Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 1

Evaluation of exposures and respiratory 

health at a coffee roasting and packaging 

facility

Report No. 2016-0164-3341

March 2019

R. Reid Harvey, DVM, MPH

Brie H. Blackley, MS, PhD

Stephen B. Martin, Jr., PhD, PE

Marcia L. Stanton, BS

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

Contents

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

Abbreviations .................................... vii

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

Introduction......................................... 3

Background.......................................... 3

Process Description............................. 7 

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

Results ................................................ 15

Discussion .......................................... 26

Conclusions........................................ 35

Recommendations............................. 36

Appendix A: Tables............................ 40

References.......................................... 50

Acknowledgements........................... 60

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

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

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

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

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

not be related to this Health Hazard Evaluation.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page i

We evaluated respiratory health 

and airborne exposures to the alphadiketones diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 

and 2,3-hexanedione, total volatile 

organic compounds, carbon monoxide, 

and carbon dioxide among employees 

at a coffee roasting and packaging 

facility. Some employees in the 

production area of the facility had 

full-shift exposures that exceeded the 

NIOSH recommended exposure limits 

for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. In 

addition, air sampling during shortterm tasks identified tasks measured 

over minutes (e.g., flavoring coffee, 

grinding coffee beans, roasting coffee 

beans, packaging coffee, and cleaning 

equipment) that resulted in relatively 

higher air concentrations of diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione than other tasks. Air 

levels of carbon monoxide measured 

on employees with duties that included 

flavoring and grinding coffee exceeded 

the NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 parts per 

million. Eye and nose symptoms were 

the most commonly reported symptoms. 

Wheezing or whistling in the chest was 

the most common lower respiratory 

symptom reported. Six participants had 

abnormal spirometry. One participant with 

abnormal spirometry and work-related 

respiratory symptoms was referred to 

a pulmonologist and received a clinical 

diagnosis of obliterative bronchiolitis 

associated with occupational exposure to 

flavorings. In response to our evaluation, 

the company installed additional general 

exhaust ventilation in administrative 

and production areas, local exhaust 

ventilation in production areas where 

sources of high exposures to diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione were documented, 

and equipment to monitor pressure 

differentials between production and 

administrative spaces. The company also 

enclosed the grinding area and required 

workers in production areas to wear 

air-purifying or powered air-purifying 

respirators fitted with organic vapor and 

high-efficiency particulate filter cartridges. 

A medical surveillance program was 

instituted. 

Highlights of this Evaluation

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

Health (NIOSH) received a request from management of a coffee roasting and packaging

facility regarding concerns about exposures to 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione during coffee

roasting, grinding, and flavoring.

What We Did

● We visited the coffee roasting, flavoring, an

packaging facility during July 26−28, 2016, 

August 8−12, 2016, and February 3, 2017. 

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

and instantaneous (seconds) air samples 

to measure concentrations of diacetyl, 

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

multiple days. 

● We collected roasted coffee beans (whole

bean and ground) and liquid flavorings to

measure their emission potential for diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione.

● We measured real-time air levels of total 

volatile organic compounds, carbon 

monoxide, and carbon dioxide.

● We assessed the ventilation system at the 

facility.

● We administered a health questionnaire to 

employees and performed breathing tests. 

● We assessed spirometry data from the coffee

facility’s occupational health provider.

What We Found

● All employees participating in full-shift 

sampling were exposed to diacetyl at 

concentrations above the recommended 

exposure limit of 5.0 parts per billion. The 

highest measured concentration of 420.9 parts 

per billion was measured on an employee 

performing duties in the flavoring and

grinding areas. 
Page ii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

● Some employees participating in full-shift sampling with job duties in administrative 

areas and production were also exposed to concentrations above the recommended 

exposure limit for 2,3-pentanedione of 9.3 parts per billion. The highest measured fullshift concentration of 275.9 parts per billion was measured on an employee performing 

duties in the flavoring and grinding areas

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

involving flavoring coffee (maximum 2,127.7 parts per billion), grinding coffee bea

(maximum 80.8 parts per billion), roasting coffee beans (maximum: 54.3 parts per

billion), packaging roasted coffee (maximum 59.0 parts per billion), and cleaning

equipment (maximum: 48.9 parts per billion). 

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

tasks involving flavoring coffee (1,444.7 parts per billion) and grinding coffee bea

(maximum: 49.9 parts per billion).

● Time-weighted average carbon monoxide levels were higher when employees were 

performing tasks in the flavoring room and grinding areas (Range: 13.6 parts per billion

to 29.8 parts per billion). Peak air levels of carbon monoxide measured on employees 

performing tasks in the flavoring room exceeded the NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 parts

per million. 

● All bulk samples of roasted coffee beans and liquid flavorings emitted diacetyl; al

bulk samples of roasted coffee and most bulk samples of liquid flavorings emitte

2,3-pentanedione. 

● Nose and eye symptoms were the most commonly reported symptoms. Some 

employees reported these nose and eye symptoms were caused or aggravated by green 

bean coffee burlap bags, green bean and roasted coffee dust, flavorings, smoke, a

roasting coffee

● Wheezing or whistling in the chest was the most commonly reported lower respiratory 

symptom, followed by shortness of breath, breathing trouble, and chest tightness. Some 

employees reported these lower respiratory symptoms were caused or aggravated by 

grinding and flavoring, heat, and stress

● Six (6%) of 99 participants had abnormal spirometry. 

● Eight (8%) participants had high exhaled nitric oxide, a marker of allergic airways 

inflammation

● One employee with abnormal spirometry and work-related respiratory symptoms 

was referred to a pulmonologist and received a clinical diagnosis of obliterative 

bronchiolitis associated with occupational exposure to flavorings

● Of 53 employees with spirometry testing conducted by NIOSH in 2016 and the coffee

facility’s occupational health provider in 2017, six (11%) had 15% or more decrease 

in lung function between tests, which is more than expected because of aging. One 

employee had 15% or more decrease between two occupational health provider 

spirometry tests conducted in 2017. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page iii

What Has Been Done Since the NIOSH Visit

● Administrative staff were relocated to another building until air levels of diacetyl

and 2,3-pentanedione in the administrative spaces were mitigated with additional 

engineering controls.

● One additional vestibule was constructed in the administrative area to seal doors 

leading from the office area to the production floor to limit air flow between 

production and administrative spaces.

● Pressure gauges were installed in the two vestibule areas to provide a visual 

indicator that the production area was maintained under negative pressure relative to 

administrative spaces.

● Ductwork was installed to provide additional fresh air supply to roasting, flavoring,

grinding, and packaging areas.

● Ductwork was installed to provide additional exhaust to roasting, flavoring, and

grinding areas.

● Local exhaust ventilation was installed in the flavoring room at the flavoring blend .

● The grinding area was enclosed.

● Open transfer points at the roasters were enclosed.

● The use of large ceiling fans was discontinued.

● Follow-up air sampling for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione was conducted to assess the 

effectiveness of engineering controls

● The employer instituted a medical surveillance program, which included repeating 

spirometry every six months for participating employees.

● Powered air-purifying respirators were required for employees in the flavoring room

and grinding area.

● Respirators fitted with o ganic vapor and high-efficiency particulate filter cartridg

were required for employees in other production areas that did not require powered airpurifying respirators.

What the Employer Can Do

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

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

how to protect themselves.

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

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

● Conduct follow-up air sampling to verify additional modifications have been effectiv

in reducing exposures to below the recommended exposure limits.

● Consider additional engineering controls if follow-up air sampling demonstrates 
Page iv Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

exposures remain above recommended exposure limits for diacetyl or 

2,3-pentanedione.

● Install a carbon monoxide monitor near grinders and near the mixer in the flavoring

room to alert employees if carbon monoxide levels exceed the NIOSH ceiling limit of 

200 parts per million. 

● If engineering controls do not reduce personal sampling air levels of diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione below the NIOSH recommended exposure limits, we recommend 

that management continue to require employees performing tasks in production areas 

to wear NIOSH-certified respirators fitted with ganic vapor cartridges and particulate 

filters. The choice of respirator (half-face, full-face, or powered air-purifying 

respirators) should be guided by the concentrations of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione on 

personal air monitoring. 

● If increases to production volumes, modification to current work practices, or changes

in ventilation occur, conduct additional air sampling to verify that the modifications

have not resulted in alpha-diketone exposures above the NIOSH recommended 

exposure limits. Install additional engineering controls if they become necessary. 

● In areas where more protective respirators (half-face, full-face, or powered airpurifying respirators) are not required, make N95 disposable filtering facepiece

respirators available for voluntary use for protection against dust exposure, such as 

when emptying burlap bags of green beans, cleaning the exhaust system of chaff,

emptying the chaff containers, or cleaning the green bean storage area.

● Continue the medical surveillance program for employees who work in production 

areas of the facility, and encourage the occupational health provider to use spirometry 

results to evaluate employees’ change in lung function over time.

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

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

What Employees Can Do

● Use any local exhaust ventilation as instructed by your employer. 

● Follow your employer’s rules about mandatory respiratory protection use.

● Whenever possible, avoid spending time in the immediate area during flavoring and

grinding.

● If more protective respirators (half-face, full-face, or powered air-purifying respirators) 

are not required, some employees might wish to use N95 disposable filtering facepiece

respirators for some tasks, such as when emptying burlap bags of green beans, when 

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

cleaning the green bean storage area.

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

provider(s) and a designated individual at your workplace. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page v

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

● Participate in your employer’s medical surveillance program.
Page vi Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

This page left intentionally blank
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page vii

Abbreviations

μg Microgram

°F degrees Fahrenheit

ACGIH® American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

APF Assigned protection factor

AX Area of reactance

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CFM Cubic feet per minute

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

COHb Carboxyhemoglobin

COPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

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

EF Exhaust fan

FEV1 1-second forced expiratory volume

fpm Feet per minute

Fres Resonant frequency

FVC Forced vital capacity

Hz Hertz

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

IDLH Immediately dangerous to life or health

LPM Liters per minute

LOD Limit of detection

LOQ Limit of quantitation

mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter of air

mL Milliliter

mL/min Milliliter per minute

NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OEL Occupational exposure limit

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PAPRs Powered air-purifying respirators

PEL Permissible exposure limit

ppb Parts per billion

ppm Parts per million

QC Quality control

R5 Resistance at 5 Hertz
Page viii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

R20 Resistance at 20 Hertz

REL Recommended exposure limit

SMR Standardized morbidity ratios 

RH Relative humidity

STEL Short-term exposure limit

TLV® Threshold limit value

TWA Time-weighted average

VOC Volatile organic compound

X5 Reactance at 5 Hertz
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 1

Summary

In May 2016, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) Health 

Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from management of a coffee roasting and

packaging facility regarding concerns about exposures to and health effects from diacetyl and

2,3-pentanedione during coffee roasting, grinding, and flavoring. In July 2016, we conducte

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

survey consisted of collection of air samples and bulk samples of coffee for analysis of

diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione. Continuous monitoring instruments 

were used to monitor total volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, 

temperature, and relative humidity in specific areas and during tasks. We also measured 

levels of carbon monoxide in employees’ exhaled breath and conducted a ventilation 

assessment. In August 2016, we conducted a medical evaluation of employees that consisted 

of a health questionnaire and breathing tests. In February 2017, we returned to conduct an 

industrial hygiene survey of the finished goods warehouse

All personal full-shift samples collected during the industrial hygiene survey exceeded the 

NIOSH recommended exposure limit for diacetyl of 5.0 parts per billion, with a maximum 

concentration of 420.9 parts per billion. Thirty-six of the 37 full-shift samples exceeded the 

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

275.9 parts per billion. We identified work tasks that resulted in higher air concentrations

of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione than other tasks. Specificall , flavoring coffee, grindin

roasted coffee beans, roasting coffee beans, packaging roasted coffee, and cleani

equipment were associated with higher diacetyl levels. We observed high instantaneous 

levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione during flavoring, grinding, and packaging.Air levels 

of carbon monoxide collected on employees with duties that included flavoring and grinding

coffee exceeded the NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 parts per million. Carbon dioxide levels were

low throughout most of the facility.

The most commonly reported symptoms were nose and eye symptoms. Some employees 

reported these nose and eye symptoms were caused or aggravated by green bean coffee

burlap bags, green bean and roasted coffee dust, smoke, flavorings, or roasting coffe

Wheezing or whistling in the chest was the most commonly reported lower respiratory 

symptom. Some employees reported their lower respiratory symptoms were caused or 

aggravated by grinding and flavoring, heat, or stress. Six (6%) of 99 participants had

abnormal spirometry. Eight (8%) participants had high exhaled nitric oxide, a marker of 

allergic airways inflammation. Employees who reported grinding or flavoring had highe

odds of waking up with chest tightness and episodes of flu-like achiness or achy joints in the

last 12 months, and had lower lung function parameters, although these were not statistically 

significant. One participant with abnormal spirometry and work-related respiratory symptoms

was referred to a pulmonologist and subsequently received a clinical diagnosis of obliterative 

bronchiolitis associated with occupational exposure to flavorings

In response to our evaluation, the company implemented engineering controls and made 

administrative changes to reduce employees’ exposure to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. The 
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

company installed additional general exhaust ventilation in administrative and production 

areas, local exhaust ventilation in production areas where sources of high exposures to 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione were documented, and equipment to monitor pressure 

differentials between production and administrative spaces. The company also enclosed the 

grinding area. Personal protective equipment requirements were implemented and included 

powered air-purifying respirators for employees in the flavoring room and grinding area,

and half-face respirators for employees in other areas of the facility until exposures could 

be reduced and verified by additional air sampling. The company also instituted a medical 

surveillance program that included repeating spirometry every six months to identify 

employees who might be developing work-related lung disease (e.g., asthma, flavoring

related lung disease). Of 53 employees who underwent spirometry testing conducted by 

NIOSH in 2016 and the coffee facility s occupational health provider in 2017, six (11%) 

had 15% or more decrease in lung function between tests, which is more than expected 

because of aging. One employee had 15% or more decrease between two occupational health 

provider spirometry tests conducted in 2017. We recommend follow-up air sampling to 

confirm the effectiveness of engineering controls and consulting with a ventilation enginee

to install additional engineering controls near point sources. Additional engineering controls 

might be designed to capture diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione in specific locations at sources

where elevated levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione were measured. We recommend the 

company continue to train employees about potential workplace hazards, and continue to 

administer the medical surveillance program.

 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 3

Introduction

In May 2016, the Health Hazard Evaluation Program of the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a request from management at a coffee

roasting and packaging facility with concerns about potential health effects from exposure

to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione during coffee roasting, grindi g, and flavoring. In July

2016, we conducted a ventilation assessment and industrial hygiene survey at the facility. 

We collected area and personal breathing zone air samples for volatile organic compounds 

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

recorded carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2

), and total VOCs. In August 2016, we 

conducted a medical survey. In February 2017, we collected area air samples in the finish d 

product warehouse.

Background

Diacetyl and 2,3-Pentanedione 

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

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

such as microwave popcorn, bakery mixes, and flavored coffee [Day et al. 2 1; Kanwal et 

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

and CO2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be taken to reduce exposures in the workplace.

These exposure limits and the accompanying recommendations for control of exposures 

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

to the diacetyl REL, the risk of adverse health effects is lo . NIOSH estimated that about 1 

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

average (TWA) for 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week for a 45-year working lifetime would 
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

develop reduced lung function (defined as forced expiratory volume in one second [FE 1] 

below the lower limit of normal) as a result of that exposure. NIOSH predicted that around 1 

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

more severe lung function reduction (FEV1

 below 60% predicted, defined as least moderately

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

time would be at lower risk for adverse lung effects

2,3-Hexanedione

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

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

2,3-hexanedione might also damage the lungs, but it appeared less toxic than diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione [Morgan et al. 2016]. There are no established occupational exposure limits 

for 2,3-hexanedione.

Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide

CO and CO2

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

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

roasting and grinding by a process called off-gassing [Anderson et al. 2003; Hawley et

al. 2017]. High exposures to CO and CO2 can cause headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, 

confusion, rapid breathing, impaired consciousness, coma, and death [Newton 2002; 

Nishimura et al. 2003; Langford 2005; CDC 2013a; Raffel and Thompson 2013; Rose et al. 

2017]. Occupational exposure limits for CO and CO2

 are listed in Table 1.

Exposure Limits

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

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

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

exposures.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) [Mandatory]

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

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

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

over a work shift [OSHA 2018]. OSHA short-term exposure limits (STELs) are the legal 

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

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

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

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

can be considered using available occupational exposure references and recommendations 

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

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

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) [Recommendations] 

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

peer-reviewed scientific literature and publishes recommendations for levels of substances
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 5

in air based on an 8-hour workday and 40-hour workweek. These recommendations are 

called threshold limit values (TLVs) [ACGIH 2018a]. ACGIH TLVs are not standards; they 

are health-based guidelines derived from scientific and toxicological information.ACGIH 

provides TLV-TWA guidelines that are levels that should not be exceeded during any 8-hour 

workday of a 40-hour workweek. ACGIH also provides TLV-STEL guidelines that are 

15-minute exposure levels that should not be exceeded during a workday. Exposures above 

the TLV-TWA but less than the TLV-STEL should be (1) less than 15 minutes, (2) occur 

no more than four times a day, and (3) be at least 60 minutes between exposures [ACGIH 

2018a]. Additionally, ACGIH provides TLV-Ceiling values that are levels that should not 

be exceeded at any time during a work shift. The ACGIH TLV-TWA for diacetyl is 10 

ppb. The TLV-STEL for diacetyl is 20 ppb. Currently, there is no TLV-TWA or TLV-STEL 

for 2,3-pentanedione. ACGIH has placed 2,3-pentanedione on the 2017 list of Chemical 

Substances and Other Issues Under Study [ACGIH 2018b]. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) [Recommendations]

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

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

protective over a 45-year working lifetime. NIOSH also provides STELs that are 15-minute 

TWA exposures that should not be exceeded at any time during a workday [NIOSH 2010]. 

Some chemicals have ceiling values that are concentrations that should not be exceeded 

at any time [NIOSH 2010]. For some chemicals, NIOSH has established an Immediately 

Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) value. An IDLH value is a concentration of an air 

contaminant that can cause death or immediate or delayed permanent adverse health effects,

or prevent escape from such an environment. Currently, NIOSH has RELs and STELs for 

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

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

2,3-hexanedione. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

additive effects [ACGIH 2018a]. The NIOSH REL is higher for 2,3-pentanedione than for 

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

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

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

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

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

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

NIOSH REL for diacetyl [NIOSH 2016].
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

Table 1. Exposure limits for compounds sampled during the NIOSH survey, July 2016.

