TECHNICAL REPORT 

Industrial Hygiene Characterization 

of Urea Formaldehyde and 

Polyurethane Foam Insulation 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEAL TH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Public Health Service 

Centers for Disease Control 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE CHARACTERIZATION OF 

UREA FORMALDEHYDE AND POLYURETHANE FOAM INSULATION 

Andrew A. Alcarese Jr. 

Robert P. Reisdorf 

Enviro Control, Inc. 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Contract No. 210-78-0081 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Public Health Service 

Centers for Disease Control 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies 

Cincinnati, .Ohio 45226 

April 1983 
DISCLAIMER 

Ment:Lon of company names or products in 

this report does not constitute endorsement 

by the National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health . 

NIOSH Project Officer: Robert F. Herrick 

Enviro Control, Inc., Project Manager: 

Donald W. Rumsey 

bHHS (NjOSH) Publicatidn No. 83-108 

For sale by the Superintendent o ( Doc uments, U .S, Governme nt 

Printing Office , Waahingtorl, D.C . 20402 

.. 

J. J. 
ABSTRACT 

Industrial hygiene surveys were conducted at urea formaldehyde and 

polyurethane foam thermal insulation manufacturing and application facilities as part of a NIOSH industrywide study of foam insulation 

materials. In all, eight sites were surveyed--two sets of manufacturers 

and applicators for each of the two types of foams. Personal and area 

monitoring were conducted to determine exposure levels to chemical 

substances and physical agents. 

Within the urea formaldehyde industries surveyed formaldehyde exposures at 

the manufacturing facilities ranged from a TWA value of 0.18 ppm to peak 

values of 5-10 ppm; exposures at the application sites ranged from <0.08 

to 2.4 ppm. The NIOSH and ACGIH recommended limits were exceeded and the 

potential for an excursion to the OSHA standard for formaldehyde was shown 

to exist. In addition ammonia, furfuryl alcohol, acetaldehyde, phenol, 

nitrosamines, and respirable dust were measured. Ammonia sample results 

were less than established workplace limits, except during ammonia drum 

pump stem removal when the measured concentration of 300 ppm exceeded the 

ACGIH STEL of 35 ppm. All other chemical contaminant levels were below 

the lower limits of detection. Noise levels in excess of established 

limits were measured at one of the manufacturing facilities. 

Within the polyurethane industries surveyed MDI exposures ranged from 

<0.0008 to peaks of 0.002-0.005 ppm at the manufacturiD9 facilities and 

<0.001 to peaks of 0.002-0.068 ppm at the application sites. The NIOSH, 

ACGIH and OSHA limits for MDI were exceeded at one of the application sites. In addition, exposure levels for TOI (not a component of 

polyurethane thermal insulation systems) were exceeded at a manufacturing 

facility. Measurements for fluorotrichloromethane, alpha-methyl stryene, tertiary amine compounds, organotin compounds, 2-ethoxyethanolj carbon 

monoxide and methylene chloride were taken; these compounds were not 

detected at levels which exceeded either the NIOSH and AGGIH recommended 

limits or the OSHA standards. Exposure to noise in excess of established 

limits would not occur under routine conditions. 

This report was submitted in fulfillment of contract number 210-78-0081 by Enviro Control, Inc., under the sponsorship of the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health. 

i ii 

CONTENTS 

Abstract . . . 

Introduction 

Authority. 

Purpose and Need for Study Material Selection 

Site Selection 

Producers .... Urea Formaldehyde 

Polyurethane 

Applicators ... 

Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation 

I. Description of Facilities Surveyed 

II. 

I I I. 

A. Manufacturers 

B. Applicators 

Description of Survey Methods 

Procedures ........ . Limitations ...... . Sampling and Analytical Methods 

Evaluation Criteria ...... . 

Results and Discussion 

Formaldehyde .... Other Air Contaminants . Physical Agents 

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 

Conclusions .... Recormiendations 

v. S uTTTTI ar y • . • . 

V 

i ii 

. 1 

1 

1 

2 

12 

12 

13 

13 

14 

16 

17 

17 

25 

34 

34 

35 

35 

38 

41 

41 

44 

44 

46 

46 

49 

52 
CONTENTS (continued) 

Polyurethane Foam Insulation . . . 

I. Description of Facilities Surveyed 

A. Manufacturers . . . . B. Applicators . . . 

I I. Description of Survey Methods . Procedures . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . Sampling and Analytical Methods 

Evaluation Criteria . . 

III. Results and Discussion 

IV. 

V. 

MDI 

TOI 

Other 

Noise 

. . . . . . ,. . . . . . 

Contaminants . 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Conclusions •. 

Recommendations 

Surrrnary ..... , 

. . 

. . 

. 

. 

. . . . . . 

. 

. . . . . . . . . 

. 

. . . . . . 

. . . 

. 

. . 

. . . 

. . 

. . 

. 

. . 

. . . . 

53 

54 

54 

63 

68 

68 

69 

69 

71 

75 

75 

77 

77 

80 

81 

81 

82 

84 

Recommendations for Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 

References 

Appendixes 

Appendix 1. 

Appendix 2. 

. . . . 86 

93 

Calculation of Statistical Measures 

Urea Formaldehyde Thermal Insulation 

Polyurethane Thermal Insulation .... 

vi 

94 

98 

118 
CONTENTS (continued) 

FIGURE 

Figure 1. Urea Formaldehyde Foam Application System . , ....... 28 

Table 1. 

Table 2. 

Table 3. 

Table 4. 

Table 5. 

Table 6. 

Table 7. 

Table 8. 

Table 9. 

Table 10. 

Tab 1 e 11. 

Table 12. 

TABLES 

1977 Insulation Market Shares (dollar value) ......... 2 

Categorization of Thermal Insulation Materials . . . . 3 

Production of Plastic Foams Used as Thermal Insulation 

in the Interior Construction Market ........ . Urea Formaldehyde Component Producers ... . Polyurethane Component Producers .... . Urea Formaldehyde and Polyurethane 

Applicator Information ......... , ... . Personal Formaldehyde Concentration Ranges During the Performance of Selected Tasks in the 

Urea Formaldehyde Foam Thermal Insulation 

4 

.. 12a . 12a 

, r 15 

Manufacturing and Application Processes .....•.... 42 

Formaldehyde Concentration Ranges in Selected Areas 

During Manufacturing and Application Processes of 

Urea Formaldehyde Foam Thermal Insulation , ..••.... 

Employee's Exposure to MDI . . . . . . . . . . . .• 

Area Samples for MDI .........• , . , , . , Employee's Exposure to Fluorotrichloromethane , ... Employee's Exposure to Amine Compounds .... r • , •• 

vii 

43 

76 

76 

78 

79 

INTRODUCTION 

AUTHORITY 

The Williams-Steiger 11 0ccupational Safety and Health Act of 197011 was 

passed into law 11 to assure safe and healthful working conditions for 

working men and women .... 11 This Act established the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare (presently the Department of Health and Human 

Services) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 

the Department of Labor. The Act provides for research, informational 

programs, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and 

health and authorizes the enforcement of standards. 

NIOSH has been given the authority and responsibility under the Act to 

conduct field research studies in industry, evaluate findings, and report 

on these findings. Section 20(a)(l) of the Act mandates NIOSH to "conduct 

(directly or by grants or contracts) research, experiments, and demonstrations relating to occupational safety and health .... 11 Section 20(c) provides the authority to enter into contracts, agreements, or other arrangements with appropriate public agencies or private organizations for the 

purpose of conducting studies relating to responsibilities under the 

Act. For this purpose, NIOSH has established a contractual agreement with 

Enviro Control, Inc. (Enviro) to study worker exposures at eight urea 

formaldehyde and polyurethane foam insulation manufacturers and applicators. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR STUDY 

Members of the insulation trade have long been noted to experience excess 

mortality due to malignant and nonmalignant respiratory diseases (Fleisher 

1946, Marr 1964, Selikoff et al 1964, Keane et al 1966). Much of this 

observed disease has been attributed to exposures to asbestos fiber. 

However, the hazards associated with many of the other thermal insulation 

materials used remain unknown. With the great increase in the use of 

thermal insulation and the proliferation of insulation materials, there is 

need for a study to identify hazards associated with these materials. 

The purpose of this study is to determine the types and quantities of 

thermal insulation materials commonly used in the United States, the end 

use categories of these materials, and information regarding past worker 

1 
exposure data. In addition, current occupational exposure levels of 

workers engaged in the production and application of two co!TITlonly used 

thermal insulation materials have been determined by industrial hygiene 

surveys. 

MATERIAL SELECTION 

Insulation sales were shown, in an economic analysis performed by a major 

stock brokerage firm, to be distributed as presented in Table 1. 

TABLE 1. 1977 Insulation Market Shares (dollar value) 

Material Residential 

Insulation* 

Total 

Insulation 

Fi bro us Glass 

Mineral Wool 

Cellulose 

Foams, Other 

TOTAL 

68% 

12 

15 

5 

100% 

52% 

23 

10 

15 

100% 

* Residential insulation accounts for about 

65% of total insulation. 

To select the thermal insulation materials most appropriate for study 

within the resources available for this contract, the following selection 

criteria were applied to the more than two dozen materials currently being 

commonly used: 

, Number of potentially exposed workers , Present extent of use , Projections of future extent of use , Toxicity , Purity of material in use , Length of time material has been used , Availability of worker exposure data 

Based primarily on these factors, each material was placed in one of three 

categories as shown in Table 2. 

2 
TABLE 2. 

CATEGORIZATION OF THERMAL INSULATION MATERIALS 

A. Materials Most Appropriate for this Study 

Polyurethane 

Urea formaldehyde 

B. Materials Appropriate for Further Consideration 

Ca lei um si 1 icate 

Ce 11 ulose 

Cotton fiber 

Macerated paper Wood fiber 

Ceramic fiber 

Aluminum oxide, Al203 

Aluminum silicate, Al203-Si02 

Zirconium oxide, Zr02 

Diatomaceous earth 

Gypsum 

Isocyanurates 

Magnesium carbonate 

Perlite 

Polystyrene 

Vermiculite 

C. Materials Less Appropriate for this Study 

A 1 umi num foil 

Asbestos 

Carbon b 1 ack 

Carbon fibers 

Castable-ceramic insulating refractories 

Cork 

Cork-filled mastic 

Felt board 

Fibrous glass 

Foam glass Mineral fibers 

Polyester film 

Polyvinyl acetate 

Refractory brick 

Rubber and resin 

Silica aerogel 

Vinyl chloride foam 

3 
Category A Materials 

Polyurethane 

The consumption of plastic foams for building insulation has been growing 

at a rate between 10-15% annually. This consists primarily of polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, polystyrene, and urea formaldehyde foams. The 

Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI), 1978 Edition of Facts and 

Figures of the Plastics Industry provides extensive information on produc- tion for the various types of plastic foams used as thermal insulation. 

Plastics consumption in insulation is expected to increase more than 10% 

per year and by 1985, this end use will consume the largest volume of 

plastics. The following table compiled from SPI information shows general 

data for all types of plastics used as insulation in the interior construction market: 

TABLE 3. Production of Plastic Foams Used as Thermal Insulation 

in the Interior Construction Market 

Application 1972/1974 1980 1985 

Insulation* 257 500 840 

(in millions of pounds) 

*These figures do not specify the insulation application 

to be 11 thermal 11 insulation 

The diisocyanate addition polymerization used for the preparation of polyurethane was discovered in 1937. Since then the area of polyurethane 

chemistry and applications has continuously grown. Urethane foam has 

generally replaced polystyrene foam and fibrous glass the as thermal 

insulation material in such applications as refrigerated trucks, railroad 

cars, and cold rooms (1). These are insulated by pour-in-place or 

froth-in-place urethane systems. Foams are also power-sprayed on surfaces 

using a two-component spray gun. The isocyanate and polyol components are 

metered volumetrically to the gun head, where they are mixed and ejected 

as a fine spray. This process is particularly convenient for the applica- tion of insulation on roofs, ceiling, and walls, as well as such curved 

substrates as tanks and pipes. 

Between 1955 and 1972, the average growth rate of urethane foam was in 

excess of 20% per year. The thermal conductivity of a low-density 

urethane foam is lower than any of the commonly-used insulations now on 

the market. The growth potential of rigid polyurethane foam in the construction area is anticipated to be the highest among all the applications for urethanes, even though there have been significant problems associated 

with fire retardancy and toxic smoke generation. 

NIOSH estimated that production of polyurethane in 1974 was 1520 million 

pounds, with an estimated 1900 workers potentially exposed (2). The 

amount used as thermal insulation was not specified. 

4 
In a literature review performed in 1978 for this study, 45 manufacturers 

of rigid and foamed plastic insulations were identified. A typical company indicated that they had six persons engaged in supplying polyurethane 

foam products to about 100 installation contractors. They did not have an 

estimate of the average number of insulation workers per contractor. 

However, at least several hundred workers were potentially exposed to 

polyurethane foam components provided by just one distributor. Although 

there are several reports related to occupational exposure to isocyanates 

used in the production of polyurethane foam (3-9), no report was found 

identifying worker exposure to total polyurethane foam production systems; 

therefore, polyurethane was placed in Category A. 

A NIOSH Criteria Document (10) citing 156 references, summarizes the 

literature available on diisocyanates. Some worker exposure data associated with the manufacture of diisocyanates are given. Also, some data 

related to foaming operations are presented. However, the activities 

monitored were generally not identified as being associated with thermal 

insulation. Due to noted severe respiratory reactions associated with 

worker exposure to diisocyanates, NIOSH recommended an environmental limit 

of 5 ppb with a 10-minute ceiling of 20 ppb. Generation of data showing the exposure of thermal insulation workers relative to the NIOSH-recommended standard is desirable. In addition to potential exposure to 

isocyanates which have been shown to present significant toxic hazards, 

worker exposure to some of the halogen-containing blowing agents is appropriate to evaluate. Therefore, polyurethane foam systems were considered 

to be appropriate materials to select for this study. 

Urea Formaldehyde 

Urea formaldehyde foam is a thermosetting plastic composed of urea formaldehyde resin, air, and a foaming agent which contains an acid catalyst 

(11). Typically, urea formaldehyde resins are condensation products to 

which various additives are added to impart desired characteristics to the 

finished foam. The foam is generated either continuously or in batches. 

An aqueous detergent containing the acid catalyst is foamed up in a continuous stream or in a vessel, after which the urea formaldehyde resin is 

added. Once generated, it takes from 5 to 120 seconds.for the foam to 

set. During this time, it is fluid and can be injected into spaces such 

as hollow walls. The condensation and drying take from a day or two to a 

month or more, depending on ambient temerature, relative humidity, and 

permeability of the containing walls. 

Urea formaldehyde-based foam is one of the oldest of the cellular plastics, having been known since 1933. Although it has been corrunercially available in the United States since the 1950s, its use has been limited. 

However, with the increased necessity to conserve energy, the use of urea 

formaldehyde foam systems has grown. Its greatest use as thermal insulation has been for retrofitting residential wall cavities. It is used to a 

lesser extent as an insulation in commercial and industrial buildings for 

both new construction and retrofit, and in residential new construction 

(12). The 1978 production capabilities of the industry were 125-130 

million pounds per year, and the 1980 industry capacity was projected 

to be 450-500 million pounds per year (13). 

5 
The Consumer Products Safety Commission, Economic Analysis Division indicated that the 1977 consumption of urea formaldehyde insulation was 60 

million pounds. They also indicated that there are about 25 domestic 

manufacturers and 3000 to 5000 installers of urea formaldehyude insulation, based on information obtained by Battelle for a CPSC report, 11 Product/Industry Profile and Related Analysis on Formaldehyde. 11 

To provide additional information regarding the number of workers potentially exposed to urea formaldehyde materials some the largest manufacturers of urea formaldehyde foam were contacted. One manufacturer had 

about 25 persons engaged in the manufacture of urea formaldehyde foam. 

Another large manufacturer had 18 persons engaged in the manufacture of 

urea formaldehyde foam products which it shipped to 39 states. This manufacturer estimated that there were from 1500 to 2000 insulation workers 

engaged in the installation of its urea formaldehyde thermal insulation 

products. 

A NIOSH Criteria Document on formaldehyde (14), citing 222 references, 

summarized the literature available on formaldehyde as of 1976. No report of worker exposure to formaldehyde in urea formaldehyde foaming operations 

was identified, indicating that these exposures probably have not been 

very extensively documented. Also, in a study being conducted under the 

supervision of the Chemcial Industry Institute of Toxicology (15), nasal 

carcinomas have been diagnosed in rats exposed to formaldehyde. This 

information was not available when urea formaldehyde foam was selected for 

study. The NIOSH recommendation in the Criteria Document to lower the 

standard indicates that exposures to formaldehyde may pose a hazard to 

workers, thus demonstrating a need to determine whether worker exposures 

at urea formaldehyde foaming operations are within acceptable limits. 

Therefore, urea formaldehyde was placed in Category A, and urea formaldehyde foam systems were considered to be appropriate materials to select 

for this study. 

Category Band Category C Materials 

Generally, materials placed in Category B were those which may present 

some hazard to exposed workers, but which present only limited potential for worker exposure. Category C materials include both those considered 

to present only minimal hazards to exposed workers, and those which have 

already been extensively studied. To further study this latter group within the resources available for this study would result in only an 

incremental addition to a large body of existing information. 

Fibrous glass and mineral wool were placed in Category C largely due to 

the extensive amount of worker exposure information that has already been 

generated. Even though these materials are very widely used, indicating 

that there is a large number of potentilly exposed workers in both manufacturing and application, hazards to these workers have been evaluated in 

numerous studies. In a 1975 study (16), Dement presented the results of a 

NIOSH industrywide study of the fibrous glass industry. A NIOSH Criteria 

Document (17) citing 108 references summarizes the available literature. 

For control purposes, NIOSH uses a fiber diameter of 3.5 micrometers as 

the division between two categories of fibrous glass. However, on the 

basis of currently available information, NIOSH does not consider fibrous 

glass to be a substance that produces cancers as a result 

6 
of occupational exposure. Also, although this criteria document addresses 

occupational exposure to fibrous glass, NIOSH considers that, until more 

information is available, the recommended standard can also be applied to 

other man-made fibers. 

The Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association has funded several extensive industrial hygiene and epidemiology studies of man-made fibers. 

Industrial hygiene studies in 16 fibrous glass and mineral wool plants and 

in three ceramic fiber plants have just been completed. Corn reported 

exposure to mineral wool production workers. Several representative pertinent studies related to man-made fibers have been identified (18-32). 

An industrywide study (33) of occupational exposures to mineral wool is 

currently being prepared for publication by NIOSH. 

Predominant unanswered questions are not in the area of worker exposure, 

but are largely in the area of toxicology, which this study does not 

address. Therefore, even though additional worker exposure information in 

selected areas is desirable, fibrous glass and mineral wool were not considered to be the most appropriate materials to select ·for this study. 

Similarly, exposures to ceramic fibers have been recently studied (24, 27, 

28, 31), although not as extensively as fibrous glass. Also, ceramic 

fibers are used for limited high-temperature applications with considerably fewer potentially exposed workers than are associated with fibrous 

glass or mineral wool. Since less worker exposure information is available about ceramic fibers than fibrous glass or mineral wool, ceramic 

fibers were placed in Category B; however, due to the worker exposure 

information already available and the smaller number of potentially 

exposed workers, ceramic fibers were not considered to be the most appropriate materials to select for this study. 

Asbestos has been extensively studied (34-43). In December 1976, NIOSH 

published a thoroughly documented "Revised Recommended Asbestos Standard" 

(43). Stringent exposure standards for asbestos have resulted in the phas- ing out of asbestos for many thermal insulation applications. For these 

reasons, even though additional studies of some specific activities may be 

desirable, asbestos is not considered to be the most appropriate material 

to select for this study, and was accordingly placed in Category C. 

Ce 11 ul ose 

• cotton fiber , macerated paper , wood fiber 

Cellulose thermal insulation is made by converting used newsprint, other 

paper feedstock, cotton, or virgin wood to fiber form and incorporating 

various chemicals to provide flame retardancy. Typically used at a loading of about 20% by weight are borax, boric acid, and aluminum sulfate. 

In an economic impact analysis performed for the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC) (44), there were estimated to be about 540 cellulose 

insulation manufacturing facilities in operation in June 1978 and about 

7 
435 firms near the end of 1978. The data imply that there were about 3500 

workers engaged in the production of cellulose insulation. Several times 

that number are engaged in its installation. 

The Insulation Contractors Association of America estimated in 1978 that 

there were about 3,000 insulation contractors operating in the United 

States. No data were reported that revealed what percentage of the 

contractors installed cellulose insulation, but industry comments indicated that most of the contractors had installed or were installing the 

material. An average number of installers per contractor was not given, 

but a limited survey of contractors in the metropolitan Washington, DC 

area indicated that contractors commonly had from 20 to 50 workers. 

The cellulose insulation industry in 1978 was experiencing insufficient 

demand relative to industry capacity. The industry experienced steady 

growth in production from 1973 through 1976 and a surge in 1977. However, 

by January 1978 there had been a large increase in industry capacity followed closely by a sharp decrease in production. Cellulose insulation 

production decreased 66% from 1977 (1600 million pounds) to 1978 (550 million pounds). This decrease appeared to be related largely to an overall 

drop in demand for all major insulation materials in 1978. For instance, 

mineral wool demand decreased about 20%. Also, an estimated 30% fewer 

housing units were retrofitted with all types of insulation in 1978 

than in 1977. Cellulose insulation production during the next decade is 

estimated to decrease rapidly from the 1977 peak of 1600 million pounds to 

400 million pounds annually through the middle 1980s. 

The relatively large potentially exposed worker population and the lack of 

identified studies of worker exposure indicated that cellulose insulation 

was an appropriate material to study; therefore, cellulose was placed in 

Category B. However, the lack of identified significant health hazards 

associated with the substances to which cellulose thermal insulation pro- duction workers and applicators were potentially exposed indicated that 

cellulose was not the most appropriate material to select for this study. 

Isocyanurates are second-generation isocyanate-based foams which are chemically distinct from urethanes. As a result, they have different properties, the most significant being superior thermal stability and improved 

flammability characteristics. Urethanes are made by reaction of a polyol 

with an isocyanate, while isocyanurates are formed by catalytic cycliza- tion of three isocyanate molecular groups to a six-membered ring. 

Isocyanurates can be prepared using diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI) or 

more generally polymethylenepolyphenyl isocyanate (PMPPI). Suitable catalysts for effecting trimerization of PMPPI include amines (generally in 

combination with some other material), carboxylates, acids, and organometallic compounds. Recent important uses of polyisocyanurate foams have 

been in insulating conduits for superheated water and heated refinery 

storage tanks. Some isocyanurate foams also are used for building insulation. Major application areas for low-density, closed-cell insulating 

foam are construction, refrigeration, transportation, industrial storage tanks, and marine usage. Isocyanate components for production of either 

polyurethanes or polyisocyanurates are sometimes similar or the same; 

therefore, separate production figures for components used in isocyanurates were not available. However, at present polyurethanes are 

considerably more widely used than are isocyanurates. Even though worker 

8 
exposures to isocyanurate components are desirable to define, isocyanurate 

foam is not the most appropriate material to select for this study since 

many of the same components are used in polyurethane foams and since a 

considerably larger potentially exposed population is associated with 

polyurethane foams. 

Magnesium carbonate is a major constituent of magnesia which contains 

about 15% asbestos fiber. Magnesia was widely used in the chemical process industries and in commercial buildings in thermal insulation applica- tions such as those involving ovens, boilers, stills, steam lines, and 

pipe wrapping. The predominant hazard associated with magnesia was potential exposure of workers to asbestos fibers rather than to magnesium carbonate; therefore, magnesium carbonate was not considered to be the most 

appropriate material to select for this study. 

Carbon fibers were placed in Category C due to the very limited use of 

this material as thermal insulation in specialized high-temperature applications, indicating that few workers are potentially exposed to carbon 

fibers. Also, toxicologic information indicating particular hazards due 

to exposure 'to carbon fibers was not observed. Although not in the same 

form as carbon fibers, carbon black was the subject of a NIOSH criteria 

document (45) in which 86 references are cited summarizing the available 

literature. Although worker exposure data related to the use of carbon 

fibers and carbon black as thermal insulation may be desirable to generate, these materials are not considered to be the most appropriate selections for this study, due largely to the lack of identified hazards 

related to exposure and the limited worker population potentially exposed. 

There are several specialized industrial applications of thermal insulation materials and techniques in which generally a more closely controlled 

and a smaller exposed population are involved than are associated with 

residential insulation applications. Many of the materials are considered 

to be essentially inert. Also, toxicologic information defining the 

potential hazard to workers exposed to some insulation materials used in 

specialized applications is not available. For these reasons, each of 

these materials was placed in Category B or C, and applications rather 

than individual insulation types are discussed. 

Insulations used in the cryogenic temperature range fall within two 

types: vacuum and massive, the latter consisting of one or more solid 

phases distributed with a gas such as dry air to produce a very low thermal conductivity. Vacuum insulation systems, consisting typically of 

highly polished metal supporting walls with a vacuum space between them, 

sometimes with multiple metal reflective foils or opacified powders inside, are usually custom-designed and installed by the insulation 

vendors. Vacuum cryogenic insulation relies in part on vacuum between the 

walls, and in part on reflection of radiant heat. Coating the inside hot 

surface facing the evacuated area reduces heat transfer to a level proportional to the emissivity of the coating (0.01 for silver, for example). 

A thermal insulation technique referred to as the floating-shield approach 

takes advantage of the fact that thermal radiation can often be cut in 

half by floating a radiation shield between the cold and warm surfaces. 

Powders such as expanded perlite, silica aerogel, carbon black, calcium 

silicate, diatomaceous earth and fiber are used. The material is packed in before the air is pumped out. 

9 
Less costly than these evacuated forms are the foam-type insulations. 

Polyurethane and polystyrene in flexible sheets, foamed in place, or 

foamed in rigid insulation sections, initially showed great promise, but 

deterioration from permeation by water vapor and air has caused problems. 

Foamed glass stands up better to drying-out processes and is less perme- able. 

In the higher part of the low-temperature range, from about -200F to 

2120F, a variety of organic and inorganic massive insulations are used, 

sometimes in loose-fill form. These include: 

, Compressed and granulated cork , Sandwiched cellular glass and felt board , Glass fibers bonded with organic resins , Expanded and cellular forms of polystyrene , Polyurethane foams , Rubber and resin combinations , Vinyl chloride cellular foams , Wood fibers with suitable binders , Polyvinyl acetate 

• Cork-filled mastic , Expanded vermiculite and perlite 

1 Aluminum foil on paper 

Fibrous glass is the insulation most used for applications ranging from 

the temperature of chilled water up to 2120F. Lower temperature cryogenic systems generally employ either massive solid insulations or vacuum 

types. In the latter, highly polished metal supporting walls have a 

vacuum space, reflective foils, and various inorganic or organic materials 

coated with metals between them. 

The material applications described for use in the cryogenic temperature 

range and in the higher part of the low-temerature range are associated 

largely with the chemical process industries. Since systems using these 

materials are usually custom-designed and installed by the insulation 

vendors for limited applications, a much smaller and more closely supervised worker population is involved than is the case with materials generally used in the building trades. Of the materials identified for these 

low-temperature applications, several are considered to present minimal 

hazards to the health of workers or to involve very specialized applica- tions when these materials are used as thermal insulation materials: 

, Aluminum foil , Calcium silicate , Cork , Cork-filled mastic , Diatomaceous earth , Felt board 

1 Foam (cellular) glass 

, Perlite , Polystyrene , Polyvinyl acetate , Rubber and resin , Silica aerogel , Vermiculite 

1 Vinyl chloride foam 

Due largely to limited potentially exposed worker populations or minimal 

health hazards associated with the materials, these materials were not 

considered to be the most appropriate to select for this study. 

10 
Polyester film is used in some limited, very specialized applications, 

particularly in the low-temperature thermal insulation area. A multilayer series of reflective shields consists of a number of aluminum-coated 

layers of polyester film, crinkled to reduce heat transfer by conduction 

from layer to layer. This withstands high acceleration loads without loss 

of insulating effectiveness. Since significant health hazards have not 

been identified with this use of polyester film and since the very limited 

usage indicates a very limited potentially exposed worker population, polyester film is not the most appropriate material to select for this 

study. 

Many of the materials used as thermal insulation in the cryogenic range 

are also utilized in the hjgh-temperature range. Major materials in the 

high-temperature range are (listed in ascending order of temperature 

resistance): 

• Mineral fiber: 1000 to 19QOOF 

• Calcium silicate: 1200 to 20000F 

• Multiple-metal-foil systems for vacuum applications: to 25000F 

• Ceramic fibers based on the Al203-Si02 systems: 1600 to 

26000F 

• Castable-ceramic insulating refractories: 2000 to 30QOOF 

• Oxide fibers, primarily Al203 or Zr02: 2800 to 30QOOF 

• Rigid ceramic insulating brick: 2000 to 3200°F 

• Carbon fibers: to 36QOOF 

The refractory materials, castable-ceramic insulating refractories, and 

rigid ceramic insulating brick, have long been associated with silicosis 

hazards, both among workers engaged in the manufacture of refractory brick 

and among workers such as bricklayers installing these materials. Particularly, several years ago, significant hazards were associated with activities such as the removal of firebrick linings in open-hearth furnaces and 

in relining these furnaces with new refractory brick. Free silica exposures have been identified and at present are largely controlled through 

combinations of specific removal and replacement techniques and through 

the use of personal protective equipment. These materials are generally 

used in large organizations such as steel companies that have medical and 

industrial hygiene surveillance programs. Although additional worker 

exposure data may be desirable, these ceramic refractory materials are not 

considered to be the most appropriate selections for this study. 

Gypsum boards are used largely for roof deck applications. Although widely used for many years in both residential and commercial construction, 

health hazards associated with the use of this material have not been 

identified; therefore, gypsum is not considered to be the most appropriate 

material to select for this study. 

Rationale for Selection of Materials 

Considering the increasing use of polyurethane and urea formaldehyde 

foams, the severe respiratory reaction associated with worker exposure to 

diisocyanates, as well as the increasing use of and the recent information 

regarding possible carcinogenic effects of exposure to formaldehyde, selection of polyurethane and urea formaldehyde foam thermal insulation 

systems for study is appropriate and timely. 

