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
479 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
(2022) Whole-body vibration analysis of golf course maintenance tasks. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from golf course management concerning maintenance employees' exposure to whole-body vibration. Employees reported pain or discomfort in their lower back, shoulders, neck, and knees, which they thought was related to excessive whole-body vibration while doing certain work tasks. We visited the golf course to learn more about health concerns and to measure whole-body vibration exposures. During our site visit, we observed work processes, wor... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from golf course management concerning maintenance employees' exposure to whole-body vibration. Employees reported pain or discomfort in their lower back, shoulders, neck, and knees, which they thought was related to excessive whole-body vibration while doing certain work tasks. We visited the golf course to learn more about health concerns and to measure whole-body vibration exposures. During our site visit, we observed work processes, work practices, and workplace conditions; measured golf course maintenance employees' exposures to whole-body vibration; and held confidential interviews with employees working during our visit. We found that most job tasks we evaluated were above the whole-body vibration dose value (VDV) action level. This could lead to employees potentially experiencing health risks. Employees reported pain or discomfort in their lower back, shoulders, neck, and knees. They also indicated that original equipment seats had been replaced with other manufacturers' seats when they wore out. This could contribute to pain and discomfort. We recommended reducing the amount of time spent on equipment, taking paths that are known to cause less vibration, providing proper replacement seats on equipment, reducing or eliminating rough and uneven areas of the cart paths through maintenance or replacement, establishing a schedule that rotates employees between job tasks, and encouraging employees to report health concerns they think are work-related to their supervisors.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2021) Exposure to lead during residential water line replacement activities. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program received a request from the employer of a city water department concerning lead exposure among crews replacing lead water lines servicing residential homes. This occurred after two employees received blood tests indicating elevated lead levels. In response to these findings, the employer implemented some measures to minimize lead exposures among employees and submitted an HHE request. In response to this request, we conducted confidential medical interv... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program received a request from the employer of a city water department concerning lead exposure among crews replacing lead water lines servicing residential homes. This occurred after two employees received blood tests indicating elevated lead levels. In response to these findings, the employer implemented some measures to minimize lead exposures among employees and submitted an HHE request. In response to this request, we conducted confidential medical interviews; collected personal air samples for lead; conducted colorimetric wipe sampling for lead on the hands of employees; collected wipe samples inside the surfaces of work gloves, work trucks, and areas at the main pump station; and determined whether lead particulate was expelled from the old lead pipe during a removal process. All air samples were below the occupational exposure limit for lead; however, we found lead on various surfaces and on the hands of some employees. Specific job titles such as crew leader and maintenance worker appear to have a higher potential for exposure via all routes than other job titles. We detected lead on the hands of employees who handled the lead pipe during removal activities, and lead on the inside of some work gloves after the job was completed. The task of using compressed air to blow a string through the lead piping produced a large amount of lead aerosol being ejected from the pipe. We observed incorrect respirator usage and some cases where nitrile gloves were not worn underneath work gloves when handling lead pipe. The company had a written lead monitoring and control program, a hazard communication program, and a job-hazard analysis for tasks associated with lead line replacement. While the employer had implemented multiple measures to minimize lead exposures to employees, there appears to be opportunities for potential lead exposure among employees during residential water line replacement activities. We recommended improving (1) lead surveillance, training, and work practices; (2) personal protective equipment use and training; (3) procedures for employees to keep their hands clean and free of lead during different tasks; and (4) cleaning procedures to reduce lead exposure.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2021) Exposures to metals and a perceived excess of cancer cases in a train maintenance facility. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a union at a train maintenance facility concerning employee exposure to metals and a perceived excess of cancer. We visited the facility twice and focused our evaluation on first shift employees working in six shops (truck, wheel, motor, electronics, contactor, and tin) that worked on different maintenance and repair tasks. We observed work processes, work practices, and conditions; spoke informally to employees in each shop about heal... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a union at a train maintenance facility concerning employee exposure to metals and a perceived excess of cancer. We visited the facility twice and focused our evaluation on first shift employees working in six shops (truck, wheel, motor, electronics, contactor, and tin) that worked on different maintenance and repair tasks. We observed work processes, work practices, and conditions; spoke informally to employees in each shop about health and safety concerns; measured employee exposures to metals in air; administered medical surveys; and measured blood lead levels of employees in the electronics shop. Our air sampling showed that there were no exposures to metals above relevant occupational exposure limits; however, employees remained concerned about potential exposures to metals and dust. Blood lead levels were all below the CDC reference level of 5 micrograms per deciliter. We found that training and hazard communication could be improved. For example, employees expressed concern about potential exposures to varnish chemicals and cadmium. However, management ceased the vacuum pressure impregnation process for applying varnish and enclosed the cadmium-containing contactors. Employees were also concerned about their health, specifically their respiratory health and a perceived excess risk of cancer. The results from our evaluation were not consistent with the reported cancers being caused by a work-related exposure. We recommended providing periodic training and communication around concerns about chemical exposures, visible dust in the facility, cadmium in the contactor shop, personal protective equipment requirements, and the perceived excess of cancer cases. We recommended reinforcing the importance of daily and weekly cleaning of commonly used areas of all workstations and break areas. We also recommended using wet methods or high efficiency particulate air filter vacuums to clean metal dust; ways to improve the spray-painting process; removing latex gloves from the facility; and consuming food and beverages away from production areas.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2019) Exposure to metals and flame retardants at an electronics recycling company. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from an electronics recycling company. The managers were concerned about exposure to metals and flame retardants, as well as ergonomic stressors and hazardous levels of noise. We observed work operations, practices, and conditions; collected air, surface wipe, hand wipe, blood, and urine samples for metals and flame retardants; took sound level measurements; and assessed possible ergonomic hazards. Employees at this electronics recycling co... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from an electronics recycling company. The managers were concerned about exposure to metals and flame retardants, as well as ergonomic stressors and hazardous levels of noise. We observed work operations, practices, and conditions; collected air, surface wipe, hand wipe, blood, and urine samples for metals and flame retardants; took sound level measurements; and assessed possible ergonomic hazards. Employees at this electronics recycling company were exposed to metals including lead and cadmium; however, no OELs were exceeded. Although blood and air sampling results indicated exposures were well controlled, our hand wipe sampling results showed a potential for take-home contamination of lead and other metals. Surface wipe, hand wipe, and air samples indicated that employees were exposed to flame retardants in the workplace. Biological samples showed that exposures had not led to a noticeable uptake over a shift. Sound level meter measurements showed peak impulsive sound levels exceeding 120 decibels, but below the OSHA PEL and NIOSH REL of 140 decibels. Additional findings included workstations set at fixed heights, anti-fatigue mats were available but not used by most employees, poor lighting at workstations, incorrect use of ear plugs and N95 respirators, and dry sweeping. We recommended the employer include all processing employees in a lead exposure prevention program, provide employees with a lead-removing product to wash their hands, re-train employees on the proper wear and use of respirators and ear plugs, replace worn out anti-fatigue mats, provide easily adjustable workstations, and prohibit dry sweeping to clean work areas.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2019) Exposures to metals and flame retardants at an electronics recycling company. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from an electronics recycling company. The managers were concerned about exposure to metals and flame retardants while recycling electronics. Our evaluation included collecting air, handwipe, and blood samples for flame retardants and metals. We also collected urine samples to evaluate flame retardant exposure. We found some flame retardants typically associated with electronics in the air, on employees' hands, in their blood, and in their ... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from an electronics recycling company. The managers were concerned about exposure to metals and flame retardants while recycling electronics. Our evaluation included collecting air, handwipe, and blood samples for flame retardants and metals. We also collected urine samples to evaluate flame retardant exposure. We found some flame retardants typically associated with electronics in the air, on employees' hands, in their blood, and in their urine. Surface wipe samples for flame retardants indicated that flame retardants were present in the workplace. Some employees had levels of lead in their blood above the CDC reference level of 5 micrograms per deciliter. Two personal air samples for silver were above occupational exposure limits. Our handwipe sampling demonstrated that there was potential for take-home contamination of lead and other metals. We observed incorrect respirator use and dry sweeping. Among several recommendations, we recommended blood lead level testing for all processing employees in the shred building, providing employees with a lead-removing product to wash their hands, retraining employees on the proper wear and use of respirators, and prohibiting dry sweeping to clean work areas. We also recommended the company ensure employees leave work-issued clothing and shoes at work, and that work-issued clothing is laundered on-site or through a contract laundry service.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(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)
