Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 1

Evaluation of exposures and respiratory 

health at a coffee roasting, flavoring, and 

packaging facility.

Report No. 2017-0054-3327

September 2018

Brie Hawley, MS, PhD

Laura E. Reynolds, MPH, BSN, RN

R. Reid Harvey, DVM, MPH

Stephen B. Martin, Jr., PhD, PE

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion .......................................... 19

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

Recommendations............................. 27

Appendix A: Tables............................ 32

References.......................................... 44

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

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

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

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

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

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

not be related to this Health Hazard Evaluation.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page i

We evaluated the respiratory health 

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

2,3-hexanedione, other volatile organic 

compounds, carbon monoxide, and carbon 

dioxide among employees at a coffee roasting, 

flavoring, and packaging facility. Some 

employees in the production area of the 

facility had personal full-shift exposures that 

exceeded the NIOSH recommended exposure 

limit for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. 

In addition, personal air sampling during 

short-term tasks identified several tasks 

(e.g., flavoring coffee, grinding coffee beans, 

packaging coffee, cleaning the flavoring 

mixer, and cleaning the grinders) with higher 

exposures to alpha-diketones than other tasks. 

Air levels of carbon monoxide measured on 

employees that ground or flavored ground 

beans exceeded the NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 

parts per million. Air levels of carbon monoxide 

near the packaging grinders exceeded 200 

parts per million. Eye and nose symptoms 

were the most commonly reported symptoms. 

Wheezing, shortness of breath, and breathing 

trouble were the most common lower 

respiratory symptoms reported. More than 

four times as many employees as expected 

reported asthma than in the U.S. population 

with a similar demographic distribution. 

Four (13%) of 30 participants had abnormal 

spirometry. We recommend installing local 

exhaust and implementing other ventilation 

changes, modification of work practices, 

training employees about workplace hazards, 

and respirator use. We also recommend 

instituting a medical monitoring program.

Highlights of this Evaluation

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

Health received a request from management at a coffee roasting, flavoring, and packaging 

facility regarding concerns about potential health effects from exposure to diacetyl during 

coffee roasting, grinding, and flavoring. 

What We Did

● We visited the coffee roasting, flavoring, and packaging facility on August 23–25, 2017 

and August 28–30, 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 samples of 

liquid flavorings to measure 

their emission potential for 

diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 

2,3-hexanedione.

● We measured real-time air levels of 

carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

● We assessed the ventilation system at 

the facility.

● We administered a health 

questionnaire to employees and 

performed medical tests. 

What We Found

● During personal full-shift sampling, 

some employees (flavoring room 

attendant, grinder operator, roaster 

operators, and packaging operators, 

and employees with duties in the 

production and administrative 

areas) were exposed to diacetyl 

at concentrations above the 

recommended exposure limit of 5 

parts per billion (ppb). The highest 

measured concentration of 47.3 ppb 

was measured on a grinder operator. 
Page ii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

● During personal full-shift samples, some employees (flavoring room attendant, 

grinder operator, packaging operators, and employees with duties in the production 

areas) were exposed to 2,3-pentanedione concentrations above the recommended 

exposure limit of 9.3 ppb. The highest measured full-shift concentration of 177.9 ppb 

2,3-pentanedione was measured on a flavoring attendant.

● Employees wore half-face or full-face respirators equipped with organic vapor 

cartridges while flavoring or grinding coffee in the flavoring room and roast room, 

respectively.

● Levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione in the air during personal short-term 

sampling were higher for tasks involving flavoring coffee (maximum 36.2 ppb 

diacetyl and 723.5 ppb 2,3-pentanedione), grinding roasted beans (maximum 245.9 

ppb diacetyl and 228.4 ppb 2,3-pentanedione ppb), and packaging roasted coffee 

(maximum 38.1 ppb diacetyl and 68.0 ppb 2,3-pentanedione). 

● Instantaneous canister samples collected while employees flavored roasted 

coffee were as high as 42.0 ppb for diacetyl and 211.0 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione. 

Instantaneous samples collected while an employee ground unflavored coffee were as 

high as 51.6 ppb for diacetyl and 49.2 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione.

● Air levels of carbon monoxide measured on employees that ground coffee or flavored 

ground coffee exceeded the NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 parts per million. 

● Some bulk samples of liquid flavorings emitted diacetyl, and/or 2,3-pentanedione.

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

employees reported their symptoms were caused or aggravated by green bean coffee 

burlap bags, dust, flavorings, grinding coffee, or packaging coffee.

● Wheezing or whistling in the chest, breathing trouble, and shortness of breath were 

the most commonly reported lower respiratory symptoms.

● More than four times as many employees reported current physician-diagnosed 

asthma than expected. 

● Almost three times as many employees reported having phlegm for three consecutive 

months than expected.

● Four (13%) of 30 participants had abnormal spirometry. 

● Two (6%) of 31 participants had high exhaled nitric oxide, a marker of allergic 

airways inflammation.

What the Employer Can Do

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

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

how to protect themselves.

● Keep all doors between the production and non-production areas closed at all times.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page iii

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

● Install local exhaust ventilation at the large grinder, grinder in the flavoring room, 

packaging grinders, and flavoring mixers to reduce air concentrations of alphadiketones (diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione) and carbon monoxide during grinding of 

coffee. 

● Install a carbon monoxide monitor near the large grinder, grinder in the flavoring room, 

and the packaging grinders to alert employees if carbon monoxide levels exceed the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ceiling limit of 200 ppm. 

● Work with a ventilation engineer to ensure the administrative areas and breakroom are 

maintained under positive pressure compared with the production spaces.

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

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

● Automate transfer of roasted beans, whenever possible, to minimize manual handling.

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

roasted bean bins.

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

reducing exposures of diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and carbon monoxide to below the 

recommended exposure limits. 

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

exposures remain above the recommended exposure limits. 

● Until exposures are controlled, provide respiratory protection to be used during tasks 

with elevated exposures, specifically during flavoring and grinding coffee, including 

flavoring and grinding in the packaging areas. 

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

protection against dust exposure when emptying burlap bags of green beans, cleaning 

the exhaust system of chaff, emptying the chaff containers, or cleaning the green bean 

storage area. 

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

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

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

What Employees Can Do

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

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

bean or ground coffee storage bins.

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

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

emptying the chaff containers, or when cleaning the green bean storage area.
Page iv Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

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

provider(s) and, as instructed, to a designated individual at your workplace. 

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

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

employer. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page v

This page left intentionally blank
Page vi Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

Abbreviations

μm Micrometer

μg Microgram

°F degrees Fahrenheit

ACGIH® American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

APF Assigned protection factor

AX Area of reactance

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CI Confidence interval

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

COPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

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

EF-1 Upblast centrifugal exhaust fan 

FEV1 1-second forced expiratory volume

Fres Resonant frequency

FVC Forced vital capacity

GERD Gastroesophageal reflux disease 

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

MAHU Make-up air-handling unit

NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OEL Occupational exposure limit

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PEL Permissible exposure limit

ppb Parts per billion

ppm Parts per million

QC Quality control

R5 Resistance at 5 Hertz
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page vii

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 2017-0054-3327 Page 1

Summary

In February 2017, the Health Hazard Evaluation Program of the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health received a request from management at a coffee roasting, 

flavoring, and packaging facility regarding concerns about potential health effects from 

exposure to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione during coffee roasting, grinding, and flavoring. 

In August 2017, we conducted an industrial hygiene survey and ventilation assessment at 

the facility. The industrial hygiene survey consisted of the collection of air samples and 

bulk samples of coffee for the analysis of diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione. 

We used continuous monitoring instruments to monitor total volatile organic compounds, 

carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, temperature, and relative humidity in specific areas and 

during tasks. We also conducted a medical evaluation of employees that consisted of a health 

questionnaire and breathing tests.

Forty-nine of the 51 full-shift personal samples collected during the industrial hygiene 

survey exceeded the NIOSH recommended exposure limit for diacetyl of 5 parts per 

billion, with a maximum concentration of 47.3 parts per billion. Thirty-six of the 51 fullshift samples exceeded the NIOSH recommended exposure limit for 2,3-pentanedione of 

9.3 parts per billion, with a maximum of 177.9 parts per billion. We identified work tasks 

that resulted in relatively higher air concentrations of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione than 

other tasks. Specifically, grinding roasted coffee beans, flavoring roasted beans, cleaning 

the flavoring mixer, cleaning the grinder, and packaging coffee were associated with higher 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione levels. We observed high instantaneous levels of diacetyl 

and 2,3-pentanedione during grinding of coffee, weighing of flavorings, flavoring coffee, 

and packaging ground coffee. Air levels of carbon monoxide collected on employees with 

duties that included grinding unflavored and flavored roasted beans exceeded the NIOSH 

ceiling limit of 200 parts per million. Carbon monoxide levels in the area near the packaging 

grinders also exceeded 200 parts per million. Carbon dioxide levels were low throughout 

most of the facility.

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

specifically the eyes and nose. Some production employees reported their symptoms were 

caused or aggravated by green bean coffee burlap bags, dust, flavorings, grinding coffee, or 

packaging coffee. Wheezing or whistling in the chest, breathing trouble, and shortness of 

breath were the most commonly reported lower respiratory symptoms. Participants reporting 

a current asthma diagnosis or ever having a diagnosis of asthma were 4.1 and 3.1 times 

higher, respectively, compared with the U.S. population of the same age, race/ethnicity, sex, 

and cigarette smoking distribution. Participants also reported phlegm for three consecutive 

months 2.5 times more than expected compared with the U.S. population. Four (13%) of 

30 participants had abnormal spirometry; two (6%) of 31 participants had high exhaled 

nitric oxide, a marker of allergic airways inflammation. We recommend implementing local 

exhaust and other ventilation changes, modification of work practices, training employees 

about workplace hazards, and respirator use. We also recommend instituting a medical 

monitoring program to identify any employees who may be developing work-related 

lung disease (e.g., asthma, obliterative bronchiolitis) and to help management prioritize 

interventions to prevent occupational lung disease.
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

Introduction

In February 2017, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

received a management request for a health hazard evaluation at a coffee roasting, 

flavoring, and packaging facility regarding potential worker exposure to diacetyl during 

coffee processing. In August 2017, we conducted an industrial hygiene survey and 

ventilation assessment 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. We also conducted a medical survey. 

Background

Previous Industrial Hygiene Sampling at This Coffee Roasting, Flavoring, and Packaging 

Facility

The state Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) program conducted an 

industrial hygiene investigation at this facility in November and December 2015 to determine 

compliance with state OSHA regulations. The site visit was initiated because the employer 

was selected as part of state OSHA’s target health program. Measurements of CO, noise 

levels, and diacetyl were collected by the state OSHA and shared with the employer. Results 

from the state OSHA industrial hygiene survey prompted management to submit a health 

hazard evaluation request.

Diacetyl and 2,3-Pentanedione 

Diacetyl (2,3-butanedione) and 2,3-pentanedione are VOCs known as alpha-diketones that 

are added as ingredients in food flavorings used in some food products such as microwave 

popcorn, bakery mixes, and flavored coffee [Day et al. 2011; Kanwal et al. 2006; Bailey et al. 

2015]. Diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, other VOCs, and gases such as CO and CO2 are naturally 

produced and released during the coffee roasting process [Duling et al. 2016; Raffel and 

Thompson 2013; Daglia et al. 2007; Nishimura et al. 2003; Newton 2002]. Grinding roasted 

coffee beans produces a greater surface area for off-gassing (sometimes called degassing) 

of these compounds [Akiyama et al. 2003]. Often, coffee roasting facilities package newly 

roasted coffee in permeable bags or in bags fitted with one-way valves to allow the coffee to 

off-gas after it is packaged. Sometimes, newly roasted coffee is placed in bins or containers 

and allowed to off-gas before packaging. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

uncertainty. Analytical limitations current at the time were taken into consideration in setting 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 3

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

should be taken to reduce exposures in the workplace.

These exposure limits and the accompanying recommendations for control of exposures were 

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

diacetyl REL, the risk of adverse health effects is low. NIOSH estimated 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 develop 

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

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

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

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

exposure limits for 2,3-hexanedione.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2 )

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 2017]. 

High exposures to CO and CO2 can cause headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, altered 

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

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

2017]. Occupational exposure limits for CO and CO2 are listed in Table 1.

Exposure Limits

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

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

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

exposures.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) [Mandatory]

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

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

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

agent over a work shift [OSHA 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 which represent levels that must not be exceeded at any time. Currently, 

there are no PELs for diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, or 2,3-hexanedione. For substances for 
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

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 Hygienist (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 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 which are 15-minute exposure levels that should not be exceeded during 

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

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

between exposures [ACGIH® 2018a]. Additionally, ACGIH® provides TLV®-Ceiling values 

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

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

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

on the 2017 list of Chemical Substances and Other Issues Under Study [ACGIH® 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 which are 

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

[NIOSH 2016]. Some chemicals have ceiling values which are concentrations that should 

not be exceeded at any time [NIOSH 2016]. For some chemicals, NIOSH has established an 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

alpha-diketone group and effect on the same system or organ (e.g., lungs) can result in 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NIOSH REL for diacetyl [NIOSH 2016].

Table 1. Exposure limits for compounds sampled during the NIOSH survey, August 2017

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 STEL values for the compounds in the table.

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

day, during a 40-hour workweek.

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

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

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

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

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

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

exceeded at any time.

Obliterative Bronchiolitis

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

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

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

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

in flavoring manufacturing workers and microwave popcorn workers who worked with 

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

Obliterative bronchiolitis has also been identified in employees at a coffee roasting and 

packaging facility that produced unflavored and flavored coffee [CDC 2013b]. A NIOSH 

health hazard evaluation at that facility found diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione concentrations 

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

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

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

unflavored ground and whole bean roasted coffee in a distinct area of the facility, and 

3) storing roasted coffee in hoppers for off-gassing, on a mezzanine above the grinding/
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

packaging process [Duling et al. 2016]. At the time of the previous health hazard evaluation, 

workers had excess shortness of breath and obstruction on spirometry, both consistent with 

undiagnosed lung disease. Respiratory illness was associated with exposure and not limited 

to the flavoring areas [Bailey et al. 2015]. However, all workers who were diagnosed with 

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

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

produce only unflavored coffee.

Work-related Asthma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

such as on weekends or holidays. 

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

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

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

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

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

to coffee dust [Oldenburg et al. 2009].