11 
SITE SELECTION 

Two manufacturers and two applicators of urea formaldehyde foam insulation 

systems and two manufacturers and two applicators of polyurethane foam 

insulation systems were selected for study. Two sets were selected for 

each material, each set consisting of a manufacturer and an applicator of 

that manufacturer 1 s materials. This concept as well as several additional 

factors were considered in selecting for study manufacturers and applicators of the two foam insulation systems. Although not necessarily of 

equal weight in the selection process, the additional criteria considered 

in the selection of the eight facilities for study included: 

1 Representativeness of the facility to the industry 

1 Number of potentially exposed workers 

t Turnover rate 

1 Use of engineering controls 

• History of production 

• Whether potential exposure is mixed with other 

exposures 

• Availability of data regarding past exposure 

levels and work practices 

Also, where selection using these criteria resulted in nearly equally 

acceptable choices, consideration was given to the producer marketing over 

the wider geographic area. 

The literature review performed for this study provided major listings of 

producers and applicators. Contact with trade associations identified in 

the literature search provided additional specific information regarding 

producers and applicators of polyurethane and urea formaldehyde thermal 

insulation. Also of particular assistance were the Urethane Foam Contractors Association and the National Association of Urea Foam Insulation Manufacturers. The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., provided a list 

of their Urethane Division Membership. In addition, literature sources 

such as the Thomas Register's Thomcat Directory and the SRI Directory of 

Chemical Producers were searched relative to identifying producers of 

polyurethane and urea formaldehyde thermal insulation materials. 

PRODUCERS 

Information necessary to apply the selection criteria to producers was 

obtained in 1979 by telephone conversations with appropriate company 

representatives. This information is summarized in Tables 4 and 5. Since 

urea formaldehyde and polyurethane are completely separate materials pro- duced by different companies, appropriate additional information relative 

to the producers is discussed separately. 

12 
TABLE 4. Urea Formaldehyde Component Producers 

YEARS NUMBER AVERAGE OTHER EXPOSURE REPRESEN- FACILITY OF OF YEARS OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING & WORK TAT I VENESS CONTROLS PRACTICE PRODUCTION WORKERS EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES DATA TO INDUSTRY 

1 2 6 No Yes No Small 

2 (No manufacturing; distribution only) 

3 (No UF thermal insulation products) 

4 (Has withdrawn from UF market) 

5 8 1 8 No Yes No Average 

6 (Information only through NAUFIM) 

7(Bt 6 3 5 No Yes No Typical 

8 (UF foam equipment manufacturer; UF distributor) 

9 (Wholesale distributor) 

10 (No. manufacturing; distributor only) 

11 1 2 1 No Yes No Typical 

12(A)a 4 3 Yes No Typical 

13 1 2 l No No No Similar 

14 8 l Yes Modern 

15 {No UF ,thermal i

1

nsu l ati on ma,nufactur1 ng} 

aFac1lity selected for study 

TABLE 5. Polyurethane Component Producers 

YEARS NUMBER AVERAGE OTHER EXPOSURE REPRESEN- ENGINEERING & WORK FACILITY OF OF YEARS OF CHEMICAL CONTROLS PRACTICE TATIVENESS 

PRODUCTION WORKERS EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES DATA TO INDUSTRY 

l {No polrurethane1 

thermal insulation prod~cts) 

2 {Compounds and sells to applicators in North Carolina) 

3 10 8 Sa No Yes Yes Typical 

4(C)b 17 8 s1 No Yes Yes Clean 

s (Only supplies raw materials) 

6 {No thermal insulation; only flexible foam) 

7 4 6 Yes Yes Yes Better 

8 20 {Not if home insulation market) 

9 {Only supplies raw materials) 

10 11 4 2 Yes Yes Yes Typical 

11 12 6 Sa No 

12 {For fn1

dustrial 1appl ications only) 

13 9 {For heated storage & reroofing only) 

14 {Supplies some amines & blowing agents) 

15 7 6 Yes No 

16 10 14 s1 Yes Yes No Typical 

17 8 12 4 Yes Yes Yes Typical 

18 8 8 s1 Yes Yes Yes 

19 14 15 s No Yes Yes 

20 8 3 8 No 

2l{D)b 25 8 15 No Yes Yes 

astable 

bFacility selected for study 

12a 
UREA FORMALDEHYDE 

The surrrnary of information obtained from contacts with urea formaldehyde 

component producers, as presented in Table 4, identifies three producers with at least three workers directly associated with the production of 

urea formaldehyde two-component systems. Facility Number 1 is a significant producer of urea formaldehyde (UF) materials, marketing largely in 

the midwest. Although it meets the selection criteria, study of a pro- ducer of a more widely distributed product was desirable. 

The largest producers of urea formaldehyde systems for foam applications 

are, according to various industry statements, Facility Numbers 7 and 12. 

Each of these producers meets the selection criteria and was considered to 

be appropriate to select for this study. Facility Number 7 is Producer B 

and Facility Number 12 is Producer A in this study. 

POLYURETHANE 

The surrrnary of information obtained from contacts with polyurethane component producers, as presented in Table 5, identifies seven producers with 

at least six workers directly associated with the production of poly- urethane two-component systems. Facility Number 3 is a significant pro- ducer, marketing in the midwest and south. It is more suitable to select 

a producer marketing over a larger geographic area if all other selection 

factors are similar. Facility Number 4 is a major producer of polyurethane systems, with nationwide product distribution. It produces only 

materials related to polyurethane systems in the polyurethane production 

areas. Since the other selection criteria also were met and since it i~ 

among the largest polyurethane systems producers, Facility Number 4 

(Producer C) was selected for this study. 

Facility Number 7 has been in business for 4 years, considerably less than 

the 17 years of Facility Number 4. Facility Number 7 is a significant manufacturer, marketing mainly in the west. Due largely to the fewer 

persons engaged in the production of polyurethane systems and to the 

limited marketing areas, Facility Number 7 was not considered to be the 

most appropriate facility to select for this study, although it was an 

acceptable alternate selection. 

Facility Number 11 is a significant producer marketing in the southeast. 

Little detailed information was provided. Due primarily to the lack of 

exposure and work practice information, this facility was not considered 

to be the most appropriate to select for this study. 

Facility Numbers 15, 16, 17, and 18 are major manufacturers of polyols as 

well as major formulators of polyurethane systems. The predominant reason 

for not selecting any of these facilities as being most appropriate for 

this study was the mixed exposures due to the production of other resins 

and adhesives by the workers associated with the production of the polyurethane systems. 

13 
Facility Number 19 is a major manufacturer of isocyanates and polyols. It 

also manufactures rigid foamed polyurethane products. However, it does 

not make systems sold to applicators or distributors. Therefore, this 

facility was not considered to be the most appropriate to select for this 

study. 

Facility Number 21 is a major producer of polyurethane foam systems, with 

a production history of about 25 years. About half of the workers in the 

polyurethane area have been employed in this area for more than 15 years. Since this facility was used for the production of polyurethane systems 

for 25 years, the workers were not engaged in other chemical activities, 

and since the other selection criteria were met, this facility (Producer 

D) was selected for this study. 

APPLICATORS 

In selecting applicators for either polyurethane or ufea formaldehyde 

systems, some producers identified applicators of their products in the 

Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Additionally, these names were aug- mented with applicators identified in area telephone directories. For 

example, about 20 applicators advertising the application of either poly- urethane or urea formaldehyde were listed in the DC Yellow Pages. 

There appears to be little consistent training associated with the application of polyurethane foam. Therefore, most applicators of polyurethane 

foams were found to switch from supplier to supplier rather than always to 

use the same brand. 

Conversely, for the application of urea formaldehyde foam, the applicator 

received, as a minimum, 40 hours of training at the producer's facility. 

These applicators were certified by the producer as meeting certain pro- ficiency requirements, and used that producer's urea formaldehyde foam 

products exclusively, although they also applied other types of thermal 

insulation materials. 

Applicators selected were those organizations which had at least three 

employees who were engaged nearly full time in the application of the 

types of foam of interest. For polyurethane foam, the applicators selected frequently apply the specific producer's material. For urea formaldehyde foam, each applicator exclusively applied the material of the producer identified with the applicator. Information regarding the selected 

applicators is presented in Table 6: 

14 
TABLE 6 

Urea Formaldehyde and Polyurethane Applicator Information 

Urea Formaldehyde 

Applicator A 

• Two years applying foam 

• Fifteen applicators 

• Only apply Producer A's 

UF foam materials 

Applicator B 

• One year applying foam 

• Four applicators 

• Only apply Produder B's 

UF foam materials 

Polyurethane 

Applicator C 

• Four years applying foam 

• Three applicators 

• Apply Producer C's and other 

producer's polyurethane 

materials 

Applicator D 

15 

• Twelve years applying foam 

• Ten applicators 

• Apply Producer D's and other 

producer's polyurethane 

materials 
U~EA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSU~ATION 

16 
I. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES SURVEYED 

A. MANUFACTURERS 

Plant Description and History 

• Manufacturer A 

This manufacturer's plant is a one-story, free-standing steel structure 

with approximately 14,000 square feet of space. Except for the office 

area, the ceiling height is 16 feet at the eaves and 18 feet at the peak. 

Manufacturer A has occupied this facility for about~ years. The urea 

formaldehyde foam insulation system has been the only product manufactureq. 

The building is divided into five basic sections: offices, quality 

control laboratory, parts room, application test area, and production 

area. Viscosity and pH determinations on batch samples are performed in 

the quality control lab. During the survey, the lab was not utilized. 

The parts room is used for equipment storage and as a repair area for 

production and application equipment. Urea formaldehyde foam insulation 

is applied to the prefabricated wall cavities in the application test 

area. The production area, approximately 12,000 square feet, contains a 

reaction vessel, storage and blending tanks, container-filling equipment, 

drum-washing equipment, and storage space for raw materials and finished 

goods. 

• Manufacturer B 

This manufacturer occupies space in two adjacent buildings. Included are 

a foam manufacturing area, a storage and baling area for newspapers to be 

used in cellulose insulation production at another company facility, a 

training area where installers are instructed in the application of the 

foam insulation, a workshop where application guns and pumps are 

assembled, an office area, and a laboratory. The form manufacturing area 

is divided into two sections: an area approximately 25 feet by 27 feet 

with a 20-foot ceiling where the reaction vessel is located; and an area 

approximately 50 feet by 37 feet with a 14-foot ceiling where the foaming 

agent mixing tank is located, and finished product, raw materials and 

empty drums are stored. 

17 
Manufacturer B has been manufacturing a urea formaldehyde-based thermal 

insulation system since 1972. From 1972 until 1974, the company made the 

product with urea and formaldehyde. In 1974, the company began using methylolurea in place of formaldehyde; however, test batches using 

methylolurea were made prior to 1974 in a 30-gallon reactor. 

Description of Operations and Existing Controls 

The Urea. Formaldehyde Foam Insulation System 

Manufacturing Process 

A two-component urea formaldehyde foam insulation system, consisting of a 

resin and a foaming agent, is made at each of these facilities. The 

manufacturing process and the chemical components of the urea 

formaldehyde-based system at Manufacturer B have recently been patented; however, the patent number is not yet available. 

• Manufacturer A 

Two batches of urea formaldehyde resin are made daily in a 1500-gallon 

rectangular stainless steel reactor. The bottom of the reactor is heated 

directly with open propane gas burners. The reactor is vented through a 

stack equipped with a double-reflux condenser at its base. There is a 

small rectangular access door on the top side of the reactor for batch 

sampling. Formalin (37 percent formaldehyde in water inhibited with a 

maximum of 1 percent methanol) is piped directly to the reactor from a 

large storage tank located in the west end of the production area. The pH 

of the formalin is then adjusted with sodium hydroxide. Simultaneously, 

prilled urea is augered into a cylindrical stainless steel kettle and 

dissolved in warm water. This vessel, known as the addition tank, is also 

gas-heated and is located near the reactor. Water and aqueous ammonia are 

added to the reactor and the pH of the solution is adjusted with sodium 

hydroxide. The reaction proceeds until a predetermined degree of 

condensation has been reached; at that time, the urea solution is pumped 

from the addition tank into the reactor. After an additional required degree of condensation has been reached, the pH of the resin is adjusted 

with sodium hydroxide and the resin allowed to cool. When the resin has 

cooled to a specified temperature, a fire retardant, an anti-shrinking 

agent and a humectant are added; these are proprietary materials. In 

addition, a cross-linking agent (furfuryl alcohol) is added. The batch of 

resin is then piped from the reactor into a 2000-gallon holding tank. A 

hose attached to the holding tank is used to convey the resin from the 

tank into 55-gallon plastic drums. The drums are either filled with the 

lid off or, more frequently, through the lid opening. 

The foaming agent, or 11 811 component, is blended in the southwest section 

of the production area. The main ingredient is a proprietary blend of 

"cross-linking and emulsifying agents" purchased by the company; it is 

received in large plastic drums and pumped into a 2000-gallon tank. 

Proprietary hardeners, a proprietary catalyst, and water are added and 

blended to form the foaming agent 11 concentrate 11 • The foaming agent is 

dispensed through a hose into 55-gallon drums and through a spigot into 

5-gallon plastic pails. One of the hardeners is added directly to the 

5-gallon pails. 

18 
1 Manufacturer B 

Batches of resin are made in a 2750-gallon reactor. The production 

schedule varies with demand for the product from the installers, ranging 

from two to ten batches per week. The reactor, which is heated and cooled 

by piping water through a system of coils, vents through a reflux 

condensor. The reactor is charged with base materials consisting of a 

methylolurea prepolymer, small amounts of acetaldehyde, urea, and phenol in an aqueous solution. The base materials are piped directly to the 

reactor from storage tanks in the production area. Small amounts of 

phenol and prilled urea are added to adjust the composition of the 

reaction mixture and the mixture is heated with constant agitation. 

Formic acid solution is added and the reaction proceeds until the proper 

degree of condensation is reached. The reaction is stopped with sodium 

hydroxide and cooled, and additives including fructose and urea solution 

are introduced. The finished resin is piped through a hose from the 

bottom of the reactor into 55-gallon metal drums. The drums are filled 

through the lid openings. 

The foaming agent is manufactured in batches of approximately 2300 

gallons. Generally, one batch of foaming agent is made for each batch of 

resin produced. Foaming agent is manufactured by mixing a sulfonic acid 

emulsifier containing small amounts of sulfuric acid, and oxalic or 

phosphoric acid with water. The emulsifier is a proprietary compound 

purchased by Manufacturer B, and the use of oxalic or phosphoric acid is 

determined by the ambient temperature at the location where the product 

will be applied. Mixing continues at room temperature for approximately 6 

hours, after which the foaming agent is transferred to 55-gallon drums. 

Description of Worker Activity, Occupationa l Titl es, 

and Job Descriptions 

Operations at both manufacturing facilities were limited to the day 

shift. Work days were Monday through Friday; however, Manufacturer B1 s 

facility may not produce foam on all 5 days. The number of employees 

involved in production was small--seven employees were involved in 

production at Manufacturer A while three were involved in production at 

Manufacturer B. These numbers of employees are representative of the 

industry. 

Job classifications have been identified which have a potential for 

chemical or physical agent exposure during the manufacturing process of 

the urea formaldehyde foam insulation systems. These job classifications 

have been divided into two general categories on the basis of the types of 

duties that are performed: 

1 Resin Batchmakers (Cook and Research and Development 

Chemist) are involved in preparing batches of resin and 

monitoring the resin reaction. 

1 Production Assistants include those employees who assist in 

resin production, blend the foaming agent, handle and store 

material, and perform other duties as required. 

19 
A description of the duties of these job classifications is presented 

below. 

Resin Batchmakers 

1 Cook (Manufacturer A) 

The Cook has the major responsibility for the production of 

a satisfactory batch of urea formaldehyde resin. His 

duties include: adding raw materials to the reactor, 

monitoring the reaction, and collecting samples. The Cook 

also performs quality control tests such as pH, 

temperature, degree of condensation, and viscosity 

determinations. Normally there are two Cooks; each makes 

one batch of resin during the day. While not making a 

~atch of resin, the Cook performs other duties such as 

operating the forklift, assisting in filling containers 

with foaming agent, and washing drums. 

1 Research and Development Chemist (Manufacturer B) 

The Research and Development Chemist is primarily 

responsible for production of the resin component of the 

foam system. His duties include: making additions to the 

reaction mixture, monitoring the progress of the reaction, 

collecting samples and performing tests to determine the 

end point of the reaction, and terminating the reaction. 

During the survey period, the Chemist typically spent 

approximately 2 hours per day in the vicinity of the 

reaction vessel. The Chemist also has overall 

responsibility for the formulation of the foaming agent, 

although the foaming agent production is generally 

performed by the Laborer. The Chemist performs a variety 

of other functions in the company, including research and 

development on foam insulation systems. 

Produttion Assistants 

1 Floorworkers (Manufacturer A) 

The Floorworkers at Manufacturer A were broken down into 

three distinct job classifications as follows: 

Cook's Assistant--

The employee's duties include: collecting drummed and 

bagged raw material for resin manufacturing; assisting 

in adding raw materials to the addition tank; setting 

up empty resin drums for filling; labeling resin drums 

and lids; and filling the resin drums. There are two 

Cook's Assistants; each normally performs the duties 

described during the production of one batch only. 

20 
Other duties performed include: forklift operation, 

assisting the drum filler by placing lids on the drums, 

filling orders for application equipment, and repairing 

application and production equipment. 

Foaming Agent B~ender--

There is one Foaming Agent Blender. This individual is 

responsible for blending and drumming the foaming 

agent. the raw foaming agent is p~mped from plastic 

drums into a blending tank. The Blender then adds 

small amounts of hardeners and a catalyst. When 

blending is complete, the Blender fills containers with 

the foaming agent. 

The foaming agent is blended about once a week. When 

not blending or drumming the foaming agent, this 

employee may operate the forklift, scrape labels off 

lids, or perform other duties as required. 

Drum Washer--

The plastic resin drum is a reusable item that is 

returned to the plant for cleaning. There is one 

full-time Drum Washer. There is also a part-time Drum 

Washer who works from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

The Drum Washer removes the lids from the returned 

drums and dumps the small amount of resin that remains 

into a trench. The washer then sprays the drums with 

high-pressure hot water. The water is heated in a 

kerosene-fired, portable steam and hot water 

generator. The used plastic lids are placed in a 

kettle of warm water which is located near the 

reactor. After soaking for a period of time, the Drum 

Washer removes the lids and scrapes the labels off with 

a knife. The Drum Washer spends about 10 minutes per 

day removing labels. 

, Laborer (Manufacturer B) 

The Laborer's duties include metering ingredients into the 

reaction vessel, making certain additions to the reaction 

mixture, druITDTiing the finished resin, mixing and drumming 

the foaming agent, and performing general cleanup 

activities. 

, Plant Foreman (Manufacturer B) 

The Plant Foreman is primarly involved in shipping and 

receiving, and in general mechanical work in the plant. He 

assists in the production of the foaming agent, and 

operates the forklift to move finished drums of resin and 

catalyst to the shipping area. With the exception of 

shipping and receiving, this emp1oyee does not supervi~e foam manufacturing activities. 

21 
In order to produce two batches of resin in a day at Manufacturer A1 s 

facility, an operating period of about 11 hours is necessary. A Cook 

arrives about 6:15 a.m. to start the first batch. About 7:00 a.m., one 

Assistant arrives. The other production workers, with the exception of a 

part-time Drum Washer, arrive at 8:00 a.m. The workday ends at 5:00 p.m. for those arriving at 8:00 a.m. The early Cook and Assistant do not 

necessarily leave after 9 hours. They may stay until drums have been 

filled with the second batch of resin, which could be as late as 5:00 

p.m. The only formal break is lunch, which lasts for about 45 minutes. 

Other breaks are informal and do not necessarily involve leaving the work 

area. 

Under production conditions when one batch of resin is produced per day at 

Manufacturer 81 s facility, the Laborer arrives about 6:00 a.m. to begin 

the day 1

s production run. The Plant Foreman also arrives early in the 

morning and may be involved in the preparations of resin and foaming agent 

production. The Research and Development Chemist arrives about 8:00 a.m. 

and takes charge of the resin production run. Typically, the production 

of a batch of resin and foaming agent is completed by about 3:00 p.m. 

There are no formal breaks during the workday, with the exception of lunch 

which the workers usually eat in the office area of the plant. Due to the 

small number of workers involved in the production process, the work 

schedule is very flexible and the employees generally identify and perform 

tasks which need to be done with a minimum of supervision. 

Exposure Control Measures 

, Manufacturer A 

Respirators, hearing protectors, gloves, safety glasses, goggle~, and 

rubber boots and aprons are provided for employee use. There is a company 

policy that all employees working with raw materials wear safety glasses 

and gloves. During the survey the Cook wore safety glasses and gloves; the Drum Washer wore rubber boots and a rubber apron; and the Foaming 

Agent Blender wore rubber gloves and goggles. An eyewash and shower are 

located near the foaming agent area. 

A lunchroom is available for employee use. Handwashing is required prior 

to eating. There are no restrictions on smoking in the production area. 

Respirators were not used during the survey. A Welsch 7500-30 facepiece with 7500-1 cartridges and 7500-6 filters (NIOSH certification number 

TC-23C-73) had been used in the past when handling one of the hardeners 

that caused irritation. This respirator is certified for protection 

against not more than 1000 ppm organic vapors~ dusts and mists having a 

time-weighted average not less than 0.05 mg/m or 2 mppcf, and 

asbestos-containing dusts and mists. Recently, the company replaced that 

hardener with one of a coarser grade which, when handled, does not 

generate dust in irritating levels. 3M 8500 disposable respirators are 

also available. They were also used when handling the irritating hardener. The 3M 8500 respirator is not NIOSH certified. About once a 

year, the formalin storage tank is entered for cleaning. The tank is not 

purged prior to entry. A Willson Model 1860 full-facepiece air line 

respirator (NIOSH certification number TC-19C-94) is used by the employee 

22 
entering the tank. The employee is lowered into, and hoisted from, the 

tank by means of block and tackle . The hoisting and lowering apparatus 

are homemade. There is a standby employee who also wears the same type of 

respiratory device. The company does not have a respiratory protection 

program, and neither qualitative nor quantitative fit testing has been 

performed. 

Only natural and some general mechanical ventilation exist in the plant. 

Open loading dock and entrance/exit doors serve as portals for natural 

ventilation. There are two 48-inch exhaust propeller fans on the west 

wall in the production area, one of which is located above the 

labaoratory. These fans each exhaust 22,700 cfm. A portable 48-inch-diameter propeller fan is available to move air in the 

drum-washing area. During a visit in August, the fan was located about 25 

feet from the Drum Washer. Air velocity in the drum-washing area was 

150-300 fpm. The fan was not in use during a visit in September. There 

is a 19-inch propeller fan on a table in the reactor area and a 27-inch 

propeller fan on a pedestal in the drum-filling area. These fans are used 

when the Cook and Cook's Assistant feel they are needed. Ventilation 

methods in the past were similar to those in existence today (i.e., wall 

exhaust and portable fans). 

Some improvements in hygiene have been made since production began. The 

lunchroom was provided for employee use about one year ago. Prior to that 

time, employees ate in the production area. Mandatory handwashing prior 

to eating became a company policy about the time that the lunchroom was 

provided. 

1 Manufacturer B 

Respirators, boots, chemical goggles, and full faceshields are provided by 

the company. The use of these protective devices is at the discretion of 

each employee. During the survey, the Chemist and the Plant Foreman did 

not wear protective equipment. The Laborer wore gloves and rubber boots 

during the drumming and cleanup operations. 

Ventilation in the area of the reactor is provided by a 24-inch propeller 

fan which moves air from the top of the reaction vessel above the 

operator's position, and exhausts through the plant roof. Mechanical 

ventilation is not used in other production areas. The mixing and 

drumming of foaming agent are performed near a large overhead door which 

is kept open, providing natural ventilation through the area. Ventilation 

in the past was not significantly different from that in use today. 

Respirators were not used during the period of the survey. Norton halfmask, Model 7100, respirators were available. These respirators are NIOSH 

approved for dusts and mists (approval number TC-21C-175). 

The reaction vessel is cleaned approximately every six months. Prior to 

cleaning, the tank is flushed several times with water, then the tank is 

entered by two workers who remove hardened resin from the interior 

surfaces by manually chipping and flushing the surface with running 

water. Respiratory protection is not used during the cleaning process. The storage tanks and the foaming agent mixing tank have not yet required 

cleaning during their period of use. 

23 
Medical, Industrial Hygiene, and Safety Programs 

, Manufacturer A 

Standard first aid supplies are available at the plant. One nonproduction 

employee has been trained in first aid by the local rescue squad. Physical examinations are not provided for employees engaged in the urea 

formaldehyde foam insulation manufacturing process. Medical treatment is 

provided at a local hospital, which is located about seven miles from the 

plant. 

Approximately every two months, the plant manager measures concentrations 

of formaldehyde in air in the production and office areas with Draeger 

0.002 and 0.5/a formaldehyde detector tubes. No written records of 

formaldehyde levels, sampling conditions, or measurement locations are 

maintained. The levels were described as being below the OSHA standards. 

The detector tube surveys have been conducted since production began. There has never been a comprehensive industrial hygiene survey conducted 

at this facility. 

There is no formal safety and health program. The general practice is to 

follow the procedures recommended by the vendors of the raw materials. 

, Manufacturer B 

Two employees are trained in first aid and first aid supplies are 

available at the plant. Emergencies requiring medical attention would be 

treated at the emergency room of a hospital approximately two minutes 

driving time from the pl ant. The plant does not maintain a formal medical 

program. 

Industrial hygiene measurements, consisting of airborne formaldehyde 

determinations using detector tubes, have been made by the Research and 

Development Chemist. The company does not maintain a formal industrial 

hygiene program, and a comprehensive industrial hygiene survey has never 

been performed at the plant. 

The company's safety program is generally based upon the supplier's 

recorrmendations for safe handling and use of the compounds used as raw 

material in the manufacturing process. 

24 
B. APPLICATORS 

Plant Description and History 

• Applicator A 

Applicator A is an applicator of thermal insulation for the residential 

and commercial market. The company has been in business since January 

1978. 

The company applies the following types of thermal insulation: 

• urea formaldehyde foam 

• rigid polyurethane foam 

• fiberglass batting and mats , cotton 

Applicator A has been applying Manufacturer A's second generation urea 

formaldehyde foam insulation since November 1978. Prior to that time, the 

company applied Manufacturer A's original urea formaldehyde foam. Other 

.urea formaldehyde foams have been used, but only on a trial basis. The 

company began insulating attics with cotton fiber in about March 1979. 

Prior to that time, other cellulose was used. Fiberglass has been used by 

Applicator A as an insulation material since the company began operations 

in 1978. Polyurethane applications began in May 1979. 

About 60-70% of the applications involve urea formaldehyde foam. This is 

injected into the building's wall cavity in a semisolid state. 

Application to an existing structure is known as a retrofit. About 85% of 

the urea formaldehyde foam applications are made to existing structures 

from the exterior; about 5% of the applications are made to existing 

structures from the interior. About 10% of the applications involve urea 

formaldehyde foam application between the studs of a building under 

construction. This is known as open-bay application. 

, Applicator B 

Applicator Bis a family owned and operated applicator of thermal 

insulation, specializing in the residential market. The company has been 

in business since June 16, 1978. The company maintains an office in the 

home of the president and also maintains a small warehouse in another 

location. 

Applicator B applies urea formaldehyde foam and cellulose insulation. 

Manufacturer B's urea formaldehyde-based foam is, and has been, the only 

urea formaldehyde foam applied. The company has been blowing and spraying 

cellulose for about 1 year. 

About 90% of the applications involve .urea formaldehyde foam. About 90% 

of the urea formaldehyde applications are made from the outside of the 

structure and involve retrofitting. The other 10% are made from the 

inside. Some of the inside application involves open-bay insulating. 

25 
Description of Operations and Existing Controls 

The Urea, Formaldehyde Foam Insulation System 

Application Process 

, Applicator A 

Exterior Retrofit Applications 

Manufacturer A's foaming agent is received in 5-gallon plastic pails (2.5 

gallons per pail) and the resin in 55-gallon plastic drums. Prior to use, 

the foaming agent is diluted with water to 55 gallons. The resin and 

foaming agent are stored in the warehouse along with other insulation 

materials, mortar mix, and application equipment. The warehouse is a 

one-story, 2500-square foot structure situated adjacent to the office. It 

also serves as a vehicle storage garage and as a location for rebuilding 

application equipment. Application equipment is rebuilt as time permits. 

Applicator A has three urea formaldehyde foam application crews. The urea 

formaldehyde foam application 'crew usually consists of five 

individuals--one Foam Mechanic and four Laborers. The Foam Mechanics are 

certified applicators of Manufacturer A's urea formaldehyde foam. 

Certification is awarded by Manufacturer A after a 1-week foam application training course. The crew members arrive at the office at 7:00 a.m. Job 

sites are designated by the production manager. The crews leave the 

warehouse area between 7:15 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. in three 12-foot step 

vans. There is a partition between the front and back sections of one of 

the vans. The vans are stocked with the necessary supplies and equipment 

on the preceding evening. Upon arriving at the job site, a determination 

is made of the appropriate method for gaining access to the wall cavity, 

which is generally referred to as "opening" the structure. Masonry is 

drilled, aluminum siding and shingles are removed, and weatherboard is 

knocked through with a hammer. The holes are made between studs and 

fire-stops. The resulting openings are relatively small--3/4 inch in 

masonry and 2-3 inches in weatherboard. The building is opened by the 

four Laborers and, when he is not performing other duties, by the Foam 

Mechanic. 

While the building is being opened, the Foam Mechanic cleans the 

application gun and hose, and starts circulating resin and foaming agent. 

The resin and foaming agent circulate from storage drums through plastic 

tubing and a pump and back into the drums. This is done to assure a 

uniform product. Application equipment components downstream of the 

foaming chamber usually cake with dried foam. The components are 

disassembled with a wrench and cleaned with hot water and a rag or by 

scraping with a tool such as a screwdriver. Some Foam Mechanics choose to 

clean their equipment in the afternoon, following completion of foam 

application for the day. 

Foaming begins after the structure has been opened to a point where foam 

application can proceed without interruption, the application equipment 

has been cleaned and reassembled, and the resin and foaming agent have 

26 
been properly circulated. Before the foam is applied, a density 

determination is made. This is accomplished by filling a standard volume 

with foam and weighing. Resin, foaming agent, or nitrogen adjustments are 

made until the foam density is within an acceptable range. Foam is also 

discharged onto the ground so that foam body can be evaluated. This is 

known as making "beehives" due to the appearance of the resulting pile of 

foam. Occasionally, a piece of the foam is tasted as part of the 

qualitative testing. 

After the foam has passed the qualitative and quantitative tests, 

application begins. Figure 1 is a drawing of the foam application 

system. The application gun is suspended from the Foam Mechanic's 

shoulder by a strap. The application hose, located on the end of the 

application gun, is inserted into the wall opening. A lever on the gun is 

depressed, and proper amounts of nitrogen and foaming agent mix in a 

chamber with plastic beads. The nitrogen serves as a blowing agent. 

