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
477 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
(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)
(2016) 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) 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) 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)
(2014) Employee exposures during sea lamprey pesticide application. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a health and safety manager at a government agency concerned with potential exposures when employees manually applied pesticides into rivers to control sea lamprey larvae. Sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus) are parasitic fish in the Great Lakes, the Finger Lakes, and Lake Champlain. In a typical treatment year, 30 to 40 U.S. tributaries receive applications of 3-trifluoro-methyl-4-nitro-phenol (TFM) and Bayluscide(TM). In 2012, an estim... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a health and safety manager at a government agency concerned with potential exposures when employees manually applied pesticides into rivers to control sea lamprey larvae. Sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus) are parasitic fish in the Great Lakes, the Finger Lakes, and Lake Champlain. In a typical treatment year, 30 to 40 U.S. tributaries receive applications of 3-trifluoro-methyl-4-nitro-phenol (TFM) and Bayluscide(TM). In 2012, an estimated 56,000 kilograms of TFM and 1,000 kilograms of Bayluscide were applied. During our evaluation, we (1) observed employee work practices and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) when applying pesticides; (2) looked at health and safety records and documents; (3) asked employees about their work, use of PPE, and work-related health and safety concerns; (4) measured TFM and Bayluscide on work surfaces, work clothing, exposed skin, and glove liners worn under protective gloves; and (5) measured carbon monoxide in a portable laboratory and a portable workstation powered by a propane generator. We found pesticides on work surfaces, PPE, personal clothing, and skin of employees, and a high carbon monoxide reading in a portable workstation. We observed inconsistent and inappropriate reuse of PPE, inconsistent hand washing methods, and some worksites where clean water was not available. We saw employees transfer, handle, and mix pesticides in open containers, which could lead to spills and tracking pesticides out of the work area. During our interviews, employees indicated that they were generally aware of pesticide exposure routes and health risks from exposure, and they wore eye protection and chemical resistant gloves when mixing and applying pesticides. Fewer than five employees reported skin irritation from TFM, skin rash, and poison ivy. We recommended the employer (1) enclose pesticide transfer and mixing equipment; (2) install washing stations so that employees can clean their boots, PPE, and skin; (3) develop PPE cleaning and storage procedures; (4) provide employees with clean water; and (5) reroute generator exhaust. We recommended employees (1) use required PPE and clean it before storing or reusing, (2) wash hands and face with clean water and soap after handling pesticides, (3) change clothes when they become contaminated with pesticide and at the end of the work shift, and (4) report all health and safety concerns to your supervisor.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2014) Employees' exposures to lead, noise, and heat at an automotive lead-acid battery recycling company. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from employees at a battery recycling plant in Puerto Rico. Employees were concerned about exposures to lead and noise. The company collected lead-acid automotive batteries and operated a secondary lead smelter 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The company had 106 employees. We visited the plant in April 2012 and September 2012. We observed work practices; sampled for lead in air and on surfaces; interviewed employees about their medical and... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from employees at a battery recycling plant in Puerto Rico. Employees were concerned about exposures to lead and noise. The company collected lead-acid automotive batteries and operated a secondary lead smelter 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The company had 106 employees. We visited the plant in April 2012 and September 2012. We observed work practices; sampled for lead in air and on surfaces; interviewed employees about their medical and work history; looked at the company's health and safety programs and employee blood lead test records; and measured employees' noise exposures. We found (1) airborne lead overexposures among foundry, battery breaker, and some warehouse and maintenance employees; (2) lead on most work surfaces and on employees' skin after they took a shower at the end of the work day; (3) 85% of interviewed employees reported at least one symptom that could be related to lead overexposure; (4) 78% of employees had an elevated average blood lead level (at or above 10 µg/dL) even though average blood lead levels have declined since 2009; and (5) inadequate local exhaust ventilation. We also found employees were overexposed to noise and had the potential to be exposed to heat stress conditions. The company did not have a hearing conservation or a heat stress management program. The respiratory protection program was deficient because some respirators did not have a protection factor sufficient for the employee's lead exposure, training was not conducted annually, and respirators were worn and stored incorrectly. Employees lacked knowledge about the health effects of lead and how they could help protect themselves. We recommended the company (1) install ventilated enclosures around the battery breaker and shredder, (2) provide more local exhaust ventilation, (3) make a path so employees can go from the clean locker room to the lunchroom without crossing lead-contaminated areas, (4) continue blood lead testing of employees, (5) provide more protective respirators for certain jobs, and (6) stop dry sweeping floors. We also recommended the employer start hearing conservation and heat stress management programs, improve the respiratory protection and hazard communication programs, start a health and safety committee, and encourage employees to report health concerns that may be related to their work. We recommended employees (1) wear all required PPE, (2) wash their hands using a lead removal cleaner before eating, drinking, and leaving work, (3) leave work clothes or boots at the plant, (4) drink plenty of water at work and take rest breaks, and (5) participate in the health and safety committee.