OSHA* ACGIH NIOSH

Compound PEL TLV STEL REL STEL IDLH

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

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

2,3-Hexanedione - - - - - -

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

Carbon monoxide§ 50 ppm 25 ppm - 35 ppm 200 ppm (ceiling limit)¶ 1,200 ppm

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

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

exposure limit; STEL=short-term exposure limit; TLV=threshold limit value; REL=recommended exposure 

limit; IDLH=immediately dangerous to life or health; ppb=parts per billion; ppm=parts per million; “-“=no 

exposure limit available.

*There are no OSHA STELs for the compounds in the table.

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

during a 40-hour workweek.

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

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

 for respirable 

particles and 10 mg/m3 for inhalable particles.

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

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

exhaust, diesel engine exhaust). Typical levels of carbon monoxide in offices are 0–5 ppm. In office settings, 

carbon dioxide generally should not be greater than 700 ppm above outdoor carbon dioxide levels; this 

typically corresponds to indoor concentrations below 1,200 ppm. 

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

at any time.

Obliterative Bronchiolitis

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

small airways (i.e., bronchioles). Symptoms of this disease might include cough, shortness of 

breath on exertion, or wheeze, that do not typically improve away from work [NIOSH 2012]. 

Occupational obliterative bronchiolitis has been identified among flavoring manufacturing worker

and microwave popcorn workers who worked with flavoring chemicals or butter flavoring

[Kreiss 2013; Kim et al. 2010; Kanwal et al. 2006]. It has also been identified among employees

at a coffee roasting and packaging facility that produced unflavored and flavored coffee [

2013b]. A NIOSH health hazard evaluation at that facility found diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione 

concentrations in the air that were concerning (range: 4.3 ppb to 166 ppb diacetyl; <5.2 ppb to 199 

ppb 2,3-pentanedione) and identified three sources: 1) flavoring chemicals added to roasted coff

beans in the flavoring area; 2) grinding unflavored roasted coffee beans and packaging unflavo

ground and whole bean roasted coffee in a distinct area of the facilit , and 3) storing roasted coffee

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

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

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

with exposure and not limited to the flavoring areas [Bailey et al. 2015]. Howeve , all workers 

diagnosed with obliterative bronchiolitis had worked in the flavoring area. To date, no cases of 

obliterative bronchiolitis have been reported in workers at coffee roasting and packaging facilities

that produce only unflavored coffe
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 7

Work-related Asthma

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

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

2016; Tarlo and Lemiere 2014; OSHA 2014; Henneberger et al. 2011; NIOSH 2018]. It 

includes asthma attributable to sensitizers, which cause disease through immune (allergic) 

mechanisms, and asthma attributable to irritants, which cause disease through non-immune 

mechanisms. Symptoms of work-related asthma include episodic shortness of breath, cough, 

wheeze, and chest tightness. The symptoms might begin early in a work shift, towards the 

end of a shift, or hours after a shift. They generally, but do not always, improve or remit 

during periods away from work, such as on weekends or holidays. 

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

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

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

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

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

to coffee dust [Oldenbu g et al. 2009].

Process Description

In July 2016, the coffee roasting and packaging facility had roughly 120 total employees,

with approximately 100 of those employees who worked in production. The employees 

were not represented by a union. The facility was located in a 65,000 square feet building 

and had been at this location since 2008. At the coffee roasting and packaging facilit , the 

production area was approximately 53,000 square feet in size. Approximately 11 million 

to 13 million pounds of coffee was roasted and packaged annuall , and roughly 60% of the 

coffee produced was ground. The facility received and stored approximately 500,000 pounds 

of green coffee beans on site. Green beans were stored in burlap bags in a designated green

bean storage area.

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

before adding them to the roaster. Two roasters were operating during our visit. Both roasters 

could hold 400 pounds to 500 pounds of coffee beans. When ready, the roaster operator 

dropped the green beans into the roaster. The beans were heated to a specific temperature and

for a specific time period for the desired roast. Time and temperature varied between different

types of roasts. On average, roasts lasted 12 minutes to 15 minutes. Occasionally, the roaster 

operator would pull a small sample from the roaster to check the color of the beans. At the 

end of each cycle, the roaster operator emptied the roasted beans into a cooling bin where 

they were agitated by a rotating arm. The cooling bins at both roasters used a downdraft 

exhaust system that pulled air downward past the roasted beans to accelerate cooling. The 

downdraft systems pulled exhaust through the roaster, the afterburners, and then to the 

outside through a ventilation duct. The roaster operator monitored the roasting equipment 

throughout the roasting and cooling process. After each roast, the roaster operator would 

collect a small sample of roasted beans from the cooling bin and use the quality control 
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

(QC) grinders to assess the color and quality of the roasted beans. After cooling, the roasted 

beans were dispensed from the cooling bin by a pneumatic siphon system and pulled into a 

large metal silo. Multiple roasting batches, up to 1500 pounds could be stored in one silo. 

The roaster operator then manually moved the silo to a nearby storage area until needed for 

further processing, including grinding, flavoring, and packaging. The roasters were routinely 

cleaned to remove accumulated chaff from the exhaust lines. A QC technician periodically 

brewed roasted coffee in a separate QC room to assess product quality and taste.

For ground coffee, an automated, pneumatic system was used to pull whole beans from the

silo into either one of two grinders. Both grinders operated on a continuous process and 

would grind a full silo of roasted coffee in 45 minutes to 50 minutes. If grinding a full silo of

roasted coffee, the grinding operator would set-up the silo and grinder and then walk away to

perform other tasks. Ground coffee was sent through an automated system to another silo for

storage until needed for further processing (e.g., flavoring or packaging)

For flavored coffee, whole bean or ground coffee was sent to the flavoring room b

pneumatic system that would pull roasted coffee from the silo into the ribbon blender in the

flavoring room. The flavoring room attendant would mix a 40-pound pail of liquid flavoring

and would manually add liquid flavoring to the ribbon blender while the blender mixed the

whole beans or ground coffee with the flavoring The liquid flavoring was added and mixed

over a specified time. Once complete, the flavored coffee was emptied into a silo for stora

until needed for packaging.

In the packaging area, orders were completed using eight automated packaging lines. 

Packaging included form fill and seal machines and single serve pod and bagging machines.

Bags were equipped with one-way valves for off-gassing. After packaging, bags and boxes 

of single-serve pods of coffee were stored in cardboard cases. Electric forklifts were used

to move finished products to the finished product area before then being sent to the finish

goods warehouse located across the street from the production facility.

A breakroom area and administrative offices were located in the space adjacent to th

production floo . 

Personal Protective Equipment 

Employees were not required to wear a company uniform. Before our visit in July 2016, 

the state OSHA had visited the facility and conducted air sampling for diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione. Based on the previous air sampling results, employees working in 

the roasting, flavoring, and grinding areas were required to wear half-mask or full-mask

respirators equipped with organic vapor cartridges. A written respiratory protection program 

was in place for employees who performed job duties at the roasting, flavoring, and grinding

area. 

Methods

In July 2016, we conducted our initial visit of the facility. We held an opening meeting 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 9

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

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

management and employees. We returned to the facility in August 2016 to conduct a medical 

survey, and again in February 2017 to collect air samples in the finished goods warehouse.

We had the following objectives for the health hazard evaluation:

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

during coffee processing

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

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

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

4. Measure CO levels in employees’ exhaled breath;

5. Assess ventilation systems and their effect on exposure levels

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

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

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

8. Compare employees’ prevalence of respiratory symptoms, diagnoses, and spirometric 

abnormalities with expected levels based on general population values.

Industrial Hygiene Survey

Sampling Times for Alpha-Diketones 

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

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

Sampling was conducted over multiple days. For diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 

2,3-hexanedione, air samples were collected over seconds, minutes, and hours. Samples 

collected over hours can help determine average concentrations that can be compared with 

the NIOSH RELs for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. These average concentrations might 

not tell us about short-term peak exposures that could be relevant to respiratory health, 

particularly when tasks are repeated multiple times per day. Therefore, during particular 

tasks, we collected personal air samples over several minutes; these samples can provide 

information about which tasks have relatively higher exposures. To help identify point 

sources of chemicals, we also performed real-time sampling and collected instantaneous 

samples over seconds.

Employees who participated in air sampling were given the opportunity to request their 

individual air sampling results.

Air Sampling and Analysis Using Modified Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) Methods 1013/1016

We collected personal and area air samples for diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

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

multiple days. The samples were collected and analyzed according to the modified OSH 

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

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

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

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

of 50 milliliters per minute (mL/min). The sampling setup was attached to an employee’s 

breathing zone or placed in an area basket in various places throughout the facility. For 

full-shift sampling, we collected two consecutive 3-hour samples and calculated the TWA 

concentration from the two samples, assuming the total 6-hour monitoring results reflected

a full work shift (8-hour) TWA exposure. Although this might introduce some error, it is 

a conservative approach more protective of employees than the alternative assumption of 

no exposure during the last two hours of the shift. We refer to these samples as “full-shift 

samples” throughout this report. We also collected personal short-term task based samples 

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

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

duration of the task being performed. 

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

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

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

7890/7001 gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer system operated in selected ion monitoring 

mode for increased sensitivity compared with the traditional flame ionization detector used in

OSHA Methods 1013 and 1016 [LeBouf and Simmons 2017].

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

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

whether to report a result from a sample. The LODs were 0.010 micrograms per sample 

(μg/sample) for diacetyl, 0.012 μg/sample for 2,3-pentanedione, and 0.02 μg/sample for 

2,3-hexanedione. These equate to 0.3 ppb for diacetyl, 0.3 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione, and 0.5 

ppb for 2,3-hexanedione for a typical full-shift air sample but vary depending on the volume 

of air collected during the sampling period. The LODs for task samples are generally higher 

than typical LOD values for full-shift samples because the air volumes collected during task 

samples are lower. When the values presented in the report are from samples below the LOD 

they are denoted by a “<” symbol. 

Air Sampling and Analysis Using Evacuated Canisters

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

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

canisters. The evacuated canister sampling setup consisted of a 450-mL evacuated canister 

equipped with an instantaneous flow controller designed for a short sampling duration (less

than 30 seconds). For task-based air samples, a NIOSH employee placed the inlet of the flow

controller by the employee’s personal breathing zone as they performed their work task to 

replicate exposure. For source air samples, a NIOSH employee placed the inlet of the flow

control directly at the source of interest. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 11

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

spectrometer system [NIOSH 2018b], with the addition of acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, and 

styrene to the list of quantified compounds. The LODs were 0.78 ppb for diacetyl, 1.08 ppb 

for 2,3-pentanedione, and 1.92 ppb for 2,3-hexanedione based on a three-times dilution 

factor. However, LODs are dependent on the pressure inside each canister after the samples 

have been collected, and they might be higher or lower than typical LOD values. 

Bulk Sampling and Headspace Analysis

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

samples of roasted coffees (whole bean) and liquid flavoring For headspace analysis of 

alpha-diketones, we transferred 1 gram of solid bulk material into a sealed 40-mL amber 

volatile organic analysis vial and let it rest for 24 hours at room temperature (70°F) in the 

laboratory. Then 2 mL of headspace air was transferred to a 450-mL canister and pressurized 

to approximately 1.5 times atmospheric pressure. Using the canister analysis system, 

the concentrations were calculated in ppb of analytes in the headspace as an indicator of 

emission potential.

Real-time Air Sampling

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

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

photoionization detector that responds to chemicals with ionization potentials below the 

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

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

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

necessary. We also collected real-time measurements of CO2

, CO, temperature, and relative 

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

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

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

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

duties.

Exhaled CO Measurements

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

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

if employees are exposed to elevated levels of CO. Employees were asked to inhale deeply 

and hold their breath for 15 seconds and then exhale through a mouthpiece into a CO 

monitor. The device then calculated an estimate of carboxyhemoglobin in blood. We asked 

participants when they last smoked cigarettes or used tobacco products. Tobacco smoke from 

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

Employees who participated in COHb testing were mailed their individual test results.

Ventilation Assessment

Physical measurements of the facility were taken with a Model DISTO E7100i laser-
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

tape measure (Leica Geosystems AG, Heerbrugg, Switzerland). Differential pressure

measurements between adjacent spaces were taken using an Energy Conservatory 

(Minneapolis, MN) DG-500 Pressure Gauge. Given the industrial scale of the equipment 

or protective barriers to the equipment, actual ventilation air flow measurements could

not be taken. However, information on the existing ventilation equipment, including the 

make, model, and specified performance level, was collected so air flow metrics could b

determined from published manufacturer literature.

Medical Survey

Participants 

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

August 8−12, 2016. Participation was voluntary; written informed consent was obtained 

from each participant before testing. An interpreter was used during the medical survey for 

non-English speaking employees. The survey included, in the order performed, a medical 

and work history questionnaire, quantification of exhaled nitric oxide, impulse oscillometr , 

spirometry, and if indicated the administration of a bronchodilator with repeat impulse 

oscillometry and spirometry. We mailed participants their individual reports (in English 

and Spanish, if applicable) explaining their breathing test results and recommended each 

participant provide the information to his/her personal physician. 

Questionnaire 

We used an interviewer-administered computerized questionnaire to ascertain symptoms 

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

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

derived from five standardized questionnaires, the European Community Respiratory Health

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

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

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

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

2007–2012 questionnaires [CDC 2018a]. Some of the questions appeared on more than one 

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

respiratory and systemic symptom questions. 

Spirometry

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

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

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

participant can forcefully blow out after taking a deep breath), 2) FEV1

 (the amount of air 

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

 to FVC.

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

2005]. 

We used a volume spirometer (dry rolling seal spirometer) to measure exhaled air volume 

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

from NHANES III data to define abnormal spirometry [Hankinson et al. 1999]. We defined
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 13

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

lower limit of normal; restriction as a normal FEV1

/FVC ratio with FVC less than the lower 

limit of normal; and mixed obstruction and restriction as having FEV1

, FVC, and FEV1/

FVC ratio all less than the lower limit of normal. We classified the severity of a spirometric

abnormality on the basis of the FEV1

 percent predicted as follows: ≥ 70% = mild, 60%–69% 

= moderate, 50%–59% = moderately severe, 35%–49% = severe, < 35% = very severe 

[Pellegrino et al. 2005].

Impulse Oscillometry

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

asthma) involve the small airways; however, this part of the lung is difficult to evaluate no

invasively. Oscillometry is a helpful technology to understand the effects of occupational

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

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

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

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

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

contraindication.

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

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

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

impulse oscillometry testing machine sends sound waves called pressure oscillations at 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We defined possible la ge (central) airways abnormality as a normal X5 and elevated R5 with 

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

there was evidence of frequency dependence or a decreased X5 with or without an elevated 

R5. We defined possible combined small (peripheral) and la ge (central airways) abnormality 

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

Bronchodilator Reversibility Testing for Impulse Oscillometry and Spirometry

If a participant had abnormal impulse oscillometry or spirometry, we repeated both tests after 

the participant received a bronchodilator inhaler medication (i.e., albuterol), which can open 
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

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

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

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

as increases of at least 12% and 200 mL for either FEV1

 or FVC after bronchodilator 

administration. 

Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistical Analysis

Industrial Hygiene Survey and Ventilation Assessment 

We performed analyses using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). We created 

summary statistics by work area location, job title, and task. When the values presented in the 

report are from samples below the LOD they are denoted by a “<” symbol. 

NIOSH Medical Survey 

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

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

compared prevalences of symptoms and spirometric abnormalities among participants with 

expected prevalences of a sample of the general population reflected in the NHANES III

(1988–1994, symptom data) and NHANES 2007–2012 (symptom data), adjusting for sex, 

race/ethnicity, age (less than 40 years old or 40 years or greater), and cigarette smoking 

categories (ever/never). For comparisons with the U.S. population, we used the most recent 

NHANES survey available for the specific comparisons

Coffee Facility Occupational Health Provider Spirometry

The coffee roasting, flavoring, and packaging facility consulted an occupational healt

provider to perform spirometry every six months as part of their medical surveillance 

program. We assessed the occupational health provider spirometry data collected during 

March 2017 and October/November 2017 for quality and excessive decline in FEV1

 or FVC 

between tests for employees who completed more than one spirometry test, which included 

the NIOSH spirometry data from the August 2016 medical survey. Excessive decline in FEV1

or FVC was defined as a 15% or more decrease in FE 1

 or FVC between two spirometry 

tests conducted between August 2016 and November 2017 [Hnizdo et al. 2007]. We mailed 

participants letters (in English and Spanish, if applicable) regarding their change in FVC and 

FEV1

 from the NIOSH spirometry testing and the occupational health provider spirometry 

testing. We recommended participants provide that information to their personal physicians. 

We reported our findings from the spirometry review to the occupational health provide .
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 15

Results

Industrial Hygiene Survey Results

Personal and Area Full-shift Air Sampling Results

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

in Table A1. We collected 37 personal and 119 area full-shift air samples over three days in 

July 2016, and six additional area full-shift samples in February 2017. All 37 personal fullshift samples collected exceeded the NIOSH REL of 5.0 ppb for diacetyl. Samples above the 

NIOSH REL for diacetyl included samples collected on employees performing duties in the 

administrative, flavoring, grinding, finished product storage, green bean storage, packaging

QC lab, and roasting areas. The highest full-shift samples for diacetyl were measured on 

employees performing duties in the flavoring and grinding areas (three samples; range: 41.1

ppb to 420.9 ppb), and were 8 to 84-fold higher than the NIOSH REL of 5 ppb for diacetyl. 

Roaster operators had the second highest full-shift exposures (six samples; range: 35.5 ppb to 

57.1 ppb). Full-shift samples for diacetyl for employees performing duties at the packaging 

machines (15 samples) ranged from 29.7 ppb to 48.8 ppb; finished product storage (two

samples) ranged from 21.5 ppb to 29.0 ppb; green bean storage (two samples) ranged from 

23.9 ppb to 46.1 ppb; and administrative areas (three samples) ranged from 30.8 ppb to 34.9 

ppb. Personal full-shift exposures were lowest on employees performing duties in the QC lab 

(four samples) and ranged from 8.9 ppb to 37.4 ppb.

Similar to the diacetyl results, 36 of the 37 full-shift samples exceeded the NIOSH REL

of 9.3 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione. The highest full-shift samples for 2,3-pentanedione were 

also measured on employees who performed tasks in the flavoring and grinding areas (three

samples; range: 21.7 ppb to 275.9 ppb). Roaster operators had the second highest fullshift exposures to 2,3-pentanedione (six samples; range: 19.1 ppb to 34.4 ppb). Full-shift 

samples for 2,3-pentanedione were similar for employees performing duties at the packaging 

machines (15 samples; range: 14.4 ppb to 31.0 ppb), finished product storage (two samples;

range: 11.5 ppb to 14.7 ppb), green bean storage (two samples; range: 12.2 ppb to 28.3 ppb), 

and administrative areas (three samples; range: 13.8 ppb to 15.9 ppb). Personal full-shift 

exposures were lowest on employees performing duties in the QC lab (four samples; range: 

4.9 ppb to 17.6 ppb). Three of the four full-shift samples collected on employees in the QC 

lab were above the NIOSH REL of 9.3 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione.

