Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 1

Evaluation of exposures and respiratory 

health at a coffee roasting and packaging 

facility 

Report No. 2016-0144-3305

February 2018

R. Reid Harvey, DVM, MPH

Brie Hawley, MS, PhD

Stephen B. Martin, Jr., PhD, PE

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

Contents

Highlights...............................................i

Abbreviations .......................................v

Summary.............................................. 1

Introduction......................................... 2

Background.......................................... 2

Process Description............................. 6

Methods ............................................... 8

Results ................................................ 13

Discussion .......................................... 18

Conclusions........................................ 25

Recommendations............................. 26

Appendix A: Tables............................ 31

References.......................................... 43

Acknowledgements........................... 53

The employer is required to post a copy of this report for 30 days at or near the 

workplace(s) of affected employees. The employer must take steps to ensure 

that the posted report is not altered, defaced, or covered by other material.

The cover photo is a close-up image of sorbent tubes, which are used by the HHE

Program to measure airborne exposures. This photo is an artistic representation that may

not be related to this Health Hazard Evaluation.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page i

We evaluated respiratory 

health and airborne exposures 

to the alpha-diketones diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, and 

2,3-hexanedione, other volatile 

organic compounds, carbon 

monoxide, and carbon dioxide 

among employees at a coffee 

roasting and packaging facility. 

Some employees in the production 

area of the facility had full-shift 

exposures that exceeded the NIOSH 

recommended exposure limits for 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. In 

addition, air sampling during shortterm tasks identified several tasks 

(e.g., roasting coffee beans, grinding 

coffee beans, and packaging 

coffee) with higher exposures to 

alpha-diketones than other tasks. 

Air levels of carbon monoxide 

measured on employees with duties 

that included roasting and quality 

control grinding of roasted beans 

exceeded the NIOSH ceiling limit 

of 200 parts per million. Air levels 

of carbon monoxide near a grinder 

exceeded 200 parts per million. Eye 

and nose symptoms were the most 

commonly reported symptoms. 

Coughing and wheezing were the 

most common lower respiratory 

symptom reported. No participant 

had abnormal spirometry. We 

recommend installing local exhaust 

ventilation and training employees 

about work-place hazards. We also 

recommend instituting a medical 

monitoring program.

Highlights of this Evaluation

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health received a confidential request from employees of a coffee roasting and packaging 

facility regarding concerns about exposures to and health effects from diacetyl, smoke, and 

dust during coffee roasting and grinding. 

What We Did

● We visited the coffee roasting and packaging 

facility on November 14−17, 2016 and 

November 29−December 1, 2016. 

● We collected full-shift (hours), task (minutes), 

and instantaneous (seconds) air samples 

to measure concentrations of diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione over 

multiple days. 

● We collected roasted coffee beans (whole 

bean and ground) to measure their emission 

potential for diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 

2,3-hexanedione.

● We measured real-time air levels of carbon 

monoxide and carbon dioxide.

● We assessed the ventilation system at the 

facility.

● We administered a health questionnaire to 

employees and performed medical tests.

What We Found

● On full-shift sampling, some employees 

(roaster operators, grinder operator, 

packaging operators, maintenance, green bean 

storage attendants, and employees with duties 

in both production and administrative areas) 

were exposed to diacetyl at concentrations 

above the recommended exposure limit of 

5 parts per billion. The highest measured 

concentration of 24.5 parts per billion was 

measured on a packaging operator. 

● Some employees (roaster operator and 

packaging operators) were also exposed to 
Page ii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

concentrations above the recommended exposure limit for 2,3-pentanedione of 9.3 

parts per billion. The highest measured full-shift concentration of 12.7 parts per billion 

was measured on a packaging operator.

● Levels of diacetyl in the air during short-term sampling were higher for tasks involving 

grinding roasted beans (24.0 parts per billion), roasting coffee beans (maximum 30.7 

parts per billion), and packaging roasted coffee (maximum 27.1 parts per billion). 

Levels of 2,3-pentanedione in the air during short-term sampling were higher for tasks 

involving grinding roasted beans (14.1 parts per billion), and roasting coffee beans 

(maximum 27.0 parts per billion).

● Carbon monoxide levels were higher when workers were performing tasks near the 

roasters and grinders. Air levels of carbon monoxide measured on employees with 

duties that included roasting and quality control grinding of roasted beans exceeded the 

NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 parts per million. Carbon monoxide levels also exceeded 

200 parts per million in the area near the FRAC grinder. 

● All bulk samples of roasted coffee beans emitted diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 

2,3-hexanedione.

● Eye and nose symptoms were the most commonly reported symptoms. Some 

employees reported their symptoms were caused or aggravated by green coffee dust, 

chaff, ground coffee, or smoke.

● Coughing and wheezing or whistling in the chest were the most commonly reported 

lower respiratory symptoms.

● None of the 37 participants had abnormal spirometry. 

● Four (11%) participants had high exhaled nitric oxide, a marker of allergic airways 

inflammation.

What the Employer Can Do

● Ensure employees understand potential hazards (e.g., diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 

carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, green and roasted coffee dust) in the workplace and 

how to protect themselves.

● Work with a ventilation engineer to determine if additional fresh, outdoor air can be 

supplied to the roasting and packaging areas. Also work with a ventilation engineer to 

ensure the production area is maintained under negative pressure compared with nonproduction spaces. 

● Install local exhaust ventilation at all grinders to reduce air concentrations of alphadiketones.

● Ensure that hoppers filled with whole bean and ground coffee are covered to minimize 

the off-gassing of alpha diketones and carbon monoxide into the production space.

● Automate transfer of roasted beans or ground coffee, whenever possible, to minimize 

manual handling.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page iii

● Minimize production tasks that require employees to place their heads inside roasted 

bean bins.

● Ensure that all doors between the production and non-production areas are kept closed.

● Limit the amount of time that non-production employees spend in the production area.

● Conduct follow-up air sampling to verify that the modifications have been effective in 

reducing exposures to below the recommended exposure limits.

● Consider additional engineering controls if follow-up air sampling demonstrates that 

exposures remain above the recommended exposure limits.

● Install a carbon monoxide monitor near the roasters, the quality control grinders near 

the roasters, and the three main grinders to alert employees if carbon monoxide levels 

exceed the ceiling limit of 200 ppm. 

● Make N95 disposable filtering-face piece respirators available for voluntary use 

for protection against dust exposure, such as when emptying burlap bags of green 

beans into the storage silos, cleaning the exhaust system of chaff, emptying the chaff 

containers, or cleaning the green bean storage area. 

● Encourage employees to report new, worsening, or ongoing respiratory symptoms to 

their personal healthcare providers and to a designated individual at the workplace.

● Institute a medical monitoring program for employees who work in the production area.

What Employees Can Do

● Use any local exhaust ventilation as instructed by your employer when it is installed. 

● As much as possible, avoid placing your head directly above or inside roasted whole 

bean or ground coffee storage bins.

● Some employees may wish to use N95 disposable filtering-facepiece respirators for 

some tasks, such as when emptying burlap bags of green beans into the storage silos, 

when cleaning the exhaust system of chaff, when emptying the chaff containers, or 

when cleaning the green bean storage area.

● Report new, persistent, or worsening respiratory symptoms to your personal healthcare 

provider(s) and a designated individual at your workplace. 

● Participate in any personal air sampling offered by your employer.

● Participate in your employer’s medical monitoring program as instructed by your 

employer.
Page iv Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

This page left intentionally blank
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page v

Abbreviations

μm Micrometer

μg Microgram

°F degrees Fahrenheit

ACGIH® American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

APF Assigned protection factor

AX Area of reactance

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CI Confidence interval

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

COHb Carboxyhemoglobin

COPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

DR5-R20 The difference between resistance at 5 and 20 Hertz

EC Evaporative cooler

FEV1 1-second forced expiratory volume

fpm Feet per minute

Fres Resonant frequency

FVC Forced vital capacity

Hz Hertz

kg/m2 Kilogram per square meter

kPa/(L/s) Kilopascals per liter per second

IDLH Immediately dangerous to life or health

LPM Liters per minute

LOD Limit of detection

LOQ Limit of quantitation

mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter of air

mL Milliliter

mL/min Milliliter per minute

MUA Make-up air

NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OEL Occupational exposure limit

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PEL Permissible exposure limit

ppb Parts per billion

ppm Parts per million
Page vi Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

QC Quality control

R5 Resistance at 5 Hertz

R20 Resistance at 20 Hertz

REL Recommended exposure limit

SMR Standardized morbidity ratios 

RH Relative humidity

STEL Short-term exposure limit

TLV® Threshold limit value

TVOC Total volatile organic compound

TWA Time-weighted average

VOC Volatile organic compound

X5 Reactance at 5 Hertz
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 1

Summary

In July 2016, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health received a 

confidential request from employees of a coffee roasting and packaging facility. The request 

stated concerns about exposures to and health effects from diacetyl, smoke, and dust during 

coffee roasting and grinding. In November 2016, we conducted an industrial hygiene 

survey and ventilation assessment at the facility. The industrial hygiene survey consisted 

of the collection of air samples and bulk samples of coffee for the analysis of diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione. Continuous monitoring instruments were used to 

monitor total volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, temperature, 

and relative humidity in specific areas and during tasks. We also measured levels of 

carbon monoxide in employees’ exhaled breath and conducted a ventilation assessment. In 

November−December 2016, we conducted a medical evaluation of employees that consisted 

of a health questionnaire and medical tests.

Thirty-one of the 37 full-shift samples collected during the industrial hygiene survey 

exceeded the NIOSH recommended exposure limit for diacetyl of 5 parts per billion, with a 

maximum concentration of 24.5 parts per billion. Five of the 37 full-shift samples exceeded 

the NIOSH recommended exposure limit for 2,3-pentanedione of 9.3 ppb, with a maximum 

of 12.7 parts per billion. We identified jobs where some work tasks resulted in relatively 

higher air concentrations of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione than other tasks. Specifically, 

grinding roasted coffee beans, roasting coffee beans, and packaging roasted coffee were 

associated with higher diacetyl levels. We observed high instantaneous levels of diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione during grinding. Air levels of carbon monoxide collected on employees 

with duties that included roasting coffee and quality control grinding of roasted beans 

exceeded the NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 parts per million. Carbon monoxide levels near the 

FRAC grinder exceeded 200 parts per million. Carbon dioxide levels were low throughout 

most of the facility.

Overall, the most commonly reported symptoms were associated with mucous membranes, 

specifically the eyes and nose. Some production employees reported their mucous membrane 

symptoms were caused or aggravated by green coffee dust, chaff, ground coffee or smoke. 

Coughing and wheezing or whistling in the chest were the most commonly reported 

lower respiratory symptoms. No participant had abnormal spirometry; four participants 

had high exhaled nitric oxide, a marker of allergic airways inflammation. We recommend 

installing local exhaust ventilation, and training employees about workplace hazards. We 

also recommend a medical monitoring program to identify any employees who may be 

developing work-related lung disease (e.g., asthma, obliterative bronchiolitis) and to help 

management prioritize interventions to prevent occupational lung disease.
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

Introduction

In July 2016, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received 

a confidential employee request for a health hazard evaluation at a coffee roasting and 

packaging facility regarding potential worker exposures during coffee processing. In 

November 2016, we conducted a ventilation assessment and industrial hygiene survey at 

the facility. We collected area and personal breathing zone air samples for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), including diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione. We also 

monitored and recorded carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and total volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs). In November−December 2016, we conducted a medical survey.

Background

Diacetyl and 2,3-Pentanedione

Diacetyl (2,3-butanedione) and 2,3-pentanedione (acetyl propionyl) are VOCs known as 

alpha-diketones that are added as ingredients in food flavorings used in some food products 

such as microwave popcorn, bakery mixes, and flavored coffee [Day et al. 2011; Kanwal et 

al. 2006; Bailey et al. 2015]. Diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, other VOCs, and gases such as CO 

and CO2 are naturally produced and released during the coffee roasting process [Duling et al. 

2016; Raffel and Thompson 2013; Daglia et al. 2007; Nishimura et al. 2003; Newton 2002]. 

Grinding roasted coffee beans produces a greater surface area for off-gassing (sometimes 

called degassing) of these compounds [Akiyama et al. 2003]. Often, coffee roasting facilities 

package newly roasted coffee in permeable bags or in bags fitted with one-way valves to 

allow the coffee to off-gas after it is packaged. Sometimes, newly roasted coffee is placed in 

bins or containers and allowed to off-gas before packaging. 

NIOSH has recommended exposure limits (RELs) for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione in 

workplace air (Table 1) [NIOSH 2016]. The NIOSH objective in establishing RELs for 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione is to reduce the risk of respiratory impairment (decreased lung 

function) and the severe irreversible lung disease obliterative bronchiolitis associated with 

occupational exposure to these chemicals. NIOSH RELs are intended to protect workers 

exposed to diacetyl or 2,3-pentanedione for a 45-year working lifetime. The REL for diacetyl 

is based on a quantitative risk assessment which necessarily contains assumptions and some 

uncertainty. Analytical limitations current at the time were taken into consideration in setting 

the REL for 2,3-pentanedione. The RELs should be used as a guideline to indicate when steps 

should be taken to reduce exposures in the workplace.

These exposure limits and the accompanying recommendations for control of exposures 

were derived from a risk assessment of flavoring-exposed workers. At an exposure equal to 

the diacetyl REL, the risk of adverse health effects is low. NIOSH estimated that less than 1 

in 1,000 workers exposed to diacetyl levels of 5 parts per billion (ppb) as a time-weighted 

average (TWA) for 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week for a 45-year working lifetime would 

develop reduced lung function (defined as forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1] 

below the 5th percentile) as a result of that exposure. NIOSH predicted that around 1 in 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 3

10,000 workers exposed to diacetyl at 5 ppb for a 45-year working lifetime would develop 

more severe lung function reduction (FEV1 below 60% predicted, defined as moderately 

severe by the American Thoracic Society [Pellegrino et al. 2005]). Workers exposed for less 

time would be at lower risk for adverse lung effects.

2,3-Hexanedione

2,3-Hexanedione is also an alpha-diketone that is sometimes used as a substitute for diacetyl 

and is produced naturally during coffee roasting. In a study using animals, there was some 

evidence that 2,3-hexanedione might also damage the lungs, but it appeared to be less 

toxic than diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione [Morgan et al. 2016]. There are no established 

occupational exposure limits for 2,3-hexanedione.

Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide

CO and CO2 are gases produced by combustion. They are also produced as a result of 

reactions that take place during coffee roasting. These gases are released during and after 

roasting and grinding by a process called off-gassing [Anderson et al. 2003]. High exposures 

to CO and CO2 can cause headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, altered mentation, rapid 

breathing, impaired consciousness, coma, and death [Newton 2002; Nishimura et al. 2003; 

Langford 2005; CDC 2013a; Raffel and Thompson 2013; Rose et al. 2017]. Occupational 

exposure limits for CO and CO2 are listed in Table 1.

Exposure Limits

We utilize mandatory (legally enforceable) and recommended occupational exposure limits 

(OELs) when evaluating workplace hazards. OELs have been developed by federal agencies 

and safety and health organizations to prevent adverse health effects from workplace 

exposures.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

The U.S. Department of Labor’s OSHA permissible exposure limits (PELs) are legal limits 

that are enforceable in workplaces covered under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. 

OSHA PELs represent the legal maximum for a TWA exposure to a physical or chemical 

agent over a work shift [OSHA 2016]. OSHA short-term exposure limits (STELs) are the 

legal maximum average exposure for a 15-minute time period. Some chemicals also have an 

OSHA ceiling value which represent levels that must not be exceeded at any time. Currently, 

there are no PELs for diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, or 2,3-hexanedione. For substances for 

which an OSHA PEL has not been issued, violation of the OSHA General Duty Clause 

can be considered using available occupational exposure references and recommendations 

[OSHA 1993; OSHA 2003], such as the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists (ACGIH®) Threshold Limit Values (TLVs®) and NIOSH RELs.

