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
471 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
(2018) Forklift operators' risk of musculoskeletal disorders at two manufacturing plants. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the employers of two manufacturing companies to evaluate potential ergonomic issues and musculoskeletal symptoms among forklift operators, particularly when driving forklifts in reverse. Forklifts were used to transport parts and products to employee workstations or warehousing areas. In both companies, the forklift operators often drove loaded forklifts in reverse to avoid part/product damage. We measured the seated postures and whole... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the employers of two manufacturing companies to evaluate potential ergonomic issues and musculoskeletal symptoms among forklift operators, particularly when driving forklifts in reverse. Forklifts were used to transport parts and products to employee workstations or warehousing areas. In both companies, the forklift operators often drove loaded forklifts in reverse to avoid part/product damage. We measured the seated postures and whole body vibration of forklift operators during forklift operation. We surveyed the musculoskeletal health and work conditions of forklift operators and office workers who were not involved in forklift operations. We compared neck and back pain cases between forklift operators and office workers. Driving a forklift in reverse increased the risk of neck problems because of excessive neck rotation and extreme positions. In addition, forklift operators' exposures to whole body vibration exposures sometimes exceeded recommended limits, which could lead to increased risk of health effects. Forty-five percent of forklift operators reported non-accident related neck pain in the previous year, but only 7% of office workers reported non-accident related neck pain. Sixty-two percent of forklift operators reported non-accident related back pain in the previous year, but none of the office workers reported any non-accident related back pain. We recommended using tugger train systems instead of forklifts, minimizing forklift operations that require driving in reverse, pilot testing swivel seat designs that may reduce extreme head and torso rotation, and using job rotation to reduce the time forklift operators spend in extreme head and torso postures.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2018) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of lead and isocyanate exposure in a maintenance facility with small arms repair and vehicle painting shops. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a small arms repair and vehicle maintenance facility. A manager was concerned about airborne lead and take-home lead exposures in the small arms repair shop as well as employees' exposures to hazardous painting products, including isocyanates in the military vehicle painting shop. To evaluate employee exposures to lead we collected personal air, hand, and surface wipe samples and we evaluated blood lead levels. For isocyanates, we coll... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a small arms repair and vehicle maintenance facility. A manager was concerned about airborne lead and take-home lead exposures in the small arms repair shop as well as employees' exposures to hazardous painting products, including isocyanates in the military vehicle painting shop. To evaluate employee exposures to lead we collected personal air, hand, and surface wipe samples and we evaluated blood lead levels. For isocyanates, we collected personal air samples for hexamethylene diisocyanate and tested the employees' blood to look for isocyanate exposure and sensitization. We evaluated the ventilations systems in both areas. Although we detected no lead in the personal air samples, we did find lead on employees' hands after they had washed them, and one elevated blood lead level. We found hexamethylene diisocyanate in the air in the spray paint shop, and one employee had a blood test, which showed antibodies to a specific isocyanate (isophorone diisocyanate) in the paint, confirming recent exposure. We observed multiple opportunities for dermal exposure to paints that contained isocyanates. The firing line of the range had turbulent airflow, creating irregular mixing of air. The spray paint booth had missing and damaged filters and did not adequately remove paint overspray from the breathing zone of employees. We recommended the employer start an isocyanate medical surveillance program, use a lead removal product for hand washing and cleaning work surfaces, and have employees wear nitrile gloves while repairing firearms. We also recommended the employer provide eye and face protection and appropriately-sized protective suits for spray painting vehicles. Ventilation recommendations included reducing firing line turbulence and replacing the spray paint booth with a downdraft ventilation paint booth.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2018) Lead exposures at a bullet manufacturer. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the owner at a lead bullet manufacturer who was concerned about employees' lead exposure. We observed work processes, work practices, and ventilation; measured employees' blood lead levels and exposures to lead, antimony, and tin in air and on surfaces; and interviewed employees about their work and their health. We found nine of 10 employees, including those working in the packaging and shipping bay, had blood lead levels that were eq... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the owner at a lead bullet manufacturer who was concerned about employees' lead exposure. We observed work processes, work practices, and ventilation; measured employees' blood lead levels and exposures to lead, antimony, and tin in air and on surfaces; and interviewed employees about their work and their health. We found nine of 10 employees, including those working in the packaging and shipping bay, had blood lead levels that were equal to or above 5 micrograms per deciliter, a level that NIOSH considers high. The employees with the highest blood lead levels worked in the casting bay and coating room. We found lead on employees' hands after they washed up at lunch and before they went home. We found lead on surfaces in non-production areas such as the employee break room, the office, and an outdoor picnic table employees used. Airborne metal exposures were below current occupational exposure limits; full-shift personal air exposures to lead ranged from 2.3 to 20 micrograms per cubic meter of air. The company did not have a written lead monitoring or lead control program. Our recommendations included improving ventilation in the bullet casting bay; starting a lead program; using wet cleaning methods for potentially contaminated surfaces; providing an on-site laundry, dedicated work clothes, and separate lockers for street and work clothes, and not allowing employees to consume or store food or drink in bullet production areas.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2018) Nonproduction area air and surface lead levels, employee blood lead levels, and psychosocial factors at a battery manufacturing plant. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a management request from a lead-acid battery manufacturing company who wanted assistance in lowering employees' blood lead levels. We focused our environmental sampling on nonproduction plant areas and determining if employees were unknowingly carrying lead dust into areas generally regarded as clean. We evaluated air and surface lead concentrations in nonproduction areas that were generally regarded as "clean," such as the cafeteria, locker rooms, ... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a management request from a lead-acid battery manufacturing company who wanted assistance in lowering employees' blood lead levels. We focused our environmental sampling on nonproduction plant areas and determining if employees were unknowingly carrying lead dust into areas generally regarded as clean. We evaluated air and surface lead concentrations in nonproduction areas that were generally regarded as "clean," such as the cafeteria, locker rooms, and front office. We reviewed employee blood lead testing results, lead in air sample results, and related company written health and safety programs. We asked employees about their medical and work history, their health concerns about work, and about the lead hazard control program. Surface and hand wipe results and area air sample results showed continued exposure potential in all the nonproduction areas we tested. However, we found only one hand wipe (out of 29) that was positive for lead before the employee exited the plant after the shift; all these employees reported showering and using lead removal soap immediately before exiting. The average blood lead levels of employees' means were >/= 10 micrograms per deciliter, though the overall blood lead level averages declined over the years for which we reviewed data. Some airborne lead exposures in the past exceeded occupational exposure limits in all production departments. The company had longstanding medical surveillance and exposure assessment programs, employee health and safety training, and was aware of primary exposure control challenges in their production areas. Opportunities to minimize lead dust exposure include improving local exhaust and general ventilation, maintaining positive air pressurization in clean nonproduction areas, redesigning the locker rooms to have distinct clean and dirty sides, and potentially requiring respirator use for all employees at a job site where an exposure is above the OSHA action limit (the level at which the company requires respiratory protection). We recommended the employees take the manufacturer's recommended amount of time to walk through the air shower when exiting the production area, and not giving himself or herself any type of synthetic or natural chelation therapy.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2017) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of chemical exposures at a vape shop. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the owner of a vape shop who was concerned about employees' potential exposure to vaping chemicals in the workplace. We collected air samples in the vape shop for flavoring chemicals (diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 2,3-hexanedione, acetaldehyde, and acetoin), nicotine, formaldehyde, and propylene glycol. We took wipe samples for nicotine and metals on commonly touched surfaces. We found that employees vaped in the shop throughout the day,... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the owner of a vape shop who was concerned about employees' potential exposure to vaping chemicals in the workplace. We collected air samples in the vape shop for flavoring chemicals (diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 2,3-hexanedione, acetaldehyde, and acetoin), nicotine, formaldehyde, and propylene glycol. We took wipe samples for nicotine and metals on commonly touched surfaces. We found that employees vaped in the shop throughout the day, but very few customers vaped. None of the airborne concentrations of the specific flavoring chemicals we measured were above applicable occupational exposure limits although we detected low levels of two flavoring chemicals, diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione, in the personal and area air samples. We detected the presence of metals, such as chromium, lead, copper, and nickel, on surfaces in the shop. We found detectable levels of nicotine on the outside surface of a nicotine transfer bottle. This may have occurred when liquid was poured from one bottle to another without use of a funnel. We did not find nicotine on other surfaces that we sampled. We found that not all employees wore chemical protective gloves when handling liquids containing nicotine. The bottle of stock nicotine solution was stored in the same refrigerator used to store employees' food. We recommend that the employer implement a policy prohibiting vaping in the workplace with e-liquids that contain diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. We also recommended not storing chemicals in the same area where food is stored or eaten, training employees on proper chemical handling procedures, and inspecting and maintaining the shop's exhaust ventilation systems.