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
52 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) 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 needlestick injuries and other exposures to bloodborne pathogens among officers in a city police department. (Click to open report) In response to a request from the risk management office of a city, the Health Hazard Evaluation Program reviewed records of needlestick injuries and other potential bloodborne pathogens exposure incidents among city police officers. We also reviewed the city's and police department's policies regarding bloodborne pathogens and exposures to blood or other potentially infectious materials. We found 13 needlestick injuries and 37 additional exposure incidents across a 6-year period in a force of a... (Click to show more)In response to a request from the risk management office of a city, the Health Hazard Evaluation Program reviewed records of needlestick injuries and other potential bloodborne pathogens exposure incidents among city police officers. We also reviewed the city's and police department's policies regarding bloodborne pathogens and exposures to blood or other potentially infectious materials. We found 13 needlestick injuries and 37 additional exposure incidents across a 6-year period in a force of about 1,000 officers. The annual incidence of needlestick injuries ranged from 0-5.07 per 1,000 police officers and from 0-2.45 per 10,000 reactive calls for service. For the needlestick injuries, 9 of 11 source persons tested were found to have hepatitis C. The 37 additional potential bloodborne pathogens exposure incidents involved mostly spitting incidents, human bites, and contact with blood other than from needlesticks. The city had a comprehensive bloodborne pathogens exposure control plan, but the police department had not yet adopted it. We recommended using sharps containers for evidence collection that are puncture resistant, leakproof, and labeled or color-coded. We also recommended continued training on safe searching techniques, and ensuring needlestick and exposure incident reports have complete information to allow for improved tracking.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2017) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of nitrous oxide exposure at a dental center. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a dental center manager concerned about exposures to nitrous oxide (N2O) during dental procedures. The center staff included dental assistants, dental hygienists, dental residents, and dentists and nonclinical personnel. We evaluated employee exposures to N2O and observed workplace processes and practices and workplace conditions. We asked employees about their work history, N2O exposure, personal protective equipment, work-related sym... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a dental center manager concerned about exposures to nitrous oxide (N2O) during dental procedures. The center staff included dental assistants, dental hygienists, dental residents, and dentists and nonclinical personnel. We evaluated employee exposures to N2O and observed workplace processes and practices and workplace conditions. We asked employees about their work history, N2O exposure, personal protective equipment, work-related symptoms, and health and safety concerns. We reviewed employee N2O dosimetry data and dental center incident reports. We found personal exposures occasionally exceeded occupational exposure limits. The exposures were likely from patient mouth-breathing during dental procedures and poorly fitting nasal scavenging masks. In past air sampling, the dental center found employee overexposures to N2O; they identified mouth-breathing and crying by pediatric patients as contributing factors. Employees followed dental industry best practices to reduce N2O exposure, including the use of scavenging equipment, which has been shown to reduce employee exposure. The ventilation systems were last tested and balanced in 2009 and may not have been supplying enough outdoor air. Employees reported symptoms that could be related to N2O exposure. We recommended testing and balancing the ventilation systems; training employees on proper work practices, controls, and hazards associated with N2O; and providing patients with various sizes of nasal scavenging masks.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2017) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of noise exposures in a city's public works departments. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a municipal human resources director to evaluate noise exposures in the city's electric distribution, fire, operations, parks and recreation, and water treatment departments. Of the 13 employees' noise exposures we evaluated, we found overexposures for some employees in the electric distribution, operations, and parks and recreation departments. High noise exposures occurred while using gasoline-powered chain saws, the wood chipper, ri... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a municipal human resources director to evaluate noise exposures in the city's electric distribution, fire, operations, parks and recreation, and water treatment departments. Of the 13 employees' noise exposures we evaluated, we found overexposures for some employees in the electric distribution, operations, and parks and recreation departments. High noise exposures occurred while using gasoline-powered chain saws, the wood chipper, riding lawn mowers, and operating sewer cleaning and pothole patching equipment. Each city department had different types of hearing protection available, but voluntary use by employees was inconsistent. The city also did not have a hearing loss prevention program that included audiometric testing and training on the use and role of hearing protection. Our recommendations to the city included starting a hearing conservation program for employees in the departments where noise overexposures were found, and requiring employees to wear hearing protection when using noisy equipment and machinery. We recommended employees report health symptoms they consider to be work-related to their supervisor and health care provider.