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®) 

ACGIH® is a professional, not-for-profit scientific association that reviews existing 

published, peer-reviewed scientific literature and publishes recommendations for 

levels of substances in air based on an 8-hour workday and 40-hour workweek. These 

recommendations are called threshold limit values (TLVs®) [ACGIH 2017a]. ACGIH® TLVs®
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

are not standards; they are health-based guidelines derived from scientific and toxicological 

information. ACGIH® provides TLV®-TWA guidelines that are levels that should not be 

exceeded during any 8-hour workday of a 40-hour workweek. ACGIH® also provides TLV®-

STEL guidelines which are 15-minute exposure levels that should not be exceeded during 

a workday. Exposures above the TLV®-TWA but less than the TLV®-STEL should be (1) 

less than 15 minutes, (2) occur no more than four times a day, and (3) be at least 60 minutes 

between exposures [ACGIH® 2017a]. Additionally, ACGIH® provides TLV®-Ceiling values 

which are levels that should not be exceeded at any time during a work shift. The ACGIH®

TLV®-TWA for diacetyl is 10 ppb. The TLV®-STEL for diacetyl is 20 ppb. Currently, there is 

no TLV®-TWA or TLV®-STEL for 2,3-pentanedione. ACGIH® has placed 2,3-pentanedione 

on the 2017 list of Chemical Substances and Other Issues Under Study [ACGIH® 2017b]. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

NIOSH provides RELs as TWA concentrations that should not be exceeded over an 8 or 

10-hour work shift, during a 40-hour workweek [NIOSH 2010]. RELs are intended to 

be protective over a 45-year working lifetime. NIOSH also provides STELs which are 

15-minute TWA exposures that should not be exceeded at any time during a workday 

[NIOSH 2010]. Some chemicals have ceiling values which are concentrations that should 

not be exceeded at any time [NIOSH 2010]. For some chemicals, NIOSH has established an 

Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) value. An IDLH value is a concentration 

of an air contaminant that can cause death or immediate or delayed permanent adverse 

health effects, or prevent escape from such an environment. Currently, NIOSH has RELs 

and STELs for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. NIOSH does not have a REL or a STEL 

for 2,3-hexanedione. NIOSH does not have ceiling limits or IDLH values for diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, or 2,3-hexanedione. 

For diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione, the NIOSH RELs are 5.0 ppb and 9.3 ppb, respectively, 

as a TWA for up to an 8-hour workday during a 40-hour workweek (Table 1). The NIOSH 

STELs are 25 ppb for diacetyl and 31 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione [NIOSH 2016]. The NIOSH 

exposure limits do not differentiate between natural and synthetic chemical origin of diacetyl 

or 2,3-pentanedione. Although the NIOSH exposure limit for 2,3-pentanedione is above that 

of diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione has been shown to be as hazardous as diacetyl [Hubbs et al. 

2012; Morgan et al. 2012]. The hazard potential probably increases when these chemicals 

occur in combination with each other; having exposure to chemicals with the same functional 

alpha-diketone group and effect on the same system or organ (e.g., lungs) can result in 

additive effects [ACGIH 2017a]. The NIOSH REL is higher for 2,3-pentanedione than for 

diacetyl largely because analytic measures were not available in a validated OSHA method to 

detect 2,3-pentanedione at lower levels. In addition to the REL, NIOSH also recommends an 

action level for diacetyl of 2.6 ppb to be used with exposure monitoring in an effort to ensure 

employee exposures are routinely below the diacetyl REL. When exposures exceed the 

action level, employers should take corrective action (i.e., determine the source of exposure, 

identify methods for controlling exposure) to ensure that exposures are maintained below the 

NIOSH REL for diacetyl [NIOSH 2016].
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 5

Table 1. Exposure limits for compounds sampled during the NIOSH survey, November 

2016.

OSHA* ACGIH NIOSH

Compound PEL TLV STEL REL STEL IDLH

Diacetyl - 10 ppb 20 ppb 5 ppb† 25 ppb -

2,3-Pentanedione - - - 9.3 ppb† 31 ppb -

2,3-Hexanedione - - - - - -

Carbon dioxide 5,000 ppm 5,000 ppm 30,000 ppm 5,000 ppm 30,000 ppm 40,000 ppm

Carbon monoxide§ 50 ppm 25 ppm - 35 ppm 200 ppm 

(ceiling limit)¶ 1,200 ppm

Note: OSHA=Occupational Safety and Health Administration; ACGIH=American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists; NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 

PEL=permissible exposure limit; STEL=short-term exposure limit; TLV=threshold limit value; 

REL=recommended exposure limit; IDLH=immediately dangerous to life or health; mg/m3

=milligram 

per cubic meter; ppb=parts per billion; ppm=parts per million; “-“=no exposure limit available. 

*There are no OSHA STEL or IDLH values for the compounds in the table.

†The NIOSH RELs for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione are time-weighted averages for up to an 8- or 10-

hour day, during a 40-hour workweek.

‡ACGIH does not have a TLV for inhalable or respirable dust but does provide guidelines for inhalable 

and respirable dust; ACGIH guidelines suggests airborne concentrations be kept below 3 mg/m3

 for 

respirable particles and 10 mg/m3 for inhalable particles.

§OSHA and NIOSH limits are designed for occupational exposure measurements in manufacturing and 

other trades that have potential sources of carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide (e.g., coffee roasting, 

welding, vehicle exhaust, diesel engine exhaust). Typical levels of carbon monoxide in offices are 0–5 ppm. 

In office settings, carbon dioxide generally should not be greater than 700 ppm above outdoor carbon 

dioxide levels; this typically corresponds to indoor concentrations below 1200 ppm. 

¶This is the NIOSH ceiling exposure limit for carbon monoxide. A ceiling concentration should not be 

exceeded at any time.

Obliterative Bronchiolitis

Obliterative bronchiolitis is a serious, often disabling, lung disease that involves scarring 

of the very small airways (i.e., bronchioles). Symptoms of this disease may include cough, 

shortness of breath on exertion, and/or wheeze, that do not typically improve away from 

work [NIOSH 2012]. Occupational obliterative bronchiolitis has been identified in flavoring 

manufacturing workers and microwave popcorn workers who worked with flavoring 

chemicals or butter flavorings [Kreiss 2013; Kim et al. 2010; Kanwal et al. 2006]. It has 

also been identified in employees at a coffee roasting and packaging facility that produced 

unflavored and flavored coffee [CDC 2013b]. A NIOSH health hazard evaluation at that 

facility found diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione concentrations in the air that were concerning 

(range: 4.3 ppb to 166 ppb diacetyl; <5.2 ppb to 199 ppb 2,3-pentanedione) and identified 

three sources: 1) flavoring chemicals added to roasted coffee beans in the flavoring area; 2) 

grinding unflavored roasted coffee beans and packaging unflavored ground and whole bean 

roasted coffee in a distinct area of the facility, and 3) storing roasted coffee in hoppers, on 

a mezzanine above the grinding/packaging process, to off-gas [Duling et al. 2016]. At the 

time of the health hazard evaluation, workers had excess shortness of breath and obstruction 

on spirometry, both consistent with undiagnosed lung disease. Respiratory illness was 

associated with exposure and not limited to the flavoring areas [Bailey et al. 2015]. However, 
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

all workers who were diagnosed with obliterative bronchiolitis had worked in the flavoring 

area. To date, no cases of obliterative bronchiolitis have been reported in workers at coffee 

roasting and packaging facilities that produce only unflavored coffee.

Work-related Asthma

Work-related asthma refers to asthma that is brought on by (“occupational asthma”) or made 

worse by (“work-exacerbated asthma” or “work-aggravated asthma”) workplace exposures 

[Tarlo 2016; Tarlo and Lemiere 2014; OSHA 2014; Henneberger et al. 2011]. It includes 

asthma due to sensitizers, which cause disease through immune (allergic) mechanisms, and 

asthma due to irritants, which cause disease through non-immune mechanisms. Symptoms of 

work-related asthma include episodic shortness of breath, cough, wheeze, and chest tightness. 

The symptoms may begin early in a work shift, towards the end of a shift, or hours after a 

shift. They generally, but do not always, improve or remit during periods away from work, 

such as on weekends or holidays. 

Green and roasted coffee dust and castor beans (from cross-contamination of bags used 

to transport coffee) are known risk factors for occupational asthma [Figley and Rawling 

1950; Karr et al. 1978; Zuskin et al. 1979, 1985; Thomas et al. 1991]. Persons who become 

sensitized (develop an immune reaction) to coffee dust can subsequently react to relatively 

low concentrations in the air. Others may experience irritant-type symptoms from exposure 

to coffee dust [Oldenburg et al. 2009].

Process Description

In November 2016, the coffee roasting and packaging facility had roughly 150 total 

employees, with approximately 50 of those employees in the roasting and production 

sub teams. The employees were not represented by a union. The facility was located in a 

building shared with a café and had been at this location since 2000. At the coffee roasting 

and packaging facility, the production area was approximately 48,000 square feet in size. 

Roughly 36,000 pounds of coffee was roasted and packaged per day, and approximately 

40% of the coffee produced was ground coffee. The facility received and stored a two month 

supply of green coffee, or approximately 1.5 million pounds on site. Green beans were stored 

in burlap bags in a designated green bean storage area.

To prepare a batch for roasting, a roaster operator weighed the desired amount of green 

beans before adding them to the roaster. Three roasters were operating during our visit. 

Two roasters could hold 240 pounds of coffee beans, and one roaster could hold up to 460 

pounds of coffee beans. The company had plans to bring in a fourth roaster that would have 

a 660-pound capacity. When ready, the roaster operator dropped the green beans into the 

roaster. The beans were heated to a specific temperature and for a specific time period for 

the desired roast. Time and temperature varied between different types of roasts. On average, 

roasts lasted 14 minutes to 16 minutes. Occasionally, the roaster operator would pull a small 

sample of beans from the roaster to check the color of the beans. At the end of each cycle, 

the roaster operator emptied the roasted beans into a cooling bin where they were agitated 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 7

by a rotating arm. The cooling bins at both of the 240 pound capacity roasters utilized a 

downdraft exhaust system that pulled air downward past the roasted beans to accelerate 

cooling. The 460-pound capacity roaster was equipped with an enclosed cooling bin and an 

up-draft exhaust system that pushed air up from the bottom of the bin, over the roasted beans 

to accelerate cooling. The downdraft and enclosed up-draft systems pulled exhaust through 

the roaster, the afterburners, and then to the outside through a ventilation duct. The roaster 

operator monitored the roasting equipment throughout the roasting and cooling process. 

After each roast, the roaster operator would collect a small sample of roasted beans from 

the cooling bin and use the quality control (QC) grinders to assess the color and quality of 

the roasted beans. After cooling, the roasted beans were dispensed from the cooling bin by 

a pneumatic siphon system through a destoner and then dispensed into a large metal rolling 

hopper. The roaster operator then manually moved the rolling hoppers to a storage area 

until needed for further processing, including grinding and packaging. The roasters were 

routinely cleaned to remove accumulated chaff from the exhaust lines. A quality control (QC) 

technician periodically brewed roasted coffee in a separate quality control room to assess 

product quality and taste. 

In the packaging area, orders were completed using packaging lines that included: the can 

line, that packaged anywhere from 11-ounce to 14-ounce cans or 28.5-ounce cans; the 

capsule line that packaged ground coffee; the GL11 hand pack bag line that packaged ground 

or whole bean coffee; the FRAC lines, which included the Matrix and Hayssen lines, that 

packaged ground coffee; the G18 line that packaged 5-pound bags of whole bean coffee; 

the G14C line that packaged 8-ounce to 12-ounce bags, and occasionally 1.5-pound bags of 

whole bean or ground coffee; the G14 line that packaged 12-ounce bags of whole bean or 

ground coffee; and the GL14 line that packaged 1.5 pounds of whole bean or ground coffee. 

Three grinders were used to grind coffee. The 669 grinder could grind up to 600 pounds per 

hour and was shared by the can line, capsules line, and hand packaging lines. The FRAC 

grinder could grind 700 pounds per hour and was used by the 2 FRAC lines. Grinder 1 

was used by the GL14 and G14C lines and could grind up to 700 pounds per hour. After 

packaging, bags and cans of coffee were stored in cardboard cases in the coffee finished 

goods area for one to two weeks before shipping out. 

A breakroom area and offices were located in the space adjacent to the production floor. 

Administrative offices were located in two separate locations (upper level and lower level) in 

the same building.

Personal Protective Equipment 

Employees were not required to wear a company uniform. Prior to the our survey in 

November 2016, the company hired a consultant to conduct personal air monitoring for 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione exposures at this facility. Based on the previous air sampling 

results, roaster operators were required to wear half-mask respirators equipped with organic 

vapor cartridges. A written respiratory protection program was in place for employees who 

performed job duties at the roasters.
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

Methods

In November 2016, we conducted our initial visit of the facility. We held an opening meeting 

with management and employees, collected bulk samples and air samples, and performed 

a ventilation assessment. At the conclusion of our site visit, we held a closing meeting with 

management and employees. We visited the facility again November−December 2016 to 

conduct a medical survey. 

We had the following objectives for the health hazard evaluation:

1. Measure employees’ exposure to diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione 

during coffee processing;

2. Identify process areas or work tasks associated with emissions of diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione;

3. Measure levels of CO and CO2 throughout the facility;

4. Measure CO levels in employees’ exhaled breath;

5. Assess ventilation systems and their effect on exposure levels;

6. Determine if employees had mucous membrane, respiratory, or systemic symptoms 

and the proportion of those symptoms that were work-related or aggravated by work;

7. Determine if employees had abnormal lung function tests; and 

8. Compare employees’ prevalence of respiratory symptoms and healthcare providerdiagnosed asthma to expected levels based on general population values.

Industrial Hygiene Survey

Sampling Times for Alpha-Diketones 

We designed the sampling strategy to assess full-shift exposures and to identify tasks 

and processes that were the greatest contributors to worker exposure to alpha-diketones. 

Sampling was conducted over multiple days during each site visit. For diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione, air samples were collected over seconds, minutes, 

and hours. Samples collected over hours can help determine average concentrations that 

can be compared to the NIOSH RELs for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. These average 

concentrations might not tell us about short-term peak exposures that could be relevant to 

respiratory health, particularly when tasks are repeated multiple times per day. Therefore, 

during particular tasks, we collected air samples over several minutes. We also conducted 

instantaneous sampling over seconds to help identify point sources of alpha-diketones. 

Air Sampling and Analysis Using Modified Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) Methods 1013/1016

We collected personal and area air samples for diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 

2,3-hexanedione on silica gel sorbent tubes during both industrial hygiene surveys over 

multiple days. The samples were collected and analyzed according to the modified OSHA 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 9

sampling and analytical Methods 1013/1016 [OSHA 2008; OSHA 2010; LeBouf and 

Simmons 2017]. In accordance with the two methods, two glass silica gel sorbent tubes 

were connected by a piece of tubing and inserted into a protective, light-blocking cover. 

The tubes were connected in series to a sampling pump pulling air through the tubes at 

a flow rate of 50 milliliters per minute (mL/min). The sampling setup was attached to an 

employee’s breathing zone or placed in an area basket in various places throughout the 

facility. For full-shift sampling, we collected two consecutive 3-hour samples and calculated 

the TWA concentration from the two samples, assuming that the total 6-hour monitoring 

results reflected a full work shift (8-hour) TWA exposure. Although this may introduce some 

error, it is a conservative approach that is more protective of employees than the alternative 

assumption of no exposure during the last two hours of the shift. We refer to these samples 

as “full-shift samples” throughout this report. We also collected short-term task based 

samples in the same manner, but the sampling pump flow rate was 200 mL/min as detailed in 

OSHA Methods 1013 and 1016 [OSHA 2008; 2010]. Sampling times were dependent on the 

duration of the task being performed. 

Analyses of the samples were performed in the NIOSH Respiratory Health Division’s 

Organics Laboratory. The samples were extracted for one hour in 95% ethanol:5% water 

containing 3-pentanone as an internal standard. Samples from both visits were analyzed using 

an Agilent 7890/7001 gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer system operated in selected 

ion monitoring mode for increased sensitivity compared to the traditional flame ionization 

detector used in OSHA Methods 1013 and 1016 [LeBouf and Simmons 2017].

The limit of detections (LOD) for the alpha-diketone sampling results were the lowest mass 

that our instruments could detect above background and was a criterion used to determine 

whether to report a result from a sample. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was the lowest 

mass that could be reported with precision; we have a greater confidence in the reported 

result if it is above the LOQ. The LODs were 0.01 micrograms per sample (μg/sample) for 

diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione. These equate to 0.3 parts per billion (ppb) 

for diacetyl, 0.2 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione, and 0.2 ppb for 2,3-hexanedione for a typical 

full-shift TWA air sample but will vary depending on the volume of air collected during the 

sampling period. The LODs for task samples are generally higher than typical LOD values 

for full-shift samples since the air volumes collected during task samples are lower. When 

the values presented in the report are from samples below the LOD they are denoted by a “<” 

symbol. 

Air Sampling and Analysis Using Evacuated Canisters

We collected area full-shift air samples and instantaneous task-based and source air samples 

for VOCs including diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione using evacuated 

canisters. We also collected instantaneous air samples before and after the work shift 

to determine if air concentrations of alpha-diketones increased over a work shift. The 

evacuated canister sampling setup consisted of a 450-mL evacuated canister equipped with 

an instantaneous flow controller that was designed for a short sampling duration (less than 

30 seconds). Instantaneous samples were taken by opening the evacuated canister to grab a 

sample of air to help identify point sources of alpha-diketones. For task-based air samples, a 
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

NIOSH employee placed the inlet of the flow controller by the employee’s personal breathing 

zone as they performed their work task to replicate exposure. For source air samples, a 

NIOSH employee placed the inlet of the flow control directly at the source of interest. 