Downstream of the mixing chamber, resin is introduced. The resulting foam, similar in appearance to shaving cream, leaves the application hose 

and fills the wall cavity. After the space has been filled, a Laborer 

removes the excess foam from the wall with water from a garden hose. The 

hole is then "closed" (i.e., covered, plugged, or filled) by another 

Laborer. For example, shingles are nailed back into place, masonry is 

filled with a small amount of mortar, and aluminum siding is put back into 

place. On occasion, one employee is stationed in the house to listen for 

structural stress caused by overfilling the wall cavities. After all the 

cavities have been filled, the Foam Mechanic cleans the application 

equipment (if that is his preference) and stores it in the van. He then 

sketches and measures the square footage of the structure to check the 

measurements previously made by the salesman. In the meantime, the 

Laborers finish closing and clean waste material from the area. The trash 

is placed in the back of the van in plastic bags. The crew's workday ends 

when they return to the warehouse. 

At the warehouse, waste material is disposed of into a dumpster, and the 

van is stocked with adequate foaming agent and resin for the next day. This is done by the Warehouseman. 

Open-Bay Application 

In this procedure, the urea formaldehyde foam is applied between exposed 

studs before the wallboard is put into place. Usually, small amounts of 

the foam are first "splattered" onto the surface. This is accomplished by increasing the nitrogen pressure and pinching the end of the application 

hose. After the form has been splattered, the nitrogen pressure is 

reduced and a rectangular, transparent piece of plastic is placed on the 

end of the application hose. There is a hole in the plastic to allow foam 

to flow through it. The plastic bridges the two adjacent studs and serves 

as a trowel as the foam is applied from floor to ceiling in the cavity. Good foam body prevents the foam from falling out of the cavity. The foam 

slightly overfills the cavity. A flat-edged shovel is used to bridge two 

adjacent studs and scrape the excess foam off and onto the floor. This is 

done by a Laborer approximately 15 minutes after the cavity has been 

filled with foam. Normally, a third Laborer nails a polyethylene sheet 

over the insulation. Other aspects of open-bay application activities are 

similar to exterior retrofit application activities. 

27 
Figure 1 

Urea Formaldehyde Foam Application System 

RESIN 

PUMP 

RESIN 

t 

FOAMING 

AGENT 

PUMP 

FOAMING 

AGENT 

28 

FOAMING 

CHAMBER 

APPLI CATI ON 

HOSE 

APPLICATION 

GUN 
1 Applicator B 

Exterior Retrofit Application 

The resin and foaming agent are stored in the warehouse, which is an 

11,000-square foot, one-story stone structure. Other items stored in the 

warehouse include: cellulose insulation, cellulose insulation adhesive, 

commercial mortar mix, muriatic acid, and application equipment. In 

addition to being a storage area, the warehouse also serves as a shop for 

performing light maintenance on equipment. Occasionally, foam is tested 

by discharging foam onto the warehouse floor. 

Generally, the application team consists of the company president's two 

sons; both have been certified by Manufacturer Bas foam applicators. A 

third individual is utilized for large jobs. 

The application team arrives at the warehouse about 8 a.m. and loads a 

12-foot step van with the application equipment and insulation 

components. About 8:15 a.m., the application team leaves the warehouse 

for the job site. 

Applicator B's opening, circulating, equipment cleaning, and foam 

application processes are similar to Applicator A's with a few 

exceptions. Applicator Buses air compressed by a gasoline-powered 

compressor instead of compressed nitrogen. The application gun used by 

Applicator B differs from Applicator A's in that the blowing agent and 

foaming agent do not mix in a chamber containing plastic beads. 

After all the cavities have been filled, the application equipment is put 

away. The applicator then assists in closing operations. At the end of 

the day, trash foam is put into plastic bags and placed in the van. The 

application team then returns to the warehouse to store equipment, dispose of trash, and perform maintenance on equipment if necessary. 

Open-Bay Application 

Initially, the air pressure is increased and a scratch coat of foam 

(approximately 1 inch thick) is applied to the wall surface. After the 

scratch coat has been applied, the air pressure is reduced and the 

cavities between adjacent studs are filled with foam. The foam is 

immediately troweled by the assistant. In some cases, a trowel is 

attached to the end of the application hose. Polyethylene or polyvinyl chloride sheeting is hung first. A hole is made in the sheeting between 

adjacent studs. The application hose is inserted into the hole and the 

cavity is filled with foam insulation. The foam is then leveled by 

passing the trowel over the plastic sheeting. 

29 
Description of Worker Activity, Occupational Titles, 

and Job Descriptions 

There are 20 individuals involved with the application of urea 

formaldehyde foam insulation at Applicator A and two (occasionally three) 

individuals at Applicator B. Both Applicator A and B work Monday through Saturday when work is available. 

Job classifications have been identified which have a potential for 

chemical substance or physical agent exposure during the application of 

urea formaldehyde foam insulation and the activities associated with it. 

These job classifications have been divided into two general categories on 

the basis of the types of duties that are performed: 

t Foam Applicators apply the foam to the wall cavity and 

oversee the application process. 

, Application Assistants prepare the structure for foam 

application, refinish the structure after application, and 

perform other duties as required. 

A description of the duties within these job classifications is presented 

below. 

Foam Applicators 

, Foam Mechanic (Applicator A) 

The Foam Mechanic has the major responsibility for 

providing a satisfactory insulation job. His duties 

include: determining the method and strategy for opening 

the structure, application equipment cleaning and assembly, 

proper conditioning of resin and foaming agent, assuri ng 

adequate foam quality, foam application, assisting in 

opening and, on accasion, closing the structure, cleanup, 

measuring and sketching the building being insulated, and 

application equipment maintenance . The Foam Mechanic also 

serves as the crew chief. 

Application equipment cleaning and assembly usually takes 

less than\ an hour. Resin and foaming agent circulation 

usually begins about 1 hour before foam application 

starts. Density testing consists of weighing foam that is 

shaped into a cube of pre-determined volume. The cube is 

formed on a bench top in the back of the van. Foam quality testing consists of applying foam onto a plastic sheet. 

The test is conducted out- of-doors and usually takes a few 

minutes. For the 5 days of the study during which exterior 

application was conducted, foam application time varied 

from 1-3/4 to 3 hours . The Foam Mechanic assists in 

opening, closing, and cleanup when time permits. The house 

can be measured and sketched in about\ an hour . 

30 
1 Applicator (Applicator B) 

The Applicator has the major responsibility for applying 

the insulation satisfactorily. His duties include: 

determining the method and strategy for opening the 

structure, cleaning and assembling application equipment, 

proper conditioning of resin and foaming agent, assuring 

adequate foam quality, foam application, assisting in 

opening and closing the structure, cleanup, and light 

maintenance of equipment. 

The Applicator spends about 1 hour cleaning and assembling 

the foam application equipment. The foam quality check 

usually takes less than 10 minutes but may take longer, depending upon conditions. The actual time spent applying 

foam varies daily; for example, on some days foam is not 

applied. Conditioning resin and foaming agent involves 

starting the circulating pump and, if necessary, placing a 

band heater around the drums or circulating the components 

through a line heater to raise temperatures. The time 

spent opening varies; the amount of time spend closing is 

also variable and will depend on the progress that the 

Assistant has made in closing the house during the 

application process. Cleanup operations usually take less 

than 1 hour. Equipment maintenance is performed as needed. 

Application Assistants 

1 Laborer (Applicator A) 

The Laborers' duties include: opening, washing excess foam 

from the walls, monitoring for structural stress during 

foam application, closing, cleanup, scraping foam (open-bay 

procedure), hanging polyethylene film (open-bay procedure), and performing other duties as required. The Laborers 

spend most of their time opening and closing during 

exterior retrofit operations. On occasion, a Laborer will 

be stationed in the house to monitor for structural 

stress. Wiping excess foam from an opening can be 

accomplished in a matter of seconds. Cleanup operations 

usually last about\ an hour. Foam-scraping operations can 

proceed faster than the application process. 

• Assistant (Applicator B) 

The Assistant's duties include: opening, closing, cleaning 

excess foam from the wall after application, cleanup, and 

light maintenance of equipment. 

The Assistant may spend a workday or longer performing 

opening operations. The closing operation usually ends a 

short time after foam application has been completed; an 

exception to this is when wood must be filled, sanded, and 

painted. In many cases, the closing operation is less 

31 
time-consuming than is foam application. The Assistant 

spends about the same amount of time performing cleanup and 

equipment maintenance operations as does the Applicator. 

• Warehouseman (Applicator B) 

The warehouseman usually works from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m. He 

is responsible for cleaning trash from the vans and 

stocking them for the next jobs. His duties include: 

removing trash from the vans and placing it into a dumpster 

outside the warehouse, consolidation of resin and foaming 

agent where more than one drum of each is present on a van, 

and preparing fresh foaming agent by diluting the 2.5 

gallons of concentrate with 52.5 gallons of water. In all, 

three vans are serviced. 

Exposure Control Measures 

• Applicator A 

Personal protective equipment consists of respirators, goggles, and 

gloves. 3M 8500 disposable respirators are used, at times, when 

insulating with cotton fiber and when drilling masonry. This respirator is not NIOSH certified. Tight-fitting, soft plastic goggles are sometimes 

used when drilling masonry. Rubber gloves are frequently used by the Foam 

Mechanic to prevent contamination of his hands with urea formaldehyde 

foam. Other than the gloves worn by the Foam Mechanic, no other personal 

protective equipment was observed in use during the course of the study. There is no mechanical ventilation used in association with the 

application process. 

• Applicator B 

Rubber gloves are used during foaming operations and subsequent 

wall-surface cleaning to prevent contamination of the h·ands. Respiratory 

protective devices are not used during the urea formaldehyde foam 

application process. A wind-driven propeller fan provides ventilation for 

the van. There is no mechanical ventilation used in association with the 

application process. 

Medical, Industrial Hygiene, and Safety Programs 

• Applicator A 

First aid supplies on the van and in the office consist of adhesive 

bandages, iodine, insect repellant, and a commercial antidote for bee 

stings which occur frequently. Medical treatment would be rendered at the 

hospital nearest to the application site. Physical examinations are not 

provided for employees. 

32 
The production manager meets frequently with the application crew to 

discuss safety. There has never been an industrial hygiene survey. 

, Applicator B 

First aid supplies on the van consist of gauze and adhesive bandages. 

Medical treatment would be rendered at the hospital nearest to the 

application site. 

An industrial hygiene survey has not been performed previously. The 

company does not have a formal safety program. The company•s safety 

policy is to use common sense. Physical examinations are not provided for 

employees. 

33 
II. DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY METHODS 

PROCEDURES 

The survey procedures involved a discussion with appropriate company 

personnel to obtain general information regarding each activity associated 

with the manufacture and application of urea formaldehyde foam insulation. A walk-through observation of the manufacturing and application 

process was then made. Detailed information about processes, production 

or application activities, raw materials, and each job classification was 

obtained from appropriate company personnel. All apparent potential 

chemical and physical hazards were evaluated. Sampling was limited to 

those agents considered to be capable of causing significant exposures under existing conditions. 

Sampling procedures for chemical substances and physical agents monitored 

varied from facility to facility. Atmospheric sampling for formaldehyde, 

arrrnonia, and furfuryl alcohol was conducted during the production of the 

urea formaldehyde foam insulation system at Manufacturer A. Personal 

monitoring was performed on the Cook, Cook's Assistant, Drum Washer, and 

Foaming Agent Blender. Some area sampling was also conducted. Directreading instrumentation was used to measure noise levels and wet bulb 

globe temperatures. Short-term and long-term personal samples were collected for formaldehyde and ammonia. Personal sampling was not conducted 

during the lunch break, during the sampling equipment setup period at the 

beginning of the workday, or during the cleanup period at the end of the 

workday. Sampling was conducted during informal breaks. 

At Manufacturer B's plant, atmospheric sampling for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and phenol was performed during the production of the resin 

component of the urea formaldehyde resin-based thermal insulation system. Personal samples were collected on the Research and Development Chemist 

and the Laborer during the resin manufacturing process, and area samples 

were collected during resin and foaming agent production. A sound level 

meter was used to measure noise levels. 

Short period samples to measure peak exposures, and long term samples were 

collected and analyzed for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and phenol. Personal samples were collected during periods when the workers were directly 

engaged in resin production; area samples were taken in locations where 

workers performed tasks such as monitoring the reaction, making additions, 

performing quality control tests, and drumming the resin and foaming 

agent. Area samples were also collected for nitrosamines, utilizing Thermosorb/N solid sorbent samplers. 

34 
Atmospheric sampling for formaldehyde, ammonia, respirable dust, and 

furfuryl alcohol was conducted during urea formaldehyde foam application activities performed by Applicator A. Personal monitoring for formaldehyde was conducted in the breathing zones of the Foam Mechanic, Laborers, and Warehouseman. Personal monitoring for furfuryl alcohol was 

conducted in the breathing zones of the Foam Mechanic and Laborers. 

Personal sampling for respirable dust was conducted in the breathing zone 

of a Laborer while drilling through the mortar. Direct-reading instrumentation was used to measure ammonia concentrations and noise levels. 

During Applicator B1 s activities atmospheric sampling for formaldehyde and 

respirable dust was conducted. In all, personal monitoring was performed 

on three individuals--one applicator and two assistants. Some area sampling for formaldehyde was conducted in the van and warehouse. A sound 

level meter was used to measure noise levels. 

LIMITATIONS 

This industrial hygiene study represents an evaluation of conditions 

present on the days during which the study was conducted in each facility. Plant conditions during the study were described by company personnel as being typical of day-to-day operations with the exception of two 

study days (November 27 and 29, 1979) with Applicator B. On November 27, 

foam application was discontinued due to coagulated resin and on November 

29, foam application was limited because minimum foaming agent and resin 

temperatures could not be maintained. Applicator B1 s applications were 

limited to exterior retrofit and open bay. Applicator B1 s exterior retrofit applications were limited to aluminum-sided and clapboard-faced houses 

while Applicator A1 s exterior retrofit applications were limited to houses 

with bricks, cedar shakes, asbestos shingles and aluminum facing. 

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS 

All analyses were performed by laboratories accredited under the Laboratory Accreditation Program of the American Industrial Hygiene Association. The laboratories used participate in all six analysis categories of 

the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program. 

Formaldehyde 

NIOSH Method No. P&CAM 125 (46) was the chosen method for sampling and 

analysis of formaldehyde. Air was drawn through two Bendix midget 

impingers (Catalog #7202), each containing 20 ml of a 1% sodium bisulfite 

solution. At Manufacturer A1 s facility the procedure was modified by the 

use of two Daco Model SI-14 impingers and an empty third Daco Model SI-14 

impinger serving as a backup to capture spill over, in place of the two 

Bendix impingers. At Manufacturer 81 s facility the procedure was modified 

by using 15 ml of 1% sodium bisulfite per impinger instead of 20 ml. The 

sampling rate was approximately 1 liter per minute. The impingers were 

connected in series to a calibrated MSA Model G or S pump. After sampling, the impinger contents were transferred to Teflon or polypropylene 

35 
capped glass vials. The samples were refrigerated until analysis was performed. The contents of each of the impingers were analyzed separately and the results were added together to calculate the concentration for 

each sample set. 0.4 ml of 0.5% chromotropic acid reagent and 5 ml of 

concentrated sulfuric acid were added to a 2-ml aliquot of the se.mple. The aliquot was then brought up to 10 ml with distilled water. Absorbance 

was then read at 580 nm on a Norelco SP-500 spectrophotometer using a 1-cm 

cell. Absorbing solution from the same batch as the samples was handled 

in the same manner as the samples, except that no air was drawn through 

it. Portions were submitted as field blanks. 0.1 ml of 1.0% chromotropic 

acid and 6 ml of concentrated sulfuric acid were added to 4 ml of each 

sample collected at Manufacturer B's facility. The absorbance was read at 

580 nm on a spectrophotometer. 

In addition, formaldehyde concentrations were measured with Draeger 0.5/a 

and 0.002 detector tubes. The measurement range for the 0.5/a tubes is 

0.5-10 ppm and for the 0.002 tubes is 1.6-40 ppm. These tubes are not 

certified by NIOSH. 

Arrrnonia 

NIOSH Method No. P&CAM 205 (47) was the chosen method for sampling and 

analysis. Air was drawn through a Daco Model SI-14 impinger containing 15 

ml of 0.1 N H2S04 at a rate of approximately 1 liter per minute. The 

NIOSH method recommends use of 10 ml of absorbing solution. Fifteen ml 

was used to accommodate the long sampling periods. The impinger was preceded by a Millipore cellulose ester 0.8-μm filter to remove particulate arrrnonium salts. The impinger and an empty second impinger serving as a 

trap to capture spillover were connected in series to a calibrated MSA 

Model G or S pump. After sampling, the impinger contents were transferred 

to teflon capped glass vials. The samples were refrigerated until analysis was performed. 

At the laboratory, each sample was diluted to 50 ml with distilled water. 

One ml of this diluted solution was again diluted to 50 ml with distilled 

water; 2 ml of Nessler reagent was then added. Absorbance was determined 

using a Norelco SP-500 spectrophotometer with a 1-cm cell. 

Absorbing solution from the same batch as the samples was handled in the 

same manner as the samples, except that no air was drawn through it. 

Portions were submitted as field blanks. 

In addition, ammonia concentrations were measured with Draeger 5/a 

detector tubes. The measurement range for these tubes is 5-70 ppm. The 

5/a tubes are certified by NIOSH (TC-84-031). 

Furfuryl Alcohol 

NIOSH Method No. S365 (48) was the chosen method for sampling and analysis. Sampling was accomplished by drawing air at a rate of between 0.01 

and 0.05 liter per minute through a glass tube (8.5-cm long with a 6-rrm 

O.D. and a 4-rrm I.D.) containing 225 mg of 50/80 mesh Porapak Q. The 

Porapak Q was separated into a 150-mg front section and a 75-mg backup 

36 
section. The tube was connected to an MSA Model C-200 pump. After sampling, the tube was capped, refrigerated, and air-shipped on ice to the 

laboratory for analysis. Field blanks were submitted with the samples. 

Analysis was performed by gas chromatography using a column packed with 

10% FFAP on Chromosorb WAW, and a flame ionization detector. 

Acetaldehyde 

Measurement of airborne acetaldehyde levels was made by analysis of the 

impinger solutions used for collection of airborne formaldehyde. The 

impinger solutions were analyzed by gas chromatography, utilizing a glass column packed with 4% Carbowax 20M and 1% PPI on 60/80 mesh Carbopack B. 

Temperature was programmed at a rate of soc per minute from 1200c to 

1500c and flame ionization was the detection method. 

Phenol 

Samples for measurement of phenol in air were collected and analyzed 

~tilizing NIOSH Method No. S330 (49). Samples were collected in midget 

glass bubblers, run at a flow rate of 1 liter per minute with MSA Model G 

pumps. The bubblers contained 15 ml of 0.1 N sodium hydroxide. After 

sampling, the contents of each bubbler were transferred to polypropylene- capped glass vials. Field blanks were submitted with the samples. Analysis was performed by gas chromotography utilizing a Chromosorb 102-packed 

column and a flame ionization detector. 

Nitrosamines 

Samples for measurement of nitrosamines were collected on Thermosorb/N 

solid sorbent samplers at a rate of 1 liter per minute with calibrated MSA 

Model G pumps for approximately 4 hours per sample. Analysis was performed by a method utilizing a gas chromatograph or a high-pressure liquid 

chromatograph coupled with a thermal energy analyzer. This analyzer is a 

nitrosamine-specific detector. 

Respirable Dust 

Air was drawn at a rate of 1.7 liters per minute through a Millipore 5-μm 

pore size PVC filter mounted in a plastic cassette. Calibrated MSA Model 

G or S pumps were used. The air was first passed through a Bendix 10-mm 

cyclone. After sampling, the cassette was plugged and air-shipped to the 

laboratory for analysis. 

At the laboratory, the filter was removed from the cassette, vacuum-desiccated for 1 hour, equilibrated for 1 hour in the balance room, and weighed 

on a Mettler balance. The procedure was repeated until two successive 

weights were within ±_0.1 mg. Filters in cassettes from the same batch as 

the sample were handled in the same manner as the sample, except that no 

air was drawn through them. These filters were submitted for analysis as 

blanks. 

37 
Noise and WBGT 

Noise level readings were made with a GenRad Type 1565B sound level meter 

at both Applicators• worksites and at Manufacturer A1s facility. A Quest 

Electronics Model 215 sound level meter was used at Manufacturer B1 s 

facility. Measurements were made at head level. 

WBGT was measured with the Weksler Catalog No. 218 unit. Measurements 

were made at about waist level in the reactor and drum washing areas of 

Manufacturer A1 s facility. 

EVALUATION CRITERIA 

Formaldehyde 

The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) 

established for formaldehyde a time-weighted average (TWA) limit of 10 ppm 

in 1946. This was changed to 5 ppm in 1948. In 1963, the ACGIH introduced a ceiling limit concept. At that time, the ceiling limit for 

formaldehyde was set at 5 ppm. In 1973, it was decreased to the present 

ceiling limit of 2 ppm (50). 

The present OSHA standard (29 CFR 1910.1000) (51) for occupational exposures to formaldehyde was adopted from the American National Standards 

Institute limit (52). This formaldehyde standard specifies an 8-hour TWA 

limit of 3 ppm, an acceptable ceiling concentration of 5 ppm, and an 

acceptable maximum peak above the acceptable ceiling concentration of 10 

ppm for no more than 30 minutes during an 8-hour shift. 

NIOSH has proposed a ceiling value of 1 ppm for formaldehyde in air for 

any 30-minute sampling period. This is based on reports of irritation, 

objectionable odor, and sleep disturbances for some employees who were 

exposed to formaldehyde at 0.3 ppm and due to complaints of a more general 

nature at concentrations exceeding 1 ppm. NIOSH has also proposed an 

action level of 0.5 ppm for formaldehyde in air for any 30-minute sampling 

period (53). 

A recent study conducted under the supervision of the Chemical Industry 

Institute of Toxicology has shown that in the 18th month of a 24-month 

study 37 nasal carcinomas have been diagnosed in rats exposed to formaldehyde at 15 ppm. One nasal carcinoma has been diagnosed in the group of 

rats exposed to formaldehyde at 6 ppm. One hundred twenty rats of each 

sex were exposed at each level in the study. One hundred twenty mice of 

each sex were also exposed at the same levels. No nasal carcinomas have 

been observed in the mice (15). 

Ammonia 

In 1943, the U.S. Public Health Service published toxic limits for various 

substances. The maximum allowable concentration (MAC) for ammonia was 

listed as 100 ppm (54). 

38 
The ACGIH established a MAC for ammonia of 100 ppm in 1946 (55); in 1948, 

this became a threshold limit value (TLV) (56). In 1963, the TLV was 

reduced to 50 ppm (57). In 1970, the ACGIH recommended (58), and in 1973 

adopted (59), a TLV of 25 ppm as a time-weighted average. The ACGIH ' 

currently recorrrnends an 8-hour TWA of 25 ppm and a short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 35 ppm (50). 

An 8-hour TWA of 50 ppm is the current OSHA standard for ammonia (51). 

This is based on the 1968 ACGIH recommendation (60) which was unchanged 

from the 1963 ACGIH TLV (57). 

A standard of 50 ppm, expressed as a ceiling and determined by a 5-minute 

sampling period, has been recorrrnended by NIOSH. NIOSH considers that this 

limit would protect the worker from all adverse effects of long-term ammonia exposures. NIOSH advises that epidemiological and experimental 

studies are needed for verification (61). 

Furfuryl Alcohol 

The ACGIH proposed a TLV of 50 ppm for furfuryl alcohol as an 8-hour TWA 

concentration in 1960 (62). A tentative change to a TLV of 5 ppm was 

proposed in 1971 (63); this was adopted in 1974 (64). In 1976, the ACGIH 

recommended a STEL of 10 ppm for furfuryl alcohol (65). 

The current OSHA standard for furfuryl alcohol is 50 ppm as a TWA concentration for an 8-hour workday (51). NIOSH does not recommend a change 

from the OSHA standard at this time since there is no information showing that 50 ppm does not provide adequate worker protection or that there is a 

more appropriate value (66). 

Acetaldehyde 

The ACGIH TLV for acetaldehyde was 200 ppm as a TWA limit until 1973 when 

the TLV was lowered to 100 ppm. The current TLV is recommended to prevent excessive eye irritation and potential injury to the respiratory tract 

(67). The current OSHA standard for acetaldehyde is 200 ppm as an 8-hour 

TWA (51). NIOSH has not recommended a standard for exposure to acetaldehyde. 

Phenol 

The ACGIH TLV for phenol was first established at 5 ppm in 1952. A notation that skin may be a significant route of exposure was made in 1961, 

and the TLV has not changed since that time (67). The current TLV is 

recorrrnended to prevent systemic poisoning if skin absorption is avoided. 

The current OSHA standard for phenol, 5 ppm with a skin notation 

adopted from the 1968 TLV (51). NIOSH has recommended exposure limits of 

20 mg/m3 (approximately 5 ppm) as a TWA and a 15-minute ceiling 

concentration of 60 mg/m3 (approximately 15 ppm) (68). 

39 
Nitrosamines 

Nitrosamines are a group of compounds which can be formed by a variety of 

reaction mechanisms, including the reaction of a secondary amine such as 

urea, with an oxide of nitrogen (NO, N02, N203, or N204) or 

nitrite (N03). Formaldehyde is capable of catalyzing the reaction which 

forms nitrosamines. Nitrosamines are regarded as potent animal carcinogens; however, they have not been directly associated with cancer in 

humans. 

Continuous Noise 

Currently the federal government (OSHA) allows employees to be exposed to 

noise at an average level of 90 decibels, as measured on the A scale of a 

standard sound level meter at slow response (dBA), for an 8-hour period. 

For every 5-dBA increase in the average noise level, the allowable exposure time period is reduced by a factor of 0.5. Exposure to levels in 

excess of 115 dBA is not permitted (51). 

The ACGIH recommends that sound levels not exceed an average of 80 dBA for 

a 16-hour workday. For every 5-dBA increase in the average exposure, the 

allowable exposure time period is reduced by a factor of 0.5. Exposures 

to levels in excess of 115 dBA are not recommended (50). 

The NIOSH recommended permissible sound level exposures (69) are identical 

to the ACGIH levels. The criteria document recommends that these sound 

levels become effective for existing places of employment after an extensive feasibility study. 

Heat Stress 

When the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) TWA exceeds 26.lOC (24.40C 

for women) for a continuous exposure of 1 hour or greater, or for an 

intermittent exposure of 2 hours or greater, NIOSH recommends the following to insure that the employee's body core temperature does not exceed 

380C: acclimatization; work-rest regimens, even work distribution; 

proper scheduling times for hot jobs; regular breaks; adequate water and 

salt; appropriate protective clothing; engineering controls; medical 

monitoring; adequate first aid; training; environmental monitoring; and 

recordkeeping (70). 

The ACGIH recommends WBGT TWAs that are dependent upon the hourly workrest regimen and the employee's metabolic rate. The limits cannot be 

exceeded for a continuous exposure of 1 hour or greater, or for an intermittent exposure of 2 hours or greater. The limit values are considered 

to be valid for acclimated workers who are physically fit (50). OSHA has 

not adopted a heat stress standard. 

40 
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

FORMALDEHYDE 

Personal exposure concentration ranges for selected individual tasks have 

been presented in Table 7. Where similar tasks were performed among the 

facilities, comparisons have been made. All sampling data are presented in the Appendix. The highest exposures occurred during resin drum filling, open-bay insulation activites, and exterior retrofit foam applica- tion. 

Formaldehyde measurements were made during resin drum filling at both 

manufacturers' facilities. These measurements were made during a number 

of drum filling cycles, i.e., inserting the filling hose into the drum, 

opening the valve to allow the flow of resin, closing the valve, and 

moving to the next drum. Resin drums were filled at Manufacturer A with 

the lids off and, in one case, through lid openings. Personal formaldehyde exposures during open top filling were 2.6 ppm and 5.4 ppm. A 

personal exposure concentration of 2.1 ppm was measured while filling 

drums through the lid openings. The lower exposure observed while filling 

through lid openings was most likely due to the decreased resin surface 

area present. Personal formaldehyde exposures during resin drum filling 

operations at Manufacturer B ranged from 0.18-1.28 ppm. Drums were being 

filled through lid openings. The differences in formaldehyde concentrations between the two manufacturers while filling drums through lid openings may have been due to the presence of more free formaldehyde in Manufacturer A's resin. 

Additional measurements were made with Draeger detector tubes for formal - dehyde, Part Number 0.002, in the breathing zone of the Cook's Assistant 

at Manufacturer A during the period of time that resin was flowing from 

the hose and into the drum. Formaldehyde concentrations were measured at 

5-10 ppm. 

Personal samples collected for formaldehyde during activities on the 

reactor platform (cooking, testing, or sampling) showed similar exposure _levels at both facilities--0.35 and 0.37 ppm at Manufacturer A and 0.34 

and 0.45 ppm at Manufacturer B. 

Formaldehyde exposures during exterior retrofit foam application by Applicator A (0.14-1.2 ppm) were similar to Applicator B (<0.08-1.3 ppm). 

Exposure concentrations during open-bay foam application (1.1-2.4 ppm) 

were higher than during exterior retrofit foam application. 

41 
TABLE 7. Personal Formaldehyde Concentration Ranges During the 

Performance of Selected Tasks in the Urea Formaldehyde Foam 

Thermal Insulation Manufacturing and Application Processes 

TASK FACILITY SAMPLES CONCENTRATION 

COLLECTED RANGE (PPM) 

Resin Drum Filling Manufacturer A 3 2.1-5.4 

Manufacturer B 4 0.18-1.28 

Cooking (reactor deck 

activities) -- resin Manufacturer A 2 0.35 & 0.37 

sampling, testing, and Manufacturer B 2 0.34 & 0.45 cooking 

Exterior Retrofit Foam Applicator A 7 0.14-1.2 Application Applicator B 9 <0.08-1.3 

Exterior Retrofit Closing Applicator A 4 0.12-0.73 

Operations Applicator B 3 <0.08-0.13 

Trash Foam Cleanup Applicator A 2 0.15 & 0.65 

Applicator B 2 <O. og1 & 0. 26 

Monitoring for Structural Applicator A 2 0.32 & 0.40 

Stress 

Resin Drum Washing Manufacturer A 2 0.23 & 0.32 

Cleaning Out and Stocking Applicator A 2 0.60 & 0.61 

Van 

Open-Bay Foam Application Applicator A 4 1.1-2 .4 

Open-Bay Foam Scraping Applicator A 4 0.86-2.3 

aSome time was spent closing. 