Some full-shift samples collected on employees performing flavoring and grindings tasks

had 2,3-hexanedione levels above the LOD (three samples; range: <0.5 ppb to 11.2 ppb). All 

other full-shift samples were below the LOD for 2,3-hexanedione.

The highest full-shift TWA area samples were collected in the flavoring room (maximum:

327.2 ppb diacetyl and 772.9 ppb 2,3-pentanedione). The area by the grinders had the second 

highest levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione (maximum: 84.2 ppb diacetyl and 45.9 ppb 

2,3-pentanedione). Roasting and packaging areas also had high measurements of diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione. Maximum measurements at the roasters were 57.8 ppb diacetyl and 34.0 

ppb 2,3-pentanedione and maximum measurements in the packaging areas were 55.6 ppb 

diacetyl and 37.4 ppb 2,3-pentanedione. Some area full-shift air samples had measureable 
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

levels of 2,3-hexanedione. Full-shift area samples collected in the flavoring room (range:

<0.5 ppb to 8.8 ppb), area near the main grinders (range: <0.5 ppb to 1.3 ppb), the roasting 

area (range: <0.5 ppb to 0.9 ppb), and the silo area (range: <0.4 ppb to 1.0 ppb) had 

2,3-hexanedione levels above the LOD.

Of the 125 full-shift area air samples, 120 were above the NIOSH REL for diacetyl. Because 

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

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

area air samples can highlight areas with higher exposure risk, and the RELs can be used as 

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

NIOSH REL for diacetyl: administrative (range: 27.6 ppb to 41.1 ppb), breakroom (range: 

16.2 ppb to 41.4 ppb), finished product storage (range: 23.1 ppb to 39.4 ppb), flavorin

room (range: 20.3 ppb to 327.3 ppb), green bean storage room (range: 35.2 ppb to 52.2 ppb), 

grinding (range: 36.9 ppb to 84.2 ppb), all packaging areas sampled (21.0 ppb to 55.6 ppb), 

production area (range: 27.5 ppb to 43.6 ppb), the QC lab (range: 18.8 ppb to 33.9 ppb), 

roasting (range: 37.3 ppb to 57.8 ppb), silo area (range: 33.1 ppb to 56.1 ppb), and storage 

room (range: 36.1 ppb to 49.6 ppb).

Full-shift TWA samples collected in six areas of the finished goods building in February 2017

had diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione concentrations that were lower than all samples collected 

in the main production building. Diacetyl concentrations ranged from 2.8 ppb to 5.4 ppb. We 

note the sample collected in the cabinet shop had a shorter sampling time collection of 4.4 

hours. All other samples were collected for six-hours total duration. The office area of th

finished goods building where administrative staff were relocated had the lowest measure

diacetyl concentration (2.8 ppb). The center operator’s desk in the warehouse was also below 

the NIOSH REL of 5 ppb for diacetyl (4.7 ppb). All other locations in the finished goods

warehouse were at, or just above, the NIOSH REL for diacetyl (Table A1; range: 5.0 ppb to 

5.4 ppb).

Of the 125 area full-shift air samples, 114 were above the NIOSH REL for 2,3-pentanedione. 

The following areas had one or more 6-hour air level(s) that exceeded the NIOSH REL for 

2,3-pentanedione: administrative (range: 15.8 ppb to 23.9 ppb), breakroom (range: 7.7 ppb to 

23.5 ppb), finished product storage (range: 1.8 ppb to 21.1 ppb), flavoring room (range: 1.0 

ppb to 772.9 ppb), green bean storage room (range: 19.1 ppb to 29.9 ppb), grinding (range: 

16.5 ppb to 45.9 ppb), all packaging areas sampled (14.4 ppb to 37.4 ppb), production area 

(range: 12.5 ppb to 28.7 ppb), QC lab (range: 10.3 ppb to 18.0 ppb), roasting (range: 19.3 

ppb to 34.0 ppb), silo area (range: 18.6 ppb to 32.4 ppb), and storage room (range: 19.0 ppb 

to 30.3 ppb).

Task-Based Air Sampling Results

Personal task air concentration results can be seen in Tables A2 and A3. We collected 70 

personal task-based air samples using OSHA Methods 1013/1016 (Table A2). Task duration 

ranged from four minutes to 46 minutes. We collected personal task air samples while 

employees roasted coffee (n = 17), flavored coffee (n = 4), ground coffee (n = 6), mo

roasted beans or ground coffee (n=1), packaged coffee (n = 21), cleaned equipment (n = 15)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 17

performed a thermal heat of the roaster (n = 5), and performed quality control tasks (n = 1). 

The highest task-based exposures to diacetyl (four samples; range: 521.3 ppb to 2,172.7 ppb) 

and 2,3-pentanedione (range: 345.0 ppb to 1,444.7 ppb) were measured while an employee 

flavored coffee able A2). All three 15-minute samples collected while an employee flavored

coffee exceeded the NIOSH STE of 25 ppb for diacetyl and 31 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione. 

Employees that ground coffee had the second highest exposure to diacetyl (six samples;

range: 47.4 ppb to 80.8 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedione (range: 20.7 ppb to 49.9 ppb). All four 

fifteen-minute samples collected while an employee ground coffee exceeded the NIOS

STEL of 25 ppb for diacetyl and one sample exceeded the NIOSH STEL of 31 ppb for 

2,3-pentanedione. Roaster operators also had high task-based exposures to diacetyl (17 

samples; range: 28.4 ppb to 54.3 ppb). All four fifteen-minute samples collected while an

employee roasted coffee exceeded the NIOSH STE for diacetyl. One 15-minute sample 

collected while a roaster operator performed a post-clean thermal heat of roaster exceeded the 

NIOSH STEL for diacetyl. Packaging tasks also had high levels of exposure to diacetyl (21 

samples; range: 3.9 ppb to 59.0 ppb). Seven of the 10 fifteen-minute samples collected while

an employee packaged coffee exceeded the NIOSH STE for diacetyl. Cleaning equipment 

tasks also exceeded the NIOSH STEL for diacetyl (15 samples; range 11.6 ppb to 48.9 ppb). 

All 15-minute samples collected while employees cleaned the flavoring mixe , grinders, or 

packaging machines exceeded the NIOSH STEL for diacetyl. 

We collected 44 personal samples near the breathing zone of employees using instantaneous 

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

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

The highest instantaneous levels were measured for flavoring tasks (four samples; range:

1,826 ppb to 2,307 ppb for diacetyl and 991 ppb to 1,509 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione). The 

second highest levels of diacetyl (instantaneous samples with >100 ppb levels of diacetyl) 

were observed when a roaster operator pulled a sample of beans from the roaster and used 

the sample grinder near the roasters to check the quality of the roasted beans (Table A3). An 

instantaneous sample collected while an employee cleaned the interior of the single serve 

packaging machine #3 also had greater than 100 ppb of diacetyl (Table A3). 2,3-Hexanedione 

concentrations were always less than diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione concentrations and 

ranged from 1.4 ppb to 157 ppb. 

Source Air Sampling Results

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

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

23 source samples using evacuated canisters. Instantaneous source samples collected by the 

blender while coffee was being mixed with flavoring had the highest levels of diacetyl an

2,3-pentanedione (two samples; range: 6,732 ppb to 18,744 ppb for diacetyl and 236 ppb 

to 9,746 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione). The second highest instantaneous source samples for 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione were collected by the exhaust vent on the backside of singleserve packaging machine #3 (three samples; range: 244 ppb to 346 ppb for diacetyl and 245 

ppb to 370 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione). Instantaneous samples collected near the grinders 

ranged from 61 ppb to 111 ppb for diacetyl and 35.7 ppb to 56.6 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione 

(Table 4). Instantaneous samples collected inside and outside of the packaging machines’ 
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

doors had similar levels to those measured at the grinders, and ranged from 31.4 ppb to 104 

ppb for diacetyl and 23.8 ppb to 36.1 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione.

Bulk Samples and Headspace Results

All liquid flavoring samples had detectable quantities of diacetyl. Headspace diacetyl

concentrations in the 14 liquid flavoring samples we collected ranged from 845 ppb to 10,741

ppb. Of the liquid flavoring samples collected, Butter Rum and Chocolate Caramel Brownie

had the highest measured levels of diacetyl. Twelve of the 14 liquid flavoring chemicals had

detectable quantities of 2,3-pentanedione. Chocolate Cherry and Hazelnut Cream samples 

were below the limit of detection for 2,3-pentanedione. Headspace 2,3-pentanedione 

concentrations in the 12 liquid flavoring samples with detectable quantities ranged from 409

ppb to 6,517 ppb. Of the liquid flavoring samples collected, Caramel Cream and Sea Salt &

Caramel had the highest levels of 2,3-pentanedione. All samples were below the LOD for 

2,3-hexanedione.

All five bulk samples of roasted coffee had detectable quantities of diacetyl an

2,3-pentanedione. Headspace concentrations of diacetyl ranged from 1,336 ppb to 14,490 ppb 

and 2,3-pentanedione ranged from 423 ppb to 12,195 ppb. Ground coffee with Butter Rum

flavoring had the highest levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione.All samples were below the 

LOD for 2,3-hexanedione.

Real-time Monitoring: Carbon Dioxide (CO2

), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Total Volatile 

Organic Compounds (TVOCs)

A summary of the real-time CO2

,CO, temperature, and total VOC monitoring results can be 

seen in Table A6. Levels of CO2

 and CO measured in the flavoring room ranged from 598 

ppm to 1,546 ppm for CO2

 and 5.7 ppm to 40.8 ppm for CO. Total VOC measurements in the 

flavoring room ranged from 1,544 ppb to 104,727 ppb. Levels of C 2

 and CO measured at 

the brown grinder ranged from 524 ppm to 1,402 ppm for CO2

 and 3.5 ppm to 126.9 ppm for 

CO. Total VOC levels ranged from 510 ppb to 7,145 ppb at the brown grinder. 

Levels of CO2

 and CO at the roasters ranged from 491.0 ppm to 954.0 ppm for CO2 and 4.6 

ppm to 23.6 ppm for CO. Levels of CO2

 and CO measured in packaging at the VFFS box and 

pallet area ranged from 536 ppm to 635 ppm for CO2

 and 3.4 ppm to 9.9 ppm for CO. 

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

A7. TWA personal CO measurements ranged from 6.7 ppm to 29.8 ppm and were below the 

NIOSH REL of 35 ppm for CO exposure. All full-shift samples for CO were below their 

respective NIOSH REL and OSHA PEL for CO. Ranges of full-shift samples for CO were 

collected on employees performing the duties in the following areas: green bean storage area 

(11.1 ppm to 11.5 ppm), packaging area (7.4 ppm to 13.8 ppm), roasting area (7.1 ppm to 

12.8 ppm), and room and grinding area (13.6 ppm to 29.8 ppm). Additionally, we noted four 

peak exposures that exceeded the NIOSH ceiling limit for CO of 200 ppm on an employee 

performing tasks in the flavoring room. The peak exposures occurred when the employee 

stood over ground coffee in the flavoring room blender and manually added liquid flavori

to the ground coffee in the blende .
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 19

Personal Exhaled CO Measurements

Thirty employees who participated in the personal air sampling also provided breath samples 

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

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

end of the shift. After the participant exhaled into the monitor, the device reported a CO value 

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

was 4.0 ppm (range: 0 ppm to 36 ppm), and average COHb was 1.9% (0% to 6.4%). Average 

CO level in smokers was 8.1 ppm (range: 0 ppm to 21 ppm), and average COHb was 1.8% 

(range: 0% to 4.0%). All COHb test results in non-smokers were below 6.4% and in smokers 

were below 4.0%. The highest exhaled CO (36 ppm) and COHb (6.4%) was measured at the 

beginning of an employee’s shift.

Ventilation Assessment Results

The roasting, grinding, packaging and finished goods warehouse space were all supplied

fresh, outdoor air through a single RuppAir (Lakeville, MN) RAM 20 Industrial Direct-Fired 

Horizontal Heater. The RAM 20 unit provided heat to the space during the colder months. 

An evaporator coil (model 12D45X71; manufacturer was not able to be determined) installed 

in the supply air duct and connected to a Carrier (Syracuse, NY) model 38APD050 AirCooled Condensing Unit allowed the ventilation system to supply cool air to the space during 

warmer months. Collectively, the system providing outdoor air was capable of delivering 

around 10,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) to the facility. The majority of the supply air was 

introduced through three large supply vents on the eastern end of the packaging space while 

a small portion of the air was diverted through a separate supply duct and introduced through 

the western wall of the on-site warehouse space.

Exhaust from the production areas of the facility was provided by a series of rooftop 

exhaust fans (EFs). A Greenheck (Schofield, WI) model CUBE-121-4 X belt-driven Upblast 

Centrifugal EF-2 exhausted air from above the grinding area. We did not have equipment to 

allow accurate measurements of the exhaust fan flow rates, but product literature indicated

fan EF-2 exhausted roughly 2,200 cfm from the space. A Greenheck model GB-180-5-X 

belt-driven Downblast Centrifugal EF-3 exhausted about 2,400 cfm of air from the enclosed 

flavoring room. Roughl , 1,000 cfm of air was being exhausted from the storage room in 

the front of the production space by a Greenheck model GB-161-4-X belt-driven Downblast 

Centrifugal EF-4. Finally, two Greenheck model G-133-VG-7-X direct drive Downblast 

Centrifugal Exhaust Fans each exhausted about 2,300 cfm of air (4,600 cfm total) from 

the engineering/maintenance space. In addition to the fresh, outdoor air supplied to the 

production spaces and exhaust from those spaces, a series of five high-volume ceiling fans

were used to facilitate air mixing during our visit.

Differential pressure measurements indicated that proper pressure relationships were

maintained throughout most of the facility. The enclosed flavoring room was measured to be

under negative pressure (-0.012 inches of water gauge) relative to the main packaging area. 

This negative pressure meant that less-contaminated air from the production space was pulled 

into the flavoring room instead of air from the flavoring room escaping into the rest of th

production space. The QC Lab (+0.006 inches of water gauge), Operations Manager’s Offic
Page 20 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

(+0.010 inches of water gauge), and main entrance to administrative areas near the employee 

break room (+0.005 inches of water gauge) were all under positive pressure. Thus, under the 

conditions when our pressure measurements were taken, air from the administrative areas 

was pulled into the production space, as desired, instead of air from the production space 

being pulled into the administrative areas. The administrative spaces of the facility were 

served by two Lennox (Richardson, TX) rooftop air-handling units. These units were not 

evaluated during our visit. However, different combinations of operating states for those units

(i.e., which are on and off simultaneously) on the administrative side of the facility could

make the pressure differentials better or worse

Medical Survey Results 

Demographics

Ninety-nine (83%) of 120 onsite employees participated in the medical survey. The majority 

of participants were male (66%) and Spanish, Hispanic or Latino (62%), with a mean age 

of 37 years (range: 18 years–67 years) and average tenure with the company of three years. 

Nine (9%) participants worked at another coffee roasting and packaging facility or in coffe

cafés before working at this facility. Thirty-four (34%) participants were current or former 

smokers. 

Ninety-one (92%) participants reported performing work tasks in the production area for 

an average of 35 hours per week, ranging from 45 minutes to 45 hours per week. Of these 

employees, 27 (30%) worked with green beans, 34 (37%) worked in the warehouse, nine 

(10%) roasted coffee beans, 15 (16%) ground coffee beans, 42 (46%) moved coffee bea

or ground coffee, 10 ( 1%) flavored coffee, 62 (68%) packaged coffee, 50 (55%) clean

containers of roasted coffee, 28 (31%) performed maintenance on coffee productio

machines, and 29 (32%) performed quality control activities. Employees reported being 

within an arm’s length of the following exposures: packaging of coffee (76%); an operating

production roaster (43%); cooling bins that contained roasted beans while they were cooling 

(n=39, 39%); an operating production grinder (36%); and flavoring of roasted coffee (22%

Symptoms and Self-Reported Diagnoses

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

and those reported to be better away from work or caused or aggravated by work are listed 

in Table A8. Nose symptoms were the most commonly reported symptom (n=46, 46%), 

followed by eye symptoms (n=43, 43%). Of those participants with nose and eye symptoms, 

23 participants with nose symptoms and 24 participants with eye symptoms reported those 

symptoms were better away from work or caused or aggravated by work. Some employees 

reported these nose and eye symptoms were caused or aggravated by green bean coffee

burlap bags, green bean and roasted coffee dust, flavorings, smoke, or roasting coffe

Wheezing or whistling in the chest was the most commonly reported lower respiratory 

symptom (n=18, 18%), followed by shortness of breath on level ground or walking up a 

slight hill (n=17, 17%), breathing trouble (n=17, 17%), and chest tightness (n=17, 17%). Of 

those participants, four participants with chest wheezing or whistling, five participants with

breathing trouble, and 10 participants with chest tightness reported these lower respiratory 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 21

symptoms were better away from work or caused or aggravated by work. Eleven (65%) of 

17 participants with shortness of breath on level ground or walking up a slight hill reported 

their shortness of breath began after they started employment at this facility. Among those 

11 participants, the median tenure was 3.6 years (range: 2.1–6.7 years). Some employees 

reported these lower respiratory symptoms were caused or aggravated by grinding and 

flavoring, heat, or stress. Unusual tiredness or fatigue (32%) and flu-like achiness or ach

joints (30%) were the most commonly reported systemic symptoms. Of those participants 

with unusual tiredness and flu-like achiness, 20 participants with unusual tiredness or fatigue

and nine participants with flu-like achiness or achy joints reported these systemic symptoms

were better away from work or caused or aggravated by work. 

Of the 91 employees who performed production tasks, the 15 (16%) who reported grinding 

or flavoring had 3.7 times the odds of reporting chest tightness in the last 12 months than

those employees who did not perform grinding or flavoring (odds ratio: 3.7; 95% confidenc

interval 1.0–13.4). Employees who reported grinding or flavoring also had 3.4 times the odds

of reporting flu-like achiness or achy joints in the last 12 months compared with employees

who did not report performing these tasks (odds ratio: 3.4; 95% confidence interval 1.1

10.7). 

