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 potential hazards during harvesting and processing cannabis at an outdoor organic farm. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a union representative to evaluate potential hazards associated with harvesting and processing cannabis at an outdoor organic farm. We evaluated ergonomic, chemical, and microbial hazards and conducted medical interviews with employees about their health concerns. Although employees did not report any work-related health problems, we identified some exposures and conditions that could affect employee health. If hand trimming tasks are ... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a union representative to evaluate potential hazards associated with harvesting and processing cannabis at an outdoor organic farm. We evaluated ergonomic, chemical, and microbial hazards and conducted medical interviews with employees about their health concerns. Although employees did not report any work-related health problems, we identified some exposures and conditions that could affect employee health. If hand trimming tasks are performed for longer periods than we observed, the repetitive hand motions would create a risk for hand and wrist musculoskeletal disorders. Tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive component in cannabis, was detected on all surface wipe samples collected (cannabis processing areas and on hand trimming scissor blades). This indicates the potential for dermal and ingestion exposures. However, the health implications from occupational exposure to tetrahydrocannabinol are unknown. Air samples indicated that Botrytis cinerea, a plant pathogen, was the main fungal species, while actinobacteria, common soil bacteria, was the most frequently identified bacterial phyla. Airborne exposure to actinobacteria and fungus like Botrytis cinerea can increase the risk of allergic and respiratory symptoms. Air samples for endotoxins were all below the occupational exposure limit. We also found that employees used latex gloves, which can cause allergic reactions. Glove use was required for some tasks. NIOSH investigators recommended (1) changing procedures and improving tools to reduce the potential for musculoskeletal disorders, (2) developing a cleaning schedule for work and tool surfaces, (3) training employees on tool cleaning, lubrication, sharpening, and maintenance, and (4) wearing nonlatex gloves when handling cannabis, cannabis products, or equipment that contacts cannabis.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2017) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of ventilation and employee exposures to lead at an indoor firing range. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from an employer representative at an indoor firing range. The request concerned potential employee exposure to lead during routine tasks and range cleaning activities. Other concerns included the performance of the ventilation system and whether lead was migrating from the range to other areas of the building. We conducted a walk-through survey of the range to speak with employees and observe their work practices and personal protective eq... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from an employer representative at an indoor firing range. The request concerned potential employee exposure to lead during routine tasks and range cleaning activities. Other concerns included the performance of the ventilation system and whether lead was migrating from the range to other areas of the building. We conducted a walk-through survey of the range to speak with employees and observe their work practices and personal protective equipment use. We collected full-shift personal and area air samples for lead, and reviewed the company's health and safety policy documents. We also collected employee hand wipe samples for lead before and after weekly range cleaning, and at the end of the work shift. No employees were overexposed to airborne lead. However, we did find lead on surfaces and employees' hands. The ventilation system performance met NIOSH guidelines. The company adhered to the OSHA lead standard and the type and availability of personal protective equipment was appropriate for the work performed by employees. We recommended increasing the use of a lead removal solution for surface and floor cleaning and lead removal hand wipes to reduce the possible spread of lead contamination. We also recommended using a lead-certified laundry service or providing a dedicated onsite, washer and dryer to clean employee uniforms and to help prevent take-home exposures.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2016) Health hazard evaluation report: assessment 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 at a poultry production plant. We interviewed federal inspectors about their work, their health, and their concerns. We evaluated the ventilation in the evisceration area. We took air samples for peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and acetic acid. We found low levels of acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide. None of the samples ex... (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 at a poultry production plant. We interviewed federal inspectors about their work, their health, and their concerns. We evaluated the ventilation in the evisceration area. We took air samples for peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and acetic acid. We found low levels of acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide. None of the samples exceeded occupational exposure limits for these chemicals. We did not find peracetic acid. One evisceration department exhaust fan on the roof had standing water. Gaps found in the exhaust fan flashing could allow water to enter the building. Some employees reported occasional eye and throat irritation. These symptoms can be caused by exposure to chemicals used in the plant. Employees' laboratory coats did not cover their arms. This could expose them to chemicals and infectious agents.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2016) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of crystalline silica exposure during fabrication of natural and engineered stone countertops. (Click to open report) The Texas Department of State Health Services asked the Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program for help. They asked us to evaluate silica exposure in a manufacturing plant. The plant makes natural and engineered stone countertops. We measured employees' exposures to crystalline silica. We evaluated ventilation systems and personal protective equipment use. Employees used wet methods to help control dust. We found respirable crystalline silica in the air. Concentrations ranged from nondetectable ... (Click to show more)The Texas Department of State Health Services asked the Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program for help. They asked us to evaluate silica exposure in a manufacturing plant. The plant makes natural and engineered stone countertops. We measured employees' exposures to crystalline silica. We evaluated ventilation systems and personal protective equipment use. Employees used wet methods to help control dust. We found respirable crystalline silica in the air. Concentrations ranged from nondetectable to 140 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). Respirable dust concentrations ranged from nondetectable to 380 ug/m3. The percentage of quartz in these samples ranged from less than 1% to 52%. We found overexposures to crystalline silica despite the use of wet methods. None of the work processes used local exhaust ventilation. We saw some employees incorrectly using respirators, safety glasses, and ear plugs. The company did not have an employee medical surveillance program for silica. HHE Program investigators recommended using a combination of local exhaust ventilation and wet methods to control dust.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2016) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of diesel exhaust exposures at multiple fire stations in a city fire department. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from fire fighters in a city fire department to evaluate potential diesel exhaust exposures in three fire stations. They were concerned that diesel exhaust from fire fighting apparatus could enter the living and sleeping areas of the fire stations. They were also concerned about diesel exhaust exposures in the apparatus bay during apparatus start-up and maintenance. Each station had an attached living and sleeping quarter that was connected... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from fire fighters in a city fire department to evaluate potential diesel exhaust exposures in three fire stations. They were concerned that diesel exhaust from fire fighting apparatus could enter the living and sleeping areas of the fire stations. They were also concerned about diesel exhaust exposures in the apparatus bay during apparatus start-up and maintenance. Each station had an attached living and sleeping quarter that was connected to the apparatus bay by one or more doors. All of the diesel powered vehicles used ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, and the fire engines and fire trucks were equipped with exhaust control systems. We collected air samples for elemental carbon. It is used as a marker of diesel exhaust. We also sampled for 1-nitropyrene, another chemical found in diesel exhaust. We evaluated airflow patterns in the fire stations. We measured low levels of diesel exhaust in the living areas and apparatus bay at all three fire stations. We found no 1-nitropyrene. We found no evidence that diesel exhaust was flowing into the living and sleeping quarters from the apparatus bay in the three fire stations. We recommended having the apparatus bay exhaust fans operate automatically when bay doors are opened, moving turnout gear away from apparatus exhaust pipes, and removing exercise equipment from the apparatus bay.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2016) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of forensic crime lab employees' chemical exposures, job stress, and work-related health concerns. (Click to open report) The health and safety director at a federal crime lab asked us to evaluate lab employees' potential chemical exposures. Approximately 800 employees worked in the lab across 13 case working units. We developed a system to prioritize risks from chemical exposures in these units and check potential health hazards in a forensic lab. We sampled the workplace air for lead, ethyl cyanoacrylate, methanol, methylene chloride, and particles. We asked employees about psychosocial and work organization fact... (Click to show more)The health and safety director at a federal crime lab asked us to evaluate lab employees' potential chemical exposures. Approximately 800 employees worked in the lab across 13 case working units. We developed a system to prioritize risks from chemical exposures in these units and check potential health hazards in a forensic lab. We sampled the workplace air for lead, ethyl cyanoacrylate, methanol, methylene chloride, and particles. We asked employees about psychosocial and work organization factors at work. In general, exposures were well controlled. However, some employees could have dermal exposure to methylene chloride. We did not find lead on surfaces outside the firing range, except for those associated with the ventilation system. We determined that the exhaust hood over the wet bullet tank did not capture firearm emissions. Employees expressed moderate job stress and low concern about work-related health. We identified strict deadlines, high workload, and lack of resources as factors that contributed to job stress. We recommended the employer require employees to wear gloves when handling methylene chloride and talk to employees about managing their workload.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2016) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of impact and continuous noise exposure, hearing loss, heat stress, and whole body vibration at a hammer forge company. (Click to open report) The union representing employees at a hammer forge company asked for a Health Hazard Evaluation. Responding to their concerns, we measured impact noise, noise exposures, whole body and hand-arm vibration, and heat stress. Impact noise levels at the hammers were up to 148 decibels. Most employees' noise exposures were above workplace limits. Noise exposures near the hammers were above 100 decibels, A-weighted. Our analysis of hearing test results found many employees with hearing loss. Some emplo... (Click to show more)The union representing employees at a hammer forge company asked for a Health Hazard Evaluation. Responding to their concerns, we measured impact noise, noise exposures, whole body and hand-arm vibration, and heat stress. Impact noise levels at the hammers were up to 148 decibels. Most employees' noise exposures were above workplace limits. Noise exposures near the hammers were above 100 decibels, A-weighted. Our analysis of hearing test results found many employees with hearing loss. Some employees (1) had hearing loss within the first 5 years on the job, including employees under age 25, (2) hearing worsened with length of employment and age, (3) had permanent ringing in their ears because of noise exposure, and (4) did not insert foam ear plugs in the proper way. Whole body vibration was above some recommended guidelines. Hand-arm vibration at the grinders could exceed recommended limits. We did not find excessive heat stress. We recommended installing noise controls and replacing current equipment with less noisy equipment. We also recommended using vibration isolation controls at the hammers and at the grinders.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2016) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of indoor air quality concerns at an outpatient medical clinic in a shared-use building - West Virginia. (Click to open report) NIOSH received a management request to conduct a health hazard evaluation at an outpatient medical clinic in West Virginia. The request cited concerns about indoor air quality in the building. Clinic employees reported nausea, headache, dizziness, confusion, fatigue, burning eyes, numbness of hands and fingers, tingling around lips, metallic taste, itching, and reduced work productivity. We held voluntary confidential interviews with individual employees who wished to discuss their symptoms and ... (Click to show more)NIOSH received a management request to conduct a health hazard evaluation at an outpatient medical clinic in West Virginia. The request cited concerns about indoor air quality in the building. Clinic employees reported nausea, headache, dizziness, confusion, fatigue, burning eyes, numbness of hands and fingers, tingling around lips, metallic taste, itching, and reduced work productivity. We held voluntary confidential interviews with individual employees who wished to discuss their symptoms and concerns in October and November 2014. We learned that employees' symptoms began on or after January 2014. Additional symptoms reported by employees included chest pain, amnesia, difficulty breathing, wheeze, asthma exacerbation, isolated coughing fits at work, paresthesias (a tingling or prickling feeling), taste disturbances, and burning throat. Many employees reported that most symptoms resolved within 1-2 hours of leaving work. We spoke with clinic health and safety management and learned that prior to this health hazard evaluation request, the clinic had been closed and employees had been relocated to another medical center on two separate occasions. In response to employee concerns, air sampling surveys were performed by health and safety consultants after the clinic first closed. The consultants sampled for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), total particulates, elements and metal compounds, carbon dioxide (CO2), and carbon monoxide (CO). No air levels were measured above any Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), or American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) exposure limits; however, measured levels of VOCs and CO suggested that air was potentially being entrained from neighboring businesses into the clinic. As a result of the air sampling surveys, consultants recommended that management (1) seal openings in the firewall to reduce and eliminate air entrainment from neighboring businesses; (2) reopen the air intake for the clinic to allow fresh, outdoor air into the clinic; and (3) modify the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems to ensure a positive pressurization of the clinic relative to neighboring spaces. Subsequently, clinic and building management made necessary repairs to implement these recommendations. However, when employees returned to the clinic, they continued to report symptoms. The clinic was closed a second time, and employees were relocated to another medical center off-site. Consequently, additional HVAC repairs were made and the employees returned to the clinic in early 2015. Despite the repairs made, employees continued to report respiratory and central nervous system symptoms. During an on-site assessment of the facility in March 2015, we collected area air samples in offices and in hallways shared by the clinic with neighboring businesses. We measured area air levels of formaldehyde, CO, CO2, other VOCs, and isocyanates. We also performed an assessment of the HVAC systems in place. We observed that the highest levels of CO, formaldehyde, and many other VOCs were external to the clinic in the adjacent shared hallway and break room and in the plenum space above the adjacent shared break room. Higher levels of CO, formaldehyde, and many VOCs in the shared hallways and plenum space suggests that the source(s) of CO, formaldehyde, and many other VOCs were external to the clinic. No CO was detected outside of the building which suggests that the CO was not from a source outside of the building. Our air samples highlighted several areas of the facility with formaldehyde air levels that approached or exceeded the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL). Our air sampling results indicated potential for entrainment of air from neighboring businesses into the clinic, despite the HVAC repairs made as of March 2015. As a result of our evaluation, clinic management decided to relocate the medical clinic to another location offsite.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2016) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of indoor environmental quality and health concerns in a juvenile court building. (Click to open report) The employer at a juvenile court and detention building requested help in evaluating exposure to raw sewage, leaks from an underground diesel storage tank, and mold. We evaluated these concerns and measured carbon dioxide, temperature, relative humidity, and ventilation airflow. We saw no evidence of a current mold or sewage problem in the building. The underground diesel storage tank was inspected and maintained. However, we identified several correctable problems including inadequate building ... (Click to show more)The employer at a juvenile court and detention building requested help in evaluating exposure to raw sewage, leaks from an underground diesel storage tank, and mold. We evaluated these concerns and measured carbon dioxide, temperature, relative humidity, and ventilation airflow. We saw no evidence of a current mold or sewage problem in the building. The underground diesel storage tank was inspected and maintained. However, we identified several correctable problems including inadequate building ventilation and a lack of up-to-date building plans to help maintain the ventilation systems. Carbon dioxide levels were high in some offices. Temperatures in offices and courtrooms were not within recommended comfort guidelines. Many employee symptoms, such as sinus problems and headaches, are associated with damp buildings or inadequate ventilation. But these symptoms are also common in the general population. We found no evidence that other health problems, such as cancer, gallstones, and thyroid problems, were related to working in the building.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2016) Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of indoor environmental quality and health concerns in a public university. (Click to open report) University managers requested help to address employee concerns about mold in a campus building. We evaluated the building ventilation systems. We checked for moisture, water damage, and mold. We measured carbon dioxide, temperature, and relative humidity. We saw no widespread mold or water damage. Relative humidity levels in some areas were above 65%. These levels can help microorganisms and dust mites grow. The building had unit ventilators and window air-conditioners, not a central ventilatio... (Click to show more)University managers requested help to address employee concerns about mold in a campus building. We evaluated the building ventilation systems. We checked for moisture, water damage, and mold. We measured carbon dioxide, temperature, and relative humidity. We saw no widespread mold or water damage. Relative humidity levels in some areas were above 65%. These levels can help microorganisms and dust mites grow. The building had unit ventilators and window air-conditioners, not a central ventilation system. None of the unit ventilators brought in outdoor air. We interviewed employees about their health. They reported some respiratory symptoms associated with damp buildings and inadequate ventilation. These symptoms are also common in the general population. Employees also reported hives, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and hair loss. These conditions were not related to working in the building. HHE Program investigators recommended improving building ventilation and stopping environmental sampling.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