Exposures during open-bay foam scraping (0.86-2.3 ppm) were very similar 

to open-bay application exposures. Exposure to formaldehyde during 

exterior retrofit closing operations for Applicator A (0.12-0.73 ppm) 

ranged higher than Applicator B (<0.08-0.13); however, three of the four 

values for Applicator A were less than or equal to 0.20 ppm. Formaldehyde 

exposure during trash foam cleanup for Applicator A (0.15 and 0.65 ppm) 

ranged higher than for Applicator B (<0.09 and 0.26 ppm) even though trash 

foam was being cleaned from the inside of a house during the 0.26 ppm 

exposure. 

42 
Formaldehyde concentrations in selected areas have been presented in Table 

8. Formaldehyde concentrations in the step vans during trips to the 

application site were higher for Applicator A (0.23 and 0.48 ppm) than for 

Applicator B (0.18 and 0.18 ppm); however, in each case the concentrations 

during the return trips were higher -- 0.66 and 1.0 ppm for Applicator A 

and 0.23 and 0.33 ppm for Applicator B. Concentrations in Applicator A's 

warehouse were found to be higher when the vans were being stocked and 

cleaned (0.22 - 0.85 ppm) than in the morning prior to departure (0.17 and 

0.19 ppm). The Warehouseman's formaldehyde exposure concentration during 

the stocking and cleaning was measured at 0.60 and 0.61 ppm -- within the 

range observed in the warehouse during that activity. 

TABLE 8. Formaldehyde Concentration Ranges in Selected Areas During 

Manufacturing and Application Processes of Urea Formaldehyde 

Foam Thermal Insulation 

TASK FACILITY SAMPLES CONCENTRATION 

COLLECTED RANGE (PPM) 

Inside van while traveling Applicator A 2 0.23a & 0.48 

to application site Applicator B 2 0.18 & 0.18 

Inside van while traveling Applicator A 2 0.66 & 1.0 

from application site Applicator B 2 0.23 & 0.33 

Back of van during foam Applicator A 3 0.14-2.0 

application Applicator B 3 <0.03-0.16 

Reactor area Manufacturer A 1 0.27 

Manufacturer 8 8 0.14-5.17 

Near center of room during Applicator A 4 0.57-1.2 

open-bay foam application 

Warehouse prior to Applicator A 2 0.17 & 0.19 

departure Applicator B 1 0.35 b 

Warehouse during cleaning Applicator A 3 0.22-0.85 

and stocking of vans 

avan was at jobsite for about~ hour before sample collection was terminated. 

bTaken in the drum storage area. 

Area samples for formaldehyde taken in the reactor area during resin production at Manufacturer B ranged from 0.14-5.17 ppm. Measurements were 

made on the upper left and right handside of the reactor deck and, in one 

case, over the temperature readout. Concentrations on the upper left side 

ranged from 0.26-0.75 ppm while those on the upper right side ranged from 

0.14-3.58 ppm. The concentration over the temperature readout was 5.17 

ppm. A formaldehyde measurement was made on the reactor platform at Manufacturer A during the production of a batch of resin with the exception of 

the time during which formaldehyde was added to the reactor. The formaldehyde concentration was 0.27 ppm. 

43 
OTHER AIR CONTAMINANTS 

A concentration of 300 ppm of ammonia was measured in the Cook's breathing 

zone during removal of the drum pump stem from an aqueous ammonia drum, 

after the ammonia was transferred to the reactor at Manufacturer A's 

facility. The measurement was made with a Draeger 5/a detector tube. The 

Cook's average exposure concentration during the entire transfer operation 

was 15 ppm as measured by the 0.1 N H2S04 collection method. Ammonia 

concentrations for other activities at Manufacturer A's facility, measured 

by the 0.1 N H2S04 collection method, were well below this 15 ppm value. Ammonia concentrations measured during Applicator A's activities 

were not detectable (<5 ppm) as measured with Draeger 5/a detector tubes. 

Tables 7 through 10 in the Appendix contain ammonia sample results. 

Furfuryl alcohol measurements were made in Manufacturer A's facility 

during resin preparation, drumming, drum washing, and during the course of 

some of the Foaming Agent Blender's activities. All results were below 

detectable limits (<0.3-<3.3 ppm). Measurements were also made during 

periods encompassing urea formaldehyde foam exterior retrofit application, 

closing operations, cleanup and travel from the job sites for Applicator 

A. Again, values were below detectable limits (<0.3-<0.6 ppm). 

All samples collected for acetaldehyde, phenol, and nitrosamines, at 

Manufacturer B's facility, during resin and foaming agent production were 

below levels of detection -- 1.3 ppm, 0.3 ppm, and 0.03 μg/m3, respectively. 

The respirable dust concentration while drilling through mortar during 

Applicator A's activities was reported as less than the limit of detection 

based on the sample volume--<0.1 mg or <0.4 mg/m3, A wei ght increase of 

0.1 mg was reported for the blank submitted. The respir ab le dust concentration while drilling through pine wood during Applicator B's activities 

was less than the lower limit of detection for the volume of air sampled (<0.30 mg/m3). No detectable weight increase (<0.1 mg) was reported for 

the two blanks submitted. 

PHYSICAL AGENTS 

Noise 

Noise level readings were taken during the manufacture and application of 

urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Levels that exceeded 85 dBA are 

discussed below. 

Noise level readings exceeding 85 dBA at Manufacturer A's facility occurred during resin batch making, drum washing, resin drum lid retainer 

screwing, and foaming agent drum filling. Noise level readings taken on 

the reactor platform while the impeller was operating at high speed were 

83-94 dBA and 74 dBA when operating at low speed. The impeller operated 

at high speed for about 3 hours per batch. With the exception of breaks 

and duties of a higher priority, the drum-washing operation was continuous. The full-time Washer took about 12 minutes to wash a drum -- 8 

minutes inside, 3 minutes outside, and 1 minute for the lid. Noise levels 

44 
ranged from 84-92 dBA and exceeded 90 dBA only when the inside of each 

drum was washed. The part-time Drum Washer cleaned the outside of the 

drums only. The drum was inverted on the floor and sprayed. This is in 

contrast to the full-time Washer who placed the drums on an inclined 

rack. Levels while cleaning the outsides of the drums were 88-97 dBA. 

After filling, metal circular lid fasteners were screwed onto the resin 

drums with an electric-powered screwdriver. The operating time for the 

screwdriver was only a few minutes per batch of resin. Noise levels were 

93-96 dBA. Noise levels during foaming agent drum filling were 95-99 

dBA. The source of high noise levels during this operation was the 

electric pump being used. Drum-filling is not a daily operation. On days 

that drums are filled, the exposure time to the high noise levels is 1 to 

1\ hours. 

The highest noise level observed in Manufacturer B's facility was 86 dBA. 

This occurred on the reactor deck during resin cooling prior to drumming. 

At that time, cooling water was circulating through the reactor and the 

agitator was running to mix the resin. The cooling process takes less 

than 1 hour, during which time the Chemist spends only brief periods on 

the reactor deck to monitor the cooling process. Noise levels measured 

during other phases of resin and foaming agent production ranged from 

81-84 dBA. 

Noise level readings were taken while drilling through mortar at Applicator A's worksite. Noise levels of 100-105 dBA were measured while drilling with a Milwaukee No. 5310 drill. It took 7-10 seconds to drill a 

hole. Noise levels of 92-96 dBA were measured while drilling with a 

Ramset No. 640 drill. It took approximately 20 seconds to drill a hole. 

Approximately 200-250 holes are drilled in a typical brick house. Usually 

at least two individuals share the drilling. 

Noise level readings were taken while drilling through aluminum, plywood, 

and pine clapboard with a Rockwell No. 7556 drill at Applicator B's 

worksite. Sound levels were 87-93 dBA, 86-94 dBA, and 92-96 dBA, respec- tively. Approximately 300 holes are drilled per house and it usually 

takes 10-15 seconds to drill a hole. 

Heat Stress 

WBGT measurements were made at Manufacturer A's facility. Locations of 

elevated heat are the drum-washing and reactor areas. WBGT measurements 

taken on August 29, 1979, in the reactor area were in excess of 270C and 

as high as 290c. Outdoor temperatures were high on that day. Using ACGIH criteria, the Cook's work-rest regimen would be classified as 

continuous and the workload light to moderate when performing duties on 

the reactor platform. 

WBGT measurements were taken on a relatively cool day in the drum-washing 

area (dry bulb 210c about 12 feet from the washing area). The washing 

area WBGT was 260C at 10:30 a.m. as opposed to 190c taken about~ an 

hour later approximately 12 feet from the site. Using ACGIH criteria, the 

Drum Washer's work-rest regimen would be classified as continuous and the 

workload as moderate. 

45 
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

CONCLUSIONS 

Formaldehyde 

Exposure to Formaldehyde During Urea Formaldehyde 

Foam Insulation Manufacturing Activities 

Personal samples taken during resin drumming show formaldehyde exposures 

can exceed the NIOSH recommended limit of 1 ppm for a 30-minute sampling 

period and the ACGIH ceiling value of 2 ppm. The total coefficient of 

variation (Cr) for formaldehyde samples collected at Manufacturer A's 

facility was 0.13. Although the lower confidence limit (95%) of the 

highest formaldehyde exposure concentration during resin drumming (5.4 

ppm) does not exceed the OSHA acceptable ceiling concentration of 5 ppm for a 30-minute sampling period, the potential for an excursion exists. 

Calculation of the LCL and total coefficient of variation is discussed in 

the Appendix. Detector tube measurements of 5-10 ppm formaldehyde in the 

Cook's Assistant's breathing zone of Manufacturer A while the drum was 

filling with resin suggest concentrations at or near the OSHA acceptable 

maximum peak above the acceptable ceiling concentration (10 ppm). 

Exposures during the reactor deck activities were found to be below the 

NIOSH and ACGIH recommended limit and the OSHA standard; however, a level 

of 5 ppm detected over the reactor charging port at Manufacturer B's 

facility indicates that a potential for increased exposures exists due to 

changes in operator position or air currents on the reactor deck. 

In addition to those samples previously discussed, 14 additional sample 

values were found to exceed the NIOSH action level of 0.5 ppm. During the 

sampling periods when these excursions occurred, affected employees were 

engaged in various activities, including resin drum washing, scraping 

labels from resin drum lids, unloading empty resin drums from trucks, 

working in the drum fill areas, handling material, assisting in capping filled resin drums, and cooking a batch of resin. Of the four categories of employees monitored at Manufacturer A's facility, only the Foaming 

Agent Blender was not found to be exposed to formaldehyde at levels in 

excess of the NIOSH action level. Since many of the types of activities 

being conducted when excursions to the action level occurred are performed 

46 
by all the employees, employees in all job categories can be expected to 

be exposed to formaldehyde at concentrations in excess of the 0.5 ppm action level on occasion. 

Exposure to Formaldehyde During Urea Formaldehyde 

Foam Insulation Application Acti vities 

Personal samples taken during exterior retrofit foam insulation applica- tion show that formaldehyde exposures can exceed the NIOSH recommended 

limit. Of 16 samples taken between the two Applicators for this activity, 

two exceeded 1 ppm -- the highest being 1.3 ppm. Foam Applicators from 

both companies were found to be exposed to formaldehyde at concentrations 

in excess of the NIOSH recorrmended limit. 

Exposure concentrations can exceed the NIOSH recommended limit of 1 ppm 

for a 30-minute sampling period and the ACGIH ceiling limit of 2 ppm 

during open-bay urea formaldehyde foam application activities. Both the 

Applicator and the Laborer were shown to be exposed at levels in excess of 

either of these limits for 7 out of 8 measurements that were made. Area 

concentrations of 0.57-1.2 ppm indicate the potential for exposures in 

excess of the NIOSH limit of 1 ppm and certainly the NIOSH action level of 

0.5 ppm for all application team members during this activity. Higher 

exposures may result during open-bay insulation of larger structures. The 

second personal samples taken in the breathing zone of the Foam Mechanic 

on both floors were greater than the first samples taken (2.4 ppm versus 

1.1 ppm, and 1.6 ppm versus 1.1 ppm). This trend is also apparent with 

the Laborer's personal samples and the area samples taken. This increase 

can be attributed to a corresponding increase in exposed urea formaldehyde 

foam surface area. 

The potential exists for formaldehyde levels to exceed the NIOSH and ACGIH 

limits while in transit from the job site to the warehouse, and while 

cleaning out and stocking (servicing) the vans. All area samples taken in 

Applicator B's van were below the ACGIH and NIOSH limits; however, this 

was not the case with Applicator A, where levels in the van were generally 

below 0.5 ppm until the return trips were made. An exception to this was 

an exposure concentration of 0.73 ppm measured while the Foam Mechanic was 

checking the resin level in the drum. This involved inserting and removing a dipstick. Another exception occurred during a period of exterior 

retrofit application. No reason is apparent for the resultant 2.0 ppm 

concentration during that activity. Two other samples taken during exterior retrofit application under similar conditions resulted in concentrations of 0.14 and 0.15 ppm. Samples taken in the van during return trips 

by Applicator A showed formaldehyde concentrations of 0.66 and 1.0 ppm. Formaldehyde concentrations of 4-7 ppm were measured with a Draeger 0.5/a 

detector tube on one occasion when a van had arrived at the warehouse. 

This demonstrates the potential for an excursion of the ACGIH limit of 2 

ppm and the OSHA acceptable ce i ling concentration of 5 ppm. On another 

occasion levels of 2-5 ppm were measured with detector tubes in the van 

upon its return to the warehouse. The result of a 24-minute sample taken 

in a van during servicing was 1.2 ppm while the personal sample taken in 

the Warehouseman's breathi ng zone during the same period was 0.60 ppm. Concentrations of 0.7-1.0 ppm of formaldehyde were measured with detector 

tubes after that particular van had been completely serviced. 

47 
This buildup in formaldehyde concentrations in Applicator A's vans is 

apparently due to the presence of trash foam which is heated indirectly by the exhaust system as it lays in bags on the floor of the van during 

return trips to the warehouse. The subsequent decrease in concentration 

is apparently due to the removal of the trash foam. Manufacturer B's 

employees also brought trash foam back to the warehouse in plastic bags. The lower formaldehyde concentrations during their return trip may have 

been due to better ventilation (Manufacturer B's van was equipped with a 

wind driven ventilator), and to less free formaldehyde in their foam. 

Area formaldehyde levels in Manufacturer A's warehouse did not exceed the 

NIOSH limit of 1 ppm; however, the action level of 0.5 ppm was exceeded in 

one instance. This occurred when vans were being serviced. 

Other Chemical Substances 

With the exception of ammonia the concentrations of all other chemical 

substances monitored were below limits of detection. The resultant 

ammonia concentration of 300 ppm during removal of the drum pump stem from 

the drum of aqueous ammonia at Manufacturer A's facility exceeded the 

ACGIH STEL of 35 ppm. An airborne ammonia hazard does not appear to exist 

during other activities. 

Physical Agents 

Noise 

Projected noise exposures based on sound level readings made during urea 

formaldehyde foam application are not expected to exceed the NIOSH and 

ACGIH recommended limits or the OSHA standard under normal conditions. 

Although exposures exceed 85 dBA during drilling operations, the exposure 

time is not sufficient to result in an overexposure. 

Noise levels during foam insulation manufacturing may exceed NIOSH and 

ACGIH recommended limits or the OSHA standard. Projected potential noise 

exposures to the Cook at Manufacturer A's facility during the operation of 

the reactor impeller at high speed are 28-130% of the NIOSH/ACGIH recommended limits and up to 65% of the OSHA standard. These values are based 

on a full 3 hours of exposure at the minimum and maximum sound level readings (83 and 94 dBA, respectively). At Manufacturer B's facility the 

Chemist's exposure would be approximately 62% of the NIOSH/ACGIH recommended limits if the entire 5 hours of resin production time would have 

been spent on the reactor deck. 

The full-time Drum Washer at Manufacturer A's facility is exposed to sound 

levels in excess of the NIOSH/ACGIH recommended limits. This is based on 

exposure time and to average sound levels being in excess of 85 dBA. The 

projected maximum exposure is 88% of the OSHA standard. This is based on 

an exposure of 92 dBA for 8 minutes of the 12-minute drum-cleaning cycle 

throughout the work shift. 

48 
The part-time Drum Washer's (at Manufacturer A's facility) projected 

exposure is 94-333% of the NIOSH/ACGIH recommended limits, and 47-167% of 

the OSHA standard. This is based on 5 hours of exposure to sound levels 

of 88-97 dBA. The difference in sound levels between the part-time and 

full-time Drum Washers when washing the outside of the drums (88-92 dBA 

versus 84-87 dBA) appeared to be due to the position of the drum and the 

angle at which the spray struck the drum. The part-time Washer inverted 

the drum on a wooden pallet; the resulting spray angle was about goo. 

The spray angle for the full-time Washer's rack-mounted drum was much 

less, thus resulting in less impact. In addition, the rack may have 

served as a damping body. 

The Foaming Agent Blender's (at Manufacturer A's facility) projected noise 

exposure is 75-125% of the NIOSH/ACGIH recommended limits and 37.5-65.0% 

of the OSHA standard. These values are based on exposure times of 1 and 

1~ hours and on sound levels of 95-99 dBA. 

Heat Stress 

Drum washing and working in the area of the reactor may pose a heat stress 

hazard. WBGT readings taken in the reactor area at Manufacturer A's 

facility on August 29, 1979, exceeded the NIOSH recommended limit of 

26.lOC as a 1-hour (or greater) TWA. Since only one reading was taken 

in the drum-washing area on September 26, 1979, an excursion cannot be 

demonstrated; however, the reading was in the permissible limit range. Higher values can be expected during warmer weather. 

The ACGIH recommends a WBGT TWA of 26.70C for moderate work that is 

continuous and 30.00C for light work that is continuous. WBGT levels in 

the reactor and drum-washing area were in the permissible limit range for 

the type of work performed. 

Other Considerations 

Urea formaldehyde foam insulation manufacturing and application present a 

number of opportunities for employee exposure to irritating and corrosive 

materials. Formaldehyde, phenol, acetaldehyde and furfuryl alcohol are 

irritating while ammonia and foaming agent acids are corrosive. Phenol 

and furfuryl alcohol can also be absorbed through the skin. 

Confined space entry is another potential hazard in the urea formaldehyde 

foam insulation manufacturing industry. Reactor and storage tank cleaning 

are performed periodically. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Formaldehyde and anmonia concentrations and noise and WBGT levels in 

excess of NIOSH, ACGIH and OSHA limits require the implementation of 

control measures. In addition, control measures are necessary to prevent 

exposure to materials that could cause a hazard by direct contact or 

through skin absorption. Control measures should consist of engineering 

49 
controls and acceptable work practices. Where engineering controls are 

not feasible, adequate personal protective equipment should be used. 

Improvements should include the following: 

1. Install local exhaust ventilation to reduce formaldehyde 

exposure levels to below the NIOSH/ACGIH recommended 

limits during urea formaldehyde drum fill operations. 

2. Provide local exhaust ventilation or an enclosed transfer 

system to prevent an exposure to ammonia in excess of the 

ACGIH STEL of 35 ppm when removing the drum pump stem from 

the aqueous ammonia drum. Provide a small booth, with 

local exhaust ventilation, large enough to contain the 

arrrnonia drum and a container of water suitable for rinsing 

the drum pump stem to reduce exposures. 

3. Use a full-face gas mask, chin type, with an ammonia 

canister during the interim period when engineering controls are being installed to reduce air contaminant 

levels below acceptable limits. 

4. Modify reactor charging and sampling ports to be kept 

tightly closed or equip them with local exhaust ventilation to capture emissions so as to reduce unnecessary formaldehyde concentrations in the reactor area during 

resin production. 

5. Require the use of full-facepiece respirators with organic 

vapor cartridges by the Applicator during exterior retrofit urea formaldehyde foam insulation application. This 

type of respiratory protective device should also be worn 

by employees engaged in open-bay application activities. 

Methods for reducing formaldehyde exposures during foam 

application should be investigated. Maximum usage should 

be made of natural ventilation, such as working upwind. 

General mechanical ventilation should be utilized where 

possible. 

6. Store waste foam in a container on the roof of the vehicle 

until disposal. This material should not be placed in the 

van. Install a wind driven ventilator on the wall or roof 

of the van for general ventilation. 

7. Conduct periodic personal monitoring for formaldehyde for 

employees engaged in activities that result in formaldehyde exposures in excess of 0.5 ppm for a 30-minute 

sampling period. Activities to be monitored should 

include all phases of urea formaldehyde foam insulation 

manufacturing, exterior retrofit foam application, resin 

level checking, test foaming in enclosed spaces, open-bay 

insulation activities, exterior retrofit closing opera- tions, waste foam cleanup, traveling from the jobsite to 

the warehouse, and cleaning and stocking vans. 

8. Institute an effective respiratory protection program in 

all cases where respiratory protection is used. The 

following should be a part of the program: standard 

50 
written operating procedures, fit testing, training in 

usage and limitations, medical evaluation of the 

employee 1 s ability to wear a respirator, and maintenance 

and storage procedures. Respiratory protection program 

details are presented in the NIOSH publication, 11A Guide 

to Industrial Respiratory Protection11 (71). 

9. Provide engineering Controls to prevent employees from 

being exposed to sound levels in excess of NIOSH/ACGIH 

recommended criteria, and OSHA standards during urea 

formaldehyde foam insulation manufacturing activities. In 

the interim, all employees exposed to excessive levels of 

noise should wear properly-fitted hearing protective 

devices capable of providing adequate noise attenuation. 

Audiometric testing should be performed on those employees 

on an annual basis. 

10. Conduct WBGT monitoring during the winter and summer to 

establish a WBGT profile during urea formaldehyde foam 

insulation manufacturing. This is to serve as a guide for 

deciding when appropriate action, as recommended by NIOSH, 

should be initiated. 

11. Employees engaged in resin reactor operations, foaming 

agent blending, foaming agent and resin drumming, raw 

material handling, and foam application should wear 

chemical goggles and protective gloves. Install suitable 

eye washes and safety showers in resin and foaming agent 

drum fill areas, resin reactor areas, raw material storage 

areas, and applicator warehouses. A suitable eye wash 

should be taken into the field by the application crew. 

In addition, eye protection should be worn by application 

team members during drilling operations. 

12. Confined-space entry poses serious potential hazards. 

Develop adequate procedures, including provisions for 

proper personal protective equipment, for reactor and 

storage tank cleaning operations. Provide a rescue 

procedure that includes hoisting and removal of a 

simulated 11 unconscious individual 11 and provisions for 

adequate medical attention. At least one employee 

stationed outside of the confined space should be 

competent in administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation 

(CPR). 

13. Discontinue the practice of tasting urea formaldehyde foam. 

51 
V. SUMMARY 

The manufacture and application of urea formaldehyde foam insulation has 

been investigated from an industrial hygiene perspective. Several potential health hazards have been identified. Formaldehyde concentrations 

during resin drumming and foam application activities have been shown to 

exceed NIOSH and ACGIH recommended limits. Noise, heat stress and confined space hazards have been shown to exist in manufacturing activities. 

Hazards associated with skin contact and skin absorption of harmful chemical substances exist in both the manufacturing and application activities. Where necessary, a regimen of engineering control measures, good 

work practices and personal hygiene, and adequate personal protection will 

help to minimize exposure to health hazards. 

The facilities of Producers A and Bare considered to be representative of 

the industry. Even though two of the largest producers were selected for 

this study, there are only a few employees involved at any of the producers, and the general production activities are similar. Some differences 

in ingredients used by Producers A and B were noted. Applicators A and B 

are considered to be representative of urea formaldehyde foam applicators. 

52 
POLYURETHANE FOAM INSULATION 

53 
I. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES SURVEYED 

A. MANUFACTURERS 

Plant Description and History 

1 Manufacturer C 

Products manufactured at this facility include rigid polyurethane foam 

systems (used in the thermal insulation industry), flexible foams and foam 

systems, and elastomers. 

Of the some 235,000 square feet of plant area, only a portion is used for 

the production of polyurethane foam systems. The remainder of the facility is used for the manufacture of the other products, as well as quality control and research and development laboratories, sales and administrative offices, and warehouses. This plant began production of polyurethane 

products in 1960. There are approximately 80 non-union employees. 

1 Manufacturer D 

Products manufactured at this plant include rigid polyurethane foam 

systems and flexible and elastomer systems. The production operations are 

enclosed in two separate one-story brick buildings. The main production 

area consists of several blend tanks and adjacent drum-fill stations. 

Also located within the plant are: a research and development laboratory, 

a test-foaming demonstration laboratory, a raw materials storage area, 

warehouses, and sales and administrative offices. Polyurethane products 

were first produced in this facility in 1954. There are 14 production 

employees at this facility. 

54 
Description of Operations and Existing Controls 

Major components of urethane foam systems include: 

Isocyanates. One of the two major portions of a urethane foam formulation 

is an isocyanate. The two most widely used isocyanates are toluene diisocyanate (TOI) and diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI)~ with MDI being the 

isocyanate used in thermal insulation. 

Polyols. The other major portion of a urethane foam formulation is a 

polyol. Since the variety of isocyanates is limited, polyols are the main 

constituents used for changing and adjusting foam properties. Some 

polyols are based on OH-terminated polyesters, amines, and highly halogenated substrates. 

Surfactants. Most surfactants for urethane foams are based on silicone 

block copolymers of silicon tetrachloride. The major role of the surfactant is to make compatible the ingredients of the mixed blend, and to 

stabilize the cells by preventing drainage and collapse before the polymer 

growth has reached the gel stage. Some surfactants are additive (nonreactive) while others are reacted into the polymeric structure. 

Catalysts. Most urethane catalysts are tertiary amines or organometallics. In rigid foams, organotin catalysts and some amine catalysts are 

used to promote maximum cross-linking by formation of biuret and allophanate. In flexible foams, the rate of reaction between water and isocyanate is controlled by tertiary amine catalysts. 

Blowing Agents. The reaction of water with isocyanate results in an unstable intermediate carbamic acid which decomposes to an amine and carbon 

dioxide. The amine reacts further with isocyanate to form a urea linkage. With low-density foams, the blowing is frequently accomplished vlith 

fluorocarbons. These low-boiling liquids perform similarly to carbon 

dioxide except that they enhance firmness and insulation properties. 

The Polyuretha.ne Foam Insulation System Manufacturing Process 

Rigid polyurethane foam systems for thermal insulation consist of an 11A11 

and a 11 811 component which, when mixed, form a rigid foam. The 11A11 component consists of a mixture of polymeric (50%) and monomeric (50%) methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (MDI), which is purchased in bulk and repackaged into drums. Alternately MDI may be blended with a flame retardant and 

then drurraned. 

The 11 811 component, or resin, is a mixture of ingredients which ·are prepared by a blending process. The process does not involve a chemical 

reaction. The formulation of a resin may vary depending upon the end use 

of that product. Resins produced by both manufacturers are intended for a 

variety of uses, including thermal insulation. 

The resins used for thermal insulation contain one or more polyols (polyhydroxy compounds), a silicone oil copolymer, one or more tertiary amine 

catalysts, an organotin catalyst, fluorotrichloromethane (used as a blowing agent), and alpha.-methyl styrene (used as a stabilizer). A phosphate ester-based flame-retarding agent may also be added. 

55 
, Manufacturer C 

The MDI repackaging process at this facility is conducted several times 

per week, as needed, and usually involves only one employee. Twenty to 

fifty thousand pounds (40-100 drums) may be drummed per day. This operation takes place inside a 100 1 x 290 1 building which also serves as a 

warehouse. The bulk MDI tank car is located adjacent to this building; 

there is a permanent pipe connection to the MDI loading area. 

In the resin manufacturing process any one of several various sized vessels may be used. All of the vessels are located inside the 40 1 x 50 1 

compounding room. Raw materials, including polyols, silicone oil copolymers, and fluorotrichloromethane, are poured from drums into the top opening of the vessel using an electric drum lifter. Ingredients are measured 

by weighing each drum before and after pouring. Ingredients are mechanically stirred until homogeneous and then sampled for quality control. 

After manufacture, the resin is pumped into 55-gallon drums. Drum loading 

takes place in an open area adjacent to the vessels using a 3-inch feeder 

hose connecting the vessel with the drum. There are five production days 

per week in the compounding room. Each employee generally compounds several products per day. 

Various resins are also produced in blending operations at Manufacturer 

C. The various ingredients are thoroughly mixed and the finished resin is 

transferred to 55-gallon drums. Essentially no spillage of resin occurs 

during this blending process. The employees in the blending operation 

routinely wear chemical splash goggles and rubber gloves. Eighty to.100 

drums may be filled on an average blending day. 

Until mid-1979, another polyurethane insulation product, bun (board) 

stock, was produced at this plant. This process has been moved to a 

different Manufacturer C plant. 

TOI is used in the compounding room in the production of TOI prepolymers 

(polyurethane systems intended for uses other than thermal insulation). 

Drum-sized batches are usually produced. Production takes place inside a 

walk-in booth. TOI in a drum, which has been heated, is placed in the 

booth. Raw materials (usually polyols and stabilizers). are added to the 

drum by hand. The ingredients may be mixed for an hour or longer. 

1 Manufacturer D 

MDI drumming is conducted at the MDI drum-fill station where it is pumped 

directly into drums from a permanent pipe connection with the bulk storage tank. The MDI-flame retardant blends are produced in two blend tanks 

within the main production area. This process involves a 11 cold11 blending 

step in which MDI is pumped into the blend tanks from bulk storage and 

flame retardant is added. The blend tanks rest on scales; the flow is 

monitored until the desired weight has been added. The product is then 

drummed at the adjacent drum-fill station. Potential employee exposure to 

the 11A11 component is expected only during drum-filling operations. 

56 
Toluene diisocyanate (TOI) is a common 11A11 component in many polyurethane 

systems intended for uses other than thermal insulation. TOI may also be 

either drummed or blended with other materials in the main production 

area; however, it was not used during this survey. 

Three blend tanks are normally used in the production of resins at this 

facility. The tanks range in capacity from 9000 to 40,000 pounds (900 - 4000 gallons). Each tank rests on a scale and is equipped with electric 

mixers and permanent pipe connections to the raw materials storage tanks. 

Certain raw materials, such as the catalysts, are pumped into the blend 

tank from drums. The Chemical Operator monitors the flow until the 

desired weight of each material including various polyols, fluorotrichloromethane, and silicone oil, has been added, then blends the materials 

for 30-60 minutes. The blend process does not involve a chemical reaction. 

The finished resin is pumped into drums at the drum-fill station which is 

equipped with a scale and weight-sensitive automatic shutoff switch that 

stops the resin flow when the drum is filled to the proper weight. A 

screened funnel, which is inserted into the large drum opening, is used in 

the filling of both the 11A11 and the 11 811 components. 

Another blend tank, which is located in a building separate from the main 

production areas, is not equipped with a pump for filling the blend tank. 

