information from a healthcare provider knowledgeable in occupational medicine and indoor environmental quality issues.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2014) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of indoor environmental quality in a medical office building. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from employees at a medical office building. They were concerned about indoor environmental quality and exposure to sewer gas, specifically hydrogen sulfide. The medical office building was a four-story, concrete masonry office building constructed in the 1960s that had been renovated twice; the three main floors were converted into offices and exam rooms. The building was surrounded by manholes that had been identified as sources of odors.... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from employees at a medical office building. They were concerned about indoor environmental quality and exposure to sewer gas, specifically hydrogen sulfide. The medical office building was a four-story, concrete masonry office building constructed in the 1960s that had been renovated twice; the three main floors were converted into offices and exam rooms. The building was surrounded by manholes that had been identified as sources of odors. The building was within 30 feet of a 24-inch trunk line that carried sewage from approximately 60% of the surrounding area toward the wastewater treatment facility. Most of the building's current plumbing was the original cast iron waste and vent piping, which can become brittle and crack with age. We visited the facility in April 2013 and measured hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, temperature, and humidity levels throughout the building. We also inspected the building's heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system. We did not detect hydrogen sulfide in the building. We found that carbon dioxide concentrations generally increased when moving further away from the supply air discharge point on each floor; outdoor air supplied to each floor was not uniformly distributed. Temperature and humidity were within ANSI/ASHRAE recommended levels. We found problems with duct dampers, heat pumps, and the computerized control system, and determined that air flowed from the restrooms into the hallways. We found odor sources within and near the building such as dry drain traps and manholes. We recommended the employer improve the air quality in the building by (1) testing and balancing the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system, (2) increasing the amount of outdoor air coming into the building, and (3) fixing the problems with the duct dampers, heat pumps, and computerized control system. We also recommended the employer (1) remove plumbing fixtures and seal unused drain pipes, (2) replace cast-iron pipe with polyvinyl chloride pipe, and (3) create an employee and employer health and safety committee and hold regular meetings. We recommended employees (1) report odors to managers as soon as they occur, (2) not open building windows, and (3) participate in the health and safety committee. Following our visit, the employer reported that drain-trap devices were installed on all floor drains, HVAC components were inspected and repaired, cracks in the sanitary sewer lines were repaired, and manholes were sealed or replaced with solid lids and rain-guard devices. The employer reported that odor complaints have decreased since our evaluation.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2014) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of indoor environmental quality in a natural history building. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a university health and safety office to evaluate employees' concerns about rashes, sore throat, and respiratory irritation when working on the seventh floor of a natural history building. This floor housed offices, computer workstations, and ornithology, mammology, and icthyology departments. Hundreds of bird and mammal specimens were stored in unventilated cabinets specially designed to minimize internal temperature and relative humi... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a university health and safety office to evaluate employees' concerns about rashes, sore throat, and respiratory irritation when working on the seventh floor of a natural history building. This floor housed offices, computer workstations, and ornithology, mammology, and icthyology departments. Hundreds of bird and mammal specimens were stored in unventilated cabinets specially designed to minimize internal temperature and relative humidity fluctuations. The specimen storage and processing areas were next to offices and computer workstations and shared ventilation systems. Two rooftop variable air volume air handling units provided air-conditioning and heat. The exterior windows could not be opened. During our visit in February 2014, we evaluated indoor environmental quality, interviewed employees and students about their work and health, and reviewed reports of sampling for mold and chemicals. Although employees experienced a variety of symptoms, we did not find evidence of a single exposure for these symptoms. Allergy to animal allergens was likely responsible for some symptoms, but many of the non-specific symptoms reported by the employees are common in the general population, so attributing them to specific allergens is difficult. The ventilation systems were well maintained, however temperature and relative humidity levels were not within the recommended range for human