Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 1 

Evaluation of exposure to a new cleaning 

and disinfection product and symptoms in 

hospital employees 

Report No. 2015-0053-3269 

January 2017 

Brie Hawley, MS, PhD 

Megan Casey, RN, BSN, MPH 

Kristin Cummings, MD, MPH 

Nicole Edwards, MS 

Alyson Johnson, MPH 

Jean Cox-Ganser, PhD 

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 2015-0053-3269

Contents 

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

Abbreviations ..................................... vi 

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

Introduction......................................... 4 

Process Description ............................. 5 

Methods ............................................... 5 

Results .................................................. 9 

Discussion .......................................... 25 

Conclusions ........................................ 26 

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

References.......................................... 31 

Appendix A ........................................ 33 

Acknowledgements........................... 44 

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 2015-0053-3269 Page i 

Highlights of this Evaluation 

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a confidential employee request for the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to conduct a health hazard evaluation 

at a hospital. The request cited concerns about exposure of hospital employees to a sporicidal 

product that contains hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid, and described symptoms experienced by employees. Employee symptoms noted in the health hazard evaluation 

request included burning eyes, nose, and throat; runny nose; cough; headache; dizziness; 

nausea; nose bleeds; asthma exacerbation; skin burns; and rashes. 

What We Did 

●	 We visited the hospital in April 2015 to observe cleaning staff while they performed 

their regular cleaning duties and 

to talk with them about cleaning 

product use and any related 

health concerns. 

●	 We collected 11 bulk samples of 

the diluted sporicidal product in 

April 2015.
	

●	 We discussed the process for 

recording work-related injuries 

and illnesses with representatives 

from occupational health in April 

2015.
	

●	 We returned in July 2015 to 

perform air sampling on a 

small number of environmental 

services employees. We collected 

full-shift and cleaning task-based 

personal time-weighted average 

air samples on 5 employees 

and analyzed the samples for 

hydrogen peroxide, peracetic 

acid, and acetic acid content. 

●	 We also administered a post-shift 

survey of acute symptoms to the 

five environmental services staff 

who wore full-shift samplers in 

July 2015.
	

●	 We returned in August and 

September 2015 to administer 

a health and work history 

We evaluated employee health 

concerns and exposures to the three 

main chemicals, hydrogen peroxide, 

peracetic acid, and acetic acid, found in 

a sporicidal product used by hospital 

cleaning staff. Hydrogen peroxide, 

peracetic acid, and acetic acid were 

detected in all full-shift air samples. We 

observed upper airway, eye, and lower 

airway symptoms in staff exposed to 

vapors from the sporicidal product. 

We recommend that management 

tailor the use of sporicidal products 

containing hydrogen peroxide, peracetic 

acid, and acetic acid to areas of high 

risk for healthcare-acquired infections 

and minimize the use of sporicidal 

products on noncritical surfaces and in 

non-patient areas. We also recommend 

that management provide workplace 

accommodations for employees who 

develop symptoms related to the 

use of products containing hydrogen 

peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid. 

Additionally, we provide several means 

to reduce employee exposure to the 

hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and 

acetic acid vapors, mists, and liquids 

from the sporicidal product. 
Page ii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

questionnaire to a total of 163 hospital employees, 79 of whom were environmental 

services staff. 

●	 In September 2015, we collected an additional 45 full-shift personal air samples on 

environmental services staff and observed staff while they performed their regular 

cleaning duties. We also administered a post-shift survey of acute symptoms to the 45 

environmental services employees who participated in air sampling. We combined 

results from the September 2015 post-shift surveys of acute symptoms with the five 

post-shift surveys collected in July 2015 for a total of 50 post-shift surveys. 

●	 We performed an assessment of the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems in 

place in September 2015. 

●	 In April 2016, we provided a report with our interim findings and recommendations. 

What We Found 

●	 We found that the sporicidal product containing hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and 

acetic acid is used predominantly by environmental services staff and that nursing and 

ancillary staff predominantly use quaternary ammonium (PDI®) or bleach wipes for 

routine point-of-care cleaning activities. 

●	 We observed environmental services employees using the sporicidal product containing 

hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid on surfaces throughout the hospital, 

including patient rooms, patient bathrooms, operating rooms, and public bathrooms. 

●	 We observed pH measurements of the diluted sporicidal product that ranged from 2.85-

4.86. The product’s safety data sheet indicates that the product should be diluted to a 

pH of 3. 

●	 We noted that some environmental services staff reported that there was no ventilation 

in some of the bathrooms that they cleaned. Several environmental services staff 

mentioned that their symptoms were worse when performing cleaning duties in the 

bathrooms, especially in the shower stalls. 

●	 We observed that the environmental services staff cleaning closets in the 3100 and 5300 

units had no supply or return airflow. 

●	 Several employees reported previous splashes and spills of the sporicidal product that 

resulted in skin or eye irritation. 

●	 We observed that the log of work-related injuries and illnesses (Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration’s Form 300) is maintained and generated by a third-party 

claims administrator that handles workers’ compensation claims for the hospital, which 

could lead to underestimation of work-related injuries and illnesses. 

●	 We did not observe a comprehensive system for reporting and tracking workplace 

injuries and illnesses that includes reports of near-misses, minor injuries and illnesses, 

and employee safety concerns. 

●	 We found that employees using the sporicidal product containing hydrogen peroxide, 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page iii 

peracetic acid, and acetic acid reported respiratory symptoms that came on during their 

shift. 

●	 We detected hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid in all full-shift air 

samples. 

●	 We found that increased exposure to hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid 

vapors was associated with increases in acute work-related nasal and eye symptoms 

and with increased shortness of breath on level ground reported by cleaning staff. 

What the Employer Can Do 

●	 Minimize the use of sporicidal products in non-patient care areas. 

●	 Ensure that the sporicidal product dispensers are calibrated to effectively dilute the 

product to a pH of 3. If the sporicidal product is not effectively diluted, a pH of less 

than 3 may increase skin, eye, and respiratory symptoms in exposed employees. 

●	 Require lids for all of the sporicidal product buckets to minimize generation of 

hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid vapors that can be inhaled.
	

●	 Ensure that employees use only rags and wipes to apply the sporicidal product to 

surfaces and that the sporicidal product is not used as a spray.
	

●	 Require employees to wear extended cuff nitrile gloves or rubber gloves when using 

the sporicidal product and goggles or a face shield while dispensing and pouring the 

sporicidal product into or out of the bucket on their cleaning cart. 

●	 Ensure that all heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems meet all ASHRAE 

standards. Specifically, ensure that additional airflow is provided to EVS closets in the 

3100 and 5300 units to meet the ASHRAE requirement of a minimum of 10 air changes 

per hour. 

●	 Ensure that all patient bathrooms meet minimum total air changes per hour as specified 

by ASHRAE. ASHRAE standard 2013-170 requires inpatient bathrooms to have at 

least 10 air changes per hour. 

●	 Review the process for Occupational Safety and Health Administration Form 300 

reporting and maintenance to assure that all reportable injuries are recorded, regardless 

of whether a workers’ compensation claim is filed. 

●	 Consider implementing a comprehensive system for reporting and tracking workplace 

injuries and illnesses that includes reports of near-misses, minor injuries and illnesses, 

and employee safety concerns. This information should be reviewed by the Safety 

Officer on a regular basis to identify hazards, implement risk-reduction strategies, and 

prevent significant injuries and illnesses. 

●	 Provide workplace accommodations to employees who develop work-related symptoms 

after exposure to sporicidal products containing hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and 

acetic acid. Consider relocating employees who develop work-related symptoms to 

areas of the hospital where sporicidal products containing hydrogen peroxide, peracetic 
Page iv 

 

acid, and acetic acid are used less frequently. 

What Employees Can Do 

●	 Report patient rooms or bathrooms with no ventilation or airflow to your manager. 

●	 Wear extended cuff nitrile gloves or rubber gloves when using the sporicidal product 

containing hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid. Wear goggles or a face 

shield when dispensing and pouring the sporicidal product into or out of the bucket on 

your cleaning cart. 

●	 Do not use a spray bottle to apply the sporicidal product containing hydrogen peroxide, 

peracetic acid, and acetic acid to surfaces. Spraying the product can generate mists that 

can be hazardous for you to breathe. 

●	 Keep a lid on the sporicidal product bucket whenever possible to minimize the 

generation of hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid vapors that can be 

inhaled. 

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

and, as instructed by your employer, to a designated individual at your workplace. 

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269
	
Page v 

This page left intentionally blank 

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269
	
Page vi 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abbreviations
 

AA 

ACGIH® 

AHU 

cc 

CFR 

CI 

EPA 

EVS 

°F 

HICPAC 

HP 

HVAC 

ICU 

mL/min 

NIOSH 

NHANES 

NICU 

OM 

OR 

OSHA 

PAA 

PEL 

PPE 

ppm 

ppb 

PR 

REL 

SMR 

STEL 

TCU 

TM 

TWA 

TLV® 

WCBC 

Acetic acid 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

Air-handling unit 

Cubic centimeters 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Confidence interval 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Environmental Services 

Degrees Fahrenheit 

Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee 

Hydrogen peroxide 

Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning 

Intensive care unit 

Milliliters per minute 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 

Neonatal intensive care unit 

Oxidant exposure mixture 

Odds Ratio 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Peracetic acid 

Permissible exposure limit 

Personal protective equipment 

Parts per million 

Parts per billion 

Prevalence ratio 

Recommended exposure limit 

Standardized morbidity ratio 

Short-term exposure limit 

Transitional care unit 

Total mixture 

Time-weighted average 

Threshold limit value 

Womancare birth center 

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269
	
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 1 

Summary 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a confidential employee request to conduct a health hazard evaluation at a hospital. The 

request cited concerns about exposure of hospital employees to a sporicidal product 

containing hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid and described symptoms 

experienced by employees. Employee symptoms noted in the health hazard evaluation 

request included burning eyes, nose, and throat; runny nose; cough; headache; dizziness; nausea; nose bleeds; asthma exacerbation; skin burns; and rashes. 

We performed a walk-through assessment of cleaning product use at the hospital on 

April 9, 2015, and informally interviewed employees about their cleaning product use 

and any related health concerns that they may have had. We learned that sporicidal 

product containing hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid was used predominantly by environmental services staff and that nursing and ancillary staff predominantly used PDI® or bleach wipes for routine point of care cleaning activities. We 

observed that the sporicidal product containing hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and 

acetic acid was the main cleaning product used by environmental services staff for all 

surface cleaning duties. Environmental services staff were observed occasionally using 

other asthmagen-containing products including products containing ethanolamines, 

bleach, or quaternary ammonium compounds when cleaning glass, general surfaces, or 

bathroom surfaces. Asthmagens are substances capable of causing asthma. 

On July 29, 2015, we performed a small-scale air sampling and a post-shift survey 

of environmental services staff. We collected ten samples, including full-shift, taskbased, and 15-minute exposure samples, from employees’ breathing zones while they 

performed regular cleaning tasks. All samples were analyzed for the three chemicals 

found in the sporicidal product: hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid. All 

15-minute air samples for acetic acid were below the NIOSH recommended short-term 

exposure limit of 15 parts per million (ppm). All 15-minute and task-based exposure air 

samples for hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid were below the limit of detection for 

the instrument used to detect the analyte. The limit of detection was 4 μg of hydrogen 

peroxide per sample and 2 μg of peracetic acid per sample. We combined all full-shift 

time-weighted average samples and post-shift survey results from the small-scale 

survey on July 29 with the results from our full environmental survey from September 

8-11, 2015. 