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2014) Exposure to metals at an electronic scrap recycling facility. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from managers at an electronic scrap recycling company. The request concerned possible employee exposure to lead and cadmium. The company's primary activities included recycling batteries, metals, cardboard, and ballast and capacitors for fluorescent lights. Other activities included sorting, dismantling, and shredding electronic equipment such as computers (excluding cathode ray tube monitors), printers, keyboards, central processing units... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from managers at an electronic scrap recycling company. The request concerned possible employee exposure to lead and cadmium. The company's primary activities included recycling batteries, metals, cardboard, and ballast and capacitors for fluorescent lights. Other activities included sorting, dismantling, and shredding electronic equipment such as computers (excluding cathode ray tube monitors), printers, keyboards, central processing units, fax machines, cameras, medical equipment, and photocopiers. Our evaluation included (1) observing work activities and processes; (2) testing air, work surfaces, and employees' hands for metals, including beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, and lead; (3) testing employees' blood for lead and cadmium; (4) measuring noise exposures; and (5) interviewing employees about their work history and health and safety concerns. Our metal sampling results indicated that the air levels were below their occupational exposure limits. Employees' blood did not show detectable amounts of lead, and cadmium levels were well below the limit that would trigger Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements. We detected metals on surfaces, including those in break areas. The metals that we found on employees' hands before they left the facility and the practice of taking work clothes home for laundering can lead to take-home exposures. Some employees were overexposed to noise. We observed a lack of machine guards on some equipment, employees eating near work areas, and some work activities that could lead to low back injuries. Our interviews with employees found that cultural differences related to national origin might create barriers to communication about workplace health and safety. To address exposure to metals, we recommended the employer provide employees with a designated eating area, provide laundering facilities on site or contract with a laundering service, and prohibit dry sweeping. We recommended the employer address noise exposures by implementing a hearing conservation program, requiring employees to turn down the radio volume, placing scrap parts on the conveyor instead of throwing them, and replacing old equipment with new equipment that generates less noise. The employer should also replace all missing machine guards, evaluate the risk for musculoskeletal disorders, and promote employee engagement in workplace health and safety.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2014) Exposures of helicopter pilots and gunners to firearm noise and lead during gunnery target training exercises. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program received a technical assistance request from managers in the flight safety office of a federal agency. Managers were concerned about helicopter crews' exposures to gunshot noise, vibration, and lead during airborne offshore and ground range gunnery training exercises. The helicopter crews (50 pilots and 25 gunners) assisted in the interception and disabling of drug- and contraband-running watercraft. They flew MH-65C "Dolphin" helicopters. In response t... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program received a technical assistance request from managers in the flight safety office of a federal agency. Managers were concerned about helicopter crews' exposures to gunshot noise, vibration, and lead during airborne offshore and ground range gunnery training exercises. The helicopter crews (50 pilots and 25 gunners) assisted in the interception and disabling of drug- and contraband-running watercraft. They flew MH-65C "Dolphin" helicopters. In response to this request, NIOSH investigators measured pilots' and gunners' exposures to noise from shooting weapons and from helicopter flights during gunnery target training. We measured exposures to lead from shooting lead-containing ammunition and took surface wipe samples for lead inside helicopter cabins. We also spoke with pilots and gunners about the health symptoms they had while training and during actual missions. We found that helicopter pilots and gunners were exposed to high noise levels during gunnery target training; peak noise levels (exceeding 150 decibels) during weapons shooting were high enough to damage hearing. In our review of audiometric test results, we found that some pilots and gunners had evidence of threshold shifts using NIOSH criteria, but did not have standard threshold shifts using OSHA criteria. Helicopter pilots reported headache and fatigue from gun blast, especially after flights for gunnery target training. Airborne lead exposures were below occupational exposure limits, but surface lead was found inside helicopter cabins. To address the potential for noise exposure among helicopter crews, NIOSH investigators recommended the employer (1) install a partial noise barrier in the helicopters between the pilots and gunner, (2) install a window in the helicopter cabin that can be opened to reduce blast pressure when high caliber weapons are shot, (3) continue to require double hearing protection for everyone in the helicopter cabin when they shoot weapons and during gunnery target training flights, and (4) test employee hearing and report results using NIOSH and OSHA criteria. To address the potential for lead exposure among helicopter crews, we recommended the employer (1) consider using non-lead bullets and non-lead primers as they become economically feasible, (2) clean the inside of the helicopter cabins to help remove surface lead accumulation, and (3) advise helicopter crews to maintain good hand hygiene and thoroughly wash their hands after handling guns or bullets that contain lead and after gunnery target training exercises.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