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2017) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of lead exposure at an indoor law enforcement firing range. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the employer at a federal law enforcement indoor firing range who was concerned about lead exposure among firearms instructors. This range used frangible and nonfrangible (duty) ammunition. Duty ammunition contained mostly lead, while frangible ammunition contained mostly copper and some zinc. During our evaluation, HHE Program investigators observed work practices, including shooting, cleaning firearms, range hygiene, and range cleanu... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the employer at a federal law enforcement indoor firing range who was concerned about lead exposure among firearms instructors. This range used frangible and nonfrangible (duty) ammunition. Duty ammunition contained mostly lead, while frangible ammunition contained mostly copper and some zinc. During our evaluation, HHE Program investigators observed work practices, including shooting, cleaning firearms, range hygiene, and range cleanup. We measured (1) airborne exposures to lead, (2) lead on employees' hands and footwear when leaving the range, (3) employees' blood lead levels, and (4) lead, copper, and zinc concentrations on surfaces inside and outside the range. HHE Program investigators evaluated ventilation system performance. We interviewed firearms instructors about work history and practices, lead-related medical history, and recreational lead exposure sources. We found lead in the air, but below occupational exposure limits. Lead was found on all surfaces tested including instructors' skin and footwear. Copper and zinc were also found on tested surfaces. All instructors had detectable blood lead levels, some > 5 micrograms per deciliter, which NIOSH defines as elevated according to its surveillance case definition. The ventilation system was not performing according to NIOSH recommendations. Instructors and shooters used dry sweeping methods to remove lead-dust and lead-dust contaminated objects. All instructors wore their work clothes and shoes home. To improve the safety and health of firing range instructors and shooters, we recommended the employer (1) hire a firing range ventilation specialist for all range ventilation maintenance, including testing and balancing the ventilation system; (2) start a lead exposure monitoring program; (3) use wet cleaning methods; and (4) provide no-slip style disposable shoe covers, lockers for street clothes and work clothes, and on-site laundry service.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2017) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of ventilation and employee exposures to lead at an indoor firing range. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from an employer representative at an indoor firing range. The request concerned potential employee exposure to lead during routine tasks and range cleaning activities. Other concerns included the performance of the ventilation system and whether lead was migrating from the range to other areas of the building. We conducted a walk-through survey of the range to speak with employees and observe their work practices and personal protective eq... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from an employer representative at an indoor firing range. The request concerned potential employee exposure to lead during routine tasks and range cleaning activities. Other concerns included the performance of the ventilation system and whether lead was migrating from the range to other areas of the building. We conducted a walk-through survey of the range to speak with employees and observe their work practices and personal protective equipment use. We collected full-shift personal and area air samples for lead, and reviewed the company's health and safety policy documents. We also collected employee hand wipe samples for lead before and after weekly range cleaning, and at the end of the work shift. No employees were overexposed to airborne lead. However, we did find lead on surfaces and employees' hands. The ventilation system performance met NIOSH guidelines. The company adhered to the OSHA lead standard and the type and availability of personal protective equipment was appropriate for the work performed by employees. We recommended increasing the use of a lead removal solution for surface and floor cleaning and lead removal hand wipes to reduce the possible spread of lead contamination. We also recommended using a lead-certified laundry service or providing a dedicated onsite, washer and dryer to clean employee uniforms and to help prevent take-home exposures.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2016) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of forensic crime lab employees' chemical exposures, job stress, and work-related health concerns. (Click to open report) The health and safety director at a federal crime lab asked us to evaluate lab employees' potential chemical exposures. Approximately 800 employees worked in the lab across 13 case working units. We developed a system to prioritize risks from chemical exposures in these units and check potential health hazards in a forensic lab. We sampled the workplace air for lead, ethyl cyanoacrylate, methanol, methylene chloride, and particles. We asked employees about psychosocial and work organization fact... (Click to show more)The health and safety director at a federal crime lab asked us to evaluate lab employees' potential chemical exposures. Approximately 800 employees worked in the lab across 13 case working units. We developed a