We returned in August 2015 and administered a voluntary health and work history questionnaire to 79 environmental services staff and 84 non-environmental services staff for 

a total of 163 hospital employees. Non-environmental services staff were recruited from 

the same areas and departments of the hospital where environmental services staff were 

located. Questions addressed respiratory and dermatological symptoms, asthma and 

other diagnoses, smoking history, work history and practices, and demographic information. 
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

On September 8-11, 2015, we returned to perform full-shift air sampling on environmental services staff performing cleaning activities. We collected 45 full-shift air samples for hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid from the daylight, evening, 

and night shift environmental services staff. We also administered a voluntary post-shift 

survey identical to the post-shift survey used in July 2015 to all staff who participated 

in the air sampling survey. We observed environmental services staff while they performed their regular cleaning duties and noted task duration, cleaning product use and 

duration, and use of any personal protective equipment. We also assessed the ventilation systems in areas of the hospital where frequent cleaning was observed. 

The highest full-shift time-weighted average exposures to hydrogen peroxide, peracetic 

acid, and acetic acid were observed in the Womancare Birth Center, Birth Center Triage, Birth Center Operating Rooms, and the Medical-Surgical areas. Full-shift timeweighted average exposure levels for hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic 

acid ranged from 5.5 parts per billion (ppb) – 511.4 ppb for hydrogen peroxide, 1.1 

ppb – 48.0 ppb for peracetic acid, and 6.7 ppb – 530.3 ppb for acetic acid. No full-shift 

samples were below the limit of detection. All full-shift time-weighted average air 

samples for hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid were below established U.S. occupational exposure limits. The OSHA permissible exposure limit and NIOSH recommended 

exposure limit is 1 ppm for hydrogen peroxide and 10 ppm for acetic acid. To date, no 

full-shift time-weighted average occupational exposure limit for peracetic acid has been 

established in the United States. 

The most commonly reported symptoms in the health and work history questionnaire 

were nasal problems and watery eyes. Forty-two percent of health and work history 

questionnaire participants reported nasal problems and 40% of all questionnaire participants reported watery eyes. Other commonly reported health outcomes included, 

asthma-like symptoms (28%), skin problems (19%), and wheeze (16%). Among reported symptoms, some were described to be work-related, as they improved away from the 

facility. Users of the sporicidal product containing hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, 

and acetic acid reported higher prevalence of work-related health outcomes including 

cough, shortness of breath, asthma-like symptoms, asthma attack, use of asthma medicine, asthma symptoms, use of allergy medicine, nasal problems, and skin problems, 

with wheeze and watery eyes being significantly higher in the sporicidal product users 

than non-users. 

Nasal and eye irritation were also the most frequently reported symptoms in the postshift survey of acute symptoms. We observed increases in work-related acute upper and 

lower airway symptoms in employees exposed to hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, 

and acetic acid vapors. Increased exposure to hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and 

acetic acid was significantly associated with increases in acute nasal and eye irritation. 

For employees who participated in our air sampling survey as well as the health and 

work history questionnaire, shortness of breath on level ground was also significantly 

associated with increased exposure to hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic 

acid. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 3 

We provide several means to reduce employee exposure to the sporicidal product containing hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid. We recommend that management 

customize the use of sporicidal products containing hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and 

acetic acid to areas of high risk for healthcare-acquired infections and minimize the use of 

sporicidal products on non-critical surfaces and in non-patient areas. We also recommend 

that management provide workplace accommodations for employees who develop symptoms 

related to the use of sporicidal and high-level disinfectants. Management should also ensure 

that all heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems are functioning well and meet all 

applicable ASHRAE standards. Additional details and recommendations to reduce employee 

exposure to liquids, vapors, and mists from the sporicidal product are provided in this report. 
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

Introduction 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a confidential employee request to conduct a health hazard evaluation at a hospital. The 

request cited concerns about exposure of hospital employees to a disinfectant cleaner1 

that is one of a group of sporicidal products marketed under various trade names that 

contain hydrogen peroxide (HP), peracetic acid (PAA), and acetic acid (AA). In their 

health hazard evaluation request they described symptoms experienced by employees 

including: burning eyes, nose, and throat; runny nose; cough; headache; dizziness; nausea; nose bleeds; asthma exacerbation; skin burns; and rashes. 

In response to the health hazard evaluation request, we performed a walk-through 

assessment of cleaning product use at the hospital in April 2015, and informally interviewed employees about their cleaning product use and any related health concerns that 

they may have had. We observed that the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and 

AA was the main cleaning product used for all surface cleaning duties and was used 

predominantly by Environmental Services (EVS) staff. We learned that the sporicidal 

product is a one-step disinfectant that consists of HP, PAA, and AA. We researched 

similar products manufactured under different trade names and observed that cleaning and disinfecting products containing a mixture of HP, PAA, and AA are currently 

widely used as surface cleaners and sterilants in healthcare settings. Products containing 

HP, PAA, and AA intended for use as surface cleaners are typically more dilute than HP, 

PAA, and AA products intended for use as sterilants. The sporicidal product containing 

HP, PAA, and AA that was used at the hospital that is the subject of this report, is diluted with water prior to use to a pH of 3. We also noted that EVS staff occasionally used 

other asthmagen-containing products, to include products containing ethanolamines, 

bleach, or quaternary ammonium compounds when cleaning glass, general surfaces, or 

bathroom surfaces. Asthmagens are substances capable of causing asthma. 

In July 2015, we performed a small-scale air sampling and post-shift survey of EVS 

staff. In August 2015, we administered a voluntary health and work history questionnaire to hospital employees. In September 2015, we returned to the hospital to perform 

a full-shift air sampling survey and collect air samples from employees performing 

cleaning activities. 

We also administered a voluntary post-shift survey identical to the post-shift survey 

used in July 2015, to all staff who participated in the September air sampling survey. 

We observed EVS staff during both the July and September air sampling surveys, while 

they performed their regular cleaning duties and noted task duration, cleaning product 

use and duration, and use of any personal protective equipment. Additionally in September 2015, we performed an assessment of the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems in place during the September 2015 survey. 

1 OxyCide® is a sporicidal product with the EPA Registration number 1677-237 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 5 

 

In this report, we summarize the results from our environmental survey and HVAC 

assessment. We also summarize results from the health and work history questionnaire 

and post-shift survey of acute symptoms. Additionally, we provide recommendations to 

help protect the health of employees. We previously mailed letters with interim results 

and recommendations in May and October of 2015, and April of 2016. 

Process Description 

The hospital that is the subject of this health hazard evaluation is primarily a women’s 

hospital, and specializes in obstetrics and gynecology services for women. The hospital 

also offers medical and surgical services for both women and men. Beginning in 

March and April of 2015, the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA and AA was used 

by EVS staff as the primary disinfectant for all surface cleaning duties throughout 

the hospital. Environmental services staff were the primary housekeeping staff and 

performed cleaning duties and tasks in areas throughout the hospital. Other healthcare 

personnel, such as nursing and ancillary staff, performed occasional surface cleaning 

tasks, such as wiping down medical equipment in occupied patient rooms, as part of 

routine point-of-care cleaning activities. The product containing HP, PAA, and AA was 

used predominantly by environmental services staff and nursing and ancillary staff 

predominantly used PDI® or bleach wipes for routine cleaning activities. 

Methods 

Measurement of pH of diluted product samples in April 2015 

During the walkthrough assessment in April 2015, we collected bulk samples of the diluted 

sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA from multiple hospital units. Bulk samples of 

the diluted sporicidal product were collected to assess the sporicidal product dispenser calibration. Dispenser calibration was assessed by measuring diluted product pH at a time point 

less than 12 hours after collection. Samples were kept capped and stored at room temperature 

(21°C−23°C). Measurements of sample pH were taken using a pH meter (Fisher Scientific 

International Inc., Hampton, NH). 

Air Sampling Survey and HVAC Assessment in July and September 2015 

We performed a pilot air sampling survey of EVS staff performing cleaning tasks on July 29, 

2015. We collected five full-shift, one task-based, and four 15-minute exposure samples from 

daylight shift employees’ breathing zones while they performed regular cleaning tasks. On 

September 8-11, 2015, we performed a larger air sampling survey and collected 45 additional 

full-shift samples on daylight, evening, and night shift employees. Thirty-six of the full-shift 

samples were collected from employees’ breathing zones while they performed their regular 

cleaning duties. Nine of the samples collected in September were moving area samples. For 

the moving area samples, we followed employees while they performed their cleaning duties 

and placed the samplers near EVS staff while they were cleaning. We also performed an 

assessment of HVAC systems in place as of September 2015. Additionally, we observed staff 
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

 

 

while they performed their regular cleaning duties and noted task duration, cleaning product 

use and duration, and use of any personal protective equipment. 

All air samples were analyzed for the three chemicals found in the sporicidal product: HP, 

PAA, and AA. HP and PAA were collected and analyzed according to the methods specified 

by Hecht et al. [2004]. AA was collected and analyzed according to the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) Method PV2119 [OSHA 2003]. Results from the July 

and September 2015 air sampling surveys were combined and are summarized in the Results 

section. 

Post-Shift Survey of Acute Symptoms in July and September 2015 

We administered a voluntary post-shift survey in July and September 2015 that asked if 

employees had experienced acute symptoms during their shift as follows: (1) burning, itchy, 

runny nose; (2) sneeze; (3) burning, itchy, watery eyes; (4) burning, dry, sore throat; (5) 

cough; (6) wheeze; (7) chest tightness; (8) shortness of breath; (9) difficulty breathing; and 

(10) dizziness. When employees reported symptoms that occurred during their work shift, 

we asked (1) if their symptom had worsened during their shift; (2) what they were doing 

when the symptom first began; and (3) if they had that symptom upon arrival at work that 

day. Work-related symptoms were defined as symptoms that occurred during the participants’ 

shift that were not present upon arrival at work that day. Results from the July and September 

2015 post-shift surveys were combined and are summarized in the Results section. 

Health and Work History Questionnaire 

We administered a voluntary health and work history questionnaire to hospital employees in 

August and September 2015. We aimed to offer the health and work history questionnaire 

to all EVS staff working the week of our visit, and an equal number of non-EVS staff in 

the same departments. Non-EVS staff were recruited from the same areas and departments 

of the hospital where EVS staff were located. Questions addressed eye, respiratory, and 

dermatological symptoms; asthma and other diagnoses; smoking history; work history 

and practices; and demographic information. Questions regarding respiratory symptoms 

and asthma were taken from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 

(NHANES III) [CDC 1996] and the European Community Respiratory Health Survey 

[Burney et al. 1994; ECRHS 2014]. 

We defined asthma-like symptoms as a response of “yes” to any of the following questions 

[Grassi et al. 2003]: 

1. Are you currently taking any medicine (including inhalers, aerosols or tablets) for 

asthma? 

2. Have you had wheezing or whistling in your chest at any time in the last 12 months? 

3. Have you woken up with a feeling of tightness in your chest at any time in the last 12 

months? 

4. Have you been woken by an attack of asthma at any time in the last 12 months? 

Symptoms that improved when the employees were away from work, either on their days off 

or when they were on vacation, were considered work-related. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 7 

 

 

 

 

Statistical Analyses 

Comparison of Pre-hire and Post-hire Onset Asthma The 

incidence densities of self-reported adult-onset asthma diagnosed by a physician before and 

after hire were estimated using birth date, hire date, and diagnosis date. Asthma incidence 

density before hire was calculated by adding the number of adult-onset asthma diagnoses 

that occurred before hire and dividing by the total number of participants’ adult years at 

risk before hire. Asthma incidence density after hire was calculated by adding the number 

of adult-onset asthma diagnoses that occurred after hire and dividing by the total number 

of participants’ years at risk after hire. An incidence ratio was calculated using Poisson 

regression. 

