Evaluation of Police 

Officers’ Exposures 

to Chemicals While 

Working Inside a Drug 

Vault – Kentucky

Kenneth W. Fent, PhD

Srinivas Durgam, MSPh, MSChE, CIH

Christine West, RN, MSN, MPH

John Gibbins, DVM, MPH

Jerome Smith, PhD

Health Hazard Evaluation Report

HETA 2010-0017-3133

July 2011

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Workplace

Safety and Health

 National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health

This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific 

facility evaluated and may not be universally applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be 

considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved. Additional HHE 

reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/
The employer shall post a copy of this report 

for a period of 30 calendar days at or near 

the workplace(s) of affected employees. The 

employer shall take steps to insure that the 

posted determinations are not altered, defaced, 

or covered by other material during such 

period. [37 FR 23640, November 7, 1972, as 

amended at 45 FR 2653, January 14, 1980].
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page i

Report Abbreviations................................................................................................ii

Highlights of the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation........................iii

Summary .........................................................................................................v

Introduction ...................................................................................................1

Assessment.....................................................................................................4

Results..............................................................................................................5

Discussion.................................................................................................... 14

Conclusions................................................................................................. 18

Recommendations.................................................................................... 19

References.................................................................................................... 24

Contents

Acknowledgments

Appendix A

Appendix B 

Methods........................................................................................................ 26

Occupational Exposure Limits and Health Effects......................... 29

Acknowledgments and Availability of Report................................ 35
Page ii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Abbreviations

ACGIH® American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers

C Ceiling limit

cfm Cubic feet per minute

cfm/ft2 Cubic feet per minute per square foot

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

oF Degrees Fahrenheit

ft2 Square foot

HEPA High efficiency particulate air 

HHE Health hazard evaluation

HVAC Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning

MDC Minimum detectable concentration

mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter

mm Millimeter

MQC Minimum quantifiable concentration

MSDS Material safety data sheet

N/A Not applicable

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

ND None detected

ng/cm2 Nanograms per square centimeter

ng/m3 Nanograms per cubic meter

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OEL Occupational exposure limit

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PBZ Personal breathing zone

PEL Permissible exposure limit

PPE Personal protective equipment

PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene

REL Recommended exposure limit

RH Relative humidity

SOP Standard operating procedure

STEL Short-term exposure limit

THC Tetrahydrocannabinol

TLV® Threshold limit value

TWA Time-weighted average

VAV Variable air volume

VOC Volatile organic compound

WEELTM Workplace environmental exposure level
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page iii

The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) received 

an employer request for a 

health hazard evaluation 

at a police department in 

Kentucky. The employer 

submitted the request 

because employees 

working in a vault used 

to store drug evidence 

were experiencing health 

symptoms.

Highlights of the

NIOSH Health

Hazard Evaluation

What NIOSH Did

● We evaluated the drug vault in December 2009 and again in 

July 2010.

● We held confidential medical interviews with employees.

● We sampled the air for inorganic acids that could come from 

the drugs stored in the vault.

● We sampled the air for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

that could be a source of the odors in the drug vault.

● We took samples from the air and work surfaces to 

look for residual drug particles. Specifically we were 

looking for cocaine, methamphetamine, oxycodone, and 

tetrahydrocannabinol.

● We evaluated the ventilation in the drug vault and adjacent 

office area.

● We measured the temperature and relative humidity (RH) in 

the drug vault and adjacent office area. 

● We discussed the department’s medical surveillance program 

with the employer.

● We talked to drug vault employees about operating 

procedures and health and safety training. 

What NIOSH Found

● Drug particles found in air and on surfaces present a 

potential health risk to employees. 

● Levels of inorganic acids in air were well below applicable 

occupational exposure limits. 

● The VOCs that we measured in air were components of 

marijuana. The low levels we measured are unlikely to cause 

health effects. 

● Visible mold contamination was found on cardboard boxes 

that held plant-based drugs. 

● Many employees reported a variety of health symptoms. 

Workplace exposures (odors, mold, and drugs) and factors 

unrelated to work could have contributed to these symptoms. 

● The exhaust air flow rate in the drug vault was adequate. 

However, supply air diffusers were located near the ceiling 

exhaust air grills, leading to reduced ventilation effectiveness.

● The drug vault was under negative pressure relative to the 

adjacent rooms. The office was under negative pressure 

relative to the adjacent hallway. Air is drawn into rooms 
Page iv Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Highlights of the

NIOSH Health

Hazard Evaluation

 (continued)

under negative pressure, which helps to prevent odors and 

contaminants from going to other areas of the building.

● Most of the temperatures and RH levels were acceptable 

for thermal comfort. However, the RH levels in the drug 

vault during the July visit were greater than 50%, which can 

promote mold growth. 

What Managers Can Do

● Thoroughly clean contaminated surfaces with 

environmentally friendly cleaners. Improve housekeeping 

practices to prevent future contamination of surfaces.

● Improve the organization of evidence inside the drug vault.

● Dispose of drugs more frequently to reduce the amount of 

material that could expose employees.

● Develop written policies and standard operating procedures 

(SOPs) describing work practices for handling evidence 

inside the drug vault. Once developed, train employees on 

these policies and SOPs and document the training. 

● Stop using respirators in the drug vault. Respirators are not 

necessary if policies and procedures are in place to prevent 

the release of drug particles into the environment. 

● Use the drying chamber to remove moisture from plant-based 

drugs, store these drugs in sealed plastic bags, and maintain 

RH levels below 50%.

● Modify the existing supply and exhaust ventilation to more 

efficiently remove and dilute odor-causing compounds.

● Make sure employees receive all elements of the medical 

surveillance program. 

● Start a health and safety committee. This committee should 

have management and employee representatives who meet 

regularly to address health and safety concerns.

What Employees Can Do

● Attend training on policies and SOPs when offered. 

● Wear nitrile gloves when handling evidence. Avoid skin 

contact with marijuana plants and other drugs to reduce the 

potential for allergic reactions. 

● Report symptoms related to work and safety concerns to a 

supervisor.

● Participate in the health and safety committee.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page v

NIOSH evaluated health 

symptoms and potential 

chemical exposures 

among police officers 

who worked inside 

a vault used to store 

drug evidence. Drug 

particles, such as cocaine, 

methamphetamine, 

and oxycodone, were 

found in the air and on 

work surfaces. Several 

recommendations are 

provided to improve 

working conditions and 

minimize drug exposures. 

Summary

In November 2009, NIOSH received an HHE request from a police 

department in Kentucky. The request concerned possible health 

effects from working inside a vault used to store drug evidence, 

including marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and oxycodone. 

We conducted evaluations in December 2009 and July 2010.

We held confidential interviews with 14 employees to learn about 

their health and workplace concerns. We observed work processes, 

practices and workplace conditions. We took area and PBZ air 

samples for inorganic acids, VOCs, and drug particles, and work 

surface samples for drug particle contamination. We also evaluated 

the supply and exhaust ventilation systems inside the drug vault 

and adjacent office area and measured the temperature and RH 

levels in these areas.

The air concentrations of inorganic acids inside the drug 

vault were well below applicable OELs. The primary VOCs we 

identified in the drug vault were terpenes. Terpenes are chemicals 

produced by plants, including marijuana, that contribute to 

their taste and smell. The low levels we measured are unlikely to 

cause health effects. However, some individuals are particularly 

sensitive to strong odors. Only methamphetamine particles were 

detected in the area air samples, while all the drugs (cocaine, 

methamphetamine, oxycodone, and THC) were measured in some 

of the PBZ and surface samples. Of the compounds we measured, 

drug particles probably present the greatest potential health risk 

because of their physiological and neurological effects. 

Employees reported a variety of nonspecific health symptoms, with 

upper respiratory symptoms, headache, eye irritation, and skin 

rash most commonly reported. Limited evidence exists linking low 

levels of indirect drug exposures to acute or chronic health effects. 

Nevertheless, it is possible that the drug exposures we measured 

could have contributed to some of the reported symptoms. These 

symptoms can also be caused by a variety of other occupational 

(e.g., odors, mold, poor indoor environmental quality, and stress) 

and nonoccupational factors.

The general exhaust ventilation in the drug vault was adequate for 

gases and vapors based on the recommended minimum exhaust 

rate for chemical storage rooms. However, the ceiling-mounted 

exhaust air grills were near the supply air diffusers, leading to shortcircuiting (a situation where supply air is immediately exhausted) 

and reduced ventilation effectiveness. Although temperature and 
Page vi Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Keywords: NAICS 922120 (Police Protection), drugs, drug vault, 

drug storage, evidence, police, narcotics, cocaine, marijuana, 

methamphetamine, oxycodone, surface contamination 

Summary

 (continued) RH levels inside the drug vault and office were acceptable for 

thermal comfort of employees, RH levels above 50% measured 

during our July visit could promote mold growth. We found visible 

mold contamination on cardboard boxes used for storing plantbased drugs.

We recommend that the employer develop written policies and 

SOPs to ensure health and safety for employees working inside 

the drug vault. Employees should be trained on these policies 

and SOPs, and all training should be documented. All drug vault 

employees should participate in the medical surveillance program 

and wear recommended personal protective equipment. If the 

recommendations provided in this report are implemented, the 

use of respirators is not necessary inside the drug vault. A drying 

chamber should be used to remove moisture from plant-based 

drugs; these drugs should be sealed in plastic bags to prevent offgassing. Simple modification of the existing supply and exhaust 

ventilation systems will improve the mixing of air and removal and 

dilution of the odor-causing compounds. Reducing odors may help 

reduce the incidence of reported symptoms. In addition, surfaces 

that are contaminated with drug particles should be thoroughly 

cleaned. Once cleaned, the recommendations we provide should 

help control further contamination.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 1

Introduction

In November 2009, NIOSH received an HHE request from 

management at a police department in Kentucky. The request 

concerned workplace exposures and health effects among police 

officers who worked inside the vault used to store drug evidence. We 

conducted evaluations on December 16, 2009, and July 12–14, 2010.