system to prioritize risks from chemical exposures in these units and check potential health hazards in a forensic lab. We sampled the workplace air for lead, ethyl cyanoacrylate, methanol, methylene chloride, and particles. We asked employees about psychosocial and work organization factors at work. In general, exposures were well controlled. However, some employees could have dermal exposure to methylene chloride. We did not find lead on surfaces outside the firing range, except for those associated with the ventilation system. We determined that the exhaust hood over the wet bullet tank did not capture firearm emissions. Employees expressed moderate job stress and low concern about work-related health. We identified strict deadlines, high workload, and lack of resources as factors that contributed to job stress. We recommended the employer require employees to wear gloves when handling methylene chloride and talk to employees about managing their workload.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2016) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of law enforcement agents' potential exposures during a raid of a clandestine "spice" lab. (Click to open report) A law enforcement agency requested a health hazard evaluation to look at exposures to synthetic cannabinoids and other compounds during raids of clandestine labs. There was also concern about exposures when they processed evidence at their office. We tested urine, air, and surfaces for AB-PINACA, a synthetic cannabinoid. We also tested for mitragynine, a plant material with opium-like effects in humans. We sampled during the raid and in the office during evidence processing. We spoke with agents... (Click to show more)A law enforcement agency requested a health hazard evaluation to look at exposures to synthetic cannabinoids and other compounds during raids of clandestine labs. There was also concern about exposures when they processed evidence at their office. We tested urine, air, and surfaces for AB-PINACA, a synthetic cannabinoid. We also tested for mitragynine, a plant material with opium-like effects in humans. We sampled during the raid and in the office during evidence processing. We spoke with agents about their work and work-related symptoms. We looked at their use of personal protective equipment. We checked the office ventilation system to see if it was designed for evidence handling and processing. We found AB-PINACA, its breakdown products, or mitragynine in the urine of six of nine agents after the raid. These compounds were not present in any urine samples before the raid. One surface wipe sample from the lab had a detectable amount of AB-PINACA. No airborne AB-PINACA or mitragynine was found. Gloves and protective clothing were not used at all time when needed. This practice could lead to exposure to contaminants or spread of contamination. Hand washing supplies were not provided for agents in the field. The office ventilation system was not designed to contain or control contaminants. We determined that agents are at risk for dermal exposure and ingestion of synthetic cannabinoids and other contaminants.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2015) Health hazard evaluation report: metal exposures in an electronic scrap recycling facility. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a manager at an electronic scrap (e-scrap) recycling company. The request concerned potential exposure to metals, including lead and cadmium. The company employed about 80 individuals who processed and recycled computers, monitors, hard drives, televisions, printers, light bulbs, and other e-scrap. We evaluated the facility in April and June 2013. We (1) interviewed employees about their work practices, symptoms, and health concerns re... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a manager at an electronic scrap (e-scrap) recycling company. The request concerned potential exposure to metals, including lead and cadmium. The company employed about 80 individuals who processed and recycled computers, monitors, hard drives, televisions, printers, light bulbs, and other e-scrap. We evaluated the facility in April and June 2013. We (1) interviewed employees about their work practices, symptoms, and health concerns related to work; (2) tested work surfaces, skin, and clothing for metals such as lead, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and mercury; and (3) tested employees' urine for cadmium and mercury and their blood for lead and cadmium. No employees reported work-related health problems. Exposure to lead was well controlled in the shred room as indicated by employee blood lead levels. However, two employees in the teardown area had elevated blood lead levels (at or above 10 µg/dL). Blood and urine cadmium levels were not elevated, and no mercury was detected in employees' urine. We found lead and other metals on the skin of employees at lunch and before going home. We also found metals on nonproduction work surfaces. Lockers stored personal items and food along with work clothing and personal protective equipment. Showers and laundered uniforms were only offered to the glass shredding employees. Workers unjammed scrap from equipment that was powered on and running. To address employee exposures to metals, we recommended the employer (1) include all employees exposed to lead in a lead prevention program, (2) install a clean locker room area for employees to store personal items and food, (3) provide scrubs, uniforms, shoe covers, and a contract laundering service for all employees exposed to lead, (4) require all employees exposed to lead to shower and change clothing before leaving work, and (5) increase the number of sinks for hand washing. We also recommended the employer follow lockout/tagout procedures to de-energize machinery before conducting troubleshooting, repairs, or maintenance. We recommended employees take a shower at the end of the shift, wash their hands before eating or smoking, and not wear or take work clothing or shoes home.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