Eleven (11%) participants reported ever being diagnosed with asthma and three (3%) 

reported current asthma. One participant reported being diagnosed with asthma after 

beginning employment at this facility. Eleven (11%) participants reported a diagnosis of hay 

fever or nasal allergies; two participants were diagnosed with hay fever or nasal allergies 

after beginning employment at this facility. Six (6%) participants reported a diagnosis of 

gastroesophageal reflux disease, three participants were diagnosed with gastroesophageal

reflux disease after beginning employment at this facilit . Five (5%) participants reported 

a diagnosis of eczema; one participant was diagnosed with eczema after beginning 

employment at this facility. Four (4%) participants reported a diagnosis of heart disease; 

three participants were diagnosed with heart disease after beginning employment at this 

facility. Two (2%) participants reported a diagnosis of chronic bronchitis; one participant was 

diagnosed with chronic bronchitis after beginning employment at this facility. 

Medical Tests

All 99 medical survey participants performed the breathing tests. Six (6%) of 99 participants 

had abnormal spirometry results, including three with mild restriction, two with moderate 

mixed patterns, and one with mild obstruction. Two of the three participants with obstruction 

or mixed patterns had significant improvement after taking a bronchodilato . Thirty-two 

(32%) participants who performed impulse oscillometry had test results interpreted as 

abnormal: 17 consistent with small airway abnormality, eight consistent with large airway 

abnormality, and seven consistent with small and large airway abnormalities. Seventeen 

(65%) of 26 participants with abnormal impulse oscillometry had significant improvement

after taking a bronchodilator. Eight (8%) participants who performed exhaled nitric oxide 

tests had tests interpreted as elevated. Of the 37 participants with at least one abnormal 

breathing test, 15 (41%) participants reported nose or eye symptoms that were better away 

from work or caused or aggravated by work, and five (14%) participants reported one or
Page 22 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

more lower respiratory symptoms that were better away from work or caused or aggravated 

by work.

Employees who reported grinding or flavoring had lower mean percent predicted FE 1

(98.8% versus 101.6%), lower mean percent predicted FVC (98.3 versus 102.0), and lower 

FEV1

/FVC ratio (0.81 versus 0.82) compared with employees who did not report performing 

these tasks, although the differences were not statistically significant.

Case Report of Flavoring-related Lung Disease

One participant in our medical survey was referred to a pulmonologist for additional 

diagnostic testing following the medical survey because of abnormal spirometry, workrelated respiratory symptoms, and work history at the coffee packaging and roasting facilit . 

The pulmonologist diagnosed the patient with obliterative bronchiolitis associated with 

occupational exposure to flavorings and prescribed azithromycin for one yea . 

NHANES Comparison of Symptoms and Diagnoses

The SMR for ever receiving a physician diagnosis of asthma was elevated at 2.1, although 

the SMR for current asthma was not elevated (Table A9). Prevalences of chronic bronchitis, 

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

were not elevated compared with the general U.S. population, adjusted for age distribution, 

race/ethnicity, sex, and smoking history. In addition, there was not an excess of restrictive, 

mixed, or obstructive spirometry abnormalities compared with the general U.S. population, 

adjusted for age distribution, race/ethnicity, sex, and smoking history (Table A10).

Update since July and August 2016 site visits

Below is a summary of follow-up activities after our initial site visits in July 2016 and 

August 2016.

December 2016

We shared air sampling results for diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione in the 

flavoring room and grinding area in a letter dated December 22, 2016, which included written

interim findings and recommendations. We recommended the following: 

● Powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) should be worn at all times by all 

individuals working in or passing through the flavoring room and grinding area until

additional measures (elimination, engineering controls, or administrative controls) can 

be applied to reduce the levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione in these areas. The 

boundaries of the grinding area should be clearly marked so that employees are aware 

when they need to use appropriate respiratory protection.

○ PAPRs should be NIOSH-certified with an assigned protection factor (APF) of

1000. The PAPRs should also have NIOSH-certified o ganic vapor cartridges and 

high-efficiency particulate cartridges/filte

○ Ensure the respiratory protection program is in compliance with the OSHA

Respiratory Protection Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134. Minnesota OSHA instruction 

CPL 2-2.120 [http://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/wsc_respiratory
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 23

protection_0911.pdf] provides guidelines to promote enforcement of the OSHA 

Respiratory Protection Standard.

An OSHA respiratory protection program includes the following elements: 

○ written policy;

○ change-out schedule for cartridges/filters;

○ medical evaluation before use to determine fitness

○ fit testing and training before use and annually; an

○ establishment and implementation of procedures for proper respirator use, such 

as prohibiting use with facial hair when this would impair the seal; ensuring user 

seal-check and inspection of respirators before each use; ensuring proper cleaning, 

disinfection, and maintenance of respirators; and ensuring proper storage of 

respirators to protect respirators from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, and 

extreme temperatures. Respirators stored in particularly hot areas (especially 

during the summer) are at risk for deforming. Check the manufacturer’s 

guidelines on what temperatures are appropriate for storage to allow maximum 

shelf life. Information about maintenance and care of respirators can be found 

on OSHA’s website at https://www.osha.gov/video/respiratory_protection/

maintenance_transcript.html

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

in the workplace and how to protect themselves. OSHA’s Hazard Communication 

Standard, also known as the “Right to Know Law” [29 CFR 1910.1200], requires that 

employees are informed and trained on potential work hazards and associated safe 

practices, procedures, and protective measures. Minnesota OSHA has an employer’s 

guide to developing an employee-right-know program at http://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/

default/files/pdf/hazcom_ertk_development.pd .

● 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. Employees with new, persistent, or worsening symptoms should share 

this report with their healthcare providers.

● Establish a medical surveillance program to help assure the health of employees who 

have workplace exposures to health hazards (e.g., diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione) 

known to pose risk for potentially serious health conditions or illnesses.

○ Known cases of coffee processing workers diagnosed with obliterative

bronchiolitis had exposure to flavored coffee or worked in areas that flavor coffee 

[Bailey et al. 2015]. The NIOSH Criteria Document [NIOSH 2016] recommends 

the employer institute a medical surveillance program for all employees who work 

in or enter areas where flavorings are used. Employees who work in or enter these

areas for 40 or more hours per year should be included in the medical surveillance 

program.

○ According to the NIOSH Criteria Document [NIOSH 2016], employees should 
Page 24 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

have baseline evaluations before they are allowed to work in or enter areas (as 

described above) where they might be exposed to diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, or 

similar fl voring compounds. The spirometry we conducted in August 2016 could 

serve as a baseline for survey participants. Employees in the medical surveillance 

program should be evaluated with a questionnaire (to obtain health and work 

task information) and spirometry (to assess lung function) every six months 

because of the potentially rapid development of lung disease. If an employee is 

identified to have lung disease from exposure to diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, or a

similar flavoring compound, then all employees who perform similar job tasks or

have a similar or greater potential for exposure should be evaluated every three 

months [NIOSH 2016]. As such, we recommend that employees in the medical 

surveillance program be evaluated every three months.

January 2017

On January 19, 2017, we held a teleconference with company management to discuss 

additional sampling results that we received since the first interim lette . We provided a 

summary of the full-shift TWA concentrations of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione measured in 

various areas and on employees at this facility, and bulk sampling and headspace analysis of 

coffee and liquid flavorings in a letter dated January 31, 2017 We provided additional written 

interim findings and recommendations. We recommended the following:

● Consult with a ventilation engineer to modify the current ventilation design such that 

the production areas are under negative pressure, relative to the administrative areas.

● Ensure air from the production area is not recirculated into the administrative areas.

● Offer medical surveillance to all employees. Employees in the flavoring room an

grinding areas should be evaluated every three months; other employees should be 

evaluated every six months. 

● Require employees working in other areas with high diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione 

levels to wear respirators fitted with o ganic vapor and high-efficiency particulate filt

cartridges until additional engineering controls can reduce personal exposures below 

the NIOSH REL for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione.

● If engineering controls do not reduce personal sampling air levels of diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione below the NIOSH RELs, we recommend management continue to 

require employees performing tasks in those areas to wear NIOSH-certified respirators

fitted with o ganic vapor cartridges and particulate filters. The choice of respirator 

(half-face, full-face, or powered air-purifying respirator [PAPR]) should be guided by 

the concentrations of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione on personal air monitoring. 

On January 26, 2017, we held a teleconference with company management to discuss plans 

to implement additional engineering, administrative, and personal protective equipment 

controls. During the teleconference, management asked if we could provide additional detail 

regarding to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione concentrations measured at specific locations and
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 25

during specific processes, to help guide the design of engineering controls

February 2017

We held a teleconference with company management on February 2, 2017 to discuss results 

from our CO measurements in the flavoring room. We discussed additional controls that 

might be implemented in the flavoring room to mitigate employee exposure to diacetyl,

2,3-pentanedione, and CO. On February 3, 2017, a NIOSH industrial hygienist returned 

to the facility and collected full-shift area samples in the Finished Goods Warehouse. In a 

letter dated February 9, 2017, we provided air sampling results from short-term, task-based 

samples collected on employees, and instantaneous samples collected near specific sources to

help management and an industrial hygienist consultant identify sources and processes that 

contributed to the diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione concentrations observed at the facility. We 

also provided full-shift area sample results for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione concentrations 

alongside a detailed area sample location description. We also provided a summary of 

employee personal CO exposure results in that letter.

In emails dated February 11, 2017, and February 18, 2017, company management informed 

us the flavoring room blender was enclosed with a lid, and a flavoring spray bar automate

system was completed. The automation eliminated manual flavoring of whole bean or

ground coffee in the flavoring room. Follow-up sampling for CO was planned Additionally, 

the company had hired ventilation and construction contractors to help with installing 

engineering controls. Employees in the administrative spaces were relocated to an adjacent 

building while engineering controls were installed in administrative areas in the main 

building. A ventilation engineer modified the air supply to the administrative spaces to ensure

administrative spaces were kept under positive pressure relative to the production areas, and 

follow-up air sampling showed that air levels of diacetyl in the administrative areas were less 

than the NIOSH REL of 5.0 ppb.

March 2017–November 2017

In response to our evaluation, the company instituted a medical surveillance program in 

March 2017. Additionally, the company set-up two air purifying systems in the flavoring and

training rooms. In March 2017, the company began construction of an additional vestibule to 

seal doors leading from the office areas to the production area to mitigate risk of entrainmen

of air from the production area into the administrative spaces. The company also installed 

pressure gauges in the vestibule areas to provide a visual indicator the positive air pressure in 

the office areas relative to the production areas was maintained

In May 2017, the company received finalized designs for (1) the flavoring room roof exhaus

stack; (2) enclosure walls for the grinding room; (3) additional ductwork in the roasting, 

flavoring, and grinding areas, to provide additional supply air and exhaust in those areas;

and (4) additional supply air over the packaging areas. In July 2017, the company consultant 

performed follow-up air sampling to evaluate the effectiveness of engineering controls. The 

company also installed garage doors in the grinding area to isolate the grinding area from 

the packaging area. In September 2017, company management informed us they planned 

to install custom local exhaust ventilation hoods in the flavoring room and finish installin
Page 26 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

ductwork for additional supply air in the packaging areas. Additionally, the consultant 

performed follow-up air sampling in November 2017 to evaluate the effectiveness of

engineering controls installed as of November 20, 2017.

The occupational health provider conducted 146 spirometry tests, including 92 during 

March 2017 and 54 during October/November 2017. Fifty employees had spirometry tests 

performed in March 2017 and October/November 2017, and 46 had one spirometry test 

performed March 2017 or October/November 2017. Spirometry quality was evaluated 

based on the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine guidelines on 

occupational health spirometry [Townsend 2011]. FEV1

 and FVC were graded as follows: 

A if there were three acceptable trials and the highest two values were within 100 mL; B if 

there were at least two acceptable trials and the highest two values were within 150 mL; C 

if there were at least two acceptable trials and the highest values were within 250 mL; D if 

there was only one acceptable trial; and F is there were no acceptable trials. Of the 146 tests 

performed by the occupational health provider, 126 (86%) were graded A, B, or C, and 20 

(14%) as D. Of the 146 spirometry tests, 121 (83%) were interpreted as normal, 14 (10%) 

with a restrictive abnormality, nine (6%) with an obstructive abnormality, and two (1%) with 

low FEV1

, and normal ratio and volume. One employee had an excessive decline in FVC and 

FEV1

 between tests conducted by the occupational health provider; the result was interpreted 

as normal in March 2017 with a C grade and mild restrictive abnormality in October/

November 2017 with an A grade. This employee also participated in NIOSH spirometry 

testing in August 2016 with an A grade; the result was interpreted as normal; there was a less 

than 10% decline in FEV1

 and FVC between the August 2016 and October/November 2017 

testing. 

Of the 99 employees who completed spirometry during the NIOSH medical survey, 53 had 

at least one spirometry test completed by the coffee facility s occupational health provider 

as part of their medical surveillance program. The mean time between spirometry tests was 

1.0 year (range: 0.6 year–1.3 years). Of the 53 employees who participated in the NIOSH 

medical survey in August 2017 and had at least one test conducted by the occupational 

health provider, six (11%) had an excessive decline in FEV1 or FVCbetween the NIOSH 

spirometry testing and their most recent occupational health provider spirometry test we had. 

This decrease could be a sign of lung disease. However, this interpretation of a larger than 

expected decrease in FEV1

 or FVC is based on only two tests. We recommended employees 

share these results with their personal physician to confirm the result with repeat spirometry

testing and possibly other testing. All six with excessive decline in FEV1 or FVC had 

spirometry results interpreted as normal during the NIOSH medical survey in August 2017. 

The occupational health provider spirometry interpretations for these six were interpreted 

as follows: two as normal, three with a restrictive abnormality, and one with an obstructive 

abnormality. 

Discussion 

Diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 2,3-hexanedione, other VOCs, and other compounds such as 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 27

CO2 and CO are naturally produced when coffee bea s are roasted, and grinding the roasted 

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

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

Raffel and Thompson 2013]. In addition, flavorings added to coffee can contain diacetyl o

2,3-pentanedione. Occupational exposure to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione can cause loss of 

lung function and the lung disease obliterative bronchiolitis [NIOSH 2016]. 

Overall, the highest area samples for total VOCs, CO, diacetyl, and 2,3-pentanedione were 

observed in areas where coffee was ground or flavored We also observed elevated levels 

of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione in all areas of the facility, including administrative areas, 

possibly because of entrainment of air from the production areas into the administrative 

spaces. Additionally, large ceiling fans used in multiple areas of the facility could have 

contributed to air circulation from areas near sources and higher concentrations of diacetyl 

and 2,3-pentanedione into areas of lower concentrations of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. 

Alpha-Diketones 

Personal Air Sampling 

All 37 personal full-shift samples collected on employees at the facility exceeded the 

NIOSH REL of 5.0 ppb for diacetyl and 36 of 37 personal full-shift samples exceeded the 

NIOSH REL of 9.3 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione. The highest full-shift air samples for diacetyl 

and 2,3-pentanedione were measured on employees performing duties in the flavoring

and grinding areas (range: 41.1 ppb to 420.9 for diacetyl and 21.7 ppb to 275.9 ppb for 

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

taken to reduce exposures in the workplace. The risks associated with the levels measured 

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

assessment from the NIOSH Criteria Document (Tables 5-27 and 5-29) [NIOSH 2016], 

after a 45-year working lifetime exposure to 500 ppb (a concentration slightly higher 

than the highest concentration measured at this facility), NIOSH estimated that about 203 

in 1,000 workers would develop reduced lung function (FEV1

 below the lower limit of 

normal). NIOSH predicted around 28 in 1,000 workers exposed to diacetyl at 500 ppb would 

develop more severe lung function reduction (FEV1

 below 60% predicted, defined as at least

moderately severe by the American Thoracic Society [Pellegrino et al. 2005]). After a 45-year 

working lifetime exposure to 200 ppb (a concentration lower than the highest concentration 

measured at this facility), NIOSH estimated that about 59 in 1,000 workers would develop 

reduced lung function (FEV1

 below the lower limit of normal). NIOSH predicted about 6 

in 1,000 workers exposed to diacetyl at 200 ppb would develop more severe lung function 

reduction. The effects of a working lifetime exposure at 421 ppb is closer to 500 ppb than

200 ppb. 

Roaster operators had the second highest full-shift exposures (range: 35.5 ppb to 57.1 ppb 

for diacetyl and 19.1 ppb to 34.4 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione). After a 45-year working lifetime 

exposure to 50 ppb (a concentration slightly lower than the highest concentration measured 

on roaster operators), NIOSH estimated about 12 in 1,000 workers would develop reduced 

lung function (FEV1

 below the lower limit of normal). NIOSH predicted 12 in 10,000 

workers exposed to diacetyl at 50 ppb would develop more severe lung function reduction. 
Page 28 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

After a 45-year working lifetime exposure to 100 ppb (a concentration higher than the 

highest concentration measured on roaster operators), NIOSH estimated about 26 in 1,000 

workers would develop reduced lung function (FEV1

 below the lower limit of normal). 

NIOSH predicted about 3 in 1,000 workers exposed to diacetyl at 100 ppb would develop 

more severe lung function reduction. The effects of a working lifetime exposure at 57 ppb is

closer to 50 ppb than 100 ppb. NIOSH recommends keeping diacetyl concentrations below 

5 ppb because at this level, the risk of reduced lung function after a working lifetime of 

exposure is below 1 in 1000 workers. NIOSH recommends taking steps to reduce diacetyl 

exposures to below the REL of 5 ppb whenever possible.

Area Air Sampling 

All areas sampled in the main production facility had air levels exceeding the NIOSH REL 

for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione, including: administrative areas, breakroom, finished

product storage, flavoring room, green bean storage room, grinding, all packaging areas

sampled, the production area, the QC lab, roasting, the silo area, and the storage room. Of 

the 125 full-shift area samples, 120 were above the NIOSH REL for diacetyl and 114 were 

above the NIOSH REL for 2,3-pentanedione. Areas where coffee was flavored or groun

consistently had the highest diacetyl (maximums: 327.3 and 84.2 ppb, respectively) and 

2,3-pentanedione (maximums: 772.9 and 45.9 ppb, respectively) air levels. We note that 

NIOSH RELs are intended to be directly compared with personal measurements; therefore, 

an area air sample that exceeds a NIOSH REL is only an indication of potential personal 

exposures. 

Full-shift TWA samples collected in six areas of the finished goods building had diacetyl

and 2,3-pentanedione concentrations that were lower than all samples collected in the main 

production building. Diacetyl concentrations ranged from 2.8 ppb to 5.4 ppb. The offic

area of the finished goods building where administrative staff were relocated after we share

interim results in January 2017 had the lowest measured diacetyl concentration (2.8 ppb). 