Comparison to U.S. Population 

We compared the observed prevalence of symptoms and diagnoses among participants to 

expected values for the U.S. adult population obtained from NHANES III. To compare 

the survey participants to the U.S. adult population, we calculated Standardized Morbidity 

Ratios (SMRs) using indirect standardization for race (White, Black, or Mexican-American), 

sex, age (range: 17 to 39 years or ≥ 40 years), and cigarette smoking status (ever vs. never 

smoker) [CDC 1996]. 

Health Outcomes and Exposure Metrics Associations: EVS vs. Non-EVS and Product Use 

vs. Non-Product Use 

Statistical significance was assessed using t-test for continuous variables and chi-square 

test for categorical variables. We used Fisher’s exact test when cell sizes were less than 5. 

We considered two-sided p ≤ 0.05 to be statistically significant. Prevalence ratios were 

calculated for symptoms and diagnoses using Poisson regression. 

Associations Between Acute and Chronic Health Outcomes and Exposure Metrics: Individual 

Level Exposure 

We explored associations between employee’s personal exposure to HP, PAA, and AA 

and work-related acute symptoms and symptoms occurring in the last 12 months using 

log-binomial regression. We used the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists’ (ACGIH®) Additive Mixture Formula to create mixture exposure groups for the 

total mixture (TM) of HP, PAA, and AA as well as the oxidant exposure mixture (OM) of HP 

and PAA [ACGIH 2016]. Measured ppm concentrations of HP and AA were divided by their 

established OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) and NIOSH Recommended Exposure 

Limit (REL) of 1 ppm for HP and 10 ppm for AA (Equations 1 and 2). Measured ppm 

concentrations of PAA were divided by 0.2 ppm, the occupational exposure limit proposed by 

multiple researchers [Gagnaire et al. 2002; Pechacek et al. 2015; Pacenti et al. 2010]. TM and 

OM exposure was determined using Eq. (1) and (2), 

(1) 
 	

(2) 
 	
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

where [HP], [PAA], and [AA] represent the measured full-shift TWA concentrations for HP, 

PAA, and AA. The summed values from the additive formula were divided into tertiles to 

create TM and OM exposure variables with low, medium, and high exposure categories. TM 

and OM exposure variables were used for exposure and health outcome analyses. 

SAS PROC GENMOD’s log-binomial regression was used to calculate prevalence ratios and 

95% confidence intervals for acute and chronic symptoms associated with individual level 

exposure. TM exposure was analyzed as continuous or categorical, with categories defined 

as (1) low = less than 0.088, (2) medium = 0.088 to 0.236, or (3) high = greater than 0.236. 

OM exposure was analyzed as continuous or categorical with categories defined as (1) low = 

less than 0.08, (2) medium = 0.080 to 0.218, and (3) greater than 0.218. When the GENMOD 

models did not converge, Fischer’s exact test was used to compare symptom prevalence 

among the exposure categories. Age, gender, and smoking status were initially included in 

the GENMOD log-binomial regression models; however, the models did not converge. The 

LOGISTIC procedure in SAS was used to examine associations of age, gender, or smoking 

status with eye, upper and lower airway symptoms. 

We also explored associations between work-related acute symptoms and age, gender, tenure, 

smoking status, and use of cleaning products containing known asthmagens using logistic 

regression. Asthmagen-containing cleaning products were defined as products containing 

quaternary ammonium compounds, bleach, or ethanolamines. Use of quaternary ammonium 

compounds, bleach, or ethanolamines was recorded from our direct observations of EVS staff 

while they performed their regular cleaning duties. We explored associations between workrelated symptoms and use of products containing (1) quaternary ammonium compounds; (2) 

bleach; or (3) ethanolamines. We also assessed associations between work-related symptoms 

and use of a combination of these products throughout the work day by using an asthmagen 

index value. The asthmagen index value (0-3) was determined by adding the number of 

asthmagen products that an employee was observed using on the day of air sampling. 

Associations Between Acute and Chronic Health Outcomes and Exposure Metrics: 

Departmental Level Exposure 

We also calculated the average TM exposure for each of the nine hospital departments where 

air sampling was performed. Eighty-five survey participants worked on a department where 

air sampling was performed. We assessed associations between average departmental TM 

exposure and symptoms reported by staff. SAS PROC GENMOD’s Poisson regression was 

used to calculate unadjusted prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals for symptoms 

associated with department level exposure. TM exposure was analyzed as a categorical 

variable by dividing each of the nine departments into three categories: high, medium 

and low TM exposure, with three departments in each category. SMRs for symptoms were 

calculated among individuals who worked on the department with the highest TM exposure. 

Comparison of Post-shift Survey and Health and Work History Questionnaire 

We summarized the prevalence of symptoms reported by EVS staff in both the post-shift 

acute symptom survey and health and work history questionnaire. Symptoms that were asked 

about in both the post-shift acute symptom survey and work history questionnaire included: 

nasal irritation, eye irritation, cough, wheeze, shortness of breath, and chest tightness. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 9 

Results 

Major findings in relation to EVS staff, use of a sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, 

and AA, and related exposure measurements are presented below. Supplemental analyses 

and findings from the site visits are presented in Appendix A. In general, we observed that 

the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA was the main cleaning product used for 

all surface cleaning duties. We noted that some hospital employees had the impression that 

because the chemicals contained in this product are similar to common household products, 

there is little health risk from exposure to this product. We also noted that the sporicidal 

product containing HP, PAA, and AA was formerly used as a spray cleaner by some staff 

in some units. Several employees reported previous splashes and spills of this product that 

resulted in skin or eye irritation. Some environmental services staff reported that there was 

no ventilation in some of the bathrooms that they cleaned. Several staff mentioned that their 

symptoms were worse when performing cleaning duties in the bathrooms, especially in the 

shower stalls. 

During our visits, we observed that EVS staff used automated dispensers designed to dilute 

the concentrated sporicidal product to its at-use pH of 3. We made pH measurements of the 

diluted product that ranged from 2.85-4.86. The product’s safety data sheet indicates that the 

product should be diluted to a pH of 3. We observed staff using the automated dispensers to 

pour the sporicidal product directly into plastic bottles. The plastic bottles were then used 

to pour the product into open faced buckets that housed a roll of disposable cloth wipes. We 

observed that nitrile gloves were used routinely when working with cleaning products. Staff 

occasionally chose to also wear goggles or a surgical mask when dispensing or working with 

cleaning products. 

Summary of July 2015 and September 2015 Air Sampling Results and Post-Shift Survey of 

Acute Symptoms 

Full shift air sample results ranged from 6 parts per billion (ppb) to 511 ppb for HP, 7 ppb 

to 530 ppb for AA, and 1 ppb to 48 ppb for PAA (Figure 1). For AA, 15-minute air samples 

ranged from 442 ppb to 456 ppb. All 15-minute and task-based exposure air samples for HP 

and PAA were below the limit of detection for the instrument used to detect the analyte. The 

limit of detection was 4 μg of hydrogen peroxide per sample and 2 μg of PAA per sample. 

The median exposure levels observed were 72 ppb for HP, 14 ppb for PAA, and 124 ppb for 

AA. The highest personal exposures were observed for employees in the Womancare Birth 

Center (WCBC). The average air concentrations measured on employees in each sampled 

unit are provided in Table 1. The highest summed values for HP, PAA, and AA, and HP and 

PAA exposures were observed in the Womancare Birth Center, Birth Center Triage, Birth 

Center Operating Rooms, and the Medical Surgical areas. 
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Air Concentration (ppb) 

Figure 1. Box-plots of full-shift time-weighted average exposure levels of hydrogen peroxide, peracetic 

acid, and acetic acid, NIOSH survey, July and September 2015. Note: ppb=parts per billion. The boxplots illustrate each quartile with the lowest quartile shown as the line and hatch mark below the box,

the second and third quartiles indicated by the shaded box, and the highest quartile indicated by the line

and hatch mark above the boxes. The line within each box indicates the median air sample concentration. 

Outlier air samples are denoted by dots. The OSHA PEL and NIOSH REL is 1000 ppb (1 ppm) for

hydrogen peroxide and 10,000 ppb (10 ppm) for acetic acid. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 11 

Table 1. Average and 95th percentile concentrations (in parts per billion) of hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid, by hospital

area, July and September 2015.

Hospital Area 

Hydrogen Peroxide Peracetic Acid Acetic Acid HP+PAA+AA HP+PAA 

Mean

(± SD) GM 95%ile Mean (± SD) GM 95%ile Mean (± SD) GM 95%ile Mean (± SD) GM 95%ile Mean (± SD) GM 95%ile 

Main OR

(n=3) 

13

(± 11) 11 26 3 (± 12) 2 7 43 (± 59) 20 110 60 (± 73) 13 144 17 (± 14) 13 33 

WCBC

(n=10) 

186

(± 11) 143 511 23 (± 12) 20 46 263 (± 126) 238 512 472 (± 224) 423 828 208 (± 132) 173 522 

WCBC, Triage

(n=3) 

90

(± 42) 85 138 32 (± 14) 30 48 138 (± 69) 128 218 260 (± 78) 253 338 122 (± 42) 117 166 

WCBC OR (n=3) 175 (± 59) 167 222 26 (± 20) 21 48 251 (± 80) 241 313 451 (± 150) 432 583 200 (± 72) 191 270 

Ante- and Postpartum (n=6) 64 (± 30) 55 94 18 (± 12) 15 41 151 (± 69) 139 273 233 (± 98) 213 377 82 (± 36) 73 117 

Medical Surgical

(n=2) 

113

(± 52) ̶ ̶ 

21

(± 8) ̶ ̶ 

261

(± 173) ̶ ̶ 

395

(± 217) ̶ ̶ 

134

(± 44) ̶ ̶ 

Orthopedics

(n=3) 

32

(± 36) 19 72 5 (± 7) 3 13 78 (± 108) 33 203 115 (± 150) 61 288 37 (± 43) 22 85 

ICU

(n=2) 

62

(± 15) 61 73 15 (± 1) 15 15 138 (± 6) 138 142 215 (± 10) 215 222 77 (± 16) 76 88 

Oncology

(n=3) 

97

(± 107) 46 215 9 (± 10) 5 21 66 (± 32) 61 103 173 (± 112) 140 273 107 (± 108) 53 222 

NICU

(n=5) 

133

(± 168) 62 423 11 (± 9) 6 22 53 (± 45) 40 123 197 (± 215) 120 561 144 (± 172) 69 437 

Outpatient Clinic

(n=3) 

14

(± 7) 13 19 7 (± 5) 5 12 49 (± 22) 45 65 71 (± 34) 64 96 21 (± 12) 18 31 

Public BR

(n=1) 25* ̶ ̶ 5* ̶ ̶ 122* ̶ ̶ 151* ̶ ̶ 30* ̶ ̶ 

Float

(n=4) 69 (± 92) 26 202 13 (± 16) 5 34 211 (± 225) 98 530 292 (± 327) 146 766 81 (± 108) 31 236 

Floors

(n=1) 8* ̶ ̶ 2* ̶ ̶ 10* ̶ ̶ 19* ̶ ̶ 9* ̶ ̶ 

Note: SD=one standard deviation, ± one standard deviation shown in parentheses; GM=geometric mean; 95%= 95th percentile; HP=hydrogen peroxide; PAA=peracetic acid; AA=acetic acid; OR = operating room; WCBC = Womancare Birth Center; NICU = neonatal intensive care unit; BR = bathroom. *Not a true average: only one personal sample was obtained in each of these units. 
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

Currently, there is no OSHA PEL or NIOSH REL for exposure to the mixture of HP, PAA, 

and AA. Most exposure limit values are created for exposure to a single chemical substance 

[ACGIH 2016]. There are occupational exposure limits for exposure to HP or AA. The 

OSHA PEL and NIOSH REL is one ppm (1000 ppb) for exposure to HP and 10 ppm (10,000 

ppb) for exposure to AA. All measurements for HP and AA were below their respective 

OSHA PELs and NIOSH RELs [NIOSH 2010] for exposure to HP or AA alone. There is 

currently no OSHA PEL or NIOSH REL for occupational exposure to PAA, however, several 

research groups have suggested 0.2 ppm as an exposure limit [Gagnaire et al. 2002; Pechacek 

et al. 2015; Pacenti et al. 2010]. ACGIH® developed a mixture formula that can be used 

when multiple chemical exposures occur simultaneously and have similar biological effects 

[ACGIH 2016]. The ACGIH® mixture formula was used to create the TM and OM used for 

the results presented below. HP and PAA are strong oxidants, and their mixture is listed as an 

asthmagen and respiratory sensitizer by the Association of Occupational and Environmental 

Clinics [AOEC 2015]. Asthmagens are substances that can cause asthma. Respiratory 

sensitizers are materials that can cause an immune response and adverse respiratory effects, 

even at low levels of exposure. 