The canister air samples were analyzed using a pre-concentrator/gas chromatograph/

mass spectrometer system pursuant to a published method validation study [LeBouf 

et al. 2012], with the following modifications: the pre-concentrator was a Model 7200 

(Entech Instruments, Inc., Simi Valley, CA), and six additional compounds, diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, 2,3-hexanedione, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, and styrene, were included. 

At present, this canister method is partially validated [LeBouf et al. 2012] and not considered 

the standard method. The LODs were 0.78 ppb for diacetyl, 1.08 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione, 

and 1.92 ppb for 2,3-hexanedione based on a three-times dilution factor. However, LODs 

are dependent on the pressure inside each canister after the samples have been collected, and 

they may be higher or lower than typical LOD values. 

Bulk Sampling and Headspace Analysis

We used 50-mL sterile polypropylene centrifuge tubes to collect approximately 40-mL bulk 

samples of roasted coffees (whole bean). For headspace analysis of alpha-diketones, we 

transferred 1 gram of solid bulk material into a sealed 40-mL amber volatile organic analysis 

vial and let it rest for 24 hours at room temperature (70°F) in the laboratory. Then 2 mL of 

headspace air was transferred to a 450-mL canister and pressurized to approximately 1.5 

times atmospheric pressure. Using the canister analysis system, the concentrations were 

calculated in ppb of analytes in the headspace as an indicator of emission potential.

Real-time (Continuous) Air Sampling

We used RAE Systems (San Jose, CA) ppbRAE 3000 (Model #PGM-7340) monitors 

to measure concentrations of total VOCs in the air. The ppbRAE has a non-specific 

photoionization detector that responds to chemicals with ionization potentials below the 

energy of the lamp. This sampling was conducted to identify areas where coffee could be 

releasing total VOCs. Areas where higher concentrations of total VOCs are measured help 

indicate areas where sampling to characterize specific exposures to alpha-diketones may be 

necessary. We also collected real-time measurements of CO2, CO, temperature, and relative 

humidity (RH) using TSI Incorporated (Shoreview, MN) VelociCalc Model 9555-X MultiFunction Ventilation Meters equipped with Model 982 IAQ probes.

We also continuously measured employee personal exposures to CO using a Dräger Pac® 

7000 personal single gas detector (Lübeck, Germany). The Dräger Pac® 7000 was placed 

near the breathing zone of employees and worn by employees while they performed their 

work duties.

Exhaled CO Measurements

We asked employees to perform a carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) test one or more times 

throughout their shift to measure CO levels in their exhaled breath. This test helps determine 

if employees are exposed to elevated levels of CO. Employees were asked to hold their 

breath for 15 seconds and then exhale through a mouthpiece into a CO monitor. The device 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 11

then calculated an estimate of carboxyhemoglobin in blood. We asked participants when they 

last smoked cigarettes or used tobacco products. Tobacco smoke from cigarettes, cigars, and 

pipe tobacco contains CO and can cause an increase in exhaled CO. 

Ventilation Assessment

The size and layout of mechanical ventilation systems did not allow us to take airflow 

measurements. However, we did a visual assessment of all ventilation components associated 

with the coffee roasting and grinding production space at the facility. When available, the 

make, model, and other key information on mechanical systems serving the production space 

was also collected. 

NIOSH Medical Survey

Participants 

We invited all current employees to participate in the medical survey at the workplace on 

November 29−December 1, 2016. Participation was voluntary; written informed consent 

was obtained from each participant before testing. The survey included, in the order 

performed, a medical and work history questionnaire, quantification of exhaled nitric oxide, 

impulse oscillometry, spirometry, and if indicated the administration of a bronchodilator 

with repeat impulse oscillometry and spirometry. We mailed participants their individual 

reports explaining their breathing test results and recommended each participant provide the 

information to their personal physician. 

Questionnaire 

We used an interviewer-administered computerized questionnaire to ascertain symptoms 

and diagnoses, work history at this coffee roasting and packaging facility and other coffee 

or flavoring companies, and cigarette smoking history. Questions on respiratory health were 

derived from five standardized questionnaires, the European Community Respiratory Health 

Survey [Burney et al. 1994; ECRHS 2014], the American Thoracic Society adult respiratory 

questionnaire (ATS-DLD-78) [Ferris 1978], the International Union Against Tuberculosis 

and Lung Disease [Burney and Chinn 1987; Burney et al. 1989], and the Third National 

Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) [CDC 1996] and NHANES 

2007–2012 questionnaires [CDC 2017a]. Some of the questions appeared on more than one 

of the standardized questionnaires. We also supplemented our questionnaire with additional 

respiratory and systemic symptom questions. 

Spirometry

The purpose of the spirometry test was to determine a person’s ability to move air out of 

their lungs. Test results were compared to expected normal values. The test included three 

measurements or calculations: 1) forced vital capacity (FVC), (the total amount of air the 

participant can forcefully blow out after taking a deep breath), 2) FEV1 (the amount of air 

that the participant can blow out in the first second of exhaling), and 3) the ratio of FEV1 to 

FVC. We used American Thoracic Society criteria for acceptability and repeatability [Miller 

et al. 2005]. 

We used a volume spirometer (dry rolling seal spirometer) to measure exhaled air volume 
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

and flow rates. We used equations for predicted values and lower limits of normal derived 

from NHANES III data to define abnormal spirometry [Hankinson et al. 1999]. We defined 

obstruction as an FEV1/ FVC ratio less than the lower limit of normal with FEV1 less than the 

lower limit of normal; restriction as a normal FEV1/FVC ratio with FVC less than the lower 

limit of normal; and mixed obstruction and restriction as having FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC 

ratio all less than the lower limit of normal. We used the FEV1 percent predicted to categorize 

such abnormalities as mild, moderate, moderately severe, severe, or very severe [Pellegrino 

et al. 2005]. 

Impulse Oscillometry (IOS)

Many occupational lung diseases (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 

asthma) involve the small airways; however, this part of the lung is difficult to evaluate noninvasively. Oscillometry is a helpful technology to understand the effects of occupational 

exposures on the small airways. There are no contraindications to the test as this test is 

conducted using regular breathing and does not require a forceful exhalation [Smith et al. 

2005]. Spirometry can be normal despite respiratory symptoms or evidence of small airways 

disease on lung biopsy [King et al. 2011; Oppenheimer et al. 2007]; therefore, oscillometry 

results complement spirometry and can be used when spirometry is not possible because of a 

contraindication.

We used an impulse oscillometry machine (CareFusion Corp., San Diego, CA) to measure 

resistance (R), the energy required to propagate the pressure wave through the airways, 

and reactance (X), which reflects the viscoelastic properties of the respiratory system. The 

impulse oscillometry testing machine sends sound waves called pressure oscillations at 

different frequencies (e.g., 5 Hertz and 20 Hertz) into the airways to measure how airways 

respond to these small pressures. The test calculates 1) the airway resistance at different 

frequencies including 5 Hertz (R5) and 20 Hertz (R20), and the difference between R5 

and R20 (DR5-R20); 2) the reactance at different frequencies including 5 Hertz (X5); 3) 

resonance frequency (Fres) which is the frequency where there is no airway reactance; and 

4) the total reactance (AX) at all frequencies between 5 Hertz and the Fres. The predicted 

values for R and X were based on sex and age according to reference values recommended 

by the manufacturer [Vogel and Smidt 1994]. R5 was considered abnormal (elevated) if 

the measured value was equal to or greater than 140 percent of the predicted R5. X5 was 

considered abnormal (decreased) if the value of the predicted X5 minus measured X5 was 

equal to or greater than 0.15 kilopascals per liter per second (kPa/(L/s)). DR5-R20 values 

greater than 30% were considered abnormal and evidence of frequency dependence [Smith 

2015]. We interpreted the test as normal if both the R5 and X5 were normal [Smith 2015]. 

We defined possible large (central) airways abnormality as a normal X5 and elevated R5 

with no evidence of frequency dependence. We defined a possible small airways abnormality 

if there was evidence of frequency dependence and/or a decreased X5 with or without an 

elevated R5. We defined possible combined small (peripheral) and large (central airways) 

abnormality as a decreased X5 and elevated R5 with no evidence of frequency dependence.

Bronchodilator Reversibility Testing for Impulse Oscillometry and Spirometry

If a participant had abnormal impulse oscillometry or spirometry, we repeated both tests after 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 13

the participant received a bronchodilator inhaler medication (i.e., albuterol), which can open 

the airways in some individuals (e.g., asthmatics). For oscillometry, we defined reversibility 

(improvement) after bronchodilator administration as a decrease of at least 20% of either Fres 

or R5 or a decrease of 40% for AX. For spirometry, we defined reversibility (improvement) 

as increases of at least 12% and 200 mL for either FEV1 or FVC after bronchodilator 

administration. 

Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) 

We used the NIOX MINO® device (Aerocrine Inc., Morrisville, NC) to measure the amount 

of nitric oxide in the air the participant breathed out. Nitric oxide is a gas that is produced by 

the airways, and elevated levels can be a sign of eosinophilic airway inflammation in asthma 

[Dweik et al. 2011]. In adults, fractional nitric oxide concentration in exhaled breath levels 

above 50 ppb are considered elevated. In adults with asthma, elevated levels may indicate 

that their asthma is uncontrolled [Dweik et al. 2011].

Statistical Analysis 

Industrial Hygiene Survey and Ventilation Assessment

We performed analyses using Excel (Microsoft®, Redmond, WA) and SAS version 9.3 (SAS 

Institute, Cary, NC). We created summary statistics by work area location, job title, and task. 

When the values presented in the report are from samples below the LOD they are denoted 

by a “<” symbol.

Medical Survey

We calculated frequencies and standardized morbidity ratios (SMRs) and their associated 

95% confidence intervals (CIs) using SAS version 9.3 (Cary, NC). The SMRs compared 

prevalences of symptoms among participants to expected prevalences of a sample of the 

general population reflected in the NHANES III (1988–1994) and NHANES 2007–2012, 

adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, age (less than 40 years old or 40 years or greater), and 

cigarette smoking categories (ever/never). For comparisons to the U.S. population, we used 

the most recent NHANES survey available for the specific comparisons. 

Results

Industrial Hygiene Survey Results

Personal and Area Full-shift Air Sampling Results

Personal and area full-shift air sampling results using OSHA Method 1013/1016 can be seen 

in Table A1. We collected 37 personal and 108 area full-shift air samples over three days. 

Thirty-one of the 37 personal air samples were above the NIOSH REL for diacetyl of 5 

ppb, and five were above the NIOSH REL for 2,3-pentanedione of 9.3 ppb. Employees with 

personal air samples above the NIOSH REL for diacetyl perform various tasks including 

roasting (n=9), roaster support/working with green beans (n=1), grinding (n=1), packaging 

(n=16), and maintenance (n=1). Five samples collected on employees with primary 

duties in the packaging (n=4) and roasting areas (n=1) were above the NIOSH REL for 
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

2,3-pentanedione. All personal air samples collected on employees with primary duties in the 

office areas were below the NIOSH REL for diacetyl. All personal samples were below the 

LOD for 2,3-hexanedione. 

Seventy-four of the 108 area full-shift air samples were above the NIOSH REL for diacetyl. 

Because area air samples are not personal air samples collected directly on an employee, the 

NIOSH RELs are not directly applicable to the results for exposure monitoring purposes. 

However, area air samples can highlight areas with higher exposure risk, and the RELs can 

be used as points of reference. The following areas had one or more 6-hour air level(s) that 

exceeded the NIOSH REL for diacetyl: the three roasters (range: 7.2 ppb – 19.9 ppb), the QC 

grinder near the roasters (12.6 ppb – 18.3 ppb), the three main grinders (4.4 ppb – 88.7 ppb), 

all twelve packaging areas sampled (3.7 ppb – 24.7 ppb), the production storage area (3.7 

ppb – 13.6 ppb), and the production shipping area (5.0 ppb – 16.6 ppb) (Table A1). 

Eighteen of the 108 area full-shift air samples were above the NIOSH REL for 

2,3-pentanedione. Because area air samples are not personal air samples collected directly 

on an employee, the NIOSH RELs are not directly applicable to the results for exposure 

monitoring purposes. The following areas had one or more 6-hour air level(s) that exceeded 

the NIOSH REL for 2,3-pentanedione: the G120 roaster (range: 5.5 ppb – 14.3 ppb), the R1 

roaster (range: 7.6 ppb – 12.8 ppb), the QC grinder near the roasters (6.8 ppb – 11.2 ppb), 

the three main grinders (3.8 ppb – 64.1 ppb), and five of the 12 packaging areas sampled (3.7 

ppb – 14.6 ppb). 

Areas near the grinders consistently had the highest level of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. 

The highest 6-hour area air levels for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione were measured 

at the grinder by the GL14 packaging line (maximum: 88.7 ppb diacetyl and 64.1 

ppb 2,3-pentanedione). The second highest 6-hour area air levels for diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione were measured at the 669 grinder (maximum: 67.6 ppb diacetyl and 

32.9 ppb 2,3-pentanedione). The third highest 6-hour area air levels for diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione were measured at the FRAC grinder (maximum: 42.5 ppb diacetyl and 18.6 

ppb 2,3-pentanedione).

Task-Based Air Sampling Results

Personal task air concentration results can be seen in Tables A2 and A3. We collected 51 

personal task air samples using OSHA Method 1013/1016 (Table A2). Task duration ranged 

from three minutes to 29 minutes. We collected personal task air samples while employees 

roasted coffee (n = 13), ground coffee (n = 1), packaged coffee (n = 30), performed tasks in 

the warehouse (n=3), and performed tasks with green beans (n=4). The highest task-based 

TWA exposures to diacetyl (30.7 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedione (27.0 ppb) were measured while 

an employee roasted coffee (Table A2). The second highest task-based TWA exposure to 

diacetyl (29.7 ppb) was observed while an employee packaged coffee. The single (n=1) taskbased sample using OSHA Method 1013/1016 collected while an employee ground coffee 

measured 24.0 ppb diacetyl and 14.1 ppb 2,3-pentanedione. The highest exposures to diacetyl 

and 2,3-pentanedione while employees performed tasks with green beans in the roasting area 

were 18.1 ppb and 9.1 ppb, respectively. Diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione air concentrations 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 15

measured when an employee performed tasks in the warehouse were 5.5 ppb and 2.4 ppb, 

respectively. 

We collected 33 samples that were 15 minutes in duration and could be compared to the 

NIOSH STELs. One 15-minute sample collected while an employee roasted coffee (30.7 

ppb) and one sample collected while an employee packaged coffee (27.1 ppb) were above the 

NIOSH STEL of 25 ppb for diacetyl. None of the 15-minute samples collected exceeded the 

NIOSH STEL for 2,3-pentanedione.

We collected 36 personal samples near the breathing zone of employees using instantaneous 

canisters (Table A3). Levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione observed in the breathing zone 

of employees using instantaneous canisters were higher than the levels described above. 

The highest instantaneous levels were measured for tasks related to grinding. Instantaneous 

breathing zone samples taken while employees dumped roasted beans into a grinder ranged 

from 80.1 ppb to 370 ppb diacetyl and 30.4 ppb to 131 ppb 2,3-pentanedione. Instantaneous 

samples taken at the breathing zone of employees while they ground coffee ranged from 

3.9 ppb to 109 ppb for diacetyl, and less than 0.6 ppb to 39.8 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione. 

Instantaneous samples collected at the breathing zone of an employee when they dumped 

roasted beans from the roaster into the cooling bin of the roaster ranged from 12.8 ppb to 

32.9 ppb for diacetyl and 6.9 ppb to 16.8 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione.

Source Air Sampling Results

Instantaneous evacuated canister concentrations for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione can be 

seen in Table A4. Instantaneous samples were less than 30 seconds in duration. We collected 

23 source samples using evacuated canisters. The highest instantaneous source sample for 

diacetyl (4505 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedione (1841 ppb) was measured at the FRAC grinder, 

when the FRAC grinder was dumping organic French roast ground coffee into a hopper. Five 

of the six instantaneous samples taken near grinders had diacetyl levels greater than 350 ppb 

and 2,3-pentanedione levels greater than 100 ppb. Higher levels of diacetyl (173 ppb) and 

2,3-pentanedione (47.3 ppb) were observed at movable hoppers filled with ground coffee as 

well.

Bulk Samples and Headspace Results

Headspace results of diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione for the bulk samples 

of roasted coffee beans can be seen in Table A5. The highest air concentrations of diacetyl 

(10085 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedione (9639 ppb) were observed in the headspace of a medium 

roast coffee sample. The highest air concentration of 2,3-hexanedione (264 ppb) was 

observed in the headspace of an extra dark French roast sample.