This tank is used for the blending of products other than those used for 

thermal insulation. Raw materials, with the exception of fluorotrichloromethane, are poured from the drum into the tank opening using an 

electric hoist. This operation involves increased worker contact with raw 

materials compared with the blend process in the main production area. 

Worker exposure during the production of 11 811 components may occur during 

the addition of raw materials, during drum filling, while withdrawing 

samples, and while conducting routine laboratory tests. 

Description of Worker Activity, Occupational Titles, 

and Job Descriptions 

Operations at the two manufacturing sites ran 1 shift (8 hours) per day, 5 

days per week. Crew members at both plants may be involved in the manufacture of a variety of polyurethane products in addition to those used 

for thermal insulation. At Manufacturer C, seven to eight persons may 

work on insulation systems. At Manufacturer D, seven persons may work on 

insulation systems. 

Job classifications have been identified which have a potential for chemical exposure during the manufacturing process of the polyurethane foam 

insulation system. The activities assigned to each job classification 

vary within each category with some overlap between categories. Consequently, a precise comparison of exposure by job categories between the 

two manufacturing plants cannot be performed. 

57 
Resin Manufacture 

, Compounder (Manufacturer C) 

The Compounder is responsible for the compounding of polyurethane products including the compounding of drum-sized 

batches of TOI prepolymers. Work activites are similar for 

the production of both thermal and other polyurethane products. Specifically, the Compounder adds raw materials 

to the compounding vessels by following a product formulation sheet. The Compounder weighs each drum of raw material and pours the contents into the top opening of the 

vessel using an electric drum lifter. He then reweighs 

each drum. (Due to the high viscosity of many of the raw 

materials, residue may be left in the drum after pouring.) 

Certain raw materials, such as the catalysts which are used 

in small quantities, are first poured into smaller containers for more precise weighing, and then poured by hand into 

the compounding vessels. After the materials have been 

compounded, the Compounder collects a sample for quality 

control by dipping a paper container into the top opening 

of the vessel; the then takes the sample to the laboratory for a quality control check. Adjustments to the resin may 

be made depending upon the laboratory results. If the 

sample is acceptable, the Compounder transfers the finished 

resin into drums. This is performed by lining up the drums 

on the compounding area floor, making a hose connection to 

the vessel, and filling the drums one at a time. Exposures 

may occur when ingredients are poured into the vessels, 

during the drum loading, and when a sample is collected. 

The Compounders spend more than 90 percent of their time in 

the compounding room. 

t Blender (Manufacturer C) 

The Blender maintains the levels of raw materials in the 

supply tanks, monitors the flow of finished resin during 

drum filling, takes periodic samples for laboratory tests, 

and performs required maintenance and cleaning on the 

equipment. The Blender spends 100 percent of his time at 

the blending fill station when the equipment is in operation. When the operation is finished, the Blender may be 

involved in maintenance and repair, cleanup, filling the 

tanks, or ordering materials. His assigned tasks generally 

do not require him to enter other areas of production 

except for the 11A11 component drumming area which is located 

next to the blending operation in the same room. The 

blending process affords little opportunity for exposure to 

the ingredients of the B component. 

58 
• Chemical Operator (Manufacturer D) 

The Chemical Operator is responsible for all of the activities associated with the blending of polyurethane products 

including quality control tests and drumming the finished 

product. Job duties include adding raw materials to the 

blend tanks by following a product formulation sheet. Raw 

materials for which there is a permanent pipe connection 

with the blend tank involve little or no worker contact 

with the materials. The Operator inserts the pump stem 

into the drum, turns on the pump, and monitors the flow 

until the desired weight of material has been added to the 

blend tanks. 

After blending is completed, the Operator withdraws a 

sample by pumping a small amount of product into a container. Each Operator conducts the quality control laboratory 

tests for the blend product which include a test for water 

content and a test-foam (mixing the "A" with the 11 811 component) to determine foam rise time. Adjustments to the 

blend may be made based on laboratory results. The Operator then pumps the product into 55-gallon drums at the 

drum-fill stations, and seals each drum. 

MDI Loading 

• Drum Handler/Drum Loader (Manufacturer C) 

During the survey, the Drum Handler for the blending operation also served as a Drum Loader for "A" component drum 

loading. During the blending operation, he assists the 

Blender by supplying empty drums at the fill station and by removing and sealing the full drums. During the filling operation he spends all of his time in close proximity to 

the fill station. When the blending process is not in 

operation he may be loading "A" component (MDI) into 

55-gallon drums. Drum loading involves lining up the 

drums in an open area adjacent to the blending operation, 

making a hose connection to the MDI pipe, filling drums one 

at a time, and then sealing each drum. Employee exposure 

may occur during the filling of either resin or MDI drums. 

At Manufacturer D the Chemical Operators conduct MDI and 

TOI repackaging. 

Quality Control 

• Quality Control Technician (Manufacturer C) 

The Quality Control Technician is responsible for conducting quality control testing of the resin at the blending operation. He picks up samples of the current run 

59 
of resin from the Blender and performs a test foaming operation by mixing the resin with MDI and observing various 

foam characteristics. He then sections and weighs the foam 

to determine the foam (end product) density. He conducts 

all testing at an open table located about 25 feet from the 

fill station. The Technician takes about 5 minutes to 

complete each test. While the blending process is in oper- ation, the Technician spends about 70 percent of his time 

at or near the table. 

Exposure Control Measures 

, Manufacturer C 

Safety glasses are required at all times in the plant and laboratory 

areas. Chemical goggles are required in the vicinity of the compounding 

vessels during compounding. Employees engaged in the transfer and compounding of TDI wear full-facepiece, chin-style gas masks approved for 

pesticides (NIOSH Approval No. TC-14G-86). Gas masks are not worn during the production of thermal insulation systems. 

Exposure control at the blending operation is accomplished through the use 

of a local exhaust ventilation system, maintenance of the integrity of the 

components, and use of beveled couplings which insert directly into the 

drums during filling and prevent spillage. The local exhaust ventilation 

system vents the displaced air from the drum during filling. The system has branch ducts which lead to the drum locations at the fill station. 

The ducts terminate in a 3-inch circular, plain (nonflanged) opening 

located above the open pressure relief bungs. Another branch duct terminates in a flanged canopy hood located over an overflow drum. The 

distance from the drum opening to the hood opening is about 4 inches; the 

hood openings were not positioned directly above the drum openings. Air 

flow measurements indicate an average face velocity of 660 fpm at the face 

of the first duct and 840 fpm at the face of the second duct (located 

upstream from the first duct). However, the calculated air velocities at 

each of the drum openings (based on measured air flows) are only 29 fpm and 37 fpm, respectively. 

Other controls include a walk-in booth (15' x 18') located in the compounding area which is used for the transfer of TDI and for the mixing of 

polyurethane products containing TDI. The airflow into the booth was 

measured using an Alnor Thermo-Anemometer Type 8500. The flowrate was 

approximately 3300 cubic feet per minute. Located within the booth are 

flexible hose air ducts which can be placed at the top of a drum during 

mixing. However, the capture velocity of the air ducts as indicated by 

use of a smoke tube was insufficient to provide control. This booth has 

been in operation for 3 years. A walk-in oven, also located in the compounding area, was equipped with a slot hood in 1977. This oven is used 

to heat drums of raw materials including TDI. Two of the larger compounding vessels are equipped with local exhaust ventilation ducts which vent 

vapors generated while filling and mixing. The ventilation systems of the 

oven and the compounding vessels were not evaluated. 

60 
• Manufacturer D 

Exposure control in the production areas is accomplished through the use 

of a local exhaust ventilation system at the drum-fill stations and at a 

blend tank lid. The drum-fill stations are equipped with metal or metal 

and plastic canopy hoods measuring 18 inches in diameter and 25 inches 

high. Each hood is connected by a 6-inch diameter, flexible duct to an 

exhaust fan which is located inside the building. In some cases, the fans 

exhaust into a common duct before discharging contaminated air to the outside. The hoods, which rest on swivel stands and are equipped with access 

doors, provide nearly complete enclosure of the funnel and spout. The 

smaller drum vent opening, which remains open during filling to allow 

escape of the displaced air, is not covered by the hood. Consequently, 

vapors present in the displaced air may not be captured by the hood. Only three of the six hoods were used during the survey. 

The air velocities of the hoods were measured using an Alnor Thermo-Anemometer Type 8500. Results are shown in the Appendix. (see Table 44, Manufacturer D) 

One of the blend tanks is equipped with a slot hood around the outer edge 

-0f the tank lid. This hood is generally operating while raw materials are 

being added to the tank. The ventilation system of the vessel was not 

evaluated. 

Process controls exist which may indirectly provide exposure controls. 

These include automatic flow shutoff devices, which interrupt the flow of 

product when the drum is full, lessening the chance of overflow, and 

permanent connections between the blend tanks and certain raw materials 

storage tanks which reduce employee contact with these materials. 

Medical, Industrial Hygiene and Safety Programs 

• Manufacturer C 

The medical program at this facility includes preemployment physical examinations for all employees, including administrative employees. The program is administered by a consulting physician at the plant's clinic. 

Parameters included in the examination are: height, weight, blood pressure, temperature, and respiratory function. In addition, comprehensive 

medical and work histories are taken with emphasis on preexisting respiratory conditions. Yearly physical examinations are required for each 

employee with emphasis on the condition and performance of the respiratory 

tract. A medical examination is required following an exposure to a 

hazardous chemical. The clinic, located inside the plant, is staffed by a 

part-time nurse. Records have been maintained since the medical program 

was initiated approximately 20 years ago. 

An important aspect of the medical pro9ram is the surveillance for 

employees who may have become sensitized to isocyanate compounds. As part 

of this surveillance, employees are required to report all colds and 

cold-like symptoms to the nurse or doctor. If conditions warrant it, the 

employee may be relocated. 

61 
The safety program was initiated in 1960; an industrial hygiene program 

was added in 1976. Both programs are under the supervision of the plant's Administrator of Safety and Occupational Health, with some direction being 

provided by the Corporate Occupational Health and Safety Unit. 

As part of the safety program, all personnel entering the production area 

are required to wear safety shoes and safety glasses. With regard to the 

compounding or blending of polyurethane products, safety procedures have 

been developed for the handling of the materials during specific tasks. 

These tasks, including the sampling, handling, and drum loading of both 

the 11 A11 and 11 811 components, require the use of rubber gloves and chemical 

splash goggles. 

Area and personal monitoring surveys have been conducted at the plant; 

however, only one survey has been conducted in thermal insulation product 

manufacturing areas. Many of the surveys were conducted to determine 

exposure to toluene diisocyanate (TOI). Area monitoring for TOI vapor is 

presently being conducted using an MDA No. 7005 Isocyanate Continuous 

Monitor (MDA Scientific, Inc., Park Ridge, Illinois). TOI, which is not 

used in the blending of thermal insulation products, has a much higher 

vapor pressure than MDI; consequently, its potential for exposure is 

considered to be greater than that for MDI. Recently, personal and area 

samples for alpha-methyl styrene were taken by a corporate industrial 

hygienist at the blending operation. a lpha-Methyl styrene was not detected in any of the five samples taken. 

• Manufacturer D 

The medical program at the facility includes preemployment and annual 

physical examinations for production and laboratory employees. The program, which is administered by a consulting physician, includes an SMA-12 

test (blood chemistry), general physical examination, chest X-ray, and a 

vision test. Pulmonary function tests are administered during the annual 

physical examination only. The program was initiated in 1965; however, 

annual physical examinations were not initiated until 1978. Medical 

records which include previous work history are maintained by the consulting physician. 

The Plant Manager is responsible for industrial hygiene and safety at the 

plant. Guidance in health and safety is provided by the Corporate Safety 

Department. An industrial hygiene program has been in effect since 1978. 

Area monitoring for TOI vapor has been conducted since 1974 using MDA No. 

700 or No. 7005 Isocyanate Continuous Monitors (MDA Scientific, Inc., Park 

Ridge, Illinois). Personal monitoring for TOI vapor has also been conducted at the plant. Monitoring for chemical agents other than TOI has 

not been conducted. 

A general safety program has been in operation since 1969 when the company 

took over the ownership of the plant. A formalized safety program was 

initiated in 1977. As part of the safety program, all employees are supplied with safety glasses, safety shoes, Nomex flame-retardant work 

clothes, and hardhats. Rubber gloves are worn when handling raw materials. MSA full-facepiece gas masks approved for use with organic vapors 

(NIOSH approval No. TC-14G-97) are worn by the Chemical Operators when 

filling drums with TOI. 

62 
B. APPLICATORS 

Plant Description and History 

, Applicator C 

This company operates out of a small warehouse containing both office and 

storage space. The company applies polyurethane foam and urea formaldehyde foam insulation, with limited application of cellulose and fiberglass insulation materials. 

Typical polyurethane foam applications performed by this company include 

roof exteriors, refrigerated warehouses, and industrial water tanks. The 

company, which serves a nine state area, has been in business since 1975. 

There are 12 employees, 3 of whom are generally involved in polyurethane 

application. 

, Applicator D 

The insulation division of this company, which has 10 employees, is 

involved in the full-time application of polyurethane foam insulation. 

The pipe coverings division installs fiberglass and calcium silicate pipe coverings. Both divisions operate out of a warehouse having both office 

and storage space. 

Typical polyurethane foam applications include refrigerated warehouses, 

industrial water tanks, and residential and commercial buildings. The 

company has been applying polyurethane foam insulation since 1967-1968; 

the company generally serves areas within a 100-mile radius of its office. 

Description of Operations and Existing Controls 

The Polyuretha.ne Foam Insulation System 

Application Process 

, Applicator C 

The 11 A11 and 11 B11 components from Manufacturer C are received in 55-gallon 

metal drums. The components are stored in the warehouse along with other 

insulation materials and application equipment. The warehouse also serves 

as a vehicle storage garage and has adjacent office space. 

The 11A11 and 11 811 components are mixed in the internal mixing chamber of a 

spray gun, atomized, and sprayed onto a substrate, where the foam mixture 

expands and hardens in less than 1 minute. The foaming process involves 

an exothermic polymerization reaction; the heat evolved helps to expand 

and cure the foam. 

63 
At Applicator C the application team, consisting of an Applicator and a 

Helper, arrived at the warehouse at about 8:00 a.m. and loaded the poly- urethane products onto a 20-foot truck. The cab of the truck is separated 

from the bed; therefore, exposure while in transit to and from the jobsite 

was not evaluated. The truck also contained the application equipment and 

a desk. 

The application site during this survey was a church for which polyurethane foam insulation was applied to the flat portion of the roof. The 

application team had previously cleaned some portions of the roof of dirt 

and loose gravel. 

The application equipment consists of: a gasoline engine-powered air 

compressor, pneumatic transfer pumps, a Gussmer H-2 proportioning pump, 

hoses and an airless spray gun. The air compressor drives the transfer 

pumps which supply the 11A11 and 11 811 components to the proportioning pump. 

The proportioning pump heats the components to 600C, pressurizes and 

meters each component to the spray gun. A line heater (electrical resistance) wrapped around the hoses maintains the temperature. 

The foam is applied to the roof in 4-foot-wide paths from a standing/walking position. The foam is built up to a thickness of an inch or more by 

applying the foam in layers. Periodically, the Applicator cleans the 

spray gun by squirting 11 gun cleaner 11 (Cellosolve acetate or 2-ethoxyethyl 

acetate) into the mixing chamber. When spraying is completed for that 

day, the equipment is put back onto the truck, the spray gun is cleaned 

with 11 gun cleaner 11 , and the application team returns to the warehouse. 

The application team spent about 7 hours each day at the application site; 

however, only about 4-~ hours each day were spent spraying foam. Other 

activity at the application site included downtime due to equipment malfunction, downtime while waiting for the roof to dry, setting up and taking down application equipment, and lunch breaks. 

• Applicator D 

The application team arrived at the warehouse at 7:00 a .. m. and loaded the 

application equipment and the polyurethane products onto a pickup truck. 

The application site for this survey was a refrigerated room which was 

being constructed inside an existing food warehouse. Polyurethane foam 

was applied to the interior walls of the room to a thickness of 3 inches. 

The room measured 35 x 70 feet and had a 14-foot-high ceiling. An 

asphalt-based vapor barrier had been applied to the walls several days 

earlier by other company employees. 

Applicator D1 s foam application equipment and process are similar to 

Applicator C1 s with two exceptions. Applicator D used an electric air 

compressor to drive the transfer pumps instead of a gasoline engine-powered air compressor. The Gussmer H-2 pump used by Applicator D was 

customized so that it was portable. The application equipment was located 

outside the refrigerated room during the application process. A portable 

oil-fired heater located at the entrance to the room was used to increase 

the wall (substrate) temperature so that the foam would expand 

64 
properly. The foam was applied to the walls in 4-foot-wide sections from 

a standing position; the spray gun was held approximatey 3 feet from the 

walls. A scaffold was used for spraying the upper sections of the walls. 

Periodically, the spray gun was cleaned with 11 gun cleaner 11 (Cellosolve, or 

2-ethyoxyethanol) by squirting a few drops into the mixing chamber. When 

spraying was completed for the day, the application team returned to the 

warehouse. 

Foam was applied over a 2~-day period; considerable downtime occurred on 

the second day due to a heater malfunction which caused the 11A11 component 

to harden. The team applied foam for 5 hours on the first day, 1 hour on 

the second day, and 2\ hours on the third day. 

Description of Worker Activity, Oceupational Titles, 

and Job Descriptions 

Operations at both applicators ran one shift, 8-10 hours per day, 5-7 days 

per week. 

Job classifications have been identified which have a potential for chemical or physical agent exposure during the application of polyurethane foam 

insulation and the activities associated with it. These job classifications have been divided into two general categories on the basis of the 

type of duties that are performed: 

, Foam Applicators apply the foam to the surface and oversee 

the application process. 

1 Application Assistants prepare the surface for application, 

set up the application equipment, and perform other duties 

as required. 

A description of the duties within these job classifications is presented below by job category: 

Foam Application 

, Applicator (Applicator C) 

The Applicator, who is also the vice president of this 

company, has the responsibility for applying the poly- urethane insulation. His duties include: maintenance, 

cleaning and assembly of the application equipment, assuring foam quality, foam application, and general cleanup. 

On days when foam is not applied, he may be involved in 

preparation and cleaning of the surface/area to be foamed, 

applying a weatherproof sealant to a foamed surface, or 

applying another type of thermal insulation material. 

The Applicator spends about 1 hour inside the truck each 

day cleaning, assembling, and performing maintenance on the 

application equipment. The actual time spent performing 

65 
maintenance may vary; during the survey, there were delays 

due to equipment malfunction. End-of-day cleanup generally takes less than 1 hour. 

1 Mechanic (Applicator D) 

The Mechanic's duties include: applying the foam, assuring 

foam quality, and cleaning and maintenance of the application equipment. The mechanic spends about 1 hour each day cleaning, assembling and performing maintenance on the 

application equipment. 

The actual time spent performing maintenance varies; during 

the survey there were delays due to equipment malfunction. 

Application Assistant 

, Helper (Applicator C) 

The Helper's duties include: setting up equipment, moving 

the hoses from the path as the Applicator sprays the foam; 

making adjustments to the proportioning pump; changing over 

the MDI and resin drums when empty; and general cleanup. 

Occasionally the Helper may spray foam. The Helper spent 

less than half of his time on the roof helping the Applicator during the survey. 

, Helper (Applicator D) 

While the Mechanic is spraying foam, the Helper assists 

by: moving the hoses, pushing the scaffold, making adjustments on the pumps, and changing over the drums of components when empty. At other times, the Helper may be setting up or cleaning equipment. The Helper spends about 75% 

of his time behind or near the Mechanic during spraying. 

Exposure Control Measures 

• Applicator C 

Personal protective equipment consisted of respirators and gloves. The 

respirators (Norton half-mask respirator, NIOSH Approval No. TC-23C-74, 

approved for pesticides) were used when foam was applied under the overhang of the steeple. Rubber gloves were used by the Applicator while 

spraying foam. There is no mechanical ventilation used with the polyurethane foam application process. The foam is applied outdoors; the 

operator generally stands upwind of the spray taking advantage of natural 

ventilation. 

66 
1 Applicator D 

The company supplies respirators (Willson Model No. 1221 with R-21 organic 

vapor cartridges, NIOSH certification No. TC-23C-50) fer employees. 

Company policy requires the use of respirators; however, some workers were 

observed not wearing respirators while spraying polyurethane foam. 

The Mechanic used the respirator while spraying foam from the floor 

level. While on the scaffold, the respirator was generally not used 

because the spray was directed mostly downward. (The helper stands near 

the base of the scaffold, but clear of the overspray.) Spraying from the 

floor level involved directing the spray upwards, and the resulting overspray settled on the employee. There is no mechanical ventilation associated with the foam application process, and the natural ventilation was 

limited in the indoor application. 

Medical, Industrial Hygiene and Safety Programs 

t Applicator C 

Applicator Chas no formalized medical, industrial hygiene, or safety programs. Medical examinations are not provided for employees. First aid 

supplies on the truck consist of a first aid kit. There has never been an 

industrial hygiene survey conducted at this company. The use of safety 

equipment is optional. 

t Applicator D 

Applicator B has no formalized medical, industrial hygiene, or safety programs. Employee safety is stressed by the company's Personnel Director 

who is also the Safety Coordinator. Yearly physical examinations are 

encouraged by the Vice-President and covered under the company's employee 

medical plan. There has never been an industrial hygiene survey at this 

company. 

67 
II. DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY METHODS 

PROCEDURES 

The survey procedures involved a discussion with appropriate company 

personnel to obtain detailed information on the manufacture and application of polyurethane insulation products and the associated job classifications. A walk-through observation of the manufacturing sites was made. 

A personal monitoring schedule was developed to obtain data for an evaluation of worker exposure to selected raw materials associated with production and application of polyurethane insulation products. Sampling procedures for chemical and physical agents varied at each facility. At 

Manufacturer C, atmospheric sampling for fluorotrichloromethane, alpha.-

methyl styrene, dime thylethanolamine and dimethylcyclohexylamine was 

conducted during the resin manufacturing process. Sampling for MDI was 

conducted during the MDI repackaging process. Samples were also taken for 

methylene chloride during routine cleaning. Personal and area sampling for TOI were conducted during the production of a TOI prepolymer. Personal sampling was not conducted during lunch breaks. 

At Manufacturer D, atmospheric sampling for fluorotrichloromethane, alpha.-

methyl styrene, dimethylcyctohexylamine, dimethylanolamine, triethylene diamine and tetramethyl butanediamine was conducted during the resin 

manufacturing process. Sampling for MDI was conducted during the MDI 

repackaging process. 

At Applicator C, atmospheric sampling for MDI, fluorotrichloromethane, alpha-methyl styrene, dimethylethanolamine, dimethylcyclohexylamine and dimethyltin dicarboxylate was conducted. Direct reading instruments were used to measure carbon monoxide and noise levels. 

During Applicator 0 1 s activities atmospheric sampling for the following 

compounds was conducted: MDI, fluorotrichloromethane, alpha-methyl 

styrene, dimethylcyclohexylamine, triethylene diamine, 2-ethoxyethanol and 

an organotin compound (proprietary). A sound level meter was used to 

measure noise levels. Short period samples to measure peak exposures and 

long-term samples were collected for MDI in both the manufacturing and 

application processes. Personal samples were collected during periods 

when workers were engaged in manufacture or application of the poly- urethane products; area samples were collected in locations where workers 

performed tasks such as monitoring equipment, adding raw materials, drumming finished products or performing maintenance. 

68 
LIMITATIONS 

In each of the four site visits, this industrial hygiene survey represents 

an evaluation of conditions present during the days of sampling. All 

apparent chemical and physical hazards were evaluated. Sampling was 

limited to those agents capable of causing significant exposures under 

existing conditions. 

Conditions monitored during this study are considered to be representative 

of typical plant conditions except as noted. In Manufacturer C's facility, the 11 A11 component drum-loading operation was limited in duration due 

to a short supply of bulk MDI. In Manufacturer D's facility, the only 

activity noted that deviated from the normal routine was the TOI blending/drumming operation. TOI, commonly used as the 11A11 component in many 

polyurethane products other than thermal insulation, was not used during the survey. 

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS 

All samples were shipped by air to a laboratory which is accredited under 

the Laboratory Accreditation Program of the American Industrial Hygiene 

Association. The laboratory used participates in all six analysis categories of the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program. 

TOI and MDI 

NIOSH Method No. P&CAM 141 (72) and Method No. P&CAM 142 (73) were selected for sampling and analysis of TOI and MDI, respectively. The two 

methods have identical sampling procedures. Sampling was conducted by 

drawing a known volume of air through a Bendix midget impinger containing 15 ml of absorbing solution (hydrochloric acid and glacial acetic acid in 

distilled water). The sampling rate was 1 liter per minute. Calibrated 

MSA Model G or S sampling pumps were used. After each sampling period, the impinger contents were transferred to glass vials with Teflon-lined 

caps. Impingers, each containing 15 ml of absorbing solution, were 

handled in the same manner as the samples, except that no air was drawn 

through them. The contents of these were analyzed by the laboratory as 

field blanks. 

Analysis of TOI and MDI involves the formation of a colored complex which 

is subsequently quantified utilizing a spectrophotometer. The analytical method cannot be used to differentiate between polymeric and monomeric 

forms; consequently, the sample results may reflect concentrations of both 

forms. The limit of detection for this analytical method was 0.5 μg per sample for TOI and 0.2 μg per sample for MDI. 

69 
Amine Compounds 

Currently, NIOSH and OSHA do not have sampling and analytical methods 

specific for any of the four amine compounds: dimethylethanolamine (DMEA), dimethylcyclohexylamine (DMCHA), triethylene diamine (TEDA), and 

tetramethyl butanediamine (TMBD). NIOSH Method No. P&CAM 270 (74) was 

selected for this survey based on chemical similarity between DMEA and 

other amino-ethanol compounds which are covered in this method. This 

method was followed for all amine compounds with a slight variation in the 

sampling phase. The method recommends stabilization of the amine by adding hydrochloric acid (with a microliter syringe) to the collection tube 

immediately after sampling is completed. However, shelf-life stability 

studies conducted by the analytical laboratory indicated that the compounds were stable for up to two weeks; consequently, the stabilization 

procedure was not performed. 

Sampling was conducted by drawing a known volume of air at about 100 ml 

per minute through a silica gel tube to trap the amine compounds. Calibrated MSA Model C-200 and SKC Model 222-3 personal sampling pumps were 

used. The silica gel tubes consist of glass tubes, 7 cm long, packed with 

150 mg of silica gel in two sections. The absorbing section contains 100 

mg of silica gel and the backup section contains 50 mg. Tubes containing 

silica gel were handled in the same manner as the samples, except that no 

air was drawn through them. These tubes were submitted for analysis as 

field blanks. 

At the laboratory, the samples were desorbed with methanol:water (4:1). 

An aliquot was taken, made basic (pH> 8) with 0.5 ml of a 0.2 N 

NaOH-methanol:water (4:1) solution, and then analyzed by gas chromatography. Desorption efficiency tests were also conducted by the laboratory 

for the amines by spiking silica gel tubes with known amounts of the four 

compounds, and then analyzing in the same manner as that used for the 

samples. The desorption efficiencies for the compounds ranged from 38% to 

92%; results were efficiency corrected. The silica gel tube-loading range 

for the desorption efficiency tests was several orders of magnitude 

greater than the field samples. Consequently, the reported desorption 

efficiencies may not be an accurate reflection of the sample desorption 

efficiencies. 

Fluorotrichloromethane 

Sampling and analysis for fluorotrichloromethane were conducted in accord- ance with NIOSH Method No. Sl02 (75). A known volume of air was drawn 

through a charcoal tube at 30 ml per minute to trap the fluorotrichloromethane vapor present. Calibrated MSA Model C-200 and SKC Model 222-3 

personal sampling pumps were used. The charcoal tubes consist of glass 

tubes, 10 cm long, packed with two sections of 20/40 mesh activated 

coconut charcoal. The front section contains 400 mg of charcoal, and the 

backup section contains 200 mg. Analysis involves desorbing the fluorotrichloromethane with carbon disulfide and subsequent analysis by gas 

chromatography. Tubes from the same batch as the samples were handled in 

the same manner as the samples, except that no air was drawn thr ough 

them. These tubes were submitted for analysis as field blanks. 

70 
alpha-Methyl Styrene and Methylene Chloride 

NIOSH Method Nos. S26 (76) and S329 (77) were selected for sampling 

of alpha-methyl styrene and methylene chloride, respectively. Sampling methods for both compounds are similar, and both are compatible with the 

sampling method for fluorotrichloromethane. Consequently; one collection 

tube was generally used for sampling and analysis for all three compounds. The analytical methods for alpha-methyl styrene and methylene 

chloride involve desorption with carbon disulfide and injection of an 

aliquot into a gas chromatograph. Tubes from the same batch as the 

samples were handled in the same manner as the samples, except that no air 

was drawn through them. These tubes were submitted for analysis as field 

blanks. 

Dimethyltin Dicarboxylate 

Sampling for dimethyltin dicarboxylate was conducted according to NIOSH 

Method No. P&CAM 176 (78). Sampling was conducted by drawing a known 

volume of air through a Millipore 37-mm Type AA 0.8 um pore size filter, 

mounted in a cassette, to trap the tin compound. MSA Model G or S 

sampling pumps were used. The sampling rate was 1.5 liters per minute. 

Cassettes with filters from the same batch as the samples were handled in 

the same manner as the samples, except that no air was drawn through them. These were submitted for analysis as field blanks. 

Samples were analyzed according to a method developed by the analytical 

laboratory and based on published methods (79, 80). Analysis involves 

refluxing with nitric acid to dissolve the membrane filter, treating with 

concentrated hydrochloric acid, and analyzing on an atomic absorption 

spectrophotometer with an air-acetylene flame. Results are reported as 

elemental tin. 

2-Ethoxyethanol 

The sampling and analytical methods for 2-ethoxyethanol were similar to 

those for fluorotrichloromethane. Analysis involves desorption with 

carbon disulfide and injection of an aliquot into a gas chromatograph. 

Two charcoal tubes from the same batch as the samples were handled in the 

same manner as the samples, except that no air was drawn through them. 

These tubes were submitted for analysis as field blanks. 

EVALUATION CRITERIA 

TOI and MDI 

The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in 

1959 adopted a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for TOI of 0.1 ppm as an 8-hour 

TWA concentration limit. In 1962, the ACGIH reduced the TLV to 0.02 ppm based upon a study which demonstrated respiratory irritation and 

71 
asthma-like symptoms in workers in several plants where TOI concentrations 

were considerably below 0.1 ppm. In 1963, the TLV for TDI which remained 

at 0.02 ppm was changed to a ceiling value (67). The current ACGIH TLV 

(50) is a ceiling value of 0.02 ppm. In 1978, a notice of intended change 

for TOI was proposed by the ACGIH (81). The change, if adopted, would 

reduce the current TLV of 0.02 ppm to 0.005 ppm as an 8-hour TWA with a 

short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 0.02 ppm. 