The center operator’s desk in the warehouse was also below the NIOSH REL of 5.0 ppb for 

diacetyl (4.7 ppb). All other locations in the finished goods warehouse were at or just above

the NIOSH REL for diacetyl (Table A1; range: 5.0 ppb to 5.4 ppb).

Task-Based Exposures

Coffee processing involves multiple tasks that might cause intermittent exposure to

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

intermittent, peak exposures. Measured short-term peak exposures contribute to average 

full-shift exposures and can help identify sources and processes that generate diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione and that can be targeted with engineering controls. Evaluating intermittent 

and task-based exposures to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione is difficult with current validate

sampling methods (OSHA Methods 1013/1016). Because tasks are so sporadic in coffee

processing, with some only lasting a few seconds or minutes, we used instantaneous 

evacuated canisters to sample tasks lasting only a few seconds to minutes and OSHA

Methods 1013/1016 for longer duration tasks. We sampled by task with varying durations 

to understand which tasks might have contributed to higher exposures to diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 29

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

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

(2,172.7 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedione (1,444.7 ppb) were measured while an employee 

flavored coffee able A2). All three 15-minute samples collected while an employee flavored

coffee exceeded the NIOSH STE of 25 ppb for diacetyl and 31 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione.

We also measured higher exposures to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedieone during grinding 

(maximum diacetyl: 80.8 ppb; maximum 2,3-pentanedione: 49.9 ppb) and packaging 

(maximum diacetyl: 59.0 ppb; maximum 2,3-pentanedione: 37.2 ppb). All four 15-minute 

samples collected while an employee ground coffee exceeded the NIOSH STE of 25 ppb for 

diacetyl and one sample exceeded the NIOSH STEL of 31 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione. Seven 

of the 10 15-minute samples collected while an employee packaged coffee exceeded the

NIOSH STEL for diacetyl. Roaster operators also had high task-based exposures to diacetyl 

(maximum diacetyl: 54.3 ppb). All four fifteen-minute samples collected while an employee

roasted coffee exceeded the NIOSH STE for diacetyl.

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

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

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

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

while employees performed flavoring tasks. Instantaneous samples taken at the breathing

zone of employees while they flavored coffee were as high as 2,307 ppb for diacetyl, an

1,509 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione. Breathing zone samples taken while employees ground 

or packaged coffee were also high. Instantaneous samples collected while an employee

stood at either grinder ranged from 56.2 ppb to 83.8 ppb diacetyl and 26.5 ppb to 44.0 ppb 

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

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

samples collected while employees performed packaging tasks ranged from 25.3 ppb to 124 

ppb diacetyl and 15.9 ppb to 44.0 ppb 2,3-pentanedione.

Source Air Sampling

The highest instantaneous source sample for diacetyl (18,744 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedione 

(9,746 ppb) was measured at the transfer point of the flavoring blende , while almond 

flavoring was being added to coffee As can be seen in Table A4, elevated levels of diacetyl 

(>200 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedione (>200 ppb) were also observed at exhaust vents on 

packaging machines.

Bulk samples

Diacetyl (2,3-butanedione) and 2,3-pentanedione are sometimes added as ingredients in 

liquid flavorings for coffee We observed detectable quantities of diacetyl in the headspace of 

all 14 liquid flavoring samples collected and 2,3-pentanedione was detected in 12 of the 14

liquid flavoring samples. Our results indicate liquid flavorings might contribute to the hig

levels of alpha-diketones observed in the flavoring room.

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

roasting process [Daglia et al. 2007]. As expected, we found roasted coffee emits alpha
Page 30 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

diketones into the headspace of sealed vessels, indicating roasted coffee is a source of

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

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

differences in headspace analysis results.

Real-time Sampling for CO, CO2, and VOCs

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

, and VOCs were 

observed in the flavoring room and grinding area. None of the average area or personal

levels of CO exceeded the NIOSH REL (35 ppm) or OSHA PEL (50 ppm). However, a 

personal sample collected on a flavoring and grinding operator exceeded the NIOSH ceiling

(200 ppm) for CO. The NIOSH ceiling limit should not be exceeded at any time. All CO2

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

Ventilation 

The administrative spaces and QC laboratory were under positive pressure relative to the 

production spaces at the time our measurements were taken. Generally, this means air 

from the administrative areas was pushed into the production space, which should serve to 

keep airborne contaminants generated on the production side from entering administrative 

spaces. However, as shown in Table A1, concentrations of alpha-diketones from personal 

and area sampling demonstrated employees working in administrative areas were exposed 

to levels over the NIOSH RELs. The operating state of the two air-handling units serving 

the administrative areas could change the pressure relationship with the production space, 

potentially allowing air to be pulled into the administrative side from production. Also, 

the doors from production into the employee break room and QC laboratory areas were 

frequently used throughout the day, which could allow air from production to mix with air 

in the administrative areas. The alpha-diketones could potentially have been pulled into 

the administrative spaces from outdoors if exhaust air from the production space was reentrained into the fresh air intake of air-handling units serving that space. Since our site visit 

in July 2016, management took several actions to mitigate employee exposures to diacetyl 

and 2,3-pentanedione while working in the administrative areas. We commend management’s 

actions. The engineering controls implemented since our initial site visit have reduced 

exposures in the administrative areas to levels below the NIOSH RELs for diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione.

In addition to focusing on reducing alpha-diketone exposures on the administrative side of 

the facility, management also made significant engineering control improvements throughout

the production space. The flavoring room blender was fitted with a lid and the grinding roo

was completely enclosed. Management also consulted with ventilation contractors to increase 

the height of all roof stacks, install additional air supply and exhaust systems in roasting, 

flavoring and grinding, and install additional supply air systems in the packaging space.

Use of the large ceiling fans was also discontinued. As shown in Table A1, the measured 

area concentrations of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione were consistent throughout the entire 

production space, and in some areas concentrations were much higher than would otherwise 

be expected. For instance, the diacetyl concentrations measured in the green bean storage 

room (where no diacetyl was generated) were nearly the same as the concentrations measured 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 31

in the roasting area. This was likely because the large ceiling fans mixing air throughout 

the entire production space, which served to even out worker exposures throughout the 

space. Generally, it would be expected to observe significantly higher concentrations near

processes or tasks that generate alpha-diketones (flavoring, grinding, ground bean storage,

etc.) and lower concentrations in areas where alpha-diketones are not generated or released in 

abundant quantities (green bean storage, finished product storage, etc,).Air sampling with the 

large ceiling fans off will provide more useful results to identify areas or sources of higher

alpha-diketone concentrations that could benefit from additional engineering controls. 

Although many of the engineering controls implemented since our initial site visit have 

resulted in reduced levels of alpha-diketones throughout the facility, the concentrations of 

alpha-diketones throughout the production space remain above the NIOSH RELs. Working 

with a qualified industrial hygienist to continue assessing worker exposures and with

qualified ventilation contractors to implement additional well-designed engineering control

systems should continue in a stepwise manner. New engineering control systems could 

consist of local exhaust at contaminant sources, general exhaust fans through the walls or 

ceiling, or a combination of both.

General exhaust or dilution ventilation

In an ideal environment, good general ventilation provides fresh air into the space and 

removes contaminated air. General exhaust ventilation allows contaminants to be emitted 

into the workplace and then dilutes the concentration of the contaminant to acceptable 

levels. This is generally done by providing fresh outdoor air (or recirculated, filtered air) to

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

contaminants. The relationship between supply air and exhaust air flow rates can be used to

help maintain appropriate pressure relationships. If more air is supplied than exhausted, the 

space will generally be under positive pressure, which allows contaminants to migrate from 

the space to adjacent areas. Conversely, exhausting more air than is supplied, maintains the 

space under negative pressure which helps contain the contaminants in the areas where they 

are generated. 

During our site visit, only one unit capable of supplying fresh air to the production space was 

present. A series of five rooftop exhaust fans exhausted air from the production areas. The 

two roasters also exhausted some air from the space, but the time and amount was variable, 

depending on which stage of the roast cycle each roaster was performing. Since our visit, 

management has added or improved dilution ventilation systems throughout the production 

spaces. The facility’s industrial hygiene consultant should be able to provide sampling 

results to describe the impact those changes had on worker exposures. If alpha-diketone 

concentrations are still elevated above the NIOSH RELs, consider focusing on local exhaust 

ventilation systems that target remaining point sources before reverting to additional dilution 

ventilation solutions. A reputable, qualified ventilation engineer should be consulted to help

choose the most efficient and cost-effective engineering control systems moving forward.

Local exhaust ventilation

Local exhaust ventilation systems capture contaminants directly at the source. Local exhaust 
Page 32 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

ventilation systems generally consist of hoods or enclosures, duct work, or fans. Depending 

on the contaminant and whether air is recirculated, filters or other air cleaning technologies

can be incorporated. When properly designed local exhaust ventilation systems are installed, 

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

Using the sampling results from the industrial hygiene contractor, identify areas or point 

sources contributing to the elevated alpha-diketone concentrations in the production area. 

Using that information, work with a ventilation engineer to design targeted local exhaust 

ventilation systems to capture and remove the contaminants from the area. Local exhaust 

systems generally require moving significantly less air than dilution ventilation systems and

should not have a large impact on energy costs associated with heating and cooling outside 

air. Given the additional dilution ventilation systems management has already installed 

throughout the production space, targeting additional engineering controls on key remaining 

point sources would likely help reduce overall alpha-diketone exposures in a more costeffective manner than additional dilution ventilation

Enclosure of specific processes

Relocating processes or specific pieces of equipment to make control implementation

easier might also help reduce worker exposures in a cost-effective wa . Before our visit, the 

flavoring operation was already enclosed inside its own room. Since our visit, the grinding

area has also been enclosed. Isolating other process areas, such as roasted bean storage 

(whole bean and ground) and dumping roasted coffee (whole bean or ground) from hoppers

into the packaging lines on the mezzanine, could make engineering control solutions easier 

and more effective at reducing worker exposures.

In general, the current upgraded ventilation configuration in the production area should be

evaluated. An evaluation by a qualified ventilation engineer can determine if modifications t

existing ventilation components could be made to lower airborne concentrations or whether 

the installation of new equipment might be necessary. In addition to dilution ventilation, 

the installation and use of local exhaust ventilation systems to decrease concentrations of 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione can be explored, and an overall, cost-effective solution can

be developed. After making changes to production ventilation, processes, controls, or work 

practices, additional air sampling should be conducted to determine the effect on exposure

conditions within the workplace. Those sampling results can then be used to make decisions 

on additional control strategies, if any are necessary.

Medical Survey 

Overall, nose and eye symptoms were the most commonly reported symptoms. Some 

employees reported these nose and eye symptoms were caused or aggravated by green bean 

coffee burlap bags, green bean and roasted coffee dust, flavorings, smoke, and roasti

coffee Coffee dust is an o ganic dust and exposure to coffee dust is known to cause

respiratory symptoms and is a known risk factor for occupational asthma [Karr et al. 1978; 

Zuskin et al. 1979, 1985, 1993; Thomas et al. 1991; Sakwari et al. 2013].

Upper respiratory disease such as allergic rhinitis (hay fever, nasal allergies) and sinusitis 

are sometimes associated with lower respiratory symptoms and asthma and might precede 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 33

the diagnosis of asthma [Shaaban et al. 2008; EAACI Task Force on Occupational Rhinitis

et al. 2008; Rondón et al. 2012, 2017; Sahay et al. 2016]. Upper respiratory involvement 

(e.g., rhinitis, sinusitis) can result in suboptimal control of asthma. Most (37 of 50; 74%) 

participants that reported lower respiratory symptoms also reported nasal or sinus problems 

or physician-diagnosed hay fever or nasal allergies. Green coffee dust is thought to be

a more potent allergen than roasted coffee dust because roasting destroys some of the

allergenic activity [Lehrer et al. 1978]. To prevent symptoms related to green coffee dust

and chaff, make N95 disposable filtering-face piece respirators available for voluntary use

when emptying burlap bags of green beans into the storage silos or when emptying the chaff

containers or cleaning the green bean storage area. N95s are not protective against alphadiketones (diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, or 2,3-hexanedione). In cases of dual exposure to dust 

and alpha-diketones, NIOSH-certified o ganic vapor cartridges (for the alpha-diketones) and 

particulate cartridges/filters (for the dust) would be warranted

The number of participants ever diagnosed with asthma by a physician (11%) was 

significantly higher than expected compared with the U.S. population with an SMR of

2.1; however, 10 (91%) of 11 participants who reported ever being diagnosed with asthma 

were diagnosed before they started working at this facility. Only three participants reported 

current asthma, which was not higher than expected compared with the U.S. population. 

One participant was diagnosed with asthma after beginning work at this coffee roasting and

packaging facility. Fifty (51%) participants reported at least one lower respiratory symptom 

in the last 12 months. Of those, 18 (36%) perceived their lower respiratory symptom[s] 

improved away from work, or were caused or aggravated by work. Most (60%) participants 

who reported at least one lower respiratory symptom were never smokers, and only six (12%) 

were current smokers. Asthma symptoms often improve when away from exposures that 

trigger symptoms while symptoms of other lung diseases such as obliterative bronchiolitis or 

COPD generally do not improve. 

Spirometry can be used to help detect and follow individuals with asthma and other lung 

diseases such as obliterative bronchiolitis or COPD. Spirometry can demonstrate if air 

is exhaled from lungs more slowly than normal (i.e. obstructive abnormality) or if the 

amount of air exhaled is smaller than normal (i.e., restrictive abnormality). In asthma, there 

is intermittent airways obstruction that is reversible after treatment with bronchodilator 

medications (e.g., albuterol). In obliterative bronchiolitis, scar tissue prevents the small 

airways (bronchioles) from opening up when albuterol is given. In other words, the airways 

are fixed and not responsive (reversible) to bronchodilator medicine. The obstructed airways 

prevent rapid emptying of the lung air sacs (alveoli) during exhalation. This explains why 

the respiratory symptoms of those with occupational obliterative bronchiolitis do not tend to 

improve when away from work-related exposures; however, avoidance of further exposure 

can stop progression of the disease [Akpinar-Elci et al 2004]. In participating employees 

from this workplace, three had obstruction or mixed patterns on spirometry; two of these 

significantly improved with bronchodilation in employees who reported ever being diagnosed

with asthma, and one did not improve with bronchodilation in an employee who did not 

report asthma and who was referred to a pulmonologist and diagnosed with flavoring-related

lung disease following the medical survey in August 2016. 
Page 34 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

Spirometry and impulse oscillometry measure different things. Spirometry assesses

airflow and is the breathing test typically used to screen for flavoring-related lung disease

Impulse oscillometry assesses the airways response to a sound or pressure wave and has 

not commonly been used to screen for flavoring-related lung disease. In general, during

the impulse oscillometry test, a small pressure impulse (sound wave) is imposed upon the 

inspiratory and expiratory airflow during normal tidal breathing. This pressure wave causes 

a disturbance in the airflow and pressure, and the response of the airways (i.e., change in

pressure to change in flow) is a measure of the resistance to airflow in the airways [Desiraj

and Agrawal 2016]. Impulse oscillometry can be useful as an indirect measure of airflow

obstruction and helpful in individuals not able to perform forced breathing maneuvers 

required during the spirometry test. The impulse oscillometry test has been used for many 

years to measure changes in the airways of children with lung problems such as asthma 

and cystic fibrosis [Song et al. 2008; Komarow et al. 20 1; Shi et al. 2012; Schulze et al. 

2016]. More recently, impulse oscillometry has been used to investigate lung problems in 

adults exposed to dust or chemicals, such as World Trade Center emergency responders and 

soldiers returning from deployment overseas [Oppenheimer et al. 2007; Berger et al. 2013; 

Weinstein et al. 2016]. Over the years, researchers have developed reference (predictive) 

equations for different populations of children for oscillometry [Malmbe g et al. 2002; Park 

et al. 2011; Lee et al. 2012; de Assumpção et al. 2016]. For adults, there are fewer reference 

equations available for oscillometry [Vogel and Smidt 1994; Newbury et al. 2008; Schulz 

et al. 2013]. The predicted values we used for oscillometry measures were based on gender 

and age according to references values recommended by the manufacturer. Unlike predictive 

equations used for spirometry, the impulse oscillometry reference equations we used did not 

take into account height, race, or smoking status [Vogel and Smidt 1994].

Our findings of upper and lower respiratory symptoms with a work-related pattern in some

employees, and abnormalities on breathing tests in 37% of participants indicates a burden 

of respiratory problems in this workforce. The upper and lower respiratory symptoms that 

improve away from work are likely related to workplace exposures. The lung function 

abnormalities we found are not specific to a particular respiratory problem or disease.

They could be related to workplace exposures or to other factors. Indeed, some employees 

had respiratory diagnoses that preceded employment at this facility, but other participants 

reported developing lower respiratory symptoms since beginning to work at this facility. 

Employees who reported grinding or flavoring had higher odds of waking up with chest

tightness and episodes of flu-like achiness or achy joints in the last 12 months compared with

employees who did not report performing these tasks. Employees who reported grinding or 

flavoring also had lower lung function parameters (percent predicted FE 1

, percent predicted 

FVC, and FEV1

/FVC ratio), although these did not reach statistical significance. Grinding

and flavoring tasks had the highest measured exposures of diacetyl and 2,3-petanedione, and

could be associated with the symptoms and lower lung function parameters. We mailed each 

participant their individual lung function test results with an explanation of the results and 

recommended each participant provide the information to their personal physician.

The company instituted a voluntary medical surveillance program in response to our 

evaluation as a means of early identification of employees who might be developing lung
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 35

disease (e.g., asthma, obliterative bronchiolitis) and to help prioritize interventions to prevent 

occupational lung disease. An occupational health provider conducted spirometry testing 

in March 2017 and October/November 2017. Most (86%) tests were graded A, B, or C and 

could therefore be interpreted with confidence. Six employees had at least a 15% decline

in FEV1 or FVC between spirometry conducted during the NIOSH medical survey and 

subsequent contracted medical surveillance program spirometry. In adults, FEV1 and FVC are 

expected to decline by approximately 30 mL each year, but a 15% decline in approximately 

one year is more than expected. Excessive decline in FEV1 or FVC could be because of 

work-related lung disease, or other factors such as the spirometry equipment, test subject or 

technician technique, or non-work-related illness affecting results. It is important to monitor

the change in lung function over time in employees participating in the medical surveillance 

program, and for the employee’s healthcare provider to investigate excessive decline in FEV1 

or FVC to address the possibility of work-related lung disease, and rule out work-related 

lung disease or remove that employee from exposure to potential respiratory hazards at work. 