Mucous membrane irritation (burning eyes and/or burning nose) was reported by 64% (n = 

32/50) of post-shift survey participants, and 84% (n = 27/32) of these participants reported 

symptom onset while cleaning. Lower airway symptoms such as cough, wheeze, chest 

tightness, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing were reported in 34% (n = 17/50) of 

post-shift survey participants; of whom 88% (n = 15/17) reported symptom onset during 

cleaning activities. Symptom prevalence in low, medium, and high TM and OM exposure 

groups can be seen in Table 2. Prevalence of work-related acute eye and upper airway 

symptoms were similar in the TM and OM exposure groups (Table 2). 

In the highest TM exposure group, 1.4–6.5-fold more participants reported work-related 

nasal irritation, eye irritation, sneeze, and burning, dry or sore throat compared to the lowest 

exposure group. In the highest TM exposure group, 87.5% of participants reported workrelated nasal irritation; 81.3%, reported eye irritation; 37.5%, reported sneeze, and 25.0% of 

participants reported burning dry or sore throat. 

Age, smoking status, gender, and use of products containing other asthmagens were not 

significantly associated with acute eye, upper airway, or lower airway symptoms reported 

in the post-shift survey and were not included in our models. Nasal and eye irritation were 

significantly associated with increased TM and OM exposure. Both the highest TM and 

OM exposure groups had 3.5 fold higher prevalence of nasal irritation symptoms when 

compared to the lowest TM and OM exposure groups (Figure 2). Eye irritation prevalence 

was similar for both the highest TM and OM exposure groups as well, with 6.4–6.5 fold 

higher prevalence, when compared to the lowest TM and OM exposure groups (Figure 2). 

An exposure-response relationship was observed for sneeze and throat symptoms as well, 

although the increases were not statistically significant. Employees in the highest TM mixture 

exposure group had 3.0 (p = 0.14) and 2.0 (p = 0.38) fold higher prevalence of sneeze 

and burning throat, respectively, when compared to the lowest exposure group (Figure 2). 

Employees in the highest OM exposure group had 5.3 (p=0.11) and 1.4 (p=0.6) fold higher 

prevalence of sneeze and burning throat, respectively, when compared to the lowest exposure 

group. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 13 

 

The number of employees that reported lower airway symptoms during their shift was too 

small to calculate prevalence ratios using the GENMOD log-binomial procedure in SAS. 

No employees in the lowest TM or OM exposure groups reported acute work-related (1) 

wheeze; (2) chest tightness; (3) shortness of breath; or (4) difficulty breathing. In comparison, 

employees exposed to mixture levels in the medium and highest TM and OM exposure 

groups (n = 33) reported (1) wheeze (n = 3, 9%); (2) chest tightness (n = 2, 6%); (3) 

shortness of breath (n = 3, 9%); and difficulty breathing (n = 2, 6%) (Table 2). Despite these 

trends, Fisher’s Exact Test did not indicate any significant associations. 

We also explored associations between exposure to HP, PAA, or AA and acute symptoms 

occurring during the work shift using logistic regression (Appendix A, Table A4). Mucous 

membrane irritation symptoms, specifically burning itchy, runny nose, sneeze, and burning, 

itchy, watery eyes, were statistically significantly positively associated with HP, AA, and 

PAA exposure, indicating an increase in symptoms with increasing exposure. We also 

explored associations between age, gender, tenure, smoking status, and use of cleaning 

products containing known asthmagens and work-related acute symptoms using logistic 

regression. No associations were found. 

Summary of Chronic Upper and Lower Airway Symptoms in Participants in the Air 

Sampling, Post-shift Survey, and Health and Work History Questionnaire 

Thirty-five employees participated in all three components of our employee evaluation: the 

personal air sampling, the post-shift survey of acute symptoms, and the health and work 

history questionnaire. 

On the health and work history questionnaire, 57.1% of these 35 participants reported chronic 

nasal problems and 51.4% reported watery eyes in the last 12 months (Table 2). Regarding 

chronic lower respiratory symptoms, 5.7% of these participants reported cough; 22.9% 

reported usual shortness of breath on level ground; 14.3% reported wheeze in the previous 12 

months; and 17.1% reported awaken from chest tightness in the previous 12 months. 

The highest TM and OM exposure group for these 35 participants had 3.1 and 3.7 fold higher 

prevalence of shortness of breath on level ground when compared to the lowest TM and OM 

exposure groups (Table 3). Shortness of breath on level ground was significantly associated 

with increased TM exposure (p = 0.026) and OM exposure (p = 0.017). Prevalence of wheeze 

in the last 12 months was 2.3-2.8 fold higher in the highest TM and OM exposure groups, 

when compared to the lowest exposure group (Table 3). Age, smoking status, gender, and 

use of products containing other asthmagens were not significantly associated with chronic 

eye, upper airway or lower airway symptoms reported in the health and work history 

questionnaire and were not included in the analyses presented here. 
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

 

Table 2. Acute and chronic symptom prevalence, by total mixture and oxidant mixture exposure 

group, July-September 2015 

Overall 

Prevalence 

(%) 

TM Prevalence (%) OM Prevalence (%) 

Work-Related 

Acute Symptom 

(post-shift survey) 

(n=50) Low Medium High Low Medium High 

Nasal irritation*† 52.0 25.0 47.1 87.5 25.0 50.0 86.7 

Eye irritation*† 44.0 12.5 41.2 81.3 12.5 44.4 80.0 

Sneeze 22.0 12.5 17.7 37.5 6.3 27.8 33.3 

Burning, dry, sore throat 18.0 12.5 17.6 25.0 18.8 11.1 26.7 

Cough 20.0 18.8 23.4 18.8 18.8 22.2 20.0 

Wheeze 6.0 0 11.8 6.3 0 11.1 6.7 

Chest tightness 4.0 0 5.9 6.3 0 5.6 6.7 

Shortness of breath 6.0 0 5.9 12.5 0 5.6 13.3 

Difficulty breathing 4.0 0 11.8 0 0 11.1 0 

Dizziness 6.0 6.3 5.9 6.3 6.3 5.6 6.7 

Chronic Symptom

(health and work

history questionnaire) 

(n=35) Low Medium High Low Medium High 

Nasal problems,

previous 12 months 57.1 40.0 50.0 76.9 45.5 50.0 75.0 

Watery eyes, previous 

12 months 51.4 40.0 41.7 69.2 45.5 41.7 66.7 

Usual cough 5.7 10.0 0 7.7 9.1 0 8.3 

Shortness of Breath on 

level ground† 22.9 10.0 25.0 30.8 9.1 25.0 33.3 

Wheeze, previous 12

months 14.3 10.0 8.3 23.1 9.1 8.3 25.0 

Awaken from chest 

tightness, previous 12 17.1 20.0 8.3 23.1 27.3 8.3 16.7 

months 

Asthma medication use 8.6 10.0 0 15.4 9.1 0 16.7 

Asthma-like symptoms 28.6 30.0 16.7 38.5 36.4 16.7 33.3 

Note: TM=total mixture (hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid); OM=oxidant mixture 

(hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid). 

*Indicates symptoms significantly positively associated with increased exposure to the total mixture (p ≤ 

0.05).

†

Indicates symptoms significantly positively associated with increased exposure to the oxidant mixture (p 

≤ 0.05). 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 15 

 

Table 3. Acute and chronic symptom prevalence ratios relative to the low exposure group, by total 

mixture and oxidant mixture exposure group, July-September 2015 

TM Prevalence Ratio (95% CI) OM Prevalence Ratio (95% CI) 

Acute Symptom 

(post-shift survey) Medium High Medium High 

Nasal irritation*† 1.88 (0.70-5.05) 3.50 (1.47-8.34) 2.00 (0.76-5.26) 3.47 (1.45-8.29) 

Eye irritation*† 3.29 (0.80-13.56) 6.50 (1.74-24.27) 3.56 (0.88-14.35) 6.40 (1.71-23.98) 

Sneeze 1.41 (0.27-7.38) 3.00 (0.71-12.69) 4.44 (0.58-34.14) 5.33 (0.70-40.54) 

Burning, dry, sore throat 1.41 (0.27-7.38) 2.00 (0.42-9.42) 0.59 (0.11-3.11) 1.42 (0.38-5.33) 

Chronic Symptom 

(health and work history

questionnaire) 

Medium High Medium High 

Nasal problems, previous

12 months 1.25 (0.49-3.22) 1.92 (0.85-4.35) 1.10 (0.47-2.60) 1.65 (0.80-3.41) 

Watery eyes, previous 12 

months 1.04 (0.38-2.87) 1.73 (0.75-4.01) 0.92 (0.36-2.33) 1.47 (0.69-3.14) 

Usual cough ̶ 0.77 (0.05-10.84) ̶ 0.92 (0.06-12.95) 

Shortness of Breath on 

level ground† 2.50 (0.31-20.45) 3.08 (0.40-23.44) 2.75 (0.33-22.69) 3.67 (0.48-28.00) 

Wheeze, previous 12

months 0.83 (0.06-11.70) 2.31 (0.28-18.99) 0.92 (0.06-12.95) 2.75 (0.33-22.69) 

Awaken from chest 

tightness, previous 12 0.42 (0.04-3.95) 1.15 (0.24-5.65) 0.31 (0.04-2.52) 0.61 (0.12-3.00) months 

Asthma medication use ̶ 1.54 (0.16-14.66) ̶ 1.83 (0.19-17.51) 

Asthma-like symptoms 0.56 (0.11-2.70) 1.28 (0.40-4.13) 0.46 (0.10-2.03) 0.92 (0.30-2.81) 

Note: TM=total mixture (hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid); OM=oxidant mixture (hydrogen 

peroxide, and peracetic acid). Prevalence ratios were calculated for the medium and high exposure groups, 

compared to the low exposure group. Cough, wheeze, chest tightness, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, 

and dizziness reported in the post-shift survey were too few to calculate prevalence ratios using PROCGENMOD in SAS and are not included in this table. 