The ACGIH adopted a TLV for MDI of 0.02 ppm as a ceiling value in 1965. 

Although the vapor pressure of MDI is relatively low, significant vapor 

concentrations were reported in the workplace. Available data indicated 

that MDI was similar to TOI in its irritant and sensitizing properties, 

suggesting that a similar ceiling value of 0.02 ppm was warranted (67). 

In 1973, NIOSH published criteria for a recommended standard for occupational exposure to TOI, recommending a TWA limit of 5 ppb and a ceiling 

limit of 20 ppb. In 1978, this recommended standard was extended to 

include all diisocyanates including MDI. Exposure to diisocyanates should 

be controlled so that no employee is exposed at concentrations in excess 

of 5 ppb as a TWA for a 10-hour workshift, 40-hour workweek, and a ceiling limit of 20 ppb for a 10-minute sampling period (82). The current OSHA 

standards (29 CFR 1910.1000) for occupational exposure to TDI and MDI are 

ceiling limits of 0.02 ppm for each compound. 

Fluorotrichloromethane 

The current ACGIH TLV for fluorotrichloromethane is 1000 ppm (50). 

Fluorotrichloromethane is a central nervous system depressant in animals; 

however, there are no reported effects in humans. The current OSHA 

standard for fluorotrichloromethane is 1000 ppm. There is no NIOSH recommendation for occupational exposure to this compound. 

alpha-Methyl Styrene 

The current ACGIH TLV for alpha-methyl styrene is 100 ppm (50) expressed 

as a ceiling concentration. This TLV was set to preve~t eye irritation 

(67). The present OSHA standard for alpha-methyl styrene is 100 ppm, expressed as a ceiling concentration. There is no NIOSH recommendation 

for occupational exposure to this compound. 

Methylene Chloride 

The ACGIH TLV for methylene chloride is 200 ppm (50) with a STEL of 250 

ppm. A notice of intended change has been published which, if adopted, 

will reduce the TLV to 100 ppm with a STEL of 500 ppm. The current TLV 

was established to prevent interference with delivery of oxygen to tissues 

and to prevent depression of the central nervous system (67). 

The NIOSH recommendation for a standard for occupational exposure to 

methylene chloride is 75 ppm averaged over a work shift up to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week, with a ceiling exposure limit of 500 ppm averaged 

72 
over 15 minutes. The basis for this recorrmendation is prevention of 

significant interference with delivery of oxygen to tissues and abnormalities in central nervous system function. Me thylene chloride has been 

shown to be metabolized to carbon monoxide in the body {83). 

The current OSHA standard for methylene chloride is 500 ppm averaged over 

an 8-hour work shift, with an acceptable ceiling level of 1000 ppm and a 

maximum peak concentration of 2000 ppm for 5 minutes in any 2-hour period. 

Amine Compounds 

There are currently no standards or recommended limits for occupational 

exposure to dimethylethanolamine, dimethylcyclohexylamine, tetramethyl 

butanediamine, or triethylene diamine. 

Dimethyltin Dicarboxylate 

The current OSHA standard for organotin compounds (including dimethyltin 

dicarboxylate) is 0.1 mg/m3, as tin. NIOSH (84) recommends that the 

current OSHA standard be retained until more definitive information can be 

obtained. The current ACGIH TLV for organotin compounds is also 0.1 

mg/m3, as tin (50). The TLV was established in view of lack of 

pertinent data and by analogy with mercury, thallium and selenium 

compounds (67). 

Carbon Monoxide 

The current OSHA standard for carbon monoxide is 50 ppm as a TWA limit. 

The NIOSH recommended limit (85) for exposure to carbon monoxide is 35 ppm 

as a TWA limit for a 10-hour work shift. The ACGIH TLV (50) for carbon 

monoxide is an 8-hour TWA limit of 50 ppm. The TLV is based on an air 

concentration that should not result in blood carbon monoxide levels above 

10%, a level that is just below the development of signs of asphyxiation 

(67). 

2-Ethoxyethanol (Cellosolve) 

The current OSHA standard for occupational exposure to 2-ethoxyethanol is 

200 ppm, expressed as an 8-hour TWA. The ACGIH-TLV for this compound is 

100 ppm (50) expressed as an 8-hour TWA. The TLV was set at this level to 

prevent eye and nose irritation; at much higher levels, the compound 

caused lung and kidney damage in animals (67). A notice of intended 

change has been presented wh ich, if adopted, would reduce the recommended 

limit to 50 ppm. Currently, NIOSH does not have a recommended limit for 

occupational exposure to this compound. 

73 
Noise 

Currently, the OSHA standard allows employees to be exposed to an average 

of 90 dBA, as measured on the A-scale of a standard sound level meter at 

slow response, for an 8-hour period. For every 5-dBA increase in the 

average exposure, the allowable exposure time period is reduced by a 

factor of 0.5. Exposures to levels in excess of 115 dBA are not permitted (51). The ACGIH recommends that noise levels not exceed an average of 80 

dBA for a 16-hour workday. For every 5-dBA increase in the average 

exposure, the allowable exposure time period is reduced by a factor of 

0.5. Exposures to levels in excess of 115 dBA are not recommended (50). 

The NIOSH-recommended permissible noise level exposures (69) are identical 

to the ACGIH levels. The criteria document recommends that these sound 

levels become effective for existing places of employment after an extensive feasibility study. 

74 
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Exposure concentration ranges for selected individual tasks have been 

presented in Tables 9 and 10. Where similar tasks have been performed 

among the facilities, comparisons have been made. A complete record of 

sampling results is presented in the Appendix. 

MDI 

Repackaging of bulk MDI was conducted at both manufacturing facilities in 

a generally comparable procedure, the main difference being that local 

exhaust ventilation was employed at certain locations at Manufacturer D. 

Personal exposures during MDI drum loading (see Table 9) were similar at 

both of the manufacturing facilities. The NIOSH recommended standard was 

not exceeded at either facility. 

The foam was applied in a similar manner at both application sites. The 

duties assigned within each job classification were generally similar. 

The concentration range reported for Applicator C (1.0-9.0 ppb) is repre- sentative of employee exposure during an outdoor application whereas the 

range reported for Applicator D (<2.3-68.0 ppb) is representative of 

employee exposure during an indoor foam application process. Since no 

mechanical ventilation is associated with the process at either location 

the difference in concentration ranges may reflect the presence of natural 

ventilation at the outdoor site or differences in chemical composition 

between the two systems. A comparison of the concentration ranges for the 

Helpers at each location also shows a higher concentation range at the 

indoor application site. Both the OSHA standard and the NIOSH recommended 

standard for exposure to MDI were exceeded at Applicator D's site. 

Area sample results (see Table 10) were generally similar to personal sample results for both drum fill and foam application tasks. 

75 
TABLE 9 

Employee's Exposure to MDI 

SAMPLES 

TASK FACILITY COLLECTED 

Filling drums with MDI Manufacturer C 5 

Fi 11 i ng drnns with MDI Manufacturer D 15 

Applying foam (outdoors) Applicator C 15 

Cleaning application 

equipment Applicator C l 

Setting up application 

equipment Applicator C l 

Cleaning surface to be 

foamed Applicator C 3 

Helper--assisting 

Applicator Applicator C 4 

Monitoring application 

equipment (inside truck) Applicator C 3 

Applying foam ( indoors) App 1 icator D 16 

Helper--assisting Applicator Applicator D 12 

Equipment maintenance 

during downtime Applicator D l 

TABLE 10 

Area Samples for MDI 

SAf,l>LES 

TASK COMPOUND FACILITY COLLECTED 

Fi 11 i ng drums MDI Manufacturer C l 

Fi 11 ing drwns MDI Manufacturer D 11 

App lying foam MDI Applicator D 4 

76 

CONCENTRATION 

RANGE (ppm) 

<Q .0008-0 .0020 

<Q .0002-0 .0050 

0.0010-0.0090 

<0.0017 

<0.0010 

<o.OOl0-<0,0016 

<Q,0010-0.005 

<a .0010-<o .0050 

<Q.0023-0.068 

0.0047-0.028 

0.0018 

CONCENTRATION 

RANGE (ppm) 

0.0005 

0.0002-0.0039 

0.0200-0.0690 
TDI 

At Manufacturer C's facility, a TDI prepolymer (a component of a polyurethane system not used for thermal insulation) was prepared in a process which involved handling and mixing TDI. The concentrations ranged from 22 

to 310 ppb for three samples taken. TDI was not used at any of the other 

facilities. 

OTHER AIR CONTAMINANTS 

The exposure concentration range of fluorotrichloromethane obtained for 

workers engaged in resin production by compounding at Manufacturer C's 

facility (35-96 ppm) was much higher than that obtained for resin production by blending (3.6 ppm) at that facility (see Table 11). The difference may be attributed to the observed increase in employee contact with 

raw materials in the compounding process at Manufacturer C's facility. 

The compounding process involves pouring raw materials including fluorotrichloromethane from drums into open vessels, whereas those engaged in 

the resin blending process have little contact with raw materials. At 

Manufacturer D's facility the blending vessels are equipped with pipe 

connections to bulk fluorotrichloromethane tanks. However, one of these 

vessels was open at the top. Visible amounts of vapor were released from 

the open vessel while fluorotrichloromethane was being added. The highest concentration detected at this facility (193 ppm) was obtained in the 

personal sample on the operator of this open vessel. 

Concentrations of fluorotrichloromethane during foam application were 

higher for Applicator D (105-180 ppm) than for Applicator C (1.6-13 ppm). 

The differences may be attributed to the natural ventilation associated 

with the outdoor application process for Applicator C, or to the differences in composition between the two systems being used. 

Exposure to alpha-methyl styrene is generally expected to parallel that of 

fluorotrichloromethane because it is present in (or added to) fluorotrichloromethane at 0.4% (by weight). alpha-Methyl styrene was not detected 

at any of the facilities with the exception of personal samples on the 

employee applying foam for Applicator D. The concentrations ranged from 

0.17 to 0.21 ppm. This employee was also exposed to fluorotrichloromethane at a relatively high concentration. 

77 
TABLE 11 

Employee's Exposure to Fluorotrichloromethane 

SAMPLES CONCENTRATION 

TASK FACILITY COLLECTED RANGE ( ppm) 

Resin manufacture 

(compounding) Ma nu fact urer C 3 35.0-96.0 

Resin manufacture 

1 (blending) Manufacturer C 3.6 

Maintenance of blend 

equipment Ma nu fact urer C l 0.95 

Quality control testing Manufacturer C 1 6.4 

Handling & sealing drums 

Manufacturer C at blending operation l 6.8 

Resin manufacture Manufacturer D 5 4 .4-193 .o 

App lying foam Applicator C 2 1.6-13 .o 

Assisting Applicator Applicator C 2 2.5-5.6 

App lying foam Applicator D 2 105-180 

Assisting Applicator App 1 icator D 2 33-77 

The exposure concentration ranges of amine compounds are presented in 

Table 12. Amine compounds were detected in personal samples at both the 

manufacturing facilities and the application sites. Concentrations during resin production were higher at Manufacturer C's facility than at Manufacturer D's facility. The addition of amine compounds in the resin manufacturing process is not performed by similar methods. At Manufacturer 

D's facility the compounds are added by inserting the pipe stem into a 

drum and pumping the desired amount into the vessel. At Manufacturer C's 

facility the process presents greater potential exposure because it 

involves additional steps including weighing the compounds in a separate 

container and pouring the compounds into the top of the vessel. 

Generally higher concentrations of amine compounds were obtained in the 

personal samples for Applicator D. This may be attributed to the difference in formulation of the resins used at the two different sites or the 

effects of natural ventilation (discussed previously). 

78 
'-J 

I.O 

TASK 

Resin manufacture (compounding) 

Resin manufacture (blending) 

Quality control testing 

Handling & sealing drums at 

blending operation 

Maintenance of blend equipment 

Resin Manufacture 

Applying foam 

Assisting Applicator 

Applying foam 

Assisting Applicator 

loimethylethanolamine 

2oimethylcyclohexylamine 

3Triethylene diamine 

4Tetramethyl butanediamine 

TABLE 12 

Employee's Exposure to Amine Compounds 

SAMPLES CONCENTRATION RANG~ (ppm) 

FACILITY COLLECTED DMEA l DMCHA2 TEDA nmo4 

Manufacturer C 2 <0.020-<o. 140 <0.007-0.620 

Manufacturer C 2 0. ll -0. 17 0.45-0.81 

Manufacturer C 2 <0.064-<0.130 0.061-0.110 

Manufacturer C 2 <0.073-<0.15 0.054-0.20 

Manufacturer C 2 <0.095-<0.220 <0.077-0.056 

Manufacturer D 5 <0.017-<0.033 <0.005-0.063 <0.015- 0.026 <0.056 

Applicator C 2 <0.008-<0.016 0 . 025-0. l 70 

Applicator C 2 <o .011-<o .025 <0.017-0.017 

Applicator D 3 <0.016-0.48 <0.045-0.07 

Applicator D 3 <0.008-0.130 <0.020- 0. 10 

-
The employee exposure to 2-ethoxyethanol (used to clean the spray gun and 

application equipment) was measured for Applicator D. The measured 

concentration was 129 ppm for the Applicator and 62 ppm for the Helper. 

Carbon monoxide measurements were made inside the truck for Applicator C 

and near the portable heating unit for Applicator D. The concentration 

for Applicator C ranged from 30 to 50 ppm with the gasoline powered 

compressor running. Normally, however, employees spend less than\ an 

hour inside the truck. The carbon monoxide level in the foam application 

area of Applicator D was 5 ppm. 

NOISE 

Noise level measurements were taken during the manufacture and application 

of polyurethane foam insulation. All values were below 85 dBA except for 

Applicator C where an equipment malfunction resulted in the Helper remaining inside the truck near an air compressor for an extended period. The 

noise level measured near this employee's ear was 96-97 dBA; the duration 

of the exposure was 2 hours. The projected 8-hour noise exposure is 57% 

to 66% of the OSHA standard and 115% to 132% of the NIOSH and ACGIH recommended limits. 

80 
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

CONCLUSIONS 

Exposure to ChemicaZ Substances During PoZyurethane 

Foam InsuZation Manufacturing Activities 

Existing engineering controls at the manufacturing facilities were found 

to be adequate to maintain vapor concentrations of materials associated 

with the manufacture of polyurethane thermal insulation systems within the 

limits established by NIOSH and ACGIH, and the OSHA standards. The amine 

compounds detected in the personal samples of employees have no standards 

or recommended limits; the highest observed amine concentration was 0.81 

ppm. Personal samples taken during the manufacture of TOI prepolymer (not 

used in thermal insulation systems) at Manufacturer C show that the airborne concentration of TOI can exceed the NIOSH and ACGIH recommended 

limits and OSHA standard. Personal protective equipment including respiratory protection (described previously) was used during the manufacture of the TOI prepolymer. 

Exposure to ChemicaZ Substances During PoZyurethane 

Foam InsuZation AppZication Activities 

Employees were not exposed to airborne contaminants in excess of the NIOSH 

and ACGIH recommended limits or the OSHA standards during the outdoor 

application process. Personal samples taken during the indoor application 

process show that MDI exposures can exceed the NIOSH and ACGIH recommended 

limits and the OSHA standard. Both the Mechanic and the Helper were shown 

to be exposed at levels in excess of the recommended limits and the OSHA 

standard during indoor application. Generally, higher concentrations of 

MDI were obtained in the samples taken on the Mechanic, whose activities 

involved a much closer association with the spraying operation than did 

the activities of the Helper. Exposure to other chemical substances 

associated with the indoor application process in excess of NIOSH and 

ACGIH recommended limits or the OSHA standard did not occur. 

81 
Exposure to Physical Agents 

Projected noise exposures based on sound level readings made during polyurethane foam application are not expected to exceed NIOSH and ACGIH 

limits or OSHA standards under normal conditions. Although the Helper 1 s 

exposures exceeded the NIOSH and ACGIH limits near an air compressor on 

one of the sampling days, the activity associated with this exposure is 

not considered to be routine. The OSHA standard was not exceeded during 

that activity. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Those operations at which MDI and TOI concentrations exceeded the NIOSH 

and ACGIH limits and the OSHA standards require the implementation of 

control measures. These should consist of engineering controls and 

acceptable work practices. Where engineering controls are not feasible, 

adequate personal protective equipment should be used. Improvements should include the following: 

1. Apply additional local exhaust ventilation to the TOI mixing drum to reduce TOI airborne concentrations to below the 

NIOSH and ACGIH recommended limits during the manufacture 

of TOI prepolymers at Plant C. 

2. Use adequate respiratory protective devices during the 

interim period while existing ventilation systems are being 

modified to reduce airborne TOI concentrations. NIOSH 

recommends Type C supplied-air respirators with full-facepiece, operated in the positive-pressure mode, for use with 

diisocyanates (82). 

3. Engineering controls to reduce MDI levels during indoor 

foam application would be desirable. The highly mobile 

nature of the spraying operation, however, makes the appli- cation of exhaust ventilation impractical. The tendency of 

foam particles to adhere to surfaces makes the use of conventional fans and ducting impractical. In view of the 

difficulties of applying engineering controls to the foam 

application process, use adequate respiratory protective 

devices (described previously for TOI) during indoor foam 

spraying. 

4. Institute an effective respiratory protection program in 

a 11 cases where respiratory protection is used. The 

essential elements of such a program have been described 

previously and are also presented in the NIOSH publication, 11A Guide to Industrial Respiratory Protection11 (71). 

5. Use work practice modifications or engineering controls to 

prevent employee exposure to sound levels in excess of the 

NIOSH and ACGIH recommended criteria during occasions which 

require an employee 1 s pesence inside the truck (near the 

82 
air compressor) for extended periods of time. The compressor should be removed from the truck on such occasions. 

Both NIOSH and ACGIH recommend that an effective hearing 

conservation program with audiometric testing be implement- ed for workers who are exposed to noise at or above the 

recommended limits. 

6. MDI, TOI and the components of the resin can cause irritation or corrosive damage to the eye. Wear snug-fitting 

goggles whenever there is a possibility of contact with 

these chemicals. Install fixed safety showers and eyewash 

stations in the production areas. 

83 
V. SUMMARY 

The manufacture and application of polyurethane foam insulation has been 

investigated from an industrial hygiene perspective. Existing controls at 

the manufacturing facilities were found to be adequate to maintain vapor 

concentrations within NIOSH and ACGIH recommended limits and the OSHA 

standards. However, during indoor application activities MDI concentrations have been shown to exceed NIOSH and ACGIH recommended limits and the 

OSHA standards. Noise levels in excess of NIOSH and ACGIH recormiended 

limits and the OSHA standards have been shown to exist at an applicator's site. Engineering control measures, improved work practices and use of 

adequate personal protective equipment will help to minimize worker 

exposure. 

The facilities of Producers C and Dare considered to be representative of 

the industry to the extent that similar materials are used and generally the same types of production activities are performed. There are some 

differences between Producers C and D regarding the labor-intensiveness 

and degree of automation of various of their activities, but these variations are probably reflected throughout the industry. Producers A and B 

were selected for this study largely because they were major producers 

without substantially mixed exposures; throughout most of the industy the 

workers producing polyurethane foam systems also produced various other 

chemical systems. Applicators C and Dare considered to be representatie 

of polyurethane foam applicators. 

84 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 

1. The chemistry of formaldehyde is complex, and reactions of formaldehyde in air or solutions, including polymerization, degradation, and combinations with other substances, require continued investigation. Development of a sampling and analytical technique suitable for personal monitoring and rapid analysis in the field would 

be particularly useful. Such a technique would allow specific 

identification and quantitative determination of formaldehyde and 

substances acting as sources of formaldehyde. 

2. Detailed epidemiologic studies are needed to determine the 

long-term health effects of occupational exposure to formaldehyde and safe levels for such exposures. This information is particularly relevent to identifying the significance for workers of the 

recent carcinogenic implications associated with exposures of rats 

to formaldehyde. 

3. A sampling and analytical method should be developed for MDI which 

will differentiate between monomeric and polymeric forms. 

4. The consequences of exposure to the aerosols produced during MDI 

spraying applications should be investigated. The reactive diisocyanate in aerosol form has been considered to produce the same 

biologic consequences as diisocyanate vapor at an equivalent concentration. This assumption should be experimentally verified. 

5. Detailed epidemiologic studies are needed to determine the 

long-term health effect of occupational exposure to diisocyanates 

and safe levels for such exposures. The studies should relate 

respiratory symptoms, pulmonary function data, and other health 

effects to actual individual exposures and should include long-term 

followup of persons leaving the workforce for health reasons. 

6. A worker education program should be developed and implemented in 

which workers are provided information including job hazards, 

proper application techniques to minimize exposures, proper maintenance and cleanup methods, and proper respirator use. 

85 
REFERENCES 

1. Modern Plastics Encyclopedia, 1975-1976. McGraw Hill, Inc., New 

York. 

2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1978. 

Engineering Control Technology Assessment for the Plastics and 

Resins Industry, DHEW (NIOSH ) Publication No. 78-159. 

3. Rakow, A. B., and E. J. Baier. 1971. Exposures to toluene 

diisocyanate (TOI) in polyurethane foam plants. HSMHA Health Rep. 86(7):663-666. 

4. Peters, J.M., and R. L. H. Murphy. 1971. Hazards to health: 

Do-it-yourself polyurethane foam. Am. Rev. Resp. Dis. 104:432-433. 

5. Rye, W. A. 1973. Human responses to isocyanate exposure. J. 

Occup. Med. 15(3):306-307. 

6. Woolrich, P.F. 1970. Chemical structure of polyurethane foam. J. 

Occup. Med. 12(12):529. 

7. Pagnotto, L. D., and D. H. Wegman. 1976. Exposure to 

Triethylenediamine (TEDA) in urethane foam manufacture. J. Occup. 

Med. 18(8):523-524. 

8. Seader, J. D., I. N. Einhorn, W. O. Drake, and C. M. Mihlfeith. 

1972. Analysis of volatile combustion products and a study of 

their toxicological effects. Polym. Eng. Sci. 12:125-133. 

9. Wegman, D. H., J. M. Peters, L. Pagnotto, and L. J. Fine. 1977. 

Chronic pulmonary function loss from exposure to toluene 

diisocyanate. Br. J. Ind. Med. 34:196-200. 

10. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1978. 

Criteria for a Recommended Standard .... Occupational Exposure to 

Diisocyanates. DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 78-215. 

11. Rossiter, W. J., Jr., R. G. Mathey, D. M. Burch, and E.T. Pierce. 

1977. Urea-Formaldehyde Based Foam Insulations: An Assessment of 

Their Properties and Performance. NBS Technical note 946. 

86 
12. Urea-Formaldehyde Based Foam Insulation: An Assessment of Their 

Properties and Performances, NBS Technical Notes 946. 1977. 

Natonal Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC. 

13. Insulation: sales and troubles pile up. 1978. Chem. Week 

122(14):15-16. 

14. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1976. 

Criteria for a Recommended Standard .... Occupational Exposure to 

Formaldehyde. DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 77-126. 

15. Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, Research Finding 

Statement, October 8, 1979. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

16. Dement, J .. M. 1975. Environmental aspects of fibrous glass 

production and utilization. Environ. Res. 9(3):295-312. 

17. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1977. 

Criteria for a recommended standard .... Occupational Exposure to 

Fibrous Glass. DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 77-152. 

18. Katin, P. 1977. Johns-Manville Corp. communication with U.S. 

Consumer Project Safety Commission. July 10. 

19. Kotin, P. 1977. Johns-Manville Corp. submission to CPSC. October 

14. 

20. Fowler, D. P., J. L. Balzer, and W. C. Cooper. 

insulation workers to airborne fibrous glass. 

J., Vol. 32. February. 

1971. Exposure of 

Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. 

21. Balzer, J. L., D. P. Fowler, and W. C. Cooper. 1971. Glass Fibers 

in Ambient Air. Report to Health and Safety Committee, National 

Insulation Manufacturers Association. September 30. 

22. Balzer, J. L. Environmental exposures in the insulation trade. 

Outlook, National Insulation Cocntractors Association. 

23. J. L. Balzer, W. C. Cooper, and J. Murchie. 1971. Electron and 

Light Microscopic Identification of Glass Fibers in Air. Report to 

Health and Safety Committee, National Insulation Manufacturers 

Association. September 30. 

24. Marsh, G. M., and P. E. Enterline. 1977. Mortality Among Man-Made 

Mineral Fiber Workers in the United States. Paper presented at 

105th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, 

Washington, DC, November 1. 

25. Enterline, P.E., and G. M. Marsh. 1977. Environment and Mortality 

of Workers from a Fibrous Glass Plant. Paper presented at the 

Conference on Occupational Exposure to Fibrous and Particulate Dust 

and Their Extension into the Environment, SOEH, Washington, DC 

December 6. 

87 
26. Enterline, P. E., and V. Henderson. 1975. The health of retired 

fibrous glass workers. AEH, Vol. 30. March. 

27. The Biological Effects of Man-Made Mineral Fibres (MMMF). 

Proceedings of a workshop sponsored by the Scientific and Technical 

Committee of the Joint European Medical Research Board, WHO 

Regional Office, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 26, 1976. 

28. Esmen, N. A., M. Corn, Y. Y. Hammad, D. Whittier, N. Kotsko, M. 

Haller, R. Kahn, and R. Whitfield. 1978. Final Report: Exposure of Employees to Man-Made Mineral Fibers: Ceramic Fiber 

Production. Submitted to Thermal Insulation Manufacturers 

Association. July. 

29. Corn, M., and N. Esmen. Summary Final Report: Estimation of 

Employee Exposure to Total Suspended Particulate Matter and 

Airborne Mineral Wool. Submitted to Medical and Scientific 

Committee of the Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association. 

30. Esmen, N. A., Y. Y. Hammad, M. Corn, D. Whittier, N. Kotsko, M. 

Haller, and R. A. Kahn. 1978. Exposure of employees to man-made 

mineral fibers: Mineral wool production. Environ. Res. 15:262-277. 

31. Esmen, N. A., M. Corn, Y. Y. Hammad, D. Whittier, and N. Kotsko. 

1977. Results of Measurements of Employee Exposure to Airborne 

Dust and Fiber in Sixteen Facilities Producing Man-Made Fibers. 

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AIHA, New Orleans, May 

23. 

32. Corn, M. and N. Esmen. 1977. Summary Final Report: Estimation of 

Employee Exposure to Total Suspended Particulate Matter and 

Airborne Glass Fibers. Submitted to Medical and Scientific 

Committee of the Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association. 

March 23. 

33. Fowler, D. P. (SRI International). 1978. Industrial Hygiene 

Surveys of Occupational Exposures to Mineral Wool. Report on NIOSH 

Contract 210-76-0120. June. 

34. Timbrell, V. 1965. The inhalation of fibrous dusts. Ann. N.Y. 

Acad. Sci. 132(1):255-273. 

35. Assuncao, J., and M. Corn. 1975. The effects of milling on 

diameters and length of fibrous glass and crysotile asbestos 

fibers. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 36(11):811-819. 

36. Hammond. E. C., I. J. Selikoff, and J. Churg. 1965. Neoplasia 

among insulation workers in the United States with special 

reference to intraabdominal neoplasia. Ann. N.Y. Acad, Sci. 

132(1):519-523. 

37. Selikoff, I. J. 1976. Lung cancer and mesothelioma during 

prospective surveillance of 1249 asbestos insulation workers, 

1963-1974. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 271:448-58. 

88 
38. Harries, P. G. 1971. A comparison of mass and fibre 

concentrations of asbestos dust in shipyard insulation processes. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 14:235-240. 

39. Selikoff, I. J., J. Churg, and E. C. Hammond. 1965. The 

occurrence of asbestosis among insulation workers in the United 

States. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 132(1):139-155. 

40. Reitze, W. B., W. J. Nicholson, D. A. Holaday, and I. J. Selikoff. 

1972. Application of sprayed inorganic fiber containing asbestos: 

Occupational health hazards. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 33(2):178-191. 

41. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1972. 

Criteria for a Recommended Standard .... Occupational Exposure to 

Asbestos. 

42. Gibbs, G. W., and C. Y. Hwang. 1975. Physical parameters of 

airborne asbestos fibres in various work environments--preliminary 

findings. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 36:459-466. 

43. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1976. 

Recommended Asbestos Standard. DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 77-169. 

44. Guy, R. B., D. C~ Slivka, and T. G. Schafer (Battelle Columbus 

Division). 1978. Draft Final Report: Economic Impact Analysis 

for Proposed Amendments to the Interim Safety Standard for 

Cellulose Insulation. Submitted to Deputy Associate Executive 

Directorate for Economic Analysis, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. November 29. 

45. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1978. 

Criteria for a Recommended Standard .... Occupational Exposure to 

Carbon Black. DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 78-204. 

46. NIOSH Method No. P&CAM 125, Formaldehyde in Air. 1974. In: NIOSH 

Manual of Analytical Methods, HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 75-121. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. 

47. NIOSH Method No. P&CAM 205, Ammonia in Air. 1977. In: NIOSH 

Manual of Analytical Methods, Second Edition, Volume 1, HEW 

Publication No. (NIOSH) 77-157-A. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

48. NIOSH Method No. P&CAM S365, Furfuryl Alcohol. 1978. In: NIOSH 

Manual of Analytical Methods, Second Edition, Volume 4, HEW 

Publication No. (NIOSH) 78-175. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

49. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Second Edition, DHEW 

Publication No. (NIOSH) 78-175. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

50. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: 

Threshold Limit Values of Chemical Substances and Physical Agents 

in the Workroom, Environment with Intended Changes for 1980. 

1980. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

89 
51. OSHA. 1978. Occupational Safety and Health General Industry 

Standards (29 CFR 1910). U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, revised November, 1978. 

52. U.S.A. Standard--Acceptable Concentrations of Formaldehyde, USAS 

237.16-1967. 1967. American National Standards Institute, New 

York, New York. 

53. NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard .... Occupational Exposure 

to Formaldehyde, HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 77-126. 1976. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. pp. 94-98. 

54. Brandt, A.O. 1943~ Engineering control of air contamination of 

the working environment. In: W.M. Gafafer, Ed., Manual of 

Industrial Hygiene and Medical Services in War Industries. pp. 

264-65. 

55. Report of the Sub-Committee on Threshold Limits, in Proceedings of 

the Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists. April 7-13, 1946. Chicago, 

Illinois. p. 54. 

56. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: 

Transactions of the Tenth Annual Meeting. March 27-30, 1948. 

