Extensive water damage after major hurricanes and floods increases the likelihood of mold contamination in buildings. This report provides information on how to limit exposure to mold and how to identify and prevent mold-related health effects. Where uncertainties in scientific knowledge exist, practical applications designed to be protective of a person's health are presented. Evidence is included about assessing exposure, clean-up and prevention, personal protective equipment, health effects, and public health strategies and recommendations. The recommendations assume that, in the aftermath of major hurricanes or floods, buildings wet for >48 hours will generally support visible and extensive mold growth and should be remediated, and excessive exposure to mold-contaminated materials can cause adverse health effects in susceptible persons regardless of the type of mold or the extent of contamination. Recent parallels to the kind of flooding observed in New Orleans as a result of hurricanes Katrina and Rita occurred in 1997 in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and in 1999 in North Carolina after Hurricane Floyd (2). The number of structures affected was much smaller in North Dakota than in New Orleans, and the population affected in North Carolina was much more dispersed than the population affected in New Orleans. In North Carolina, a reported increase in persons presenting with asthma symptoms was postulated to be caused by exposure to mold (2). In 2001, flooding and subsequent mold growth on the Turtle Mountain reservation in Belcourt, North Dakota was associated with self-reports of rhinitis, rash, headaches, and asthma exacerbation (3). Methods This document was initially prepared by CDC as a guide for public health officials and the general public in response to the massive flooding and the anticipated mold contamination of homes and other structures along the U.S. Gulf Coast associated with hurricanes Katrina and Rita (4). A workgroup was convened of CDC staff with expertise in relevant subject areas. This included medical epidemiologists, environmental epidemiologists and occupational epidemiologists, industrial hygienists, infectious disease physicians and mycologists. The framework for the document was decided by consensus discussions, and workgroup members were assigned to research and to write different sections. The members produced individual written summaries, which formed the basis of the report. Wherever possible, recommendations were based on existing recommendations or guidelines. Where adequate guidelines did not exist, the guidelines were based on CDC experience and expertise.

Results of this evaluation suggest a health hazard may exist from exposure to chloramines.

Many metals found in electronic scrap are known to cause serious health effects, including but not limited to cancer and respiratory, neurologic, renal, and reproductive damage. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention performed three health hazard evaluations at electronic scrap recycling facilities in the U.S. to characterize employee exposure to metals and recommend control strategies to reduce these exposures. We performed air, surface, and biological monitoring for metals. We found one overexposure to lead and two overexposures to cadmium. We found metals on non-production surfaces, and the skin and clothing of workers before they left work in all of the facilities. We also found some elevated blood lead levels (above 10 micrograms per deciliter), however no employees at any facility had detectable mercury in their urine or exceeded 34% of the OELs for blood or urine cadmium. This article focuses on sampling results for lead, cadmium, mercury, and indium. We provided recommendations for improving local exhaust ventilation, reducing the recirculation of potentially contaminated air, using respirators until exposures are controlled, and reducing the migration of contaminants from production to non-production areas. We also recommended ways for employees to prevent taking home metal dust by using work uniforms laundered on-site, storing personal and work items in separate lockers, and using washing facilities equipped with lead-removing cleaning products.

Despite knowledge of the risks of exposure to flour being available for centuries, U.S. employees are still at risk of sensitization and respiratory symptoms from exposure to high levels of BAA.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Aims: To determine if exposure to dimethylisopropanolamine (DMIPA) and dimethylaminoethanol (DMAE) in a label printing plant was associated with visual disturbances and/or ocular changes. Methods: Questionnaires, eye examinations (visual acuity, contrast sensitivity at 2.5% and 1.25% contrast, slit lamp biomicroscopy, and pachymetry), and industrial hygiene monitoring for DMIPA and DMAE were performed over a two week period. Results: Eighty nine per cent of line workers reported having experienced blurry vision while at work in the past 12 months, compared to 12.5% of prime workers. A total of 108 full shift personal breathing zone (PBZ) air samples for the amines were collected. The mean time weighted average (TWA) concentration of DMIPA was significantly higher in the line division than in the prime division, as was the mean TWA concentration for total amines. The mean TWA concentration of DMAE was higher in the prime division than the line division. Higher levels of total amines were associated with increased risk of reporting blurry vision, halo vision, and blue-grey vision. The risk of corneal opacity rose with increasing exposure to total amines. The prevalence of corneal opacity also increased with increasing concentration of total amines. Median corneal thickness increased with increasing grades of corneal opacity. There was a statistically significant relation between total amine concentration and increased risk of reduced bilateral visual acuity and 2.5% contrast sensitivity. Conclusions: Exposure to tertiary amines was associated with blurry, halo, and blue-grey vision, corneal opacity, and decrements in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity at 2.5% contrast.