*Indicates symptoms significantly positively associated with increased exposure to the total mixture (p ≤ 0.05). 

†

Indicates symptoms significantly positively associated with increased exposure to the oxidant mixture (p ≤ 0.05). 

̶ Number of employees that reported symptoms was too small to calculate prevalence ratios using the GENMOD 

log-binomial procedure in SAS. 
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

Figure 2. Prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals for eye and upper airway symptoms reported 

during as occurring during employees’ shift in the medium and high compared to low total mixture 

(hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid) and oxidant mixture (hydrogen peroxide and 

peracetic acid) exposure groups, July and September 2015. *signifies symptoms significantly positively 

associated with the highest exposure group (p-value ≤ 0.05). 

Heating, Ventilation, and Air-conditioning System Evaluation 

All of the air-handling units and associated ductwork appeared to be in good working order 

and well maintained. We assessed the ventilation systems present in 29 areas in the hospital, 

including rooms in the following units: 2700, 2800, 3100, 3200, 3700, 3800, 4100, 4800, 

5300, 5800, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, and Womancare Birth Center. We observed that 

the EVS cleaning closets in the 3100 and 5300 units had no supply air and no return flow. 

Participant Demographics and Responses to Health and Work History Questionnaire 

A total of 163 current employees, including 79 EVS staff and 84 non-EVS staff, completed 

the health and work history questionnaire. The participation rate among EVS staff who were 

working on the days of the health and work history questionnaire administration was 77%. 

Table 4 describes the job groups of non-EVS participants. 

The median age of EVS participants was 45 years (range: 20 years to 67 years) compared 

to 40 years among non-EVS participants (range: 19 years to 67 years) (Table 5). A higher 

proportion of EVS participants (49%) than non-EVS participants (13%) were male. The 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 17 

 

majority of non-EVS staff were white (85%); whereas, the majority of EVS participants were 

black (59%). Tenure and smoking history was similar between the two groups. 

Although most EVS staff were users of the product containing HP, PAA, and AA, and most 

non-EVS staff did not use the sporicidal product, 11 (14%) EVS staff indicated that they did 

not use the product containing HP, PAA, and AA, while 10 (12%) non-EVS staff members 

indicated that they used the product. 

Table 4. Job groups of 84 non-EVS questionnaire participants, August – September 2015 

Job Group N (% of total non-EVS) 

Nursing staff* 27 (32%) 

Other patient care staff† 25 (30%) 

Administrative staff‡ 13 (15%) 

Other hospital staff§ 19 (23%) 

Note: EVS=environmental services staff 

* Nursing Staff includes Staff Nurses, Registered Nurses, Nurse Coordinators, 

Professional Staff Nurses, Resource Nurses, and Collaborative Practice Nurses.

 † Other Patient Care Staff includes Patient Care Technicians, Certified Nursing Assistants, Clinicians, 

Respiratory Therapists, Medical Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, Surgical Technicians, Surgical 

Technologists and Ultrasound Technicians. 

‡ Administrative Staff includes Patient Access Staff, Business Managers, Health Unit Coordinators, 

Administrative Assistants, Unit Directors, and Unit Secretaries.

§ Other Hospital Staff includes Pharmacists, Cooks, Pharmacy Technicians, Laboratory staff, Registered 

Dieticians, Room Service Attendants, Patient Transporters, Sanitation Aides, and Valet Parking 

Attendants. 
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Table 5. Demographic characteristics of survey participants, NIOSH survey, August-September 2015 Characteristic All Participants (N=163) EVS (n= 79) Non-EVS (n= 84) p* Product Users (n= 78 ) Non- Product Users (n= 85 ) p* Age, years, median (range) Tenure, years, median (range) Male, n (%) Race, n (%) White Black Asian Other† Unknown‡ Smoking status, n (%) Current Former Never 43 (19-67) 5 (0.13- 43) 50 (31%) 92 (56%) 57 (35%) 4 (2%) 7 (4%) 3 (2%) 27 (17%) 32 (20%) 104 (64%) 45 (20-67) 40 (19-67) 0.40 5 (0.21-36) 5 (0.13-43) 0.83 39 (49%) 11 (13%) <0.05 21 (27%) 71 (85%) <0.05 47 (59%) 10 (12%) 4 (5%) 0 (0%) 5 (6%) 2 (2%) 2 (3%) 1 (1%) 16 (20%) 11 (13%) 0.36 13 (16%) 19 (23%) 50 (63%) 54 (64%) 43 (20-67) 43 (19-67) 0.43 5 (0.21-36) 5 (0.13-43) 0.57 33 (42%) 17 (20%) <0.05 26 (33%) 66 (78%) <0.05 41 (53%) 16 (19%) 4 (5%) 0 (0%) 5 (6%) 2 (2%) 2 (3%) 1 (1%) 16 (21%) 11 (13%) 0.42 14 (18%) 18 (21%) 48 (62%) 56 (66%) Notes: EVS=environmental services staff; Product Users=Staff that reported using the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA. Non-Product Users=Staff that reported no use of the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA. * P values calculated using Chi-Square Test for categorical variables or T-test for continuous variables † Includes participants who indicated more than one race ‡ Participants who refused to indicate a race 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 19 

 

All participants’ responses to questions about symptoms and self-reported diagnoses can be 

seen in Table 6. The most commonly reported symptoms were nasal problems and watery 

eyes. Nasal problems were reported by 42%, and watery eyes were reported by 40% of all 

participants. Other commonly reported health outcomes included asthma-like symptoms 

(28%), skin problems (19%) and wheeze (16%). Among reported symptoms, some were 

described to be work-related, as they improved away from the facility. The prevalence of 

work-related symptoms ranged from 2% to 18%. 

Table 6. Symptoms and self-reported diagnoses of all questionnaire participants (N=163), 

August-September 2015 

Health Outcome All Participants, n (%) Work Related*, n (%) 

Cough 9 (6%) 4 (2%) 

Shortness of breath 21 (13%) 7 (4%) 

Wheeze† 26 (16%) 6 (4%) 

Chest tightness† 18 (11%) 4 (2%) 

Asthma attack† 8 (5%) 4 (2%) 

Asthma medicine 18 (11%) 6 (4%) 

Allergy medicine 48 (29%) 9 (6%) 

Asthma-like symptoms§ 46 (28%) 16 (10%) 

Nasal problems† 68 (42%) 29 (18%) 

Watery eyes† 65 (40%) 31 (18%) 

Skin problems† 31 (19%) 19 (11%) 

Asthma

 Ever 32 (20%)

 Current 23 (14%) 

Nasal allergies 37 (23%) 

*Work-related symptoms were defined as symptoms that improved away from the facility, either on days 

off or on vacation. 

† In the past 12 months

‡ Asthma-like symptoms were defined as current use of asthma medicine and/or one or more of the 

following symptoms in the last 12 months: wheezing or whistling in the chest, awakening with a feeling of 

chest tightness, or attack of asthma. 

Comparison of EVS and Non-EVS Staff 

Physician Diagnosed Asthma Reported by EVS and Non-EVS Staff 

There was no significant difference between EVS and non-EVS staff with regard to ever 

having a physician’s diagnosis of asthma or current asthma (Appendix A, Table A1). The 

prevalence of ever having a physician diagnosis of asthma among EVS staff participants was 

2.1 times (95% CI = 1.2, 3.7) that of the expected prevalence for the U.S. adult population, 

while the prevalence of current asthma among EVS staff was 2.3 times (95% CI = 1.2, 4.3) 

the expected prevalence for the U.S. adult population. Similarly, among non-EVS staff, these 

prevalences were higher than the expected values for the U.S. adult population; 2.6 times 

(95% CI = 1.6, 4.1) higher for ever-asthma, and 2.4 times (95% CI = 1.3, 4.2) higher for 

current asthma. 
Page 20 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

Among the 32 participants who reported ever having a physician diagnosis of asthma, 

approximately double the percentage of EVS staff (62%) compared to non-EVS staff (32%) 

indicated that something at work brings on or worsens their asthma; the prevalence of asthma 

brought on or made worse by work for EVS and non-EVS staff is shown in Figure 4. Among 

the 14 employees that said something at work brings on or worsens their asthma, 36% 

indicated that the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA brought on or made their 

asthma worse. 

Symptoms and Medication Use Reported by EVS Staff 

EVS staff reported higher prevalences of work-related health outcomes including shortness 

of breath, asthma-like symptoms, use of asthma medicine, use of allergy medicine, nasal 

problems, and skin problems, with statistically significant higher reports of wheeze and 

watery eyes (Figure 3; Appendix A, Table A1). In addition, EVS staff had significantly higher 

prevalence of nasal problems and watery eyes brought on or made worse by something at 

work (Figure 4). Among the 32 employees who said that something at work brought on or 

made their nasal problems worse, 56% specified the product by name. Seventy-one percent 

of those who reported that something at work brought on or made their watery eye symptoms 

worse at work, also specified the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA by name. 

Among EVS staff reporting skin problems, 75% reported that something at work brought on 

or made this symptom worse, compared to 42% of non-EVS staff. Fifty-three percent of staff 

who reported that something at work brought on or made their skin problems worse specified 

the product containing HP, PAA, and AA brought on or made their skin problems worse. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 21 

Figure 3. Prevalence of health outcomes brought on or made worse by something at work by EVS vs. non-EVS staff, 

August-September 2015. Percentages reflect the number of participants who reported a health outcome and indicated if 

it was brought on or made worse by something at work. 

Note: EVS=environmental services staff 

* Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) are indicated by an asterisk next to the name of the symptom. 

† Indicates all symptoms specific to the last 12 months 
Page 22 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Figure 4. Prevalence of work-related health outcomes by environmental services staff (EVS) vs. non-EVS staff, August-September 2015. Work-related symptoms were defined as symptoms that improved away from the facility, either on days off, or on vacation. Work-related medicine use was defined as increased use of medicine on work-days. *Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) are indicated by an asterisk next to the name of the symptom. Indicates all symptoms specific to the last 12 months † Asthma-like symptoms were defined as current use of asthma medicine and/or one or more of the following symptoms in the last 12 months: wheezing or ‡whistling in the chest, awakening with a feeling of chest tightness, or attack of asthma. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 23 

Comparison of Product Users and Non-users 

In general, the comparisons between users of the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and 

AA and non-users showed similar patterns to those described above for EVS staff and nonEVS staff. 

Physician Diagnosed Asthma Reported by Product Users and Non-Users 

There was no significant difference between users of the sporicidal product containing HP, 

PAA, and AA and non-users with regard to ever having a physician’s diagnosis of asthma or 

current asthma. Both groups had higher than expected asthma prevalence when compared to 

the U.S. population (Appendix A, Table A2). 

Other Health Outcomes Reported by Product Users and Non-Users 

Users of the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA reported higher prevalence of 

work-related health outcomes including cough, shortness of breath, asthma-like symptoms, 

asthma attack, use of asthma medicine, asthma symptoms, use of allergy medicine, nasal 

problems, and skin problems, with wheeze and watery eyes being significantly higher 

(Appendix A, Figure A1). 