Boston, Massachusetts. p. 30. 

57. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: 

Threshold Limit Values of 1963. 1963. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

p. 3. 

58. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: 

Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants and Physical Agents 

with Intended Changes Adopted by ACGIH for 1970. 1970. ACGIH, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. pp. 9 & 31. 

59. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: 

Threshold Limit Values of Chemical Substances and Physical Agents 

in the Workroom, Environment with Intended Changes for 1973. 

1973. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio. p. 10. 

60. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. TLVs: 

Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents 

with Intended Changes for 1968. 1968. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

61. NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard ...• Occupational Exposure 

to Ammonia, HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 74-136. 1974. National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

62. Threshold Limit Values for 1960, Adopted at the 22nd Annual Meeting 

of The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 

Rochester, New York, April 23-26, 1960. Arch Environ Health 

1: 140-44, 1960. 

63. Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants, Adopted by ACGIH 

for 1971. 1971. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio. pp. 16-17 & 32-33. 

90 
64. TLVs--Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in Workroom 

Air, Adopted by ACGIH for 1974. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio. pp. 20-21. 

65. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents in The Workroom Environment with Intended Changes for 1976. 

1976. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio. p. 19. 

66. NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard .... -Occupational Exposure 

to Furfuryl Alcohol, HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 79-133. 1979. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. 

67. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Substances in 

Workroom Air, 4th Edition. 1979. Cincinnnati, American Conference 

of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 

68. NIOSH Criteria for a Recorrunended Standard .... Occupational Exposure 

to Phenol, DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 76-196. 1976. U.S. 

Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Center for Disease 

Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

69. NIOSH Criteria for a RecoJTTTiended Standard .... Occupational Exposure 

to Noise. 1972. HSM 73-11001. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health. 

70. Standards for Occupational Exposures to Hot Environments. 1976. 

Proceedings of Symposium, February 27-28, 1973, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 76-100. National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

71. NIOSH. A Guide to Industrial Respiratory Protection. 1976. HEW 

Publication No. (NIOSH) 76-189. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

72. NIOSH Method No. P&CAM 141, 2,4-Toluenediisocyanate (TOI) in Air. 

1977. In: NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Second Edition, 

Volume 1, DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 77-157-A. National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

73. NIOSH Method No. P&CAM 142, p,p-Diphenylmethane Diisocyanate (MDI) 

in Air. 1977. In: NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Second 

Edition, Volume 1, DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 77-157-A. National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

74. NIOSH Method No. P&CAM 270, Aminoethanol Compounds. 1978. 

NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Second Edition, Volume 

Publication No. (NIOSH) 78-175. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

In: 

4, DHEW 

75. NIOSH Method No. Sl02, Fluorotrichloromethane. 1977. In: . NIOSH 

Manual of Sampling Data Sheets, DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 

77-159. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 

91 
76. NIOSH Method No. S26, alpha-Methyl Styrene. 1977. In: NIOSH 

Manual of Analytical Methods, Second Edition, Volume 3, DHEW 

Publication No. (NIOSH) 77-159. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

77. NIOSH Method No. P&CAM S329, Methylene Chloride. 1977. In: 

NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Second Edition, Volume 3, DHEW 

Publication No. (NIOSH) 77-157-C. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

78. NIOSH Method No. P&CAM 176, Tin in Atmospheric Particulate Matter 

and Biological Materials. 1977. In: NIOSH Manual of Analytical 

Methods, Second Edition, Volume 1, DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 

77-157-A. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 

79. Atomic Absorption Methods Manual, Volumes 1 and 2. 1977. 

Instrumentation Laboratories, Inc., Wilmington, Massachusetts. 

80. Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy. 1968. Interscience Publishers. 

pp. 174-177. 

81. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 

Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical 

in the Workroom Environment with Intended Changes for 1978. 

ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

TLVs: 

Agents 

1978. 

82. NIOSH Criteria for a RecolTITlended Standard .•.. Occupational Exposure 

to Diisocyanates, DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 78-215. 1978. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. pp. 90-91. 

83. NIOSH Criteria for a Recorrunended Standard .•.. Occupational Exposure 

to Methylene Chloride, HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 76-138. 1976. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. 

84. NIOSH Criteria for a Recorrunended Standard .... Occupational Exposure 

to Organotin Compounds, DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH ) 77-115. 

1977. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 

85. NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard .... Occupational Exposure 

to Carbon Monoxide, HSM 73-11000. 1972. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

92 
APPENDIXES 

93 
Appendix 1. CALCULATION OF STATISTICAL MEASURES 

LCL Calculation 

Where samples were taken for the entire period for which the standard is 

defined, the lower confidence limit (95%) was determined using the following formula. 

LCL = X-[(l.645)(C.V.)(Standard)J 

where 

X = measurement being tested 

1.645 = critical standard normal deviate for 95% confidence 

C.V. = total coefficient of variation 

standard= occupation health standard to which the comparison is 

being made 

Example calculation: 

A personal formaldehyde sample was collected for 33 minutes. The concentration was 5.4 ppm. The total coefficient of variation was 0.13. Does the 

lower confidence limit (95%) exceed the acceptable ceiling concentration of 

5 ppm which is allowed for 30 minutes; thus showing, with 95% confidence, 

that the true average concentration exceeds the standard? 

Answer: 

LCL = X - [(l.543)(C.V.)(Standard)J 

= 5.4 ppm - [(1.645)(0.13)(5 ppm)] 

= 5.4 ppm - [1.1 ppm] 

= 4.3 ppm 

94 
The LCL (4.3 ppm) does not exceed the standard (5 ppm); therefore, we 

cannot be 95% confident that the true average concentration exceeds the 

standard. 

Reference: 

NIOSH Technical Information: Statistical Methods for the Determination 

of Noncompliance with Occupational Health Standards. April 1975. 

Coefficient of Variation 

The total coefficient of variation (CVT) was determined using the formula 

CVT = /(CVp)2 + (CVA)2 

CVP is an average of the coefficients of variation for all pumps used 

that collected with identical sampling trains at the same intended flow 

rates. CVA is the analytical coefficient of variation, which was 

reported as 0.05 or less. 

Example Calculation of CVT 

Five pumps were used over the course of a study to collect formaldehyde at 

1 liter per minute. Each pump received multiple calibrations. The 

coefficient of variations (standard deviation of calibration flow rates/ 

arithmetic mean of calibration flow rates) for the 5 pumps were as 

follows: 

Pump 1: 0.06 

Pump 2: 0.03 

Pump 3: 0.05 

Pump 4: 0.06 

Pump 5: 0.05 

Calculate CVP: 

cvP = 0.06 + o.o3 + o.o5 + 0.06 + o.o5 / 5 

cvP = o.o5 

95 
Given that the CVA is 0.05, calculate the CVT 

CVT = /(CVp)

2 

+ (CVA)

2 

= 1(0.05)

2 

+ (0.05)

2 

= 1

o .0052 

= 0.07 

Reference: 

NIOSH Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual. January 1977. 

96 
Appendix 2. 

UREA FORMALDEHYDE THERMAL INSULATION 

Manufacturer A 

Manufacturer B 

Applicator A 

Applicator B 

POLYURETHANE THERMAL INSULATION 

Manufacturer C 

Manufacturer D 

Applicator C 

Applicator D 

97 

Page 

98 

105 

107 

114 

Page 

118 

121 

124 

127 
UREA FORMALDEHYDE THERMAL INSULATION 

Manufacturer A 

Table 1. Cumulative Daily Sampling Period Time-Weighted Averages of 

Formaldehyde in parts per million (ppm) 

Concentrations 

Job Classification 

9/25/79 9/26/79 

Cook 0.27 0.36 

Cook's Assistant 0.47 0.78 

Drum Washer 0.52 0.30 

Foaming Agent Blender 0.24 0.18 

Table 2. Exposure to Formadlehyde in ppm -- Cook 

Sample Sampling Concen- Date Period Activities # (min) tration 

1 9/25 a.m. 30 Working on the floor while reactor 0.35 

was being filled with formalin 

2 9/25 a.m. 178 Cooking first batch of urea form- 0.37 

aldehyde resin 

3 9/25 a.m. 78 Cooking first batch of urea formal- 0.22 

dehyde resin; washinq resin drums 

4 9/25 a.m. 232 Washing resin drums; removing lids 0.20 

from used resin drums 

5 9/26 a.m. 15 Operating forklift while reactor 0.12 

was being filled with fonnalin 

6 9/26 a.m. 178 Cooking first batch of urea form- 0.35 

aldehyde resin 

7 9/26 a.m. 125 Cooking first batch of urea form- 0.55 

aldehyde re~in; material handling; 

assisting in capping filled resin 

drums 

8 9/26 p.m. 99 Operating forklift; assisting the 0.23 

Foaming Agent Blender 

9 9/26 p.m. 89 Operating forklift 0.29 

98 
Table 3. Exposure to Formaldehyde in ppm -- Cook's Assistant 

Sample Sampling Concen- Date Period Activities # (min) tration 

1 9/25 a.m. 218 Gathering raw materials for first 0.17 

batch of resin; operating forklift; 

setting up resin drums for filling 

2 9/25 a.m. 62 Open-top filling of drums with urea 1.sa formaldehyde resin; some time spent 

in other activitiP.~ 

3 9/25 p.m. 226 Operating forklift; setting up 0.39 

resin drums for filling; gathering 

raw materials for resin production; 

placing lids on filled resin drums 

4 9/26 a.m. 222 Gathering raw materials for first 0.29 

batch of resin; labeling resin 

drum tops 

5 9/26 a.m. 30 Open-top filling of drums with 5.4 

urea formaldehyde resin 

6 9/26 p.m. 113 Operating forklift; various duties 0.31 

in the reactor area 

7 9/26 p.m. 40 Unloading empty resin drums from 0.52 

truck; working in drum-filling 

area 

8 9/26 p.rn. 25 Filling drums with urea forrnalde- 2.1 

hyde resin through lid opening 

9 9/25 p.rn. 30 Open-top filling of drums with 2.6 

urea formaldehyde resin 

afhis value may be a slight underestimation for the activity described 

since sampling started about 8 minutes before filling operations began. 

99 
Table 4. Exposure to Formaldehyde in ppm -- Drum-Washer 

Sample 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Table 5. 

Sample 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Sampling 

Date Period 

(min) 

9/25 a.m. 177 

9/25 p.m. 230 

9/26 a.m. 198 

9/26 p.m. 115 

9/26 p.m. 98 

Activities 

Washing used resin drums 

Washing used resin drums; 

labels off lids scraping 

Washing used resin drums; unloading new resin drums from truck 

Washing used resin drums 

Washing used resin drums; stacking 

new resin drums 

Concentration 

0.23 

0.74 

0.20 

0.32 

0.47 

Exposure to Formaldehyde in ppm -- Foaming Agent Blender 

Sampling Concen- Date Period Activities 

{min) tration 

9/25 a.m. 204 Operating forklift; pumping foam- 0.15 

ing agent into drums 

9/25 p.m. 207 Pumping raw foaming agent into 0.34 

holding tank; handling foaming 

agent drums; cleaning foaming 

agent area 

9/26 a.m. 199 Operating forklift; unloading 0.26 

truck; setting up foaming agent pails for filling 

9/26 p.m. 101 Setting up foaming agent pails for 0.06 

filling; filling pails with foaming agent 

9/26 p.m. 96 Scraping labels off resin drum 0.13 

lids; unloading truck 

100 
Table 6. Fonnaldehyde Measurements Using Draeger Detector Tubes 

Sample Date Tube Location/Activity Concentration 

# (ppm) 

1 8/29 0.002 Cook's Assistant's breathing 10 

zone while filling drums with 

resin 

2 8/29 0.002 Cook's Assistant's breathing 10 

zone while filling drums with 

resin 

3 8/29 0.002 Drum Washer's breathing zone N.D.a 

while washing drums 

4 8/29 0.002 Drum Washer's breathing zone N. D.a 

while washing drums 

5 9/25 0.5/a Reactor platfonn while reactor 2 

was being filled with 

fonna l in 

6 9/25 0.5/a Lid kettle area while reactor 1 

was being filled with 

fonnalin 

7 9/25 0.5/a Center of plant while reactor N.D.b 

was being filled with 

fonnalin 

8 9/25 0.002 Cook's Assistant's breathing 5-10 

zone while filling drums with 

resin 

aNon-detectable: <1.6 ppm; the manufacturer states this value is the 

lower limit of reliable detection. 

bNon-detectable: <0.5 ppm; the manufacturer states this value is the 

lower limit of reliable detection. 

101 
Table 7. Exposure to Ammonia in ppm on September 27, 1979 -- Cook 

Sample Sampling Activities Concentration # Period (min) 

1 13 a.m. Pumping ammonia into reactor 15 

2 205 a.m. Cooking first batch of urea 1.1 

formaldehyde resin 

3 73 a.m. Cooking first batch of urea 1.3 

formaldehyde resin 

4 186 p.m. Working in foaming agent area; 0.96 

removing tops from used resin 

drums 

Cumulative sampling period TWA 1.5 

Table 8. Exposure to Ammonia in ppm on September 27, 1979 -- Cook's Assistant 

Sample Sampling Activities Concentration # Period (min) 

1 218 a.m. Handling drummed and bagged 0 .13 

resin raw materials 

2 55 a.m. Filling drums with resin N.D.a 

3 182 p.m. Operating forklift; setting up 0.16 

resin drums for filling 

4 52 p.m. Filling drums with resin 1.6 

Cumulative sampling period TWA 0.28 

aNon-detectable: <50 μg (<1.2 ppm). 

l 02 
Table 9. Ammonia Concentrations (ppm) on the Reactor Platform -- September 27, 1979 

Sample Sampling Activities Concentration # Period (min) 

1 13 a.m. Arrrnonia being pumped into reac- 24 

tor 

2 178 a.m. First resin batch cooking 0.69 

3 106 a.m./ Resin cooking; ammonia being 3.8 

p.m. pumped into reactor 

4 211 p.m. Resin cooking; drums being 0.45 

filled with resin 

Cumulative sampling period TWA 1.8 

Table 10. Ammonia Measurements Using 5/a Draeger Detector Tubes 

Sample 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Date Location/Activity 

8/29 Breathing zone of Cook while pumping ammonia 

8/29 Reactor platform while pumping ammonia 

8/29 Cook's breathing zone while pulling 

pump stem from ammonia drum 

8/29 Breathing zone of Drum Hasher while 

washing drums 

9/27 Reactor platform while pumping ammonia 

into reactor 

9/27 Reactor platform while pump stem was 

pulled from ammonia drum 

9/27 Reactor area during cooking of resin 

9/27 Reactor platform during cooking of 

resin 

9/27 Drum-washing area during cooking of 

res in 

9/27 Breathing zone of Cook's Assistant 

while filling drums with resin 

9/27 Breathing zone of Drum ~:asher while 

washing drums 

9/27 Reactor platform while ammonia was 

being pumped into the reactor 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

N.D.a 

5-10 

300 

N.D.a 

N .D _a 

40-50 

N.D.a 

N.D.a 

N •. D.a 

N.D.a 

N.D.a 

N.D.a 

aNon-detectable: <5 ppm; the manufacturer states this value is the 

lower limit of reliable detection. 

103 
Table 11. Furfuryl Alcohol Exposures 

Sample Sampling Concentration Period Employee or Location/Activity # (min) (ppm) 

1 336 Reactor area/Cooking and drumming <0.3 

resin 

2 32 Drum Washer/Washing drums <3.3 

3 187 Foaming Agent Blender/Working in <0.6 

foaming agent area 

4 52 Cook's Assistant/Filling drums with <0.9 

resin 

Table 12. Sound Level Readings for Various Operations 

Table 

Location/Activity dBA 

Center of reactor platform with impeller running at low speed 74 

Reactor platform with impeller running at high speed 83-94 

Drum-Washer washing drums (using Landa steam generator) 85-92 

Drum-Washer washing outside of drums (using Landa steam 84-87 

genera tor) 

Part-time Drum Washer cleaning outside of drums, drums inverted 88-97 

Screwing lid retainers on resin drums 93-96 

Foaming Agent Blender filling drums with foaming agent 95-99 

13. WBGT Readings on the Reactor Platform -- August 29, 1979 

Time Wet Bulb Globe Temperature WBGTa 

8:17 a.m. 26 32 28 

8:47 a.m. 26 33 28 

9:30 a.m. 27 34 29 

10:23 a.m. 26 32 28 

11 :08 a .m. 26 31 28 

11:45 a.m. 27 33 29 

12:49 p.m. 27 34 29 

1:52 p.m. 27 36 30 

2:53 p.m. 27 33 29 

awBGT • 0.7 WB + 0.3 GT. 

104 
Manufacturer B 

Table 14. Formaldehyde Concentrations Area Samples 

I Sample I I Sampling Sample Conccntr aLion 1_ll_~nber_l Dale I Period (min) Location (nmn) 

I 

I 301 3/3 I 253 reactor deck, upper 0.32 

I I left side 

I I 

I 306 3/3 I 102 reactor deck, upper 0.26 

I I left side 

I I 

I 402 3/4 I 124 reactor deck, upper o. 29 

I I left side 

I I 

I 403 3/4 I 120 reactor deck, upper. o. 75 

I I left side 

I I 

I 302 3/3 I 118 reactor deck, upper o. 14 

I I right side 

I I 

I 303 3/3 I 119 reactor deck, upper 3. 58 

I I ri,ght side 

I I 

I 305 3/3 I 98 reactor deck, upper 1.04 

I I right side 

I I 

I 401 3/4 I 190 reacl:or deck, over 5.17 

I I temperature readout 

I I 

I 307 3/3 I 70 near resin drumming 0.21 

I I 

I 406 3/4 I 45 near resin drumming 0.22 

I I 

I 407 3/4 I 46 near resin drumming 0.16 

I I 

I 404 3/4 I 1'10 near foaming agent 0.07 

I I drumming 

I I 

I 408 3/l. I 57 near fo:iming agent 0.04 

I I drurr,ming 

I 

105 
Table 15. Fonnaldehyde Concentrations Personal Samples 

I Sarnp le I Sampling ------ Concentration 

I Numbe_!_~~_J__Period (min) --~~J:yity { rrnm) 

I I 

304 I 3/3 I 54 resin sampling 0.34 

I I and testing (chemist) 

I I 

405 I 3/ /1 I 60 resin samplins 0.45 

I I and testing (chemist) 

I I 

308 I 3/3 I 11 resin drumming 0.18 

I I (laborer) 

309 I 3/3 I 28 res in drurm1i ng 0.69 

I I (laborer) 

409 I 3/4 I 31 resin drur.,ming l. 28 

I I (laborer) 

410 I 3/4 I 12 resin drumming 0.80 

(laborer) 

106 
Applicator A 

Table 16. Formaldehyde Exposure During Urea Formaldehyde Foam Application -- Exterior Retrofit Foam Mechanic 

Sample .ll 

TT 

1 

2 

Date 

12/6/79 

12/6/79 

Sampling Period 

(On-Off) (min) 

1329-1406 

1406-1508 

37 

62 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

0.50 

--------------------------------------------------------~---- 3 12/10/79 1205-1233 28 0.24 

------------------------------------------------------------- 4 12/10/79 1235-1305 30 1.1 

------------------------------------------------------------- 5 12/10/79 1308-1350 42 0.40 

------------------------------------------------------------- 6 12/11/79 1229-1302 33 0.24 

------------------------------------------------------------- 7 12/11/79 1337-1417 40 0.14 

aVial containing contents of second impinger reported broken 

at laboratory; result reflects concentration in first impinger. 

Table 17. Exposures to Formaldehyde During Additional Urea Formaldehyde Exterior Retrofit Activities -- Foam Mechanic 

Sample 

# 

1 

2 

3 

Date 

12/6/79 

12/6/79 

Sampling .Period 

(On-Off) (min) 

1032-1235 

1245-1324 

123 

39 

12/10/79 0907-1058 111 

Activity 

Opening house 

In truck while resin and 

foaming agent were circulating 

Opening; observing 

progress 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

0.16 

0.34 

0.11 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 12/10/79 1408-1446 38 

5 12/11/79 1110-1222 72 

107 

Checking resin level in 

drum; storing application equipment 

Cle-aning application gun 

in truck; begin circulation of foaming agent and resin 

0.73 

0.35 
Table 18. Exposure to Formaldehyde During Urea Formaldehyde Foam Exterior 

Retrofit Activities -- Laborers 

Sample Sampling Period Concentration .lJ Date Activity TT (ppm) (On-Off) (min) 

1 12/6/79 0844-1018 94 Opening (removing 0.09 

shingles) 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 12/6/79 1411-1529 78 Closing (replacing shingles) 

0.15 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 12/10/79 0839-1109 

4 12/10/79 1214-1315 

150 

61 

Opening (drilling 

mortar) 

Closing (with mortar) 

0.11 

0.12 

---------------------. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5 

6 

12/10/79 

12/10/79 

1322-1409 

1344-1402 

47 

20 

Closing (with mortar) 

In house monitoring 

for structural stress 

0.73 

0.40 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 12/10/79 1418-1452 34 Cleaning up trash 

foam 

0.65 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 12/11/79 1315-1413 58 Closing (replacing 

aluminum siding) 

0.20 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 12/11/79 1208-1418 10 In house monitoring for structural stress 

0.32 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 12/11/79 1446-1508 22 Cleaning up trash 

foam 

Table 19. Exposure to Formaldehyde Warehouseman 

Sample ~ Date TT 

1 12/10/79 

2 12/11/79 

3 12/11/79 

Sampling Period 

(On-Off) (min) 

1603-1722 79 

1623-1648 25 

1737-1824 47 

Activity 

Cleaning out and stocking two urea 

formaldehyde vans 

Cleaning out and stocking urea 

formaldehyde van #14 

Cleaning out and stocking urea 

formaldehyde van #15 

108 

0.15 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

0.27 

0.60 

0.61 
Table 20. Formaldehyde Concentrations in the Step Van During 

Urea Formaldehyde Exterior Retrofit Activities 

Sample 

j 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Date 

12/6/79 

12/6/79 

12/6/79 

12/10/79 

12/10/79 

12/10/79 

12/10/79 

12/10/79 

12/10/79 

12/10/79 

12/ 11/79 

12/11/79 

12/11/79 

12/11/79 

12/11/79 

12/11/79 

12/11/79 

12/11/79 

Sampling Period 

(On-Off) (min) 

0846-1042 

1055-1511 

1513-1532 

0723-0800 

0815-1058 

1107-1211 

1211-1413 

1431-1448 

1523-1534 

1632-1703 

0743-0920 

0930-1110 

1117-1223 

1223-1425 

1448-1505 

1509-1545 

1624-1648 

1737-1824 

116 

256 

19 

37 

163 

64 

122 

17 

11 

31 

97. 

100 

66 

122 

17 

36 

24 

46 

Activity 

During opening operations 

During opening and application operations 

During application 

operations 

During trip to site 

During opening operations 

During fodmi ng agent and 

resin circulation 

During foam application 

During cleanup 

During trip back to 

warehouse 

During clean out and 

stocking at warehouse 

During trip to siteb 

During opening 9perations 

During gun cleaning and 

resin and foaming agent 

circulation 

During foam application 

During cleanup 

During trip back to ware- house, van #14 

During clean out and 

stocking at warehouse, van 114 

During clean out and 

stocking at warehouse, van #15 

4 Results reflect concentration in first impinger only. 

bvan was at site for about\ hour before sample collection was tenninated. 

109 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

0.27 

0.33 

2.0 

0.48 

o.ioa 

0.25 

0.14 

0.31 

0.66 

0.37 

0.23 

0.32 

0.14 

0.15 

0.39 

1.0 

1.2 

0.55 
Table 21. Formaldehyde Concentrations in the Warehousea 

Sample Sampling Period Concentration J.! Date Activity rr (ppm) ( On-Off) (min) 

1 12/10/79 0706-0730 24 Employees waiting to leave 0.19 b 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 12/i0/79 1624-1722 58 Cleaning and stocking vans 0.22 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 12/11/79 0711-0743 32 Employees waiting to leave 0.17 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 12/11/79 1633-1647 14 Cleaning and stocking vans 0.43 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 12/11/79 1746-1825 39 Cleaning and stocking vans 0.85 

aTaken on shelf near restrooms. 

bResults reflect concentration in first impinger only. 

Table 22. Formaldehyde Exposure During Open-Bay Urea Formaldehyde Foam 

Insulation Application on December 12, 1979 -- Foam Mechanic 

Sample Sampling Period Concentration Floor # (On-Off) (min) (ppm) 

1 1152-1226 34 1.1 Second 

------------------------------------------------------------ 2 

3 

4 

1226-1257 

1346-1416 

1416-1443 

31 

30 

27 

110 

2.4 

1.1 

1.6 

Second 

First 

First 
Table 23. Formaldehyde Exposure During Open-Bay Scraping Operations 

on December 12, 1979 -- Laborer 

Tab 1 e 2:,1. 

Sample 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Sampling Period 

(On-Off) (min) 

1208-1242 

1242-1317 

1404-1435 

1437-1449 

34 

35 

31 

12 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

0.86 

2.3 

1.6 

2.3 

Floor 

Second 

Second 

First 

Fi rs t 

Area Samples for Formaldehyde During Open-Bay Urea Formaldehyde 

Foam Insulation Application on December 12, 1979a 

Sample Sampling Period Concentration Floor # (On-Off) (min) (ppm) 

1 1237-1309 32 0.89 Second 

----------------------------4--------------------------------

2 

3 

4 

1310-1340 

1347-1427 

1427-1449 

aTaken near room center. 

30 

40 

22 

111 

1.1 

0.57 

l. 2 

Second 

First 

Fi rs t 
Table 25. Formaldehyde Measurements Using Draeger Detector Tubes 

Sample 

# DJte 

9/17/79 

Tube 

0 .5/a 

l.ncation/1ktivi ty 

Front of van prior to leaving warehouse 

Conr.cntration 

(pp,n) 

ti. 0. a 

2 9/17/79 0.002 Back of van while resin and foaming agent were N.D.b 

c i rcu 1 at i_ng 

-----;- - --9/17/79 0 . 5/a Oack of van while resin and foaming agent were N.D.a 

circulating 

-----;-- -- -~~17/79 0 . 002 Foam Mechanic's breathing zone while forming a N.o.b 

foam cube for density test 

5 9/17/79 0.002 Foam Mechanic's breathing zone during urea N.D .b 

formdldehyde foam dppl ication -exterior 

6 9/17 /79 0. 5/« 

9/ 18/79 0.5/d 

retrofit 

In house during urea for111,1ldchyrle foam applied ti on 

Oack of van while resin and foaming agant were 

circulating 

N.D.a 

N.D.'1 

8 9/10/79 0.002 Oad of van during foam a11plication N.D.b 

9 9/18/79 0.002 Foam Mcch,rnic's brc,1thini1 zone duriny urea tl.o.11 

formaldehyde foam applic,1tion-extc,rior 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

7.0 

9/ Ul/ /9 

12/6/79 

12/10/79 

12/ 10/79 

12/10/79 

12/11/79 

12/11/79 

12/11/79 

12/11/79 

12/12/79 

12/12/79 

0 .002 

(l. ~/ a 

0.5/a 

0 .5/a 

0.002 

0.5/a 

0.5/a 

0.5/a 

0.5/d 

0 . 5/a 

0.5/a 

retrofit 

Oack of van upon rl'turning to \'larc•hou~e 

fo,1111 Mtich,rnic 's hrcathing zone whil<' cleaning 

,1pplication qun in l!t1ck <if van 

Fo<1m Mechanic's brc,1thin9 zone durin-11 urea form,1ldehyde foam arpl ication -exterior 

retrofit 

B.ick of van shortly a ft.er density test 

Resin drum air space 

Gdrk of van uron return to warehouse prior to 

removal of trash 

Gack of van after servi ct n9 by Warehouseman 

Oack of truck while Warehouseman removed trash 

Back of van after sel'vicing by Warehouseman 

Foam Mechanic's brP.athing zone during open•bay 

urea fonnJldehyde foam application -measure- ment was made near the time of completion of 

the second floor 

Foam Mechanic's breathing zone during open-bay 

urea formaldehyde foam application -measurement was made near the time of completion of 

the first floor 

?.-S 

C 

ILD.a 

N.D.a 

2 

4-7 

0.7-1 

0.7-1 

0.7-1 

4 

0.7-1 

a <0.5 ppm - the manufacturer states that this value is the lower limit of reliable detection. 

b <1.6 ppm - the manufocturer states that this value is the lower limit of reliable detection. 

c A pink stain, not as intense as the standard, developed after 16 strokes. 

112 
Table 26. Ammonia Measurements Using Draeger 5/a Detector Tubes 

Sample 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Date 

9/17 /79 

9/17/79 

12/10/79 

12/11/79 

12/12/79 

Location/Activity 

Back of van during formation of a cube 

for foam density determination 

Foam Mechanic's breathing zone during 

urea formaldehyde foam application - exterior retrofit 

Back of van while resin and foaming 

agent were circulating 

Back of van upon return to warehouse 

Foam Mechanic's breathing zone during 

open-bay application of urea formaldehyde foam 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

N .o.a 

N .D.a 

N.D.a 

N.D.a 

N.D.a 

a< 5 ppm - the manufacturer states that this value is the lower limit of 

reliable detection. 

Table 27. Furfuryl Alcohol Exposures on September 18, 1979 

Sample 

# 

1 

2 

3 

Sampling Period 

(On-Off) (min) 

1237-1536 

1657-1835 

1222-1532 

179 

98 

190 

Employee or 

Location 

Laborer 

Step van 

Foam Mechanic 

Activity 

Replacing aluminum siding 

Cleanup period and during trip back to warehouse 

Applying urea formaldehyde foam during exterior retrofit 

113 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

<0.3 

<0.6 

<0.3 
Applicator B 

Table 28. Exposure to Formaldehyde During Urea Formaldehyde Foam 

Insulation Application -- Applicator 

Sample Sampling Period Time Concentration Date # (On-Off) (min) (ppm) 

1 11/28/79 1037-1116 39 0.10 

--------- ------------ ------------ -------- ---------------- 2 11/28/79 1124-1155 31 0.80 

-------- ------------ ------------ -------- ---------------- 3 11/28/79 1231-1331 60 0. 58 

-------- ------------ ------------ -------- ---------------- 4 11/29/79 1226-1258 32 0.45 

-------- ------------ ------------ ------------------------ 5 11/30/79 1036-1120 44 <0.08 

-------- ------------ ------------ -------- ---------------- 6 11/30/79 1150-12S4 64 0.43 

--------- ------------~------------ -------- ---------------- 7 11/30/79 l'.305-1331 26 0.75 

-------- ------------1------------- ------- ---------------- 8 11/30/79 1450-15~9 59 1.0 

-------- ------------L---------- ---1-------- ---------------- 9 11/30/79 1608-1645 37 1.3 

Table 29. Exposure to Formaldehyde During Other Activities -- Applicator 

Sample Sampling Period Concentration .u Date Activity I r. (ppm) (On-Off) (min ) 

1 11/27 /79 0946-1020 34 Cleaning applica ti on equipment; begin 

circulation of resin and foaming agent 0.18 

---------------------------------------- --------------- 2 11/27 /79 1020-1103 43 ?ainting hole plugs in truck, while 0.18 

resin and f oaming agent were circulating 

3 11/27/79 1121-1216 55 Test-foaming; cleaning application 0.07 

equipment 

-------- ---------- ----------- -------~---------------------------------------- --------------- 4 11/27/79 1612-1712 60 

5 11/27 /79 1837-1919 42 

6 11/28/79 0915-1031 76 

7 

8 

11/28/79 1340-1505 

11/30/79 0905-1014 

85 

69 

Cleaning resin pump at shop 

Test-foaming on shop floor 

Cleaning application equip~ent; begin 

circulation of resin and f oaming agent; 

on break in van 

0 .18 

--------------- 0.52 

--------------- 0.11 

---------------------------------------- --------------- Foaming and cleanup operations 

Cleaning and asse~bling application 

equipment; begin circulation of resin 

and foaming agent 

114 

0.26 --------------- 0 .06 
Table 30. Exposure to Formaldehyde -- Assistant 

Sample 

# 

1 

Sampling Period 

Date 

(On-Off) (min) 

11/27/79 1008-1104 56 

Activity 

Opening; asssisting in equipment 

preparation 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

0 .06 

L...------- ---------- ----------- ------- ------------------------------- .-------- ------------- - 2 11/27/79 1837-1920 43 Assisting Applicator during testfoaming in shop 

0.37 

-------- ---------- ----------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- - 3 11/28/79 0912-1030 78 On break in van 0.09 

~------- ---------- ----------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- - 4 11/28/79 1124-1156 32 Closing and cleaning area <0.09 

1--------- ---------- ----------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- - 5 11/28/79 1413-1505 52 Cleaning excess foam from inside of 0.26 

house; cleaning exterior area 

1--------- ---------- ----------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- - 6 11/29/79 1040-1222 102 Opening <0.03 

~------- ---------- ----------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- - 7 11/29/79 1234-1358 84 Opening (foaming in progress) 0.13 

1...-------- ---------- ----------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- - 8 11/30/79 0903-1014 71 Opening <0.04 

~------- ---------- ----------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- - 9 11/30/79 1030-1240 130 Opening and wiping excess foam from 

wall 

0.03 

~------- ---------- ----------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- - 10 11/30/79 1304-1421 77 Assisting in foaming operation; break 0 . 10a 

t-------- ---------- ----------- ------- ---------------------------------------- ------------- - 11 11/30/79 1450-1549 59 Assisting Applicator <0.04 

1-------- ---------- ----------- ------- ---------------------------------------- --------------- 12 11/30/79 1606-1620 14 Assisting Applicator 0.50 

aA small amount of the second impinger's contents was lost in transferring from impinger to 

vial; thus, true value may be slightly higher. 

Table 31. Exposure to Formaldehyde During Closing Operations 

Sample Sampling Period Con cent ra t ion Date fr (On-Off) (min) (ppm) 

1 11/28/79 1037-1116 39 <0 .08 

---------1------------ ---------------------~--------------- 2 11/28/79 1248-1406 78 0.06 

---------1------------ ------------1---------~--------------- 3 11/30/79 1459-1600 61 0.13 

115 
Table 32. Formaldehyde Concentrations in the Step Van 

Sample Sampling Period Concentration .. Date Activity 1T (ppm) (On-Off) (min) 

1 11/27 /79 0827-0917 50 During trip to site 0.18 

I""-------- -------------------------1---------1------------------------------------ --------------- 2 11/27 /79 1144-1207 23 During foam application 0 .16 

1--------- ------------------------- --------~----------------------------------- --------------- 3 11/27/79 1425-1509 44 Return trip from site 0.23 

t--------- ------------ ------------1---------1------------------------------------ --------------- 4 11/28/79 1043-1549 306 During foam application G.02 

-------- ----------- -------------1--------- ----------------------------------- --------------- 5 11/29/79 0920-1242 202 While resin and foaming agent 0.02 

were circulating and being 

brought up to operating temperature 

-------- ----------- ------------- -------- --------------------------------------------------- 6 11/29/79 1252-1415 83 While resin and foaming agent <0.08 

1•1ere circulating and being 

brought up to operating temperature; some foam application in 

progress 

-------- ----------- ------------- -------- ---------------------------------- --------------- 7 11/30/79 0808-0850 42 During trip to site 0.18 

-------- ----------- ------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 8 11/30/79 0908-1233 205 During foaming agent and resin <0.02 

circulation; during foam appli- cation 

~-------- -----------· -----,-------- ------------------------------------------- ---------------- 9 11/30/79 1247-1437 110 During foam application <0.03 

-------- -------------------------~------------------------------------------- ---------------- 10 11/30/79 1709-1741 32 Return trip from site 0.33 

Table 33. Formaldehyde Measurements Using Draeger Detector Tubes 

Sample 

# Date 

11/27 /79 

---------~----------- 2 11/27 /79 

-------- ---------- 3 11/28/79 

--------- ---------- 4 11/28/79 

-------- ---------- 5 11/28/79 -------- ----------- 6 11/28/79 

Tube 

0.5/a 

0.002 

Location/Activity 

Applicator's breathing zone while 

foaming in shop 

Applicator's breathing zone while 

foaming in shop 

Concentration 

(ppm} 

a 

N.DP 

0.5/a Applicator's breathing zone N.Df 

--------- ~-------------------------------------- 0.002 

0.5/a 

Applicator's breathing zone 

Back of van during foam application 

--------- ~-------------------------------------- 0.002 Back of van during foam application 

--------- b ----

N.D. 

ll.D .c 

- --------b ---- N. D. 

-------- ----------- ~--------- --------------------------------------- --------------- 7 11/29/79 0.5/a Applicator's breathing zone N.D.0 

8 11/30/79 0.5/a Airspace of C.P. resin drum 2 

aA pink stain, less intense than the reference standard, developed after 16 strokes. 

b<l.6 ppm - the manufacturer states that this value is the lower limit of reliable detection. 

c.<().5 pp11 - the aanufacturer states that this value is the lower litnit of reliable detection. 

116 
Table 34. Ammonia Measurements Using 5/a Draeger Detector Tubes 

Sample Date Location/Activity Concentration 

# (ppm) 

1 11/27 /79 Front of van during trip to site N.D.a 

-------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ~--------------- 2 11/28/79 Back of van during foam application N.D.a 

-------- ----------- -------------------------------------------------- ~--------------- 3 11/28/79 Applicator's breathing zone while applying foam N.D.a 

-------- ----------- -------------------------------------------------- ~---------------- 4 11/29/79 Applicator's breathing zone while applying foam N.D.a 

aNon-detectable: <5 ppm; the manufacturer states that this value is the lower limit of 

relia~le detection. 

Table 35. Survey Sound Level Readings 

Location/Activity dBA 

Dril 1 i ng through aluminum with a Rockwel 1 #7556 dri 11 87-93 

--------------------------------------------------------- -------- Drilling through plywood with a Rockwell #7556 dri 11 86-94 

--------------------------------------------------------- --------- Drilling through pine clapboard with a Rockwell #7556 drill 92-96 

117 
POLYURETHANE THERMAL INSULATION 

Manufacturer C 

Table 36. MDI Exposure for Drum Loader 

Sample Sampling 

Date Concentration Period Activities # (min) (ppm) 

1 10/24 21 Filling drums with MDI <0.001 -------- -------- ---------- ------------------------- ---------------- 2 10/24 11 Filling drums with MDI <0.002 -------- -------- ---------- ------------------------- ---------------- 3 10/25 16 Filling drums with MDI <0.001 -------- -------- ---------- ---------~--------------- ---------------- 4 10/25 25 Filling drums with MDI <0.0008 -------- -------- ---------- ------------------------- ---------------- 5 10/25 20 Filling drums with MDI 0.002 

Table 37. Results of Area Sampling for MDI and TOI 

Sample Sampling Concentration Date Period Compound Location # (min) (ppm) 

1 10/24 27 MDI In drum-loading area <0.0005 

-------- -------------------- ----------- ---------------------------------------- 2 10/24 33 TDI Inside walk-in booth 0.19 

-------- -------------------, ----------------------------------- ---------------- 3 10/25 16 TOI Inside walk-in booth 0.014 

Table 38. TOI Exposure for Compounder B During the Compounding of a 

TOI Prepolymer 

Sample Sampling Concentration Date Period Activities # (min) (ppm) 

1 lll/24 37 Adds raw materials to TDI 0.022 -------- -------- ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------- 2 10/25 12 Adds raw materials to TDI (TDI at 50°c) 0.31 

-------- -------- ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------- 3 10/25 10 Adds raw materials to TDI (TDI at 50°c) 0.14 

118 
Table 39. Employees' Time-Weighted Average Exposure to Fluorotrichloromethane and alpha-Methyl Styrene 

I Sample 

# 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Employee 

Compounder A 

Compounder A 

Corr.pounder B 

Blender 

Blender 

Date 

10/24 

10/25 

10/25 

10/25 

10/25 

Sar..pl i ng 

Period 

{min) 

438 

423 

96 

357 

344 

Activity 

Compounds Product A (a non-thenna l 

product), withdraws sample, does· 

Concentration (ppm) 

96.0 

a alpi.-i-l'ethyl 

Stvrene 

<0.084 

~~1~:~~~ ~~dd~~~s two non-th7rmaY·-- · 35 .

0

--- --- <O.OBS ---- proaucts (contains no fluorotr1chlorome than!! or alr,ha-methyl_ s t1rene ------- -------- --------------

Compounds Product B (a thennal insulation product) 94.0 

Operates blending equipment (Product B) 3.5 

Maintenance of equipment, general c 1 ea nup, papeniork 

0. 95 

<0.52 

<0. 78 

<0.13 

6 Qua 1 i ty Con- 10/24 312 Conducts quality control tests at 

blending operation 

6.4 <0.15 

trol Teen' i an. 

--------------- -------- ----------- ----------------------------- . -------- -------- -------------- 7 Drum Handler 10/24 

afluorotrichloromethane 

92 Supplies drums to blending operation 

fill station, seals and weighs drums 

6.8 

Table 40. Results of Area Samples for Fluorotrichloromethane and 

alpha-Methyl Styrene 

<0.37 

Sample Sampling 

Period 

(c.: in) 

Concentration (p"m) 

Date F. 

10/24 286 

--------- 2 10/24 415 

3 lC/25 89 

10/25 

afluorotrichloromethane 

Location a 

In car.pour.ding room on loading platform adjacent to ccm- 113.0 

po:.rndir.g vessel 

!lear drum fill station at blending operation 3.9 

ln compounding rec~ ne~r compcundir.g vessel 110.0 

In cc.-::pc~ndir.g rcoo near cc:r.pounding vessel 321.0 

119 

c. :p;;:l-:-~e thy l 

Styrene 

<0.16 

<0.67 

<0.52 

<0.37 
Table 41. Employees' Time-Weighted Average Exposure to Dimethylethanolamine 

(DMEA) and Dimethylcyclohexylamine (DMCHA) 

Sample f Employee Date 

Compounder A 10/24 

sa~oling 

Period 

(min) 

289 

Activity 

Compounds Product A (does not contain amines 

withdra1,s sample, does paperwork at desk 

Concentration (ppm) 

D!1EA DMCHA 

<0.02 <0.007 

--------- --------------- -------- ----------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- 2 Com~ounder B 10/25 96 cc~pounds Product B <D.14 0.62 

--------- --------------- -------- ----------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- 3 Blender 10/24 262 Operates blending equipment (Product B) 0.17 0.45 

4 Bl ender - - -i0/24 93 Operates blending equipment (Product B) O .11 O .81 

--------- --------------- -------- ----------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- 5 Quality Con- 10/24 

trol Tech' ian. 

215 Conducts quality control tests at the 

bler.ding operation 

<0.064 0.061 

--------- --------------- -------- ----------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- 6 Quality Con- 10/24 99 

trol Tech' ian. 

7 Drum Handler 10/24 195 

--------- --- . ---------- -------- --- - -- -- 8 Drum Handler 10/24 99 

Conducts quality control tests at the 

blending operation 

Sup?lies drums to the blending operation fill station, seals and weighs drums 

Supplies drums to the blending operation 

fill station, seals and weighs drums 

<0.13 0.11 

<0.073 0.054 

<0.15 0.20 

--------- --------------- -------- ----------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- g Blender 10/25 259 t·:aintenance of equipment, general 

cleanup 

<0.095 0.056 

--------- --------------- -------- ----------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- 10 Blender 10/25 95 General cleanup in blending equipment 

area, paperwork 

Table 42 . Results of Area Samples for DMEA and DMCHA 

Sample Sampling 

Date Period Location # (min) 

1 10/24 286 In compounding room near compounding vessel 

-------- -------- ----------- ------------------------------------------------- 2 10/24 94 In compounding room near compounding vessel 

-------- -------- ----------- ------------------------------------------------- 3 10/24 250 Near drum fi 11 station at blending operation 

-------- -------- ----------- ------------------------------------------------- 4 10/24 111 Near drum fill station at blending operation 

<0.22 <O .077 

Concentration {ppm) 

DMEA DMCHA 

<0.075 <0.026 

---------- ---------- <0.085 0.20 

--------·- ---------- 0.31 0.57 

---------- ---------- 0.25 0.11 

Table 43. Blender -- Time-Weighted Average Exposure to Methylene Chloride 

Sample Sampling Concentration Date Period Activity * (min) (ppm) 

1 10/25 344 Maintenance of equipment, general 11.0 

cleanup (including washing fJoor with 

solvent), papentork 

120 
Manufacturer D 

Table 44. Air Velocity of Hoods 

Drum-Fill Station Velocity (fpm) Air Flow (cfm) 

150 265 

---------------------~-----------------~---------------- #2a 160 280 

210 

--------------------------------------~---------------- #4 130 230 

#5a .. ,.. 130 .. ,- 230 

--------------------~-----------------~---------------- MDI-TOI 125 220 

aHood used for drum-filling operations during the survey. 

Table 45. Chemical Operator's Exposure to MDI During Drum-Filling Operations 

Sample 

# Date 

10/31 

Drum-Fill Station Product 

MDI MDI 

Sampling 

Period 

(min) 

21 

Co11111ent 

LEVb not used 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

<D.0008 

·------- ------- -------------------- ----------- ---- --- --- . --- - - --- - 2 " " " 24 11 <O. 0008 

~------- ------- -------------------- ----------- ---------- --------------- ------------- - 3 30 0.0029 

~------- ------- -------------------- ----------- ---------- --------------- -------------- 4 II II 31 II 0,0028 

~------- ------- -------------------- ----------- ---------- --------------- ------------- - 5 II 37 0.0050 

-------- ------- -------------------- ----------- ---------- --------------- --------------

Sampling 

Period 

TWAa 

6 U U II 63 11 0.0014 0,0023 

-------- ------- -------------------- ----------- ---------- --------------- --------------- ------- - 7 10/31 115 MDI blend 25 LEV used <0.0007 

-------- ------- -------------------- ----------- ---------- --------------- ------------- - 8 " " 41 " 0.0018 

-------- ------- -------------------- ----------- ---------- --------------- ------------- - 9 " 33 <0.0006 

10 11/1 #3 MDI blend 60 LEV used <D.0003 

~------- ------- -------------------- ----------- ---------- --------------- ------------- - 11 " 60 <0.0003 

~------- ------- -------------------- ----------- ---------- --------------- --------------- 12 

13 

32 

111 

0.0023 

<0.0002 

O.OOll 

0.0005 

~------- ------- -------------------- ----------- ---------- --------------- --------------- --------- 14 11/1 MDI MDI 73 LEV not used <0.0003 

-------- ------- -------------------- ----------- ---------- --------------- --------------- 15 " 104 

aTWA includes sample concentrations have(<) designations. 

bLEV • Local Exhaust Ventilation. 

121 

0.0006 0.0004 
Table 46. Results of Area Samples for MDI During Drum-Filling Operations 

Sample 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Date 

10/31 

Sampling Period 

(min) 

24 

24 

30 

31 

40 

62 

Location 

Near MDI fill station 

Concentration 

{ppm) 

<0.0008 

<0.0008 

0.0015 

0.0028 

0.0039 

0.0007 

7 10/31 42 Near #5 fill station 0.0011 

8 

9 11/1 -------- -------- 10 II 

-------- -------- 11 11/1 

27 

57 

------------------ 128 

------------------ 51 

Near #3 fill station 

0.0011 

0.0008 

0.0002 

-------------------------------------------· Near MDI fill station 0.0009 

Table 47. Chemical Operator 1s Exposure to Amine Compounds During 

Resin-Blending Operations 

Concentration (ppm) 

Sample !lrum-Fi 11 Sampling 

Date Period Activity Tetramethyl- # Station (min) butane- Tri ethylene- Dimethyldiamine diamine ethanol amine 

1 10/31 #2 374 Operator blends and drums b b <0.017 

resin #1 a and blends resin #2 

(both are nonthermal products) 

LEV was used during filling 

of drums ------ ------ --------- --------- ------------------------------ ------------- ------------- ------------- 2 10/31 #4 337 Operator blends and drums b <0.026 b 

resin #1, starts blending 

resin #3 (a thermal insulation product) 

------ ------- --------- --------- ------------------------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- 3 11/1 #6 306 Operator blends, then drums <0.056 b <0.021 

resin #4, starts blending 

resin #5 (both are nonthermal 

products) ------ ------- -------- --------- ------------------------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- 4 11 /1 #4 315 Operator finishes blending b <0.015 b 

resin #3, then drums finished 

product ------ ------- -------- --------- ------------------------------ ------------ -------------- ------------- 5 11/1 #2 258 Operator drums resin #2 b b <0.033 

Dimethylcyclohexylamine 

0.018 

------------ <0.009 

------------ 0.063 

------------ <0.005 

------------ <0.012 

aProduct numbers have been arbitrarily assigned to the resin, due to the proprietary nature of these products. 

bAmine compound not present in the products being blended at this location. 

122 
Table 48. Results of Area Samples for Amine Compounds During ResinBlending Operations 

Concentration (ppm) 

Sample Sampling Tetramethyl- Dimethyl- Date Period Location Tri ethylene- Dimethyl- # (min) butane- diamine ethanol amine eye l ohexy 1-

diamine amine 

1 10/31 270 Near #4 blend/drum station a <0.024 a 0.021 

1--------- ------- ---------- ------------------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -----·------- 2 11/ 1 326 Near #4 blend/drum station a <0.026 a <0.009 

aCompound not in use at this location. 

Table 49. Chemical Operator's Exposure to Fluorotrichloromethane and 

alpha-Methyl Styrene 

Sample 

# 

2 

3 

Date 

10/31 

10/31 

11/1 

Drum-Fil 1 

Station 

w4 

116 

Sampling 

Period 

(min) 

374 

337 

306 

Activity 

Operator blends and drums resin •l 

and blends resin •2 (both are non- thermal products), LEV was used 

during filling of drums 

Operator blends, then drums resin ~1. 

starts blending resin •3 (a thermal 

insulation product) 

Operator blends, tnen drums resin !4, 

starts blending resin ~s .(both are nor.thermal products) 

Concentration (ppm) 

Fluorotrichloromethane 

4.4 

15.0 

193.0 

aZphaMethyl Styrene 

<0 .088 

<O .160 

<0.120 

--------- -------- ----------- ----------- -------------------------------------- - ----------------- ---------------- 4 11/1 ;4 

5 11/1 

315 

258 

Operator finishes blending, then 

drums resin g3 

Operator finishes blending, then 

drums resin t2, LEV was used 

6.6 <0.200 

7.5 <0.220 

Table 50. Results of Area Samples for Fluorotrichloromethane and 

alpha-Methyl Styrene 

Sampling Concentration (ppm} 

Sample Date Period Location # (min} Fluorotri- alpha- chloromethane Methyl Styrene 

1 10/31 270 Near #4 blend/drum fi 11 station 46.0 <0.13 

-------- -------- ----------- ---------------------------------- .--- ----------------~ ---------------- 2 11/1 326 Near #4 blend/drum fill station 5.5 <0.14 

123 
Applicator C 

Table 51. 

Sample 

# 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Date 

11/19/79 

11/19/79 

11/19/79 

11/19/79 

11/19/79 

11/19/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

Exposure to MDI 

Sampling 

(On-Off) 

0952-1103 

1103-1124 

1124-1210 

1329-1501 

1501-1521 

1606-1617 

1100-1129 

1155-1230 

1324-1354 

1354-1420 

1420-1430 

1430-1441 

Period 

(min) 

65 

21 

46 

92 

20 

11 

29 

35 

30 

26 

10 

11 

Applicator 

Activity 

Cleaning/assembling spray gun and 

spraying foam 

Spraying foam 

Spraying foam 

Spraying foam (includes 50-min downtime) 

Spraying foam under gutter 

Spraying foam under gutter 

Cleaning/assembling spray gun and waiting 

for roof to dry--no spraying 

Spraying foam 

Spraying foam 

Spraying foam 

Spraying foam 

Spraying foam 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

0.0010 

0.0090 

0.0015 

0.0010 

<0 .0025 

<0 .0045 

<0 .0017 

<0.0013 

<0.0017 

0.0022 

<0.0050 

<0.0045 

Sampling Period 

TWA (ppm)'2 

0. 0020 

----i;----- 11/20/79 1441-1452 11 Spraying foam <0.0045 --- ------------------

14 

15 

16 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

1452-1502 

1502-1513 

1532-1618 

10 

11 

46 

Spraying foam 

Spraying foam 

Spraying foam (includes cleanup) 

aTWA includes sample concentrations having(<) designations. 

Table 52. Exposure to MDI 

Sample 

# 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Date 

11/19/79 

11/19/79 

11/19/79 

11/19/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

Sampling Period 

(On-Off) (min) 

1003-1105 

1105-1214 

1358-1455 

1455-1617 

1101-1131 

1152-1235 

1324-1353 

1353-1440 

1440-1450 

1450-1500 

1532-1617 

62 

69 

57 

82 

30 

43 

29 

47 

10 

10 

45 

Helper 

Activity/Location 

Setting up hoses and helping Applicator on the roof 

Cleaning roof (distant to spraying 

operation) 

Cleaning roof and general cleanup on the 

ground 

Helping Applicator on roof and applying 

foam 

Cleaning roof (distant to spraying operation 

Helping Applicator_on roof 

Inside truck monitoring equipment 

Inside truck monitoring equipment 

Inside truck monitoring equipment 

Helping Applicator on roof 

Helping Applicator and cleanup 

aTWA includes sample concentrations having(<) designations. 

124 

<0.0050 

<0.0045 

0 .0053 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

<0.0010 

<0.0010 

<0.0010 

0.0015 

<O .0016 

<0.0010 

0.0019 

<0.0010 

<0.0050 

<0.0050 

<O .0011 

0:0031 

Samplin9 Period 

TWA (ppm)a 

0 .0011 

0 .0016 
Table 53. Employee Exposure to Fluorotrichloromethane and alpha-Methyl 

Styrene 

Sample 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Employee 

Applicator 

Helper 

Applicator 

Helper 

Date 

11/.19/79 

11/19/79 

11/20/79 

11/20/79 

Sampling 

Period 

{min) 

312 

314 

281 

283 

Concentration (ppm) 

fluorotrichloromethane 

13.0 

2.5 

1.6 

5.6 

alphamethyl 

styrene 

<0.17 

<0.24 

<0.15 

<0.49 

Table 54. Employee Exposure to Amine Compounds 

Sample 

I 

1 

2 

3 

Employee 

Applicator 

Helper 

Applicator 

Date 

11/19/79 

11/19/79 

11/20/79 

Sampling 

Period 

(min) 

209 

314 

281 

Concentration (ppm) 

dimethylethanol amine 

<0.016 

<0.011 

<0.008 

dimethyl- cyclohexylamine 

0.17 

0.017 

0.025 

------------------------------------------------· ---------------------------------- 4 Helper 11/20/79 283 <0.025 <0.017 

Table 55. Applicator's Exposure to Dimethyltin Dicarboxylatea 

Sample# 

1 

2 

Date 

11/19/79 

11/20/79 

aReported as tin. 

Sampling Period 

(min) 

244 

281 

125 

Concentration (mg/m3) 

<0.027 

<0.023 
Table 56. Sound Level Readings -- November 20, 1979 

Time Location Sound Level (dBA) 

1~0 Inside truck at the desk 93-94 

----~---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1230 Inside truck, approximately 2~' from 101-102 

the compressor 

1400 Inside truck at the employee's ear 96-97 

Table 57. Results of Detector Tube Sampling for Carbon Monoxide -- November 20, 1979 

Time Location Concentration (ppm) 

1215 Inside truck at the desk 30 

------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1220 Inside truck near the compressor 50 

126 
Applicator D 

Table 58. Exposure to MDI During Foam Application Process -- Mechanic 

Sample 

# 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Sampling Period 

Date 

(On-Off) (min) 

12/19/79 1014-1102 

12/19/79 1102-1137 

12/19/79 1210-1220 

12/19/79 1220-1232 

12/19/79 1334-1404 

12/19/79 1409-1447 

12/19/79 1447-1515 

12/20/79 0801-0840 

12/20/79 1522-1601 

12/20/79 1601-1611 

12/20/79 1611-1619 

12/21/79 0732-0808 

12/21/79 0808-0819 

12/21/79 0819-0900 

12/21/79 0900-0912 

12/21/79 0912-0946 

43 

35 

10 

12 

35 

38 

28 

39 

39 

10 

8 

36 

11 

41 

12 

34 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

<0.0023 

0.0200 

0.0680 

0.0410 

0.0530 

0.0440 

0.0630 

0.0150 

0.0550 

0.0390 

<0.0120 

0.0300 

<0.0089 

0.0140 

<0.0081 

0.0430 

Sample Period 

TWA 

(ppm)a 

0.0361 

0.0335 

0.0247 

aTWA includes sample concentrations having (<) designations. 

127 

Total 

Work Shift 

( hr) 

9 

10 

6 
Table 59. Exposure to MDI During Foam Application Process -- Helper 

Sample 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Sampling Period 

Date 

(On-Off) (min) 

12/19/79 1016-1058 

12/19/79 1058-1137 

12/19/79 1137-1220 

12/19/79 1220-1231 

12/19/79 1334-1409 

12/19/79 1409-1447 

12/19/79 1447-1515 

42 

39 

43 

11 

35 

38 

28 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

0.0047 

0.0075 

0.0091 

<0.0089 

0.0200 

0.0280 

0.0240 

8 12/20/79 0801-0842 41 0.0048 

9 12/20/79 1113-1259 106 0.0018b 

10 

11 

12 

13 

12/20/79 1541-1553 

12/21/79 0738-0830 

12/21/79 0830-0900 

12/21/79 0900-0932 

12 

52 

30 

32 

<0.0081 

0.0056 

0.0065 

0.0092 

Sample Period 

TWA 

(ppm)a 

0.0144 

0.0030 

0.0068 

aTWA includes sample concentrations having (<) designations. 

bHelper's exposure during downtime. 

Table 60. Area Samples for MDI -- December 19, 1979 

Total 

Work Shift 

(hr) 

9 

10 

6 

Sample 

# 

Sampling Period 

(On-Off) (min) 

Location Concentration 

(ppm) 

1 1038-1136 

2 1136-1221 

58 

45 

Attached. to scaffold underneath spraying operation; includes 20 minutes of downtime 

Attached to scaffold during spraying 

0.045 

0.069 

----------------------------------------------·-----------------------·---------------------- 3 1221-1338 77 Attached to scaffold; 20 to 25 feet from 

spraying operation 

0.062 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 1338-1513 .95 Attached to scaffold; 20 to 50 feet from 

spraying operation 

128 

0.020 
Table 61. Employee Exposure to Amine Compounds 

Sampling Period Concentration (ppm) 

Sample Employee Date # (On-Off) (min) Dimethyl cycl o- Tri ethylene- hexyl amine di amine 

1 Helper 12/19/79 1003-1520 317 0.13 <0.030 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 Mechanic 12/19/79 1005-1515 310 0.38 0.070 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 Helper 12/20/79 0749-1540 472 <0.008 <0.020 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 Mechanic 12/20/79 0801-0840/ 

1050-1520 

309 <0.016 <0.045 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 Helper 12/21/79 0808-0932 84 0.13 <0.10 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6 Mechanic 12/21/79 0726-0946 140 0.48 <0.25 

Table 62. Employee Exposure to Fluorotrichloromethane and alpha-Methyl 

Styrene 

Sampling Period Concentration (ppm) 

Sample Employee Date # (On-Off) (min) Fluorotri- aZpha-Methyl chloromethane Styrene 

1 Helper 12/19/79 1003-1520 317 33 <0.062 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 

3 

4 

Mechanic 

Helper 

Mechanic 

12/19/79 

12/21/79 

12/21/79 

1005-1515 

0731-0932 

0726-0946 

310 

121 

140 

105 

77 

180 

0.17 

<0.17 

0.21 

Table 63. Employee Exposure to 2-Ethoxyethanol -- December 29, 1979 

Sample 

# 

1 

Employee 

Helper 

Sampling Period 

(On-Off) (min) 

0749-1540 471 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

62 

8-hr TWA 

(ppm) 

61 

------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Mechanic 0801-0849/ 

1050-1520 

309 129 83 

129 
Table 64. Mechanic's Exposure to Proprietary Organotin Compound 

Sample 

# 

1 

2 

Date 

12/19/79 

12/21/79 

Sampling Period 

(On-Off) (min) 

1102-1513 

0912-0946 

252 

34 

Table 65. Mechanic's Exposure to Total Particulate 

Sample 

# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Date 

12/19/79 

12/19/79 

12/20/79 

12/21/79 

Sampling Period 

(On-Off) (min) 

1137-1206 

1210-1515 

1522-1620 

0735-0912 

130 

29 

185 

58 

97 

Concentration 

(mg/m3, as Sn) 

<5.2 

<38.0 

Concentration 

(mg/m3) 

6.9 

5.4 

6.9 

4.1 

ll' U.S GOVERNMENTF'RINTINGOFFICE 1983-b5'/-09b/02.7 

DEPARTMENT OF HEAL TH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEAL TH SERVICE 

CENTERS F"OR DISEASE CONTROL 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ANO HEALTH 

ROBERT A. TAFT LABORATORIES 

4676 COLUMBIA PARKWAY, CINCINNATI, OHIO 45226 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300 

Special Fourth Class -Book POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HHS 

HHS 396 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 83-108