Real-time Monitoring: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Total Volatile 

Organic Compounds (TVOCs)

A summary of the real-time CO2,CO, temperature, and total VOC monitoring results can 

be seen in Table A6. Levels of CO2 and CO measured at the main grinders (669 grinder, the 

grinder by GL14, and the FRAC Grinder) ranged from 227 ppm to 2103 ppm for CO2 and 

<0.1 ppm to 338 ppm for CO. Total VOC measurements at the main grinders ranged from 53 
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

ppb to 39,164 ppb. Levels of CO2 and CO measured at the QC grinder by the roasters ranged 

from 379 ppm to 561 ppm for CO2 and 3.2 ppm to 33.1 ppm for CO. Total VOC levels 

ranged from 2676 ppb to 46,548 ppb at the QC grinder by the roasters. 

Levels of CO2 and CO at the roasters ranged from 383 ppm to 763 ppm for CO2 and 3.1 ppm 

to 14.5 ppm for CO. Total VOC measurements at the roasters ranged from 2 ppb to 14,515 

ppb. Levels of CO2 and CO at the packaging lines (can and G14 packaging line; capsule 

packaging line; G14C packaging line) ranged from 340 ppm to 1886 ppm for CO2 and <0.1 

ppm to 22.0 ppm for CO. 

A summary of continuous, real-time, personal measurements of CO can be seen in Table A7. 

TWA personal CO measurements ranged from <0.1 ppm to 12.3 ppm and were below the 

NIOSH REL of 35 ppm for CO exposure. Two of the three roaster operators had maximum 

CO measurements (203 ppm and 267 ppm) that exceeded the NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 

ppm. 

Personal Exhaled CO Measurements

Thirty-five employees that participated in the personal air sampling also provided breath 

samples for measurement of CO by exhaling into a monitor at various times during the 

workday. Measurements were typically collected at the beginning of the shift, lunch break, 

and at the end of the shift. After the participant exhaled into the monitor, the device reported 

a CO value in ppm and also calculated an estimated COHb percentage. The overall average 

CO level was 4.1 ppm (range: 0 ppm–18 ppm), and average COHb was 1.2% (0%–3.5%). 

Average CO level in smokers was 7.7 ppm (range: 0 ppm–18 ppm), and average COHb was 

1.8% (range: 0%–3.5%). All COHb test results in non-smokers were below 1.6% and in 

smokers were below 3.5%.

Ventilation Assessment

The size of the mechanical ventilation systems and their layout precluded us from taking a 

detailed set of airflow measurements. Given that most of the systems had no ductwork and 

only one or two supply or return openings, the airflow rates through those openings were 

too high for the equipment we had available. The two units in the green bean storage area 

did have flexible duct socks installed to help more evenly distribute the air, but obtaining 

accurate airflow measurements through the duct socks would have been impractical. 

Therefore, we physically inspected the ventilation equipment and recorded pertinent 

information from each system, when available. 

The ventilation in the roasting and packaging area of the facility consisted of three Reznor 

(Reznor LLC, Mercer, PA) Model RGBL 600 make-up air units (MUA-6, MUA-7, and 

MUA-8). Depending on the setup of each unit, each one is capable of supplying between 

4500 and 12,500 cubic feet per minute of outdoor air to the production space. There was 

no extensive supply ductwork system associated with any of the MUA units; the supply air 

was pushed into the space directly below the roof mounted MUA units. The roasting and 

packaging space was also served by two evaporative coolers (ECs). EC-7 was a Champion 

Cooler/Essick Air (Essick Air Products, Inc. and Champion Cooler Corporation, Little Rock, 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 17

AR) Model 16000D evaporative cooler, while EC-8 was a Phoenix (Phoenix Manufacturing, 

Inc., Phoenix, AZ) Model D2231A evaporative cooler. The airflow rates through either EC 

are dependent on the blower motor power and speed settings, but both ECs are capable of 

moving 10,000 cubic feet per minute or more.

The adjacent green bean storage area had two roof-mounted ventilation components as 

well; one MUA unit and one EC. MUA-5 is roof-mounted near the southern end, and nearly 

centered east to west, of the green bean storage area. MUA-5 was a Reznor Model RGBL

600 make-up air unit, like the three in the roasting and packaging space. EC-6 was a Phoenix 

Model D2231A evaporative cooler roof-mounted closer to the northern end, and nearly 

centered east to west, in the green bean storage area. Both units in the green bean storage area 

were equipped with fabric duct socks running east to west through the area. During our visit, 

MUA-5 was not used, but EC-6 did provide supply air to the green bean storage facility.

In addition to the roof-mounted ventilation systems, the facility had three large exhaust fans 

installed through the wall to exhaust air to the outdoors. Two of the wall fans were installed 

along the east wall of the roasting and packaging area, one near the maintenance area, and 

one in the production storage area. The third wall fan was high on the southern wall of the 

green bean storage area. During our visit, the two fans in the roasting and packaging area 

were operating, but we did not see the exhaust fan in the green bean storage area powered on.

 

Medical Survey Results November-December 2016 

Demographics

Forty of 46 onsite employees (87%) on the roasting and production sub teams participated 

in the medical survey. The majority of participants were male (65%) and Spanish, Hispanic 

or Latino (53%), with a mean age of 39 years and average tenure at the company of five 

years. Seven (18%) participants worked at another coffee roasting and packaging facility or 

in coffee cafés prior to working at this facility. Sixteen (40%) participants were current or 

former smokers. 

All 40 medical survey participants reported working in or entering the production area for 

an average of 38 hours per week, ranging from one to 40 hours a week. Thirty-nine (98%) 

of 40 participants reported being within an arm’s length of roasted coffee in one or more 

areas of the production process. Thirty-nine (98%) of 40 participants worked full-time in the 

production area processing coffee. 

Symptoms and Self-Reported Diagnoses

The prevalence of symptoms over the last year and last four weeks at the time of the survey 

are listed in Table A8. Nose symptoms were the most commonly reported symptom (n=19, 

48%), followed by eye symptoms (n=14, 35%). Ten (42%) of 24 participants who reported 

nose and/or eye symptoms reported these symptoms were better away from work or 

aggravated by work. Some production employees noted that their nose or eye symptoms were 

caused or aggravated by green coffee bean dust, chaff, ground coffee, or smoke. 

Cough (n=7, 18%) and wheeze (n=7, 18%) were the most commonly reported lower 
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

respiratory symptom. Four (31%) of 13 participants who reported cough and/or wheeze 

reported these symptoms were better away from work or aggravated by work. Shortness of 

breath on level ground or walking up a slight hill was reported by five (13%) participants; 

none of these participants reported that their shortness of breath began after they started 

employment at the facility. Breathing trouble and chest tightness were each reported by 

four (10%) participants; three of these participants reported their breathing trouble or chest 

tightness was better away from work or aggravated by work. Flu-like achiness or achy 

joints was the most commonly reported systemic symptom (n=12, 30%). Three (18%) of 17 

participants who reported systemic symptoms reported that their systemic symptoms were 

better when away from work or aggravated by work. 

Six participants reported a diagnosis of hay fever or nasal allergies; one participant was 

diagnosed with hay fever or nasal allergies after beginning employment at this coffee roasting 

and packaging facility. Six participants reported ever being diagnosed with asthma, and four 

reported a current diagnosis with asthma; all participants reporting asthma were diagnosed 

prior to employment at the coffee roasting and packaging facility. No participants reported a 

diagnosis of chronic bronchitis, emphysema, COPD, bronchiolitis obliterans, interstitial lung 

disease, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, chemical pneumonitis, sarcoidosis, heart disease, or 

vocal cord dysfunction. 

Medical Tests

Thirty-eight of 40 medical survey participants performed two or more medical tests. Thirtyseven participants performed spirometry and none had abnormal test results. Sixteen (42%) 

of 38 participants who performed IOS had test results interpreted as abnormal: seven 

consistent with small airway abnormality, five consistent with large airway abnormality, 

and four consistent with small and large airway abnormalities. Seven (44%) of these 16 

participants had significant improvement in IOS after taking a bronchodilator. Four (11%) 

of 37 participants that performed exhaled nitric oxide tests had tests interpreted as elevated. 

Of the 19 participants with abnormal IOS or elevated exhaled nitric oxide, two (11%) 

reported one or more lower respiratory symptoms improved away from work. Two additional 

participants with normal medical test results reported one or more of their lower respiratory 

symptoms were caused or aggravated by work. 

NHANES Comparison of Symptoms and Diagnoses

The SMR for ever receiving a physician diagnosis of asthma was elevated at 2.4, although as 

previously noted all cases were initially diagnosed before working in the facility (Table A9). 

Prevalences of shortness of breath, wheeze, cough, phlegm, sinus problems, and nose and eye 

symptoms were not elevated in comparison to the general U.S. population, adjusted for age 

distribution, race/ethnicity, sex, and smoking history.

Discussion

Diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 2,3-hexanedione, other VOCs, and other compounds such as 

CO2 and CO are naturally produced when coffee beans are roasted, and grinding the roasted 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 19

coffee beans produces greater surface area for the off-gassing of these chemicals [Anderson 

et al. 2003; Akiyama et al. 2003; Daglia et al. 2007; Newton 2002; Nishimura et al. 2003; 

Raffel and Thompson 2013]. Overall, the highest area samples for total VOCs, CO, diacetyl, 

and 2,3-pentanedione were observed in areas where coffee was ground (near the 669 grinder, 

the grinder by GL14, and the FRAC grinder). We also observed elevated levels of diacetyl 

and 2,3-pentanedione near movable hoppers that stored ground coffee, and that were located 

in multiple locations throughout the facility. The storage of ground coffee in movable 

hoppers throughout the facility may have contributed to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione 

levels measured in the packaging and roasting areas as well. Additionally, large accessory 

fans that were used in multiple areas of the facility may have helped circulate air from areas 

near sources and higher concentrations of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione into areas of lower 

concentrations of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. 

Alpha-Diketones 

Personal Air Sampling 

Thirty-one personal full-shift air samples (collected on employees with roasting, packaging, 

grinding, maintenance, and green bean storage duties) taken inside the facility using 

standard OSHA methods were above the NIOSH REL for diacetyl. The highest personal 

full-shift air samples (19.7 ppb and 24.5 ppb) were collected on employees with roasting and 

packaging duties. Four personal air samples collected on employees with packaging duties 

and one personal air sample collected on a roaster operator were above the NIOSH REL for 

2,3-pentanedione. As noted earlier, the REL should be used as a guideline to indicate when 

steps should be taken to reduce exposures in the workplace. The risks associated with the 

measured levels are higher than NIOSH recommends. As described in the quantitative risk 

assessment from the NIOSH Criteria Document (Table 5-27) [NIOSH 2016], after a 45-

year working lifetime exposure to 20 ppb (a concentration slightly lower than the highest 

concentration measured at this facility), NIOSH estimated that 3 in 1,000 workers would 

develop reduced lung function (FEV1 below the 5th percentile). NIOSH predicted that 

around 5 in 10,000 workers exposed to diacetyl at 20 ppb would develop more severe lung 

function reduction (FEV1 below 60% predicted, defined as at least moderately severe by 

the American Thoracic Society [Pellegrino et al. 2005]). After a 45-year working lifetime 

exposure to 50 ppb (a concentration higher than the highest concentration measured at this 

facility), NIOSH estimated that 8 in 1,000 workers would develop reduced lung function 

(FEV1 below the 5th percentile). NIOSH predicted that 12 in 10,000 workers exposed to 

diacetyl at 50 ppb would develop more severe lung function reduction. The effects of a 

working lifetime exposure at 25 ppb would be between those for 20 ppb and 50 ppb. NIOSH 

recommends keeping diacetyl concentrations below 5 ppb because at this level, the risk 

of reduced lung function after a working lifetime of exposure is below 1 in 1000 workers. 

NIOSH recommends taking steps to reduce diacetyl exposures to below the REL of 5 ppb 

whenever possible.

Area Air Sampling 

Areas near the roasters, grinders, QC grinder by the roasters, all packaging lines, production 

shipping area, and the production storage area had air levels that exceeded the NIOSH REL

for diacetyl. Areas near the roasters, main grinders, and packaging lines also had air levels 
Page 20 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

that exceeded the NIOSH REL for 2,3-pentanedione. Of the 108 full-shift area samples, 

74 were above the NIOSH REL for diacetyl and 18 were above the NIOSH REL for 

2,3-pentanedione. Areas where coffee was ground (near 669 grinder, the grinder by GL14, 

and the FRAC grinder) consistently had the highest diacetyl (maximums: 42.5-88.7 ppb) 

and 2,3-pentanedione (maximums: 18.6-64.1 ppb) air levels. We note that NIOSH RELs are 

intended to be directly compared to personal measurements; therefore, an area air sample that 

exceeds a NIOSH REL is only an indication of potential personal exposures. 

Task-Based Exposures

Coffee processing involves multiple tasks that may cause intermittent exposure to 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. Traditional full-shift sampling will not characterize these 

intermittent, peak exposures. Evaluating intermittent and task-based exposures to diacetyl 

and 2,3-pentanedione is difficult with current validated sampling methods (OSHA Methods 

1013/1016). Since tasks are so sporadic in coffee processing, with some only lasting a few 

seconds or minutes, we used instantaneous evacuated canisters to sample tasks that were only 

a few seconds to minutes long and OSHA Methods 1013/1016 for longer duration tasks. We 

sampled by task, with varying durations, to understand which tasks may have contributed to 

higher exposures to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. 

Our task-based air sampling revealed that some tasks had higher air concentrations of 

diacetyl and/or 2,3-pentanedione than other tasks. The highest TWA exposures to diacetyl 

(30.7 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedione (27.0 ppb) were measured while an employee roasted coffee 

(Table A2). We also measured higher exposures to diacetyl (27.1 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedieone 

(11.9 ppb) during packaging coffee. One 15-minute sample collected while an employee 

roasted coffee and one sample collected while an employee packaged coffee were above the 

NIOSH STEL for diacetyl. 

We also measured diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione using instantaneous sampling, in which 

sample duration was less than 30 seconds. These instantaneous samples were collected to 

identify and describe short-duration tasks and point sources of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. 

The highest instantaneous levels taken at the breathing zone of employees were measured 

while employees performed tasks associated with grinding. Instantaneous samples taken 

at the breathing zone of employees while they ground coffee were as high as 109 ppb for 

diacetyl, and 39.8 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione. Breathing zone samples taken while employees 

dumped roasted beans into a grinder ranged from 80.1 ppb to 370 ppb diacetyl and 30.4 ppb 

to 131 ppb 2,3-pentanedione. The greater surface area for off-gassing that is produced during 

grinding could have resulted in the higher air concentrations [Akiyama et al. 2003]. 

Source Air Sampling

The highest instantaneous source sample for diacetyl (4505 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedione (1841 

ppb) was measured at the FRAC grinder, when the FRAC grinder was dumping freshly 

ground coffee into a hopper. Five of the six instantaneous samples taken near grinders had 

diacetyl levels greater than 350 ppb and 2,3-pentanedione levels greater than 100 ppb. As 

mentioned above, grinding creates a greater surface area for off-gassing from roasted coffee 

beans, which may have resulted in the higher air concentrations observed during grinding 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 21

[Akiyama et al. 2003]. Elevated levels of diacetyl (173 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedione (47.3 ppb) 

were also observed at movable hoppers filled with ground coffee.

Bulk samples

Diacetyl is not found in green coffee beans. Rather, diacetyl is generated later in the coffee 

roasting process [Daglia et al. 2007]. As expected, we found that roasted coffee emits alphadiketones into the headspace of sealed vessels, indicating that roasted coffee is a source of 

alpha-diketones in the facility. The amount of time beans were roasted, and the amount of 

time roasted beans off-gassed prior to the collection of bulk samples could be responsible for 

differences in headspace analysis results. 

Real-time Sampling for CO, CO2, and VOCs

Our real-time monitoring found that the highest overall levels of total CO, CO2, and VOCs 

were observed at the main grinders. None of the average area or personal levels of CO 

exceeded the NIOSH REL (35 ppm) or OSHA PEL (50 ppm). However, two personal 

samples collected on roaster operators exceeded the NIOSH ceiling (200 ppm) for CO. 

Additionally, levels of CO measured near the FRAC grinder also exceeded the NIOSH 

ceiling limit for CO. The NIOSH ceiling limit should not be exceeded at any time. The 

average CO2 concentrations observed at the grinders were 432 ppm (669 grinder), 573 ppm 

(the grinder by GL14), and 502 ppm (FRAC grinder) with a maximum of 2103 ppm. All CO2

measurements were below the NIOSH REL (5,000 ppm) and OSHA PEL (5,000 ppm). 