Process Description

In August 2017 the coffee roasting and packaging facility employed approximately 54 total 

employees, with approximately 48 of those employees in production. The employees were 

not represented by a union. The facility had been at this location since 2000. The production 

area was approximately 22,125 square feet in size with the roast room being approximately 

6,000 square feet. An average of 10,640 pounds of coffee was roasted and packaged per day, 

and approximately 65% of the coffee produced was ground coffee. The facility received and 

stored a one month supply of green coffee, or approximately 250,000 pounds on site. Green 

beans were stored in burlap bags in a designated green bean storage area.

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

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

roaster could hold 90 kilogram or approximately 198 pounds of green coffee beans, and the 

large roaster could hold up to 250 kilogram or approximately 550 pounds of green 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 among types of roasts. On average, roasts lasted 11 minutes to 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 7

20 minutes. Occasionally, the roaster operator would pull a small sample of beans from the 

roaster to check the color of the beans. At the end of each cycle, the roaster operator emptied 

the roasted beans into a cooling bin where they were agitated by a rotating arm. The cooling 

bins at both of the roasters utilized a downdraft exhaust system that pulled air downward 

past the roasted beans to accelerate cooling. The downdraft systems pulled room air down 

through the roaster and then out of the building through a ventilation duct and roof exhaust. 

The roaster operator monitored the roasting equipment throughout the roasting and cooling 

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

siphon system through a destoner and then dispensed into a large rolling hopper. The roaster 

operator then manually moved the rolling hoppers to a 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 quality control (QC) technician 

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

quality and taste. 

Roasted whole bean coffee was transported by the flavoring room attendant into the flavoring 

room using a bin on wheels. In the flavoring room, the flavoring attendant would scoop 

roasted beans into one of two open barrels mounted on a rotating rack. The attendant would 

weigh liquid flavorings using a small scale and pour the liquid flavorings into the rotating 

barrel of roasted coffee beans. After mixing, the attendant would manually empty the beans 

into storage bins until needed for further processing, including packaging or grinding. 

Whole bean flavored coffee would either be sent to the packaging area for packaging, or 

ground using a grinder in the flavoring room. For grinding flavored coffee, the attendant 

would use the grinder in the flavoring room to grind approximately 40 pounds of coffee at 

a time. Ground flavored coffee was dispensed and stored in closed storage bins until further 

processing in the packaging area.

In the packaging area, orders were completed using packaging lines that included 1) the TME 

line that packaged individual serving pods of coffee ground in the machine; 2) the Rossi line 

that packaged individual serving pods of coffee ground in the machine; 3) the Rovema line 

that packaged portion packs of ground coffee; 4) the Matrix line that packaged portion packs 

of ground coffee; 5) the Matrix Bib that packaged filter portion packs of ground coffee; 6) the 

Key Pack #2 that packaged portion packs of ground coffee; 7) the Key Pack #1 that packaged 

portion packs of ground coffee; 8) the Viking packaging line that packaged eight ounce and/

or two pound bags of whole bean and ground coffee; and 9) the bulk filler packaging line that 

packaged five pound whole bean bags and two pound whole bean and ground bags. Six table 

top grinders were used to grind up to five pounds of coffee at a time in the hand packaging 

area. The large grinder was located in the roast room and could grind up to 1,200 pounds 

per hour and was used by the portion pack, Viking and bulk filler lines. Another, smaller 

grinder was also located in the roast room and could grind approximately 80 pounds of coffee 

per load. Another grinder was located in the flavoring room and could grind approximately 

80 pounds of coffee per load. Custom orders for flavored coffee were also processed in the 

packaging area. A packaging operator would take pre-weighed roasted coffee and mix with 

liquid flavorings in a small plastic bag. The small batch of flavored coffee would then be 

packaged. After packaging, bags and cans of coffee were stored in cardboard cases in the 
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

coffee finished goods area for one to two weeks before shipping out. 

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

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

the same building.

Personal Protective Equipment 

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

2017, state OSHA conducted personal air monitoring for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione 

exposures in the roast room. Based on the previous air sampling results collected on 

employees with job duties in the roast room, employees in the roast room were required to 

wear a half-mask or full-mask respirator equipped with organic vapor cartridges. Although 

no previous air sampling was performed in the flavoring room, the flavoring room attendant 

was also supplied with a half-mask respirator equipped with organic vapor cartridges for 

voluntary use when performing job duties in the flavoring room. A written respiratory 

protection program was in place for employees who performed job duties in the roasting area.

Methods

In August 2017, we conducted our initial visit to the facility. We held an opening meeting 

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

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

management and employees. We visited the facility the following week to conduct a medical 

survey. 

We had the following objectives for the health hazard evaluation:

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

during coffee processing;

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Determine if employees had abnormal lung function test results; and 

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

Industrial Hygiene Survey

Sampling Times for Alpha-Diketones 

We designed the sampling strategy to assess full-shift exposures and identify tasks and 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Air Sampling and Analysis Using Modified Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) Methods 1013/1016

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

2,3-hexanedione on silica gel sorbent tubes on multiple days during the industrial hygiene 

survey. The samples were collected and analyzed according to the modified OSHA sampling 

and analytical Methods 1013/1016 [OSHA 2008; OSHA 2010; LeBouf and Simmons 2017]. 

In accordance with the two methods, two glass silica gel sorbent tubes were connected by a 

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

in series to a sampling pump pulling air through the tubes at a flow rate of 50 milliliters 

per minute (mL/min). The sampling setup was attached to an employee’s breathing zone or 

placed in an area basket in various places throughout the facility. For full-shift sampling, we 

collected two consecutive 3-hour samples and calculated the TWA concentration from the 

two samples, assuming that the total 6-hour monitoring results reflected a full work shift (8-

hour) TWA exposure. Although this may introduce some error, it is a conservative approach 

that is more protective of employees than the alternative assumption of no exposure during 

the last two hours of the shift. We refer to these samples as “full-shift samples” throughout 

this report. We also collected personal short-term task based samples in the same manner, 

but the sampling pump flow rate was 200 mL/min as detailed in OSHA Methods 1013 and 

1016 [OSHA 2008; 2010]. Sampling times were dependent on the duration of the task being 

performed. 

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

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

containing 3-pentanone as an internal standard. Samples were analyzed using an Agilent 

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

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

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

A limit of detection (LOD) is the lowest mass that an instrument can detect above 

background and is a criteria used to determine whether to report a result from a sample. 

The LODs were 0.01 micrograms per sample (μg/sample) for diacetyl, 0.012 μg/sample for 

2,3-pentanedione, and 0.020 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 fullshift air sample but will vary depending on the volume of air collected during the sampling 

period. The LODs for task samples are generally higher than typical LOD values for full-
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

shift samples since the air volumes collected during task samples are lower. When the values 

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

Air Sampling and Analysis Using Evacuated Canisters

We collected instantaneous task-based and source air samples for VOCs including diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione using evacuated canisters. We also collected 

instantaneous air samples before and after the work shift to determine if air concentrations of 

alpha-diketones increased over a work shift. The evacuated canister sampling setup consisted 

of a 450-mL evacuated canister equipped with an instantaneous flow controller that was 

designed for a short sampling duration (less than 30 seconds). 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. 

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

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

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

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

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

included. At present, this canister method is partially validated [LeBouf et al. 2012] and 

not considered the standard method. The LODs were 0.78 ppb for diacetyl, 1.08 ppb for 

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

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

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

Bulk Sampling and Headspace Analysis

We used 50-mL sterile polypropylene centrifuge tubes to collect approximately 45-mL bulk 

samples of liquid flavorings. For headspace analysis of alpha-diketones, we transferred bulk 

material into a sealed 40-mL amber volatile organic analysis vial and let it rest for 24 hours 

at room temperature (70°F) in the laboratory. Then 2 mL of headspace air was transferred to 

a 450-mL canister and pressurized to approximately 1.5 times atmospheric pressure. Using 

the canister analysis system, the concentrations were calculated in ppb of analytes in the 

headspace as an indicator of emission potential.

Real-time (Continuous) Air Sampling

We used Tiger VOC detector monitors (ION Science, Stafford, TX) to measure concentrations 

of total VOCs in the air. This sampling was conducted to identify areas where coffee could be 

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

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

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

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

We 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 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 11

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

Ventilation Assessment

Physical measurements of spaces were taken with a Model DISTO E7100i laser-tape measure 

(Leica Geosystems AG, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) or a standard tape measure. Information on 

existing ventilation equipment, including make, model, and specified performance levels, was 

collected when possible. The size of the single ventilation system at the facility combined 

with limitations of the ventilation measurement equipment we had available precluded us 

from taking meaningful air flow measurements. Differential pressure measurements between 

adjacent spaces were taken under various ventilation scenarios using an Energy Conservatory 

DG-500 Pressure Gauge (Minneapolis, MN).

NIOSH Medical Survey

Participants 

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

August 28–30, 2017. Participation was voluntary; written informed consent was obtained 

from each participant before testing. The survey included, in the order performed, a medical 

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

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

oscillometry and spirometry. We mailed participants their individual reports explaining their 

medical 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 coffee 

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

derived from five standardized questionnaires, the European Community Respiratory Health 

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

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

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

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

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

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

respiratory and systemic symptom questions. 

Spirometry

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

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

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

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

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

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

et al. 2005]. 
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

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 

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

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

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

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

such abnormalities as mild (>70), moderate (60–69), moderately severe (50–59), severe 

(35–49), or very severe (<35) [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 noninvasively. Oscillometry is a helpful technology to understand the effects of occupational 

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

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

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

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

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

contraindication.

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

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

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

impulse oscillometry testing machine sends sound waves called pressure oscillations at 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

abnormality as a decreased X5 and elevated R5 with no evidence of frequency dependence.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 13

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 

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

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

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

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

administration. 

Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistical Analysis 

Industrial Hygiene Survey and Ventilation Assessment

We performed analyses using Excel (Microsoft®, Redmond, WA) and SAS version 9.4 (SAS 

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

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

by a “<” symbol.

Medical Survey

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

95% confidence intervals (CIs) using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). The SMRs 

compared prevalences of symptoms and spirometric abnormalities among participants to 

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

(1988–1994), and NHANES 2007–2012, adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, age (less than 

40 years old or 40 years or greater), and cigarette smoking categories (ever/never). For 

comparisons to the U.S. population, we used the most recent NHANES survey available for 

the specific comparisons. 

Results 

Industrial Hygiene Survey Results

Personal and Area Full-shift Air Sampling Results

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

in Table A1. We collected 51 personal and 108 area full-shift air samples over three days. 

Forty-nine of the 51 personal air samples were above the NIOSH REL for diacetyl of 5 

ppb, and 36 were above the NIOSH REL for 2,3-pentanedione of 9.3 ppb. Employees with 

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

roasting, flavoring ground and whole bean coffee, grinding coffee, packaging coffee, and 
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

administrative duties. Employees with personal air samples above the NIOSH REL for 

2,3-pentanedione performed various tasks that included flavoring ground and whole bean 

coffee, grinding coffee, and packaging coffee. Personal air measurements for 2,3-hexanedione 

were lower than measurements of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. Thirty-two of the 51 

samples were below the LOD for 2,3-hexanedione, and the highest exposure (2.0 ppb 

2,3-hexanedione) was measured on employees with tasks that included grinding coffee.

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

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

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

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

be used as points of reference. The following areas had at least one 6-hour air level that 

exceeded the NIOSH REL for diacetyl: administrative areas (2.5 ppb–11.1 ppb), breakroom 

(2.0 ppb–7.9 ppb), finished product storage (6.0 ppb–19.6 ppb), flavoring room (10.8 ppb–

23.7 ppb), green bean storage area (4.8 ppb–11.3 ppb), grinding areas (7.6 ppb–40.7 ppb), 

maintenance shop (6.5 ppb–13.1 ppb), all 11 packaging areas sampled (4.8 ppb–33.3 ppb), 

the upstairs offices entry (12.2 ppb–17.1 ppb), QC Lab (5.7 ppb–6.7 ppb), and roasting areas 

(5.5 ppb–11.7 ppb) (Table A1). 

Sixty-eight of the 108 area full-shift air samples were also above the NIOSH REL for 

2,3-pentanedione. The following areas had at least one 6-hour air level that exceeded the 

NIOSH REL for 2,3-pentanedione: administrative areas (2.6 ppb–11.6 ppb), finished product 

storage (4.7 ppb–23.8 ppb), flavoring room (13.0 ppb–213.7 ppb), green bean storage area 

(3.6 ppb–9.4 ppb), grinding areas (5.8 ppb–29.3 ppb), maintenance shop (6.6 ppb–12.6 ppb), 

all eleven packaging areas sampled (4.8 ppb–28.4 ppb), and the entry to upstairs offices (12.7 

ppb–19.1 ppb). 

Areas near the large grinder, the grinder in the flavoring room, and the grinders used in the 

packaging area had some of the highest levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. The highest 

6-hour area air levels for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione measured at the large grinder were 

40.7 ppb diacetyl and 42.3 ppb 2,3-pentanedione. The highest 6-hour area air levels for 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione measured near the grinder in the flavoring room were 23.7 ppb 

diacetyl and 213.7 ppb 2,3-pentanedione. Levels measured near the packaging grinders also 

had high levels of 6-hour area air levels for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione (maximum: 33.3 

ppb diacetyl and 26.6 ppb 2,3-pentanedione). 

The flavoring weigh station area and area between the flavoring mixers had high 6-hour 

area air levels for 2,3-pentanedione (maximum: 105.6 ppb measured at the flavoring weigh 

station; maximum: 192.3 ppb measured in the area between the flavoring mixers); however, 

the levels of diacetyl measured in the same locations were much lower in comparison. The 

highest 6-hour area air levels for diacetyl measured at the flavoring weigh station and in the 

area between the flavoring mixers were 22.2 ppb and 15.2 ppb, respectively.

Task-Based Air Sampling Results

Personal task air concentration results can be seen in Tables A2 and A3. We collected 46 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 15

personal task air samples using OSHA Method 1013/1016. Task duration ranged from 

seven minutes to 28 minutes. We collected personal task air samples while employees 

cleaned a flavoring mixer, packaging machine, roaster, or grinders (n=4); flavored coffee 

(n=6), ground coffee (n=7), scooped whole roasted beans into a packaging machine (n = 1), 

packaged coffee (n=17), and roasted coffee (n=11). The highest task-based TWA exposures 

to diacetyl (245.9 ppb) and second highest task-based TWA exposure to 2,3-pentanedione 

(228.4 ppb) were measured while an employee ground coffee (Table A2). The third highest 

task-based TWA exposures to diacetyl (36.2 ppb) and highest task-based TWA exposures 

to 2,3-pentanedione (723.5 ppb) were observed while an employee flavored roasted coffee. 

High levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione were also measured when employees packaged 

coffee (maximum: 38.1 ppb diacetyl and 68.0 ppb 2,3-pentanedione. The highest exposures 

to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione while employees performed cleaning tasks were measured 

while an employee cleaned the flavoring mixer (maximum: 28.3 ppb diacetyl and 18.9 

ppb 2,3-pentanedione). Diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione air concentrations measured when 

employees roasted coffee were as high as 17.3 ppb diacetyl and 13.0 ppb 2,3-pentanedione. 

Air concentrations measured when an employee scooped whole roasted beans into a 

packaging machine were 30.2 ppb diacetyl and 23.6 ppb 2,3-pentanedione. 

Two 15-minute samples collected while an employee ground coffee (33.2 ppb–56.6 ppb), five 

samples collected while an employee packaged coffee (27.0 ppb–38.1 ppb), and one sample 

collected while an employee scooped roasted whole beans into a packaging machine (30.2 

ppb) were above the NIOSH STEL of 25 ppb for diacetyl. Two 15-minute samples (35.4 

ppb–115.7 ppb) collected while an employee ground coffee and three 15-minute samples 

collected while an employee packaged coffee (32.2 ppb–68.0 ppb) exceeded the NIOSH 

STEL of 31 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione.

We collected 28 task-based personal samples near the breathing zone of employees using 

instantaneous canisters (Table A3). Levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione observed during 

certain tasks using instantaneous canisters were similar to the levels described above. The 

highest instantaneous levels were measured while employees ground coffee or worked with 

liquid flavorings. Instantaneous samples taken at the breathing zone of employees while 

they ground unflavored coffee at the large grinder ranged from 18.3 ppb to 51.6 ppb for 

diacetyl, and 12.9 ppb to 49.2 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione. Breathing zone samples taken while 

employees ground flavored coffee in the flavoring room ranged from less than 0.4 ppb to 77.7 

ppb diacetyl and 23.4 ppb to 212 ppb 2,3-pentanedione. Instantaneous samples collected at 

the breathing zone of an employee while they weighed out liquid flavorings, added flavoring 

to the mixer, or scooped flavored coffee out of the flavoring mixer ranged from 12.5 ppb to 

509 ppb for diacetyl and 7.6 ppb to 211 ppb for 2,3-pentanedione. Levels collected in the 

breathing zone of employees performing tasks at the roaster were lower. Breathing zone 

samples collected while an employee pulled a roasted bean sample to check the color of the 

beans while roasting or while they dumped roasted beans into the cooling bin ranged from 

less than 4.5 ppb to 19.3 ppb diacetyl and less than 3 ppb to 15.5 ppb 2,3-pentanedione.

Source Air Sampling Results

Instantaneous evacuated canister concentrations for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione can be 
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

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

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

diacetyl (29,165 ppb) was measured at the dispenser of the grinder used by a bulk packaging 

employee, when the grinder was grinding 1 pound of JAVA coffee. The highest instantaneous 

source sample for 2,3-pentanedione (80,496 ppb) was measured at the face of the flavoring 

mixer while adding HG liquid flavoring to whole beans. Three instantaneous samples taken 

when flavoring was being added to whole beans had diacetyl levels less than the LOD but 

2,3-pentanedione levels between 1581 ppb and 80,496 ppb. 

Bulk Samples and Headspace Results

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

liquid flavorings can be seen in Table A5. The highest air concentration of diacetyl (16,590 

ppb) was observed in the headspace of the CARM flavoring. The highest air concentration of 

2,3-pentanedione (92,637 ppb) was observed in the headspace of the HOC liquid flavoring. 

All samples were below the LOD for 2,3-hexanedione. Some liquid flavoring bulk samples 

(TM, BR, PERX, DUT) had no detectable diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, or 2,3-hexanedione in 

the headspace analyses. Additionally, some liquid flavoring bulk samples (AMAR, CARM, 

JI-COMPANY 2, HAZ, MAC, PEP, VAN) had detectable levels of diacetyl but no detectable 

2,3-pentanedione. Alternatively, some liquid flavoring bulk samples (JMC-COMPANY 1) 

had no detectable diacetyl but high levels of 2,3-pentanedione.

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

Organic Compounds (VOCs)

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

be seen in Table A6. Levels of CO2 and CO measured at the grinder in the flavoring room 

ranged from 393 ppm to 1,272 ppm for CO2 and 0.7 ppm to 101.7 ppm for CO. Total VOC 

measurements at the grinder in the flavoring room ranged from less than 1 ppb to 20,000 ppb. 

Levels of CO2 and CO measured at the grinders in the packaging area ranged from 473 ppm 

to 1,496 ppm for CO2 and 2.5 ppm to 369.7 ppm for CO. Total VOC levels ranged from 16 

ppb to 13,980 ppb at the grinders in the packaging area. Area monitoring of the air near the 

large grinder in the roast room measured levels of CO2 and CO that ranged from 336 ppm to 

1,174 ppm for CO2 and 0.9 ppm to 170.5 ppm for CO. Total VOC measurements at the large 

grinder in the roast room ranged from less than 1 ppb to 5,792 ppb. 

Levels of CO2 and CO at the Key Pack #1 packaging machine ranged from 453 ppm to 676 

ppm for CO2 and 3.1 ppm to 10 ppm for CO. Total VOC measurements at the Key Pack #1 

and Weigh Fill packaging machines ranged from less than 1 ppb to 4,382 ppb. Levels of CO2

and CO at the large roaster ranged from 397 ppm to 824 ppm for CO2 and less than 0.1 ppm 

to 12.4 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 1 ppm to 10.9 ppm and were below the 

NIOSH REL of 35 ppm for CO exposure. The large grinder operator in the roast room as 

well as the flavoring room attendant had maximum CO measurements (233–769 ppm and 

208–270 ppm) that exceeded the NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 ppm. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 17

Ventilation Assessment

Ventilation in the roasting and packaging areas of the facility was provided by one Greenheck 

(Greenheck Fan Corporation, Schofield, WI) model DGX-P222-H35 make-up air-handling 

unit (MAHU) slab-mounted just outside the roasting area of the facility. The MAHU was 

capable of providing gas-fired heat to the facility when necessary, but did not have the ability 

to provide cooling. It was equipped with two 22-inch blowers capable of providing up to 

22,250 cubic feet per minute of 100% outdoor air to the roasting and packaging areas of the 

facility. Supply air was ducted from the MAHU through the wall in the roasting area. Inside 

the roasting area, the main supply duct split with one leg supplying air to the roasting area 

through a series of supply vents. The second leg traveled through the wall separating roasting 

from packaging and supplied outdoor air to the packaging area through a large duct sock. 

The MAHU operated on a variable frequency drive that varied the speed of the blowers to 

maintain a user-adjustable duct static pressure set point. Each leg of the main supply duct 

was equipped with a modulating damper that continuously adjusted the amount of supply air 

passing through each leg. The dampers were set up to work in conjunction with one another 

to maintain the roasting area under 0.01 inches of water gauge positive pressure in relation to 

the green bean storage area.

Air was exhausted from the roasting area through a large slot vent mounted low on the wall 

near the main grinder that was attached to a rooftop-mounted Greenheck model CUBE-300 

belt-driven, upblast centrifugal exhaust fan (EF-1). The exhaust fan constantly removed 

10,000-12,000 cubic feet per minute of air from the roasting space. The MAHU and EF-1 

were both powered on together and remained on at all times when lights above the roasters 

were powered on. The combination of the MAHU and EF-1 maintained the roasting area 

under negative pressure to the adjacent green bean storage area.

Aside from the MAHU and EF-1, the only other ventilation equipment was a small exhaust 

fan mounted through the wall high in the flavoring room. The fan was powered on and off 

with a wall switch and used any time flavoring activities were performed in the flavoring 

room. The administrative areas, breakroom, and upstairs offices were all served by separate 

air-handling units that were not assessed during our visit.

Differential pressure measurements taken between two adjacent spaces showed that the break 

room was under positive pressure compared to the production area and the administrative 

offices. The administrative offices and the label room were under negative pressure to the 

production space. The upstairs office area was generally neutral to the production area. These 

results were determined during our visit, but they could be impacted day to day by variations 

in the weather, doors or windows being opened or closed, or operating states (on vs. off) of 

various ventilation systems. 

Medical Survey Results

Demographics

Thirty-three of 44 employees (75%) participated in the medical survey. The majority of 

participants were female (58%) and white (76%), with a mean age of 39 years and average 

tenure at the company of 6 years. Eighteen (55%) participants were current or former 

smokers. 
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

Thirty-two (97%) of 33 medical survey participants reported working in or entering the 

production area for an average of 32 hours per week, ranging from one to 40 hours a week. 

Thirty (91%) of 33 participants reported being within an arm’s length of roasted coffee in one 

or more areas of the production process. Twenty-one (64%) of 33 participants worked their 

entire shift in the production area processing coffee. 

Symptoms and Self-Reported Diagnoses

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

survey are listed in Table A8. In the last year, nose symptoms were the most commonly 

reported symptom (n=14, 42%), followed by eye symptoms (n=13, 39%). Eight (24%) of 

33 participants who reported nose or eye symptoms reported these symptoms were better 

away from work. Some production employees noted that their nose or eye symptoms were 

caused or aggravated by green bean coffee burlap bags, dust, flavorings, grinding coffee, or 

packaging coffee. 

Chest wheezing or whistling (n=10, 30%), shortness of breath on level ground or walking 

up a slight hill (n=8, 24%), and breathing trouble (n=8, 24%) in the last 12 months were the 

most commonly reported lower respiratory symptoms at the time of the survey. Two (20%) 

of 10 participants who reported wheeze stated these symptoms were better away from work, 

and four (50%) of eight participants who reported breathing trouble stated these symptoms 

were better away from work. Of the eight participants who reported shortness of breath, two 

reported that their shortness of breath began after they started employment at the facility. 

Some employees reported that their lower respiratory symptoms were caused or aggravated 

by dust and flavorings. Twelve (36%) of 33 participants reported systemic symptoms. Flulike achiness or achy joints was the most commonly reported systemic symptom (n=10, 

30%). Five (15%) of 12 participants who reported systemic symptoms reported that their 

systemic symptoms were aggravated at work.

Nine participants reported a diagnosis of hay fever or nasal allergies; two of the nine were 

diagnosed after beginning employment at this coffee roasting and packaging facility. Eight 

participants reported being diagnosed with asthma in their lifetime, while seven reported a 

current diagnosis with asthma. Two participants reported receiving an asthma diagnosis after 

beginning their employment at this coffee roasting and packaging facility. Two participants 

reported a diagnosis of chronic bronchitis prior to employment at this facility. Six participants 

reported a diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and three participants were 

diagnosed with GERD after beginning employment at this coffee roasting and packaging 

facility. No participants reported emphysema, COPD, bronchiolitis obliterans, interstitial lung 

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

vocal cord dysfunction. 

Medical Tests

Thirty (91%) of 33 medical survey participants performed two or more medical tests. Four 

(13%) of 30 participants who performed spirometry had test results interpreted as abnormal: 

one participant had a mild obstructive pattern, and three participants had mild restrictive 

patterns. None had significant improvement in spirometry after taking a bronchodilator. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 19

Thirteen (43%) of 30 participants who performed impulse oscillometry had test results 

interpreted as abnormal; 11 were consistent with small airways abnormality, one consistent 

with large airways abnormality, and one consistent with small and large airways abnormality. 

Six (55%) of the nine participants who took a bronchodialator showed significant 

improvement in impulse oscillometry. Two (6%) of 31 participants who performed exhaled 

nitric oxide tests had tests interpreted as elevated. 

NHANES Comparison of Symptoms and Diagnoses

The SMRs for ever receiving a physician diagnosis of asthma and current asthma diagnosis 

were elevated at 3.1 and 4.1, respectively (Table A9). The SMR for having phlegm for three 

consecutive months or more during the year was 2.5. Prevalences for shortness of breath, 

wheeze, cough, sinus problems, and nose and eye symptoms were not elevated abnormalities 

in comparison to the general U.S. population, adjusted for age distribution, race/ethnicity, 

sex, and smoking history.

Discussion

Overall, the highest area samples for total VOCs, CO, diacetyl, and 2,3-pentanedione 

were observed in areas where roasted coffee was ground or flavored (areas near the 

large grinder, the grinder in the flavoring room, and the packaging grinders). Diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, 2,3-hexanedione, other VOCs, and other compounds such as CO2 and 

CO are naturally produced when coffee beans are roasted, and grinding the roasted coffee 

beans produces greater surface area for the off-gassing of these chemicals [Anderson et al. 

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

and Thompson 2013]. In addition, flavorings added to roasted coffee can contain diacetyl or 

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]. Some employees 

developed obliterative bronchiolitis while working at another coffee roasting and packaging 

facility that used flavorings and had elevated levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione [CDC 

2013; Bailey et al. 2015; Duling et al. 2016]. 

Alpha-Diketones 

Personal Air Sampling 

Forty-nine personal full-shift air samples collected on employees who perform various duties 

inside the facility using standard OSHA methods were above the NIOSH REL for diacetyl.

The highest personal full-shift air samples for diacetyl (20 ppb to 47.3 ppb diacetyl) were 

collected on employees with grinding (47.3 ppb), packaging (27.0 ppb), and flavoring (20.0 

ppb) duties. Thirty-six personal air samples collected on employees with various production 

tasks were above the NIOSH REL for 2,3-pentanedione. The highest personal full-shift air 

samples for 2,3-pentanedione (42.3 ppb to 177.9 ppb 2,3-pentanedione) were collected on 

employees with flavoring (177.9 ppb), packaging (63.7 ppb), and grinding (42.3 ppb) duties. 

As noted earlier, the RELs should be used as a guideline to indicate when steps should be 

taken to reduce exposures in the workplace. The risks associated with the measured levels 
Page 20 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione are higher than NIOSH recommends. As described in the 

quantitative risk assessment from the NIOSH Criteria Document (Tables 5-27 and 5-34) 

[NIOSH 2016], after a 45-year working lifetime exposure to 20 ppb (a concentration lower 

than the highest concentration measured at this facility), NIOSH estimated that about 5 in 

1,000 workers would develop reduced lung function (FEV1 below the lower limit of normal). 