occupants, and air flowed out of the biotic analysis lab into surrounding areas. When handling specimens, some staff wore nitrile gloves, but did not always use a ventilated cabinet or hood or work in the biotic analysis lab. We recommended the employer adjust the ventilation system so (1) air flows into the biotic analysis lab from the surrounding areas, (2) allergens and other contaminants from specimen storage and handling areas do not move into adjacent offices, and (3) temperature and relative humidity are within occupant comfort guidelines. We also recommended (1) isolating the specimen storage and handling areas from other work areas; (2) developing procedures for storing, handling, and preparing specimens; and (3) stopping sampling for molds and chemicals. Employees should wash hands regularly, especially after working with specimens and follow standard operating procedures for handling specimens, including using gloves and wearing a lab coat.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of indoor environmental quality at an accounting office, Florida. (Click to open report) On April 15, 2011, NIOSH received an employee request regarding headaches, fatigue, weakness, fever, chills, flu-like symptoms, shortness of breath, coughing, chronic sinusitis, sore throat, burning eyes, and difficulty concentrating in a water-damaged building. In June 2011, NIOSH investigators conducted a site visit. The majority of employees reported building-related symptoms. We found evidence of water damage inside the building and mold inside supply air ducts of two air handlers. Vacuumed ... (Click to show more)On April 15, 2011, NIOSH received an employee request regarding headaches, fatigue, weakness, fever, chills, flu-like symptoms, shortness of breath, coughing, chronic sinusitis, sore throat, burning eyes, and difficulty concentrating in a water-damaged building. In June 2011, NIOSH investigators conducted a site visit. The majority of employees reported building-related symptoms. We found evidence of water damage inside the building and mold inside supply air ducts of two air handlers. Vacuumed carpet dust samples collected during the site visit showed a high burden of culturable fungi and bacteria. We provided a number of recommendations for remediation including addressing causes of water damage and replacing contaminated carpet and ductwork. Building management replaced two rooftop air handling units and some ductwork. The carpet was steam cleaned. Some building occupants continued to have symptoms, and the accounting company relocated to another building.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of potential employee exposures at a medical examiner's office. (Click to open report) The HHE Program evaluated exposures to volatile organic compounds, mold, airborne particles, and formaldehyde in the autopsy suite, histology laboratory, and toxicology laboratory at a medical examiner's office. Some employees reported respiratory problems that may be related to occupational exposures, but other problems reported by employees such as acne, kidney stones, and hives were not related to work in the building. Chronic water damage was found throughout the building and mold growth and... (Click to show more)The HHE Program evaluated exposures to volatile organic compounds, mold, airborne particles, and formaldehyde in the autopsy suite, histology laboratory, and toxicology laboratory at a medical examiner's office. Some employees reported respiratory problems that may be related to occupational exposures, but other problems reported by employees such as acne, kidney stones, and hives were not related to work in the building. Chronic water damage was found throughout the building and mold growth and deteriorating ductwork lining were found. Disintegrated fiberglass was found in surface samples, but few intact fibers were present. Airborne formaldehyde exposures measured during five autopsies were below occupational exposure limits. Air flowed into the autopsy suite from the adjacent room as recommended and the number of air changes in the autopsy suite exceeded national guidelines. Airborne exposures to formaldehyde and volatile organic compounds in the toxicology laboratory were very low. HHE Program investigators recommended that the employer purchase local exhaust ventilation units for use during cranial autopsies. The potential for entrainment of morgue exhaust into the rooftop air intakes should be evaluated further. The employer should identify and repair all leaks in the building and remove mold from the ductwork to prevent mold spores from spreading through the ventilation system. When available, employees should use local exhaust ventilation for cranial autopsy saws. The use of powdered latex gloves was noted during the evaluation and should be stopped; nitrile gloves should be worn instead. Employees were encouraged to keep containers of formaldehyde closed except when needed during autopsies. Investigators also recommended that employees report health and safety concerns to their supervisor and their healthcare provider.