Ventilation 

As shown in Table A1, concentrations of alpha-diketones were elevated throughout the 

roasting, packaging, and grinding areas, including the production storage and production 

shipping areas. Alpha-diketone concentrations were generally low in all other areas of the 

plant. Seasonal changes impacting the operational state of various exhaust fans, evaporative 

coolers and make-up air units throughout the facility could cause fluctuations in airborne 

concentrations of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione as well.

Local exhaust ventilation

Local exhaust ventilation systems can capture contaminants when generated and remove 

contaminants before inhalation by employees can occur. Local exhaust ventilation systems 

generally consist of hoods or enclosures, duct work, or fans. Depending on the contaminant 

and whether air is recirculated, filters or other air cleaning technologies can also be 

incorporated. After properly designed local exhaust ventilation systems are installed, overall 

workplace exposure levels can be reduced by removing contaminants at the source. Higher 

concentrations of alpha-diketones were measured at the three main grinders, near the 

roasters, and near all packaging lines. The overall layout of the facility, including the coffee 

transfer lines from various grinders to packaging lines and the close proximity of various 

operations to each other, presents some unique challenges to incorporating effective local 

exhaust ventilation. The three main grinders and various point-sources on coffee packaging 

lines could be modified with local exhaust ventilation that would help reduce overall alphadiketone concentrations in the facility. Additional sampling can be done to further identify 

point sources of alpha-diketone emissions associated with each process. Once point sources 
Page 22 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

are identified, local exhaust ventilation can be used to reduce employee exposures. 

General exhaust or dilution ventilation

An adequate supply of outdoor air, typically delivered through the heating, ventilation, 

and air-conditioning system, is necessary in any occupied spaces to dilute pollutants that 

are released by equipment, processes, products, and people. In an ideal environment, good 

general ventilation provides fresh air into the space and removes contaminated air. This is 

generally done by providing fresh outdoor air (or recirculated, filtered air) to the space to 

provide dilution. Simultaneously, air is exhausted from the space to remove the contaminants. 

A limitation of general exhaust ventilation is that unlike local exhaust ventilation, general 

exhaust ventilation does not capture contaminants at or near the source where employees 

may be performing job duties. Rather, general exhaust ventilation can serve to dilute the 

concentration of the contaminant in a production space to acceptable levels but may not be 

protective for employees working in close proximity to a point source of a contaminant.

During our visit, three make-up air units and two evaporative coolers, all capable of 

supplying fresh air to the roasting and packaging area, were present. The systems were 

reported to operate intermittently and seasonally. Air was being exhausted from the space 

via the roasters and large wall-mounted exhaust fans. We were unable to accurately measure 

the amount of fresh, outdoor air being provided by the various rooftop MAU units and ECs 

to the roasting and packaging space. The outdoor air supply may be sufficient. However, if 

the amount of outdoor air supplied to the space is low, then increasing the outdoor airflow 

will provide more dilution and removal of airborne contaminants from the space. All of 

the existing ventilation equipment can be easily modified to move more air if necessary. 

Providing more outdoor airflow may enhance dilution and removal of contaminants; 

however, there will be additional energy costs associated with heating and cooling the outside 

air introduced into the facility for much of the year. Additionally, increased outdoor airflow 

into the facility may not bring all diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione levels below the NIOSH 

RELs. Decisions about ventilation should be made as part of an overall plan to improve 

engineering controls at the facility. A ventilation system expert can help meet all ventilation 

requirements in the production space and other areas of the building occupied by employees.

Relocation or enclosure of specific processes

Engineering controls may help mitigate exposures in the roasting and packaging area. In 

some cases, consideration should be given to relocating processes or specific pieces of 

equipment to simplify the implementation of engineering controls. For example, relocating 

the three large grinders to more isolated areas of the plant, particularly near an exterior wall, 

would simplify the implementation of local exhaust ventilation at the grinders. The grinders 

could then be isolated in their own room, which could be ventilated separately from the 

larger space. Having a separate room with separate ventilation for storing full containers of 

whole-bean or ground coffee may also further reduce concentrations of alpha-diketones in 

the overall roasting and packaging area. 

Additional air sampling should be conducted if there are changes in production processes, 

controls, or work practices that potentially change exposure conditions within the workplace.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 23

Medical Survey 

Overall, mucous membrane symptoms, specifically nose and eye symptoms, were the 

most commonly reported symptoms. Some production employees reported their mucous 

membrane symptoms were caused or aggravated by green coffee dust, chaff, ground coffee, 

or smoke. Coffee dust is an organic dust and, as noted earlier, exposure to coffee dust is 

known to cause respiratory symptoms and is a known risk factor for occupational asthma 

[Karr et al. 1978; Zuskin et al. 1979, 1985, 1993; Thomas et al. 1991; Sakwari et al. 2013]. 

Upper respiratory disease such as allergic rhinitis (hay fever, nasal allergies) and sinusitis 

are sometimes associated with lower respiratory symptoms and asthma and may precede 

the diagnosis of asthma [Shaaban et al. 2008; EAACI Task Force on Occupational Rhinitis

et al. 2008; Rondón et al. 2012, 2017; Sahay et al. 2016]. Upper respiratory involvement 

(e.g., rhinitis, sinusitis) can result in suboptimal control of asthma. Most (12 of 14; 86%) 

participants that reported lower respiratory symptoms also reported nasal or sinus problems 

or physician-diagnosed hay fever or nasal allergies. Green coffee dust is thought to be a more 

potent allergen than roasted coffee dust because roasting destroys some of the allergenic 

activity [Lehrer et al. 1978]. As discussed in the recommendation section, to prevent 

symptoms related to green coffee dust and chaff, make N95 disposable filtering-face piece 

respirators available for voluntary use when emptying burlap bags of green beans into the 

storage silos or when emptying the chaff containers or cleaning the green bean storage area.

The number of participants ever diagnosed with asthma by a physician (n=6; 15%) was 

significantly higher than expected compared with the U.S. population with a SMR of 2.4; 

however, all of these participants were diagnosed before beginning work at this coffee 

roasting and packaging facility. Of the 14 participants who reported lower respiratory 

symptom (including participants with asthma), seven (50%) perceived their lower respiratory 

symptoms were work-related and five (36%) developed lower respiratory symptoms after 

they began working at this facility. Most (9 of 14; 64%) were also current or former smokers. 

None of the five who reported developing lower respiratory symptoms after beginning to 

work at this facility, also reported physician-diagnosed asthma. Asthma symptoms often 

improve when away from exposures that trigger symptoms while symptoms of other lung 

diseases such as obliterative bronchiolitis or COPD generally do not improve. 

Spirometry can be used to help detect and follow individuals with asthma and other lung 

diseases such as obliterative bronchiolitis or COPD. Spirometry can show if air is exhaled 

from the lungs more slowly than normal (i.e. obstructive abnormality) or if the amount of air 

exhaled is smaller than normal (i.e., restrictive abnormality). In asthma, there is intermittent 

airways obstruction which is reversible after treatment with bronchodilator medications (e.g., 

albuterol). In obliterative bronchiolitis, scar tissue prevents the small airways (bronchioles) 

from opening up when albuterol is given. In other words, the airways are fixed and not 

responsive (reversible) to bronchodilator medicine. The obstructed airways prevent rapid 

emptying of the lung air sacs (alveoli) during exhalation. This explains why the respiratory 

symptoms of those with occupational obliterative bronchiolitis do not tend to improve 

when away from work-related exposures; however, avoidance of further exposure can stop 

progression of the disease [Akpinar-Elci et al 2004]. 
Page 24 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

Spirometry and impulse oscillometry measure different things. Spirometry assesses 

airflow and is the breathing test typically used to screen for flavoring-related lung disease. 

Impulse oscillometry assesses the airways response to a sound or pressure wave and has 

not commonly been used to screen for flavoring-related lung disease. In general, during 

the impulse oscillometry test, a small pressure impulse (sound wave) is imposed upon the 

inspiratory and expiratory airflow during normal tidal breathing. This pressure wave causes 

a disturbance in the airflow and pressure, and the response of the airways (i.e., change in 

pressure to change in flow) is a measure of the resistance to airflow in the airways [Desiraju 

and Agrawal 2016]. Impulse oscillometry may be useful as an indirect measure of airflow 

obstruction and helpful in individuals not able to perform forced breathing maneuvers that 

are required during the spirometry test. The impulse oscillometry test has been used for many 

years to measure changes in the airways of children with lung problems such as asthma 

and cystic fibrosis [Song et al. 2008; Komarow et al. 2011; Shi et al. 2012; Schulze et al. 

2016]. More recently, impulse oscillometry has been used to investigate lung problems in 

adults exposed to dust or chemicals, such as World Trade Center emergency responders and 

soldiers returning from deployment overseas [Oppenheimer et al. 2007; Berger et al. 2013; 

Weinstein et al. 2016]. Over the years, researchers have developed reference (predictive) 

equations for different populations of children for oscillometry [Malmberg et al. 2002; Park 

et al. 2011; Lee et al. 2012; de Assumpção et al. 2016]. For adults, there are fewer reference 

equations available for oscillometry [Vogel and Smidt 1994; Newbury et al. 2008; Schulz 

et al. 2013]. The predicted values we used for oscillometry measures were based on gender 

and age according to references values recommended by the manufacturer. Unlike predictive 

equations used for spirometry, the impulse oscillometry reference equations we used did not 

take into account height, race, or smoking status [Vogel and Smidt 1994].

Our findings of upper and lower respiratory symptoms that improved away from work or 

were reported to be caused or aggravated at work in 15 of 40 medical survey participants, 

and abnormalities on lung function testing in 16 of 38 participants tested with IOS suggest 

a burden of respiratory problems in this workforce. The upper and lower respiratory 

symptoms that improve away from work are likely related to workplace exposures. The 

lung function abnormalities we found are not specific to a particular respiratory problem 

or disease. They could be related to workplace exposures or to other factors. Indeed, some 

employees had respiratory diagnoses that preceded employment at this facility, but other 

participants reported developing lower respiratory symptoms since beginning to work at this 

facility. Because of the need to protect individuals’ privacy, we cannot provide more detailed 

results that might shed light on possible work-relatedness, such as health measures by job 

title or task. We mailed each participant their individual lung function test results with an 

explanation of the results and recommended each participant provide the information to their 

personal physician.

We recommend starting a medical monitoring program because air sampling detected 

employee exposures to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione that exceeded the NIOSH RELs, 

and there were a number of participants with abnormal breathing tests or history of lower 

respiratory symptoms. All production employees and any employees that assist with 

production tasks (e.g., roasting, interacting with open storage bins/containers of roasted 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 25

coffee, grinding, weighing, or packaging coffee) should participate in the workplace medical 

monitoring program. A medical monitoring program is a means of early identification of 

employees who may be developing lung disease (e.g., asthma, obliterative bronchiolitis) and 

can help prioritize interventions to prevent occupational lung disease. The NIOSH medical 

survey results can serve as a baseline for employees who participated, if they choose to 

share these results with the provider. In a workplace with risk of occupational lung disease, 

prevention of smoking-related lung disease is important and makes the detection of workrelated adverse effects easier. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers tools 

and resources for setting up a smoking cessation program [CDC 2017b].

Conclusions 

We identified specific work tasks that resulted in air concentrations of diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione that exceeded the NIOSH RELs for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. Higher 

full-shift and task-based diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione exposure measurements were 

observed on employees that roasted coffee, ground coffee, packaged coffee, performed 

maintenance tasks, and performed tasks in the green bean storage area. We observed higher 

instantaneous levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione during grinding tasks. Areas with 

ground coffee present, specifically the main grinders, to include the 669 grinder, grinder 

1 by GL14, and the FRAC grinder, had the highest levels of diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 

2,3-hexanedione, and CO. CO2 levels were low throughout most of the facility. However, CO 

levels measured on roaster operators as well as near the FRAC grinder exceeded the NIOSH 

ceiling limit of 200 ppm.

Consultation with a ventilation engineer to install local exhaust ventilation systems at point 

sources near the sources and processes with the highest measurements of exposure could 

mitigate potential exposures to alpha-diketones and CO. A local exhaust ventilation system 

installed at the grinders to immediately remove alpha-diketones produced during grinder 

operation could mitigate overall concentrations of alpha diketones and CO. Consideration 

should be given to relocating processes or specific pieces of equipment to simplify the 

implementation of engineering controls. Relocating the three large grinders to more isolated 

areas of the plant, particularly near an exterior wall, would simplify the implementation of 

local exhaust ventilation at the grinders and could ensure that the grinders are ventilated 

separately from the larger space. Additionally, a separate room with separate ventilation for 

storing full containers of whole-bean or ground coffee may also further reduce concentrations 

of alpha-diketones in the overall roasting and packaging area. 

Fresh, outdoor air was supplied to the roasting and packaging area, along with the green 

bean storage area, by rooftop make-up air units and evaporative coolers. We were unable 

to measure the amount of fresh, outdoor air supplied to the space during our visit, and that 

amount varies seasonally and with various combinations of the equipment being operated. 

The outdoor air supply may be sufficient. However, if the amount of outdoor air supplied to 

the space is low, then increasing the outdoor airflow will provide more dilution and removal 

of airborne contaminants from the space. Consistently supplying the production space 
Page 26 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

with appropriate outdoor air may not reduce diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedoine concentrations 

to levels below the NIOSH REL for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. Consultation with a 

ventilation engineer to optimize outdoor air delivery into the facility may be an easy first step 

toward engineering control improvements. 

Overall, mucous membrane symptoms, specifically eye and nose symptoms, were the 

most commonly reported symptoms. Some production employees reported their mucous 

membrane symptoms were caused or aggravated by green coffee dust, chaff, ground coffee, 

or smoke. Coughing and wheezing or whistling in the chest were the most commonly 

reported lower respiratory symptoms. Participants reported ever being diagnosed with asthma 

significantly more than expected compared with the U.S. noninstitutionalized population of 

the same age, race/ethnicity, sex, and cigarette smoking distribution. Although spirometry 

was normal in all medical survey participants, 19 (50%) of 38 medical survey participants 

had abnormalities on other medical tests. We recommend a medical monitoring program 

to identify any employees who may be developing lung disease (e.g., asthma, obliterative 

bronchiolitis) and to help management prioritize interventions to prevent occupational 

lung disease. All production workers and employees that assist with production tasks (e.g., 

roasting, interacting with open storage bins/containers of roasted coffee, grinding, weighing, 

or packaging coffee) should participate in the workplace medical monitoring program.

Recommendations 

On the basis of our findings, we recommend the actions listed below. We encourage 

this coffee roasting and packaging facility to use a labor-management health and safety 

committee or working group to discuss our recommendations and develop an action plan. 

Our recommendations are based on an approach known as the hierarchy of controls. 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. 

Engineering Controls

Engineering controls reduce employees’ exposures by removing the hazard from the process 

or by placing a barrier between the hazard and the employee. Engineering controls protect 

employees effectively without placing primary responsibility of implementation on the 

employee. 

1. Consult with a ventilation engineer to install local exhaust ventilation at all grinders, 

to include the 669 grinder, the grinder by the GL14 packaging line, and the FRAC 

grinder. Consider moving the grinders to a more isolated area of the facility to make 

the implementation of effective engineering controls easier. 

2. If possible, consider relocating the grinders to an area with little or no bystander foot 

traffic so as to minimize potential exposure risks to employees not directly using the 

grinders.

3. Consult with a ventilation engineer to determine if additional fresh, outdoor air can 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 27

be supplied to the roasting and packaging area of the plant. Work with the ventilation 

engineer to ensure that the production area is maintained under negative pressure 

relative to non-production spaces.

a. Ensure that all doors between the production and non-production areas are 

kept closed at all times. An increase in air supplied to the space will need to 

be offset with an increase in air exhausted from the space as well. Care should 

be taken to maintain correct pressure relationships between the roasting and 

packaging area and adjacent spaces. Otherwise, contaminants could be pushed 

from the roasting and packaging area into adjacent areas and increase worker 

exposures in non-production locations.

5. Automate transfer of roasted beans or ground coffee, whenever possible, to minimize 

manual handling.

6. Consider increasing the airflow of the roasters’ downdraft tables and/or installing 

additional local exhaust ventilation at the roasters if alpha-diketone and carbon 

monoxide concentrations remain elevated after other controls have been implemented.

7. Consider installing local exhaust ventilation at the packaging machines where ground 

coffee is packaged if alpha-diketone and carbon monoxide concentrations remain 

elevated after other controls have been implemented.

8. Ensure that accessory fans in use do not blow air from sources such as the roasters, 

grinders, or hoppers with whole bean or ground coffee, into the breathing zone of 

employees.

Administrative Controls

Administrative controls are employer-dictated work practices and policies implemented 

to reduce or prevent hazardous exposures. Their effectiveness depends on employer 

commitment and employee acceptance. Regular monitoring and reinforcement are necessary 

to ensure that policies and procedures are followed consistently.