Associations with department-level exposures 

The department with the highest average TM was the WCBC. Prevalence ratios comparing 

the WCBC to the 3 departments with the lowest average TMs (2700/2800, Outpatient 

Clinic, and 4100) were calculated for wheeze, chest tightness, nasal problems, watery eyes 

and asthma-like symptoms and can be seen in Figure 5. Statistically significant results 

were found for watery eyes in the WCBC (PR= 2.88, 95% CI=1.18-7.05) and for the three 

highest units (WCBC, 5300, and NICU) with high TM concentrations (PR= 2.58, 95% 

CI=1.07-6.26) when compared to departments with low concentrations. When compared to 

all other departments, there were no significant differences among the survey participants 

in the WCBC with regard to sex, race, smoking status or those working in EVS. However, 

participants on the WCBC unit were significantly younger, with an average age of 37 and 

workers on all other units with an average age of 44 (t-test, p=0.0169). 

We compared the prevalence of shortness of breath, cough, wheeze, watery eyes and asthma 

diagnosis among workers in the WCBC compared to the U.S. population. The prevalence 

of watery eyes (SMR= 1.70, 95% CI= 1.06-2.72), lifetime asthma diagnosis (SMR=2.50, 

95% CI=1.07-5.85), and current asthma (SMR= 3.47, 95% CI= 1.48-8.13) was significantly 

higher than expected when compared to the U.S. population. Watery eyes and current 

asthma among workers in all other departments was not significantly higher than expected. 

However, lifetime asthma diagnosis was significantly higher than expected (SMR=2.52, 95% 

CI=1.41-4.51) in these other departments. 
Page 24 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

Figure 5. Prevalence ratios for symptoms in the Labor and Delivery Department (WCBC), 3 departments 

with the highest average TM (WCBC, 5300, NICU) and 3 departments with medium TMs (5800, 

3700/3800, 4800) compared to the 3 departments with the lowest average TMs (4100, Outpatient Clinic, 

2700/2800). Statistically significant results are noted with an (*). All symptoms specific to the last 12 

months are noted with an (†). Asthma-like symptoms (§) were defined as current use of asthma medicine 

and/or one or more of the following symptoms in the last 12 months: wheezing or whistling in the chest, 

awakening with a feeling of chest tightness, or attack of asthma. 

We compared the prevalence of shortness of breath, cough, wheeze, watery eyes and asthma 

diagnosis among employees in the WCBC to the U.S. population. The prevalence of watery 

eyes (SMR= 1.70, CI= 1.06-2.72), lifetime asthma diagnosis (SMR=2.50, CI=1.07-5.85), and 

current asthma (SMR= 3.47, CI= 1.48-8.13) were significantly higher than expected when 

compared to the U.S. population. Watery eyes and current asthma among employees in all 

other departments were not significantly higher than expected. However, lifetime asthma 

diagnosis was significantly higher than expected (SMR=2.52, CI=1.41-4.51) in these other 

departments. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 25 

Discussion 

Overall, we observed a higher prevalence of work-related health outcomes in EVS staff, 

when compared to non-EVS staff. EVS staff reported a higher prevalence of work-related 

shortness of breath, asthma-like symptoms, use of asthma medication, use of allergy 

medicine, nasal problems, and skin problems. In addition, EVS staff had significantly 

higher prevalence of work-related nasal problems and watery eyes (Figure 4). Among 

employees who said that something at work brought on or made their nasal problems worse, 

approximately half (56%) specified the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA. 

Almost three-quarters (71%) of staff who reported that something at work brought on or 

made their watery eye symptoms worse at work also specified this product. When compared 

to non-EVS staff, EVS staff had almost twice the prevalence (75% EVS staff, 42% non-EVS 

staff) of skin problems that were brought on or made worse at work. Of staff who reported 

that something at work brought on or made their skin problems worse, 53% specified the 

sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA. Work-related watery eyes and wheeze were 

significantly more common among EVS staff when compared to non-EVS staff. 

EVS staff using the product containing HP, PAA, and AA, reported acute and chronic 

symptoms. Symptoms were associated with exposure to the mixture of vapors from the 

product. The highest HP, PAA, and AA vapor exposure group (TM) had 3.5 and 6.5 fold 

increases in acute nasal and eye irritation, respectively (Figure 2). Increases in exposure to 

the HP, PAA, and AA vapors were also significantly associated with chronic shortness of 

breath on level ground. The highest TM exposure group had 3.1 fold higher prevalence of 

shortness of breath. The highest TM exposure group also had 2.3 fold higher prevalence 

of wheeze in the last 12 months, when compared to the lowest exposure group, albeit this 

difference was not significant (Table 3). 

Our results suggest that exposure to vapors from the sporicidal product containing HP, 

PAA, and AA contributed to acute eye and upper airway symptoms, as well as shortness 

of breath, in hospital cleaning employees using the sporicidal product. The results of our 

evaluation are consistent with previous studies that have reported an increased risk for 

dermatitis, chronic bronchitis and work-related rhinitis and asthma in workers exposed to 

cleaning and disinfectant chemicals [Maçãira et al. 2007; Rosenman et al. 2003; Vizcaya et 

al. 2011; Charles, Loomis, and Demissie 2009]. We observed health effects in cleaning staff 

at exposure levels below established occupational exposure limits. Because both HP and 

PAA are strong oxidants, the mixture of HP and PAA potentially contributed to the airway 

symptoms reported by cleaning staff, at the relatively low levels of measured exposures. 

We observed that some hospital employees were informed and had the impression that 

because the chemicals contained in the sporicidal product are similar to common household 

products, there is little health risk from exposure. The 2008 HICPAC Guideline recommends 

that each worker be informed of the possible health effect(s) of his or her exposure to 

chemicals. Specifically, employees should be educated on the documented health risks from 

exposure to HP, AA and PAA, as well as chemicals found in other cleaners at the hospital. 

This information should be consistent with Safety Data Sheets, Environmental Protection 
Page 26 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

Agency regulations, and OSHA requirements and identify areas and tasks where there is 

the potential for exposure. In 2015, this sporicidal product specifically, was listed as an 

asthmagen, or a substance that causes asthma, by the Association of Occupational and 

Environmental Clinics (AOEC) [AOEC 2015]. 

We recommend that company management pursue the actions listed below to reduce 

employee exposure to sporicidal products containing HP, PAA, and AA. Because employees 

are most familiar with the areas and tasks involved, we recommend that management 

involve employees that perform the work duties in each respective area when enacting any 

actions described below. Labor-management health and safety meetings are an opportune 

environment to discuss department specific recommendations and develop an action 

plan. Many of our recommendations come from the CDC’s Healthcare Infection Control 

Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), which developed a Guideline for Disinfection and 

Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities in 2008 [CDC 2008]. This Guideline acknowledges 

that occupational diseases among cleaning personnel have been associated with disinfectant 

use at levels below OSHA or NIOSH exposure limits. HICPAC recommends that controls 

be used to minimize exposure to disinfectants, including elimination or substitution of the 

chemical, engineering or administrative controls, or the use of personal protective equipment. 

Additional information is provided in the Recommendations section, below. 

Conclusions 

In summary, acute eye symptoms and upper and lower respiratory symptoms were common 

in EVS staff during their shifts. EVS staff using a disinfectant cleaner that is one of a group 

of sporicidal products marketed under various trade names that contain HP, PAA, and AA, 

reported acute eye and airway symptoms, as well as chronic airway symptoms at low levels 

of measured exposures. Increased exposure to HP, PAA, and AA was significantly associated 

with increases in work-shift acute nasal and eye irritation and shortness of breath on level 

ground. All full-shift TWA air samples for HP and AA were below established occupational 

exposure limits. Whether analyzed by EVS staff versus non-EVS staff or by sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA use versus non-product use, we found higher prevalences 

of work-related symptoms in the potentially exposed group versus the comparison group. We 

also found positive associations between exposure measurements related to this product’s 

use and some health effects. Our results indicate a need to (1) monitor respiratory and eye 

symptoms in hospital cleaning staff using any cleaning products containing a mixture of HP, 

PAA, and AA, and (2) use combination of engineering and administrative controls to reduce 

employee exposures. 

Recommendations 

Our recommendations are based on an approach known as the hierarchy of controls. This 

approach groups actions by how effective they are at removing or reducing hazards. In most 

cases, the primary approach is to eliminate hazardous materials or processes, and to install 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 27 

engineering controls to reduce exposure or shield employees. Administrative measures and 

personal protective equipment may be needed until such engineering controls are in place, or 

if engineering controls are not effective or feasible. Hospital management has already taken 

some steps to minimize employee exposure to the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, 

and AA, and address employee concerns. Below, we provide additional recommendations in 

the continued effort to improve employee health and safety. 

Elimination or Substitution 

A primary approach to minimizing exposure risk is to eliminate hazardous materials or 

processes. Sporicidal disinfectants are an important part of reducing healthcare-acquired 

infections. However, the choice to use sporicidal disinfectants in specific areas of the 

hospital should be prudent and reflect the level of risk of a healthcare-acquired infection. We 

observed the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA being used by cleaning staff on 

surfaces throughout the hospital, including surfaces in non-patient areas. HICPAC provides 

recommendations for when and where sterilization with sporicides, versus disinfection 

with high- and low-level disinfectants, should occur in healthcare facilities [CDC 2008]. 

HICPAC states that HP and PAA can be used as high-level disinfectants for semicritical items 

that come into contact with mucus membranes or non-intact skin like respiratory therapy 

and anesthesia equipment, and some endoscopes [CDC 2008]. Surfaces that may come 

into contact with non-intact skin for short periods of time, like bed side rails, are typically 

considered noncritical surfaces and may be disinfected with phenolic, iodophors, alcohols, 

or chlorine compounds [CDC 2008]. Exposure to vapors containing HP, PAA, and AA could 

be reduced by substituting intermediate or low-level disinfectants for sporicidal products 

containing HP, PAA, and AA, when cleaning and disinfecting noncritical surfaces like bed 

rails, patient furniture, and bedside tables, and when cleaning surfaces in non-patient areas. 

HICPAC states that detergent and water are adequate for cleaning surfaces in non-patient care 

areas. We recommend that sporicidal products containing HP, PAA, and AA, not be used in 

non-patient care areas such as public bathrooms or administrative offices. 

Engineering Controls 

Engineering controls can reduce employees’ exposures by lowering air concentrations 

with increased ventilation 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. We recommend that additional return airflow be provided in the janitorial closets 

in 3100 and 5300 to ensure that the ASHRAE requirement of a minimum of 10 air 

changes per hour is met [ASHRAE 2013]. 

2. Ensure that all patient bathrooms meet minimum total air changes per hour as specified 

by ASHRAE. ASHRAE standard 2013-170 requires inpatient bathrooms to have at 

least 10 air changes per hour. 

3. Ensure that the dispensers for the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA 

are calibrated to effectively dilute the product to a pH of 3. If the sporicidal product 

is not effectively diluted, a pH of less than 3 may increase skin, eye, and respiratory 
Page 28 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

symptoms in exposed employees. 

4. We recommend that management replace the current open-face buckets used to hold 

the wipes and sporicidal liquid product with bucket wipe dispensers. Exposure to HP, 

PAA, and AA vapors from the sporicidal product may be minimized by requiring lids 

for the containers that EVS staff use to hold the sporicidal liquid product and wipes. 

Several companies make bucket wipe dispensers that could be used to allow wipes to 

be pulled from the sporicidal product containers while minimizing vapor exposure. 

Administrative Controls 

Administrative controls refer to employer-dictated work practices and policies 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. Minimize the use of sporicidal products containing HP, PAA, and AA, in non-patient 

care areas. 

2. Review the process for Occupational Safety and Health Administration Form 

300 reporting and maintenance to assure that all reportable injuries are recorded, 

regardless of whether a workers’ compensation claim is filed. Consider implementing 

a comprehensive system for reporting and tracking workplace injuries and illnesses 

that includes reports of near-misses, minor injuries and illnesses, and employee safety 

concerns. This information should be reviewed by the Safety Officer on a regular 

basis to identify hazards, implement risk-reduction strategies, and prevent significant 

injuries and illnesses. 