Various drugs were stored inside the drug vault, including 

the cannabis marijuana, the stimulants cocaine and 

methamphetamine, and the narcotics heroin and oxycodone. 

Potential exposures included drug particles, mold from marijuana 

plants, chemicals used in the manufacture of drugs, and chemicals 

used to mask the odor of drugs. At the time of the request, two 

drug vault employees were experiencing health problems they 

believed were related to working inside the drug vault. The 

problems listed on the request included nosebleeds, respiratory 

issues, skin rashes, “memory fog,” fatigue, anxiety, vision problems, 

burning eyes, and facial twitching. These employees were assigned 

to another department before our evaluation. 

Prior to our evaluation, employees at the police department filed 

a complaint with the Kentucky Labor Cabinet, Occupational 

Safety and Health Program. An industrial hygienist from the 

Kentucky Labor Cabinet conducted indoor and outdoor area 

air sampling for mold and PBZ air sampling for chlorine, ethyl 

ether, VM&P naphtha, benzene, xylene, and toluene. The area 

air sampling results revealed the presence of a specific type of 

mold (Chaetomium) only on the indoor sample. Chaetomium is 

commonly found in soil and decaying plant matter. The boxed 

marijuana plants were likely the source of this type of mold. The 

PBZ air sampling results were all below the detection limits and 

hence, well below the applicable OELs. On the basis of these 

findings, the Kentucky Labor Cabinet, Occupational Safety and 

Health Program recommended a “drying room” to dehydrate 

incoming plants before packaging.

At the time of our July 2010 evaluation three employees worked 

inside the drug vault. The drug vault employees had a variety of 

duties including receipt, storage, and retrieval of drug evidence; 

transport of drug evidence; maintenance of inventory; and 

retrieving evidence for disposal. They could spend several hours 

per day inside the drug vault storing or retrieving evidence. The 

marijuana plants were typically stored in ventilated cardboard 

boxes. Dried marijuana leaves and other drugs were typically 

sealed in plastic bags, which were placed in evidence envelopes or 
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Introduction

 (continued) cardboard boxes. The boxes containing drugs were stacked to the 

ceiling during our evaluation (Figure 1). Procedures for handling 

and storing drugs may have changed over time. This is meaningful 

because drugs are often held as evidence for a decade or longer. 

Figure 1. Interior of the drug vault showing boxes stacked to the ceiling.

 The drug vault employees were required to wear NIOSH-approved 

Moldex (Culver City, California) elastomeric half-mask air 

purifying respirators (8000 series) with organic vapor cartridges 

(8100 series) when working in the drug vault. Although no formal 

written respiratory protection program had been developed, the 

drug vault employees were fit tested for wearing these respirators, 

trained on the maintenance and storage of these respirators, and 

were included in the medical surveillance program. Prior to our 

evaluation, the inventory of evidence took place inside the drug 

vault. At the time of the evaluation, employees used carts to bring 

drug evidence into the office area for inventory thereby limiting 

the time spent in the drug vault. Vans or trucks with lockable beds 

were used to transport drug evidence.

The drug vault was a 1725 ft2

-concrete block room with a 12.5-foot 

ceiling inside a warehouse. It could be accessed through locked 

doors from either the storage room or office. The office was a 

200 ft2

-room with a 12.5-foot ceiling. The drug vault employees 

had workstations in the office area. Figure 2 shows the HVAC 

mechanical plan of the drug vault and adjacent areas. VAV 

boxes controlled the flow of conditioned air to the drug vault 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 3

Introduction

 (continued) and office. By design, the drug vault was to receive 1445 cfm of 

conditioned air (no minimum), and the office was to receive 145 

cfm of conditioned air (with a minimum set point of 75 cfm). 

The designed ratio of outdoor air to recirculated air supplied 

to the VAV boxes in the drug vault and office was 40%. The 

exhaust system was designed to remove 2800 cfm of air from the 

drug vault and 150 cfm of air from the office. The exhausted 

airflow from both areas was nearly doubled between our first 

and second evaluations by adding a more powerful motor for the 

fan. In addition, two vents were added to exhaust more air from 

the middle of the drug vault, and an opening was installed on 

the northwest wall separating the drug vault from the hallway to 

provide make-up air to the drug vault.

Figure 2. Floor plan showing the drug vault and adjacent areas as well 

as the HVAC supply ducts and exhaust ventilation ducts.
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Assessment

We interviewed employees, conducted air sampling, and evaluated 

the ventilation system in the drug vault and office (the areas 

where the drug vault employees spent most of their workday). We 

invited all employees working in the drug vault and in the adjacent 

storage room to participate in confidential employee interviews. 

We asked about current job tasks, procedures for handling drug 

evidence, acute and chronic health symptoms potentially associated 

with exposure to drugs, PPE use, and workplace health and safety 

training. We reviewed the OSHA Form 300 Log of Work-Related 

Injuries and Illnesses for 2009. 

During the December 2009 visit, we conducted PBZ and area air 

sampling for VOCs and inorganic acids during a single workday. Area 

air samples were collected inside the drug vault, inside the office, and 

near the HVAC outdoor air intake. PBZ air samples were collected 

on a drug vault employee. VOCs were sampled because a strong 

odor existed in the drug vault. We used a qualitative VOC analysis 

to identify vapors and gases. We also sampled the air for inorganic 

acids (hydrochloric, hydrobromic, hydrofluoric, nitric, sulfuric, and 

phosphoric acids) because investigators in a previous HHE at another 

facility had found low levels of hydrofluoric, hydrochloric, and sulfuric 

acid inside an evidence room containing drugs [NIOSH 1999].

During the July 2010 visit, we collected seven PBZ and six area 

air samples for specific drugs (methamphetamine, cocaine, 

oxycodone, and THC) during 3 consecutive workdays. PBZ 

samples were collected from three drug vault employees, and area 

air samples were collected inside the drug vault and office. We 

collected samples from various surfaces such as door handles, carts, 

computer mice, and shelving using swabs prewetted with sampling 

buffer; these samples were also analyzed for the aforementioned 

drugs. The air and surface sampling methods we used are intended 

to quantify drug particles, not gases or vapors. 

We evaluated the ventilation in the drug vault and office by measuring 

the airflow rates in the HVAC supply ducts and exhaust ventilation 

ducts with a pitot tube. In addition, we used ventilation smoke tubes 

to assess the capture efficiency of the exhaust system and determine 

pressure differentials between the drug vault and adjacent areas. We 

measured temperature and RH inside the drug vault and office during 

both visits. More detailed information on the sampling methods and 

ventilation assessment is provided in Appendix A. Information on 

OELs and potential health effects for the chemicals we monitored are 

provided in Appendix B.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 5

Results

Assessment

 (continued) Although drug vault employees expressed concern about mold 

exposure, we did not sample for mold for three reasons: (1) mold 

is ubiquitous in the indoor and outdoor environments; thus, the 

presence of mold in air is not unusual and does not necessarily 

represent a hazardous condition, (2) mold was clearly visible on boxes 

and other packages containing marijuana plants; hence, air sampling 

would only confirm what we already know from observation, and 

(3) the Kentucky Labor Cabinet had previously sampled for and 

documented mold in the indoor air.

Employee Interviews

We conducted confidential health interviews with 14 employees, 11 

during the December 2009 site visit and three during the July 2010 

site visit. Of the 11 employees interviewed in December 2009, nine 

had current or prior drug vault work experience, while two worked 

in the storage room. All three employees working in the drug vault 

during our July 2010 evaluation were interviewed. The average age of 

employees interviewed was 40 years, and most (10 of 14) were male. 

Average length of employment with the department was 13 years; 

average length of employment for current drug vault employees 

was 2 years. Of the 12 employees with current or prior drug vault 

experience, most typically worked 40 hours a week with occasional 

overtime (approximately 1 day per month) if they had to prepare 

evidence for a court case. 

The most common symptoms reported by the employees working 

in the drug vault and storage room were upper respiratory ailments 

such as sinus congestion, cough, and runny nose (reported by nine 

employees) and headache (reported by seven employees). All of the 

employees interviewed reported a strong odor that they described as 

the odor of “marijuana, vitamins, and other chemicals” in the drug 

vault; five employees attributed recurring headaches to these odors. 

Four employees reported olfactory fatigue, the temporary inability to 

distinguish a particular odor after prolonged exposure. Employees 

interviewed in July 2010 were new to the drug vault and were not 

interviewed during the December 2009 site visit. 

Employees interviewed during the December 2009 site visit reported 

a wider variety of symptoms than those during the July 2010 site 

visit. One or more of the three employees interviewed during the 

July site visit reported eye irritation, headache, and upper respiratory 
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Results

 (continued) symptoms. Of the nine employees interviewed in December 2009 with 

past experience in the drug vault, eight reported upper respiratory 

symptoms; seven reported headaches; five reported eye irritation; three 

reported skin rashes; three reported fatigue; three reported neurologic 

symptoms such as dizziness, tremors, visual disturbances, and short 

term memory loss; and one reported intermittent nosebleeds that they 

attributed to work in the drug vault. 