1. Install a CO monitor and alarm near the main roasters, the quality control grinders 

near the roasters, and the three main grinders that can alert employees if and when CO 

levels exceed the NIOSH ceiling of 200 ppm. Employees should evacuate and move to 

an area of fresh air until the CO level drops below 200 ppm.

2. After engineering controls have been installed at the main grinders, conduct personal 

air monitoring for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione on employees with primary duties 

in the production area using the modified OSHA sampling and analytical Methods 

1013/1016 [OSHA 2008; OSHA 2010; LeBouf and Simmons 2017]. Because air 

levels of VOCs like diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione may fluctuate from day to day 

based on production schedules, we recommend personal air sampling for diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione over multiple days. 

3. Whenever possible, employees should avoid spending time in the immediate area 

where coffee is being ground and/or ground coffee is being packaged.
Page 28 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

4. Limit the amount of time non-production employees spend in the production area to 

the extent possible.

5. Whenever possible, cover bins of roasted whole beans and ground coffee to aid in 

reducing the overall emission of alpha-diketones and other chemicals including CO 

and CO2, into the workplace. Specifically, ensure that whenever possible, hoppers 

filled with ground coffee are kept covered. 

6. To reduce exposures to VOCs (including alpha-diketones) and CO, minimize 

production tasks that require employees to place their heads directly above or inside 

the roasted bean bins. 

7. Continue to periodically clean the roaster’s exhaust according to manufacturer 

instructions to remove chaff build up to reduce a fire hazard and to improve the 

efficiency, energy usage, and roaster performance.

8. Ensure employees understand potential hazards (e.g., diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 

CO, CO2, dust) in the workplace and how to protect themselves. OSHA’s Hazard 

Communication Standard, also known as the “Right to Know Law” [29 CFR 

1910.1200] requires that employees are informed and trained on potential work 

hazards and associated safe practices, procedures, and protective measures. 

9. Ensure employees are educated to consider the risks of further exposure if they 

develop lower respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath, wheezing) 

that are progressive and severe in degree. Employees should report new, persistent, 

or worsening symptoms to their personal healthcare providers and to a designated 

individual at this workplace. Employees with new, persistent, or worsening symptoms 

should share this report with their healthcare providers.

Personal Protective Equipment

We commend the company’s efforts prior to our survey in November 2016, to mitigate 

exposure to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione by requiring roaster operators to wear air purifying 

half-face respirators fitted with organic vapor cartridges. We note that personal protective 

equipment in the form of respiratory protection is considered the least effective means 

for controlling hazardous respiratory exposures because breakdowns in implementation 

can result in insufficient protection. Additionally, some employees mentioned that they 

experienced discomfort and difficulties in wearing the air-purifying half-face respirators 

while performing their job duties at the roaster. Proper use of respiratory protection 

(respirators) requires a comprehensive respiratory protection program and a high level of 

employee and management involvement and commitment to assure that the right type of 

respirator is chosen for each hazard, respirators fit users and are maintained in good working 

order, and respirators are worn when they are needed. Supporting programs such as training, 

change-out schedules, and medical assessment might be necessary. Respirators should not be 

the sole method for controlling hazardous inhalation exposures. Rather, respirators should be 

used until effective engineering and administrative controls are in place. 

1. In addition to engineering and administrative controls, respiratory protection is a 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 29

potential option to further reduce exposures to alpha-diketones (e.g., diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione). If follow-up air sampling after engineering controls have been 

installed indicates levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione above their respective 

NIOSH RELs and STELs, we recommend that respiratory protection be used during 

tasks with elevated exposures. If respiratory protection is used, NIOSH-certified 

respirators should be fitted with organic vapor cartridges to protect against diacetyl 

and 2,3-pentanedione, and particulate filters to protect against dust particles. The 

choice of respirator should be guided by personal exposure sampling for diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione (NIOSH 2004). Respirators have assigned protection factors (APFs). 

APF refers to the highest level of protection a properly selected respirator can provide. 

For instance, air-purifying half-face respirators have an assigned protection factor 

(APF) of 10, and air-purifying full-face respirators have an APF of 50. Also, there are 

powered-air purifying respirators that may be more comfortable for employees than 

the air-purifying respirators currently in use. The powered-air purifying respirators 

have APFs of 25, 50, or 1000. The OSHA APFs can be found in Table 1 of OSHA 

Respiratory Protection Standard at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_

document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=12716. 

If mandatory respiratory protection is used, a written respiratory protection program 

should be implemented as required by the OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard (29 

CFR 1910.134), including training, fit testing, maintenance and use requirements. 

2. Make N95 disposable filtering-face piece respirators available for voluntary use for 

protection against green or roasted coffee dust exposure such as when emptying burlap 

bags of green beans into the storage silos, cleaning the roaster exhaust system of chaff, 

emptying the chaff containers, or cleaning the green bean storage area. N95 respirators 

should be available in various sizes, and each potential N95 user should receive a copy 

of Appendix D of the OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard (http://www.osha.gov/

pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=9784). Information 

about Appendix D and voluntary use of respirators can be found on the OSHA website 

at https://www.osha.gov/video/respiratory_protection/voluntaryuse_transcript.html.

Please be aware that N95s are not protective against alpha-diketones (diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, or 2,3-hexanedione). In cases of dual exposure to dust and alphadiketones, NIOSH-certified organic vapor cartridges (for the alpha-diketones) and 

particulate cartridges/filters (for the dust) would be warranted.

Medical Monitoring

The purpose of a medical monitoring program is to help assure the health of employees 

who have workplace exposures (e.g., diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, green coffee beans/dust) 

known to pose risk for potentially serious health conditions such as asthma or obliterative 

bronchiolitis. 

1. Institute a medical monitoring program for employees who work or assist in the 
Page 30 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

production area. The medical monitoring should consist of evaluation with a 

questionnaire (to obtain health and work task information) and spirometry (to assess 

lung function) at baseline and at one year to monitor for respiratory symptoms and 

to establish employees’ baseline in lung function and any abnormal decline in lung 

function in the first year. Subsequently, an annual questionnaire evaluation should 

occur to monitor for respiratory symptoms. New or worsening respiratory symptoms 

should prompt additional evaluation including spirometry. Details about spirometry 

and a medical monitoring program can be found in chapter 9 of the NIOSH Criteria 

Document [NIOSH 2016].

2. If an employee is identified as likely having lung disease from exposure to diacetyl or

2,3-pentanedione, it should be viewed as a sentinel event indicating that there was a

breakdown in exposure controls and that there is potential risk for co-workers. Should

this occur, the unanticipated source of exposure must be identified and brought under

control. In addition, increased intensity of medical surveillance would be required for

all employees performing similar job tasks or having similar or greater potential for

exposure. The NIOSH Criteria Document provides detailed guidance on responses to

such sentinel events [NIOSH 2016].

Smoking Cessation Program

In a workplace with risk of occupational lung disease, prevention of smoking-related lung 

disease is important and makes the detection of work-related adverse effects easier. We 

recommend implementing a smoking cessation program to assist employees to stop smoking. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers tools and resources for setting up a 

smoking cessation program [CDC 2017b].
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 31

Table A1. Time-weighted average OSHA Method 1013/1016 personal and area air sampling results by location, NIOSH survey, November 2016

Above 

 NREL

Maximum 

Concentration 

(ppb)

Minimum 

Concentration 

(ppb)

Above LOD 

N (%) N Location* Sample ypeT Analyte

Diacetyl Personal Administration 2 2 (100%) 0.3 0.5 0

Diacetyl Personal Production and Administrative 3 3 (100%) 5.4 9.0 3

Diacetyl Personal Green Bean Storage 1 1 (100%) 6.0 6.0 1 

Diacetyl Personal Grinding 1 1 (100%) 10.9 10.9 1

Diacetyl Personal Maintenance Area 1 1 (100%) 7.3 7.3 1

Diacetyl Personal Packaging 18 18 (100%) 2.2 24.5 16

Diacetyl Personal Production Area 1 1 (100%) 2.4 2.4 0

Diacetyl Personal Roasting 10 10 (100%) 2.1 19.7 9

Diacetyl Area Administration 7 7 (100%) 0.4 0.5 N/A

Diacetyl Area Finished Product Storage 3 3 (100%) 0.6 1.1 N/A

Diacetyl Area Green Bean Admin Area 3 0 (0%) <0.3 <0.3 N/A

Diacetyl Area Green Bean Storage 3 3 (100%) 0.4 0.8 N/A

Diacetyl Area Grinding* 12 12 (100%) 4.4 88.7 N/A

Diacetyl Area Grinder by GL14 4 4 (100%) 4.4 88.7 N/A

Diacetyl Area FRAC Grinder 4 4 (100%) 7.4 42.5 N/A

Diacetyl Area 669 Grinder 4 4 (100%) 8.6 67.6 N/A

Diacetyl Area Outside 3 0 (0%) <0.3 <0.3 N/A

Diacetyl Area Production Shipping Area 4 4 (100%) 5.0 16.6 N/A

Diacetyl Area Production Storage Area 4 4 (100%) 3.7 13.6 N/A

Diacetyl Area Packaging* 48 48 (100%) 3.7 24.7 N/A

Diacetyl Area 10 pound Bag Area 4 4 (100%) 5.8 13.4 N/A

Diacetyl Area Can and G14 Packaging Area 4 4 (100%) 7.1 21.7 N/A

Diacetyl Area Can Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 8.3 18.5 N/A

Diacetyl Area Capsule Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 8.9 21.6 N/A

Diacetyl Area G14 Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 7.8 18.8 N/A

Diacetyl Area G14C and GL14 Packaging Area 4 4 (100%) 3.8 10.0 N/A

Diacetyl Area G14C Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 8.3 15.6 N/A

Diacetyl Area G18 (5 pound bag) Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 5.4 11.4 N/A

Diacetyl Area G11 (Hand Pack) Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 7.0 13.2 N/A

Diacetyl Area GL14 Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 4.8 6.6 N/A

Appendix A: Tables
Page 32 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Analyte Sample Type Location* N Above LOD N (%) Minimum Concentration (ppb) Maximum Concentration (ppb) Above REL N Diacetyl Area Hayssen FRAC Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 3.7 13.9 N/A Diacetyl Area Matrix FRAC Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 5.7 24.7 N/A Diacetyl Area QC Lab 3 3 (100%) 0.7 1.4 N/A Diacetyl Area Roasting* 15 15 (100%) 7.2 19.9 N/A Diacetyl Area G120 Roaster 4 4 (100%) 7.2 19.5 N/A Diacetyl Area R1 Roaster 4 4 (100%) 11.0 19.9 N/A Diacetyl Area R1000 Roaster 4 4 (100%) 11.3 14.3 N/A Diacetyl Area QC Grinding by Roasters 3 3 (100%) 12.6 18.3 N/A Diacetyl Area Shipping 3 3 (100%) 0.5 1.1 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Administration 2 1 (50%) <0.3 0.4 0 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Production and Administrative 3 3 (100%) 3.2 4.1 0 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Green Bean Storage 1 1 (100%) 3.6 3.6 0 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Grinding 1 1 (100%) 6.2 6.2 0 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Maintenance Area 1 1 (100%) 5.1 5.1 0 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Packaging 18 18 (100%) 2.0 12.7 4 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Production Area 1 1 (100%) 1.1 1.1 0 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Roasting 10 10 (100%) 2.6 12.5 1 2,3-Pentanedione Area Administration 7 2 (29%) <0.3 0.5 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Finished Product Storage 3 1 (33%) <0.3 0.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Green Bean Admin Area 3 0 (0%) <0.3 <0.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Green Bean Storage 3 1 (33%) <0.3 0.4 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Grinding* 12 12 (100%) 3.8 64.1 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Grinder by GL14 4 4 (100%) 3.8 64.1 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area FRAC Grinder 4 4 (100%) 4.8 18.6 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area 669 Grinder 4 4 (100%) 6.3 32.9 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Outside 3 0 (0%) <0.3 <0.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Production Shipping Area 4 4 (100%) 2.9 8.4 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Production Storage Area 4 4 (100%) 2.3 7.2 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Packaging* 48 48 (100%) 1.7 14.6 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area 10 pound Bag Area 4 4 (100%) 3.9 7.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Can and G14 Packaging Area 4 4 (100%) 4.1 11.5 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Can Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 5.9 9.6 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Capsule Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 4.1 11.4 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area G14 Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 5.7 9.7 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area G14C and GL14 Packaging Area 4 4 (100%) 2.0 5.2 N/A

Table A1 (cont). Time-weighted average OSHA Method 1013/1016 personal and area air sampling results by location, NIOSH survey, November 2016
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 33 Analyte Sample Type Location* N Above LOD N (%) Minimum Concentration (ppb) Maximum Concentration (ppb) Above REL N 2,3-Pentanedione Area G14C Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 4.4 7.7 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area G18 (5 pound bag) Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 3.0 5.9 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area G11 (Hand Pack) Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 2.5 7.7 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area GL14 Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 2.3 3.9 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Hayssen FRAC Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 1.7 7.4 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Matrix FRAC Packaging Line 4 4 (100%) 3.7 14.6 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area QC Lab 3 3 (100%) 0.9 1.1 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Roasting* 15 15 (100%) 5.5 14.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area G120 Roaster 4 4 (100%) 5.5 14.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area R1 Roaster 4 4 (100%) 7.6 12.8 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area R1000 Roaster 4 4 (100%) 7.5 8.7 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area QC Grinder by Roasters 3 3 (100%) 6.8 11.2 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Shipping 3 0 (0%) <0.3 <0.3 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Personal Administration 2 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 - 2,3-Hexanedione Personal Production and Administrative 3 0 (0%) <0.4 <0.5 - 2,3-Hexanedione Personal Green Bean Storage 1 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 - 2,3-Hexanedione Personal Grinding 1 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 - 2,3-Hexanedione Personal Maintenance Area 1 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 - 2,3-Hexanedione Personal Packaging 18 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.8 - 2,3-Hexanedione Personal Production Area 1 0 (0%) <0.6 <0.6 - 2,3-Hexanedione Personal Roasting 10 2 (20%) <0.4 0.5 - 2,3-Hexanedione Area Administration 7 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Finished Product Storage 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Green Bean Admin Area 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Green Bean Storage 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Grinding* 12 5 (42%) <0.5 2.8 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Grinder by GL14 4 3 (75%) <0.5 2.4 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area FRAC Grinder 4 1 (25%) <0.5 0.6 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area 669 Grinder 4 1 (25%) <0.5 2.8 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Outside 3 0 (0%) <0.4 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Production Shipping Area 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

Table A1 (cont). Time-weighted average OSHA Method 1013/1016 personal and area air sampling results by location, NIOSH survey, November 2016
Page 34 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Analyte Sample Type Location* N Above LOD N (%) Minimum Concentration (ppb) Maximum Concentration (ppb) Above REL N 2,3-Hexanedione Area Production Storage Area 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.6 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Packaging* 48 1 (2%) <0.5 0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area 10 pound Bag Area 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Can and G14 Packaging Area 4 1 (25%) <0.5 0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Can Packaging Line 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Capsule PackagingLine 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area G14 Packaging Line 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area G14C and GL14 Packaging Area 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area G14C Packaging Line 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area G18 (5 pound bag) Packaging Line 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area G11 (Hand Pack) Packaging Line 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area GL14 Packaging Line 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Hayssen FRAC Packaging Line 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Matrix FRAC Packaging Line 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area QC Lab 3 0 (0%) <0.4 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Roasting* 15 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area G120 Roaster 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area R1 Roaster 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area R1000 Roaster 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area QC Grinder by Roasters 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Shipping 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A Table A1 (cont). Time-weighted average OSHA Method 1013/1016 personal and area air sampling results by location, NIOSH survey, November 2016 Note: OSHA=Occupational Safety and Health Administration; NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; N=number of samples; Above LOD N (%)=number and percentage of samples above limit of detection (LOD); < indicates below the LOD; % Above REL=percentage of samples above the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL); ppb=parts per billion; N/A indicates that NIOSH RELs are specified for personal air samples, and area air samples cannot be used for direct comparisons with area samples; “−“indicates that there is currently no REL for 2,3-hexanedione; “Production Area” location includes employees that were cross-trained and performed tasks at different areas. *Indicates overall work area location results for grinding, packaging, and roasting areas and includes sub locations that are reported immediately below grinding, packaging, or roasting, respectively.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 35 Table A2. Summary of OSHA Method 1013/1016 personal air sampling results by task, NIOSH survey, November 2016 Analyte Task N Above LOD N (%) Minimum Concentration (ppb) Maximum Concentration (ppb) Mean (range) Sample Duration (minutes) Diacetyl Grind coffee beans 1 1 (100%) 24.0 24.0 15 Diacetyl Package coffee 30 30 (100%) 2.8 27.1 15 (14-20) Diacetyl Roast coffee beans 13 13 (100%) 3.3 30.7 17 (10-25) Diacetyl Warehouse 3 3 (100%) 1.6 5.5 20 (15-29) Diacetyl Work with green beans 4 4 (100%) 10.7 18.1 12 (3-16) 2,3-Pentanedione Grind coffee beans 1 1 (100%) 14.1 14.1 15 2,3-Pentanedione Package coffee 30 30 (100%) 1.7 11.9 15 (14-20) 2,3-Pentanedione Roast coffee beans 13 13 (100%) 2.3 27.0 17 (10-25) 2,3-Pentanedione Warehouse 3 2 (67%) <0.9 2.4 20 (15-29) 2,3-Pentanedione Work with green beans 4 4 (100%) 4.6 9.1 12 (3-16) 2,3-Hexanedione Grind coffee beans 1 0 (0%) <1.4 <1.4 15 2,3-Hexanedione Package coffee 30 0 (0%) <1.1 <1.5 15 (14-20) 2,3-Hexanedione Roast coffee beans 13 0 (0%) <0.8 <2.1 17 (10-25) 2,3-Hexanedione Warehouse 3 0 (0%) <0.7 <1.3 20 (15-29) 2,3-Hexanedione Work with green beans 4 0 (0%) <1.3 <7.1 12 (3-16) Note: OSHA=Occupational Safety and Health Administration; NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; N=number of samples; Above LOD N (%)=number and percentage of samples above limit of detection (LOD); < indicates below the LOD.
Page 36 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