3. We recommend that management implement a reporting system that would allow 

employees to report work-related symptoms, with the option to remain anonymous 

for employees who do not wish to be identified. As a performance indicator for 

disinfection and sterilization, HICPAC recommends that healthcare facilities develop 

a mechanism for the reporting of all adverse health events potentially resulting from 

exposure to sporicidal disinfectants and sterilants. These reports should be reviewed 

regularly, and the facility should implement controls to prevent future exposures. 

4. Health and safety concerns related to cleaning and disinfecting products should be 

regularly evaluated. An annual post-shift survey of acute symptoms may be a useful 

tool for (1) alerting management to symptoms experienced by cleaning staff and (2) 

identifying areas of the hospital where symptoms may be more commonly reported 

and exposures may be higher. Such a system may allow employees with symptoms 

related to cleaning or disinfecting products to be offered relocation to an area or unit 

of the hospital with lower risk of exposure to sporicidal disinfectants. This type of 

evaluation may also help the facility identify additional controls to reduce employee 

exposure. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 29 

5. Employees should report new, persistent, or worsening symptoms to their personal 

healthcare provider and, as instructed by their employer, to a designated individual at 

their workplace. An individualized management plan (such as assigning an affected 

employee to a different work location) is sometimes required, as indicated by medical 

findings and recommendations of the physician. Employees with symptoms should 

provide their personal physicians or other healthcare providers with a copy of this 

report. 

6. A team approach should be used when introducing a new cleaning product or system. 

A committee of EVS staff, infection preventionists, and occupational health and safety 

representatives should be convened when new cleaners and sporicidal disinfectants 

are chosen for the facility. Acquiring buy-in from these different groups prior to 

investment is key to implementing a new cleaning product or system. A trial period 

with a new cleaning system or product, with selected trial units or areas of the hospital, 

could be used to acquire feedback from stakeholders, including EVS staff, to evaluate 

new cleaning systems or products. Evaluation of a new cleaning system or product 

should consider effectiveness, cost, and employee health and safety concerns. 

7. Ensure employees understand the potential hazards from exposure to cleaning 

products 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 of potential work hazards and trained on associated safe practices, 

procedures, and protective measures. Ensure employees have access and are informed 

of potential hazards and trained on the associated safe practices per the information 

found in the cleaning products’ Safety Data Sheets. We found that some hospital 

employees have the impression that because the chemicals contained in the sporicidal 

product are similar to common household products, there is little health risk from 

exposure. The 2008 HICPAC Guideline recommends that each worker be informed 

of the possible health effect(s) of his or her exposure to chemicals. Specifically, 

employees should be educated on the documented health risks from exposure to 

HP, AA and PAA, as well as chemicals found in other cleaners at the hospital. This 

information should be consistent with Safety Data Sheets, Environmental Protection 

Agency regulations, and OSHA requirements and identify areas and tasks where there 

is the potential for exposure. 

8. In an interim letter dated October 19, 2015, we observed that the sporicidal product 

containing HP, PAA, and AA was formerly used as a spray cleaner by some staff in 

some units. Because spraying the sporicidal product may increase an employee’s 

risk of inhalational exposure to HP, PAA, and AA, we recommend that employees 

discontinue the practice of using the sporicidal product as a spray cleaner. Instead, 

employees should continue using rags or wipes to apply the product to surfaces. 

Personal Protective Equipment 

Personal protective equipment is the least effective means for controlling hazardous 
Page 30 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

exposures. Proper use of personal protective equipment requires a comprehensive program 

and a high level of employee involvement and commitment. The right personal protective 

equipment must be chosen for each hazard. Supporting programs such as training, change-out 

schedules, and medical assessment might be needed. Personal protective equipment should 

not be the sole method for controlling hazardous exposures. Rather, personal protective 

equipment should be used until effective engineering and administrative controls are in place. 

1. Require employees to wear extended cuff nitrile gloves or rubber gloves when using 

the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA, and goggles or a face shield while 

dispensing and pouring the product into or out of the bucket on their cleaning cart. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 31 

References 

ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists) [2016]. 2016 

TLVs® and BEIs®: Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents 

and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental 

Industrial Hygienists. 

AOEC (Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics) [2015]. Exposure code 

lookup. Available at: http://www.aoecdata.org/ExpCodeLookup.aspx. Date assessed: March 

2017. 

ASHRAE [2013]. Ventilation of health care facilities, ANSI/ASHRAE/ASHE Standard 170-

2013. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE. 

Burney PG, 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). 

CDC [2008]. Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities, 2008. 

Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Available at: http://www.cdc. 

gov/hicpac/Disinfection_Sterilization/toc.html. Date accessed: March 2017. 

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

Office of the Federal Register. 

Charles LE, Loomis D, Demissie Z. [2009] Occupational hazards experienced by cleaning 

workers and janitors: A review of the epidemiologic literature. Work; 34 105-16. 

ECRHS (European Community Respiratory Health Survey) [2014]. Questionnaires, 

protocols and instructions. Available at: http://www.ecrhs.org/Quests.htm. Date accessed: 

March 2017. 

Gagnaire F, Marignac B, Hecht G, Héry M [ 2002]. Sensory irritation of acetic acid, 

hydrogen peroxide, peroxyacetic acid and their mixture in mice. Ann Occup Hyg 46(1):97-

102. 

Grassi M, Rezzani C, Biino G, Marinoni A [2003]. Asthma-like symptoms assessment 

through ECRHS screening questionnaire scoring. J Clin Epidemiol 56(3):238–247. 

Hecht G, Hery M, Hubert G, Subra I [2004]. Simultaneous sampling of peracetic acid and 

hydrogen peroxide in workplace atmospheres. Ann Occup Hyg 48(8):715-721. 
Page 32 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

Maçãira EdF, Algranti E, Mendonça EMC, Bussacos MA. [2007] Rhinitis and asthma 

symptoms in non-domestic cleaners from the São Paulo Metropolitan Area, Brazil. 

Occupational and Environmental Medicine 

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) [2010]. NIOSH pocket guide 

to chemical hazards, US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 2010-168c.Available at: http:// 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/. Date accessed: March 2017. 

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) [2003]. Sampling and analytical 

methods: acetic acid, PV2119. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/partial/ 

pv2119/pv2119.html. Date accessed: March 2017. 

Pacenti M, Dugheri S, Boccalon P, Arcangeli G, Dolara P, Cupelli V [2010]. Air monitoring 

and assessment of occupational exposure to peracetic acid in a hospital environment. Ind 

Health 48(2):217-221. 

Pechacek N, Osorio M, Caudill J, Peterson B. [2015] Evaluation of the toxicity data for 

peracetic acid in deriving occupational exposure limits: a minireview. Toxicol Lett 233(1):45-

57. 

Rosenman KD, Reilly MJ, Schill DP, Valiante D, Flattery J, Harrison R, Reinisch F, Pechter 

E, Davis L, Tumpowsky CM, Filios M. [2003] Cleaning Products and Work-Related Asthma. 

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine; 45 556-63. 

Vizcaya D, Mirabelli MC, Antó J-M, Orriols R, Burgos F, Arjona L, Zock J-P. [2011] A 

workforce-based study of occupational exposures and asthma symptoms in cleaning workers. 

Occupational and Environmental Medicine; 68 914-19. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 33 

Appendix A : Supplemental Analyses 

All participants - Asthma 

Twenty percent (n=32) of participants reported ever being diagnosed with asthma, which 

was 2.4 times higher (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.6-3.4) than expected, compared to 

the U.S. adult population. Current asthma was reported by 14% (n=23) of participants and 

was 2.3 times higher (95% CI= 1.5-3.6) than expected. A total of 15 (9%) participants had 

adult-onset asthma, which was 2.8 times higher (95% CI=1.7-4.7) than expected. The prehire adult-onset asthma incidence density was 4.8 cases per 1000 person-years. The post-hire 

adult-onset asthma incidence density was 5.5 cases per 1000 person-years. This produced an 

incidence density ratio of 1.15, which shows no difference in adult-onset asthma between the 

pre-hire and post-hire group. 

Health outcomes by EVS and non-EVS staff 

Among EVS participants, the most commonly reported health outcomes were watery 

eyes (42%), nasal problems (41%), asthma-like symptoms (28%), and shortness of breath 

(16%). The most commonly reported health outcomes for non-EVS staff were use of allergy 

medicine (43%), nasal problems (43%), watery eyes (38%), and asthma-like symptoms 

(29%) (Table A2). Only the use of allergy medication and nasal allergies diagnosis (p≤0.05) 

were significant between EVS and non-EVS participants (Table A1). When compared to 

expected values for the U.S. adult population, EVS staff were not significantly different for 

the prevalence of shortness of breath, cough, wheeze, and watery eyes. Non-EVS staff were 

not significantly different when compared to the U.S. adult population for the prevalence of 

cough, wheeze and watery eyes. However, they were 57% less likely to report shortness of 

breath than the U.S. adult population and this difference was significant (SMR= 0.43, CI= 

0.21-0.89). 
Page 34 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

 

2015 

Table A1. Health outcomes of EVS and non-EVS Staff, NIOSH survey August-September 

Health Outcome EVS (n= 79) Non-EVS (n= 84) p* 

Cough 3 (4%) 6 (7%) 0.50 

Shortness of Breath 13 (16%) 8 (10%) 0.24 

Wheeze† 11 (14%) 15 (18%) 0.53 

Chest Tightness† 11 (14%) 7 (8%) 0.32 

Asthma Attack† 2 (3%) 6 (7%) 0.28 

Asthma Medicine 8 (10%) 10 (12%) 0.81 

Allergy Medicine 12 (15%) 36 (43%) ≤0.05 

Asthma-Like Symptoms§ 22 (28%) 24 (29%) 1.00 

Nasal Problems† 32 (41%) 36 (43%) 0.87 

Watery Eyes† 33 (42%) 32 (38%) 0.75 

Skin Problems† 12 (15%) 19 (23%) 0.24 

Asthma 

Ever 13 (16%) 19 (23%) 0.33 

Current 10 (13%) 13 (15%) 0.66 

Nasal Allergies 10 (13%) 27 (32%) ≤0.05 

Note: EVS=environmental services staff 

* P-values calculated using Chi-Square or Fisher’s Exact Test; p ≤ 0.05 considered significant

† In the past 12 months.

§ Asthma-like symptoms were defined as current use of asthma medicine and/or one or more of the 

following symptoms in the last 12 months: wheezing or whistling in the chest, awakening with a feeling of 

chest tightness, or attack of asthma. 

Health outcomes by product use 

A comparison of health outcomes between users of the sporicidal product containing HP, 

PAA, and AA and non-users are shown in Table A2. The most commonly reported symptom 

among product users were watery eyes (45%), nasal problems (40%), and asthma-like 

symptoms (31%). Commonly reported symptoms among product non-users were nasal 

problems (44%), use of allergy medicine (38%), and watery eyes (35%). Only nasal allergy 

diagnosis and the use of allergy medication was significantly different between users and 

non-users (p≤0.05). Both product users and non-users were also not significantly different 

from the U.S. adult population for upper and lower respiratory symptoms. 