Two of the employees with past work experience in the drug vault 

who reported skin rash described it as “breaking out in hives” that 

resolved after taking oral Benadryl®. Concerns about health effects 

from dermal exposure to drugs while packaging drug evidence in the 

storage room and when handling broken packaging in the drug vault 

were reported. Concerns about long-term chronic health effects such 

as cancer and other unknown health effects were expressed. 

Along with health symptoms, other work-related issues were 

raised during the interviews, including lack of safety and health 

communication by the employer, insufficient training on PPE use, 

and need for improved housekeeping to minimize slips and trips 

while retrieving evidence. The OSHA Log of Illness and Injury from 

2009 contained two entries for the storage room: one for sprains/

strains and one for pneumonia. 

Air Sampling for Inorganic Acids, VOCs, 

and Drugs

The MDCs and MQCs for the compounds we sampled were 

calculated by dividing the analytical method limit of detection and 

limit of quantitation for each compound by the average volume 

of air sampled. The MDCs and MQCs represent the smallest 

air concentrations that could have been detected or quantified, 

respectively, on the basis of volume of air sampled. MDCs and 

MQCs were calculated separately for PBZ and area air samples.

During the December 2009 visit, the PBZ concentrations of 

hydrochloric, nitric, sulfuric, hydrobromic, hydrofluoric, and 

phosphoric acids were ND (below their respective MDCs of 0.02, 

0.02, 0.04, 0.02, 0.01, and 0.04 mg/m3

). Consequently, inhalation 

exposures to inorganic acids did not exceed the applicable OELs. 

Hydrochloric, nitric, and sulfuric acids were measured at 

concentrations above their MDCs in the area air samples. These area 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 7

Results

 (continued) air concentrations are presented in Table 1, along with the MDCs, 

MQCs, and applicable OELs. All the inorganic acid concentrations 

were well below the applicable OELs. Concentrations between the 

MDC and MQC are listed in Table 1 and subsequent tables in 

parentheses to indicate that there is more uncertainty associated 

with these values than with concentrations above the MQC.

Compared to the VOCs detected outdoors (near the HVAC 

outdoor air intake), we found relatively higher levels of various 

terpenes (alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, myrcene, limonene, and 

beta-caryophyllene) in the drug vault, office, and PBZ of a drug 

vault employee. The qualitative data also indicate that the levels 

of these terpenes were higher in the drug vault than in the office. 

Because these sampling results are qualitative, we cannot provide air 

concentrations for these compounds. 

The PBZ air sampling results for drug particles are provided in Table 

2, and area air sampling results for drug particles are provided in 

Table 3. Methamphetamine was found in area and PBZ air samples 

at concentrations above MDCs. The other drugs were not found in 

the area air samples, but were found at quantifiable levels in some of 

the PBZ samples. According to the analytical laboratory, the PBZ air 

samples collected from drug vault employees 2 and 3 on July 12 and 

13, 2010, contained large particles (> 1 mm in diameter) of organic 

matter that would not normally remain airborne (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Particles > 1 mm in 

diameter that were collected on a 

PBZ filter sample.

Table 1. Area air concentrations of inorganic acids (mg/m3) measured in December 2009 

Location Sampling time 

(minutes) Hydrochloric Nitric Sulfuric

Drug vault (Bin 30) 401 (0.021) (0.011) ND

Drug vault (Bin 53) 403 (0.024) (0.015) ND

Drug vault (Bin 74) 404 ND (0.015) (0.035)

Office 400 (0.030) (0.011) ND

Outdoor air intake 392 (0.022) (0.014) ND

MDC 0.01 0.01 0.03

MQC 0.063 0.031 0.074

NIOSH REL [NIOSH 2005]* C 7.0 5.0 / STEL 10 1.0

OSHA PEL [NIOSH 2005]* C 7.0 5.0 1.0

ACGIH TLV [ACGIH 2010]* C 3.0 5.0 / C 10 0.2

*Ceiling limits are denoted with “C.” Short-term exposure limits are denoted with “STEL.” All other values are full 

work shift TWAs.
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Results

 (continued)

Table 2. PBZ concentrations of drug particles (ng/m3) measured in July 2010

Date collected Employee No. Methamphetamine Oxycodone Cocaine THC

7/12/2010 1 (2.2) ND ND ND

2* 11 ND 12000 > 38

3* ND 0.97 (47) > 52

7/13/2010 1 5.0 ND 200 5.0

2* 16 ND 930 > 51

3* 28 (0.64) 3000 > 54

7/14/2010 1 (6.2) ND ND ND

MDC 3 0.4 30 2

MQC 4.5 0.67 52 4.6

* These samples collected particles that are larger than those that are typically collected with our air sampling 

procedure. Thus, these samples may not accurately estimate the PBZ concentrations of the drugs. 

Table 3. Area air concentrations of drug particles (ng/m3) measured in July 2010

Date collected Location Methamphetamine Oxycodone Cocaine THC

7/12/2010 Office (2.2) ND ND ND

Drug vault 3.1 ND ND ND

7/13/2010 Office (1.2) ND ND ND

Drug vault 2.8 ND ND ND

7/14/2010 Office (2.4) ND ND ND

Drug vault 5.2 ND ND ND

MDC 2 0.3 20 1.5

MQC 3.1 0.46 36 3.1
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 9

Results

 (continued)

Table 4. Masses of drugs on surfaces (ng/100 cm2) in the drug vault, office, and storage room

Area Location

Surface 

description

Meth* Oxycodone Cocaine THC

Office Desk of employee 1 Laminate ND ND ND ND

Desk of employee 2 Laminate ND (2.1) (330) ND

Top of cart used to transport 

evidence

Plastic (8.2) ND 4600 ND

Handle of cart used to 

transport evidence† Plastic ND 3.6 1900 ND

Computer mouse at the desk 

of employee 2† Plastic ND ND ND ND

Handle of refrigerator† Plastic ND ND (310) ND

Box used to hold envelopes 

containing evidence

Cardboard 18 ND (370) ND

Handle of door between 

office and drug vault†

Stainless

steel

ND (2.1) 800 ND

Drug vault

3rd movable shelf from south 

side of the room

Steel ND ND 7300 ND

Shelf 53 at the south side of 

the room

Steel 24 ND 920 (26)

Storage box containing 

marijuana plants

Cardboard ND ND ND ND

Large table in the center of 

the room

Laminate ND (1.9) 4800 41

Control panel for movable 

shelving

Plastic 79 ND 2300 ND

Cart for transporting 

evidence

Plastic 59 3.6 4300 ND

Handle of door between drug 

vault and storage room†

Stainless

steel

ND 3.30 (400) ND

Storage 

room

Evidence shoot Steel 49 (2.49) 980 ND

Limit of detection 6 2 300 20

Limit of quantitation 12 2.9 420 40

* Meth = methamphetamine

† The entire surface was sampled. The surface area was not determined, and hence, may not be 100 

square centimeters.
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Results

 (continued) Currently, no OELs exist for the drugs we sampled, most 

likely because airborne exposures to drugs are unusual in most 

occupations. The one exception is oxycodone, a commonly 

prescribed narcotic that could become aerosolized in the 

pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. According to the 

MSDS published by Purdue Pharma L.P. (Cranbury, New Jersey) 

for OxyContin® tablets, workplace exposures to oxycodone 

(free base) dusts should be kept below the manufacturer’s OEL 

of 40,000 ng/m3 [Purdue Pharma 2010]. The area and PBZ 

concentrations of oxycodone we measured were well below these 

manufacturer’s guidelines. 

Surface Sampling for Drugs

The surface sampling results for each drug sampled are presented 

in Table 4. Quantifiable levels of methamphetamine, cocaine, 

oxycodone, and THC were found at various locations in the drug 

vault and office. Cocaine was found in the highest quantities 

(ranging up to 7300 ng/100 cm2) on surfaces that were sampled. 

No federal standards exist for drug surface contamination. 

However, several states have established feasibility-based surface 

contamination limits when remediating clandestine laboratories for 

methamphetamine ranging from 100 ng/100 cm2 to 500 ng/100 cm2

[NAMSDL 2008]. The range of methamphetamine contamination 

that we measured (ND to 79 ng/100 cm2) was below these limits.

Assessment of Ventilation, Temperature, 

and Humidity

Figure 4 shows the locations where pitot tube traverses were 

performed to measure airflow in the supply and exhaust ducts. 

The supply and exhaust airflow rates are presented in Table 5. 

Certification measurements of the exhaust system recorded on June 

23, 2010, are provided for comparison against our measurements 

recorded on July 13, 2010. The measurements we recorded were 

similar to the certification measurements. 

Under its current design and operation, the exhaust system in the 

drug vault removed 1.6 cfm/ft2, resulting in approximately 7.6 air 

changes per hour. Because more air was exhausted from the drug 

vault (2,720 cfm) than that which the HVAC system supplied to 

the vault (1,713 cfm), the drug vault was under negative pressure 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 11

relative to its adjacent space (i.e., storage room, office, and hallway). 

This means that air from adjacent areas flowed into the drug vault. 

Approximately 850 cfm of make-up air came through the ventilation 

hole in the northwest wall of the drug vault. The rest of the make-up 

air most likely came through leaks around the doors or any cracks in 

the drug vault walls.