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Health hazard evaluation report: lighting, indoor environmental quality concerns, and job stress at a call center - California. (Click to open report) In February 2012, the AFGE submitted an HHE request to NIOSH regarding indoor lighting, IEQ, and job stress at a call center in California. We evaluated the call center on April 17-18, 2012. HHE Program investigators met with managers, local union representatives, and employees and observed work processes, practices, and workplace conditions throughout the call center. We measured illumination; examined the ventilation systems; and measured temperature, relative humidity, and carbon dioxide thro... (Click to show more)In February 2012, the AFGE submitted an HHE request to NIOSH regarding indoor lighting, IEQ, and job stress at a call center in California. We evaluated the call center on April 17-18, 2012. HHE Program investigators met with managers, local union representatives, and employees and observed work processes, practices, and workplace conditions throughout the call center. We measured illumination; examined the ventilation systems; and measured temperature, relative humidity, and carbon dioxide throughout the workday. We also administered a voluntary survey of employees to assess their health and safety concerns as well as their perceptions of the psychosocial work environment. We collected 53 light measurements throughout the call center. The light level averaged 50.7 footcandles, meeting the U.S. GSA illumination recommendations. However, luminance levels (commonly called brightness) in the employee's field of view can cause glare. This glare may cause some of the visual discomfort reported by employees. The CO2 concentrations in the call center ranged from 410 to 635 ppm during this evaluation; outdoor concentrations were 380 ppm. Indoor CO2 concentrations were similar to outdoor concentrations, suggesting that the call center ventilation was adequate. Temperature in the call center ranged from 68 degrees F to 76 degrees F, and relative humidity ranged from 43% to 49%, compared to an outdoor temperature of 60 degrees F to 71 degrees F and relative humidity ranging from 49% to 54%. These values are within the ASHRAE-recommended thermal comfort guidelines. We measured airflow at 71 of 86 ceiling diffusers. Airflow ranged from 0 cfm to 917 cfm, demonstrating that supply air was not evenly distributed to all occupied areas of the call center by the ventilation systems. We were unable to measure airflow at all diffusers because of furniture or file cabinets blocking access. We received 283 completed employee surveys (85% response rate) on job stress, work-related health and safety concerns, and psychosocial factors at work. Participants' reported levels of job stress and concerns for their health at work were moderately high. Most participants reported very little concern for their own personal safety at work. Some employees indicated that they were concerned about being physically attacked by a member of the public on the building grounds or by another call center employee. To address job stress, work-related health and safety concerns, and psychosocial factors we recommended creating a joint management and employee health and safety committee. We also recommended that a system be created for employees to document health and safety concerns. Management should use this system to keep employees informed about how concerns are being addressed. Suggestions for ways to reduce job stress were also provided. We recommended testing and balancing the ventilation systems and modifying the lighting design policy to take employee perception and satisfaction into consideration. Management should look into different parabolic louver designs that may better control light into the work area and reduce glare for employees working nearby. A guard rail should be installed on the loading dock that is used as an employee break area.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2011) Assessment of mold and indoor environmental quality in a middle school - Texas. (Click to open report) In March 2008, NIOSH received an HHE request from management at a middle school in Texas concerning a history of mold contamination. NIOSH had conducted an HHE at this school in September 2007; the school was closed from September 2007 until March 2008 for repairs and mold remediation. NIOSH was asked to conduct a follow-up evaluation to look at the current IEQ conditions at the school. In April 2008, we visited the school and looked at building conditions. We met with management and employees t... (Click to show more)In March 2008, NIOSH received an HHE request from management at a middle school in Texas concerning a history of mold contamination. NIOSH had conducted an HHE at this school in September 2007; the school was closed from September 2007 until March 2008 for repairs and mold remediation. NIOSH was asked to conduct a follow-up evaluation to look at the current IEQ conditions at the school. In April 2008, we visited the school and looked at building conditions. We met with management and employees to discuss current issues. We measured CO2, CO, temperature, and RH; used thermal imaging to look at temperature gradients; and collected sticky tape samples on furniture and ceiling surfaces to look for mold growth. At the request of the school district, the city health department conducted a parallel investigation to evaluate health concerns among the students. We found that management had addressed many of the problems identified in the 2007 NIOSH evaluation including cleaning the ventilation units and repairing the annex flashing and leaking pipes in crawl spaces. The visible mold contamination had also been cleaned. However, we did find some areas of mold contamination on wooden furniture and in the hallways. Air temperatures were below recommended ANSI/ASHRAE comfort guidelines, while RH levels were above ANSI/ASHRAE guidelines. Three classrooms had high CO2 concentrations, which indicated that not enough outdoor air was being introduced into the space. Several of the windows did not close tightly, resulting in unconditioned air entering the school. Subsequent discussions with the school administration officials revealed that the windows in the school were replaced after our site visit. When the school first reopened in March 2008, employees had headaches and nausea. These symptoms resolved after a short time and were thought to be related to the odors from the remodeling work. The employees reported that the classrooms were cold. Some employees who had pre-existing allergies moved to other schools. The city health department found no differences in the frequency or type of visit to the school nurse for the students in the time frame of our evaluations.