Table A3. Instantaneous evacuated canister method* air sampling results by task, NIOSH survey, November 

2016

Task Description Diacetyl 

(ppb)

2,3-Pentanedione 

(ppb)

2,3-Hexanedione 

(ppb)

Checking color of beans in roaster 14.6 7.4 <2.5

Checking color of beans in roaster 29.0 12.5 <1.7

Checking color of beans in roaster 11.6 7.9 <1.6

Dumping roasted beans from roaster into cooling bin 13.3 6.9 <1.5

Dumping green beans into hopper 26.3 19.6 13.0

Dumping roasted beans from G120 roaster into cooling bin 18.9 10.9 <2.0

Dumping roasted beans from G120 roaster into cooling bin 20.7 13.4 1.3

Dumping roasted beans from R1 roaster into cooling bin 24.5 15.7 <1.1

Dumping roasted beans from roaster into cooling bin 30.8 14.1 <1.4

Dumping roasted beans from roaster into cooling bin 32.9 16.8 <1.9

Dumping roasted beans from roaster into cooling bin 12.8 8.2 <1.2

Dumping whole beans into grinder by hand; Organic French Roast 80.1 30.4 2.2

Dumping whole beans into grinder by hand; Organic French Roast 122 38.0 1.9

Dumping whole beans into grinder by hand; Organic French Roast 370 131 <12.9

Filling cans with ground coffee; 17.3 5.4 <1.2

Filling cans with ground coffee; 23.4 9.1 <1.3

Grinding roasted coffee 9.7 3.9 <1.1

Grinding coffee on FRAC line 40.9 27.2 1.7

Grinding coffee on FRAC line 12.4 6.3 <1.1

Grinding coffee on FRAC line 9.4 4.2 <1.1

Grinding coffee on FRAC line 109 39.8 4.5

Grinding coffee on FRAC line 23.3 12.7 5.9

Grinding coffee on FRAC line 11.9 6.4 <1.1

Grinding coffee on FRAC line and adding mis-weighed bags to grinder 11.1 5.8 <1.1

Grinding roasted coffee 3.9 <0.6 <1.1

Grinding using QC grinder by roasters to check color and quality of beans 26.3 11.6 <1.9

Grinding using QC grinder by roasters to check color and quality of beans 18.4 8.1 <1.7

Grinding using QC grinder by roasters to check color and quality of beans 8.2 4.8 <1.3

Grinding using QC grinder by roasters to check color and quality of beans 7.1 3.2 <1.4

Grinding using QC grinder by roasters to check color and quality of beans 6.6 4.6 <2.0

Grinding using QC grinder by roasters to check color and quality of beans 13.6 6.2 <1.5

Grinding using QC grinder by roasters to check color and quality of beans 41.0 19.7 <1.2

Grinding using QC grinder by roasters to check color and quality of beans 24.1 14.6 <1.6

Grinding using QC grinder by roasters to check color and quality of beans 36.6 22.7 3.8

Grinding using QC grinder by roasters to check color and quality of beans 18.4 7.7 <1.1

Grinding using QC grinder by roasters to check color and quality of beans 12.5 7.8 1.5

Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; ppb=parts per billion; < indicates below the limit of detection; 

QC=quality control. *Sampling duration approximately 30 seconds; task-based air samples were collected by placing the inlet of the 

canister sampler in the employee’s personal breathing zone as he/she performed work task.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 37

Table A4. Instantaneous evacuated canister method* air sampling results by source, NIOSH survey, November 2016

Source Description Diacetyl (ppb) 2,3-Pentanedione (ppb) 2,3-Hexanedione (ppb)

Dumping green beans into hopper 41.0 28.3 17.5Dumping ground organic French Roast coffee into hopper of FRAC grinder; Sample taken above hopper 4505 1841 99.3Dumping ground organic French Roast coffee into hopper of FRAC grinder; Sample taken above hopper 723 342 <20.0Dumping ground organic French Roast coffee into hopper of FRAC grinder; Sample taken above hopper 47.9 24.8 <1.7Filling 24 ounce bag with ground coffee 48.8 21.2 1.5Filling grinder with whole beans from large hopper on wheels 372 114 9.0G14C filling bag mechanism; extra dark French Roast 9.2 3.9 <1.4G14C filling bag mechanism; extra dark French Roast 58.3 20.9 1.5Grinding roasted coffee beans 1961 631 49.0Grinding roasted coffee beans 1693 610 45.7Loading roasted coffee beans from silo 14.7 6.8 <1.1Packaging machine that fills 6 ounce bags with ground coffee; sample taken at point where bags are filled 24.5 12.2 <1.1Packaging machine that fills 12 ounce bags with whole beans; sample taken at point where bags are filled 13.0 5.2 <1.2Packaging machine that fills 12 ounce bags with whole beans; sample taken at point where bags are filled 26.6 16.6 7.2Packaging machine that fills 6 ounce bags with ground coffee; sample taken at point where bags are filled 20.7 9.3 <1.3Packaging 12 ounce ground coffee; extra dark French Roast 30.4 19.8 <2.0Packaging 12 ounce ground coffee; extra dark French Roast 33.5 20.2 <3.8
Page 38 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Source Description Diacetyl (ppb) 2,3-Pentanedione (ppb) 2,3-Hexanedione (ppb) Silo of ground coffee being dumped into movable hopper; sitting adjacent to QC grinder by roasters; taken at breathing zone height 16.6 9.5 <2.1 Silo of ground coffee being dumped into movable hopper; sitting adjacent to QC grinder by roasters; taken at breathing zone height 173 47.3 5.8 Silo of ground coffee being dumped into movable hopper; taken at breathing zone height on opposite side from QC grinder by roaster 74.7 22.9 2.6 Silo of ground coffee being dumped into movable hopper; taken at breathing zone height between roaster QC grinder and silo of ground coffee being dumped into movable hopper 16.9 4.2 <1.2 Silo of ground coffee being dumped into movable hopper; taken at breathing zone height between roaster QC grinder and silo of ground coffee being dumped into movable hopper 20.5 8.0 <1.5 Silo of ground coffee being dumped into movable hopper; taken at breathing zone height between roaster QC grinder and silo of ground coffee being dumped into movable hopper 24.0 8.3 <1.4 Table A4 (cont). Instantaneous evacuated canister method Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; ppb=parts per billion; < indicates below the limit of detection for the instrument used to detect 2,3-hexanedione. *Sampling duration approximately 30 seconds; source air samples were collected by placing the inlet of the canister sampler near roasted beans. * air sampling results by source, NIOSH survey, November 2016
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 39

Table A5. Headspace analysis results* for bulk samples of roasted coffee beans, NIOSH 

survey, November 2016

Diacetyl 2,3-Pentanedione 2,3-Hexanedione Sample Type Bulk Sample Description (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)

Coffee beans Medium Roast 10085 9639 242

Coffee beans Organic Breakfast Light Roast 8810 8991 220

Coffee beans Extra Dark French Roast 7066 2576 264

Table A6. Summary of continuous area air monitoring results for carbon dioxide, 

carbon monoxide, temperature, and total volatile organic compounds, NIOSH 

industrial hygiene survey, November 2016

CO

Location 2 (ppm) CO (ppm) Temperature (°F) Total VOC (ppb)

Mean (Range) Mean (Range) Mean (Range) Mean (Range)

669 grinder 432

(339–1118)

7.5 

(3.6–117.8)

73.1

(70.4–77)

1066

(53–39164)

Grinder by GL14 573

(349-1076)

17.6

(3-125.9)

80.3

(70.4-84.3)

1246

(100-1246)

FRAC grinder 502

(227-2103)

12

(<0.1-338)

63.8

(31.7-65.5)

2049

(233-16181)

Roasting QC grinder 415

(379-561)

7

(3.2-33.1)

78.5

(71.1-83.1)

6701

(2676-46548)

G120 roaster 439

(397–763)

7.6

(3.5–14.5)

81.8

(76.3–86.5)

6412

(2-14515)

R1000 roaster 414

(383-505)

6.2

(3.1-14.1)

65.4

(64.2-66.5)

5626

(338-11556)

Can and G14 packaging line 399

(367-582)

1

(<0.1-3.5)

72.4

(69.7-77.7) −

Capsule packaging line 429

(340-1886)

1.9

(0.2-8.4)

79.5

(68.9-89.4) −

G14C packaging line 437

(394-563)

5.8

(2.6-22)

63.1

(61.8-64.1) −

Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; CO2

=carbon dioxide; CO=carbon 

monoxide; ppm=parts per million; °F=degrees Fahrenheit; VOC=volatile organic compounds; 

“-“indicates the measurement was not recorded. 
Page 40 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

Table A7. Summary of continuous personal air measurements for carbon monoxide, 

NIOSH industrial hygiene survey, November 2016

CO (ppm)

Job Title Work Area

Mean (range)

Roaster Operator Roaster 3.6 

(<0.1–118)

Roaster Operator Roaster 2.7

(<0.1–203)

Roaster Operator Roaster 12.3

(<0.1–267)

Production Production, Packaging 3.8

(<0.1–30)

Production Production, Grinding 5.4

(<0.1–75)

Quality Control All Over 3.0

(<0.1–26)

Maintenance Mechanic Maintenance Area 3.2

(<0.1-24)

Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; CO=carbon monoxide; ppm=parts 

per million; < indicates below the limit of detection for the instrument used to detect carbon monoxide
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 41 Symptom Experienced in the last 12 months N = 40 Number (%) Experienced in the last 4 weeks N = 40 Number (%) Nose symptoms* 19 (48%) 14 (35%) Eye symptoms† 14 (35%) 7 (18%) Sinusitis or sinus problems 7 (18%) 3 (8%) Problem with ability to smell 5 (13%) - Phlegm on most days for 3 months 2 (5%) - Lower respiratory symptoms (reported at least one of the following) 14 (35%) 7 (18%) Chest wheezing or whistling 7 (18%) 2 (5%) Usual cough‡ 7 (18%) 5 (13%) SOB on level ground or walking up a slight a hill 5 (13%) - Breathing trouble 4 (10%) 3 (8%) Awoke with chest tightness 4 (10%) 2 (5%) Asthma attack 2 (5%) 1 (3%) Awoke with shortness of breath 1 (3%) 1 (3%) Systemic symptoms (reported at least one of the following) 17 (43%) 6 (15%) Flu-like achiness or achy joints 12 (30%) 4 (10%) Fever or chills 9 (23%) 2 (5%) Unusual tiredness or fatigue 9 (23%) 5 (13%) Note: N=number of participants; SOB=shortness of breath; “-“= A four week question was not asked for the symptom. *Nose symptoms includes one or both of the following: 1) stuffy, itchy, or runny nose or 2) stinging, burning nose. †Eye symptoms includes one or both of the following: 1) watery, itchy eyes or 2) stinging, burning eyes. ‡This question did not specifically ask about a cough within the past 12 months; participants were asked, “Do you usually have a cough?” If the participants answered yes to that question, they were then asked, “Have you had a cough at any time in the last 4 weeks?”
Page 42 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Table A9. Adjusted* comparisons of symptoms and self-reported physician diagnosis among NIOSH medical survey participants (N=39) to U.S. adult population November 2016 ‡ SMR (95% CI) Expected Number Observed Number Comparative population† Health condition Watery, itchy eyes last 12 months NHANES III 11 13.9 0.8 (0.4–1.4) Stuffy, itchy, or runny nose last 12 months NHANES III 17 18.2 0.9 (0.6–1.5) Sinus problems last 12 months NHANES III 6 10.7 0.6 (0.3–1.2) Phlegm 3 consecutive month or more NHANES III 2 2.7 0.7 (0.2– 2.7) Wheeze last 12 months NHANES 2007-2012 7 5.6 1.3 (0.6–2.6) Shortness of breath on exertion NHANES III 5 7.2 0.7 (0.3–1.6) Cough 3 consecutive months or more NHANES III 3 2.5 1.2 (0.4–3.5) Ever asthma (physician-diagnosed) NHANES 2007-2012 6 2.4 2.4 (1.1 –5.1) Current asthma (physician-diagnosed) NHANES 2007-2012 4 1.6 2.5 (<1.0– 6.4) Note: NHANES=National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; SMR= standardized morbidity ratio. *Adjusted for sex, race/ethnicity, age, and smoking categories. †We used the most recent NHANES survey available for each comparison. ‡95% confidence intervals (CIs) that exclude one are statistically significantly different from comparison with US adult population and are shown in bold.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 43

References

ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist) [2017a]. 2017 

TLVs® and BEIs®: Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents 

and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental 

Industrial Hygienists. 

ACGIH [2017b]. Chemicals Substances and Other Issues Under Study (TLV®-CS) 

[http://www.acgih.org/tlv-bei-guidelines/documentation-publications-and-data/under-studylist/chemical-substances-and-other-issues-under-study-tlv]. Date accessed: February 2018.

Akiyama M, Murakami K, Ohtani N, Iwatsuki K, Sotoyama K, Wada A, Tokuno K, Iwabuchi 

H, Tanaka K [2003]. Analysis of volatile compounds released during the grinding of roasted 

coffee beans using solid-phase microextraction. J Agric Food Chem 51(7):1961-1969.

Akpinar-Elci M, Travis WD, Lynch DA, Kreiss K [2004]. Bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome 

in popcorn production plant workers. Eur Respir J 24(2):298-302.

Anderson BA, Shimoni E, Liardon R, Labuza P [2003]. The diffusion kinetics of carbon 

dioxide in fresh roasted and ground coffee. J Food Eng 59:71-78.

Bailey RL, Cox-Ganser JM, Duling MG, LeBouf RF, Martin SB Jr, Bledsoe TA, Green 

BJ, Kreiss K [2015]. Respiratory morbidity in a coffee processing workplace with sentinel 

obliterative bronchiolitis cases. Am J Ind Med 58(12):1235-1245.

Berger KI, Reibman J, Oppenheimer BW, Vlahos I, Harrison D, Goldring RM [2013]. 

Lessons from the World Trade Center disaster: airway disease presenting as restrictive 

dysfunction. Chest 144(1):249-257. 

Burney PGJ, Chinn S [1987]. Developing a new questionnaire for measuring the prevalence 

and distribution of asthma. Chest 91(6 Suppl):79S-83S.

Burney PG, Laitinen LA, Perdrizet S, Huckauf H, Tattersfield AE, Chinn S, Poisson N, 

Heeren A, Britton JR, Jones T [1989]. Validity and repeatability of the IUATLD (1984) 

Bronchial symptoms questionnaire: an international comparison. Eur Respir J 2(10):940-945.

Burney PGJ, Luczynska C, Chinn S, Jarvis D [1994]. The European community respiratory 

health survey. Eur Respir J 7(5):954-960.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) [1996]. Third National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994, NHANES III Examination Data File [CDROM]. 

Hyattsville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. (Public use data file documentation No. 76300.)
Page 44 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

CDC [2013a]. Carbon monoxide [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/co-comp/default.html]. 

Date accessed: February 2018.

CDC [2013b]. Obliterative bronchiolitis in workers in a coffee-processing facility—Texas, 

2008–2012. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 62(16):305–307.

CDC [2017a]. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey Data. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [2007-2012] Available at: https://wwwn.cdc.

gov/nchs/nhanes/default.aspx. Date accessed: February 2018.

CDC [2017b]. Smoking & tobacco use: quit smoking

[https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/tobacco_control_programs/index.htm].

Date accessed: February 2018.

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

Office of the Federal Register.

Daglia M, Papetti A, Aceti C, Sordelli B, Spini V, Gazzani G [2007]. Isolation and 

determination of α-dicarbonyl compounds by RP-HPLC-DAD in green and roasted coffee. J 

Agric and Food Chem 55(22):8877-8882.

Day G, LeBouf R, Grote A, Pendergrass S, Cummings K, Kreiss K, and Kullman G [2011]. 

Identification and measurement of diacetyl substitutes in dry bakery mix production. J Occ 

Env Hygiene 8(2):93-103.

de Assumpção MS, Gonçalves RM, Martins R, Bobbio TG, Schivinski CI [2016]. Reference 

equations for impulse oscillometry system parameters in healthy Brazilian children and 

adolescents. Respir Care 61(8):1090-1099.

Desiraju K, Agrawal A [2016]. Impulse oscillometry: The state-of-art for lung function 

testing. Lung India 33(4):410-416. 

Duling MG, LeBouf RF, Cox-Ganser JM, Kreiss K, Martin SB Jr, Bailey RL [2016]. 

Environmental characterization of a coffee processing workplace with obliterative 

bronchiolitis in former workers. J Occup Environ Hyg 13(10):770-781.

Dweik RA, Boggs PB, Erzurum SC, Irvin CG, Leigh MW, Lundberg JO, Olin AC, Plummer 

AL, Taylor DR; American Thoracic Society Committee on Interpretation of Exhaled Nitric 

Oxide Levels (FENO) for Clinical Applications [2011]. An official ATS clinical practice 

guideline: interpretation of exhaled nitric oxide levels (FENO) for clinical applications. Am J 

Respir Crit Care Med 184(5):602-615.

ECRHS (European Community Respiratory Health Survey) [2014]. Questionnaires, 

protocols and instructions [http://www.ecrhs.org/Quests.htm]. Date accessed: February 2018.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 45

EAACI Task Force on Occupational Rhinitis, Moscato G, Vandenplas O, Gerth Van Wijk R, 

Malo JL, Quirce S, Walusiak J, Castano R, De Groot H, Folletti I, Gautrin D, Yacoub MR, 

Perfetti L, Siracusa A [2008]. Occupational rhinitis. Allergy 63(8):969-980. 

Ferris BG [1978]. Epidemiology standardization project. AmRev Respir Dis 

118(Suppl):1–53.

Figley KD, Rawling FF [1950] Castor bean: an industrial hazard as a contaminant of green 

coffee dust and used burlap bags. J Allergy 21:545–553.

Hankinson JL, Odencrantz JR, Fedan KB [1999]. Spirometric reference values from a sample 

of the general U.S. population. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 159(1):179-187.

Henneberger PK, Redlich CA, Callahan DB, Harber P, Lemière C, Martin J, Tarlo SM, 

Vandenplas O, Torén K; ATS Ad Hoc Committee on Work-Exacerbated Asthma [2011]. An 

official American Thoracic Society statement: work-exacerbated asthma. Am J Respir Crit 

Care Med 184(3):368–378.

Hubbs AF, Cumpston AM, Goldsmith WT, Battelli LA, Kashon ML, Jackson MC, Frazer 

DG, Fedan JS, Goravanahally MP, Castranova V, Kreiss K, Willard PA, Friend S, SchweglerBerry D, Fluharty KL, Sriram K [2012]. Respiratory and olfactory cytotoxicity of inhaled 

2,3-pentanedione in Sprague-Dawley rats. Am J Pathol 181(3):829-844.

Kanwal R, Kullman G, Piacitelli C, Boylstein R, Sahakian N, Martin S, Fedan K, Kreiss K 

[2006]. Evaluation of flavorings-related lung disease risk at six microwave popcorn plants.

J Occup Environ Med. 48(2):149-57.

Karr RM, Davies RJ, Butcher BT, Lehrer SB, Wilson MR, Dharmarajan V, Salvaggio JE 

[1978]. Occupational asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 61(1):54–65.

Kim TJ, Materna BL, Prudhomme JC, Fedan KB, Enright PL, Sahakian NM, Windham GC, 

Kreiss K [2010]. Industry-wide medical surveillance of California flavor manufacturing 

workers: Cross-sectional results. Am J Ind Med 53(9):857-865. 

King MS, Eisenberg R, Newman JH, Tolle JJ, Harrell FE Jr, Nian H, Ninan M, Lambright 

ES, Sheller JR, Johnson JE, Miller RF [2011]. Constrictive bronchiolitis in soldiers returning 

from Iraq and Afghanistan. N Engl J Med. 365(3):222-230. 

Kreiss K [2013]. Occupational causes of constrictive bronchiolitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin 

Immunol 13(2):167-172.

Komarow HD, Myles IA, Uzzaman A, Metcalfe DD [2011]. Impulse oscillometry in the 

evaluation of diseases of the airways in children. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 106(3):191-

199.
Page 46 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

Langford NJ [2005]. Carbon dioxide poisoning. Toxicol Rev 24(4):229-235.

LeBouf RF, Stefaniak AB, Virji, MA [2012]. Validation of evacuated canisters for sampling 

volatile organic compounds in healthcare settings. J Environ Monit 14(3):977–983.

LeBouf RF and Simmons M [2017]. Increased sensitivity of OSHA method analysis of 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione in air. J Occup Environ Hyg 14(5):343-348. 

Lee JY, Seo JH, Kim HY, Jung YH, Kwon JW, Kim BJ, Kim HB, Lee SY, Jang GC, Song DJ, 

Kim WK, Shim JY, Kim HJ, Shin YJ, Park JW, Cho SH, Lee JS, Hong SJ [2012]. Reference 

values of impulse oscillometry and its utility in the diagnosis of asthma in young Korean 

children. J Asthma 49(8):811-816. 

Lehrer SB, Karr RM, Salvaggio JE [1978]. Extraction and analysis of coffee bean allergens. 

Clin Allergy 8(3):217-226.

Malmberg LP, Pelkonen A, Poussa T, Pohianpalo A, Haahtela T, Turpeinen M [2002]. 

Determinants of respiratory system input impedance and bronchodilator response in healthy 

Finnish preschool children. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 22(1):64-71.

Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, Crapo R, Enright 

P, van der Grinten CP, Gustafsson P, Jensen R, Johnson DC, MacIntyre N, McKay R, 

Navajas D, Pedersen OF, Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Wanger J, ATS/ERS Task Force [2005]. 

Standardisation of spirometry. Eur Respir J 26(2):319-338.

Morgan DL, Jokinen MP, Price HC, Gwinn WM, Palmer SM, Flake GP [2012]. Bronchial 

and bronchiolar fibrosis in rats exposed to 2,3-pentanedione vapors: implications for 

bronchiolitis obliterans in humans. Toxicol Pathol 40(3):448-465.

Morgan DL, Jokinen MP, Johnson CL, Price HC, Gwinn WM, Bousquet RW, Flake GP 

[2016]. Chemical reactivity and respiratory toxicity of the α-diketone flavoring agents: 

2,3-butanedione, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione. Toxicol Pathol 44(5):763–783.

Newbury W, Crockett A, Newbury J [2008]. A pilot study to evaluate Australian predictive 

equations for the impulse oscillometry system. Respirology 13(7):1070-1075.

Newton J [2002]. Carbon monoxide exposure from coffee roasting. Appl Occup Environ Hyg

17(9):600-602.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) [2003]. NIOSH manual of 

analytical methods (NMAM®). 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 94–113 

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

Supplement 2003–154 [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-154/]. Date accessed: February 

2018.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 47

NIOSH (2004). NIOSH respirator selection logic. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-100 [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/

docs/2005-100/pdfs/2005-100.pdf]. Date accessed: February 2018.

NIOSH [2010]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. 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. 2010-168c 

[http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/]. Date accessed: February 2018.

NIOSH [2012]. Flavoring-related lung disease. Information for healthcare providers. 

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

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2012-148 (supersedes 2012-107) [http://www.cdc.gov/

niosh/docs/2012-148/]. Date accessed: February 2018.

NIOSH [2016]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to diacetyl 

and 2,3-pentanedione. 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. 2016-111. [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2016-111/]. Date 

accessed: February 2018.

Nishimura F, Abe S, Fukunaga T [2003]. Carbon monoxide poisoning from industrial coffee 

extraction. JAMA 290(3):334.

Oldenburg M, Bittner C, Baur X [2009]. Health risks due to coffee dust. Chest 136(2):536-

544

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) [1993]. Compliance and 

enforcement activities affected by the PELs decision. August 5, 1993 Memorandum. [https://

www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_

id=21220]. Date accessed: February 2018.

OSHA [2003]. Enforcement policy for respiratory hazards not covered by OSHA permissible 

exposure limits. January 24, 2003 Memorandum. [https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/

owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24749]. Date accessed: 

February 2018.

OSHA [2008]. Sampling and analytical methods: Method 1013 – Acetoin and diacetyl [http://

www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/validated/1013/1013.html]. Date accessed: February 2018.

OSHA [2010]. Sampling and analytical methods: Method 1016 – 2,3-pentanedione [http://

www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/validated/1016/1016.html]. Date accessed: February 2018.

OSHA [2014]. OSHA Fact sheet: Do you have work-related asthma? A guide for you and 

your doctor. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Page 48 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

Administration [https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3707.pdf]. Date accessed: 

February 2018.

OSHA [2016]. Permissible exposure limits – annotated tables 

[https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/index.html]. Date accessed: February 2018.

Park JH, Yoon JW, Shin YH, Jee HM, Wee YS, Chang SJ, Sim JH, Yum HY, Han MY [2011]. 

Reference values for respiratory system impedence using impulse oscillometry in healthy 

preschool children. Korean J Pediatr 54(2)64-68.

Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Brusasco V, Crapo RO, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, van der 

Grinten CP, Gustafsson P, Hankinson J, Jensen R, Johnson DC, MacIntyre N, McKay R, 

Miller MR, Navajas D, Pedersen OF, Wanger J [2005]. Interpretative strategies for lung 

function tests. Eur Respir J 26(5):948–968.

Raffel JB, Thompson J [2013]. Carbon monoxide from domestic coffee roasting: a case 

report. Ann Intern Med 159(11):795-796. 

Rondón C, Campo P, Galindo L, Blanca-López N, Cassinello MS, Rodriguez-Bada JL, Torres 

MJ, Blanca M [2012]. Prevalence and clinical relevance of local allergic rhinitis. Allergy. 

67(10):1282-1288.

Rondón C, Bogas G, Barrionuevo E, Blanca M, Torres MJ, Campo P [2017]. Nonallergic 

rhinitis and lower airway disease. Allergy 72(1):24-34.

Rose JJ, Wang L, Xu Q, McTiernan CF, Shiva S, Tejero J, Gladwin MT [2017]. Carbon 

monoxide poisoning: pathogenesis, management, and future directions of therapy. Am J 

Respir Crit Care Med 195(5):596-606.

Sahay S, Gera K, Bhargava SK, Shah A [2016]. Occurrence and impact of sinusitis in 

patients with asthma and/or allergic rhinitis. J Asthma 53(6):635-643.

Sakwari G, Mamuya SH, Bråtveit M, Moen BE [2013]. Respiratory symptoms, exhaled nitric 

oxide, and lung function among workers in Tanzanian coffee factories. J Occup Environ Med

55(5):544-551.

Schulz H, Flexeder C, Behr J, Heier M, Holle R, Huber RM, Jörres RA, Nowak D, Peters 

A, Wichmann HE, Heinrich J, Karrasch S; KORA Study Group [2013]. Reference values 

of impulse oscillometric lung function indices in adults of advanced age. PLoS One

8(5):e63366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063366. 

Schulze J, Biedebach S, Christmann M, Herrmann E, Voss S, Zielen S [2016]. Impulse 

oscillometry as a predictor of asthma exacerbations in young children. Respiration 91(2):107-

114.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 49

Shaaban R, Zureik M, Soussan D, Neukirch C, Heinrich J, Sunyer J, Wjst M, Cerveri I, Pin 

I, Bousquet J, Jarvis D, Burney PG, Neukirch F, Leynaert B [2008]. Rhinitis and onset of 

asthma: a longitudinal population-based study. Lancet. 372(9643):1049-1057. 

Shi Y, Aledia AS, Tatavoosian AV, Vijayalakshmi S, Galant SP, George SC [2012]. Relating 

small airways to asthma control by using impulse oscillometry in children.

Allergy Clin Immunol 129(3):671-678. 

Smith HJ, Reinhold P, Goldman MD [2005]. Forced oscillation technique and impulse 

oscillometry. In: Gosselink R, Stam H, eds. European Respiratory Monograph 31: Lung 

Function Testing. Vol. 10. Wakefield, UK: European Respiratory Society Journals, pp. 72–

105.

Smith HJ (Hans-Juergen.Smith@CareFusion.com) [2015]. Questions about impulse 

oscillometry. Email of December 9, 2015, from Hans-Juergen Smith, CareFusion, to Rachel 

Bailey (feu2@cdc.gov), Respiratory Health Division, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

Song TW, Kim KW, Kim ES, Park JW, Sohn MH, Kim KE [2008]. Utility of impulse 

oscillometry in young children with asthma. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 19(8):763-768. 

Tarlo SM, Lemiere C [2014]. Occupational asthma. N Engl J Med 370:640-649.

Tarlo SM[2016]. Update on work-exacerbated asthma. Int J Occup Med Environ Health

29(3):369-374. 

Thomas KE, Trigg CJ, Baxter PJ, Topping M, Lacey J, Crook B, Whitehead P, Bennett JB, 

Davies RJ [1991]. Factors relating to the development of respiratory symptoms in coffee 

process workers. Br J Ind Med 48(5):314–322.

Vogel J, Smidt U [1994] Impulse oscillometry. Analysis of lung mechanics in general 

practice and clinic, epidemiological and experimental research. 1st ed. Frankfurt: PMIVerlagsgruppe. 

Weinstein DJ, Hull JE, Ritchie BL, Hayes JA, Morris MJ [2016]. Exercise-associated 

excessive dynamic airway collapse in military personnel. Ann Am Thorac Soc 13(9):1476-

1482.

Zuskin E, Valić F, Skurić Z [1979]. Respiratory function in coffee workers. Br J Ind Med

36(2):117–122.

Zuskin E, Kanceljak B, Skurić Z, Butković D [1985]. Bronchial reactivity in green coffee 

exposure. Br J Ind Med 42(6):415-420.
Page 50 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

Zuskin E, Schachter EN, Kanceljak B, Witek TJ Jr, Fein E [1993]. Organic dust disease of 

airways. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 65(2):135-140.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 51

This page left intentionally blank
Page 52 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305

Keywords: NAICS 311920 (Coffee roasting), Colorado, diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 

2,3-hexanedione, coffee, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs).
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0144-3305 Page 53

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program investigates possible health hazards in the workplace 

under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 669(a)

(6)). The Health Hazard Evaluation Program also provides, upon request, technical assistance 

to federal, state, and local agencies to investigate occupational health hazards and to prevent 

occupational disease or injury. Regulations guiding the Program can be found in Title 42, Code 

of Federal Regulations, Part 85; Requests for Health Hazard Evaluations (42 CPR Part 85).

Disclaimer 

The recommendations in this report are made on the basis of the findings at the workplace 

evaluated and may not be applicable to other workplaces.

Mention of any company or product in this report does not constitute endorsement by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Citations to Web sites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the 

sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. NIOSH is not responsible for the 

content of these Web sites. All Web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as 

of the publication date.

Acknowledgments

Desktop Publisher: Tia McClelland 

Data Analysis Support: Nicole Edwards, Kathleen Fedan, and Brian Tift

Laboratory Support: Dru Burns, Kyle Hatcher, Ryan LeBouf, Anand Ranpara

Site Visit Team Members: Mike Beaty, Randy Boylstein, Nicole Edwards, Reid Harvey, Brie 

Hawley, Stephen Martin, Jr., Tia McClelland, Jason Ham, and Michael Humann 

Availability of Report

Copies of this report have been sent to the employer, employees, and union at the 

facility. The state and local health department and the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration Regional Office have also received a copy. This report is not copyrighted and 

may be freely reproduced.

This report is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2016-0144-3305.pdf. 

All other Health Hazard Evaluation Reports may be found at http://www2a.cdc.gov/hhe/

search.asp

Recommended citation for this report:

NIOSH [2018]. Health hazard evaluation report: Evaluation of exposures and 

respiratory health at a coffee roasting and packaging facility. By Harvey RR, Hawley 

B, Martin SB. Morgantown, WV: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, NIOSH HHE Report No. 2016-0144-3305.
To receive documents or other information about

occupational safety and health topics, contact NIOSH

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

TTY: 1-888-232-6348

email: cdcinfo@cdc.gov

or visit the NIOSH website at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh

Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention