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
474 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
(2019) Lead and copper exposure at an indoor shooting range. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program received a management request from a government indoor shooting range because of concerns about employee exposure to lead and copper during cleaning activities. The facility contained three ranges. Two ranges used lead-based ammunition and one used frangible copper-based ammunition only. Employees were responsible for range cleaning in addition to maintenance activities, such as replacing exhaust fan filters and emptying buckets that collect bullets beh... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program received a management request from a government indoor shooting range because of concerns about employee exposure to lead and copper during cleaning activities. The facility contained three ranges. Two ranges used lead-based ammunition and one used frangible copper-based ammunition only. Employees were responsible for range cleaning in addition to maintenance activities, such as replacing exhaust fan filters and emptying buckets that collect bullets behind the bullet traps. During our evaluation, we toured the range facility, reviewed standard operating procedures and medical and training records, held confidential employee interviews, collected air and surface wipe samples for lead and copper and colorimetric wipe samples for lead, and evaluated the ventilation system. Four employees had lead exposures that were above the OSHA PEL when changing prefilters and emptying the bullet trap buckets. Employees wore respiratory protection while performing these tasks. However, NIOSH respirator selection guidance recommends a higher level of protection given the high lead concentrations we measured. One employee was above the OSHA action level for lead while performing cleaning. Two employees had blood lead levels > 5 ug/dL, a level NIOSH considers elevated. Air samples collected for total copper dust were lower than occupational exposure limits. Colorimetric wipes indicated lead and copper on surfaces within the facility. Although all employees were being monitored through the medical surveillance program and received training on lead exposure, they may benefit from more training on take-home lead. One range ventilation system was operating in accordance with NIOSH guidelines, one was lower than NIOSH guidelines, and one we were unable to evaluate because it was occupied with personnel firing weapons. We observed work practices that could contribute to lead exposure. Included in our recommendations were to provide periodic refresher training related to the standard operating procedures for each task and ensuring procedures are followed, ensure appropriate sizes for Tyvek suits and nitrile gloves are available, include take-home lead exposure information in annual training materials, provide work clothes that employees can launder and store at the workplace, and investigate possible changes to maintenance tasks involving filters and buckets.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2018) Exposure to metals at an electronics recycling facility. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from managers at an electronics recycling company. The request concerned possible employee exposures to flame retardants and metals associated with electronics. To evaluate these concerns, we collected air, hand wipe, surface, and blood samples for metals, and observed operations, work practices, and working conditions. None of the air samples exceeded occupational limits. We found lead and cadmium on the employees' hands after they had was... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from managers at an electronics recycling company. The request concerned possible employee exposures to flame retardants and metals associated with electronics. To evaluate these concerns, we collected air, hand wipe, surface, and blood samples for metals, and observed operations, work practices, and working conditions. None of the air samples exceeded occupational limits. We found lead and cadmium on the employees' hands after they had washed them. We found lead and cadmium in the employees' blood, but none of the employees' blood samples were above reference levels. We observed employees eating and drinking in the processing area and smoking as they unloaded electronics equipment. We identified a potential for take-home contamination with lead and other metals as indicated by the presence of metals on surface wipe samples in production and nonproduction areas where employees eat and drink. We recommended including all employees in a lead exposure prevention program, maintaining a respiratory protection program, providing employees with a lead-removing product to wash their hands, and prohibiting the use of compressed air to clean electronics.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2018) Exposure to metals, flame retardants, and nanomaterials at an electronics recycling company. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from an electronics recycling company. The employer was concerned about employee exposure to metals and flame retardant chemicals while recycling electronics. We met with employer and employee representatives and toured the workplace to observe operations, work practices, and working conditions. We also collected air, hand wipe, surface wipe, blood, and urine samples for metals and flame retardants. We found some flame retardants typically ... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from an electronics recycling company. The employer was concerned about employee exposure to metals and flame retardant chemicals while recycling electronics. We met with employer and employee representatives and toured the workplace to observe operations, work practices, and working conditions. We also collected air, hand wipe, surface wipe, blood, and urine samples for metals and flame retardants. We found some flame retardants typically associated with electronics in the air, on employees' hands, in their blood, and in their urine (metabolites). We found metals in the air and on surfaces outside of the processing area. One employee's exposure to cadmium in the air was above the recommended exposure limit. Three employees had elevated blood lead levels. There is the potential for take-home contamination with cadmium, lead, other metals, and flame retardants. We observed employees dry sweeping and eating and/or drinking in the processing areas. We recommended adding local exhaust ventilation to the small shredder sorter, requiring disassembly and shredding employees wear respirators until cadmium exposures are reduced, including all processing employees in a lead exposure prevention program, providing employees with a lead-removing product to wash their hands, and providing onsite laundering facilities or contracting with a laundering service.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(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) 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) 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) 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) 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)