To further assess pressure differentials, we used ventilation 

smoke tubes to generate smoke along the perimeter of the door 

connecting the drug vault and office. We observed smoke being 

drawn from the office into the drug vault, demonstrating that 

the vault was under negative pressure. Using the same method, 

we found that the office was under negative pressure relative to 

the hallway. It is ideal for the drug vault and office to be under 

negative pressure relative to adjacent areas. Also using smoke 

tubes, we identified four locations (Figure 4) where an HVAC 

supply diffuser was so close to an exhaust grill that supply air was 

immediately exhausted from the room. This phenomenon, called 

short-circuiting, reduces the effectiveness of the ventilation. 

The temperature and RH measurements made in the drug vault and 

office during our evaluation are summarized in Table 6. As expected, 

RH levels were higher in July than in December. The temperature 

and RH were slightly more variable in the office than in the drug 

vault. The thermostats in both locations could only be increased or 

decreased by 2°F from a set point specified by facilities management.

Figure 4. Supply and exhaust ventilation in the drug vault and office.

Results

 (continued)
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 

Results

 (continued)

Table 5. Supply and exhaust airflow rates in the drug vault and office

HVAC component

Airflow rate (cfm)

Design 

Certification 

measurement on 

6/23/10

NIOSH 

measurement on 

7/13/10

Drug vault supply 1,445 N/A 1,713

Drug vault make-up air (through 1.7 ft2 vent 

to adjacent hallway)*

N/A N/A 850

Office supply 145 / 75 minimum N/A 122

Total exhaust (negative pressure side of 

exhaust fan) 2,972 2,926 2,944

Drug vault exhaust 2,822 2,786 2,720

NE branch exhaust 2,522 2,535 N/A

NW branch exhaust 300 251 N/A

Office exhaust 150 132 103

* Recorded using a hot wire anemometer. All other airflows were determined using pitot-tubes. 

Table 6. Temperature and humidity levels measured in the drug vault and office

Location Date sampled Sampling 

time (hours)

Temperature (°F) RH (%)

Mean Range Mean Range

Office 12/16/2009 8 74 72–75 9.2 7.2–9.8

Drug vault 12/16/2009 8 74 73–75 10.5 8.8–11

Office 7/12/2010 to 7/14/2010 52 73 72–75 53 49–58

Drug vault 7/12/2010 to 7/14/2010 52 69 68–70 64 61–66

Other Observations

During our December 2009 visit, we observed problems associated 

with storage procedures and housekeeping practices. We noted a 

bottle of codeine that was leaking onto the floor, boxes of drugs 

stacked to the ceiling, dust and debris on various surfaces inside 

the drug vault (Figure 5), and trash cans that had not been emptied 

for several days. By our July 2010 visit, several changes had been 

made to improve drug handling procedures. For example, drug 

evidence was sealed in plastic before packaging in an envelope, 

and packages leaking liquid drugs were placed into plastic bags. In 

addition, a vacuum containing a HEPA air filter and a chamber 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 13

Results

 (continued) (Safestore chemical storage cabinet, Air Science USA LLC, Fort 

Myers, Florida) for drying plants had been purchased. However, 

the HEPA vacuum and drying chamber had not yet been used. 

We also observed problems during the July 2010 visit. Some drug 

vault employees wearing elastomeric half-mask respirators had 

facial hair that could interfere with the seal of the respirator. Thin 

plastic garbage bags containing prescription drugs collected from 

the public for proper disposal had torn. The van used to transport 

drug evidence to and from the police department had loose plant 

material (presumably from marijuana evidence that spilled on the 

floor of the vehicle) (Figure 6).

 Shortly after our July 2010 visit, a drying chamber was installed just 

outside the drug vault in the storage room. The drying chamber was 

not ducted to the outdoors, but the exhausted air was filtered using 

organic vapor and particulate air filters. The drying chamber was 

used to dry marijuana plants. Large amounts of these plants were 

then stored in cardboard boxes, and small amounts were stored in 

paper envelopes inside the drug vault. The drug vault employees 

reported that use of the drying chamber has helped reduce the 

intensity of “marijuana” odors inside the drug vault.

Figure 5. Debris on the surface of shelving used to 

store envelopes containing drug evidence.

Figure 6. Debris on the floor of the van used to transport 

drug evidence.
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Discussion

Potential Exposures

A previous HHE conducted in an evidence room containing 

drugs found low levels of hydrofluoric, hydrochloric, and sulfuric 

acids [NIOSH 1999]. Sulfuric acid can be used in clandestine 

methamphetamine laboratories, and hydrochloric acid can be 

used in the production of methamphetamine, cocaine, and 

phencyclidine [NIOSH 1999]. These acids could therefore be 

present as an impurity in these drugs. However, the levels of acids 

we measured in the indoor air samples were well below applicable 

OELs. Further, the levels in the drug vault were comparable to 

the levels measured in the outdoor air samples, suggesting that 

the drug vault was not the source for the acids.

According to the qualitative VOC sample results, elevated levels of 

various terpenes (alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, myrcene, limonene, 

and beta-caryophyllene) were found in the drug vault, office, and 

PBZ of a drug vault employee. These compounds are common 

volatile constituents of marijuana [Lai et al. 2008] and likely 

contributed to the “marijuana” odors in the drug vault and office. 

Terpenes are also commonly used in cleaners. However, cleaners 

were probably not the source of these odors because the drug 

vault employees had not recently cleaned inside the drug vault. 

Of the terpenes we measured, only limonene has an OEL (AIHA 

WEEL of 170 mg/m3 as an 8-hour TWA), which is intended to 

prevent adverse affects to the liver [AIHA 2010]. Because the 

sampling method we used was qualitative, we do not know the exact 

concentration of limonene in the drug vault. However, according 

to the analytical laboratory, nanogram levels of limonene (and 

other terpenes) were collected on the VOC samples. Thus, the air 

concentrations of limonene were probably at least three orders 

of magnitude lower than the AIHA WEEL. These low levels of 

terpenes are unlikely to cause adverse health effects.

Quantifiable levels of various drugs were measured in the 

PBZs of the drug vault employees. Only methamphetamine 

was quantified in the area air samples. Unlike the VOCs that 

are present as gases and vapors, the drugs we sampled exist as 

particles. Drug particles must be agitated and/or circulated in 

the air for employees to be exposed via the inhalation route. The 

particles on the air samples collected from drug vault employees 

2 and 3 on July 12, 2010, and July 13, 2010, were much larger 

(>1 mm in diameter) than the size of particles that are normally 

collected on these air filters. Therefore, a problem with the 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 15

Discussion

 (continued) collection of these air samples may have led to an overestimate of 

PBZ concentrations of the drugs. 

The PBZ concentrations of methamphetamine, oxycodone, and 

THC ranged from ND to >54 ng/m3, while the PBZ concentrations 

of cocaine ranged from ND to 12,000 ng/m3. Even though some of 

the air samples may have overestimated the PBZ concentrations of 

the drugs, the concentrations we measured were relatively low. For 

perspective, most OELs for particles are expressed in mg/m3, and 

drug users usually take several milligrams of a drug [Gable 2004]; 

a nanogram is one million times smaller than a milligram. Low 

exposures, however, do not necessarily equate to safe and healthy 

conditions because some compounds can elicit health effects at very 

small doses. Purdue-Pharma L.P. established an OEL for oxycodone 

of 40,000 ng/m3 to prevent respiratory irritation or allergies 

[Purdue Pharma 2010]. The oxycodone levels we measured in air 

were well below this OEL. We could not find a published OEL for 

cocaine; however, the airborne levels of cocaine were considerably 

higher than any other drug we measured. 

The surface sampling we conducted confirmed the presence of 

drug particles on surfaces in the drug vault and office where hand 

contact is likely (e.g., handle of cart, handle of refrigerator, surface 

of desk, evidence shoot, etc.). Particles can be transferred from 

surfaces to hands, and in the absence of adequate hand-washing, 

can then be transferred from hands to the mouth when employees 

eat or smoke in the workplace. This represents a possible route of 

exposure (ingestion) to drugs. If employees were to rub their eyes, 

drugs could be transferred to the eyes. Airborne drug particles 

could also contact the eyes. In both cases, eye irritation is possible. 

Skin irritation could also occur from drugs contacting the skin. 

Bringing low levels of drug contamination home is also a possibility.

Methamphetamine levels measured on surfaces were below the 

lowest feasibility-based surface contamination limits (100 ng/100 

cm2). Levels of cocaine collected in 9 of 16 samples, on the other 

hand, exceeded the highest surface contamination limit for 

methamphetamine (500 ng/100 cm2) and the largest amount of 

cocaine measured on a surface was 14 times this limit. Because 

cocaine and methamphetamine are both stimulants [DEA 2010], 

the levels of cocaine surface contamination we measured could 

present a hazard to the drug vault employees and therefore 

warrants remediation. 
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Discussion

 (continued) Ventilation, Temperature, and Humidity

According to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 [ASHRAE 

2010a], a minimum outdoor air rate of 34 cfm should be supplied 

to the office (based on three person occupancy and zone air 

distribution effectiveness of 0.8). If the supply air contained 40% 

outdoor air as currently scheduled, then approximately 50 cfm 

of outdoor air was supplied to the office when the VAV box was 

at maximum flow (122 cfm, as measured) and 30 cfm of outdoor 

air was supplied to the office when the VAV box was at minimum 

flow (75 cfm, as designed). 

ASHRAE does not provide specific exhaust ventilation 

recommendations for drug vaults or evidence rooms other than 

that they should be kept under negative pressure [ASHRAE 

2007a]. However, in a previous HHE report, investigators 

recommended 6 air changes per hour for an evidence room 

containing drugs and other chemicals [NIOSH 1999]. This 

recommendation was based on the ASHRAE guidelines for 

chemical laboratories [ASHRAE 2007b]. According to the 

International Association for Identification safety guidelines [IAI 

2004], areas where drugs and other chemicals are maintained 

should have constant exhaust ventilation resulting in a minimum 

of 7 air changes per hour. According to our measurements, the 

drug vault had about 7.6 air changes per hour (based on the 

exhaust rate). However, the number of air changes per hour is 

influenced greatly by the size of the room and does not account 

for contaminant generation rate or the mixing of air in the room 

[ASHRAE 2007c]. Uniform mixing occurs when the supply air 

is instantly and evenly distributed throughout a space [ACGIH 

2007]. Air mixing in the drug vault was not uniform because the 

ceiling-mounted supply air diffusers and exhaust air grills were 

near each other. We identified four areas where the exhaust air 

grills were too close to the supply air diffusers, resulting in shortcircuiting—a situation where supply air is immediately exhausted. 

Short-circuiting reduces the effective exhaust rate of contaminants 

or nuisance odors. 

ASHRAE recommends minimum exhaust rates for different 

occupancy categories [ASHRAE 2010a]. A drug vault is not 

identified specifically, but is most similar to a chemical storage 

room because both contain potentially hazardous substances in 

sealed containers. The most hazardous airborne contaminants 

we found in the drug vault were drug particles. General exhaust 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 17

Discussion

 (continued) ventilation is intended for gases and vapors but not for particles. 

The gases and vapors we measured in the drug vault were volatile 

constituents of marijuana. Most of these compounds are not 

considered hazardous. Nevertheless, the exhaust rate in the drug 

vault (1.6 cfm/ft2) was greater than the minimum exhaust rate for 

chemical storage rooms (1.5 cfm/ft2). Increasing this exhaust rate 

further will not necessarily reduce the “marijuana” odors because 

the emitted compounds have very low odor thresholds. Isolating 

marijuana to its own ventilated room or packaging marijuana to 

contain the off-gassing chemicals will do more to reduce odors 

than increasing the general exhaust ventilation.

 

As recommended by ASHRAE [ASHRAE 2007a], the drug vault 

was under constant negative pressure relative to the adjacent 

areas. Thus, if the doors remain closed nuisance odors should not 

readily migrate to the office where the drug vault employees spent 

most of their workday. In addition, the office was under negative 

pressure relative to the adjacent hallway, which is appropriate 

because packages containing drugs are handled inside the office.

ASHRAE recommends keeping evidence vaults at 72°F–74°F 

and 30% RH in the winter and no more than 50% RH in the 

summer [ASHRAE 2007a]. We measured RH levels below 

this range in the winter and above this range in the summer. 

Maintaining RH levels below 50% reduces the potential for mold 

growth. RH levels far below 30% may dry out skin and mucous 

membranes, but we typically do not advise adding moisture to 

indoor air (humidification). Most of the temperature and RH 

levels we measured were within the acceptable range of operative 

temperature and humidity for thermal comfort as specified in 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2010 [ASHRAE 2010b]. However, 

the temperature and RH levels in the drug vault from July 12–14. 

2010, were below the acceptable range for persons wearing 

clothing made of thin materials (typical of warmer months). 

Moreover, the employees felt that they did not have sufficient 

control over the climate in the office and drug vault.

Health Symptoms

Acute and chronic health effects from exposures to very low 

levels of the types of drugs sampled in this evaluation are not well 

understood. Information that is available about the mechanism 

of action of these drugs and their health effects at higher doses 
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Conclusions

is found in Appendix B. Multiple factors could contribute to 

the nonspecific symptoms reported by employees. These factors 

are difficult to sort out to assess their individual contributions 

to reported symptoms. The factors include mold exposure, poor 

indoor environmental quality, discomfort due to fluctuations in 

temperature and humidity, odors, and stress. Some employees 

may be more sensitive to these factors than others, thus are more 

likely to report symptoms. Although acute and chronic health 

effects from the very low levels of drugs found in the evaluation 

appear unlikely, we cannot definitively state that they did not 

contribute in part to reported symptoms. Additionally, drug 

exposures likely vary over time and may be higher during periods 

of increased workload and evidence processing, during drug 

transport and disposal operations, or when large amounts of 

inventory are in the drug vault.

Skin rashes were reported by three drug vault employees. Several 

case reports in the scientific literature report dermatitis from 

occupational exposure and handling of Cannabis (marijuana) 

plants and materials, with symptoms increasing over time with 

ongoing exposure [Majmudar et al. 2006; Williams et al. 2008].

Discussion

 (continued)

Exposures to the drug particles found in this occupational setting 

probably present the greatest potential health risk given their 

well-known neurological and physiological effects at relatively 

high doses. However, the exposure levels we measured were low. 

Even though the reported symptoms could have been the result 

of various occupational and nonoccupational factors, it is wise 

to reduce exposures to all drug particles as much as feasible. 

Implementation of the recommendations below will help limit 

exposures to drug particles, chemical odors, and mold, and should 

help improve general indoor environmental quality and reported 

health symptoms. Some individuals may continue to report 

symptoms due to pre-existing medical conditions, nonoccupational 

exposures, and personal sensitivity; these cases should be handled 

on a case-by-case basis between the employee(s), management, and 

their healthcare provider.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 19

Recommendations

On the basis of our findings, we recommend the actions listed 

below to create a more healthful workplace. We encourage the 

police department to use a labor-management health and safety 

committee or working group to discuss the recommendations 

in this report and develop an action plan. Those involved in 

the work can best set priorities and assess the feasibility of our 

recommendations for the specific situation at this drug vault. 

Our recommendations are based on the hierarchy of controls 

approach (Appendix B: Occupational Exposure Limits and Health 

Effects). This approach groups actions by their likely effectiveness 

in reducing or removing hazards. In most cases, the preferred 

approach is to eliminate hazardous materials or processes and 

install engineering controls to reduce exposure or shield employees. 

Until such controls are in place, or if they are not effective or 

feasible, administrative measures and/or personal protective 

equipment may be needed. 

Elimination and Substitution

Elimination or substitution of a toxic/hazardous process material 

is a highly effective means for reducing hazards. Incorporating 

this strategy into the design or development phase of a project, 

commonly referred to as “prevention through design,” is most 

effective because it reduces the need for additional controls in the 

future. 

1. Dispose of drugs more frequently to reduce the amount 

of material in the drug vault that could off-gas and expose 

employees.

Engineering Controls

Engineering controls reduce exposures to employees by removing 

the hazard from the process or placing a barrier between the 

hazard and the employee. Engineering controls are very effective 

at protecting employees without placing primary responsibility of 

implementation on the employee. 

1. Continue to dry marijuana and other plant-based drugs prior 

to storage to reduce odors and mold growth. 

2. Replace the organic vapor and particulate filters in the 

drying chamber according to manufacturer’s guidelines or 
Page 20 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

more frequently if odors are detected in the drying chamber 

exhaust. Failure to do so could result in the release of VOCs 

from the plant-based drugs into the indoor environment.

3. Move the drying chamber into the drug vault to prevent 

the odors and particles from entering the HVAC system. 

Another option would be to connect the drying chamber 

exhaust directly to the exhaust system for the drug vault. This 

may eliminate the need for organic vapor and particulate 

filters but would require capital costs associated with the 

modification.

4. Relocate either the supply air diffuser or exhaust air grill in 

the four locations (Figure 4) where they are too close to one 

another inside the drug vault. Alternatively, install a diffuser 

style that will direct the supply air away from the exhaust 

inlet. This will prevent short-circuiting and improve the 

performance of the ventilation system. 

5. After drying plant-based drugs, store the plants in sealed 

plastic bags to minimize the release of VOCs into the 

environment. If these drugs continue to be stored in 

ventilated cardboard boxes, place them an enclosed area of 

the drug vault with exhaust ventilation. This will help contain 

odors to the enclosed area. 

6. Continue to seal all other drugs in plastic. Seal and bubblewrap glass containers containing drug evidence to minimize 

breakage. Use more durable plastic garbage bags for the 

collection of prescription medications. These bags will be less 

likely to tear, and their use will help reduce the likelihood 

of unintentional release of VOCs into the environment. If 

drug contamination is evident on existing packages, seal these 

packages in another plastic bag.

7. Provide conditioned air to maintain an RH at 30%–50% 

to the drug vault throughout the year. This will also help 

minimize mold growth.

8. Use a truck with a lockable bed enclosure to transport drugs 

to and from the police department. This will reduce employee 

exposures to dusts or VOCs from the drugs during transport.

Recommendations

 (continued)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 21

Administrative Controls

Administrative controls are management-dictated work practices 

and policies to reduce or prevent exposures to workplace hazards. 

The effectiveness of administrative changes in work practices 

for controlling workplace hazards is dependent on management 

commitment and employee acceptance. Regular monitoring and 

reinforcement are necessary to ensure that control policies and 

procedures are not circumvented in the name of convenience or 

production.

1. Conduct a thorough cleaning of the surfaces inside the drug 

vault, office, and storage room where drug contamination was 

found (or is likely to be present). A HEPA vacuum can be used 

for porous surfaces and nonporous surfaces containing larger 

particles. Environmentally-friendly cleaners and disposable paper 

towels can be used for all other nonporous surfaces. Employees 

performing the cleaning should wear nitrile gloves or other 

suitable gloves as recommended by the manufacturers of the 

chosen cleaners.

2. Improve housekeeping practices. Empty the trash inside the drug 

vault daily, and vacuum the floors weekly with a HEPA vacuum. 

Surfaces that directly contact packages of evidence (carts, tables, 

etc.) should be cleaned weekly with an environmentally-friendly 

cleaner. Because there are no regulations regarding what can 

be labeled “environmentally friendly,” management will need 

to become knowledgeable about what cleaning materials are 

appropriate. Useful sources of information to help select 

the safest products include the National Institutes of Health 

database at http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/ and the 

Greenguard Environmental Institute at http://www.greenguard.

org/. These housekeeping practices will help minimize the 

potential for exposures to drug particles and improve the air 

quality by reducing allergens and nuisance odors. The HEPA 

filter in the vacuum will need to be replaced routinely per 

manufacturer’s specifications. 

3. Improve the organization of evidence inside the drug vault. Boxes 

should be neatly stacked and accessible. Avoid stacking boxes 

to the ceiling. Use labels that have larger print and are easier 

to read. These procedures should ease evidence retrieval and 

minimize the potential for chemical exposures or injuries when 

trying to locate evidence. 

Recommendations

 (continued)
Page 22 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

4. Use a cart to transport evidence packages from the drop-off 

bins to the drug vault. This will reduce the likelihood of 

dropping a package containing breakable items.

5. Wash hands thoroughly after removing gloves and before 

eating, drinking, or smoking to prevent potential hand to 

mouth transmission and ingestion of drug particles. 

6. Avoid skin contact with marijuana plants and material to 

reduce the potential for irritation and allergic reactions.

7. Ensure that employees included in the existing medical 

surveillance program are receiving all elements of the 

program, which should include a general health questionnaire 

and follow up for employees who have shown health changes. 

If respirator use for employees continues to be required as 

discussed below, medical clearance specific for respirator 

wear is required by OSHA regulation. Spirometry (breathing 

test) should be conducted for employees based on a medical 

provider’s professional opinion. 

8. Continue to have employees report any adverse health 

symptoms to their supervisors as they occur. Employees 

who continue to experience symptoms should be evaluated 

by a healthcare provider with experience in evaluating 

occupational health concerns, with referral to medical 

specialists (i.e., dermatologist, pulmonologist) as appropriate. 

9. Organize a health and safety committee consisting of 

management and employee representatives (including the 

Fraternal Order of Police) who meet regularly to address 

health and safety concerns.

10. Develop written policies and SOPs for the drug vault 

employees describing the work practices and required PPE 

for work involving drug evidence. Training on these policies 

and SOPs should be conducted and documented for drug 

vault employees. 

Recommendations

 (continued)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 23

Personal Protective Equipment

PPE is the least effective means for controlling employee exposures. 

Proper use of PPE requires a comprehensive program, and calls for a 

high level of employee involvement and commitment to be effective. 

The use of PPE requires the choice of the appropriate equipment 

to reduce the hazard and the development of supporting programs 

such as training, change-out schedules, and medical assessment 

if needed. PPE should not be relied upon as the sole method for 

limiting employee exposures. Rather, PPE should be used until 

engineering and administrative controls can be demonstrated to be 

effective in limiting exposures to acceptable levels.

1. Wear nitrile gloves when handling evidence to prevent 

skin exposures.

2. Stop wearing air purifying respirators when entering the drug 

vault. The elastomeric half-mask air purifying respirators 

currently provided are equipped with organic vapor cartridges 

that are not protective against particles; some employees 

had facial hair that interfered with the proper seal of these 

respirators. Moreover, the potential for exposure to drug 

particles and other contaminants will be greatly reduced by 

following the other recommendations provided in this report. 

However, if the use of respirators continues to be mandatory 

for work in the drug vault, then a comprehensive respiratory 

protection program should be implemented that meets the 

requirements of the OSHA regulations [29 CFR 1910.134]. 

Such a program includes training on the proper wear and 

maintenance of respirators, medical clearance, and respirator 

fit testing. If respirator use is made voluntary, then a limited

respiratory protection program should be implemented that 

meets the requirements specified in paragraph (c) (2) of the 

OSHA regulations [29 CFR 1910.134].

Recommendations

 (continued)
Page 24 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

References

ACGIH [2007]. Industrial ventilation: a manual of recommended 

practice for design, 26th ed. Cincinnati, OH: American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).

ACGIH [2010]. Threshold limit values for chemical substances and 

physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH: 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

AIHA [2010]. Emergency Response Planning Guidelines and 

Worplace Environmental Exposure Levels. Fairfax, VA: American 

Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

ASHRAE [2007a]. Justice facilities. In: 2007 ASHRAE handbook: 

heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning applications. Atlanta, 

GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE [2007b]. Laboratories. In: ASHRAE handbook: heating, 

ventilating, and air-conditioning applications. Atlanta, GA: 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE [2007c]. Ventilation and infiltration. In: 2007 ASHRAE 

handbook: heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning applications. 

Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE [2010a]. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010: 

Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. Atlanta, GA: 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE [2010b]. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2010: Thermal 

environmental conditions for human occupancy. Atlanta, GA: 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc.

CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register.

DEA [2010]. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) drug information. 

[http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/abuse/index.htm]. Date 

accessed: May 2011.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 25

Gable RS [2004]. Comparison of acute lethal toxicity of commonly 

abused psychoactive substances. Addiction 99(6):686–696.

IAI [2004]. Safety Guidelines: 2nd ed. Hollywood, FL: 

International Association for Identification (IAI). 

Lai H, Corbin I, Almirall JR [2008]. Headspace sampling 

and detection of cocaine, MDMA, and marijuana via volatile 

markers in the presence of potential interferences by solid phase 

microextraction-ion mobility spectrometry (SPME-IMS). Anal 

Bioanal Chem 392(1-2):105–113.

Majmudar V, Azam N, Finch T [2006]. Contact urticaria to 

Cannabis sativa. Contact Dermatitis 54:127. 

NAMSDL [2008]. State feasibility-based standards. Alexandria, VA: 

National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL) [http://

www.namsdl.org/documents/RemediationStandardChartFinal.

pdf]. Date accessed: May 2011.

NIOSH [1999]. Hazard evaluation and technical assistance report: 

State of Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement, Des Moines, 

Iowa. By Burton NC. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA 

Report No. 99-0252-2831.

NIOSH [2005]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Barsen 

ME, ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Publication 

No. 2005-149.

Purdue Pharma [2010]. Material safety data sheet for OxyContin 

tablets. [http://www.purduepharma.com/MSDSs/OxyContin_

binder.pdf]. Date accessed: May 2011.

Williams C, Thompstone J, Wilkinson M [2008]. Work-related 

contact urticaria to Cannibis sativa. Contact Dermatitis 58(1):62–63.

References

 (continued)
Page 26 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Appendix A: Methods

Air Sampling for VOCs

Area and PBZ air sampling for VOCs was conducted using thermal desorption tubes attached to SKC 

pocket pumps calibrated at 200 cubic centimeters per minute (SKC Inc., Eighty Four, Pennsylvania). The 

thermal desorption tubes contained three beds of sorbent material: (1) 90 milligrams of CarbopackTM 

Y, (2) 115 milligrams of Carbopack B, and (3) 150 milligrams CarboxenTM. After sampling, the thermal 

desorption tubes were stored in a cooler and then qualitatively analyzed for various VOCs according to 

NIOSH Method 2549 [NIOSH 2010].

Air Sampling for Inorganic Acids

Area and PBZ air sampling for inorganic acids was conducted using SKC silica gel sorbent tubes (200 

milligrams/400 milligrams with glass fiber filter plug) attached to SKC pocket pumps calibrated at 50 

cubic centimeters per minute. After sampling, the silica gel tubes were stored in a cooler and then analyzed 

for hydrochloric, hydrobromic, hydrofluoric, nitric, sulfuric, and phosphoric acids according to NIOSH 

Method 7903 [NIOSH 2010]. 

Air and Surface Sampling for Drugs

Area and PBZ air sampling for particle phase drugs was conducted using SKC 37-mm diameter, 

2-micrometer pore size PTFE filters attached to SKC Aircheck 2000 pumps calibrated at 4 liters per 

minute. Surface sampling for dusts containing drugs was conducted using cotton swabs prewetted with 

surface sampling buffer. For most sampling locations, a 10 × 10 centimeter template was placed over the 

surface and then the prewetted cotton swab was rubbed across the surface in one direction and again in 

the opposite direction (a crisscross pattern). After swabbing the surface, we broke the handle of the swab 

and placed the head of the swab in a vial containing 1 milliliter of buffer solution. For irregularly shaped 

objects (e.g., door handles, computer mice, and cart handles), we sampled the entire surface. 

After sampling, the PTFE filters and swabs were stored in a cooler and then analyzed for 

methamphetamine, oxycodone, and THC with a fluorescence covalent microbead immunosorbent assay 

as described by Smith et al. in 2010 [Smith et al. 2010]. This assay was also used to analyze the samples 

for cocaine. A standard curve for cocaine was generated to calculate cocaine equivalent values. The values 

of the drugs collected from the surfaces were corrected using the surface recovery values determined 

previously [Smith et al. 2010]. For the air samples, extraction was done in methanol, the extraction 

solutions were then dried, and the residue was re-extracted with the surface sampling buffer. The detection 

and quantitation limits were provided for each analyte. However, because trace drugs (or interfering 

compounds) were identified on the field and laboratory blanks, the detection and quantitation limits were 

adjusted. Adjustments were made by adding the average analyte concentration measured on the field or 

laboratory blank (whichever was higher) to the respective detection and quantitation limits. These adjusted 

detection and quantitation limits were used in calculating the MDCs and MQCs.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 27

Ventilation Assessment

A VelociCalc Plus (TSI Inc., Shoreview, Minnesota) with pitot tube attachment was used to perform pitot 

tube traverses in the HVAC supply ducts and exhaust ventilation ducts. Figure 4 (on page 11) shows the 

approximate locations where the pitot tube traverses were performed. Existing holes were used to insert 

the pitot tube into the ducts. The round drug vault exhaust duct (20-inch diameter) and round office 

exhaust duct (6-inch diameter) had two insertion points: one along the y-axis and one along the x-axis. 

The rectangular drug vault supply duct (17.5 × 20 inches) had five insertion points, the rectangular office 

supply duct (8 × 12 inches) had three insertion points, and the square exhaust duct on the negative 

pressure side of the fan (22 × 22 inches) had four insertion points. Measurement locations in the 

duct were determined using the log-linear method for round ducts and the log Chebyshev method for 

rectangular ducts [Burgess et al. 2004].

The velocity pressure was recorded at each measurement location. The average velocity pressure was 

calculated for each cross section of the duct. The velocity (feet per minute) was calculated using the 

following formula:

	 Velocity = 4004.4√velocity pressure

Airflow (cfm) was then calculated by multiplying the velocity (feet per minute) by the cross sectional area 

(ft2

) of the duct. 

The articulating hot-wire anemometer on the VelociCalc Plus was used to measure the airflow through 

the ventilation hole providing make-up air to the drug vault. Irritant smoke tubes (Gastec Corporation, 

Kanagawa, Japan) were used to determine pressure differentials between the drug vault and adjacent 

rooms. The smoke tubes were also used to identify areas where supply air diffusers and exhaust air 

vents were too close to each other, creating a potential for short-circuiting—a situation where supplied 

conditioned air is immediately exhausted from the room.

In addition, temperature and RH inside the office and drug vault were measured during both visits using a 

HOBO humidity and temperature data logger (Onset Computer Corporation, Pocasset, Massachusetts).

References

Burgess WA, Ellenbecker MJ, Treitman RD [2004]. Airflow measurement techniques. In: Ventilation for 

control of the work environment, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Appendix A: Methods

 (continued)
Page 28 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

NIOSH [2010]. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. 

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 

94-113 (August 1994); 1st Supplement Publication 96-135, 2nd Supplement Publication 98-119, 3rd 

Supplement Publication 2003-154. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-154/].

Smith J, Sammons D, Robertson S, Biagini R, Snawder J [2010]. Measurement of multiple drugs in 

urine, water, and on surfaces using fluorescence covalent microbead immunosorbent assay. Toxicol Mech 

Methods 20(9):587–593.

Appendix A: Methods

 (continued)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 29

Appendix B: Occupational Exposure Limits and Health Effects

In evaluating the hazards posed by workplace exposures, NIOSH investigators use both mandatory (legally 

enforceable) and recommended OELs for chemical, physical, and biological agents as a guide for making 

recommendations. OELs have been developed by federal agencies and safety and health organizations to 

prevent the occurrence of adverse health effects from workplace exposures. Generally, OELs suggest levels 

of exposure that most employees may be exposed to for up to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week, for a 

working lifetime, without experiencing adverse health effects. However, not all employees will be protected 

from adverse health effects even if their exposures are maintained below these levels. A small percentage 

may experience adverse health effects because of individual susceptibility, a preexisting medical condition, 

and/or a hypersensitivity (allergy). In addition, some hazardous substances may act in combination with 

other workplace exposures, the general environment, or with medications or personal habits of the 

employee to produce adverse health effects even if the occupational exposures are controlled at the level set 

by the exposure limit. Also, some substances can be absorbed by direct contact with the skin and mucous 

membranes in addition to being inhaled, which contributes to the individual’s overall exposure. 

Most OELs are expressed as a TWA exposure. A TWA refers to the average exposure during a normal 8- 

to 10-hour workday. Some chemical substances and physical agents have recommended STEL or ceiling 

values where adverse health effects are caused by exposures over a short period. Unless otherwise noted, 

the STEL is a 15-minute TWA exposure that should not be exceeded at any time during a workday, and 

the ceiling limit is an exposure that should not be exceeded at any time.

In the United States, OELs have been established by federal agencies, professional organizations, state 

and local governments, and other entities. Some OELs are legally enforceable limits, while others are 

recommendations. The U.S. Department of Labor OSHA PELs (29 CFR 1910 [general industry]; 29 

CFR 1926 [construction industry]; and 29 CFR 1917 [maritime industry]) are legal limits enforceable 

in workplaces covered under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. NIOSH RELs are 

recommendations based on a critical review of the scientific and technical information available on a 

given hazard and the adequacy of methods to identify and control the hazard. NIOSH RELs can be 

found in the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards [NIOSH 2005]. NIOSH also recommends different 

types of risk management practices (e.g., engineering controls, safe work practices, employee education/

training, personal protective equipment, and exposure and medical monitoring) to minimize the risk of 

exposure and adverse health effects from these hazards. Other OELs that are commonly used and cited 

in the United States include the TLVs recommended by ACGIH, a professional organization, and the 

WEELs recommended by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, another professional organization. 

The TLVs and WEELs are developed by committee members of these associations from a review of the 

published, peer-reviewed literature. They are not consensus standards. ACGIH TLVs are considered 

voluntary exposure guidelines for use by industrial hygienists and others trained in this discipline “to assist 

in the control of health hazards” [ACGIH 2010]. WEELs have been established for some chemicals “when 

no other legal or authoritative limits exist” [AIHA 2010].

Outside the United States, OELs have been established by various agencies and organizations and 

include both legal and recommended limits. The Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen 

Unfallversicherung (IFA, Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident 
Page 30 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Insurance) maintains a database of international OELs from European Union member states, Canada 

(Québec), Japan, Switzerland, and the United States. The database, available at http://www.dguv.de/ifa/

en/gestis/limit_values/index.jsp, contains international limits for over 1,500 hazardous substances and is 

updated periodically. 

Employers should understand that not all hazardous chemicals have specific OSHA PELs, and for some 

agents the legally enforceable and recommended limits may not reflect current health-based information. 

However, an employer is still required by OSHA to protect its employees from hazards even in the absence 

of a specific OSHA PEL. OSHA requires an employer to furnish employees a place of employment free 

from recognized hazards that cause or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm [Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–596, sec. 5(a)(1))]. Thus, NIOSH investigators encourage 

employers to make use of other OELs when making risk assessments and risk management decisions to 

best protect the health of their employees. NIOSH investigators also encourage the use of the traditional 

hierarchy of controls approach to eliminate or minimize identified workplace hazards. This includes, in 

order of preference, the use of (1) substitution or elimination of the hazardous agent, (2) engineering 

controls (e.g., local exhaust ventilation, process enclosure, dilution ventilation), (3) administrative controls 

(e.g., limiting time of exposure, employee training, work practice changes, medical surveillance), and (4) 

personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection, gloves, eye protection, hearing protection). 

Control banding, a qualitative risk assessment and risk management tool, is a complementary approach 

to protecting employee health that focuses resources on exposure controls by describing how a risk 

needs to be managed. Information on control banding is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/

ctrlbanding/. This approach can be applied in situations where OELs have not been established or can be 

used to supplement the OELs, when available.

Below we provide the OELs and surface contamination limits for the compounds we measured, as well as a 

discussion of the potential health effects from exposure to these compounds. 

Inorganic Acids

Table B1 provides the OELs for the inorganic acids we sampled in the air. The primary health effects 

from exposure to airborne inorganic acids are acute irritation (from corrosion) to the upper respiratory 

tract, skin, and eyes [IPCS 2000a,b,c,d, 2001, 2006]. Sulfuric acid can also alter the mucociliary clearance 

capabilities of the respiratory tract. Long-term exposure to sulfuric acid at concentrations much higher 

than those measured during this evaluation have been associated with laryngeal cancer [ACGIH 2004]. 

The OELs are intended to prevent these effects.

Appendix B: Occupational Exposure Limits and Health Effects

 (continued)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 31

Table B1. OELs* (mg/m3) for inorganic acids measured during the December visit

Hydrofluoric Hydrochloric Phosphoric Hydrobromic Nitric Sulfuric

NIOSH 

REL

2.5

C 7

1

C 10

5

1

STEL 5 STEL 3 STEL 10

OSHA 

PEL

2.5 C 7 1 10 5 1

ACGIH 

TLV

C 5 C 7

1

C 6.6

5

0.2†

STEL 3 STEL 10 

* C = ceiling limits and STEL = short term exposure limits. All other OELs are for 8 to 10 hour TWA concentrations.

†

 Thoracic particle size.

Appendix B: Occupational Exposure Limits and Health Effects

 (continued)

Terpenes

Terpenes are a large class of hydrocarbons found in essential oils and resins of a wide variety of plants, 

including marijuana. Because terpenes are volatile and aromatic, they can be smelled in the air at very low 

concentrations. For example, limonene has a reported odor threshold of 10 parts per billion [Leffingwell 

& Associates 1990]. The terpenes commonly released by marijuana include limonene, alpha-pinene, 

beta-pinene, beta-myrcene, and beta-caryophyllene [Lai et al. 2008]. Limonene exists in nature as one of 

two isomers, d-limonene or l-limonene. Of the terpenes released by marijuana, d-limonene is the only one 

with an OEL. The AIHA WEEL for d-limonene is 170 mg/m3

 and is based on liver toxicity observed in 

rodents [AIHA 1993]. D-limonene can also be irritating to the skin and eyes [IPCS 2005]. Exposures to 

monoterpenes (like alpha and beta-pinene) ranging from 10 to 214 mg/m3

 have been related to acute and 

chronic respiratory affects to employees in some industries [Eriksson et al. 1996, 1997]. 

Drugs of Abuse

Methamphetamine, cocaine, oxycodone, and THC (drugs we sampled for in this evaluation) can produce 

neurological and physiological effects at relatively high doses (milligram levels) [Gable 2004; DEA 2010]. 

However, the effects from low doses (nanogram levels of indirect exposure) are not well understood. 

Summarized below are the potential health effects for each of these drugs at its effective dose (for 

nonmedical purposes), which is the amount of drug that produces the desired response in 50% of users 

[Gable 2004], and at much lower doses, such as those encountered in occupational settings. 
Page 32 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

Methamphetamine and Cocaine

Methamphetamine and cocaine are classified as stimulants. The possible health effects from an effective 

dose of stimulants include increased alertness, excitation, euphoria, increased pulse rate and blood pressure, 

insomnia, and loss of appetite [DEA 2010]. Studies investigating health effects from lower exposures to these 

compounds are few. In one notable study, investigators administered surveys to law enforcement personnel 

to determine symptoms experienced while they investigated clandestine methamphetamine laboratories 

(after ventilation of the laboratories). More than 70% of the respondents reported headaches, central 

nervous system symptoms, respiratory symptoms, sore throat, and other symptoms. There was also a positive 

relationship between the number of laboratories investigated and risk of symptoms [Burgess et al. 1996]. 

According to an MSDS for cocaine hydrochloride topical solution (Roxane Laboratories Inc., Columbus, 

Ohio), inhalation of cocaine could cause numbness to the mucous membranes and nasal cavities, 

nervousness, confusion, and restlessness; eye and skin irritation are also possible [Boehringer Ingelheim 

Roxane Inc. 2008]. However, this MSDS does not provide an OEL for cocaine.

Because of the large number of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories requiring remediation, several 

states have adopted feasibility-based surface contamination limits for methamphetamine. Presently, 16 

states have adopted surface contamination limits for methamphetamine ranging from 100 ng/100 cm2

 to 

500 ng/100 cm2

 [NAMSDL 2008]. These limits are intended to prevent adverse health effects to future 

inhabitants of buildings that once contained clandestine laboratories. Unlike OELs, these limits consider 

possible exposures to children, who are more susceptible to the health effects of drugs than adults, as well 

as economic factors associated with remediation. It is reasonable to assume, then, that maintaining surface 

contamination levels of methamphetamine below these limits should protect the drug vault employees 

from experiencing adverse health effects. 

Oxycodone

Oxycodone is classified as a narcotic. The possible health effects from an effective dose of narcotics 

include euphoria, drowsiness, respiratory depression, and nausea [DEA 2010]. No studies evaluating the 

effects from lower exposures could be found. However, according to the MSDS for OxyContin® tablets 

(Purdue Pharma L.P., Cranbury, New Jersey), exposure to oxycodone pill dust can cause acute eye and 

skin irritation, while repeated exposures can lead to skin and respiratory allergies [Purdue Pharma 2010]. 

Purdue Pharma established an OEL for oxycodone (free base) of 40,000 ng/m3

 to prevent these adverse 

health effects [Purdue Pharma 2010].

Marijuana

THC is the effective drug in marijuana and is classified as cannabis. The health effects from an effective 

dose of cannabis include euphoria, relaxed inhibitions, and disorientation [DEA 2010]. 

Appendix B: Occupational Exposure Limits and Health Effects

 (continued)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 33

References

ACGIH [2004]. Sulfuric acid. In: Documentation of the threshold limit values and biological exposure 

indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

ACGIH [2010]. Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure 

indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

AIHA [1993]. Workplace environmental exposure level guide: d-limonene. Fairfax, VA: American 

Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

AIHA [2010]. Emergency response planning guidelines and workplace environmental exposure levels. 

Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

Boehringer Ingelheim Roxane Inc. [2008]. Material safety data sheet for cocaine hydrochloride topical 

solution. [http://bi-msds.e3solutionsinc.com/COCAINE%20HYDROCHLORIDE%

20TOPICAL.pdf]. Date accessed: May 2011.

Burgess JL, Barnhart S, Checkoway H [1996]. Investigating clandestine drug laboratories: adverse medical 

effects in law enforcement personnel. Am J Ind Med 30(4):488–494.

CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Office of the 

Federal Register.

DEA [2010]. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) drug information. [http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/

abuse/index.htm]. Date accessed: May 2011.

Eriksson KA, Stjernberg NL, Levin JO, Hammarstrom U, Ledin MC [1996]. Terpene exposure and 

respiratory effects among sawmill workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 22(3):182–190.

Eriksson KA, Levin JO, Sandstrom T, Lindstrom-Espeling K, Linden G, Stjernberg NL [1997]. Terpene 

exposure and respiratory effects among workers in Swedish joinery shops. Scand J Work Environ Health 

23(2):114–120.

Gable RS [2004]. Comparison of acute lethal toxicity of commonly abused psychoactive substances. 

Addiction 99(6):686–696.

IPCS (WHO/International Programme on Chemical Safety) [2000a]. International Chemical Safety card: 

hydrogen chloride [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0163.html]. Date accessed: May 2011. 

IPCS (WHO/International Programme on Chemical Safety) [2000b]. International Chemical Safety card: 

hydrogen fluoride [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0283.html]. Date accessed: May 2011.

Appendix B: Occupational Exposure Limits and Health Effects

 (continued)
Page 34 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133

IPCS (WHO/International Programme on Chemical Safety) [2000c]. International Chemical Safety card: 

phosphoric acid [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1008.html]. Date accessed: May 2011.

IPCS (WHO/International Programme on Chemical Safety) [2000d]. International Chemical Safety card: 

sulfuric acid [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0362.html]. Date accessed: May 2011.

IPCS (WHO/International Programme on Chemical Safety) [2001]. International Chemical Safety card: 

hydrobromic acid [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0282.html]. Date accessed: May 2011.

IPCS (WHO/International Programme on Chemical Safety) [2005]. International Chemical Safety card: 

d-limonene [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0918.html]. Date accessed: May 2011.

IPCS (WHO/International Programme on Chemical Safety) [2006]. International Chemical Safety card: 

nitric acid [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0183.html]. Date accessed: May 2011.

Lai H, Corbin I, Almirall JR [2008]. Headspace sampling and detection of cocaine, MDMA, and 

marijuana via volatile markers in the presence of potential interferences by solid phase microextraction-ion 

mobility spectrometry (SPME-IMS). Anal Bioanal Chem 392(1-2):105–113.

Leffingwell & Associates [1990]. Odor thresholds. [http://www.leffingwell.com/odorthre.htm]. Date 

accessed: May 2011.

NAMSDL [2008]. State feasibility-based standards. Alexandria, VA: National Alliance for Model State 

Drug Laws (NAMSDL) [http://www.namsdl.org/documents/RemediationStandardChartFinal.pdf]. Date 

accessed: May 2011.

NIOSH [2005]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Barsen ME, ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149.

Purdue Pharma [2010]. Material safety data sheet for OxyContin tablets. [http://www.purduepharma.

com/MSDSs/OxyContin_binder.pdf]. Date accessed: May 2011.

Appendix B: Occupational Exposure Limits and Health Effects

 (continued)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2010-0017-3133 Page 35

Acknowledgments and

Availability of Report

The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch 

(HETAB) of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) conducts field investigations of possible health 

hazards in the workplace. These investigations are conducted 

under the authority of Section 20(a)(6) of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(6) which authorizes 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services, following a written 

request from any employer or authorized representative of 

employees, to determine whether any substance normally found 

in the place of employment has potentially toxic effects in such 

concentrations as used or found. HETAB also provides, upon 

request, technical and consultative assistance to federal, state, and 

local agencies; labor; industry; and other groups or individuals to 

control occupational health hazards and to prevent related trauma 

and disease.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily represent the views of NIOSH. 

Mention of any company or product does not constitute 

endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to websites 

external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of 

the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. 

Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these 

websites. All Web addresses referenced in this document were 

accessible as of the publication date.

This report was prepared by Kenneth W. Fent, Srinivas Durgam, 

Christine West, John Gibbins, and Jerome Smith. Medical 

field assistance was provided by Kristin Musolin. Health 

communication assistance was provided by Stefanie Evans. 

Editorial assistance was provided by Ellen Galloway. Desktop 

publishing was performed by Greg Hartle.

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management 

representatives at the police department, the Kentucky Cabinet for 

Health and Family Services, the Kentucky Labor Cabinet, and the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration Region 4 Office. This 

report is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced. The report 

may be viewed and printed at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/. 

Copies may be purchased from the National Technical Information 

Service at 5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Below is a recommended citation for this report:

NIOSH [2011]. Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of police officers’ 

exposures to chemicals while working inside a drug vault – Kentucky. By Fent KW, 

Durgam S, West C, Gibbins J, and Smith J. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA No. 2010-0017-3133.

To receive NIOSH documents or information about 

occupational safety and health topics, contact NIOSH at:

1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636)

TTY: 1-888-232-6348

E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov

or visit the NIOSH web site at: www.cdc.gov/niosh.

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to 

NIOSH eNews by visiting www.cdc.gov/niosh/eNews.

Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people

through research and prevention.

 National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health