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2017) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of noise exposures in the knockoff areas of an iron foundry. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a gray and ductile iron foundry. The employer was concerned about noise exposures in the knockoff areas of the facility. The foundry had seven knockoff areas where employees separated ductile iron castings from the metal riser and runner gating that remained attached following the casting process. We measured sound levels in the knockoff areas; they were very high. Metal-to-metal contact, shaker conveyors and other equipment, and vibra... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a gray and ductile iron foundry. The employer was concerned about noise exposures in the knockoff areas of the facility. The foundry had seven knockoff areas where employees separated ductile iron castings from the metal riser and runner gating that remained attached following the casting process. We measured sound levels in the knockoff areas; they were very high. Metal-to-metal contact, shaker conveyors and other equipment, and vibration caused most noise. Employees' time-weighted average noise exposures in all of the knockoff jobs we monitored exceeded NIOSH and OSHA occupational exposure limits. Furthermore, time-weighted average noise exposures in all of the knockoff locations were greater than 100 decibels, A-weighted. We observed that most but not all employees working in these areas wore dual hearing protection as recommended by NIOSH and OSHA. Some employees did not fully insert their foam earplugs. We recommend installing engineering noise controls, improving acoustic barriers and treatments, maintaining equipment to eliminate unnecessary rattling from loose parts, and implementing a Buy Quiet program to help reduce noise exposures
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2017) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of occupational brake dust exposures at a hydroelectric dam. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a safety manager at a hydroelectric dam. The manager was concerned about employee exposures to elements (metals and minerals) in brake dust when cleaning the brake and brush housings of hydroelectric turbine generators. While employees cleaned a generator during a scheduled shutdown, we collected air samples, work surface and hand wipes, and brake dust samples for elemental analysis. Airborne exposures to elements were well below their... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a safety manager at a hydroelectric dam. The manager was concerned about employee exposures to elements (metals and minerals) in brake dust when cleaning the brake and brush housings of hydroelectric turbine generators. While employees cleaned a generator during a scheduled shutdown, we collected air samples, work surface and hand wipes, and brake dust samples for elemental analysis. Airborne exposures to elements were well below their most protective occupational exposure limits for all powerhouse employees, regardless of work activity or location within the powerhouse. Sampling results showed that brake dust could escape from the interior of the turbine housing. Elements were detected at low concentrations on hands and work surfaces. Hand cleaning practices, the availability of disposable clothing, and the use of sticky mats helped reduce the migration of contaminants from work areas to non-work areas. We recommended evaluating employee's exposures to elements in the air during brake dust cleaning of the other two generators.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2017) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of occupational exposure to flame retardants at four gymnastics studios. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the owner of gymnastics studios who was concerned about employee exposure to flame retardants from polyurethane foam blocks, mats, and other padded equipment. During the period of our evaluation, the owner thoroughly cleaned the gymnastics studios, and replaced the foam blocks in the in-ground pits with foam blocks reported by the manufacturer to be free of some types of flame retardants. We evaluated employee exposure to flame retarda... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the owner of gymnastics studios who was concerned about employee exposure to flame retardants from polyurethane foam blocks, mats, and other padded equipment. During the period of our evaluation, the owner thoroughly cleaned the gymnastics studios, and replaced the foam blocks in the in-ground pits with foam blocks reported by the manufacturer to be free of some types of flame retardants. We evaluated employee exposure to flame retardants and measured flame retardants in the polyurethane foam of mats, equipment, and old and new foam blocks. We found that levels of some flame retardants on employees' hands that were higher after work than before. Old foam blocks in the pits contained flame retardants (including polybrominated diphenyl ethers that were banned in new products starting in 2004). Mats and other padded equipment contained bromine, which is present in some flame retardants. New blocks did not contain polybrominated diphenyl ethers, but contained some of the other flame retardants that were also in the old blocks. Compared to windows outside the gymnastics area, windows inside had higher median levels of some flame retardants, including the types of flame retardants that were banned in 2004. We recommended the gymnastic studio owner continue the daily housekeeping program and periodic deep cleaning, use vacuums with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, and when replacing foam blocks and other equipment containing foam, look for materials without flame retardants.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2017) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of occupational exposures at an insect rearing facility. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a federal agency on behalf of employees at a pink bollworm (moth) rearing facility. Managers and employees were concerned about indoor environmental quality and possible development of respiratory problems and allergies from exposures to chemicals, insects, and insect debris. We collected personal air samples for formaldehyde and inhalable particulate matter, and area air samples for moth scales and other insect debris. We interviewed ... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a federal agency on behalf of employees at a pink bollworm (moth) rearing facility. Managers and employees were concerned about indoor environmental quality and possible development of respiratory problems and allergies from exposures to chemicals, insects, and insect debris. We collected personal air samples for formaldehyde and inhalable particulate matter, and area air samples for moth scales and other insect debris. We interviewed employees about their work, their health, and their concerns, and reviewed health questionnaire results and lung function testing done by a contractor hired by the employer. We also observed engineering controls, ventilation, work practices, and personal protective equipment use. Employees were exposed to multiple allergens and irritants in many areas such as formaldehyde, bleach, insects, insect debris, insect diet ingredients, and latex gloves. Air sampling results showed overexposures to formaldehyde (according to NIOSH criteria) during egg preparation and disinfection. Work procedures and practices could increase the potential for air and skin exposure to formaldehyde. Inhalable particulate matter containing moth scales, insect debris, or insect diet ingredients was not well controlled in the moth pouring, egg production, and tray scraping areas, which indicates that improvements in local exhaust ventilation were needed. Some employees reported health symptoms and had medical evidence suggesting potential allergy, occupational asthma, and lung obstruction. We recommended modifying the ventilation systems to improve capture and removal of inhalable particulates containing allergens and irritants. We also recommended replacing latex gloves with nitrile gloves to eliminate a potential allergen source.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2017) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of occupational glyphosate exposures among employees applying herbicides at a national park. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a safety manager at a national park. The manager was concerned about employee exposures to the herbicide glyphosate when they mixed and applied it to control unwanted plants in the park. Glyphosate is the most used herbicide at the park. Employees used glyphosate and, on occasion, five other herbicides, based on the season and target plant species. During our evaluation, we spoke with managers and employees and observed workplace condi... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a safety manager at a national park. The manager was concerned about employee exposures to the herbicide glyphosate when they mixed and applied it to control unwanted plants in the park. Glyphosate is the most used herbicide at the park. Employees used glyphosate and, on occasion, five other herbicides, based on the season and target plant species. During our evaluation, we spoke with managers and employees and observed workplace conditions, work processes, and practices. We evaluated employee exposures when they mixed and applied herbicides. We measured heat stress and estimated metabolic workloads for various work sites and job tasks. On the basis of our observations and employee interviews, we concluded that skin contact was the main route of employee exposure to herbicides; however, inhalation of spray mists is also a potential route. We saw evidence of herbicide contamination on employees' boots, clothing, and in work areas. We observed inconsistent glove use, improper chemical handling practices, and hand washing methods that could create opportunities for herbicide exposure. Environmental conditions approached limits for heat stress, and some employees reported symptoms consistent with early heat illness. We observed employees and supervisors complying with the written heat stress management policy. We recommended improvements in training and developing written site-specific policies and procedures for herbicide handling. We also recommended re-evaluating glove selection, use, decontamination, and change-out policies.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2017) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of peracetic acid exposure among federal poultry inspectors. (Click to open report) Managers in the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) were concerned about federal inspectors' exposures to peracetic acid and other chemical disinfectants at a poultry production plant. We interviewed federal inspectors about their work, health, and concerns. We evaluated the ventilation in the evisceration area, and took personal air samples for peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and acetic acid. We found low levels of peracetic acid, hydrogen p... (Click to show more)Managers in the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) were concerned about federal inspectors' exposures to peracetic acid and other chemical disinfectants at a poultry production plant. We interviewed federal inspectors about their work, health, and concerns. We evaluated the ventilation in the evisceration area, and took personal air samples for peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and acetic acid. We found low levels of peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and acetic acid on inspectors working in the evisceration area. None of the samples exceeded occupational exposure limits. Some inspectors reported occasional eye and nasal irritation. Although these symptoms can be caused by exposure to peracetic acid and other chemical disinfectants, symptoms caused by these exposures are typically reported at concentrations much higher than we measured. We found inspectors using latex gloves, which have been associated with allergic reactions. The addition of single-pass mechanical ventilation for the entire plant improved workplace conditions. We recommended the employer provide refresher training on the prevention of slips, trips, and falls for inspectors, ensure appropriate personal protective equipment is available, and discontinue use of latex gloves.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