If work-related lung disaease is suspected, investigate potentially harmful environmental 

exposures, including diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione, in the area of the affected employee(s).

Conclusions 

We identified specific work tasks that resulted in air concentrations of diacetyl an

2,3-pentanedione that exceeded the NIOSH RELs for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. The 

highest full-shift and task-based diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione exposure measurements were 

observed on employees that performed flavoring and grinding tasks. The flavoring room had

the highest levels of diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 2,3-hexanedione, and CO; however, levels 

were elevated throughout the facility. CO2

 levels were low throughout most of the facility. 

However, CO levels measured on a flavoring and grinding operator exceeded the NIOSH

ceiling limit of 200 ppm.

We commend the efforts taken to date by management to implement additional engineering,

administrative, and personal protective equipment controls designed to mitigate exposure to 

diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and CO. Consultation with a ventilation engineer could further 

mitigate potential exposures to alpha-diketones and CO by installing local exhaust ventilation 

systems at point sources and processes with the highest measurements of exposure and 

additional general exhaust ventilation in the packaging and roasting areas. Additionally, a 

separate room with separate ventilation for storing full containers of whole-bean or ground 

coffee might also further reduce overall concentrations of alpha-diketones in the roasting and

packaging area. 

Overall, nose and eye symptoms were the most commonly reported symptoms. Some 

employees reported these nose and eye symptoms were caused or aggravated by green bean 

coffee burlap bags, green bean and roasted coffee dust, flavorings, smoke, or roasting coff

Wheezing or whistling in the chest was the most commonly reported lower respiratory 

symptom, followed by shortness of breath, breathing trouble, and chest tightness. Some 

employees reported these lower respiratory symptoms were caused or aggravated by grinding 
Page 36 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

and flavoring, heat, and stress. Employees who reported grinding or flavoring had highe

odds of waking up with chest tightness and episodes of flu-like achiness or achy joints in

the last 12 months, and also had lower lung function parameters, although these were not 

statistically significant. Six (6%) of 99 participants had abnormal spirometr . Eight (8%) 

participants had high exhaled nitric oxide, a marker of allergic airways inflammation. One

employee with abnormal spirometry and work-related respiratory symptoms was referred to 

a pulmonologist and diagnosed with obliterative bronchiolitis associated with occupational 

exposure to flavorings. The company instituted a medical surveillance program and began 

offering spirometry every six months through an occupational health provider to identify any

employees who might be developing lung disease (e.g., asthma, obliterative bronchiolitis) 

and to help management prioritize interventions to prevent occupational lung disease. 

Recommendations 

On the basis of our findings, we recommend the actions listed belo . We encourage 

this coffee roasting and packaging facility to use a labo -management health and safety 

committee or working group to discuss our recommendations and develop an action plan. 

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

approach groups actions by their likely effectiveness in reducing or removing hazards. In

most cases, the preferred approach is to eliminate hazardous materials or processes and 

install engineering controls to reduce exposure or shield employees. 

Engineering Controls

Engineering controls reduce employees’ exposures by removing the hazard from the process 

or by placing a barrier between the hazard and the employee. Engineering controls protect 

employees effectively without placing primary responsibility of implementation on the

employee. 

1. Consult with a ventilation engineer to install local exhaust ventilation at point sources 

with the highest measurements of alpha-diketone exposure. More specificall , consider 

installing local exhaust ventilation at the packaging machines where ground coffee is

packaged if alpha-diketone concentrations remain elevated after other controls have 

been implemented.

2. Consider storing full containers of flavored or un avored, whole-bean or ground 

coffee, in a separate room with separate ventilation if levels of alpha-diketones

in the roasting and packaging area remain elevated after other controls have been 

implemented. Consideration should also be given to enclosing the mezzanine area 

where coffee is introduced to the packaging lines and ventilating the mezzanine area

separately.

3. Consult with a ventilation engineer to determine if additional fresh, outdoor air can 

be supplied to the roasting and packaging area of the plant. Work with the ventilation 

engineer to ensure the production area is maintained under negative pressure relative 

to non-production spaces.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 37

4. Ensure all doors between production and non-production areas are kept closed at all 

times. An increase in air supplied to the space will need to be offset with an increase

in air exhausted from the space. Care should be taken to maintain correct pressure 

relationships between roasting and packaging area and adjacent spaces. Otherwise, 

contaminants could be pushed from the roasting and packaging area into adjacent 

areas and increase worker exposures in non-production locations.

Administrative Controls

Administrative controls are employer-dictated work practices and policies implemented 

to reduce or prevent hazardous exposures. Their effectiveness depends on employer

commitment and employee acceptance. Regular monitoring and reinforcement are necessary 

to ensure policies and procedures are followed consistently.

1. Install a CO monitor and alarm in the flavoring ro m and near the two main grinders 

that can alert employees if and when CO levels exceed the NIOSH ceiling of 200 ppm. 

Employees should evacuate and move to an area of fresh air until the CO level drops 

below 200 ppm.

2. After engineering controls have been installed, conduct follow-up air sampling to 

verify modifications have been effective in reducing exposures to below recommende

exposure limits.

3. Whenever possible, employees should avoid spending time in the immediate area 

where coffee is being ground or ground coffee is being package

4. Limit the amount of time non-production employees spend in production areas, to the 

extent possible.

5. Continue to periodically clean the roaster’s exhaust according to manufacturer 

instructions to remove chaff build up to reduce a fire hazard and to improve effici , 

energy usage, and roaster performance.

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

CO, CO2, dust) in the workplace and how to protect themselves. OSHA’s Hazard 

Communication Standard, also known as the “Right to Know Law” [29 CFR 

1910.1200] requires that employees are informed and trained on potential work 

hazards and associated safe practices, procedures, and protective measures. 

7. Ensure employees are educated to consider risks of further exposure if they develop 

lower respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath, wheezing) that are 

progressive and severe in degree. Employees should report new, persistent, or 

worsening symptoms to their personal healthcare providers and to a designated 

individual at this workplace. Employees with new, persistent, or worsening symptoms 

should share this report with their healthcare providers.

Personal Protective Equipment

We note personal protective equipment in the form of respiratory protection is considered the 
Page 38 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

least effective means for controlling hazardous respiratory exposures because breakdowns

in implementation can result in insufficient protection. Proper use of respiratory protectio

(respirators) requires a comprehensive respiratory protection program and a high level 

of employee and management involvement and commitment to assure the right type of 

respirator is chosen for each hazard, respirators fit users and are maintained in good working

order, and respirators are worn when needed. Supporting programs such as training, changeout schedules, and medical assessment might be necessary. Respirators should not be the sole 

method for controlling hazardous inhalation exposures. Rather, respirators should be used 

until effective engineering and administrative controls are in place.

1. Until engineering and administrative controls are in place, respiratory protection for 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione should continue to be used to reduce exposures to 

alpha-diketones. Continue to use powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) with an 

APF of at least 100 in the flavoring area and an APF of at least 25 in the grinding area. 

2. If follow-up air sampling after engineering controls have been installed indicates 

levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione above their respective NIOSH RELs and 

STELs, we recommend respiratory protection be used during tasks with elevated 

exposures. If respiratory protection is used, NIOSH-certified respirators should be

fitted with o ganic vapor cartridges to protect against diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione, 

and particulate filters to protect against dust particles. The choice of respirator 

should be guided by personal exposure sampling for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione 

(NIOSH 2004). Respirators have assigned protection factors (APFs). APF refers to 

the highest level of protection a properly selected respirator can provide. For instance, 

air-purifying half-face respirators have an assigned protection factor (APF) of 10, 

and air-purifying full-face respirators have an APF of 50. Also, there are poweredair purifying respirators that might be more comfortable for employees than the 

air-purifying respirators currently in use. The powered-air purifying respirators 

have APFs of 25, 50, or 1,000. The OSHA APFs can be found in Table 1 of OSHA 

Respiratory Protection Standard at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_

document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=12716. 

Continue to implement the written respiratory protection program as required by 

the OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134), including training, 

fit testing, maintenance and use requirements for all employees who use respiratory

protection. 

3. Make N95 disposable filtering-face piece respirat rs available for voluntary use for 

protection against green or roasted coffee dust exposure such as when emptying burlap

bags of green beans into the storage silos, cleaning the roaster exhaust system of chaff,

emptying the chaff containers, or cleaning the green bean storage area. N95 respirators

should be available in various sizes, and each potential N95 user should receive a copy 

of Appendix D of the OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard (http://www.osha.gov/

pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=9784). Information 

about Appendix D and voluntary use of respirators can be found on the OSHA website 

at https://www.osha.gov/video/respiratory_protection/voluntaryuse_transcript.html
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 39

 Please be aware N95s are not protective against alpha-diketones (diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, or 2,3-hexanedione). In cases of dual exposure to dust and alphadiketones, NIOSH-certified o ganic vapor cartridges (for the alpha-diketones) and 

particulate cartridges/filters (for the dust) would be warranted

Medical Surveillance

The purpose of a medical surveillance program is to help assure the health of employees 

who have workplace exposures (e.g., diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, green coffee beans/dust)

known to pose risk for potentially serious health conditions such as asthma or obliterative 

bronchiolitis. 

1. Continue your medical surveillance program for employees who work or assist in 

the production area. As detailed in the NIOSH Criteria Document [NIOSH 2016], 

a medical monitoring program is recommended for all employees who work in the 

production areas or enter production areas for a total of 40 hours or more per year. 

According to the NIOSH Criteria Document, employees should have baseline medical 

evaluations (details below) before they are allowed to work in or enter areas where 

they might be exposed to diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, or similar flavoring compounds

2. Employees in the medical monitoring program should be evaluated with a 

questionnaire (to obtain health and work task information) and spirometry (to 

assess lung function) every six months because of potentially rapid development of 

lung disease. Many engineering controls have been implemented since our visit to 

reduce alpha-diketones throughout the facility. One employee was diagnosed with 

obliterative bronchiolitis associated with occupational exposure to flavorings before

implementation of the engineering controls and medical surveillance program. 

If another employee is identified to have lung disease from exposure to diacetyl,

2,3-pentanedione, or a similar flavoring compound, then all employees who perform

similar job tasks or have a similar or greater potential for exposure should be evaluated 

every three months [NIOSH 2016]. 

Smoking Cessation Program

In a workplace with risk of occupational lung disease, prevention of smoking-related lung 

disease is important and makes the detection of work-related adverse effects easie . We 

recommend implementing a smoking cessation program to assist employees to stop smoking. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers tools and resources for setting up a

smoking cessation program [CDC 2018b].
Page 40 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

Table A1. OSHA Methods 1013/1016 full-shift personal and area air sampling results by location, NIOSH surveys, 

July 2016 and February 2017*

Above Minimum Maximum Above 

Analyte Sample Type Location N LOD N Concentration Concentration REL 

(%) (ppb) (ppb) N

Diacetyl Personal Administration 3 3 (100%) 30.8 34.9 3 

Diacetyl Personal Production and Administrative 2 2 (100%) 35.8 36.5 2

Diacetyl Personal Green Bean Storage 2 2 (100%) 23.9 46.1 2 

Diacetyl Personal Flavoring and Grinding 3 3 (100%) 41.1 420.9 3

Diacetyl Personal Finished Product Storage 2 2 (100%) 21.5 29.0 2

Diacetyl Personal Packaging 15 15 (100%) 29.7 48.8 15

Diacetyl Personal QC Lab 4 4 (100%) 8.9 37.4 4

Diacetyl Personal Roasting 6 6 (100%) 35.5 57.1 6

Diacetyl Area Admin 8 8 (100%) 27.6 41.1 N/A

Diacetyl Area Breakroom 4 4 (100%) 16.2 41.4 N/A

Diacetyl Area Finished Product Storage 8 8 (100%) 23.1 39.4 N/A

Diacetyl Area Flavor Room 8 8 (100%) 20.3 327.3 N/A

Diacetyl Area Green Bean Storage Room 4 4 (100%) 35.2 52.2 N/A

Diacetyl Area Grinding 12 12 (100%) 36.9 84.2 N/A

Diacetyl Area Outside 3 2 (67%) <0.3 0.5 N/A

Diacetyl Area Packaging 40 40 (100%) 21.0 55.6 N/A

Diacetyl Area Production Area 4 4 (100%) 27.5 43.6 N/A

Diacetyl Area QC Lab 4 4 (100%) 18.8 33.9 N/A

Diacetyl Area Roasting 12 12 (100%) 37.3 57.8 N/A

Diacetyl Area Silo Area 8 8 (100%) 33.1 56.1 N/A

Diacetyl Area Storage Room 4 4 (100%) 36.1 49.6 N/A

Diacetyl Area Finished Goods Warehouse* 6 6 (100%) 2.8 5.4 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Personal Administration 3 3 (100%) 13.8 15.9 3

2,3-Pentanedione Personal Production and Administrative 2 2 (100%) 17.0 21.7 2

2,3-Pentanedione Personal Green Bean Storage 2 2 (100%) 12.2 28.3 2

2,3-Pentanedione Personal Flavoring and Grinding 3 3 (100%) 21.7 275.9 3

2,3-Pentanedione Personal Finished Product Storage 2 2 (100%) 11.5 14.7 2

2,3-Pentanedione Personal Packaging 15 15 (100%) 14.4 31.0 15

2,3-Pentanedione Personal QC Lab 4 4 (100%) 4.9 17.6 3

2,3-Pentanedione Personal Roasting 6 6 (100%) 19.1 34.4 6

2,3-Pentanedione Area Administrative 8 8 (100%) 15.8 23.9 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area Breakroom 4 4 (100%) 7.7 23.5 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area Finished Product Storage 8 8 (100%) 11.8 21.1 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area Flavor Room 8 8 (100%) 11.0 772.9 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area Green Bean Storage Room 4 4 (100%) 19.1 29.9 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area Grinding 12 12 (100%) 16.5 45.9 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area Outside 4 1 (25%) <0.3 0.5 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area Packaging 40 40 (100%) 14.4 37.4 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area Production Area 4 4 (100%) 12.5 28.7 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area QC Lab 4 4 (100%) 10.3 18.0 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area Roasting 12 12 (100%) 19.3 34.0 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area Silo Area 8 8 (100%) 18.6 32.4 N/A

Appendix A: Tables
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 41

Analyte Sample Type Location N

Above 

LOD N 

(%)

Minimum 

Concentration 

(ppb)

Maximum 

Concentration 

(ppb)

Above 

REL 

N

2,3-Pentanedione Area Storage Room 4 4 (100%) 19.0 30.3 N/A

2,3-Pentanedione Area Finished Goods Warehouse* 6 0 (9%) < 0.3 < 0.3 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Personal Administration 3 0 (0%) <0.4 <0.5 -

2,3-Hexanedione Personal Production and Administrative 2 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 -

2,3-Hexanedione Personal Green Bean Storage 2 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 -

2,3-Hexanedione Personal Flavoring and Grinding 3 1 (0%) <0.5 11.2 -

2,3-Hexanedione Personal Finished Product Storage 2 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 -

2,3-Hexanedione Personal Packaging 15 0 (0%) <0.4 <0.8 -

2,3-Hexanedione Personal QC Lab 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.6 -

2,3-Hexanedione Personal Roasting 6 (0%) <0.4 <0.5 -

2,3-Hexanedione Area Admin 8 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Breakroom 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Finished Product Storage 8 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Flavor Room 8 4 (50%) <0.5 8.8 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Green Bean Storage Room 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Grinding 12 1 (8%) <0.5 1.3 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Outside 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Packaging 40 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.6 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Production Area 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area QC Lab 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.6 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Roasting 12 1 (8%) <0.5 0.9 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Silo Area 8 1 (13%) <0.4 1.0 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Storage Room 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Finished Goods Warehouse* 6 0 (0%) < 0.2 < 0.2 N/A

Note: OSHA=Occupational Safety and Health Administration; NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 

N=number of samples; Above LOD N (%)=number and percentage of samples above limit of detection (LOD); < indicates below 

the LOD; Above REL N=number of samples above the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL); ppb=parts per billion; N/A 

indicates that NIOSH RELs are specified for personal air samples, and area air samples cannot be used for direct comparisons 

with area samples; “−“indicates that there is currently no REL for 2,3-hexanedione; “Production Area” location includes 

employees that were cross-trained and performed tasks at different areas. 

*Indicates area samples that were collected in February 2017.