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2011) Evaluating a persistent nuisance odor in an office building - Maryland. (Click to open report) NIOSH investigators evaluated a federal government office on December 15-16, 2010, after receiving a technical assistance request from the property manager. The office employees believed a chemical odor present since the building opened in 2007 was responsible for their symptoms, which included nausea; headache; and eye, nose, throat, and respiratory irritation. We measured temperature, RH, CO2, and CO in the office. We took air samples for H2S, formaldehyde, and VOCs in the office and in two ne... (Click to show more)NIOSH investigators evaluated a federal government office on December 15-16, 2010, after receiving a technical assistance request from the property manager. The office employees believed a chemical odor present since the building opened in 2007 was responsible for their symptoms, which included nausea; headache; and eye, nose, throat, and respiratory irritation. We measured temperature, RH, CO2, and CO in the office. We took air samples for H2S, formaldehyde, and VOCs in the office and in two nearby businesses for comparison. We took carpet and paint samples from the office and analyzed them for VOCs. We also looked for water damage in the office and checked the HVAC system. We surveyed employees about odors in the office, asking them to describe the odors and health concerns they associated with the odor. The CO2 concentrations inside the office had a range of 750-1160 ppm, while the CO2 concentrations outdoors had a range of 420-440 ppm. Usually, CO2 concentrations are used to determine the adequacy of an HVAC system, but not for sparsely occupied areas such as this office. However, with only two employees working, the fact that indoor CO2 concentrations were nearly triple the outdoor concentration indicated the HVAC system was likely not introducing much outdoor air into the occupied office areas. Temperature in the office had a range of 71-75 degrees F and RH had a range of 21-28 percent, compared to outdoor temperature, which had a range of 18-27 degrees F and RH at 20 percent. These levels are within the recommended thermal comfort guidelines for the winter season. The CO concentrations were low (0-0.1 ppm) and were likely caused by the entrance door to the office being located adjacent to a parking lot. No water damage in the office was identified. No H2S was detected (detection limit was 1 ppm) and formaldehyde was less than 0.02 ppm in the office and ranged up to 0.03 ppm in the adjacent businesses. The formaldehyde concentrations are below some exposure guidelines for office spaces (0.05-0.10 ppm) but above other recommended indoor air levels for offices (0.003 ppm). In area air samples collected from carpeted areas of the office, we identified VOCs (specifically alcohols) that were similar to VOCs from a headspace analysis of carpet taken from the office. These VOCs were not found in air samples taken in non-carpeted areas of the office or from two nearby businesses that were not carpeted. This suggests that either the carpet or incompletely cured carpet adhesive may be the source of the odor. Incomplete curing of the carpet adhesive can happen when the concrete slab onto which the carpet was installed had excessive alkalinity and water vapor. We also surveyed employees about odors in the office, asking them to describe the odors and any health concerns they associated with the odor. All eight office employees returned surveys. Six reported having smelled an odor at the office, and four still smelled the odor. The odor was described as a glue, adhesive, plastic, chemical, or cleaner smell. Two employees mentioned burning of their eyes and one mentioned occasional headaches during work, which are irritation symptoms typically associated with indoor VOC and formaldehyde exposures. The residential-style electric HVAC system serving the office was well maintained and had been modified in 2010 to introduce outdoor air. Under some conditions the bathrooms and locker rooms were under positive pressure in relationship to the office, meaning that odors from the bathrooms and locker rooms could enter into the occupied office spaces. We recommended removing the carpet and adhesive to eliminate the source of the odor. We recommended running the HVAC system continuously to minimize stagnant air, evaluating the HVAC system to determine if enough outdoor air is being introduced into the occupied spaces, and to determine if bathrooms are under negative pressure. We recommended that employees minimize other sources of odor, like air fresheners. We also recommended that employees be informed in advance about any remediation efforts, such as carpet and adhesive removal and the installation of new flooring.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
