No abstract

The dry cleaning industry is moving away from using perchloroethylene. Occupational exposures to two alternative dry cleaning solvents, butylal and high-flashpoint hydrocarbons, have not been well characterized. We evaluated four dry cleaning shops that used these alternative solvents. The shops were staffed by Korean- and Cantonese-speaking owners, and Korean-, Cantonese-, and Spanish-speaking employees. Because most workers had limited English proficiency we used language services in our evaluations. In two shops we collected personal and area air samples for butylal. We also collected air samples for formaldehyde and butanol, potential hydrolysis products of butylal. Because there are no occupational exposure limits for butylal, we assessed employee health risks using control banding tools. In the remaining two shops we collected personal and area air samples for high-flashpoint hydrocarbon solvents. In all shops the highest personal airborne exposures occurred when workers loaded and unloaded the dry cleaning machines and pressed dry cleaned fabrics. The air concentrations of formaldehyde and butanol in the butylal shops were well below occupational exposure limits. Likewise, the air concentrations of high-flashpoint hydrocarbons were also well below occupational exposure limits. However, we saw potential skin exposures to these chemicals. We provided recommendations on appropriate work practices and the selection and use of personal protective equipment. These recommendations were consistent with those derived using control banding tools for butylal. However, there is insufficient toxicological and health information to determine the safety of butylal in occupational settings. Independent evaluation of the toxicological properties of these alternative dry cleaning solvents, especially butylal, is urgently needed.

Coaches spend long hours training gymnasts of all ages aided by polyurethane foam used in loose blocks, mats, and other padded equipment. Polyurethane foam can contain flame retardant additives such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), to delay the spread of fires. However, flame retardants have been associated with endocrine disruption and carcinogenicity. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) evaluated employee exposure to flame retardants in four gymnastics studios utilized by recreational and competitive gymnasts. We evaluated flame retardant exposure at the gymnastics studios before, during, and after the replacement of foam blocks used in safety pits with foam blocks certified not to contain several flame retardants, including PBDEs. We collected hand wipes on coaches to measure levels of flame retardants on skin before and after their work shift. We measured flame retardant levels in the dust on window glass in the gymnastics areas and office areas, and in the old and new foam blocks used throughout the gymnastics studios. We found statistically higher levels of 9 out of 13 flame retardants on employees' hands after work than before, and this difference was reduced after the foam replacement. Windows in the gymnastics areas had higher levels of 3 of the 13 flame retardants than windows outside the gymnastics areas, suggesting that dust and vapor containing flame retardants became airborne. Mats and other padded equipment contained levels of bromine consistent with the amount of brominated flame retardants in foam samples analyzed in the laboratory. New blocks did not contain PBDEs, but did contain the flame retardants 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate and 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromophthalate. We conclude that replacing the pit foam blocks eliminated a source of PBDEs, but not 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate and 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromophthalate. We recommend ways to further minimize employee exposure to flame retardants at work and acknowledge the challenges consumers have identifying chemical contents of new products.

ObjectiveNail technicians and hairdressers may be exposed to chemicals with potential reproductive effects. While studies have examined birth defects in children of hairdressers, those in children of nail technicians have not been evaluated. We investigated associations between selected birth defects and maternal occupation as a nail technician or hairdresser versus a non-cosmetology occupation during pregnancy.MethodsWe analysed population-based case–control data from the multisite National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997–2011. Cases were fetuses or infants with major structural birth defects; controls were live-born infants without major birth defects. Expert raters classified self-reported maternal jobs as nail technician, combination nail technician-hairdresser, hairdresser, other cosmetology work or non-cosmetology work. We used logistic regression to calculate adjusted ORs and 95% CIs for associations between occupation during pregnancy and birth defects, controlling for age, smoking, education and race/ethnicity.ResultsSixty-one mothers worked as nail technicians, 196 as hairdressers, 39 as combination nail technician-hairdressers and 42 810 as non-cosmetologists. The strongest associations among nail technicians included seven congenital heart defect (CHD) groups (ORs ranging from 2.7 to 3.5) and neural tube defects (OR=2.6, CI=0.8 to 8.4). Birth defects most strongly associated with hairdressing included anotia/microtia (OR=2.1, CI=0.6 to 6.9) and cleft lip with cleft palate (OR=2.0, CI=1.1 to 3.7). All oral cleft groups were associated with combination nail technician-hairdresser work (ORs ranging from 4.2 to 5.3).ConclusionsSmall samples resulted in wide CIs. Still, results suggest associations between maternal nail technician work during pregnancy and CHDs and between hairdressing work and oral clefts.

No abstract

The nationwide opioid crisis continues to affect not only people who use opioids but also communities at large by increasing the risk of accidental occupational exposure to illicit opioids. In addition, the emergence of highly potent synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and carfentanil increases the need to protect workers who may encounter unknown drug substances during job activities. To support the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Opioids Research Gaps Working Group, we examined the state of the literature concerning methods to protect workers against accidental occupational exposure to illicit opioids, and have identified unmet research needs concerning personal protective equipment, decontamination methods, and engineering controls. Additional studies are needed to overcome gaps in technical knowledge about personal protective equipment, decontamination, and control methods, and gaps in understanding how these measures are utilized by workers. Increasing our knowledge of how to protect against exposure to illicit opioids has the potential to improve occupational health across communities.

An aircraft seat manufacturing company requested a NIOSH health hazard evaluation to help identify a strong odor that had persisted throughout the facility for over a year. Employees reported experiencing health effects thought to be related to the odor. We collected and analyzed area air samples for volatile organic compounds, endotoxin, bacterial and fungal metagenome, and metalworking fluid aerosol. Bulk metalworking fluid samples were analyzed for endotoxin, bacterial and fungal metagenome, and viable bacteria and fungus. We also evaluated the building ventilation systems and water diversion systems. Employees underwent confidential medical interviews about work practices, medical history, and health concerns. Based on our analyses, the odor was likely 2-methoxy-3,5-dimethylpyrazine. This pyrazine was found in air samples across the facility and originated from bacteria in the metalworking fluid. We did not identify bacteria known to produce the compound but bacteria from the same Proteobacteria order were found as well as bacteria from orders known to produce other pyrazines. Chemical and biological contaminants and odors could have contributed to health symptoms reported by employees, but it is likely that the symptoms were caused by several factors. We provided several recommendations to eliminate the odor including washing and disinfecting the metalworking machines and metalworking fluid recycling equipment, discarding all used metal-working fluid, instituting a metalworking fluid maintenance program at the site, and physically isolating the metalworking department from other departments.

No abstract