Table A1 (continued). OSHA Methods 1013/1016 full-shift personal and area air sampling results by location, 

NIOSH surveys, July 2016 and February 2017*
Page 42 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

Table A2. OSHA Methods 1013/1016 personal task air sampling results, NIOSH survey, July 2016

Analyte Task N

Above 

LOD 

N (%)

Minimum 

Concentration 

(ppb)

Maximum 

Concentration 

(ppb)

Mean (range) 

Sample Duration 

(minutes)

Diacetyl Cleaning Flavoring mixer 1 1 (100%) 41.7 41.7 15

Diacetyl Cleaning Packaging Machine 4 4 (100%) 35.6 43.8 15 (13–15)

Diacetyl Cleaning Roaster 9 9 (100%) 11.6 48.9 23 (10–46)

Diacetyl Cleaning Grinders 1 1 (100%) 35.8 35.8 15

Diacetyl Flavor coffe 4 4 (100%) 521.3 2172.7 15 (15–16)

Diacetyl Grind coffee bean 6 6 (100%) 47.4 80.8 14 (12–15)

Diacetyl Move roasted beans or ground coffe 1 1 (100%) 43.3 43.3 4

Diacetyl Thermal heat of roaster, post-clean 

(not roasting) 5 5 (100%) 7.8 45.3 15 (13–18)

Diacetyl Package coffe 21 21 (100%) 3.9 59.0 13 (5–18)

Diacetyl Quality Control 1 1 (100%) 28.7 28.7 14

Diacetyl Roast coffee bean 17 17 (100%) 28.4 54.3 16 (0–30)

2,3-Pentanedione Cleaning Flavoring mixer 1 1 (100%) 23.8 23.8 15

2,3-Pentanedione Cleaning Packaging Machine 4 4 (100%) 14.8 26.0 15 (13–15)

2,3-Pentanedione Cleaning Roaster 9 9 (100%) 4.6 23.6 23 (10–46)

2,3-Pentanedione Cleaning grinders 1 1 (100%) 23.0 23.0 15

2,3-Pentanedione Flavor coffe 4 4 (100%) 345.0 1444.7 15 (15–16)

2,3-Pentanedione Grind coffee bean 6 6 (100%) 20.7 49.9 14 (12–15)

2,3-Pentanedione Move roasted beans or ground coffe 1 1 (100%) 19.2 19.2 4

2,3-Pentanedione Thermal heat of roaster, post-clean 

(not roasting) 5 5 (100%) 3.7 20.6 15 (13–18)

2,3-Pentanedione Package coffe 21 20 (95%) <1.5 37.2 13 (5–18)

2,3-Pentanedione Quality Control 1 1 (100%) 15.1 15.1 14

2,3-Pentanedione Roast coffee bean 17 17 (100%) 15.2 32.8 16 (0–30)

2,3-Hexanedione Cleaning Flavoring mixer 1 0 (0%) <0.7 <0.7 15

2,3-Hexanedione Cleaning Packaging Machine 4 0 (0%) <0.7 <0.8 15 (13–15)

2,3-Hexanedione Cleaning Roaster 9 0 (0%) <0.2 <1.0 23 (10–46)

2,3-Hexanedione Cleaning grinders 1 0 (0%) <0.7 <0.7 15

2,3-Hexanedione Flavor coffe 4 4 (100%) 14.3 62.6 15 (15–16)

2,3-Hexanedione Grind coffee bean 6 0 (0%) <0.7 <0.9 14 (12–15)

2,3-Hexanedione Move roasted beans or ground coffe 1 0 (0%) <2.7 <2.7 4

2,3-Hexanedione Thermal heat of roaster, post-clean 

(not roasting) 5 0 (0%) <0.6 <0.8 15 (13–18)

2,3-Hexanedione Package coffe 21 0 (0%) <0.6 <2.2 13 (5–18)

2,3-Hexanedione Quality Control 1 0 (0%) <0.7 <0.7 14

2,3-Hexanedione Roast coffee bean 17 0 (0%) <0.3 <0.3 16 (0–30)

Note: OSHA=Occupational Safety and Health Administration; NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 

N=number of samples; Above LOD N (%)=number and percentage of samples above limit of detection (LOD); < indicates below the 

LOD.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 43 Table A3. Instantaneous evacuated canister method* air sampling results by task, NIOSH survey, July 2016 2,3-Hexanedione (ppb) 2,3-Pentanedione (ppb) Diacetyl (ppb) Task Description Location) ea(Ar Adding liquid almond flavoring into hoppe 1826 991 56.6 Flavoring room Standing over flavoring hopper during mixing of Butter Rum, ground coff 2307 1509 58.9 Standing over flavoring hopper during mixing of Butter Rum, ground coff 2090 1035 41.6 Standing over flavoring hopper during mixing of almond flavoring with ground coffee 1869 1433 157 Standing at control panel of grinder 77.2 42.8 2.5 Grinding Standing by Brown Grinder 56.2 26.5 1.8 Standing by Grey Grinder 83.8 44.0 4.3 Cleaning interior of SS3 124 37.1 9.1 Cleaning vacuum on SS3 25.3 15.9 2.0 Packaging Packing single serve packets into boxes 76.3 45.4 5.0 Packing single serve packets into boxes 82.3 42.3 2.5 Packing single serve packets into boxes 50.9 32.1 4.7 Grinding small cups of light roast, Honduras for cupping 41.0 26.5 2.1 Quality Grinding small cups of light roast, Honduras for cupping 44.8 30.5 4.4 Control Smelling tryer of QC Roaster (Costa Rican Light Roast) 52.6 30.1 2.6 (QC) Lab Start of QC Roast; Costa Rican Light Roast 33.9 16.8 1.4 Transfer of roasted beans to cooling bin 36.3 20.2 1.9 Transfer of roasted beans to cooling bin 59.6 25.1 3.3 Transfer of roasted beans to cooling bin 50.2 20.8 2.0 Transfer of roasted beans to cooling bin 56.8 34.7 2.2 Roasting Transfer of roasted beans to cooling bin 61.0 40.4 2.9 Transfer of roasted beans to cooling bin 59.7 38.1 2.4 Transfer of roasted beans to cooling bin 56.1 36.3 5.0 Transfer of roasted beans to cooling bin 57.4 37.1 2.5 Transfer of roasted beans to cooling bin 59.8 37.4 3.3 Transfer of roasted beans to cooling bin 44.6 22.6 3.4 Transfer of roasted beans to cooling bin 41.8 19.5 2.2 Pulled sample from cooling bin to QC check with grinder and color analyzer 161 41.4 6.2 Pulled sample from cooling bin to QC check with grinder and color analyzer 73.1 49.5 8.4
Page 44 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Location (Area) Task Description Diacetyl (ppb) 2,3-Pentanedione (ppb) 2,3-Hexanedione (ppb) Pulled sample from cooling bin to QC check with grinder and color analyzer 73.4 47.4 3.1 Pulled sample from cooling bin to QC check with grinder and color analyzer 41.5 19.9 1.9 Pulled sample from cooling bin to QC check with grinder and color analyzer 48.2 20.8 2.1 Pulled sample from cooling bin to QC check with grinder and color analyzer 47.0 21.2 2.1 Pulled sample from cooling bin to QC check with grinder and color analyzer 33.5 21.5 2.0 Roasting Grinding QC sample from cooling bin with sample grinder 66.7 40.3 4.0 Grinding QC sample from cooling bin with sample grinder 67.0 43.2 3.3 Grinding QC sample from cooling bin with sample grinder 60.6 32.0 2.5 Grinding QC sample from cooling bin with sample grinder 56.7 37.7 3.2 Grinding QC sample from cooling bin with sample grinder 77.6 55.3 4.0 Grinding QC sample from cooling bin with sample grinder 65.6 46.5 10.8 Grinding QC sample from cooling bin with sample grinder 51.4 24.6 2.2 Grinding QC sample from cooling bin with sample grinder 96.8 52.8 5.5 Grinding QC sample from cooling bin with sample grinder 157 70.4 7.7 Grinding QC sample from cooling bin with sample grinder 31.5 21.1 2.0 Table A3 (continued). Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; ppb=parts per billion; < indicates below the limit of detection; QC=quality control. *Sampling duration approximately 30 seconds; task-based air samples were collected by placing the inlet of the canister sampler in the employee’s personal breathing zone as he/she performed work task. Instantaneous evacuated canister method* air sampling results by task, NIOSH survey, July 2016
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 45 Table A4. Instantaneous evacuated canister method* air sampling results by source, NIOSH survey, July 2016 2,3-Hexanedione (ppb) 2,3-Pentanedione (ppb) Diacetyl (ppb) ceSour Location (Area) At transfer point of almond flavoring into flavoring blend 18744 9746 596 Flavoring Room Directly above empty flavoring hopper after ground coffee was flavored with Butt Rum 10419 7929 465 Directly above full flavoring hopper of ground Butter Ru 6732 236 51.8 Directly above empty flavoring hoppe 408 237 < 0.6 Packaging Exhaust vent on back side of single serve cup packaging machine #3 346 370 21.3 Flavoring Room Directly above empty flavoring hoppe , about to start a new batch 259 205 11.2 Packaging Exhaust vent on back side of single serve cup packaging machine #3 252 279 16.9 Exhaust vent on back side of single serve cup packaging machine #3 244 245 13.4 Grinding Brown grinder during grinding of Donut Shop coffe 111 56.6 7.3 Packaging Outside door to single serve cup machine #3, with door closed 104 36.1 3.6 At Brown Grinder 101 51.7 3.3 Grinding Transfer point of Brown Grinder feed into opening of transport 97.9 50.3 3.8 At Grey Grinder 87.0 38.6 2.2 Flavoring Room At 55 gallon discharge collector from blender 86.7 69.9 5.9 Next to door in front of machine filling single serve cups (SS4); door close 76.6 41.5 < 0.6 Packaging Front of Quad 1 machine filling 10 oz bags with the door close 71.9 43.7 4.0 Inside of single serve cup packaging machine #3, door open 71.8 51.0 4.3 Inside of single serve cup packaging machine #3 (door was opened to check a component) 62.6 42.6 7.7 Grinding At Brown Grinder 61.0 35.7 2.6 Packaging Front of machine filling single serve cups (SS3) with the door ope 37.8 30.1 5.1 Quality Control Lab Above brewed Honduras Light Roast during cupping 36.9 19.9 1.5 Packaging Front of machine filling 10 oz bags with the door close 34.7 24.9 1.7 Front of machine filling single serve cups (SS3) with the door close 31.4 23.8 1.9 Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; ppb=parts per billion; < indicates below the limit of detection for the instrument used to detect 2,3-hexanedione. *Sampling duration approximately 30 seconds; source air samples were collected by placing the inlet of the canister sampler near roasted beans.
Page 46 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

Table A5. Headspace analysis results* for bulk samples of roasted coffee beans, NIOSH surve , July 2016

Roasted Coffee Description Diacetyl (ppb) 2,3-Pentanedione (ppb) 2,3-Hexanedione (ppb)

Butter Rum Ground 11221 12195 <209

Butter Rum Ground 14490 3250 <211

Single Serve Breakfast Blend Ground 4178 1386 <210

Single Serve Donut Shop Ground 1336 423 <210

Sumatra Blend Whole bean 2229 1551 <209

Flavoring Description Diacetyl (ppb) 2,3-Pentanedione (ppb) 2,3-Hexanedione (ppb)

Amaretto 2155 1009 <208

Butter Rum 10741 837 <209

Caramel Cream 7740 6517 228

Chocolate Caramel Brownie 10157 1204 <208

Chocolate Cherry 845 <118 <210

Chocolate Raspberry 370 409 <209

French Vanilla Almond 3341 2926 <211

French Vanilla Almond 3196 1744 <208

Hazelnut 3049 4069 <207

Hazelnut Cream 3043 <117 <209

Sea Salt & Caramel 3868 5662 <210

Toasted Southern Pecan 3719 1100 <206

Vanilla Nut Cream 4146 2438 <208

Vanilla Hazelnut 2978 3297 <209

Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; ppb=parts per billion. < indicates below the limit of 

detection for the instrument used to detect the analyte.

*The roasted coffee beans off-gassed for different amounts of time, and this could be responsible for some of the differences in 

headspace analysis results.

Table A6. Summary of continuous area air monitoring results for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, 

temperature, and total volatile organic compounds, NIOSH industrial hygiene survey, July 2016

CO Location 2 (ppm) CO (ppm) Temperature (°F) Total VOC (ppb)

Mean (Range) Mean (Range) Mean (Range) Mean (Range)

Flavoring Room, Mezzanine Operator Desk 727.0

(598.0–1546.0)

15.2

(5.7–40.8)

91.3

(86.1–92.7)

10200

(1544–104727)

Brown Grinder 590.5

(524.0–1402.0)

11.0

(3.5-126.9)

85.6

(83.2–87.8)

1092.3

(510–7145)

Roasting, Between Operator Panels 579.1

(491.0–954.0)

12.1

(4.6–23.6)

93.3

(88.1–96.1) ─

Packaging, VFFS Box/Pallet Area 574.9

(536–635)

5.5

(3.4–9.9)

86.9

(85.1–89.6) ─

Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; CO2

=carbon dioxide; CO=carbon monoxide; ppm=parts 

per million; °F=degrees Fahrenheit; VOC=volatile organic compounds; “-“indicates the measurement was not recorded.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 47

Table A7. Summary of continuous personal air measurements for carbon monoxide, NIOSH 

survey, July 2016

CO (ppm) Job Title Work Area Mean (range)

Flavoring and Grinding Operator Flavoring and Grinding 13.6

(2–27)

Flavoring and Grinding Operator Flavoring and Grinding 29.8

(11–584)

Flavoring and Grinding Operator Flavoring and Grinding 18.8

(3–71)

Roaster Operator Roasting 12.4

(9–60)

Roaster Operator Roasting 7.3

(4–10)

Roaster Operator Roasting 7.0

(4–10)

Roaster Operator Roasting 12.8

(6–30)

Roaster Operator Green Bean Storage Room 11.1

(7–21)

Roaster Operator Green Bean Storage Room 11.5

(0–28)

Production Packaging 7.3

(5–10)

Production Packaging, Single Serve Area 8.2

(5–12)

Production Packaging 13.8

(0–60)

Chief Marketing Offic QC Lab 6.7

(3 – 10)

Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; CO=carbon monoxide; ppm=parts 

per million; < indicates below the limit of detection for the instrument used to detect carbon monoxide.
Page 48 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Table A8. Prevalence of reported symptoms, NIOSH medical survey, August 2016 Aggravated by work or better away from work Experienced in the last 4 weeks N = 99 Number (%) Experienced in the last 12 months N = 99 Number (%) Symptom Nose symptoms* 46 (46%) 28 (28%) 23 (23%) Eye symptoms† 43 (43%) 23 (23%) 24 (24%) Sinusitis or sinus problems 20 (20%) 9 (9%) 10 (10%) Problem with ability to smell 12 (12%) - - Phlegm on most days for 3 months 9 (9%) - - Lower respiratory symptoms (reported at least one of the following) 50 (51%) 15 (15%) 18 (18%) Chest wheezing or whistling 18 (18%) 5 (5%) 4 (4%) SOB on level ground or walking up a slight a hill 17 (17%) - - Breathing trouble 17 (17%) 8 (8%) 5 (5%) Awoke with chest tightness 17 (17%) 1 (1%) 10 (10%) Usual cough‡ 11 (11%) 6 (6%) 3 (3%) Awoke with shortness of breath 10 (10%) 3 (3%) 2 (2%) Asthma attack 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 2 (2%) Systemic symptoms(reported at least one of the following) 53 (54%) 28 (28%) 29 (29%) Unusual tiredness or fatigue 32 (32%) 21 (21%) 20 (20%) Flu-like achiness or achy joints 30 (30%) 12 (12%) 9 (9%) Fever or chills 21 (21%) 4 (4%) 9 (9%) Note: N=number of participants; SOB=shortness of breath; “-“= A four week question was not asked for the symptom. *Nose symptoms includes one or both of the following: 1) stuffy, itchy, or runny nose or 2) stinging, burning nose. †Eye symptoms includes one or both of the following: 1) watery, itchy eyes or 2) stinging, burning eyes. ‡This question did not specifically ask about a cough within the past 12 months; participants were asked, “Do you usually have a cough?” If the participants answered yes to that question, they were then asked, “Have you had a cough at any time in the last 4 weeks?”
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 49

Table A9. Adjusted* comparisons of symptoms and self-reported physician diagnosis among NIOSH medical 

survey participants (N=95) to U.S. adult population August 2016

Comparative Observed Expected SMR Health condition population† Number Number (95% CI)‡

Watery, itchy eyes last 12 months NHANES III 40 31.3 1.3 (0.9–1.7)

Stuff , itchy, or runny nose last 12 months NHANES III 45 42.6 1.1 (0.8–1.4)

Sinus problems last 12 months NHANES III 20 23.4 0.9 (0.6–1.3)

Phlegm 3 consecutive month or more NHANES III 9 5.1 1.7 (0.9–3.3)

Wheeze last 12 months NHANES 2007-2012 17 11.0 1.5 (<1.0–2.5)

Shortness of breath on exertion NHANES III 17 15.1 1.1 (0.7–1.8)

Cough 3 consecutive months or more NHANES III 4 4.3 0.9 (0.4–2.3)

Ever asthma (physician-diagnosed)§ NHANES 2007-2012 11 5.3 2.1 (1.2–3.7)

Current asthma (physician-diagnosed) NHANES 2007-2012 3 3.3 0.9 (0.3–2.7)

Chronic bronchitis (physician-diagnosed) NHANES III 1 3.0 0. (0.1–1.9)

Note: NHANES=National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; SMR= standardized morbidity ratio.

*Adjusted for sex, race/ethnicity, age, and smoking categories. 

†We used the most recent NHANES survey available for each comparison. 

‡95% confidence intervals (CIs) that exclude one are statistically significantly different from comparison with US adult 

population and are shown in bold.

§ Ten (91%) of 11 participants ever diagnosed with asthma were diagnosed before they started working at this coffee roasting 

and packaging facility.

Table A10. Adjusted* comparisons of spirometric results among NIOSH medical survey participants 

at a coffee roasting and processing facility to U.S. adult population in NHANES III,August 2016 N=95 

Spirometry Expected Observed Number SMR 95% CI† Result Number

Obstruction (no mixed) 1 2.2 0.5 0.1–2.6

Restriction (no mixed) 3 5.8 0.5 0.2–1.5

Mixed only 2 0.8 2.6 0.7–9.5

Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; NHANES=National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey; SMR=Standardized morbidity ratios.

*Adjusted for gender, race, age, and smoking categories. 

†95% confidence intervals (CIs) that exclude one are statistically significantly different from comparison with US 

adult population.
Page 50 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

References

ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist) [2018a]. 2018 TLVs®

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

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

Hygienists. 

ACGIH [2018b]. Chemicals Substances and Other Issues Under Study (TLV®-CS) 

[http://www.acgih.org/tlv-bei-guidelines/documentation-publications-and-data/under-studylist/chemical-substances-and-other-issues-under-study-tlv]. Date accessed: March 2019.

Akiyama M, Murakami K, Ohtani N, Iwatsuki K, Sotoyama K, Wada A, Tokuno K, Iwabuchi 

H, Tanaka K [2003]. Analysis of volatile compounds released during the grinding of roasted 

coffee beans using solid-phase microextraction. J Agric Food Chem 51(7):1961-1969.

Akpinar-Elci M, Travis WD, Lynch DA, Kreiss K [2004]. Bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome 

in popcorn production plant workers. Eur Respir J 24(2):298-302.

Anderson BA, Shimoni E, Liardon R, Labuza P [2003]. The diffusion kinetics of carbon

dioxide in fresh roasted and ground coffee. J Food Eng 59:71-78

Bailey RL, Cox-Ganser JM, Duling MG, LeBouf RF, Martin SB Jr, Bledsoe TA, Green 

BJ, Kreiss K [2015]. Respiratory morbidity in a coffee processing workplace with sentinel

obliterative bronchiolitis cases. Am J Ind Med 58(12):1235-1245.

Berger KI, Reibman J, Oppenheimer BW, Vlahos I, Harrison D, Goldring RM [2013]. 

Lessons from the World Trade Center disaster: airway disease presenting as restrictive 

dysfunction. Chest 144(1):249-257. 

Burney PGJ, Chinn S [1987]. Developing a new questionnaire for measuring the prevalence 

and distribution of asthma. Chest 91 (6 Suppl):79S-83S.

Burney PG, Laitinen LA, Perdrizet S, Huckauf H, Tattersfield AE, Chinn S, Poisson N, 

Heeren A, Britton JR, Jones T [1989]. Validity and repeatability of the IUATLD (1984) 

Bronchial symptoms questionnaire: an international comparison. Eur Respir J 2(10):940-945.