The prevalence of ever having a physician diagnosis of asthma among product users was 2.1 

times (95% CI = 1.2-3.7) that of the expected U.S. adult population. Similarly, the prevalence 

of current asthma among product users was 2.5 times (95% CI = 1.4-4.6) the expected 

prevalence for the U.S. adult population. Among product non-users, the prevalence of ever 

having a physician diagnosis of asthma or current asthma was also higher than the expected 

values for the U.S. adult population. Among product non-users, the prevalence of ever 

having physician diagnosed asthma was 2.6 times (95% CI = 1.6-4.2) and current asthma 

was 2.2 times (95% CI = 1.2-4.0), the expected prevalence for the U.S. adult population. The 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

 

 

prevalence of work-related symptoms was generally higher in users of the sporicidal product 

containing HP, PAA, and AA (Figure A1). 

Table A2. Symptoms and self-reported diagnoses of the survey participants (N=163), 

by Product Use, NIOSH survey, August-September 2015 

Symptom Product Users

 (n= 78 ) 

Non-Product Users 

(n= 85 ) p* 

Nasal Problems† 31 (40%) 37 (44%) 0.64 

Watery Eyes† 35 (45%) 30 (35%) 0.26 

Asthma-Like 

Symptoms§ 24 (31%) 22 (26%) 0.60 

Skin Problems† 12 (15%) 19 (22%) 0.32 

Wheeze† 12 (15%) 14 (16%) 1.00 

Shortness of Breath 11 (14%) 10 (12%) 0.82 

Chest Tightness† 10 (13%) 8 (9%) 0.62 

Cough 5 (6%) 4 (5%) 0.74 

Asthma Attack† 3 (4%) 5 (6%) 0.72 

Medication Use 

Allergy Medicine 16 (21%) 32 (38%) <0.05 

Asthma Medicine 10 (13%) 8 (9%) 0.62 

Diagnosis 

Asthma 

Ever 14 (18%) 18 (21%) 0.69 

Current 12 (15%) 11 (13%) 0.66 

Nasal Allergies 11 (14%) 26 (31%) <0.05 

Notes: 

Product Users=Staff that reported using the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA; NonProduct Users=Staff that reported no use of the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA.

*P values calculated using Chi-square or Fisher’s Exact Test

†In the past 12 months.

§Asthma-like symptoms were defined as current use of asthma medicine and/or one or more of the following symptoms in the last 12 months: wheezing or whistling in the chest, awakening with a feeling of chest 

tightness, or attack of asthma.
 

Page 35 
Page 36 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Figure A1. Prevalence of work-related health outcomes by product use, August-September 2015. Work-related symptoms were defined as symptoms that improved away from the facility, either on days off or on vacation. Sporicidal product use indicates users of the sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, and AA. Statistically significant differences (p≤0.05) are indicated by an asterisk next to the name of the symptom. * Indicates symptoms reported in the last 12 months. †
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 37 

 

Results for the 68 EVS participants who reported product use are shown in Table A3. 

Table A3. Health outcomes of EVS staff who reported product use (N=68), NIOSH survey, 

August-September 2015. 

Symptom Symptom Prevalence, 

n (%) 

Work Related 

Symptom* Prevalence, 

n (%) 

Cough 

Shortness of Breath 

Wheeze† 

Chest Tightness† 

Asthma Attack† 

Asthma-Like Symptoms§ 

Nasal Problems† 

Watery Eyes† 

Skin Problems† 

3 (4%) 

11 (16%) 

10 (15%) 

9 (13%) 

2 (3%) 

19 (28%)

28 (41%) 

31 (46%) 

10 (15%) 

1 (1%) 

5 (7%) 

5 (7%) 

2 (3%) 

1 (1%) 

10 (15%) 

15 (22%) 

20 (29%) 

7 (10%) 

*Work-related symptoms were defined as symptoms that improved away from the facility, either on days 

off or on vacation. Product use indicates EVS staff who used a sporicidal product containing HP, PAA, 

and AA. 

† In the past 12 months.

§ Asthma-like symptoms were defined as current use of asthma medicine and/or one or more of the 

following symptoms in the last 12 months: wheezing or whistling in the chest, awakening with a feeling of 

chest tightness, or attack of asthma. 

Acute symptoms in EVS staff during a work shift 

Table A4 shows the results of logistic regression of acute symptoms during a work-shift in 

EVS staff in relation to exposure to acetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and peracetic acid. 
Page 38 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Table A4. Odds ratios** for acute symptoms and exposure to hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid and acetic acid in EVS staff, July and September 2015. Symptom Hydrogen Peroxide (95% CI) Peracetic Acid (95% CI) Acetic Acid (95% CI) Burning, itchy, runny nose* Sneeze Burning, itchy, watery eyes* Burning, dry, sore throat Cough Wheeze Chest Tightness Shortness of Breath Difficulty Breathing Dizziness 1.01 (1.00-1.02) 1.01 (1.00-1.01) 1.01 (1.00-1.02) 1.00 (1.00-1.01) 1.00 (0.99-1.00) 1.01 (1.00-1.02) 1.00 (0.98-1.01) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) 1.00 (0.97-1.01) 1.00 (0.98-1.01) 1.08 (1.02-1.15) 1.02 (0.97-1.07) 1.10 (1.04-1.18) 1.02 (0.97-1.08) 1.03 (0.98-1.09) 1.00 (0.89-1.08) 1.05 (0.94-1.16) 1.05 (0.97-1.15) 1.04 (0.94-1.15) 1.03 (0.95-1.12) 1.01 (1.00-1.02) 1.00 (1.00-1.01) 1.02 (1.01-1.03) 1.00 (1.00-1.01) 1.00 (1.00-1.01) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) 1.00 (0.98-1.01) 1.00 (0.98-1.01) 1.00 (0.98-1.01) 1.00 (0.98-1.01) * 95% confidence intervals are displayed in parentheses. ** The odds ratios represent the change for every parts per billion change in exposure measurements. An odds ratio greater than one indicates an increase in symptoms for an increase in exposure. 

Exposures that were significantly associated with work-related acute symptoms at p < 0.05 are noted in bold.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 39 

 

 

Demographics of Air Sampling, Acute Symptom Survey, and Health and Work History 

Questionnaire Participants 

Demographic information for cleaning staff who participated in the air sampling, post-shift 

survey, and health and work history questionnaire can be seen in Table A5. The median age 

of participants was 40 years and ranged from 20 to 67 years. Forty-three percent were male. 

Median tenure was 3.5 years and ranged from 0.21 to 26.2 years. Current, former, and never 

smokers accounted for 23%, 6%, and 71% of participants, respectively. 

Table A5. Demographic characteristics of air sampling, acute symptom survey and health and 

work history questionnaire participants, August-September 2015 

Characteristic Hospital Cleaning Staff 

(N=35) 

Age, years, median (range) 40 (20-67) 

Tenure, years, median (range) 3.5 (0.21- 26.2) 

Male, n (%) 

Race, n (%) 

15 (43%) 

White 11 (31%)

 Black 17 (49%) 

Asian 2 (6%)

 Other† 4 (11%)

 Unknown‡ 

Smoking status, n (%)

1 (3%) 

Current 8 (23%)

 Former 2 (6%)

 Never 25 (71%) 

† Includes participants who indicated more than one race.

‡ Participants who refused to indicate a race. 

Comparison between Responses Observed in the Post-Shift Acute Symptom Survey and in the 

Health and Work History Questionnaire 

Thirty-five EVS employees participated in the health and work history questionnaire, 

post-shift survey, and personal air sampling. In Figure A2, we show the prevalence of 

symptoms reported by 35 employees in both the post-shift survey and health and work 

history questionnaire. Nasal and eye irritation were the most commonly reported symptoms 

in both surveys. Cough, nasal, and eye symptoms were more often reported in the post-shift 

survey as acute symptoms that were experienced during their work shift. Overall, employees 

reported similarly for acute symptoms that began during their work shift and symptoms 

reported as usually occurring or as having occurred in the last year. 

We also explored associations between exposure to hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, and 

peracetic acid and symptoms reported as occurring in the previous 12 months using logistic 

regression (Table A6). Asthma-like symptoms, nasal irritation, eye irritation, wheeze, and 

shortness of breath were associated with exposure to acetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

peracetic acid. Shortness of breath was significantly associated with hydrogen peroxide 

exposure. Additionally, exposure to hydrogen peroxide was associated with cough, chest 

tightness, and allergy medication use. We also explored associations between the use 

of cleaning products containing known asthmagens and work-related acute symptoms 

using logistic regression. The use of any single cleaning product containing quaternary 

ammonium compounds, bleach, ethanolamines or any combination of these products was 

not significantly associated with work-related acute symptoms. Overall, we observed similar 

reporting of work-related symptoms in the post-shift acute symptom survey and symptoms 

that employees had experienced in the last year. We observed associations between exposure 

to hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, and peracetic acid and work-related symptoms in EVS 

employees who participated in both the post-shift acute symptom survey and health and work 

history questionnaire. Work Related Symptoms Prevalence

Figure A2. Prevalence of work-related symptoms reported by employees in the post-shift acute symptom 

survey and health and work history questionnaire (n=35), NIOSH survey, July-September 2015. 

Page 40 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 41 Table A6. Odds ratios** for symptoms reported as usually occurring or in the last 12 months with exposure to hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and acetic acid, NIOSH survey, July-September 2015. Condition Hydrogen Peroxide (95% CI*) Peracetic Acid (95% CI) Acetic Acid (95% CI) Nasal Problems, previous 12 months Watery Eyes, previous 12 months Usual Cough Shortness of Breath on Level Ground* Wheeze, previous 12 months Awaken from chest tightness, previous 12 months Asthma Medication Use Asthma-like Symptoms 1.01 (1.00-1.02) 1.01 (1.00-1.02) 1.01 (1.00-1.02) 1.01 (1.00-1.02) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) 1.00 (0.53-2.34) 1.01 (1.00-1.02) 1.00 (1.00-1.01) 1.07 (1.00-1.16) 1.05 (0.99-1.14) 0.88 (0.63-1.04) 1.04 (0.97-1.11) 1.00 (0.91-1.08) 0.99 (0.90-1.07) 1.01 (0.90-1.11) 0.99 (0.92-1.05) 1.00 (1.00-1.007) 1.00 (1.00-1.01) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) 1.00 (0.99-1.00) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) * 95% confidence intervals are displayed in parentheses. ** The odds ratios represent the change for every parts per billion change in exposure measurements. An odds ratio greater than one indicates an increase in symptoms for an increase in exposure. Exposures that were significantly associated with work-related acute symptoms at p < 0.05 are noted in bold.
Page 42 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

This page left intentionally blank 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269 Page 43 

Keywords: North American Industry Classification System 622110 (General Medical and 

Surgical Hospitals), Pennsylvania, peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, disinfectant, sporicidal agent 
Page 44 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2015-0053-3269

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 CFR 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 

Site Visit: Brie Hawley, Megan Casey, Michael Beaty, Randy Boylstein, Kristin Cummings, 

Matt Duling, Ethan Fechter-Leggett, Reid Harvey, Alyson Johnson, Robert B. Lawrence, Tia 

McClelland, Christopher Mugford, Randall Nett, Anand Ranpara, Marcia Stanton, M. Abbas 

Virji, and Sandy White. 

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/2015-0053-3269.pdf. 

All other HHE Reports may be found at http://www2a.cdc.gov/hhe/search.asp. 

Recommended citation for this report: 

NIOSH [2017]. Evaluation of exposure to a new cleaning and disinfection product 

and symptoms in hospital employees. By Hawley B, Casey M, Cummings K, Edwards 

N, Johnson A, Cox-Ganser J. 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. 2015-0053-3269. 
Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention 

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