NIOSH predicted that around 5 in 10,000 workers exposed to diacetyl at 20 ppb would 

develop more severe lung function reduction (FEV1 below 60% predicted, defined as at least 

moderately severe by the American Thoracic Society [Pellegrino et al. 2005]). After a 45-year 

working lifetime exposure to 50 ppb (a concentration higher than the highest concentration 

measured at this facility), NIOSH estimated that about 12 in 1,000 workers would develop 

reduced lung function (FEV1 below the lower limit of normal). NIOSH predicted that about 

1 in 1,000 workers exposed to diacetyl at 50 ppb would develop more severe lung function 

reduction. The effects of a working lifetime exposure at 47 ppb would be somewhat less 

than those at for 50 ppb. NIOSH recommends keeping diacetyl concentrations below 5 ppb 

because at this level, the risk of reduced lung function after a working lifetime of exposure is 

below 1 in 1,000 workers. NIOSH recommends taking steps to reduce diacetyl exposures to 

below the REL of 5 ppb whenever possible.

Area Air Sampling 

All production and administrative areas sampled, to include the offices, breakroom, finished 

product storage, flavoring room, green bean storage area, grinding areas, maintenance 

shop, packaging areas, entry to upstairs offices, QC lab, and roasting areas had air levels 

that exceeded the NIOSH REL for diacetyl. Areas in finished product storage, the flavoring 

room, the green bean storage area, grinding areas, the maintenance shop, packaging areas, 

and the entry to upstairs offices also had air levels that exceeded the NIOSH REL for 

2,3-pentanedione. Of the 108 full-shift area samples, 97 were above the NIOSH REL for 

diacetyl and 68 were above the NIOSH REL for 2,3-pentanedione. Areas where coffee was 

ground or flavored (near the large grinder, the grinder in the flavoring room, and the grinders 

used in the packaging area) consistently had the highest diacetyl (maximum TWA: 23.7 ppb 

to 40.7 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedione (maximum TWA: 26.6 ppb to 213.7 ppb) air levels. We 

note that NIOSH RELs are intended to be directly compared to personal measurements; 

therefore, an area air sample that exceeds a NIOSH REL is only an indication of potential 

personal exposures. 

Task-Based Exposures

Coffee processing involves multiple tasks that may cause intermittent exposure to 

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

intermittent, peak exposures. 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 validated 

sampling methods (OSHA Methods 1013/1016). Since tasks are so sporadic in coffee 

processing, with some only lasting a few seconds or minutes, we used instantaneous 

evacuated canisters to sample tasks that were only a few seconds to minutes long and OSHA

Methods 1013/1016 for longer duration tasks. We sampled by task, with varying durations, 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 21

to understand which tasks may have contributed to higher exposures of diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione. 

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

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

(245.9 ppb) and second highest exposure to 2,3-pentanedione (228.4 ppb) were measured 

while an employee ground coffee (Table A2). We also measured higher exposures to diacetyl 

(36.2 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedieone (723.5 ppb) during flavoring of roasted coffee. Two 

15-minute samples collected while an employee ground coffee, one sample collected while 

an employee scooped roasted whole beans into a packaging machine, and five samples while 

an employee packaged coffee were above the NIOSH STEL for diacetyl. Additionally, two 

15-minute samples collected while an employee ground roasted coffee and three samples 

collected while an employee packaged coffee were also above the NIOSH STEL for 

2,3-pentanedione. 

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 ground coffee or worked with liquid flavorings. The highest instantaneous 

levels of diacetyl (509 ppb) and second highest levels of 2,3-pentanedione (211 ppb) 

collected at the breathing zone of employees were measured while an employee weighed 

flavorings and/or flavored whole bean coffee. Breathing zone samples taken while employees 

ground flavored coffee in the flavoring room were as high as 77.7 ppb diacetyl and 212 

ppb 2,3-pentanedione. Instantaneous samples taken at the breathing zone of employees 

while they ground unflavored coffee were as high as 51.6 ppb for diacetyl, and 49.2 ppb for 

2,3-pentanedione. The liquid flavorings as well as the greater surface area for off-gassing that 

is produced during grinding could have resulted in the higher air concentrations observed 

while employees performed flavoring and grinding tasks [Akiyama et al. 2003]. 

Source Air Sampling

The highest instantaneous sources sample for diacetyl (29,165 ppb and 12,388 ppb) was 

measured at the dispenser of the packaging grinder when a bulk packaging employee was 

grinding one pound or five pounds of coffee. As mentioned above, grinding creates a greater 

surface area for off-gassing from roasted coffee beans, which may have resulted in the higher 

air concentrations observed during grinding [Akiyama et al. 2003]. The highest instantaneous 

source sample for 2,3-pentanedione (80,496 ppb) was measured at the face of the flavoring 

mixer while an employee added HG flavoring to whole beans. Elevated levels of diacetyl 

(475 ppb) and 2,3-pentanedione (676 ppb) were also observed at the dispenser of the grinder 

in the flavoring room while the flavoring room attendant was grinding 40 pounds of ground 

coffee. Elevated levels of diacetyl (247 ppb) were also observed during packaging of ground 

coffee at the portion pack machine.

Bulk samples

Diacetyl (2,3-butanedione) and 2,3-pentanedione are sometimes added as ingredients in 
Page 22 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

liquid flavorings for coffee. Of the 13 bulk samples of liquid flavorings that we collected, 

seven samples had diacetyl but no detectable 2,3-pentanedione, and one sample had high 

levels of 2,3-pentanedione but no detectable diacetyl in the headspace analyses. We observed 

both diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione in the headspace of one sample. Four samples had no 

detectable levels of diacetyl, or the chemically similar alpha diketones, 2,3-pentanedione, 

or 2,3-hexanedione. Differences in liquid flavoring formulations and diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione content help explain why some air samples collected while employees 

performed flavoring tasks had measured levels of 2,3-pentanedione that were 20-fold higher 

than diacetyl.

Real-time Sampling for Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), and Volatile 

Organic Compounds (VOCs)

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

were observed at the packaging grinders, flavoring room grinder, and large grinder. None of 

the personal TWA measurements of CO exceeded the NIOSH REL (35 ppm) or OSHA PEL 

(50 ppm). However, the area near the packaging grinders as well as personal samples for CO 

collected on a grinder operator and flavoring room attendant 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 

As can be seen in Table A1, concentrations of alpha-diketones in area samples were found 

to be above the NIOSH RELs throughout the facility, including in the administrative areas. 

Elevated levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione indicate that ventilation equipment in use at 

the time of our visit was not adequate to maintain airborne concentrations at acceptable levels 

during normal roasting, flavoring, and packaging operations.

The combination of the MAHU and EF-1 maintained the roasting area under negative 

pressure to the adjacent green bean storage area. We also determined air from the production 

area could potentially enter non-production areas under the conditions of testing. Air will 

flow from an area of higher pressure (or “positive” pressure) to an area of lower pressure 

(or “negative” pressure). Generally, the production area would be expected to have the 

highest concentrations of airborne contaminants. To keep these contaminants confined to the 

production area and prevent them from spreading into adjacent areas, the production area 

should be maintained under negative pressure relative to the adjacent spaces. This would 

ensure that air from the adjacent spaces flows into the production area and not the other way 

around. During our visit, we found that the production space was appropriately negative 

to the break room. However, the administrative area and label room were under negative 

pressure relative to the production area, allowing airborne contaminants generated during 

production to be pulled into those spaces and potentially contributing to personal sample 

measurements in the administrative area that exceeded the NIOSH REL for diacetyl. The 

upstairs office area was neutral to production. The operational state of various air-handling 

units and make-up air units throughout the facility could make pressure differentials better 

or worse. Loading dock doors being opened or closed will also effect pressure differentials. 

Constant negative pressure in the production area relative to non-production areas is needed 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 23

to keep contaminants from the production space from migrating to non-production areas. To 

maintain consistent negative pressure in the production area, additional exhaust systems are 

needed. These systems could consist of local exhaust at contaminant sources, general exhaust 

fans through the walls or ceiling, or a combination of both.

Local exhaust ventilation

Local exhaust ventilation systems can capture contaminants when generated and remove 

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

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

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

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

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

flavoring room mixers, grinders, and various point-sources on coffee packaging lines could 

be modified with local exhaust ventilation that would help reduce overall alpha-diketone 

concentrations in the facility. Additional sampling can be done to further identify point 

sources of alpha-diketone emissions associated with each process. If additional point sources 

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

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 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 area where they are generated. 

During our visit, the general ventilation provided by the combination of the MAHU and 

EF-1 was the only ventilation in the production space, except for the small exhaust fan in the 

flavoring room, which properly maintained that space under negative pressure to the rest of 

the production areas when the fan was powered on. Adjustments to the MAHU and EF-1 may 

be possible to create more airflow and a stable negative pressure relationship in the roasting 

and grinding area. Providing more outdoor air flow will enhance dilution and removal of 

contaminants; however, there will be additional energy costs associated with heating the 

outside air introduced into the facility for some of the year. There was a large, functional 

exhaust fan mounted in the ceiling between the roasters and grinders, but it was reportedly 

not used on a regular basis. Operating the fan in the ceiling between the roasters and grinders 

anytime roasting and grinding activities are actively occurring would help maintain the 

roasting and grinding area under negative pressure. Ensuring that the roasting and grinding 

area is maintained under negative pressure could help prevent any airborne contaminants 

generated in the roasting and grinding areas from migrating to the adjacent warehouse and 

packaging spaces. Care should be taken to ensure the flavoring room is maintained under 
Page 24 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

negative pressure to roasting and grinding. A ventilation system expert can help meet all 

ventilation requirements in the production space and other areas of the building occupied by 

employees.

Relocation or enclosure of specific processes

Engineering controls may help mitigate exposures in the roasting and grinding area, along 

with the packaging area. In some cases, consideration should be given to relocating processes 

or specific pieces of equipment to simplify the implementation of engineering controls. One 

example would be to move the flavoring mixers across the room so that they are located 

beside the flavoring grinder under the exhaust fan through the wall. Another example 

would be relocating the large grinders to a more isolated area of the plant. For example, 

implementation of local exhaust ventilation at the grinders would be simplified if the large 

grinders were relocated to an area near an exterior wall. The grinders could then be isolated 

in their own room, which could be ventilated separately from the larger space. Having a 

separate room with separate ventilation for storing full containers of whole-bean or ground 

coffee may also further reduce concentrations of alpha-diketones in the overall production 

space. 

Medical Survey

Overall, mucous membrane symptoms, specifically nose and eye symptoms, were the 

most commonly reported symptoms. Some production employees reported their mucous 

membrane symptoms were caused or aggravated by green bean coffee burlap bags, dust, 

flavorings, or grinding coffee. Coffee dust is an organic dust and, as noted earlier, exposure 

to coffee dust is known to cause respiratory symptoms and is a known risk factor for 

occupational asthma [Karr et al. 1978; Zuskin et al. 1979, 1985, 1993; Thomas et al. 1991; 

Sakwari et al. 2013]. 

Upper respiratory disease, such as allergic rhinitis (hay fever, nasal allergies) and sinusitis, 

are sometimes associated with lower respiratory symptoms and may precede the diagnosis 

of asthma [Shaaban et al. 2008; EAACI Task Force on Occupational Rhinitis et al. 2008; 

Rondón et al. 2012, 2017; Sahay et al. 2016]. Upper respiratory involvement (e.g., rhinitis, 

sinusitis) can result in suboptimal control of asthma. Some (8 of 17; 47%) participants that 

reported lower respiratory symptoms also reported nasal or sinus problems or physiciandiagnosed hay fever or nasal allergies. Green coffee dust is thought to be a more potent 

allergen than roasted coffee dust because roasting destroys some of the allergenic activity 

[Lehrer et al. 1978]. As discussed in the recommendation section, to prevent symptoms 

related to green coffee dust and chaff, make N95 disposable filtering-face piece respirators 

available for voluntary use when emptying burlap bags of green beans or when emptying the 

chaff containers or cleaning the green bean storage area.

The number of participants ever diagnosed with asthma by a physician (n=8; 24%) and 

participants who had current asthma (n=7, 21%) were significantly higher than expected 

compared with the U.S. population with SMRs of 3.1 and 4.1, respectively. Two of these 

participants were diagnosed after beginning work at this coffee roasting and packaging 

facility. Of the seven participants with current asthma, six (86%) reported their asthma-like 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 25

symptoms were related to or aggravated at work. Asthma symptoms often improve when 

away from exposures that trigger symptoms while other lung diseases such as obliterative 

bronchiolitis or COPD generally do not improve. Nine (53%) of the 17 participants who 

reported lower respiratory symptoms stated those symptoms were related to or aggravated by 

work. 

Spirometry can be used to help detect and follow individuals with asthma and other lung 

diseases such as obliterative bronchiolitis or COPD. Spirometry can show if air is exhaled 

from the lungs more slowly than normal (i.e. obstructive abnormality) or if the amount of air 

exhaled is less than normal (i.e., restrictive abnormality). At this facility, three workers had 

mild restrictive abnormalities, and one had a mild obstructive abnormality on spirometry. 

In asthma, there is intermittent airways obstruction which is reversible after treatment with 

bronchodilator medications (e.g., albuterol). In obliterative bronchiolitis, scar tissue prevents 

the small airways (bronchioles) from opening up when albuterol is given. In other words, the 

airways are fixed and not responsive (reversible) to bronchodilator medicine. The obstructed 

airways prevent rapid emptying of the lung air sacs (alveoli) during exhalation. This explains 

why the respiratory symptoms of those with occupational obliterative bronchiolitis do not 

tend to improve when away from work-related exposures; however, avoidance of further 

exposure can stop progression of the disease [Akpinar-Elci et al 2004]. 

Spirometry and impulse oscillometry measure different things. Spirometry assesses 

airflow and is the breathing test typically used to screen for flavoring-related lung disease. 

Impulse oscillometry assesses the airways response to a sound or pressure wave and has 

not commonly been used to screen for flavoring-related lung disease. In general, during 

the impulse oscillometry test, a small pressure impulse (sound wave) is imposed upon the 

inspiratory and expiratory airflow during normal tidal breathing. This pressure wave causes 

a disturbance in the airflow and pressure, and the response of the airways (i.e., change in 

pressure to change in flow) is a measure of the resistance to airflow in the airways [Desiraju 

and Agrawal 2016]. Impulse oscillometry may be useful as an indirect measure of airflow 

obstruction and helpful in individuals not able to perform forced breathing maneuvers that 

are required during the spirometry test. The impulse oscillometry test has been used for many 

years to measure changes in the airways of children with lung problems such as asthma 

and cystic fibrosis [Song et al. 2008; Komarow et al. 2011; Shi et al. 2012; Schulze et al. 

2016]. More recently, impulse oscillometry has been used to investigate lung problems in 

adults exposed to dust or chemicals, such as World Trade Center emergency responders and 

soldiers returning from deployment overseas [Oppenheimer et al. 2007; Berger et al. 2013; 

Weinstein et al. 2016]. Over the years, researchers have developed reference (predictive) 

equations for different populations of children for oscillometry [Malmberg et al. 2002; Park 

et al. 2011; Lee et al. 2012; de Assumpção et al. 2016]. For adults, there are fewer reference 

equations available for oscillometry [Vogel and Smidt 1994; Newbury et al. 2008; Schulz 

et al. 2013]. The predicted values we used for oscillometry measures were based on gender 

and age according to references values recommended by the manufacturer. Unlike predictive 

equations used for spirometry, the impulse oscillometry reference equations we used did not 

take into account height, race, or smoking status [Vogel and Smidt 1994].
Page 26 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

Of the 20 participants with upper and lower respiratory symptoms, 11 reported that their 

symptoms were aggravated by work. We also found a four-fold excess of workers with a 

current physician diagnosis of asthma. Sixteen (50%) of 32 participants had abnormalities 

on lung function testing. These results suggest a burden of respiratory problems in this 

workforce. 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. We mailed each participant their individual lung function 

test results with an explanation of the results and recommended each participant provide the 

information to their personal physician.

We recommend starting a medical monitoring program because air sampling detected 

employee exposures to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione that exceeded the NIOSH RELs, 

and there were a number of participants with abnormal breathing tests or history of lower 

respiratory symptoms. All production employees and any employees that assist with 

production tasks (e.g., roasting, interacting with open storage bins/containers of roasted 

coffee, grinding, weighing, or packaging coffee) should participate in the workplace medical 

monitoring program. A medical monitoring program is a means of early identification of 

employees who may be developing lung disease (e.g., asthma, obliterative bronchiolitis) and 

can help prioritize interventions to prevent occupational lung disease. The NIOSH medical 

survey results can serve as a baseline for employees who participated, if they choose to 

share these results with the provider. In a workplace with risk of occupational lung disease, 

prevention of smoking-related lung disease is important and makes the detection of workrelated adverse effects easier. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers tools 

and resources for setting up a smoking cessation program [CDC 2017b].

Conclusions

We identified specific work tasks that resulted in air concentrations of diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione that exceeded the NIOSH RELs for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. 

High full-shift and task-based diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione exposure measurements 

were observed on employees that ground coffee, flavored coffee, and packaged coffee. 

We observed high instantaneous levels of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione during grinding, 

flavoring, and packaging ground coffee tasks. Areas with unflavored and flavored ground 

coffee present, specifically the large grinder, the packaging grinders, and the grinder in the 

flavoring room, had the highest levels of diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 2,3-hexanedione, and 

CO. CO2 levels were low throughout most of the facility. However, CO levels measured on 

a grinding operator, a flavoring room attendant, and in the areas near the packaging grinders 

exceeded the NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 ppm.

Differential pressure measurements taken between two adjacent spaces showed that the break 

room was under positive pressure compared to the production area and the administrative 

offices. The administrative offices and the label room were under negative pressure to the 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 27

production space. The upstairs office area was neutral to the production area. These results 

could be impacted day to day by variations in the weather, doors or windows being opened or 

closed, or operating states (on vs. off) of various ventilation systems. All general ventilation 

in the production space was provided by the MAHU, EF-1, and a small exhaust fan mounted 

through the wall high in the flavoring room. The flavoring exhaust fan was powered on and 

off with a wall switch and was used any time flavoring activities were performed in the 

flavoring room. Adjustments to the MAHU and EF-1 may be possible to create more dilution 

air flow and a more stable negative pressure relationship in the roasting and grinding area. 

Operating the large ceiling-mounted exhaust fan between the roasters and grinders anytime 

roasting and grinding is performed would help maintaining the roasting and grinding area 

under more negative pressure. This could help prevent any airborne contaminants generated 

there from migrating to the adjacent warehouse and packaging spaces. However, care should 

be taken to ensure the flavoring room is maintained under negative pressure compared with 

the roasting and grinding area. Those decisions should be made as part of an overall plan to 

improve engineering controls at the facility. A ventilation system expert should be consulted 

to help meet all ventilation requirements in the facility. Consideration should also be given to 

relocating equipment or processed to make the implementation of engineering controls easier.

Overall, mucous membrane symptoms, specifically eye and nose symptoms, were the most 

commonly reported symptoms in the last year. Some production employees reported their 

mucous membrane symptoms were better away from work and noted that these symptoms 

were aggravated by dust, flavorings, or grinding coffee. Chest wheezing or whistling, 

shortness of breath on level ground or walking up a slight hill, and breathing trouble were 

the most commonly reported lower respiratory symptoms. Participants reported ever being 

diagnosed with asthma and having a current asthma diagnosis significantly higher than 

expected compared with the U.S. noninstitutionalized population of the same age, race/

ethnicity, sex, and cigarette smoking distribution. Sixteen (50%) of 32 medical survey 

participants had abnormal medical tests. We recommend a medical monitoring program to 

help identify any employees who may be developing lung disease (e.g., asthma, obliterative 

bronchiolitis) and to help management prioritize interventions to prevent occupational 

lung disease. All production workers and employees that assist with production tasks (e.g., 

roasting, interacting with open storage bins/containers of roasted coffee, grinding, weighing, 

or packaging coffee) should participate in the workplace medical monitoring program.

Recommendations

On the basis of our findings, we recommend the actions listed below. We encourage 

this coffee roasting and packaging facility to use a labor-management health and safety 

committee or working group to discuss our recommendations and develop an action plan. 

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

approach groups actions by their likely effectiveness in reducing or removing hazards. In 

most cases, the preferred approach is to eliminate hazardous materials or processes and 

install engineering controls to reduce exposure or shield employees. 
Page 28 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

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 the flavoring 

room mixers and the grinder in the flavoring room. Consider moving the flavoring 

room mixers so that they are located beside the flavoring grinder and under the 

existing exhaust fan to make the implementation of engineering controls easier. 

Until additional local exhaust ventilation can be installed, operate the flavoring room 

exhaust fan at all times when employees are present in the facility, not just when 

flavoring coffee and grinding flavored coffee. The flavoring room should be the area 

under negative pressure meaning that air from all other adjacent areas should flow 

through the flavoring room. At no time should air from the flavoring room flow into 

other adjacent areas. As other modifications to engineering controls are made, ensure 

the flavoring room remains negative to all other spaces.

2. Consult with a ventilation engineer to install local exhaust ventilation at all grinders 

to include the large grinder, the packaging grinders, and the small grinder. If possible, 

relocate the grinders to an area with little or no bystander foot traffic to minimize 

potential exposure risks to employees not directly using the grinders. Relocating the 

grinders to an exterior wall may make implementation of engineering controls easier. 

3. Consult with a ventilation engineer to ensure that administrative spaces, including the 

upstairs offices and the breakroom, are kept under positive pressure compared to the 

production space. Ensure all doors between the production space and non-production 

space are closed at all times.

4. Work with the ventilation engineer to determine if additional outdoor air can be 

supplied to the roasting room, flavoring room, and packaging area of the plant. This 

could be done by modifying existing equipment and/or installing new ventilation 

systems. An increase in air supplied to a given space may need to be offset with an 

increase in air exhausted from that space or other adjacent spaces as well. Until other 

improvements are made, consistently operate the existing roof-mounted exhaust fan 

between the roasters and grinders to help maintain negative pressure in the roasting 

and grinding areas, relative to the green bean storage area. 

5. 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.

Administrative Controls

Administrative controls are employer-dictated work practices and policies implemented 

to reduce or prevent hazardous exposures. Their effectiveness depends on employer 

commitment and employee acceptance. Regular monitoring and reinforcement are necessary 

to ensure that policies and procedures are followed consistently.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 29

1. Install a CO monitor and alarm near the main grinder, the packaging grinders, and the 

grinder in the flavoring room that can alert employees if and when CO levels exceed 

the NIOSH ceiling of 200 ppm. Employees should evacuate and move to an area of 

fresh air until the CO level drops below 200 ppm.

2. After engineering controls have been installed at the grinders and in the flavoring 

room, conduct personal air monitoring for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione on 

employees with primary duties in the production and administrative areas using OSHA

Sampling Method 1012 for diacetyl [OSHA 2008] and OSHA Sampling Method 1016 

for 2,3-pentanedione [OSHA 2010]. Because air levels of VOCs like diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione may fluctuate from day to day based on production schedules, we 

recommend personal air sampling for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione over multiple 

days. 

3. Whenever possible, employees should avoid spending time in the immediate area 

where coffee is being ground and/or ground coffee is being packaged.

4. Whenever possible, cover bins of roasted whole beans and ground coffee to aid in 

reducing the overall emission of alpha-diketones and other chemicals including CO 

and CO2, into the workplace. Specifically, ensure that whenever possible, hoppers 

filled with ground coffee are kept covered. 

5. To reduce exposures to VOCs (including alpha-diketones) and CO, minimize 

production tasks that require employees to place their heads directly above or inside 

the roasted bean bins. 

6. Continue to periodically clean the roaster’s exhaust according to manufacturer 

instructions to remove chaff build up to reduce a fire hazard and to improve the 

efficiency, energy usage, and roaster performance.

7. 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. 

8. Ensure employees are educated to consider the risks of further exposure if they 

develop lower respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath, wheezing) 

that are progressive and severe in degree. Employees should report new, persistent, 

or worsening respiratory symptoms to their personal healthcare providers and to a 

designated individual at this workplace. Employees with new, persistent, or worsening 

respiratory symptoms should share this report with their healthcare providers.

Personal Protective Equipment

The effectiveness of respiratory protection as personal protective equipment depends 

on avoiding breakdowns in implementation that can cause insufficient protection from 

respiratory exposures. Proper use of respiratory protection (respirators) requires a 
Page 30 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

comprehensive respiratory protection program and a high level of employee and management 

involvement and commitment to assure that the right type of respirator is chosen for each 

hazard, respirators fit users, respirators are maintained in good working order, and respirators 

are worn when they are needed. Supporting programs such as training, change-out schedules, 

and medical assessment might be necessary. Respirators should not be the sole method for 

controlling hazardous inhalation exposures. Rather, respirators should be used until effective 

engineering and administrative controls are in place. 

1. 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. Require employees who operate grinders or flavor coffee in the 

packaging area to use respiratory protection with an assigned protection factor (APF) 

of 25 when performing flavoring and grinding tasks. Continue to use respiratory 

protection (with an APF of at least 25) in the flavoring room and near the main grinder. 

2. If feasible, provide powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) with an APF of at 

least 25. PAPRs may be more comfortable for employees than the air-purifying 

respirators. Respirator should be worn at all times by all employees working in the 

flavoring room and grinding areas until additional measures (elimination, engineering 

controls, or administrative controls) can be applied to reduce the levels of diacetyl and 

2,3-pentanedione below their respective NIOSH RELs and STELs. Respirators should 

be NIOSH-certified with NIOSH-certified organic vapor cartridges and particulate 

cartridges/filters.

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.

a. Ensure N95 disposable filtering-face piece respirators are available for voluntary 

use for protection against green or roasted coffee dust exposure such as when 

emptying burlap bags of green beans, cleaning the roaster exhaust system of 

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

N95 respirators should be available in various sizes, and each potential N95 

user should receive a copy of Appendix D of the OSHA Respiratory Protection 

Standard (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_

table=standards&p_id=9784). Information about Appendix D and voluntary use 

of respirators can be found on the OSHA website at https://www.osha.gov/video/

respiratory_protection/voluntaryuse_transcript.html.

Please be aware that N95s are not protective against alpha-diketones (diacetyl, 

2,3-pentanedione, or 2,3-hexanedione). In cases of dual exposure to dust and 

alpha-diketones, NIOSH-certified organic vapor cartridges (for the alphadiketones) and particulate cartridges/filters (for the dust) would be warranted.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 31

Medical Monitoring

The purpose of a medical monitoring program is to help ensure the health of employees 

who have workplace exposures (e.g., diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, green coffee beans/dust) 

known to pose risk for potentially serious health conditions such as asthma or obliterative 

bronchiolitis. 

1. Institute a medical monitoring program for employees who work or assist in the 

production area. The medical monitoring should consist of evaluation with a 

questionnaire (to obtain health and work task information) and spirometry (to assess 

lung function) at baseline and at one year to monitor for respiratory symptoms and 

to establish employees’ baseline in lung function and any abnormal decline in lung 

function in the first year. Subsequently, an annual questionnaire evaluation should 

occur to monitor for respiratory symptoms. New or worsening respiratory symptoms 

should prompt additional evaluation including spirometry. Details about spirometry 

and a medical monitoring program can be found in chapter 9 of the NIOSH Criteria 

Document [NIOSH 2016].

2. If an employee is identified as likely having lung disease from exposure to diacetyl or 

2,3-pentanedione, it should be viewed as a sentinel event indicating that there was a 

breakdown in exposure controls and that there is potential risk for co-workers. Should 

this occur, the unanticipated source of exposure must be identified and brought under 

control. In addition, increased intensity of medical surveillance would be required for 

all employees performing similar job tasks or having similar or greater potential for 

exposure. The NIOSH Criteria Document provides detailed guidance on responses to 

such sentinel events [NIOSH 2016]. 

Smoking Cessation Program

In a workplace with risk of occupational lung disease, prevention of smoking-related lung 

disease is important and makes the detection of work-related adverse effects easier. We 

recommend implementing a smoking cessation program to assist employees to stop smoking. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers tools and resources for setting up a 

smoking cessation program [CDC 2017b].
Page 32 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

Appendix A : Tables Table A1. Time-weighted average OSHA Method 1013/1016 full-shift personal and area air sampling results by location, NIOSH survey, August 2017 Above NREL Maximum Concentration (ppb) Minimum Concentration (ppb) Above LOD N (%) N Location* Sample ypeT e Analyt Diacetyl Personal Administration 4 4 (100%) 2.5 6.6 2 Diacetyl Personal Flavoring Room 3 3 (100%) 15.7 20.0 3 Diacetyl Personal Grinding 5 5 (100%) 7.8 47.3 5 Diacetyl Personal Packaging 28 28 (100%) 11.9 27.0 28 Diacetyl Personal Production Area 1 1 (100%) 12.2 12.2 1 Diacetyl Personal Production Office 3 3 (100%) 5.4 9.6 3 Diacetyl Personal Roasting 7 7 (100%) 5.1 11.5 7 Diacetyl Area Administration 6 6 (100%) 2.5 11.1 N/A

Diacetyl Area Breakroom 3 3 (100%) 2.0 7.9 N/A

Diacetyl Area Finished Product Storage 6 6 (100%) 6.0 19.6 N/A

Diacetyl Area Flavoring 9 9 (100%) 10.8 23.7 N/A

Diacetyl Area Between Flavoring Mixers 3 3 (100%) 13.4 15.2 N/A

Diacetyl Area Flavoring Weigh Station 3 3 (100%) 10.8 22.2 N/A

Diacetyl Area Flavoring Room Grinder 3 3 (100%) 14.7 23.7 N/A

Diacetyl Area Green Bean Storage 6 6 (100%) 4.8 11.3 N/A

Diacetyl Area Grinding* 6 6 (100%) 7.6 40.7 N/A

Diacetyl Area Large Grinder 3 3 (100%) 20.4 40.7 N/A

Diacetyl Area Small Grinder 3 3 (100%) 7.6 14.4 N/A

Diacetyl Area Maintenance Shop 3 3 (100%) 6.5 13.1 N/A

Diacetyl Area Outside 6 3 (50%) <0.3 0.5 N/A

Diacetyl Area Packaging* 45 45 (100%) 4.8 33.3 N/A

Diacetyl Area Bulk Filler Area 3 3 (100%) 17.2 19.0 N/A

Diacetyl Area Front of the Weigh-Fill Machine 3 3 (100%) 12.4 16.6 N/A

Diacetyl Area Key Pack #1 near Feed Hopper 3 3 (100%) 20.3 25.4 N/A

Diacetyl Area Key Pack #2 near Desk 3 3 (100%) 16.5 20.4 N/A
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 33 Table A1 (cont). Time-weighted average OSHA Method 1013/1016 full-shift personal and area air sampling results by location, NIOSH survey, August 2017 Above NREL Maximum Concentration (ppb) Minimum Concentration (ppb) Above LOD N (%) N Location* Sample ypeT e Analyt Diacetyl Area Matrix Bib Packaging Line 6 6 (100%) 14.7 18.1 N/A Diacetyl Area Matrix Packaging Line 6 6 (100%) 16.7 20.0 N/A Diacetyl Area Packaging Grinders 3 3 (100%) 20.1 33.3 N/A Diacetyl Area Rossi Packaging Line 3 3 (100%) 16.7 18.3 N/A Diacetyl Area Rovema Packaging Line 6 6 (100%) 4.8 17.5 N/A Diacetyl Area TME Packaging Line 6 6 (100%) 15.9 18.7 N/A Diacetyl Area Viking Packaging Line 3 3 (100%) 15.9 17.7 N/A Diacetyl Area Production: Upstairs Offices Entry 3 3 (100%) 12.2 17.1 N/A Diacetyl Area QC Lab 3 3 (100%) 5.7 6.7 N/A Diacetyl Area Roasting* 12 12 (100%) 5.5 11.7 N/A Diacetyl Area Large Roaster 3 3 (100%) 5.6 11.7 N/A Diacetyl Area Small Roaster 3 3 (100%) 5.5 9.9 N/A Diacetyl Area East Wall 3 3 (100%) 6.4 10.7 N/A Diacetyl Area South Wall Tote Storage 3 3 (100%) 7.4 10.7 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Administration 6 4 (100%) 2.2 8.4 0 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Flavoring Room 3 3 (100%) 17.0 177.9 3 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Grinding 5 5 (100%) 7.6 42.3 4 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Packaging 28 28 (100%) 12.8 63.7 28 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Production Area 1 1 (100%) 12.7 12.7 1 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Production Office 3 3 (100%) 4.9 8.7 0 2,3-Pentanedione Personal Roasting 7 7 (100%) 3.9 8.4 0 2,3-Pentanedione Area Administration 6 6 (100%) 2.6 11.6 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Breakroom 3 3 (100%) 1.7 7.5 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Finished Product Storage 6 6 (100%) 4.7 23.8 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Flavoring 9 9 (100%) 13.0 213.7 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Between Flavoring Mixers 3 3 (100%) 13.0 192.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Flavoring Weigh Station 3 3 (100%) 18.0 105.6 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Flavoring Room Grinder 3 3 (100%) 21.6 213.7 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Green Bean Storage 6 6 (100%) 3.6 9.4 N/A
Page 34 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Table A1 (cont). Time-weighted average OSHA Method 1013/1016 full-shift personal and area air sampling results by location, NIOSH survey, August 2017 Above NREL Maximum Concentration (ppb) Minimum Concentration (ppb) Above LOD N (%) N Location* Sample ypeT e Analyt 2,3-Pentanedione Area Grinding* 6 6 (100%) 5.8 29.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Large Grinder 3 3 (100%) 15.9 29.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Small Grinder 3 3 (100%) 5.8 10.0 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Maintenance Shop 3 3 (100%) 6.6 12.6 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Outside 6 4 (67%) <0.3 0.5 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Packaging* 45 45 (100%) 4.8 28.4 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Bulk Filler Area 3 3 (100%) 16.3 21.4 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Front of the Weigh-Fill Machine 3 3 (100%) 12.4 16.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Key Pack #1 near Feed Hopper 3 3 (100%) 19.5 28.4 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Key Pack #2 near Desk 3 3 (100%) 14.8 27.8 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Matrix Bib Packaging Line 6 6 (100%) 13.1 22.2 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Matrix Packaging Line 6 6 (100%) 14.8 27.0 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Packaging Grinders 3 3 (100%) 18.7 26.6 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Rossi Packaging Line 3 3 (100%) 15.1 21.0 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Rovema Packaging Line 6 6 (100%) 4.8 21.6 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area TME Packaging Line 6 6 (100%) 14.5 22.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Viking Packaging Line 3 3 (100%) 15.2 19.0 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Production: Upstairs Offices Entry 3 3 (100%) 12.7 19.1 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area QC Lab 3 3 (100%) 5.8 7.0 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Roasting* 12 12 (100%) 4.5 8.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Large Roaster 3 3 (100%) 5.5 8.3 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area Small Roaster 3 3 (100%) 4.5 7.0 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area East Wall 3 3 (100%) 5.1 7.7 N/A 2,3-Pentanedione Area South Wall Tote Storage 3 3 (100%) 6.4 7.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Personal Administration 4 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 - 2,3-Hexanedione Personal Flavoring Room 3 3 (100%) 0.6 0.7 - 2,3-Hexanedione Personal Grinding 5 3 (60%) <0.5 2.0 - 2,3-Hexanedione Personal Packaging 28 12 (43%) <0.5 1.3 -

2,3-Hexanedione Personal Production Area 1 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 -
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 35

Table A1 (cont). Time-weighted average OSHA Method 1013/1016 full-shift personal and area air sampling results by location, NIOSH survey, August 2017

Above 

 NREL

Maximum 

Concentration 

(ppb)

Minimum 

Concentration 

(ppb)

Above 

LOD N 

(%)

N Location* Sample ypeT e Analyt

2,3-Hexanedione Personal Production Office 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 -2,3-Hexanedione Personal Roasting 7 1 (14%) <0.4 0.5 -

2,3-Hexanedione Area Administration 6 2 (33%) <0.5 0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Breakroom 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Finished Product Storage 6 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Flavoring 9 2 (22%) <0.5 0.9 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Between Flavoring Mixers 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Flavoring Weigh Station 3 1 (100%) <0.5 0.9 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Flavoring Room Grinder 3 1 (100%) <0.5 0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Green Bean Storage 6 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Grinding* 6 3 (60%) <0.5 1.6 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Large Grinder 3 3 (100%) 1.0 1.6 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Small Grinder 3 0 (100%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Maintenance Shop 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Outside 6 1 (17%) <0.5 0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Packaging* 45 10 (22%) <0.5 1.3 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Bulk Filler Area 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Front of the Weigh-Fill Machine 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Key Pack #1 near Feed Hopper 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Key Pack #2 near Desk 3 1 (33%) <0.5 0.9 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Matrix Bib Packaging Line 6 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Matrix Packaging Line 6 2 (33%) <0.5 1.0 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Packaging Grinders 3 3 (100%) 0.8 1.3 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Rossi Packaging Line 3 1 (33%) <0.5 0.7 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Rovema Packaging Line 6 2 (33%) <0.5 0.9 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area TME Packaging Line 6 1 (17%) <0.5 1.1 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Viking Packaging Line 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area Production: Upstairs Offices Entry 3 2 (67%) <0.5 0.9 N/A

2,3-Hexanedione Area QC Lab 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A
Page 36 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Table A1 (cont). Time-weighted average OSHA Method 1013/1016 full-shift personal and area air sampling results by location, NIOSH survey, August 2017 Above NREL Maximum Concentration (ppb) Minimum Concentration (ppb) Above LOD N (%) N Location* Sample ypeT e Analyt 2,3-Hexanedione Area Roasting* 12 1 (8.3%) <0.4 0.6 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Large Roaster 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area Small Roaster 3 1 (33%) <0.5 0.6 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area East Wall 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 N/A 2,3-Hexanedione Area South Wall Tote Storage 3 0 (0%) <0.5 <0.5 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 RELN=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. *Sub-locations within the work location are reported immediately below.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 37

Table A2. Summary of short-term OSHA Method 1013/1016 personal air sampling results by task, NIOSH survey, August 

2017

Analyte Task N

Above 

LOD

N (%)

Minimum 

Concentration 

(ppb)

Maximum 

Concentration 

(ppb)

Mean (range) 

Sample Duration 

(minutes)

Diacetyl Cleaning Flavoring mixer 1 1 (100%) 28.3 28.3 10

Diacetyl Cleaning Packaging Machine 1 1 (100%) 13.8 13.8 15

Diacetyl Cleaning Roaster 1 1 (100%) 3.4 3.4 7

Diacetyl Cleaning grinders 1 1 (100%) 18.7 18.7 15

Diacetyl Flavor coffee 6 5 (83%) <0.9 36.2 16 (15─18)

Diacetyl Grind coffee beans (flavored and unflavored) 7 6 (86%) 16.3 245.9 17 (13─28)

Diacetyl Scooped whole roasted beans into a packaging machine 1 1 (100%) 30.2 30.2 15

Diacetyl Package coffee 17 17 (100%) 14.1 38.1 15 (15─17)

Diacetyl Roast coffee beans 11 11 (100%) 0.7 17.3 16 (11─20)

2,3-Pentanedione Cleaning Flavoring mixer 1 1 (100%) 18.9 18.9 10

2,3-Pentanedione Cleaning Packaging Machine 1 1 (100%) 14.7 14.7 15

2,3-Pentanedione Cleaning Roaster 1 1 (100%) 3.6 3.6 7

2,3-Pentanedione Cleaning grinders 1 1 (100%) 20.3 20.3 15

2,3-Pentanedione Flavor coffee 6 5 (83%) <1.0 723.5 16 (15─18)

2,3-Pentanedione Grind coffee beans (flavored and unflavored) 7 6 (86%) 25.8 228.4 17 (13─28)

2,3-Pentanedione Scooped whole roasted beans into a packaging machine 1 1 (100%) 23.6 23.6 15

2,3-Pentanedione Package coffee 17 17 (100%) 12.5 68.0 15 (15─17)

2,3-Pentanedione Roast coffee beans 11 10 (91%) <0.8 13.9 16 (11─20)

2,3-Hexanedione Cleaning Flavoring mixer 1 0 (0%) <2.1 <2.1 10

2,3-Hexanedione Cleaning Packaging Machine 1 0 (0%) <1.4 <1.4 15

2,3-Hexanedione Cleaning Roaster 1 0 (0%) <3.1 <3.1 7

2,3-Hexanedione Cleaning grinders 1 0 (0%) <1.4 <1.4 15

2,3-Hexanedione Flavor coffee 6 0 (0%) <1.1 <1.4 16 (15─18)

2,3-Hexanedione Grind coffee beans 7 3 (43%) <0.8 12.2 17 (13─28)

2,3-Hexanedione Scooped whole roasted beans into a packaging machine 1 0 (0%) <1.4 <1.4 15

2,3-Hexanedione Package coffee 17 1 (6%) <1.2 2.1 15 (15─17)

2,3-Hexanedione Roast coffee beans 11 0 (0%) <1.1 <1.9 16 (11─20)

Note: OSHA=Occupational Safety and Health Administration; NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; N=number 

of samples; Above LOD N (%)=number and percentage of samples above limit of detection (LOD); < indicates below the LOD.
Page 38 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

Table A3. Instantaneous evacuated canister method* air sampling results by task, NIOSH survey, August 

2017

Task Description Diacetyl 

(ppb)

2,3-Pentanedione 

(ppb)

2,3-Hexanedione 

(ppb)

Adding HG flavoring to mixer with whole beans 14.5 34.3 1.2

Adding TV flavoring to mixer with whole beans 42.0 211 <6.9

Adding HAZ and TV flavoring to whole bean coffee 32.7 21.8 <1.1

Adding TV flavoring to whole bean coffee 33.3 28.3 4.0

Flavoring whole bean coffee with HAZ 12.5 14.5 1.3

Flavoring whole bean coffee with HAZ and TV 37.6 38.5 1.7

Scooping HAZ flavored coffee out of flavoring hopper 18.7 7.6 <0.9

Scooping TV flavored coffee out of flavoring hopper 30.5 10.2 <0.7

Standing at computer while flavoring with HAZ and TV 24.0 13.2 <1.0

Weighing liquid flavoring while hopper mixed coffee with flavoring 14.8 13.1 <0.7

Weighing TV liquid flavoring while hopper mixed coffee with flavoring 509 9.3 <0.7

Grinding 40 pounds of GEM flavored coffee 77.7 178 2.2

Grinding 40 pounds of JMC-COMPANY 1 flavored coffee <0.4 212 <0.7

Grinding 40 pounds of TV flavored coffee <0.5 33.2 <0.9

Grinding 40 pounds of TV flavored coffee 24.5 23.4 1.5

Grinding coffee at large grinder in roast room 24.7 16.3 <1.1

Grinding coffee at large grinder in roast room 51.6 49.2 <0.9

Grinding coffee at large grinder in roast room 18.3 12.9 1.7

Grinding coffee at large grinder in roast room 42.0 40.1 <0.7

Grinding coffee at large grinder in roast room 33.2 24.0 <9.5

Grinding coffee at large grinder in roast room; Light Roast 32.8 29.7 1.6

Pulling bean sample from large roaster while roasting <6.8 <4.5 <11.4

Pulling bean sample from roaster while roasting 2.7 1.7 <0.7

Pulling bean sample from roaster while roasting 6.7 <0.4 <1.0

Dumping roasted beans into cooling bin <4.5 <3.0 <7.5

Dumping roasted beans into cooling bin; dark roast 19.3 15.5 1.0

Dumping roasted beans into cooling bin 4.3 2.7 <0.4

Dumping roasted beans into cooling bin 3.9 2.1 <0.7

Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; ppb=parts per billion; < indicates below the limit 

of detection.

*Sampling duration approximately 30 seconds; task-based air samples were collected by placing the inlet of the canister 

sampler in the employee’s personal breathing zone as he/she performed work task.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 39

Table A4. Instantaneous evacuated canister method* air sampling results by source, NIOSH survey, August 2017

Source Description Diacetyl (ppb) 2,3-Pentanedione (ppb) 2,3-Hexanedione (ppb)

Flavoring: At face of mixer while adding HG flavoring to whole beans. <4.3 80496 <7.3Flavoring: At face of mixer while adding TV flavoring to whole beans <5.9 1581 <9.8Flavoring: At flavoring bag opening while adding HOC flavor to whole beans <113 29219 <7.5Flavoring: Taken at open face of flavoring mixer with recently dumped HAZ flavored whole bean coffee; empty mixer with flavored coffee in bin below 420 14.3 1.6Flavoring: Taken at the open face of the flavoring mixer with whole beans flavored with TV flavoring in the mixer 29.6 <3.2 <8.2Grinding: Taken at the dispenser of the flavoring room grinder; grinding 40 pounds of JMC-Company 1 flavored coffee 475 676 8.9Grinding: Above bin of flavored ground coffee while grinding 40 pounds of GEM flavored coffee <0.6 491 3.2Grinding: At face of bin where ground coffee was being dispensed from large grinder into storage bin <5.4 375 29.5Grinding: At face of bin where ground coffee was being dispensed from large grinder into storage bin <4.1 <2.7 <6.9Grinding: At packaging grinder dispenser while grinding 5 pounds of VR 12388 6137 256Grinding: At the packaging grinder dispenser while grinding 1 pound of BBIRD coffee 238 127 12.8Grinding: At the packaging grinder dispenser while grinding 1 pound of JJAVA coffee 29165 9297 144Packaging: At top of bin of ground OMM coffee being fed into Lenhard machine 45.6 40.1 3.2Packaging: At the dispenser while making DS pods 25.9 27.5 1.3Packaging: At the dispenser while making DS pods 20.7 30.4 1.6Packaging: At top of bin while NCR ground coffee was being fed into the portion pack machine 247 58.2 7.1Packaging: At top of container of ground BBIRD coffee being fed into weigh/grinder machine <4.0 46.0 <6.7Packaging: Above bag while packaging whole bean VR; 5 pounds <4.2 109 <7.0Packaging: At package opening while filling LION blend of whole bean coffee 42.5 47.3 <0.7Packaging: At package opening while packaging BFAT ground coffee <4.2 <2.8 24.5Taken above closed bins with flavored coffee on the main production floor 15.2 11.9 1.2Taken above closed bins with flavored coffee on the main production floor <0.5 <0.3 1.6At top of bin of ground DS coffee <4.1 2,143 63.2At top of bin of ground EVE coffee <4.1 <2.7 <6.8Roasting: Above bin of roasted beans; at dispenser from cooling drum <7.4 71.1 <12.4

Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; ppb=parts per billion; < indicates below the limit of detection..*Sampling duration was approximately 30 seconds; source air samples were collected by placing the inlet of the canister sampler near roasted beans.
Page 40 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

Table A5. Headspace analysis results for bulk samples of liquid flavorings, 

NIOSH survey, August 2017

Diacetyl 2,3-Pentanedione 2,3-Hexanedione Sample Type Bulk Sample Description (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)

Flavoring AMAR 2,352 < 118 < 210

Flavoring TM < 89 < 118 < 210

Flavoring BR < 89 < 118 < 210

Flavoring CARM 16,590 < 118 < 210

Flavoring PERX < 89 < 118 < 210

Flavoring DUT < 89 < 118 < 210

Flavoring JMC-Company 1 < 89 24,177 < 210

Flavoring JI-Company 2 297 < 118 < 210

Flavoring HAZ 1,468 < 118 < 210

Flavoring HOC 3,038 92,637 < 210

Flavoring MAC 1,809 < 118 < 210

Flavoring PEP 162 < 118 < 210

Flavoring VAN 3,004 < 118 < 210

Note: NIOSH=National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; ppb=parts per billion.

Table A6. Summary of continuous area air monitoring results for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, 

temperature, and total volatile organic compounds, NIOSH industrial hygiene survey, August 2017

CO Location, Day of Survey 2 (ppm) CO (ppm) Temperature (°F) Total VOC (ppb)

Mean (Range) Mean (Range) Mean (Range) Mean (Range)

Flavoring Room: Grinder, day 1 487

(401 ─ 1272)

4.6

(0.9 ─ 68.4)

76.4

(73.4 ─ 80.1)

1,600

(20 ─ 20,000)

Flavoring Room: Grinder, day 3 475

(393 ─ 840)

5

(0.7 ─ 101.7)

77

(74.3 ─ 81.3)

1,536

(< 1 ─ 13,050)

Packaging: Grinders, day 1 532

(473 ─ 1,259)

13.4

(2.5 ─ 259.7)

77.1

(72.5 ─ 80.9)

322

(57 ─ 7,199)

Packaging: Grinders, day 2 575

(514 ─ 1,496)

11.2

(3.0 ─ 369.7)

75.4

(70.3 ─ 81.1)

399

(16 ─ 13,980)

Packaging: Weigh Fill Machine, day 2 ─ ─ ─ 1,252

(75 ─ 4382)

Packaging: Key Pack #1, day 3 499

(453 ─ 676)

4.6

(3.1 ─ 10)

76.7

(72.9 ─ 80.1)

344

(< 1 ─ 5,235)

Roast Room: Large Grinder, day 2 479

(336 ─ 1174)

17.4

(0.9 ─ 170.5)

78.3

(70 ─ 86.9)

600

(< 1 ─ 5,792)

Roast Room: Large Roaster, day 2 448

(397 ─ 824)

3.3

(< 0.1 ─ 12.4)

80.1

(69.1 ─ 88.9) ─

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 2017-0054-3327 Page 41

Table A7. Summary of continuous personal air measurements for carbon monoxide, NIOSH 

industrial hygiene survey, August 2017

CO (ppm) Job Title Work Area Mean (range)

Grinder Operator Large Grinder in Roast Room 5.8

(0 ─ 294)

Grinder Operator Large Grinder in Roast Room 7.4

(0 ─ 233)

Grinder Operator Large Grinder in Roast Room 10.9

(0 ─ 769)

Flavoring Room Attendant Flavoring Room 5.9

(0 ─ 270)

Flavoring Room Attendant Flavoring Room 5.6

(0 ─ 208)

Flavoring Room Attendant Flavoring Room 5.3

(0 ─ 99)

Flavoring Room Assistant Wash Area in Roast Room 2.8

(0 ─ 10)

Roaster Operator Big Roaster 2.5

(0 ─ 59)

Roaster Operator Big Roaster 2.4

(0 ─ 35)

Roaster Operator Big Roaster 1.9

(0 ─ 17)

Roaster Operator Small Roaster 1.3

(0 ─ 5)

Roaster Operator Small Roaster 1.9

(0 ─ 8)

Roaster Operator Small Roaster 1.0

(0 ─ 6)

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 42 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

Table A8. Prevalence of reported symptoms, NIOSH medical survey, August 2017

Experienced in the last 12 months Experienced in the last 4 weeks

Symptom N = 33 N = 33

Number (%) Number (%)

Nose symptoms* 14 (42%) 9 (27%)

Eye symptoms† 13 (39%) 10 (30%)

Sinusitis or sinus problems 6 (18%) 3 (9%)

Problem with ability to smell 3 (9%) -

Phlegm on most days for 3 months 7 (21%) -

Lower respiratory symptoms (reported at least 

one of the following) 17 (52%) 10 (30%)

 Chest wheezing or whistling 10 (30%) 6 (18%)

 Usual cough‡ 7 (21%) 5 (15%)

 SOB on level ground or walking up a slight a hill 8 (24%) -

 Breathing trouble 8 (24%) 5 (15%)

 Awoke with chest tightness 2 (6%) 1 (3%)

 Asthma attack 6 (18%) 2 (6%)

 Awoke with shortness of breath 3 (9%) 1 (3%)

Systemic symptoms(reported at least one of the 

following) 12 (36%) 8 (24%)

 Flu-like achiness or achy joints 10 (30%) 4 (12%)

 Fever or chills 6 (18%) 3 (9%)

 Unusual tiredness or fatigue 7 (21%) 5 (15%)

 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 2017-0054-3327 Page 43

Table A9. Adjusted* comparisons of symptoms and self-reported physician diagnosis among NIOSH medical 

survey participants (N=33) to U.S. adult population August 2017

Comparative Observed Expected SMR Health condition population† Number Number ((95% CI)‡

Watery, itchy eyes last 12 months NHANES III 13 12.4 1.0 (0.6–1.8)

Stuffy, itchy, or runny nose last 12 months NHANES III 14 16.7 0.8 (0.5–1.4)

Sinus problems last 12 months NHANES III 6 11.1 0.5 (0.2–1.2)

Phlegm 3 consecutive month or more NHANES III 7 2.8 2.5 (1.2–5.1)

Wheeze last 12 months NHANES 2007-2012 10 5.9 1.7 (0.9–3.1)

Shortness of breath on exertion NHANES III 8 7.3 1.1 (0.6–2.1)

Cough 3 consecutive months or more NHANES III 3 3.2 1.0 (0.3–2.8)

Ever asthma (physician-diagnosed) NHANES 2007-2012 8 2.6 3.1 (1.6–6.1)

Current asthma (physician-diagnosed)β NHANES 2007-2012 7 1.7 4.1 (2.0–8.4)

Note: NHANES=National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; SMR= standardized morbidity ratio.

*Adjusted for sex, race/ethnicity, age, and smoking categories. 

†We used the most recent NHANES survey available for each comparison. 

‡95% confidence intervals (CIs) that exclude one are statistically significantly different from comparison with US 

adult population and are shown in bold.

βOf the seven participants with current asthma, five reported being diagnosed prior to employment at the coffee 

roasting and packaging facility; two reported being diagnosed after employment at the coffee facility. 
Page 44 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

References

ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist) [2018a]. 2017 

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

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

Industrial Hygienists. 

ACGIH [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: September 2018.

Akiyama M, Murakami K, Ohtani N, Iwatsuki K, Sotoyama K, Wada A, Tokuno K, Iwabuchi 

H, Tanaka K [2003]. Analysis of volatile compounds released during the grinding of roasted 

coffee beans using solid-phase microextraction. J Agric Food Chem 51(7):1961-1969.

Akpinar-Elci M, Travis WD, Lynch DA, Kreiss K [2004]. Bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome 

in popcorn production plant workers. Eur Respir J 24(2):298-302.

Anderson BA, Shimoni E, Liardon R, Labuza P [2003]. The diffusion kinetics of carbon 

dioxide in fresh roasted and ground coffee. J Food Eng 59:71-78.

Bailey RL, Cox-Ganser JM, Duling MG, LeBouf RF, Martin SB Jr, Bledsoe TA, Green 

BJ, Kreiss K [2015]. Respiratory morbidity in a coffee processing workplace with sentinel 

obliterative bronchiolitis cases. Am J Ind Med 58(12):1235-1245.

Berger KI, Reibman J, Oppenheimer BW, Vlahos I, Harrison D, Goldring RM [2013]. 

Lessons from the World Trade Center disaster: airway disease presenting as restrictive 

dysfunction. Chest 144(1):249-257. 

Burney PGJ, Chinn S [1987]. Developing a new questionnaire for measuring the prevalence 

and distribution of asthma. Chest 91(6 Suppl):79S-83S.

Burney PG, Laitinen LA, Perdrizet S, Huckauf H, Tattersfield AE, Chinn S, Poisson N, 

Heeren A, Britton JR, Jones T [1989]. Validity and repeatability of the IUATLD (1984) 

Bronchial symptoms questionnaire: an international comparison. Eur Respir J 2(10):940-945.

Burney PGJ, Luczynska C, Chinn S, Jarvis D [1994]. The European community respiratory 

health survey. Eur Respir J 7(5):954-960.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) [1996]. Third National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994, NHANES III Examination Data File [CDROM]. 

Hyattsville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. (Public use data file documentation No. 76300.)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 45

CDC [2013a]. Carbon monoxide [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/co-comp/default.html]. 

Date accessed: September 2018.

CDC [2013b]. Obliterative bronchiolitis in workers in a coffee-processing facility—Texas, 

2008–2012. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 62(16):305–307.

CDC [2017a]. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey Data. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [2007-2012] Available at: https://wwwn.cdc.

gov/nchs/nhanes/default.aspx. Accessed: September 2018.

CDC [2017b]. Smoking & tobacco use: quit smoking

[https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/tobacco_control_programs/index.htm].

Date accessed: September 2018.

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

Office of the Federal Register.

Daglia M, Papetti A, Aceti C, Sordelli B, Spini V, Gazzani G [2007]. Isolation and 

determination of α-dicarbonyl compounds by RP-HPLC-DAD in green and roasted coffee. J 

Agric and Food Chem 55(22):8877-8882.

Day G, LeBouf R, Grote A, Pendergrass S, Cummings K, Kreiss K, and Kullman G [2011]. 

Identification and measurement of diacetyl substitutes in dry bakery mix production. J Occ 

Env Hygiene 8(2):93-103.

de Assumpção MS, Gonçalves RM, Martins R, Bobbio TG, Schivinski CI [2016]. Reference 

equations for impulse oscillometry system parameters in healthy Brazilian children and 

adolescents. Respir Care 61(8):1090-1099.

Desiraju K, Agrawal A [2016]. Impulse oscillometry: The state-of-art for lung function 

testing. Lung India 33(4):410-416. 

Duling MG, LeBouf RF, Cox-Ganser JM, Kreiss K, Martin SB Jr, Bailey RL [2016]. 

Environmental characterization of a coffee processing workplace with obliterative 

bronchiolitis in former workers. J Occup Environ Hyg 13(10):770-781.

Dweik RA, Boggs PB, Erzurum SC, Irvin CG, Leigh MW, Lundberg JO, Olin AC, Plummer 

AL, Taylor DR; American Thoracic Society Committee on Interpretation of Exhaled Nitric 

Oxide Levels (FENO) for Clinical Applications [2011]. An official ATS clinical practice 

guideline: interpretation of exhaled nitric oxide levels (FENO) for clinical applications. Am J 

Respir Crit Care Med 184(5):602-615.
Page 46 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

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. 

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

protocols and instructions [http://www.ecrhs.org/Quests.htm]. Date accessed: September 

2018.

Ferris BG [1978]. Epidemiology standardization project. Am Rev 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.

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.

Hankinson JL, Odencrantz JR, Fedan KB [1999]. Spirometric reference values from a sample 

of the general U.S. population. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 159(1):179-187.

Henneberger PK, Redlich CA, Callahan DB, Harber P, Lemière C, Martin J, Tarlo SM, 

Vandenplas O, Torén K; ATS Ad Hoc Committee on Work-Exacerbated Asthma [2011]. An 

official American Thoracic Society statement: work-exacerbated asthma. Am J Respir Crit 

Care Med 184(3):368–378.

Hubbs AF, Cumpston AM, Goldsmith WT, Battelli LA, Kashon ML, Jackson MC, Frazer 

DG, Fedan JS, Goravanahally MP, Castranova V, Kreiss K, Willard PA, Friend S, SchweglerBerry D, Fluharty KL, Sriram K [2012]. Respiratory and olfactory cytotoxicity of inhaled 

2,3-pentanedione in Sprague-Dawley rats. Am J Pathol 181(3):829-844.

Kanwal R, Kullman G, Piacitelli C, Boylstein R, Sahakian N, Martin S, Fedan K, Kreiss K 

[2006]. Evaluation of flavorings-related lung disease risk at six microwave popcorn plants.

J Occup Environ Med. 48(2):149-57.

Karr RM, Davies RJ, Butcher BT, Lehrer SB, Wilson MR, Dharmarajan V, Salvaggio JE 

[1978]. Occupational asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 61(1):54–65.

Kim TJ, Materna BL, Prudhomme JC, Fedan KB, Enright PL, Sahakian NM, Windham GC, 

Kreiss K [2010]. Industry-wide medical surveillance of California flavor manufacturing 

workers: Cross-sectional results. Am J Ind Med 53(9):857-865. 

King MS, Eisenberg R, Newman JH, Tolle JJ, Harrell FE Jr, Nian H, Ninan M, Lambright 

ES, Sheller JR, Johnson JE, Miller RF [2011]. Constrictive bronchiolitis in soldiers returning 

from Iraq and Afghanistan. N Engl J Med. 365(3):222-230. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 47

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. 

Kreiss K [2013]. Occupational causes of constrictive bronchiolitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin 

Immunol 13(2):167-172.

Langford NJ [2005]. Carbon dioxide poisoning. Toxicol Rev 24(4):229-235.

LeBouf RF, Stefaniak AB, Virji, MA [2012]. Validation of evacuated canisters for sampling 

volatile organic compounds in healthcare settings. J Environ Monit 14(3):977–983.

LeBouf RF and Simmons M [2017]. Increased sensitivity of OSHA method analysis of 

diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione in air. J Occup Environ Hyg 14(5):343-348. 

Lee JY, Seo JH, Kim HY, Jung YH, Kwon JW, Kim BJ, Kim HB, Lee SY, Jang GC, Song DJ, 

Kim WK, Shim JY, Kim HJ, Shin YJ, Park JW, Cho SH, Lee JS, Hong SJ [2012]. Reference 

values of impulse oscillometry and its utility in the diagnosis of asthma in young Korean 

children. J Asthma 49(8):811-816. 

Lehrer SB, Karr RM, Salvaggio JE [1978]. Extraction and analysis of coffee bean allergens. 

Clin Allergy 8(3):217-226.

Malmberg LP, Pelkonen A, Poussa T, Pohianpalo A, Haahtela T, Turpeinen M [2002]. 

Determinants of respiratory system input impedance and bronchodilator response in healthy 

Finnish preschool children. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 22(1):64-71.

Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, Crapo R, Enright 

P, van der Grinten CP, Gustafsson P, Jensen R, Johnson DC, MacIntyre N, McKay R, 

Navajas D, Pedersen OF, Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Wanger J, ATS/ERS Task Force [2005]. 

Standardisation of spirometry. Eur Respir J 26(2):319-338.

Morgan DL, Jokinen MP, Price HC, Gwinn WM, Palmer SM, Flake GP [2012]. Bronchial 

and bronchiolar fibrosis in rats exposed to 2,3-pentanedione vapors: implications for 

bronchiolitis obliterans in humans. Toxicol Pathol 40(3):448-465.

Morgan DL, Jokinen MP, Johnson CL, Price HC, Gwinn WM, Bousquet RW, Flake GP 

[2016]. Chemical reactivity and respiratory toxicity of the α-diketone flavoring agents: 

2,3-butanedione, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2,3-hexanedione. Toxicol Pathol 44(5):763–783.

Newbury W, Crockett A, Newbury J [2008]. A pilot study to evaluate Australian predictive 

equations for the impulse oscillometry system. Respirology 13(7):1070-1075.

Newton J [2002]. Carbon monoxide exposure from coffee roasting. Appl Occup Environ Hyg

17(9):600-602.
Page 48 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

NIOSH [2016]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/]. 

Date accessed: September 2018.

NIOSH [2012]. Flavoring-related lung disease. Information for healthcare providers. 

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

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2012-148 (supersedes 2012-107) [http://www.cdc.gov/

niosh/docs/2012-148/]. Date accessed: August 2018.

NIOSH [2016]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to diacetyl 

and 2,3-pentanedione. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 2016-111. [https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2016-111/]. Date 

accessed: September 2018.

Nishimura F, Abe S, Fukunaga T [2003]. Carbon monoxide poisoning from industrial coffee 

extraction. JAMA 290(3):334.

Oldenburg M, Bittner C, Baur X [2009]. Health risks due to coffee dust. Chest 136(2):536-

544.

Oppenheimer BW, Goldring RM, Herberg ME, Hofer IS, Reyfman PA, Liautaud S, Rom 

WN, Reibman J, Berger KI [2007]. Distal airway function in symptomatic subjects with 

normal spirometry following World Trade Center dust exposure. Chest 132(4):1275–1282.

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: September 2018.

OSHA [2003]. Enforcement policy for respiratory hazards not covered by OSHA permissible 

exposure limits. January 24, 2003 Memorandum. [https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/

owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24749]. Date accessed: 

September 2018.

OSHA [2008]. Sampling and analytical methods: Method 1013 – Acetoin and diacetyl [http://

www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/validated/1013/1013.html]. Date accessed: September 2018.

OSHA [2010]. Sampling and analytical methods: Method 1016 – 2,3-pentanedione [http://

www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/validated/1016/1016.html]. Date accessed: September 2018.

OSHA [2014]. OSHA Fact sheet: Do you have work-related asthma? A guide for you and 

your doctor. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration [https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3707.pdf]. Date accessed: 

September 2018.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 49

OSHA [2018]. Permissible exposure limits – annotated tables 

[https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/index.html]. Date accessed: September 2018.

Park JH, Yoon JW, Shin YH, Jee HM, Wee YS, Chang SJ, Sim JH, Yum HY, Han MY [2011]. 

Reference values for respiratory system impedence using impulse oscillometry in healthy 

preschool children. Korean J Pediatr 54(2)64-68.

Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Brusasco V, Crapo RO, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, van der 

Grinten CP, Gustafsson P, Hankinson J, Jensen R, Johnson DC, MacIntyre N, McKay R, 

Miller MR, Navajas D, Pedersen OF, Wanger J [2005]. Interpretative strategies for lung 

function tests. Eur Respir J 26(5):948–968.

Raffel JB, Thompson J [2013]. Carbon monoxide from domestic coffee roasting: a case 

report. Ann Intern Med 159(11):795-796. 

Rondón C, Campo P, Galindo L, Blanca-López N, Cassinello MS, Rodriguez-Bada JL, Torres 

MJ, Blanca M [2012]. Prevalence and clinical relevance of local allergic rhinitis. Allergy. 

67(10):1282-1288.

Rondón C, Bogas G, Barrionuevo E, Blanca M, Torres MJ, Campo P [2017]. Nonallergic 

rhinitis and lower airway disease. Allergy 72(1):24-34.

Rose JJ, Wang L, Xu Q, McTiernan CF, Shiva S, Tejero J, Gladwin MT [2017]. Carbon 

monoxide poisoning: pathogenesis, management, and future directions of therapy. Am J 

Respir Crit Care Med 195(5):596-606.

Sahay S, Gera K, Bhargava SK, Shah A [2016]. Occurrence and impact of sinusitis in 

patients with asthma and/or allergic rhinitis. J Asthma 53(6):635-643. 

Sakwari G, Mamuya SH, Bråtveit M, Moen BE [2013]. Respiratory symptoms, exhaled nitric 

oxide, and lung function among workers in Tanzanian coffee factories. J Occup Environ Med

55(5):544-551.

Schulz H, Flexeder C, Behr J, Heier M, Holle R, Huber RM, Jörres RA, Nowak D, Peters 

A, Wichmann HE, Heinrich J, Karrasch S; KORA Study Group [2013]. Reference values 

of impulse oscillometric lung function indices in adults of advanced age. PLoS One

8(5):e63366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063366. 

Schulze J, Biedebach S, Christmann M, Herrmann E, Voss S, Zielen S [2016]. Impulse 

oscillometry as a predictor of asthma exacerbations in young children. Respiration 91(2):107-

114. 

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. 
Page 50 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

Shi Y, Aledia AS, Tatavoosian AV, Vijayalakshmi S, Galant SP, George SC [2012]. Relating 

small airways to asthma control by using impulse oscillometry in children.

Allergy Clin Immunol 129(3):671-678. 

Smith HJ, Reinhold P, Goldman MD [2005]. Forced oscillation technique and impulse 

oscillometry. In: Gosselink R, Stam H, eds. European Respiratory Monograph 31: Lung 

Function Testing. Vol. 10. Wakefield, UK: European Respiratory Society Journals, pp. 72–

105.

Smith HJ (Hans-Juergen.Smith@CareFusion.com) [2015]. Questions about impulse 

oscillometry. Email of December 9, 2015, from Hans-Juergen Smith, CareFusion, to Rachel 

Bailey (feu2@cdc.gov), Respiratory Health Division, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

Song TW, Kim KW, Kim ES, Park JW, Sohn MH, Kim KE [2008]. Utility of impulse 

oscillometry in young children with asthma. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 19(8):763-768. 

Tarlo SM, Lemiere C [2014]. Occupational asthma. N Engl J Med 370:640-649.

Tarlo SM[2016]. Update on work-exacerbated asthma. Int J Occup Med Environ Health

29(3):369-374. 

Thomas KE, Trigg CJ, Baxter PJ, Topping M, Lacey J, Crook B, Whitehead P, Bennett JB, 

Davies RJ [1991]. Factors relating to the development of respiratory symptoms in coffee 

process workers. Br J Ind Med 48(5):314–322.

Vogel J, Smidt U [1994] Impulse oscillometry. Analysis of lung mechanics in general 

practice and clinic, epidemiological and experimental research. 1st ed. Frankfurt: PMIVerlagsgruppe. 

Weinstein DJ, Hull JE, Ritchie BL, Hayes JA, Morris MJ [2016]. Exercise-associated 

excessive dynamic airway collapse in military personnel. Ann Am Thorac Soc 13(9):1476-

1482.

Zuskin E, Valić F, Skurić Z [1979]. Respiratory function in coffee workers. Br J Ind Med

36(2):117–122.

Zuskin E, Kanceljak B, Skurić Z, Butković D [1985]. Bronchial reactivity in green coffee 

exposure. Br J Ind Med 42(6):415-420.

Zuskin E, Schachter EN, Kanceljak B, Witek TJ Jr, Fein E [1993]. Organic dust disease of 

airways. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 65(2):135-140.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 51

This page left intentionally blank
Page 52 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327

Keywords: NAICS 311920 (Coffee roasting), Minnesota, diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 

2,3-hexanedione, coffee, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs).
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0054-3327 Page 53

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program investigates possible health hazards in the workplace 

under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 669(a)

(6)). The Health Hazard Evaluation Program also provides, upon request, technical assistance 

to federal, state, and local agencies to investigate occupational health hazards and to prevent 

occupational disease or injury. Regulations guiding the Program can be found in Title 42, Code 

of Federal Regulations, Part 85; Requests for Health Hazard Evaluations (42 CPR Part 85).

Disclaimer 

The recommendations in this report are made on the basis of the findings at the workplace 

evaluated and may not be applicable to other workplaces.

Mention of any company or product in this report does not constitute endorsement by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Citations to Web sites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the 

sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. NIOSH is not responsible for the 

content of these Web sites. All Web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as 

of the publication date.

Acknowledgments

Desktop Publisher: Tia McClelland 

Data Analysis Support: Nicole Edwards, Kathleen Fedan, and Brian Tift

Laboratory Support: Dru Burns, Ryan LeBouf, Anand Ranpara

Site Visit Team Members: Mike Beaty, Randy Boylstein, Matthew Duling, Nicole Edwards, 

Brie Hawley, Reid Harvey, Randy Nett, Alyson Johnson, Steve Martin, Nnenna Okoye, Laura 

Reynolds, 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 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2017-0054-3327.pdf.

All other Health Hazard Evaluation Reports may be found at https://www2a.cdc.gov/hhe/

search.asp.

Recommended citation for this report:

NIOSH [2018]. Health hazard evaluation report: Evaluation of exposures and 

respiratory health at a coffee roasting and flavoring facility. By Hawley B, 

Reynolds LE, Harvey RR, Martin SB. Morgantown, WV: U.S. Department 

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

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HHE Report No. 

2017-0054-3327.
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