Burney PGJ, Luczynska C, Chinn S, Jarvis D [1994]. The European community respiratory 

health survey. Eur Respir J 7(5):954-960.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) [1996]. Third National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994, NHANES III Examination Data File [CDROM]. 

Hyattsville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. (Public use data file documentation No. 76300.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 51

CDC [2013a]. Carbon monoxide [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/co-comp/default.html]. 

Date accessed: March 2019.

CDC [2013b]. Obliterative bronchiolitis in workers in a coffee-processing facility— exas, 

2008–2012. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 62(16):305–307.

CDC [2018a]. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey Data. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [2007-2012] Available at: https://wwwn.cdc.

gov/nchs/nhanes/default.aspx. Date accessed: March 2019.

CDC [2018b]. Smoking & tobacco use: quit smoking

[https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/tobacco_control_programs/index.htm].

Date accessed: March 2019.

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

Office of the Federal Regist .

Daglia M, Papetti A, Aceti C, Sordelli B, Spini V, Gazzani G [2007]. Isolation and 

determination of α-dicarbonyl compounds by RP-HPLC-DAD in green and roasted coffee. J

Agric and Food Chem 55(22):8877-8882.

Day G, LeBouf R, Grote A, Pendergrass S, Cummings K, Kreiss K, and Kullman G [2011]. 

Identification and measurement of diacetyl substitutes in dry bakery mix production. J Occ

Env Hygiene 8(2):93-103.

de Assumpção MS, Gonçalves RM, Martins R, Bobbio TG, Schivinski CI [2016]. Reference 

equations for impulse oscillometry system parameters in healthy Brazilian children and 

adolescents. Respir Care 61(8):1090-1099.

Desiraju K, Agrawal A [2016]. Impulse oscillometry: The state-of-art for lung function 

testing. Lung India 33(4):410-416. 

Duling MG, LeBouf RF, Cox-Ganser JM, Kreiss K, Martin SB Jr, Bailey RL [2016]. 

Environmental characterization of a coffee processing workplace with obliterative

bronchiolitis in former workers. J Occup Environ Hyg 13(10):770-781.

Dweik RA, Boggs PB, Erzurum SC, Irvin CG, Leigh MW, Lundberg JO, Olin AC, Plummer 

AL, Taylor DR; American Thoracic Society Committee on Interpretation of Exhaled Nitric 

Oxide Levels (FENO) for Clinical Applications [2011]. An officia ATS clinical practice 

guideline: interpretation of exhaled nitric oxide levels (FENO) for clinical applications. Am J 

Respir Crit Care Med 184(5):602-615.

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

protocols and instructions [http://www.ecrhs.org/Quests.htm]. Date accessed: March 2019.
Page 52 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

EAACI Task Force on Occupational Rhinitis, Moscato G, Vandenplas O, Gerth Van Wijk R, 

Malo JL, Quirce S, Walusiak J, Castano R, De Groot H, Folletti I, Gautrin D, Yacoub MR, 

Perfetti L, Siracusa A [2008]. Occupational rhinitis. Allergy 63(8):969-980. 

Ferris BG [1978]. Epidemiology standardization project. AmRev Respir Dis 118(Suppl):1–53.

Figley KD, Rawling FF [1950] Castor bean: an industrial hazard as a contaminant of green 

coffee dust and used burlap bags. J Allergy 21:545–553.

Hankinson JL, Odencrantz JR, Fedan KB [1999]. Spirometric reference values from a sample 

of the general U.S. population. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 159(1):179-187.

Hawley B, Cox-Ganser JM, Cummings KJ [2017]. Carbon monoxide exposure in workplaces, 

including coffee processing facilities.J Respir Crit Care Med 196(8):1080-1081.

Henneberger PK, Redlich CA, Callahan DB, Harber P, Lemière C, Martin J, Tarlo SM, 

Vandenplas O, Torén K; ATS Ad Hoc Committee on Work-Exacerbated Asthma [2011]. An 

officia American Thoracic Society statement: work-exacerbated asthma. Am J Respir Crit 

Care Med 184(3):368–378.

Hnizdo E, Sircar K, Yan T, Harber P, Fleming J, Glindmeyer H [2007]. Limits of longitudinal 

decline for the interpretation of annual changes in FEV1

 in individuals. Occup Environ Med 

64:701-707

Hubbs AF, Cumpston AM, Goldsmith WT, Battelli LA, Kashon ML, Jackson MC, Frazer 

DG, Fedan JS, Goravanahally MP, Castranova V, Kreiss K, Willard PA, Friend S, SchweglerBerry D, Fluharty KL, Sriram K [2012]. Respiratory and olfactory cytotoxicity of inhaled 

2,3-pentanedione in Sprague-Dawley rats. Am J Pathol 181(3):829-844.

Kanwal R, Kullman G, Piacitelli C, Boylstein R, Sahakian N, Martin S, Fedan K, Kreiss K 

[2006]. Evaluation of flavorings-related lung disease risk at six microwave popcorn plants

J Occup Environ Med. 48(2):149-57.

Karr RM, Davies RJ, Butcher BT, Lehrer SB, Wilson MR, Dharmarajan V, Salvaggio JE 

[1978]. Occupational asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 61(1):54–65.

Kim TJ, Materna BL, Prudhomme JC, Fedan KB, Enright PL, Sahakian NM, Windham GC, 

Kreiss K [2010]. Industry-wide medical surveillance of California flavor manufacturing

workers: Cross-sectional results. Am J Ind Med 53(9):857-865. 

King MS, Eisenberg R, Newman JH, Tolle JJ, Harrell FE Jr, Nian H, Ninan M, Lambright ES, 

Sheller JR, Johnson JE, Miller RF [2011]. Constrictive bronchiolitis in soldiers returning from 

Iraq and Afghanistan. N Engl J Med. 365(3):222-230. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 53

Kreiss K [2013]. Occupational causes of constrictive bronchiolitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin 

Immunol 13(2):167-172.

Komarow HD, Myles IA, Uzzaman A, Metcalfe DD [2011]. Impulse oscillometry in the 

evaluation of diseases of the airways in children. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 106(3):191-

199. 

Langford NJ [2005]. Carbon dioxide poisoning. Toxicol Rev 24(4):229-235.

LeBouf RF, Stefaniak AB, Virji, MA [2012]. Validation of evacuated canisters for sampling 

volatile organic compounds in healthcare settings. J Environ Monit 14(3):977–983.

LeBouf RF and Simmons M [2017]. Increased sensitivity of OSHA method analysis of 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione in air. J Occup Environ Hyg 14(5):343-348. 

Lee JY, Seo JH, Kim HY, Jung YH, Kwon JW, Kim BJ, Kim HB, Lee SY, Jang GC, Song DJ, 

Kim WK, Shim JY, Kim HJ, Shin YJ, Park JW, Cho SH, Lee JS, Hong SJ [2012]. Reference 

values of impulse oscillometry and its utility in the diagnosis of asthma in young Korean 

children. J Asthma 49(8):811-816. 

Lehrer SB, Karr RM, Salvaggio JE [1978]. Extraction and analysis of coffee bean alle gens. 

Clin Allergy 8(3):217-226.

Malmberg LP, Pelkonen A, Poussa T, Pohianpalo A, Haahtela T, Turpeinen M [2002]. 

Determinants of respiratory system input impedance and bronchodilator response in healthy 

Finnish preschool children. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 22(1):64-71.

Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, Crapo R, Enright 

P, van der Grinten CP, Gustafsson P, Jensen R, Johnson DC, MacIntyre N, McKay R, 

Navajas D, Pedersen OF, Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Wanger J, ATS/ERS Task Force [2005]. 

Standardisation of spirometry. Eur Respir J 26(2):319-338.

MNOSHA (Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration) Workplace Safety Consultation [2011]. Respiratory protection. September 

2011. [http://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/wsc_respiratory_protection_09 1.pdf]. 

Date accessed: March 2019.

MNOSHA [2017]. An employer’s guide to developing a hazard communication or employee 

right-to-know program. January 2017. [http://www.dli.mn.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/hazcom

ertk_development.pdf]. Date accessed: March 2019.

Morgan DL, Jokinen MP, Price HC, Gwinn WM, Palmer SM, Flake GP [2012]. Bronchial 

and bronchiolar fibrosis in rats exposed to 2,3-pentanedione vapors: implications for

bronchiolitis obliterans in humans. Toxicol Pathol 40(3):448-465.
Page 54 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

Morgan DL, Jokinen MP, Johnson CL, Price HC, Gwinn WM, Bousquet RW, Flake GP 

[2016]. Chemical reactivity and respiratory toxicity of the α-diketone flavoring agents:

2,3-butanedione, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione. Toxicol Pathol 44(5):763–783.

Newbury W, Crockett A, Newbury J [2008]. A pilot study to evaluate Australian predictive 

equations for the impulse oscillometry system. Respirology 13(7):1070-1075.

Newton J [2002]. Carbon monoxide exposure from coffee roasting. Appl Occup Environ Hyg

17(9):600-602.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) [2003]. NIOSH manual of 

analytical methods (NMAM®). 4th ed. Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

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

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 94–113 

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

Supplement 2003–154 [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-154/]. Date accessed: March 

2019

NIOSH (2004). NIOSH respirator selection logic. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-100 [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/

docs/2005-100/pdfs/2005-100.pdf]. Date accessed: March 2019.

NIOSH [2010]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department 

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

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2010-168c 

[http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/]. Date accessed: March 2019.

NIOSH [2012]. Flavoring-related lung disease. Information for healthcare providers. 

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

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2012-148 (supersedes 2012-107) [http://www.cdc.gov/

niosh/docs/2012-148/]. Date accessed: March 2019.

NIOSH [2016]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to diacetyl 

and 2,3-pentanedione. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 2016-111. [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2016-111/]. Date 

accessed: March 2019.

NIOSH [2018a]. Work-related asthma [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/asthma/default.

html]. Date accessed: March 2019.

NIOSH [2018b]. Volatile organic compounds, C1 to C10, Canister method: Method 3900. 

In Ashley K, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods (NMAM®). 5th ed. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 55

[https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/pdf/3900.pdf]. Date accessed: March 2019.

Nishimura F, Abe S, Fukunaga T [2003]. Carbon monoxide poisoning from industrial coffee

extraction. JAMA 290(3):334.

Oldenburg M, Bittner C, Baur X [2009]. Health risks due to coffee dust. Chest 136(2):536-

544

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) [1993]. Compliance and 

enforcement activities affected by the PELs decision. August 5, 1993 Memorandum. [https://

www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_

id=21220]. Date accessed: March 2019.

OSHA [2003]. Enforcement policy for respiratory hazards not covered by OSHA permissible 

exposure limits. January 24, 2003 Memorandum. [https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/

owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24749]. Date accessed: 

March 2019.

OSHA [2008]. Sampling and analytical methods: Method 1013 – Acetoin and diacetyl [http://

www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/validated/1013/1013.html]. Date accessed: March 2019.

OSHA [2010]. Sampling and analytical methods: Method 1016 – 2,3-pentanedione [http://

www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/validated/1016/1016.html]. Date accessed: March 2019.

OSHA [2014]. OSHA Fact sheet: Do you have work-related asthma? A guide for you and 

your doctor. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration [https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3707.pdf]. Date accessed: 

February 2019

OSHA [2018]. Permissible exposure limits – annotated tables 

[https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/index.html]. Date accessed: March 2019.

Park JH, Yoon JW, Shin YH, Jee HM, Wee YS, Chang SJ, Sim JH, Yum HY, Han MY [2011]. 

Reference values for respiratory system impedence using impulse oscillometry in healthy 

preschool children. Korean J Pediatr 54(2)64-68.

Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Brusasco V, Crapo RO, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, van der 

Grinten CP, Gustafsson P, Hankinson J, Jensen R, Johnson DC, MacIntyre N, McKay R, 

Miller MR, Navajas D, Pedersen OF, Wanger J [2005]. Interpretative strategies for lung 

function tests. Eur Respir J 26(5):948–968.

Raffel J , Thompson J [2013]. Carbon monoxide from domestic coffee roasting: a case

report. Ann Intern Med 159(11):795-796. 

Rondón C, Campo P, Galindo L, Blanca-López N, Cassinello MS, Rodriguez-Bada JL, Torres 

MJ, Blanca M [2012]. Prevalence and clinical relevance of local allergic rhinitis. Allergy. 
Page 56 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

67(10):1282-1288.

Rondón C, Bogas G, Barrionuevo E, Blanca M, Torres MJ, Campo P [2017]. Nonallergic 

rhinitis and lower airway disease. Allergy 72(1):24-34.

Rose JJ, Wang L, Xu Q, McTiernan CF, Shiva S, Tejero J, Gladwin MT [2017]. Carbon 

monoxide poisoning: pathogenesis, management, and future directions of therapy. Am J 

Respir Crit Care Med 195(5):596-606.

Sahay S, Gera K, Bhargava SK, Shah A [2016]. Occurrence and impact of sinusitis in 

patients with asthma and/or allergic rhinitis. J Asthma 53(6):635-643. 

Sakwari G, Mamuya SH, Bråtveit M, Moen BE [2013]. Respiratory symptoms, exhaled nitric 

oxide, and lung function among workers in Tanzanian coffee factories.J Occup Environ Med

55(5):544-551.

Schulz H, Flexeder C, Behr J, Heier M, Holle R, Huber RM, Jörres RA, Nowak D, Peters 

A, Wichmann HE, Heinrich J, Karrasch S; KORA Study Group [2013]. Reference values 

of impulse oscillometric lung function indices in adults of advanced age. PLoS One

8(5):e63366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063366. 

Schulze J, Biedebach S, Christmann M, Herrmann E, Voss S, Zielen S [2016]. Impulse 

oscillometry as a predictor of asthma exacerbations in young children. Respiration 91(2):107-

114. 

Shaaban R, Zureik M, Soussan D, Neukirch C, Heinrich J, Sunyer J, Wjst M, Cerveri I, Pin 

I, Bousquet J, Jarvis D, Burney PG, Neukirch F, Leynaert B [2008]. Rhinitis and onset of 

asthma: a longitudinal population-based study. Lancet. 372(9643):1049-1057. 

Shi Y, Aledia AS, Tatavoosian AV, Vijayalakshmi S, Galant SP, George SC [2012]. Relating 

small airways to asthma control by using impulse oscillometry in children.

Allergy Clin Immunol 129(3):671-678. 

Smith HJ, Reinhold P, Goldman MD [2005]. Forced oscillation technique and impulse 

oscillometry. In: Gosselink R, Stam H, eds. European Respiratory Monograph 31: Lung 

Function Testing. Vol. 10. Wakefield, UK: European Respiratory Society Journals, pp. 72

105.

Smith HJ (Hans-Juergen.Smith@CareFusion.com) [2015]. Questions about impulse 

oscillometry. Email of December 9, 2015, from Hans-Juergen Smith, CareFusion, to Rachel 

Bailey (feu2@cdc.gov), Respiratory Health Division, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

Song TW, Kim KW, Kim ES, Park JW, Sohn MH, Kim KE [2008]. Utility of impulse 

oscillometry in young children with asthma. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 19(8):763-768. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 57

Tarlo SM, Lemiere C [2014]. Occupational asthma. N Engl J Med 370:640-649.

Tarlo SM[2016]. Update on work-exacerbated asthma. Int J Occup Med Environ Health

29(3):369-374. 

Thomas KE, Trigg CJ, Baxter PJ, Topping M, Lacey J, Crook B, Whitehead P, Bennett JB, 

Davies RJ [1991]. Factors relating to the development of respiratory symptoms in coffee

process workers. Br J Ind Med 48(5):314–322.

Townsend MC [2011]. Spirometry in the Occupational Health Setting—2011 Update. J 

Occup Environ Med 53(5):569-584.

Vogel J, Smidt U [1994] Impulse oscillometry. Analysis of lung mechanics in general 

practice and clinic, epidemiological and experimental research. 1st ed. Frankfurt: PMIVerlagsgruppe. 

Weinstein DJ, Hull JE, Ritchie BL, Hayes JA, Morris MJ [2016]. Exercise-associated 

excessive dynamic airway collapse in military personnel. Ann Am Thorac Soc 13(9):1476-

1482.

Zuskin E, Valić F, Skurić Z [1979]. Respiratory function in coffee workers. Br J Ind Me

36(2):117–122.

Zuskin E, Kanceljak B, Skurić Z, Butković D [1985]. Bronchial reactivity in green coffee

exposure. Br J Ind Med 42(6):415-420.

Zuskin E, Schachter EN, Kanceljak B, Witek TJ Jr, Fein E [1993]. Organic dust disease of 

airways. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 65(2):135-140.
Page 58 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

This page left intentionally blank
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341 Page 59

Keywords: NAICS 311920 (Coffee roasting), Minnesota, diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione 

2,3-hexanedione, coffee, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, volat le organic compounds 

(VOCs).
Page 60 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2016-0164-3341

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program investigates possible health hazards in the workplace under 

the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 669(a)(6)). The Health 

Hazard Evaluation Program also provides, upon request, technical assistance to federal, state, and 

local agencies to investigate occupational health hazards and to prevent occupational disease or 

injury. Regulations guiding the Program can be found in Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

85; Requests for Health Hazard Evaluations (42 CPR Part 85).

Disclaimer 

The recommendations in this report are made on the basis of the findings at the workplace evaluated 

and might not be applicable to other workplaces.

Mention of any company or product in this report does not constitute endorsement by the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Citations to Web sites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring 

organizations or their programs or products. NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these Web 

sites. All Web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.

Acknowledgments

Desktop Publisher: Tia McClelland 

Data Analysis Support: Nicole Edwards, Kathleen Fedan, and Brian Tift

Laboratory Support: Dru Burns, Kyle Hatcher, Ryan LeBouf, Anand Ranpara

Site Visit Team Members: Mike Beaty, Randy Boylstein, Nicole Edwards, Reid Harvey, Brie H. 

Blackley, Stephen Martin, Jr., Chris Mugford, Michael Humann, and Marcia Stanton

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 https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2016-0164-3341.pdf.

All other Health Hazard Evaluation Reports may be found at https://www2a.cdc.gov/hhe/search.asp.

Recommended citation for this report:

NIOSH [2019]. Health hazard evaluation report: Evaluation of exposures and 

respiratory health at a coffee roasting and packaging facility. By Harvey RR, 

Blackley BH, Martin SB, Stanton ML. Morgantown, WV: U.S. Department of Health 

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

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HHE Report No. 

2016-0164-3341.
To receive documents or other information about

occupational safety and health topics, contact NIOSH

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

TTY: 1-888-232-6348

email: cdcinfo@cdc.gov

or visit the NIOSH website at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh

Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention