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
1067 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
(2013) Instructor and range officer exposure to emissions from copper-based frangible ammunition at a military firing range. (Click to open report) The HHE Program evaluated instructors' and range officers' exposure to weapon emissions during qualification sessions inside a partially-enclosed firing range. The range uses copper-based frangible ammunition that breaks into pieces on impact. During medical interviews range personnel reported headaches, sore throat, respiratory symptoms, and metallic taste that they thought were associated with the firing of frangible ammunition. These symptoms were similar to those reported in previous surveys... (Click to show more)The HHE Program evaluated instructors' and range officers' exposure to weapon emissions during qualification sessions inside a partially-enclosed firing range. The range uses copper-based frangible ammunition that breaks into pieces on impact. During medical interviews range personnel reported headaches, sore throat, respiratory symptoms, and metallic taste that they thought were associated with the firing of frangible ammunition. These symptoms were similar to those reported in previous surveys at the facility and were consistent with the types of exposures measured at the facility. The airflow inside the firing range was measured and investigators determined that the ventilation system was not designed to remove air contaminants. Air contaminant concentrations did not exceed occupational exposure limits, but levels of very small particles increased inside the range during firing events. Investigators did find that firing weapons when the propane-fired heater was on produced higher carbon monoxide levels than the heater produced by itself. Investigators also noted that some instructors did not wear eye protection or were wearing eyewear without side shields. Some shooters did not wear hearing protection correctly. HHE Program investigators recommended that the employer modify the ventilation system so that air contaminants are exhausted out of the range and adjust the propane-fired heater to reduce the amount of carbon monoxide produced. The employer should rotate range duties to minimize time spent inside the range during firing events. Investigators also recommended reminding employees about the types and proper use of hearing protection and requiring eyewear with side shields inside the range.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Pharmaceutical dust exposures at an outpatient pharmacy. (Click to open report) The HHE Program evaluated concerns about employees' exposures to pharmaceutical dust at an outpatient pharmacy. Investigators sampled the air for dust and measured particle levels. Samples were analyzed for lactose (a common inactive filler) and active pharmaceutical ingredients; both were found. The use of compressed air to clean automatic dispensing machine canisters released dust into the air. Investigators found that after this activity more than an hour passed before the small particles wer... (Click to show more)The HHE Program evaluated concerns about employees' exposures to pharmaceutical dust at an outpatient pharmacy. Investigators sampled the air for dust and measured particle levels. Samples were analyzed for lactose (a common inactive filler) and active pharmaceutical ingredients; both were found. The use of compressed air to clean automatic dispensing machine canisters released dust into the air. Investigators found that after this activity more than an hour passed before the small particles were no longer in the air. Most of these canisters contained uncoated pharmaceutical tables. On two days, one employee was exposed to lisinopril at levels near or above the manufacturer's exposure limit. HHE Program investigators recommended that the employer develop a list of dusty pharmaceuticals and gather exposure guidelines and toxicity data to determine how to handle these substances. A partially-enclosed local exhaust hood should be installed for cleaning and filling canisters with tablets, as well as other tasks that could release pharmaceutical dust into the air. Investigators recommended that the use of compressed air to clean canisters be discontinued and replaced with the use of a vacuum with a long narrow nozzle. Lactose was found on surfaces throughout the pharmacy. The highest contamination level was on a surface used in refilling canisters before it was cleaned. Higher amounts of lactose were found on work surfaces than on undisturbed areas such as elevated shelving. Investigators recommended that all work surfaces be cleaned with alcohol wipes before breaks and at the end of each workday. Investigators noted that employees did not wear protective clothing or safety glasses in the pharmacy, but some employees did wear nitrile gloves when handling pharmaceuticals. HHE Program investigators encouraged employees to (1) wear nitrile gloves when handling pharmaceuticals, (2) wash their hands before eating, drinking, or using tobacco products, and (3) follow procedures for using and maintaining the local exhaust hood.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Potential employee exposures at a medical examiner's office. (Click to open report) The HHE Program evaluated exposures to volatile organic compounds, mold, airborne particles, and formaldehyde in the autopsy suite, histology laboratory, and toxicology laboratory at a medical examiner's office. Some employees reported respiratory problems that may be related to occupational exposures, but other problems reported by employees such as acne, kidney stones, and hives were not related to work in the building. Chronic water damage was found throughout the building and mold growth and... (Click to show more)The HHE Program evaluated exposures to volatile organic compounds, mold, airborne particles, and formaldehyde in the autopsy suite, histology laboratory, and toxicology laboratory at a medical examiner's office. Some employees reported respiratory problems that may be related to occupational exposures, but other problems reported by employees such as acne, kidney stones, and hives were not related to work in the building. Chronic water damage was found throughout the building and mold growth and deteriorating ductwork lining were found. Disintegrated fiberglass was found in surface samples, but few intact fibers were present. Airborne formaldehyde exposures measured during five autopsies were below occupational exposure limits. Air flowed into the autopsy suite from the adjacent room as recommended and the number of air changes in the autopsy suite exceeded national guidelines. Airborne exposures to formaldehyde and volatile organic compounds in the toxicology laboratory were very low. HHE Program investigators recommended that the employer purchase local exhaust ventilation units for use during cranial autopsies. The potential for entrainment of morgue exhaust into the rooftop air intakes should be evaluated further. The employer should identify and repair all leaks in the building and remove mold from the ductwork to prevent mold spores from spreading through the ventilation system. When available, employees should use local exhaust ventilation for cranial autopsy saws. The use of powdered latex gloves was noted during the evaluation and should be stopped; nitrile gloves should be worn instead. Employees were encouraged to keep containers of formaldehyde closed except when needed during autopsies. Investigators also recommended that employees report health and safety concerns to their supervisor and their healthcare provider.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Potential employee exposures during crime and death investigations at a county coroner's office. (Click to open report) The HHE Program evaluated employees' exposures during crime and death investigations at a coroner's office. Investigators observed work practices and procedures and interviewed employees about their work and health. Investigators sampled the air for formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds, airborne particles, and ethyl 2-cyanoacrylate. Samples were taken during autopsy procedures, tissue prepping and processing, and fingerprint fuming operations. Investigators also sampled for lead in the air a... (Click to show more)The HHE Program evaluated employees' exposures during crime and death investigations at a coroner's office. Investigators observed work practices and procedures and interviewed employees about their work and health. Investigators sampled the air for formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds, airborne particles, and ethyl 2-cyanoacrylate. Samples were taken during autopsy procedures, tissue prepping and processing, and fingerprint fuming operations. Investigators also sampled for lead in the air and on surfaces in the firearms section and sampled for residual drug particles in the air and on surfaces in the drug evidence laboratory. The ventilation system was also assessed. Investigators found that some exposures to formaldehyde in the autopsy suite were above the recommended ceiling limits and that the number of air changes per hour was below the recommended level. Airborne drug particles were found in samples taken during drug analyses and on the surfaces in the drug evidence laboratory. In the firearms section, air did not flow from the shooter towards the target as recommended and lead contamination was found on surfaces in the firing room. Investigators determined that airborne concentrations of lead may be a health hazard to firearm investigators involved in multiple weapons testing sessions in one shift. For the autopsy suite, HHE Program investigators recommended increasing room exhaust, installing downdraft tables, removing items blocking exhaust fans, using local exhaust ventilation attachments when doing cranial autopsies, and opening containers of formaldehyde only when needed. For the drug evidence laboratory, they recommended using a high-efficiency particulate air filtered hood for procedures that produce airborne drug particles and improving housekeeping. To reduce lead exposures, they recommended modifying the supply and exhaust ventilation in the firing room to provide a laminar flow of air from the shooter towards the bullet trap and using a high-efficiency particulate air filtered vacuum or wet mopping methods to clean the firing range. Throughout the facility, they identified the need for employees to wash their hands with warm water and soap after completing work activities.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Respiratory concerns at a cream cheese manufacturing facility. (Click to open report) In April 2011, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health received a confidential employees' request for a health hazard evaluation at a cream cheese manufacturing plant. The employees submitted the request because of respiratory concerns related to exposures during the manufacturing and packaging processes. We visited the plant on two occasions. On our initial site visit, we toured the plant, talked with employees, and collected bulk samples of flavorings and cardboard debris. We... (Click to show more)In April 2011, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health received a confidential employees' request for a health hazard evaluation at a cream cheese manufacturing plant. The employees submitted the request because of respiratory concerns related to exposures during the manufacturing and packaging processes. We visited the plant on two occasions. On our initial site visit, we toured the plant, talked with employees, and collected bulk samples of flavorings and cardboard debris. We analyzed the headspace air over each bulk sample we collected during our initial visit and identified the ketone chemical compounds diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and acetoin in the headspace of a liquid dairy flavoring. We identified diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione in the headspace of a liquid strawberry flavoring and liquid smoke flavoring. We found small amounts of diacetyl in the headspace of a powder cheesecake flavoring, a powder cheese flavoring, a liquid blueberry flavoring, and a liquid kosher strawberry flavoring. We also found a small amount of diacetyl in the headspace of a strawberry puree. On our follow-up industrial hygiene survey visit, we performed area and personal air sampling alongside the production and packaging of various cream cheese products. We identified diacetyl in air samples at levels above the NIOSH proposed recommended exposure limit in several areas (free ingredients room, free cook room, cook room, 703 fill room) and jobs (703 fill operator, free cook, condiment cook, soft cook). We identified 2,3-pentanedione and 2,3-hexanedione in air samples in the free ingredients room during clean-in-place and clean-out-of-place operations. We have provided recommendations to decrease exposures to flavoring chemicals, cardboard dust, and cleaning chemicals. We recommended additional sampling for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione during cleaning operations and after the additional of local exhaust systems. We also recommended that employees see a healthcare provider if they develop or have developed persistent or worsening respiratory or other symptoms.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Respiratory concerns at a snack food production facility. (Click to open report) In December 2010, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a confidential employee request for a health hazard evaluation (HHE) at a snack food production facility in New York. The facility produces potato chips, corn chips, and other savory snack foods. The employees submitted the HHE request because of concerns about exposures to flavoring chemicals, seasonings, and materials encountered during cleaning activities, and concerns about breathing problems and lun... (Click to show more)In December 2010, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a confidential employee request for a health hazard evaluation (HHE) at a snack food production facility in New York. The facility produces potato chips, corn chips, and other savory snack foods. The employees submitted the HHE request because of concerns about exposures to flavoring chemicals, seasonings, and materials encountered during cleaning activities, and concerns about breathing problems and lung disease. We initiated the evaluation by interviewing employees, managers, treating physicians, the facility's nurse, and the company's medical consultant by telephone. We also reviewed documents provided to NIOSH prior to the site visit, including material safety data sheets. From May 14-16, 2012, we visited the facility. We toured the facility, interviewed managers, the facility's nurse, the respiratory protection program administrator, and 25 randomly selected employees, and observed sanitation activities. We collected air samples during production and sanitation activities and collected bulk samples of seasonings for analysis of volatile organic compounds. We also collected additional documents, including records pertaining to the respiratory protection program. We found that the facility uses multiple substances that are respiratory irritants and/or allergens and that previous air sampling demonstrated the presence of the butter flavoring chemical diacetyl and diacetyl substitutes. One worker developed an uncommon immune-mediated lung disease, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, during employment that treating physicians concluded was caused by exposures to organic materials at the facility. During our site visit, we noted opportunities for potential respiratory exposure to organic materials from sources including corn and potatoes, seasonings, cardboard, sludge from a clarifying tank, and a catalyst. We detected diacetyl in three air samples at levels that were too low to quantify and found trace amounts of diacetyl in four bulk samples of seasonings. We detected sodium hydroxide in one air sample at a level that was too low to quantify. Until more is known about the safety of diacetyl substitutes, we recommend that seasonings that contain these substitutes be handled as respiratory hazards. We recommend reducing the potential for respiratory exposures to organic materials through a combination of enhanced engineering controls, modified work practices, and mandatory use of respiratory protection. Results of industrial hygiene evaluations should be interpreted with the knowledge that permissible exposure limits for dust or specific chemicals (where they exist) may not be protective for an immune-mediated health outcome. Employees should be encouraged to report new or persistent respiratory symptoms to the facility's nurse. The occurrence of such symptoms in the workforce should prompt consideration of work-related lung disease, re-evaluation of the potential for exposure to respiratory hazards, and lowering of such exposures.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Safety climate, health concerns, and pharmaceutical dust exposures at a mail order pharmacy. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program received a request from a mail order pharmacy. Employees were concerned about possible health effects from exposures to hazardous drugs and pharmaceutical dust, and communication and other workplace safety climate issues. Roughly 175 employees worked at the pharmacy; the majority of whom were contractors performing most production functions (e.g., filling, labeling, packaging, and housekeeping). On average, the mail order pharmacy filled approximately 7... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program received a request from a mail order pharmacy. Employees were concerned about possible health effects from exposures to hazardous drugs and pharmaceutical dust, and communication and other workplace safety climate issues. Roughly 175 employees worked at the pharmacy; the majority of whom were contractors performing most production functions (e.g., filling, labeling, packaging, and housekeeping). On average, the mail order pharmacy filled approximately 74,000 prescriptions per day using automated and manual distribution systems. HHE Program investigators evaluated the pharmacy in August 2012. We surveyed employees and talked with them about job stress, work-related health concerns, and perceptions of the job and social factors at work. We sampled air and work surfaces for lactose (inactive ingredient in pharmaceuticals) and active pharmaceutical ingredients. Overall, employees had a positive perception of safety climate. However, contractor employees were not comfortable taking time off work when ill and they reported more eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation and cough associated with work than company employees. Some employees were concerned about repetitive tasks and prolonged standing. No employees reported changes in their health consistent with exposures to hazardous drugs. However, air sampling results indicated that employees who clean or repair automatic dispensing machine cells, refill automatic dispensing machine canisters, clean manually-fed automated counters with canned air, and hand-fill hazardous drug prescriptions may be exposed to airborne dust from uncoated tablets. Inhalation exposures to active pharmaceutical ingredients were mostly below manufacturers' occupational exposure limits (if a limit was available). However, an employee who cleaned and repaired Baker machine cells was exposed to airborne Lisinopril, an antihypertension medication, above the exposure limit. Some employees were exposed to multiple active pharmaceutical ingredients, the effects of which are not well understood. The surface sampling results and our observations also indicate the potential for personal clothing contamination with active pharmaceutical ingredients and the potential for take home exposure. Employees were provided vinyl gloves but no other protective clothing. Employees demonstrated good housekeeping and hand-washing practices. To address areas of concern identified in the survey and employee interviews, HHE Program investigators recommended the employer (1) create a health and safety committee, (2) stop the punitive "point system" for discouraging absences, and (3) provide seats at workstations. To address the potential for exposures to pharmaceutical dust, HHE Program investigators recommended the employer (1) substitute uncoated tablets with coated tablets when that option is available, (2) create a list of pharmaceuticals that are dusty and use this information to determine how to handle these pharmaceuticals, (3) use local exhaust ventilation hoods that are ducted outdoors for filling hazardous drug prescriptions and other tasks that could create pharmaceutical dust, (4) require employees to wear nitrile gloves as these are better suited than vinyl gloves for pharmaceutical dust and the isopropyl alcohol used to clean surfaces and equipment, and (5) provide safety glasses and long-sleeve protective clothing to employees who hand fill hazardous drug prescriptions or create pharmaceutical dust.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Sensitization and exposure to flour dust, spices, and other ingredients among poultry breading workers. (Click to open report) The HHE Program evaluated employees' exposures to breading dust containing flour, spices, and other ingredients at a poultry breading plant. Reported health symptoms included asthma, bronchitis, and nasal symptoms. Investigators took air samples for inhalable flour dust, wheat, and soy and took samples of employees' blood to see if they were allergic to flour dust, wheat, garlic, onion, soybean, corn, or paprika. They also surveyed employees about their job and health. The air sampling showed th... (Click to show more)The HHE Program evaluated employees' exposures to breading dust containing flour, spices, and other ingredients at a poultry breading plant. Reported health symptoms included asthma, bronchitis, and nasal symptoms. Investigators took air samples for inhalable flour dust, wheat, and soy and took samples of employees' blood to see if they were allergic to flour dust, wheat, garlic, onion, soybean, corn, or paprika. They also surveyed employees about their job and health. The air sampling showed that employees in almost all areas of the plant had the potential for exposure to flour dust levels above the threshold limit value of 0.5 milligrams per cubic meter, set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Investigators grouped employees as "lower-exposure" or "higher-exposure" based on their exposure to flour, other ingredients, and uncooked breaded product in their current job. Samples taken for inhalable flour dust from the air in the personal breathing zone of employees in the higher-exposure group had a median value of 8.21milligrams per cubic meter, while samples taken from the breathing zone of employees in the lower-exposure group had a median value of 1.03 milligrams per cubic meter; both median values exceeded the threshold limit value for inhalable flour dust of 0.5 milligrams per cubic meter. Employees in the higher-exposure group were more likely than those in the lower-exposure group to report several work-related symptoms in the last 12 months. These symptoms included wheezing or whistling in the chest, sneezing, running nose or blocked nose without a cold, and running nose or blocked nose without a cold accompanied by itchy, water eyes. Employees in the higher-exposure group were nearly 2.5 times more likely than those in the lower-exposure group to be sensitized to flour dust and wheat. Employees who were allergic to flour dust, wheat, corn, or onion were more likely to report work-related asthma symptoms than those who did not have these allergies. HHE Program investigators recommended that plant managers use an enclosed system to transfer powdered ingredients to the dispensing hoppers and use local exhaust ventilation to lower flour dust levels. Starting a plant medical surveillance program was recommended as well as implementing a respiratory protection program until engineering controls and work practices can reduce exposures below the exposure limit for flour dust set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Zoonotic disease and exposures in persons working with marine mammals. (Click to open report) The HHE Program evaluated potential exposure of employees and volunteers to zoonotic diseases at a marine mammal rescue and rehabilitation center. Zoonotic diseases are those that can be transmitted from animals to humans. Investigators with the HHE Program observed work practices and personal protective equipment use and found that some practices may lead to a higher risk of exposure to zoonotic diseases. Employees and volunteers were given a survey and blood tests to look for evidence of past ... (Click to show more)The HHE Program evaluated potential exposure of employees and volunteers to zoonotic diseases at a marine mammal rescue and rehabilitation center. Zoonotic diseases are those that can be transmitted from animals to humans. Investigators with the HHE Program observed work practices and personal protective equipment use and found that some practices may lead to a higher risk of exposure to zoonotic diseases. Employees and volunteers were given a survey and blood tests to look for evidence of past infection. Among the 213 participants, little evidence was found of past infection with the organisms that cause leptospirosis, brucellosis, or Q fever. Air, surface, and bulk dust samples were collected for C. burnetti, the bacterium that causes Q fever; all but one of 130 samples was negative. A ventilation assessment showed that the biological safety cabinet in the laboratory did not have enough airflow so investigators recommended that the employer have this cabinet certified yearly and ensure that it meets minimum flow requirements. Investigators also found that when the harbor seal area ventilation system was turned on air flowed from the intensive care unit to other areas of the building. Investigators recommended that harbor seal pups not be housed in the intensive care unit if they are suspected of having Q fever. Instead they should be housed outside and isolated from other harbor seal pups. Investigators recommended that the carpet in the triage building be removed and replaced with a nonporous surface. Investigators noted that some employees and volunteers were not wearing the correct personal protective equipment and recommended that the employer provide initial training and refresher training for all employees and volunteers on hand washing, proper personal protective equipment use, and the risk of infection. Employees were encouraged to (1) wash their hands after exposure to animals or animal areas even if they were wearing gloves, (2) not wear personal protective equipment in areas where people eat or drink, (3) report signs of possible zoonotic infection to their supervisor, and (4) to tell their healthcare provider about their duties and exposures to marine mammals. The employer was encouraged to post signs about hand washing.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2012) Air sampling methods for abrasive blasting - Louisiana. (Click to open report) NIOSH received a request for an HHE from the management at a Louisiana shipyard to evaluate sampling methods for measuring employee PBZ exposures during abrasive blasting. On July 20, 2001, NIOSH investigators collected side-by-side PBZ air samples using three types of commercially available sampling devices: a closed-face 37-mm cassette, an unshielded BAS, and a shielded BAS. For each type of sampling device we collected an "active" PBZ sample that was connected to an air sampling pump and a "p... (Click to show more)NIOSH received a request for an HHE from the management at a Louisiana shipyard to evaluate sampling methods for measuring employee PBZ exposures during abrasive blasting. On July 20, 2001, NIOSH investigators collected side-by-side PBZ air samples using three types of commercially available sampling devices: a closed-face 37-mm cassette, an unshielded BAS, and a shielded BAS. For each type of sampling device we collected an "active" PBZ sample that was connected to an air sampling pump and a "passive" PBZ sample that was not connected to an air sampling pump. These active and passive samples were collected side-by-side for the duration of the abrasive blasting activity (approximately 60 to 80 minutes). Samples were used to evaluate whether inertia-driven abrasive material could enter the sampler during abrasive blasting. All of the air samplers were positioned outside the employees' abrasive blasting helmet following OSHA sampling guidance. Total dust was measured for the 37-mm filter samples. Inhalable dust was measured for the unshielded and shielded BAS samples. The harsh and dusty abrasive blasting environment caused frequent sampling pump failures. Because of the failures, there was insufficient data for a statistical comparison of the air sampling results for the three sampling methods. All 37-mm cassette samples contained inertia-driven (loose) abrasive grit particles that accounted for up to 99% of the total particle weight. All unshielded and shielded BAS samples contained loose particulate. BAS total weights exceeded the recommended maximum sample loading of 2 mg. Some of the passive samples collected a similar amount of particulate as the active samples. We concluded that none of the sampling methods we used performed reliably in an abrasive blasting environment. All were likely to overestimate air concentrations because of the presence of inertia-driven particulate in the samplers. Improving the design of sampling devices or developing alternative sampling methods is needed to accurately and reliably assess PBZ dust exposure concentrations during abrasive blasting operations.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
