TM

NIOSH HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION REPORT 

HETA #2004-0130-2945 

Transportation Security Administration-Palm Beach 

International Airport 

West Palm Beach, Florida 

August 2004 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports

This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports
ii 

PREFACE

The Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Branch (HETAB) of the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducts field investigations of possible health hazards in the 

workplace. These investigations are conducted under the authority of Section 20(a)(6) of the Occupational 

Safety and Health (OSHA) Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(6) which authorizes the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, following a written request from any employers or authorized representative of 

employees, to determine whether any substance normally found in the place of employment has 

potentially toxic effects in such concentrations as used or found. 

HETAB also provides, upon request, technical and consultative assistance to federal, state, and local 

agencies; labor; industry; and other groups or individuals to control occupational health hazards and to 

prevent related trauma and disease. Mention of company names or products does not constitute 

endorsement by NIOSH. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

This report was prepared by Lisa J. Delaney, Mark Methner, and Randy L. Tubbs of HETAB, Division of 

Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies. Analytical support was provided by DataChem 

Laboratories and Ardith Grote of Division of Applied Research and Technology. Desktop publishing was 

performed by Deborah Gibson and Shawna Watts. Review and preparation for printing were performed 

by Penny Arthur. 

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management representatives at TSA headquarters, 

TSA PBI, and the OSHA Regional Office. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced. 

The report may be viewed and printed from the following internet address: 

http;//www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe. Single copies of this report will be available for a period of three years 

from the date of this report. To expedite your request, include a self-addressed mailing label along with 

your written request to: 

NIOSH Publications Office 

4676 Columbia Parkway 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 

800-356-4674 

After this time, copies may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 5825 

Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Information regarding the NTIS stock number may be 

obtained from the NIOSH Publications Office at the Cincinnati address. 

For the purpose of informing affected employees, copies of this report 

shall be posted by the employer in a prominent place accessible to the 

employees for a period of 30 calendar days.
iii 

Highlights of Health Hazard Evaluation 

Highlights of the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation

Evaluation of exposure to contaminants and noise in the checked 

bag screening area

In March and April 2004, NIOSH conducted a health hazard evaluation at the Palm Beach 

International Airport TSA baggage screening area. We measured levels of air contaminants and 

noise in the ramp area during passenger baggage screening. 

What NIOSH Did

! We took air samples for carbon 

monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, diesel 

exhausts, and hydrocarbons. 

! We measured noise levels. 

! We talked with employees about their 

health concerns and work area. 

What NIOSH Found

! All air samples were within 

recommended levels. 

! The noise levels were low. 

! Housekeeping in the ramp area was 

poor. 

! Cracks in the floors caused tug carts to 

make noise when passing over. 

! Airline tugs can run on several different 

types of fuel sources. 

! Airline employees often leave tugs 

idling when not in use. 

! Fill and smooth cracks in floor. 

! Maintain good housekeeping practices. 

! Work with airlines to make sure tugs are 

maintained according to operating 

procedures. 

! Work with airlines to make sure they train 

employees to turn off tugs when not in 

use. 

What the TSA Employees Can Do 

! Report loud noise sources to TSA 

management. 

! Keep personal radios at a level that only 

employees in the immediate area can hear. 

What TSA Managers Can Do

What To Do For More Information:

We encourage you to read the full report. If you 

would like a copy, either ask your health and 

safety representative to make you a copy or call 

1-513-841-4252 and ask for 

HETA Report # 2004-0130-2945
ii 

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2004-0130-2945 

Transportation Security Administration-Palm Beach 

International Airport 

West Palm Beach, Florida 

August 2004 

Lisa J. Delaney, MS 

Mark Methner, PhD, CIH 

Randy L. Tubbs, PhD 

SUMMARY

On February 6, 2004, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a 

health hazard evaluation (HHE) request from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at the 

Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida. The HHE request concerned health 

hazards from exposure to contaminants found in exhaust emissions of tug and jet engines and noise from 

tugs, jets, conveyor systems, and baggage carousels in the checked baggage screening area. The request 

also described ergonomic hazards and heat stress as potential workplace hazards. These latter hazards will 

be addressed in a separate evaluation. Reported health problems included allergies, respiratory distress, 

repetitive stress injuries, back injuries, possible hearing loss, and dehydration due to heat. An initial site 

visit was made on March 24, 2004. On April 17-18, 2004, NIOSH investigators conducted area and 

personal breathing zone (PBZ) air samples for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitric 

oxide (NO), diesel exhaust particulate (measured as elemental carbon [EC]), and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs). Full-shift personal noise monitoring was also conducted. 

Concentrations of EC, a surrogate for diesel exhaust, ranged from below the minimum detectable 

concentration (MDC) to 11.2 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

). There is no NIOSH evaluation criteria 

for EC, although the California Department of Health Services recommends keeping levels below 20 

μg/m3

. PBZ concentrations of NO2 and NO were below the limit of detection of 2 μg/sample. Similar nondetectable NO2 results were obtained from real time personal exposure monitors (full-shift and 15-minute 

short-term exposures). 

All but one PBZ exposure for CO ranged from non-detected to 1 part per million (ppm) (full-shift TimeWeighted Average [TWA]) and from non-detected to 8 ppm (15-minute short-term exposures). One 

employee working at Explosive Detection System (EDS) machine 6 measured an instantaneous peak 

exposure of 1150 ppm on the first day of sampling. This employee’s TWA and short-term exposures were 

10 ppm and 284 ppm respectively. 

VOCs were identified via thermal desorption tubes and quantified via charcoal tubes. The dominant 

compounds identified were isopropyl alcohol, acetone, benzene, toluene, and xylenes. Charcoal tube 

analysis found trace levels of acetone and low levels of isopropyl alcohol. Airborne concentrations of 

benzene, toluene, xylenes, and total hydrocarbons were below their respective MDCs. 
iii 

The OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for noise of 90 A-weighted decibels [dB(A)] was not 

exceeded in any of the 15 dosimeter samples. There was, however, one instance in the Lane 1 area where 

the OSHA Action Level (AL) was greater than 50% and two instances (Lane 1 and Lane 7) where the 

NIOSH criterion exceeded 100%. Area spectral noise measurements indicated that at each of the nine 

EDS baggage screening machines there is a great deal of lower frequency (<250 Hz) sound energy in the 

area, and that the output side of the machine is a few decibels greater than the input side of the machine. 

However, none of the A-weighted values approach the NIOSH criterion of 85 dBA. 

The NIOSH investigators determined that a hazard does not exist from exposure to EC, 

CO, CO2, NO2, NO or VOCs. The sampling results indicate that none of the chemicals 

were detected at concentrations exceeding occupational exposure limits. Therefore, an 

inhalation hazard to those compounds did not exist at the time of the NIOSH visit. The 

measured noise levels provide little evidence of a serious noise problem. 

Recommendations for maintaining the air quality and further reducing noise exposures 

are provided in the Recommendations Section of this report. 

Keywords: 4581 (Airports, Flying Fields, and Terminal Services) diesel exhaust, nitrogen dioxide, nitric 

oxide, carbon monoxide, noise, airport, screeners, TSA

Table of Contents 

Preface..........................................................................................................................................................ii

Acknowledgments and Availability of Report..........................................................................................ii

Highlights of Health Hazard Evaluation .................................................................................................iii

Summary......................................................................................................................................................ii

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1

Background .................................................................................................................................................1

Methods........................................................................................................................................................2

Diesel Exhaust (Elemental Carbon) ......................................................................................................2

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Nitric Oxide (NO) ...................................................................................2

Carbon Monoxide (CO)..........................................................................................................................2

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)...................................................................................................3

Noise .........................................................................................................................................................3

Workplace Information..........................................................................................................................4

Evaluation Criteria .....................................................................................................................................4

Diesel Exhaust (Elemental Carbon) ......................................................................................................4

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) ..........................................................................................................................5

Nitric Oxide (NO)....................................................................................................................................5

Carbon Monoxide (CO)..........................................................................................................................6

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)...................................................................................................6

Noise .........................................................................................................................................................6

Results ..........................................................................................................................................................7

Air Sampling Results ..............................................................................................................................7

Noise .........................................................................................................................................................8

Workplace Information..........................................................................................................................9

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................9

Conclusions................................................................................................................................................10

Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................11

References..................................................................................................................................................11

INTRODUCTION

On February 6, 2004, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a 

request from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to conduct a health hazard evaluation 

(HHE) at the Palm Beach International Airport (PBI) in West Palm Beach, Florida. The request 

specifically asked NIOSH to evaluate health hazards from exposure to contaminants found in the 

emissions of tug and jet engines and to evaluate the noise levels generated from tugs, jets, conveyor belts, 

and baggage carousels in the checked baggage screening area. The request indicated that some employees 

have experienced health problems possibly related to the work environment, including allergies, 

respiratory distress, repetitive stress injuries, back injuries, possible hearing loss, and dehydration due to 

heat. In response to this request, NIOSH investigators conducted an initial site visit on March 24, 2004 

and on April 17-18, 2004, conducted area and personal breathing zone (PBZ) air sampling for carbon 

monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitric oxide (NO), diesel exhaust (measured as elemental carbon 

[EC]), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Noise monitoring was also conducted. A separate 

evaluation will address ergonomic and heat stress concerns. 

BACKGROUND

PBI began operations with one small runway in 1936. The most recent expansion in 1988 created 560,000 

square feet of terminal space. The terminal includes 3 concourses, 25 passenger gates (with the potential 

for 24 more), and a two-story concession mall. This facility serves nearly 6 million passengers each year 

and there are 16 commercial and commuter airlines currently operating out of the airport. 

On November 19, 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) [49 CFR1

 Parts 1500 et 

al.], which established TSA within the Department of Transportation, was signed into law. The law 

required TSA to hire and train federal security employees to inspect all passengers and property for 

explosives and incendiaries before boarding and loading onto the airplane. This rulemaking transferred 

the Federal Aviation Administration rules governing civil aviation security to TSA. A deadline of 

December 31, 2002, was established for airports and TSA to implement this law. The TSA employees at 

PBI began screening both passengers and baggage in December 2002. 

Approximately 85 full- and part-time screeners are employed by TSA at PBI. Full-time employees work 

an 8-hour shift and part-time employees work a 4-hour shift. All checked passenger bags are screened in 

one large area. Bags checked by passengers at the ticketing counter are brought to the baggage area via 

conveyor belts. The conveyor belts deposit bags onto carousels where TSA employees manually load 

them onto a belt-driven conveyor that routes each bag through an Explosive Detection System (EDS) 

machine. Some bags undergo additional testing using an Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) system. After 

examination the bags are loaded onto another carousel where airline personnel transfer the bags to carts 

attached to tugs for transport to the aircraft. 

The baggage area is open to the tarmac on the south side and consists of 14 carousels and 9 L3 3DXTM 

6000 EDS machines. Each EDS machine is located between 2 carousels. EDS machines 1 and 2 and 4 and 

5 are located between 2 carousels designed to accommodate the larger airlines. During peak travel periods 

in the winter months, more than 350,000 bags are screened monthly. The baggage area was originally 

designed as a location for airline employees to pick up and drop off checked passenger bags using ground 

service tugs. Large exhaust fans at each work station were recently installed to increase air movement in 

the bag area. These exhaust fans exhaust directly outside. 

Each airline is responsible for maintaining and operating its own tugs. The fuel source powering the tugs 

varies by airline but includes: diesel, gasoline, propane, and electric. 
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 

METHODS

Upon receipt of the HHE request, additional 

information regarding suspected environmental 

contaminants was obtained from Jill Lozis, TSA 

Occupational Safety and Health manager, and 

local TSA PBI management. During the initial 

site visit and subsequent telephone conversations 

with management and employees, the main areas 

of concern were identified and an environmental 

monitoring strategy was developed. The 

monitoring methodology is described below. 

Diesel Exhaust (Elemental 

Carbon) 

Full-shift PBZ employee exposures to elemental 

carbon (EC), a surrogate for diesel exhaust 

particulate, were collected on 37 millimeter 

quartz fiber filters (closed face) using SKC® 

AirChek® 2000 sampling pumps. Nine 

screeners were monitored on April 17, 2004, and 

seven screeners were monitored on April 18, 

2004. Flow rates of approximately 2.5 liters per 

minutes (Lpm) were used to obtain the samples. 

The sampling pumps were calibrated before and 

after each sampling event against a primary 

standard (BIOS® Dry-Cal) to verify flow rate. 

The filters were placed as close as possible to 

the workers’ breathing zone and connected via 

Tygon® tubing to the sampling pump. Screeners 

wore the sampling pump and filter for the entire 

work shift. After collection, the samples were 

sent to the NIOSH contract laboratory 

(DataChem, Salt Lake City, Utah) and analyzed 

in accordance with NIOSH Method 5040.2

 With 

this technique, a representative punch out of the 

filter is heated and analyzed with a thermal 

optical analyzer. 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and 

Nitric Oxide (NO) 

Full-shift PBZ exposures to NO2 and NO were 

collected on sorbent tubes containing oxidizer 

plus a triethanolamine-treated molecular sieve in 

tandem using SKC® Pocket Pumps®. Four 

screeners were monitored on each day of 

sampling. One area sample was collected for 

NO2 and NO each day of sampling. Flow rates 

of approximately 0.025 Lpm were used to 

collect the samples. Each sampling pump was 

calibrated before and after each sampling event 

against a primary standard (BIOS® Dry Cal) to 

verify flow rate. The sorbent tubes were placed 

as close as possible to the workers’ breathing 

zone and connected via Tygon® tubing to the 

sampling pump. Screeners wore the sampling 

pump and filter for the entire work shift. After 

collection, the samples were sent to the NIOSH 

contract laboratory (DataChem, Salt Lake City, 

UT) and analyzed in accordance with NIOSH 

Method 6014. Quantification was achieved via 

visible absorption spectrophotometry.2 

In addition to sorbent tube sampling, NO2 

concentrations were measured using the 

Biosystems Toxilog Ultra, a direct reading 

instrument equipped with electrochemical 

sensors that log average exposures, maximum 

15-minute short-term exposures, and maximum 

peak exposures. These instruments were 

operated in a passive diffusion mode with a 30-

second sampling interval. They were clipped to 

the belt of each worker for personal monitoring 

and worn for the entire work shift. Three 

screeners were monitored on each day of 

sampling. Stored data were downloaded to a 

laptop computer after sampling. Calibration of 

these monitors was accomplished before and 

after sampling according to the manufacturer’s 

specifications. 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Carbon monoxide exposures were evaluated 

using two types of instrumentation: the 

Biosystems Toxilog Ultra and the Q-TRAK Plus 

indoor air quality (IAQ) monitor model 

8552/8554. The Toxilog Ultra is a real-time, 

data-logging, passive CO monitor that logs 

average exposures, maximum 15-minute shortterm exposures, and maximum peak exposures. 

These instruments were operated in a passive 

diffusion mode with a 30-second sampling 

interval. Nine personal samples were collected 

on April 17, 2004, and five personal and three 

area samples were collected on April 18, 2004. 

Personal samples were collected by attaching the 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 Page 3 

instrument to the belt of each worker. For area 

samples, the monitors were placed at fixed 

locations within designated work areas. All 

monitors operated for the entire work shift. 

The Q-TRAK device measures CO in real-time 

and these measurements were compared with 

those from the Toxilog Ultras. Instantaneous 

measurements of CO were taken throughout the 

baggage area during the work shift. The QTRAK was also used to identify sources of the 

contamination in the area. Instrument calibration 

for both the Toxilog Ultras and the Q-TRAK 

was completed according to the manufacturers=

recommendations. 

Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) 

Area air samples that screen for VOCs were 

collected on both days of sampling. The samples 

were collected on thermal desorption (TD) tubes 

attached by Tygon® tubing to SKC® Pocket 

Pumps® calibrated at a flow rate of 0.05 Lpm. 

The TD tubes, used for qualitative identification 

of VOCs contain three beds of sorbent material: 

a front layer of Carbopack YTM, a middle layer 

of Carbopack BTM, and a back section of 

Carboxen 1003TM. The TD tubes were analyzed 

by the NIOSH laboratory in a Perkin-Elmer 

ATD 400 automatic thermal desorption system. 

The thermal unit was interfaced directly to an 

HP5890A gas chromatograph with an HP5970 

mass selective detector according to the NIOSH 

method 2549.2

To analyze specific VOCs, (based on the results 

of the TD samples), full-shift area air samples 

were collected on charcoal tubes attached by 

Tygon® tubing to SKC® Pocket Pumps® 

calibrated at a flow rate of 0.05 Lpm. Charcoal 

tube samples were collected simultaneously, in a 

side-by-side configuration, with the TD tubes. 

The charcoal tubes were sent to DataChem 

Laboratories, Inc. (Salt Lake City, UT) to be 

quantitatively analyzed for hydrocarbons of 

interest (identified on the TD tubes) using a 

Hewlett-Packard model 5890A gas 

chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization 

detector according to NIOSH methods 1300, 

1400, 1501, and 1550 with modifications.2

Noise 

Quest® Electronics Model Q-300 Noise 

Dosimeters were used to collect the daily noise 

exposure measurements from the employees that 

had volunteered to be in the NIOSH evaluation. 

The Quest dosimeters collect data so that one 

can directly compare the information with the 

three different noise criteria used in this survey, 

the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure 

Limit (PEL) and Action Level (AL), and the 

NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit (REL). 

The dosimeter was secured on the worker’s belt 

and the dosimeter’s microphone attached to their 

shirt, halfway between the collar and the point of 

their shoulder. A windscreen provided by the 

manufacturer of the dosimeter was placed over 

the microphone during recordings. The noise 

information was downloaded to a personal 

computer for interpretation with QuestSuite® 

Professional computer software and the 

dosimeters reset for the next day. The 

dosimeters were calibrated before and after the 

work shift according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

TSA employees were selected to wear noise 

monitoring devices at the beginning of their 

work shift on each of the two days of sampling 

at PBI. They were chosen so that most of the 

nine EDS screening machines were represented 

on each day. Employees reported to the 

supervisor’s area before being assigned to a 

screening machine and the meters were placed 

on them at this time. The meters were worn for 

the entire work shift, through lunch and breaks. 

The meters were removed at the end of the shift 

when the employees reported back to the 

supervisor’s area. Area noise measurements 

were taken at both the baggage input side and 

output side of the EDS screening machines in 

the general area where the employees worked. 

The analyzer was placed on a tripod with the 

microphone located at ear level for a standing 

employee. Additional area measurements were 

taken while jet aircraft taxied on the tarmac 

toward gate C-1, located adjacent to the baggage 
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 

screening area where TSA employees were 

located. 

Workplace Information 

To aid in characterizing the source of the 

contamination, and in selecting appropriate 

sampling methods, NIOSH investigators asked 

TSA to request information from the airlines 

regarding the year, make, model of tugs; fuel 

and engine type; preventive maintenance 

schedules; and emission testing results. 

EVALUATION CRITERIA

As a guide to the evaluation of the hazards posed 

by workplace exposures, NIOSH field staff 

employ environmental evaluation criteria for the 

assessment of a number of chemical and 

physical agents. These criteria are intended to 

suggest levels of exposure to which most 

workers may be exposed up to 10 hours per day, 

40 hours per week for a working lifetime 

without experiencing adverse health effects. It 

is, however, important to note that not all 

workers will be protected from adverse health 

effects even though their exposures are 

maintained below these levels. A small 

percentage may experience adverse health 

effects because of individual susceptibility, a 

pre-existing medical condition, and/or a 

hypersensitivity (allergy). In addition, some 

hazardous substances may act in combination 

with other workplace exposures, the general 

environment, or with medications or personal 

habits of the worker to produce health effects 

even if the occupational exposures are controlled 

at the level set by the criteria. These combined 

effects are often not considered in the evaluation 

criteria. Also, some substances are absorbed by 

direct contact with the skin and mucous 

membranes, and thus potentially increases the 

overall exposure. Finally, evaluation criteria 

may change over the years as new information 

on the toxic effects of an agent become 

available. 

The primary sources of environmental 

evaluation criteria for the workplace are: (1) 

NIOSH RELs,3

 (2) the American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists’ (ACGIH®) 

Threshold Limit Values (TLVs®),4 and (3) the 

OSHA PELs.5

 Employers are encouraged to 

follow the OSHA limits, the NIOSH RELs, the 

ACGIH TLVs, or whichever are the more 

protective criteria. 

OSHA requires an employer to furnish 

employees a place of employment that is free 

from recognized hazards that are causing or are 

likely to cause death or serious physical harm 

[Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 

Public Law 91–596, sec. 5(a)(1)]. Thus, 

employers should understand that not all 

hazardous chemicals have specific OSHA 

exposure limits such as PELs and short-term 

exposure limits (STELs). An employer is still 

required by OSHA to protect their employees 

from hazards, even in the absence of a specific 

OSHA PEL. 

A time-weighted average (TWA) exposure 

refers to the average airborne concentration of a 

substance during a normal 8- to 10-hour 

workday. Some substances have recommended 

STEL or ceiling values which are intended to 

supplement the TWA where there are 

recognized toxic effects from higher exposures 

over the short-term. 

Diesel Exhaust (Elemental 

Carbon) 

Diesel engines function by combusting liquid 

fuel without spark ignition. Air is compressed in 

the combustion chamber, fuel is introduced, and 

ignition is accomplished by the heat of 

compression. The emissions from diesel engines 

consist of a complex mixture, including gaseous 

and particulate fractions. The composition of the 

mixture varies greatly with fuel and engine type, 

load cycle, maintenance, tuning, and exhaust gas 

treatment. The gaseous constituents include 

carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), CO, NO, 

NO2, and VOCs (e.g., ethylene, formaldehyde, 

methane, benzene, phenol, acrolein, and 

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons).6,7,8,9 The 

particulate fraction (soot) is composed of solid 

carbon cores, produced during the combustion 

process, which tend to combine to form chains 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 Page 5 

of particles or aggregates, the largest of which 

are in the respirable range (more than 95% are 

less than 1 micron in size).10 Estimates indicate 

that as many as 18,000 different substances 

resulting from the combustion process may be 

adsorbed onto these particulates.11 The adsorbed 

material contains 15B65% of the total particulate 

mass and includes compounds such as 

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, a number of 

which are known mutagens and 

carcinogens.4,5,12,13

Many of the individual components of diesel 

exhaust are known to have toxic effects. The 

following health effects have been associated 

with some of the components of diesel exhaust: 

(1) pulmonary irritation from oxides of nitrogen; 

(2) irritation of the eyes and mucous membranes 

from SO2, phenol, sulfuric acid, sulfate aerosols, 

and acrolein; and (3) cancer in animals from 

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Several 

studies confirm an association between exposure 

to whole diesel exhaust and lung cancer in rats 

and mice.5

 Limited epidemiological evidence 

suggests an association between occupational 

exposure to diesel exhaust emissions and lung 

cancer.14 The agreement of current toxicological 

and epidemiological evidence led NIOSH in 

1988 to recommend that whole diesel exhaust be 

regarded as a Apotential occupational 

carcinogen,@ as defined in the OSHA=s Cancer 

Policy (AIdentification, Classification, and 

Regulation of Potential Occupational 

Carcinogens,@ 29 CFR 1990).5

 Accordingly, 

NIOSH recommends that exposures be 

controlled to the lowest feasible concentration. 

Although OSHA and ACGIH have exposure 

limits for some of the individual components of 

diesel exhaust (i.e., NO2, xylene, and CO), 

exposure limits have not been established for 

whole diesel exhaust. The California 

Department of Health Services’ Hazard 

Evaluation System & Information Service 

(HESIS) recommends exposures to diesel 

exhaust particles (measured as EC) be kept 

below 20 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

). 

This value was based on a risk assessment 

performed by the California Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental 

Health Hazard Assessment that determined 

exposures to diesel particulate over a working 

lifetime of 20 μg/m3

 would create an excess lung 

cancer risk of one in a thousand.15

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 

Nitrogen dioxide gas is an irritant to the mucous 

membranes and its inhalation may cause severe 

coughing, which can be accompanied by mild or 

transient headache. The following health effects 

were observed in humans exposed to NO2 for 60 

minutes: at 100 ppm, pulmonary edema and 

death; at 50 ppm, pulmonary edema, with 

possible subacute or chronic lesions in the lungs; 

and, at 25 ppm, respiratory irritation and chest 

pain.16,17 The effects of chronic low exposures 

are not well characterized in humans, but NO2 

would be expected to have an irritant effect upon 

the general mucosal surfaces and on the lower 

respiratory tract.16 Chronic exposures to 0.2 ppm 

with daily excursions to 0.8 ppm in mice were 

shown to cause decreased pulmonary function. 

This gas has not been shown to have teratogenic, 

mutagenic, or directly carcinogenic effects.17

The NIOSH REL for NO2 is 1 ppm as a 15-

minute STEL.3

 The OSHA ceiling concentration 

is 5 ppm.5

 The ACGIH TLV-TWA is 3 ppm and 

the TLV-STEL is 5 ppm.4

Nitric Oxide (NO) 

Nitric oxide is a colorless gas that converts 

spontaneously in air to NO2. The oxidation rate 

occurs more rapidly at higher NO 

concentrations.18 Therefore, it is difficult to 

identify the effects of NO exposures without 

considering the concomitant effects of NO2. NO 

is a component of photochemical smog with 

ambient air concentrations reaching as high as 

2.65 ppm.19 The most common occupational 

exposures to NO occur when it is formed as a 

by-product in the preparation of 

nitrosylcarbonyls and nitric acid, tobacco smoke, 

and from combustion of propane, diesel, and 

gasoline engines.16 In humans exposed to NO 

between 10 ppm and 40 ppm, significant lung 

vasodilation effects were observed.17 A 

comparative analysis of inhaled and exhaled 

breath in humans after exposure to NO at 

concentrations of 5, 1, 0.5, and 0.33 ppm 

showed 85% to 93% retention in the body.18
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 

Animal studies indicate that NO has an affinity 

for ferrous hemoglobin, which normally 

transports oxygen in the blood. The two 

substances react to form nitrosyl hemoglobin, a 

compound that is incapable of oxygen 

transport.18 This toxic action resembles that of 

CO. Exposures to mice to 5000 ppm for 6 to 8 

minutes and to 2500 ppm for 12 minutes were 

lethal.17

Both NIOSH and OSHA have established a 

TWA exposure criterion of 25 ppm for NO. 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, 

tasteless gas produced by incomplete burning of 

carbon-containing materials such as gasoline or 

propane fuel. The initial symptoms of 

CO poisoning may include headache, dizziness, 

drowsiness, and nausea with symptoms 

advancing to vomiting, loss of consciousness, 

and collapse if prolonged or high exposures are 

encountered. If the exposure level is high, loss 

of consciousness may occur without other 

symptoms. Coma or death may occur if high 

exposures continue.4,17,20,21,22,23 The display of 

symptoms varies widely from individual to 

individual, and may occur sooner in susceptible 

individuals such as young or aged people, 

people with preexisting lung or heart disease, or 

those living at high altitudes. 

The NIOSH REL for CO is 35 ppm for an 8-

hour TWA exposure, with a ceiling limit of 

200 ppm which should not be exceeded.20,18 The 

ACGIH recommends an 8-hour TWA TLV of 

25 ppm.4 The OSHA PEL for CO is 50 ppm for 

an 8-hour TWA exposure.5

 The immediately 

dangerous to life or health concentration (IDLH) 

is 1200 ppm. The IDLH exposure condition 

Aposes a threat of exposure to airborne 

contaminants when that exposure is likely to 

cause death or immediate or delayed permanent 

adverse health effects or prevent escape from 

such an environment.@

24

Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) 

This is a large class of organic chemicals (i.e., 

containing carbon) that have a sufficiently high 

vapor pressure to allow some of the compound 

to exist in the gaseous state at room temperature. 

They are emitted in varying concentrations from 

numerous indoor sources including carpeting, 

fabrics, adhesives, resins, solvents, paints, 

cleaners, waxes, cigarettes, and combustion 

sources. 

Noise 

Noise-induced loss of hearing is an irreversible, 

sensorineural condition that progresses with 

exposure. Although hearing ability declines with 

age (presbycusis) in all populations, exposure to 

noise produces hearing loss greater than that 

resulting from the natural aging process. This 

noise-induced loss is caused by damage to nerve 

cells of the inner ear (cochlea) and, unlike some 

conductive hearing disorders, cannot be treated 

medically.25 While loss of hearing may result 

from a single exposure to a very brief impulse 

noise or explosion, such traumatic losses are 

rare. In most cases, noise-induced hearing loss is 

insidious. Typically, it begins to develop at 4000 

or 6000 Hertz (Hz) (the hearing range is 20 Hz 

to 20000 Hz) and spreads to lower and higher 

frequencies. Often, material impairment has 

occurred before the condition is clearly 

recognized. Such impairment is usually severe 

enough to permanently affect a person's ability 

to hear and understand speech under everyday 

conditions. Although the primary frequencies of 

human speech range from 200 Hz to 2000 Hz, 

research has shown that the consonant sounds, 

which enable people to distinguish words such 

as "fish" from "fist," have still higher frequency 

components.26

The A-weighted decibel [dB(A)] is the preferred 

unit for measuring sound levels to assess worker 

noise exposures. The dB(A) scale is weighted to 

approximate the sensory response of the human 

ear to sound frequencies near the threshold of 

hearing. The decibel unit is dimensionless, and 

represents the logarithmic relationship of the 

measured sound pressure level to an arbitrary 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 Page 7 

reference sound pressure (20 micropascals, the 

normal threshold of human hearing at a 

frequency of 1000 Hz). Decibel units are used 

because of the very large range of sound 

pressure levels which are audible to the human 

ear. Because the dB(A) scale is logarithmic, 

increases of 3 dB(A), 10 dB(A), and 20 dB(A) 

represent a doubling, tenfold increase, and 

hundredfold increase of sound energy, 

respectively. It should be noted that noise 

exposures expressed in decibels cannot be 

averaged by taking the simple arithmetic mean. 

The OSHA standard for occupational exposure 

to noise (29 CFR 1910.95)27 specifies a 

maximum PEL of 90 dB(A) for a duration of 8 

hours per day. The regulation, in calculating the 

PEL, uses a 5 dB time/intensity trading 

relationship, or exchange rate. This means that a 

person may be exposed to noise levels of 95 

dB(A) for no more than 4 hours, to 100 dB(A) 

for 2 hours, etc. Conversely, up to 16 hours 

exposure to 85 dB(A) is allowed by this 

exchange rate. The duration and sound level 

intensities can be combined in order to calculate 

a worker's daily noise dose according to the 

formula: 

Dose = 100 X (C1/T1 + C2/T2 + ... + Cn/Tn ), 

where Cn indicates the total time of exposure at 

a specific noise level and Tn indicates the 

reference duration for that level as given in 

Table G-16a of the OSHA noise regulation. 

During any 24-hour period, a worker is allowed 

up to 100% of his daily noise dose. Doses 

greater than 100% are in excess of the OSHA 

PEL. 

The OSHA regulation has an additional action 

level (AL) of 85 dB(A); an employer shall 

administer a continuing, effective hearing 

conservation program when the 8-hour timeweighted average (TWA) value exceeds the AL. 

The program must include monitoring, 

employee notification, observation, audiometric 

testing, hearing protectors, training, and record 

keeping. All of these requirements are included 

in 29 CFR 1910.95, paragraphs (c) through (o). 

Finally, the OSHA noise standard states that 

when workers are exposed to noise levels in 

excess of the OSHA PEL of 90 dB(A), feasible 

engineering or administrative controls shall be 

implemented to reduce the workers' exposure 

levels. 

NIOSH, in its Criteria for a Recommended 

Standard,28 and the ACGIH,4

 propose exposure 

criteria of 85 dB(A) as a TWA for 8 hours, 5 dB 

less than the OSHA standard. These criteria also 

use a more conservative 3 dB time/intensity 

trading relationship in calculating exposure 

limits. Thus, a worker can be exposed to 85 

dB(A) for 8 hours, but to no more than 88 dB(A) 

for 4 hours or 91 dB(A) for 2 hours. Twelvehour exposures have to be 83 dB(A) or less 

according to the NIOSH REL. 

RESULTS

Air Sampling Results 

The results of the air sampling for diesel exhaust 

(EC) are shown in Table 1. Concentrations of 

EC ranged from <1 μg/m3

 to 11.2 μg/m3. The 

minimum detectable concentration (MDC) of 1 

μg/m3

 was calculated based on the LOD 

assuming an average sample volume of 1116 

liters of air. 

All of the PBZ concentrations measured for NO2

and NO were below their MDCs of 291 μg/m3

and 190 μg/m3

, respectively (assuming an 

average sample volume of 10.9 liters of air). 

Full-shift TWA and short-term exposures 

for NO2 measured using the Toxilog Ultras were 

all non-detectable. Instantaneous peak 

concentrations ranged from 0.1 ppm to 1.5 ppm. 

Personal full shift TWA exposures for CO 

ranged from non-detected to 1 ppm; 15-minute 

short-term exposures ranged from non-detected 

to 2 ppm. The results from the Toxilog Ultra 

sampling for CO are shown in Table 2. One 

employee working in Lane 6 had a measured 

instantaneous peak exposure of 1150 ppm at 

1:30 pm. A graph of the instantaneous CO 

measurements during this employee’s shift is 

shown in Figure 1. The employee’s TWA and 

STEL exposures were 12 ppm and 6 ppm 

respectively. Full shift and 15-minute short-term 
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 

concentrations of CO collected on a screener 

working in the adjacent lanes (Lane 4 and Lane 

5) on the same day were non-detected, with an 

instantaneous peak exposure of 19 ppm. A graph 

of the instantaneous CO measurements during 

this employee’s shift is shown in Figure 2. Full 

shift and 15-minute short-term concentrations of 

CO collected on a screener working in the same 

location the next day were non-detected and the 

instantaneous peak exposure was 22 ppm. A 

graph of these measurements are shown in 

Figure 3. 

Area instantaneous CO samples were collected 

using the Q-TRAK in various areas within the 

bag screening operation during both days of 

sampling. CO concentrations taken in the work 

areas of employees ranged from 0.5 ppm to 9 

ppm. CO concentrations taken near passing tugs 

or idling tugs ranged from 15 ppm to 600 ppm. 

The results from area Q-TRAK CO sampling are 

shown in Table 3. 

The dominant VOCs qualitatively identified on 

the TD tubes and subsequently analyzed 

quantitatively on the charcoal tubes; included 

isopropyl alcohol (IPA), acetone, benzene, 

toluene, xylene, and total hydrocarbons. All 

area samples for benzene, toluene, xylenes, and 

total hydrocarbons were below the analytical 

limit of detection. Full-shift area samples for 

IPA were detected in trace amounts (between the 

MDC and minimum quantifiable concentration 

[MQC]). One full-shift area sample contained a 

trace amount of acetone. 

Noise 

Eight TSA screeners wore noise dosimeters on 

Saturday during their work shift and seven wore 

dosimeters on Sunday. The screeners were 

generally assigned to one EDS screening 

machine, although a few employees worked in 

two areas during their shift. The noise exposure 

results for each individual are shown in Table 4 

and are compared to the three different noise 

criteria used in this survey, the OSHA PEL and 

AL, and the NIOSH REL. The OSHA criteria 

use a 90 dBA criterion and 5-dB exchange rate 

for the PEL and AL. The difference between the 

two is the threshold level employed, with a 90 

dBA threshold for the PEL and an 80 dBA 

threshold for the AL. The threshold level is the 

lower limit of noise values included in the 

calculation of the criteria; values less than the 

threshold are ignored by the dosimeter. The 

NIOSH criterion differs from OSHA in that the 

criterion is 85 dBA, the threshold is 80 dBA, 

and it uses a 3-dB exchange rate. The data in the 

table are reported as the % daily dose for each 

noise criteria as an 8-hr TWA. 

The OSHA PEL was not exceeded in any of the 

15 dosimeter samples. There was one instance 

where the OSHA AL was greater than 50% and 

two instances where the NIOSH criterion 

exceeded 100%. All of the noise samples greater 

than the criteria occurred on Saturday. The 

worker with the highest recorded noise 

exposures worked in Lane 1. A graph of this 

employee’s noise levels throughout the day is 

shown in Figure 4. The daily noise levels varied 

throughout the day with several extended time 

periods where the noise was between 90-95 

dBA. There were two additional periods where 

the 1-min. average was 110 dBA and 103 dBA. 

Because of these results, an area sample was 

located in the vicinity of Lane 1 on the second 

day of the evaluation (Figure 5). On Sunday, the 

noise levels in this area were consistently 

between 80-85 dBA which does not confirm the 

personal noise levels recorded on Saturday at 

Lane 1. The second instance where the NIOSH 

REL was measured greater than 100% was in 

Lane 7 on the first day of the survey. While 

Lane 7 was not monitored on the second day, the 

two adjacent lanes (Lane 6 and Lane 8) were 

measured at 26% and 42%, respectively, on 

Sunday. 

Area spectral noise measurements were made on 

the two survey days at each of the nine EDS 

baggage screening machines. Samples were 

integrated over 30 seconds at the input and 

output sides of the machines, near where 

employees performed their job tasks. The overall 

results of these measurements are shown in 

Table 5. The noise levels from spectra that have 

no weighting network (dB SPL) and spectra that 

have an A-weighting network27 (dBA) were 

calculated for each location by the analyzer. The 

unweighted values are consistently greater than 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 Page 9 

the A-weighted values at all nine screening 

machines which indicates that there is a great 

deal of lower frequency (<250 Hz) sound energy 

in the area. Also, the output side of the machine 

is a few decibels greater than the input side of 

the machine. None of the A-weighted values 

approach the NIOSH criterion of 85 dBA. 

Additional area measurements were made while 

a jet aircraft taxied and parked at Gate C-1. The 

weighted and unweighted values at Lane 2 were 

82 dBA and 85 dB SPL, respectively while the 

aircraft moved into position at the gate. 

Workplace Information 

One airline responded to the TSA request for 

information. JetBlue operates 3 gasoline tugs 

that receive routine maintenance and has a 

preventive maintenance schedule in place. Tugs 

are frequently left idling near TSA screeners 

while airline employees load and unload bags. 

Employees reported on the days of our survey 

that airline employees were more likely than 

usual to turn off tugs.

Due to security measures and lack of adequate 

space, employee break areas are located in the 

bag area next to the EDS machines. Bathrooms 

are located inside the terminal. Employees do 

not readily have access to soap and water to 

wash before eating. 

In general, housekeeping in the ramp area was 

poor. Many areas were cluttered with items 

which create a trip hazard. Cracks on floors and 

uneven walking surfaces also create a trip hazard 

for employees. In addition, empty metal carts 

being pulled by tugs pass over cracks in the 

concrete floor resulting in “cart bounce”, which 

creates unnecessary noise. Also, a large crack in 

the floor, creating a potential trip hazard, was 

noted in the ramp entrance area between Lanes 8 

and 9. 

Vinyl gloves and hearing protection are 

available to all employees. No formal written 

hearing protection program is currently in place 

at the airport. IPA is the only chemical used by 

TSA employees. They use it to periodically 

clean the table tops where manual bag inspection 

and ETD processing occurs. 

DISCUSSION

None of the evaluated chemicals were detected 

at concentrations exceeding occupational 

exposure limits. Concentrations of EC ranged 

from <1 μg/m3

 to 11.2μg/m3. The highest 

exposure (11.2 μg/m3

) is half the CA HESIS 

recommendation of 20 μg/m3. This employee 

worked at EDS machine 2 on Sunday afternoon 

(April 18th). The next highest EC exposure 

(9.5 μg/m3

) was measured on the employee 

working at EDS machines 4 and 5 on Saturday 

morning (April 17th). Based on the experience of 

the NIOSH investigators and compared to other 

NIOSH diesel exhaust studies, the measured EC 

levels are not considered unusually high. The 

variation in exposures to diesel exhaust is likely 

due to the presence or absence of diesel powered 

tugs in the area. Each airline owns and operates 

their own tugs and the fuel source varies; 

therefore, employee exposures may vary 

depending on their work location. 

PBZ concentrations measured for NO2 and NO 

were below the limit of detection of 

2 μg/sample. These results are in agreement with 

the NO2 results from the real time Toxilog Ultra 

monitors; full-shift and 15-minute short-term 

exposures were all non-detectable. All but one 

personal full shift TWA and 15-minute shortterm exposures for CO ranged from nondetected to 1 ppm and from non-detected to 

8 ppm, respectively. One employee working at 

Lane #6 had an instantaneous peak exposure of 

1150 ppm at 1:30 pm. This employee’s TWA 

and short-term exposures were 10 ppm and 

284 ppm, respectively. The employee’s exposure 

to CO exceeded the OSHA ceiling limit of 

200 ppm and approached the IDLH value of 

1200 ppm. The CO exposures for employees 

working in the adjacent lanes (Lane 4/5 and 

Lane 7) on the same day were very low. 

Likewise, the sample for CO collected on a 

screener working in the same location the next 

day measured a full shift and 15-minute shortterm concentration of 0 ppm and an 

instantaneous peak exposure of 22 ppm. Area 

measurements at and near tug exhausts using the 

Q-TRAK Plus ranged from 39 ppm to 600 ppm. 
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 

These results did not approach the instantaneous 

peak measurement measured on the screener 

working at Lane 6. Based on the related CO 

results, it is difficult to determine the source 

responsible for high concentrations of CO or if 

equipment malfunction occurred. In general, tug 

exhaust emissions were considered the primary 

source of CO in the bag screening area. 

However, NIOSH can not rule out the possibility 

of a worker taking a break outside the baggage 

screening area and receiving exposure from 

other sources such as automobiles, buses or 

exhaled cigarette smoke. 

Thermal desorption sampling for hydrocarbons 

did not identify any unusual compounds. Fullshift area samples for IPA (the most prominent 

compound detected) were well below any 

occupational exposure limits. 

Although this air sampling does not show an 

inhalational hazard in the bag area, the potential 

exists for increased exposures to tug exhaust 

emissions if the tugs are not properly maintained 

or if new tugs are purchased that do not 

procedurally operate under the same conditions 

of those in the area on the day of the NIOSH 

survey (e.g., shut off tugs while 

loading/unloading). TSA management is 

currently working with the airlines to ensure that 

each airline is following manufacturerrecommended maintenance procedures for the 

tugs. Recently, airline employees have been 

instructed to turn off the tug engines when 

loading/unloading baggage and to follow all 

speed limit and driving rules in the area. TSA 

employees reported that airline employees often 

leave the tugs idling while loading/unloading 

bags or when exiting the tug for short durations. 

Leaving the engine running unnecessarily 

contributes to increased concentrations of 

airborne contaminants. 

The baggage area is open to the ramp/tarmac on 

the south side. Depending on the outdoor 

environmental conditions, the bag screening area 

can be naturally ventilated by strong winds. 

Alternatively, calm winds and certain directional 

wind flows do not provide natural ventilation to 

the area. In addition, large fans attached to duct 

work exhausting outside the area are located 

near each EDS machine. These exhaust fans 

help reduce the build up of contaminants in the 

area. Employees reported that on the days of our 

sampling the environmental conditions were 

optimal. 

The measured noise levels over the two survey 

days provide little evidence of a serious noise 

problem for the baggage screeners in this area. 

Most of the personal noise measurements and all 

of the area measurements are below relevant 

exposure evaluation criteria. For those locations 

where a criterion was exceeded, there was not a 

similar finding for employees working in 

adjacent areas or on the second day of sampling. 

Major noise sources identified during the 

evaluation were the ventilation system, aircraft, 

airline tugs and carts, and the movement of 

luggage from conveyors onto the screening 

machines and from the machines to tables for 

additional inspection, or onto the airlines’ 

conveyors for delivery to the aircraft. While 

none of these sources are intense enough to 

increase the risk of occupational hearing loss, if 

any of them can be reduced it would improve the 

overall conditions of the work area. Experience 

in the workplace has shown that noise levels 

above 80 dBA force people to speak loudly to be 

clearly heard and in levels above 85 dBA, they 

have to shout.29 Dosimeter data and area spectra 

show that noise at this level is common in the 

area where the TSA screeners work. 

CONCLUSIONS

An inhalational hazard to tug and aircraft 

exhaust emissions did not exist at the time of the 

NIOSH visit. Conditions affecting the results 

include good dilution ventilation due to the area 

being relatively open to the outside environment 

and large exhaust fans at each EDS machine. 

Exposures, however, could increase if tugs are 

not properly maintained, sit in idle mode for 

extended periods of time, or if tug traffic 

increases. Weather conditions may also affect 

contaminant concentrations in the area. Even 

though the contaminant levels were below 

relevant occupational exposure limits, it is 

important to continue to work with the airlines 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 Page 11 

to ensure that tugs are maintained according to 

standard operating procedures (e.g., routine 

engine tune-ups, oil and oil filter changes ). 

Good communication and cooperation with the 

airlines will help to ensure this is accomplished. 

A complete, formal hearing conservation 

program that meets the regulatory requirements 

of OSHA is not needed at this airport for TSA 

baggage screeners. However, conditions 

adversely affecting noise levels in this 

workplace exist. For example, any cracks 

should be filled, eliminating noise that results 

from carts bouncing after hitting them. 

Additionally, any change in the configuration of 

the floor plan such as added workers, machinery, 

or aircraft could increase noise levels. Any 

perceived increase in employees’ noise 

exposures from these changes needs to be 

documented through additional noise testing. 

Even if the noise levels in this work area do not 

increase, it would be beneficial to attempt to 

lower noise levels to help improve 

communication between employees. In some 

areas noise levels are high enough to cause 

workers to raise their voices or shout in order to 

be heard over the background noise, which can 

strain one’s voice over a period of time. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Employees should report any perceived 

increases in noise in the workplace. The 

information should be logged by management 

and trigger a noise evaluation. Results of the 

noise evaluation should be reported to the 

employees, including determination of the 

exposure levels and corrective measures that 

were taken. 

2. There are several cracks in the floor where 

airline tugs and carts traveled. Many were noted 

near the airlines’ baggage conveyors adjacent to 

the tarmac. These should be filled and smoothed 

to reduce the impact noise created by carts 

bouncing over the cracks. 

3. Personal radios were clearly audible during 

the work shift. These should be kept at a level 

where they can be heard by employees in the 

immediate area only without impacting workers 

two or three lanes away. 

4. Housekeeping should be improved in the 

area. Trash or debris should be thrown away. 

Debris in the area has the potential to be drawn 

towards the intake side of the exhaust fan system 

and clog the intake grating. Should this happen, 

the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the 

entire system will be greatly diminished. TSA 

items should be appropriately stored and free 

from walkways to avoid trip hazards. 

5. Break tables should be cleaned and 

employees should be encouraged to wash their 

hands with soap and water or use an alcoholbased hand rub prior to eating or smoking. 

6. Ensure that tugs are maintained and operated 

according to standard operating procedures. 

Good communication and cooperation with the 

airlines will help to ensure this is accomplished. 

It may be beneficial to engage both TSA and 

airline management to work toward the common 

goal of improving air quality in the bag area. 

REFERENCES

 1. CFR [2001] 49 CFR Parts 1500 et al. Code 

of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Office of the 

Federal Register. 

 2. NIOSH [1998] NIOSH manual of 

analytical methods. Vol. 4. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

Public Health Service, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 98-119. 

 3. NIOSH [1992]. Recommendations for 

occupational safety and health: compendium of 

policy documents and statements. Cincinnati, 

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 92-100. 
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 

 4. ACGIH [2004]. 2004 TLVs7 and BEIs7: 

Threshold limit values for chemical substances 

and physical agents & biological exposure 

indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference 

of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 

 5. CFR [1997]. 29 CFR 1910.1000. Code of 

Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Office of the 

Federal Register. 

 6. Linell RH, Scott WE [1962]. Diesel 

exhaust composition and odor studies. J Air 

Pollut Control Assoc 12:510B545. 

 7. Environmental Health Associates, Inc. 

[1978]. Health effects of diesel exhaust 

emissions. Berkeley, CA: Environmental Health 

Associates, Inc. 

 8. Schenker [1980]. Diesel exhaustBBan 

occupational carcinogen? J Occup Med 

22:41B46. 

 9. Travis CC, Munro NB [1983]. Potential 

health effects of light-duty diesel exhaust. Risk 

Analysis 3:147B155. 

 10. NIOSH [1988]. Current intelligence 

bulletin 50: Carcinogenic effects of exposure to 

diesel exhaust. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

Public Health Service, Centers for Disease 

Control, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 

No. 88-116. 

 11. Weisenberger [1984]. Health effects of 

diesel emissionsBBan update. J Soc Occup Med 

34:90B92. 

 12. Cuddihy RG, Griffith WC, McClellan RO 

[1984]. Health risks from light-duty diesel 

vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 18:14AB21A. 

 13. Froines JR, Hinds WC, Duffy RM [1987]. 

Exposure of fire fighters to diesel emissions in 

fire stations. Am Ind Hyg Assoc 48(3)202B207. 

 14. Garshick E, Schenker MB, Munoz A, 

Segal M [1988]. A retrospective cohort study of 

lung cancer and diesel exposure in railroad 

workers. Am Rev Resp Dis 137:820B825. 

 15 California DHS [2002]. Health Hazard 

Advisory: Diesel Engine Exhaust. Oakland, CA: 

California Department of Health Services, 

Hazard Evaluation System & Information 

Service. 

 16. NIOSH [1976]. Criteria for a 

recommended standard; occupational exposure 

to oxides of nitrogen (nitrogen dioxide and nitric 

oxide). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of 

Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health 

Service, Center for Disease Control, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 76-149. 

 17. Hathaway GJ, Proctor NH, Hughes JP. 

[1996]. Proctor & Hughes’ chemical hazards of 

the workplace. 4th ed. New York, NY: John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

 18. ACGIH [2001]. Documentation of the 

threshold limit values and biological exposure 

indices. 7th ed. Cincinnati, OH: American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists. 

 19. Sancier KM, Freeman G, Mills JS [1962]. 

Electron spin resonance to nitric oxidehemoglobin complexes in solution. Science 

137:752-754. 

 20. NIOSH [1972]. Criteria for a 

recommended standard: occupational exposure 

to carbon monoxide. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 

Health Services and Mental Health 

Administration, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW 

(NIOSH) Publication No. HSM 73-11000. 

 21. NIOSH [1977]. Occupational diseases: a 

guide to their recognition. Rev. ed. Cincinnati, 

OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for 

Disease Control, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 77-181. 

 22. NIOSH [1979]. A guide to workrelatedness of disease. Rev. ed. Cincinnati, OH: 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 Page 13 

Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for 

Disease Control, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 79-116. 

23. NIOSH [1997]. Pocket guide to chemical 

hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Public Health 

Service, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 

No. 97-140. 

24. NIOSH [1987]. NIOSH Respirator Decision 

Logic. Cincinnati, OH U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Public Health 

Service, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 

No. 87-108. 

25. Ward WD, Royster LH, Royster JD [2000]. 

Anatomy & physiology of the ear: normal and 

damaged hearing. Chapter 4. In: Berger EH, 

Royster LH, Royster JD, Driscoll DP, & Layne 

M, eds. The noise manual. 5th ed. Fairfax, VA: 

American Industrial Hygiene Association, pp 

101-122. 

 26. Suter AH [1978]. The ability of mildlyimpaired individuals to discriminate speech in 

noise. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Joint EPA/USAF study, 

EPA 550/9-78-100, AMRL-TR-78-4. 

 27. CFR [2003]. 29 CFR 1910.95. Code of 

Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Office of the 

Federal Register. 

 28. NIOSH [1998]. Criteria for a 

recommended standard: Occupational noise 

exposure (revised criteria 1998). Cincinnati, OH: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Public Health Service, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 98-126. 

 29 Suter AH [1993]. Hearing conservation 

manual. Third edition. Milwaukee, WI: Council 

for Accreditation in Occupational Hearing 

Conservation, p. 8. 
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 

Table 1 

TSA- Palm Beach International Airport 

Personal Diesel Exhaust (Elemental Carbon) Results 

HETA 2004-0130 

West Palm Beach, Florida 

April 17-18, 2004 

Employee Location Sample Duration (min) Concentration (μg/m3

) 

April 17, 2004 

EDS 4&5 361 9.5 

EDS 7 388 Trace 

EDS 9 397 8.4 

EDS 3 401 7.4 

EDS 1 388 5.0 

EDS 8 484 6.1 

EDS 8 (30 min at 9) 473 6.5 

EDS 1 473 3.7 

EDS 6 453 4.5 

April 18, 2004 

EDS 9 470 5.4 

EDS 8 485 4.9 

EDS 2 484 11.2 

EDS 3 494 7.6 

EDS 6 488 5.6 

EDS 7 470 ND 

EDS 5 * ? Trace 

MDC 1 

MQC 

Assuming an average 

volume of 1116 Liters 4 

 μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 

 EDS = Explosive Detection System 

 ND = Value was below the minimum detectable concentration (MDC) 

 Trace = Value between the MDC and the minimum quantifiable concentration (MQC) 

 * Unknown run time. Pump was off at end of shift. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 Page 15 

Table 2 

TSA- Palm Beach International Airport 

Personal Toxilog Ultra Carbon Monoxide Results 

HETA 2004-0130 

West Palm Beach, Florida 

April 17-18, 2004 

Employee Work 

Location 

TWA (ppm) Short-term 

exposure 

(ppm) Peak (ppm) 

April 17, 2004 

EDS 3 0 1 18 

EDS 1 1 2 21 

EDS 8 0 2 20 

EDS 7 0 1 22 

EDS 6 12 6 1150* 

EDS 4 & 5 0 0 19 

EDS 4 0 1 27 

EDS 3 0 0 33 

EDS 9 0 1 25 

April 18, 2004 

EDS 3 0 1 26 

EDS 2 1 0 71 

EDS 5 0 0 17 

EDS 6 0 0 22 

EDS 8 0 0 16 

EDS 5 0 1 14 

EDS 1 & 2 0 0 7 

Supervisor Break area 

between EDS 5&6 

1 0 88 

NIOSH REL 35 Ceiling 200 - 

OSHA PEL 50 - - 

ppm = parts per million. 

* = suspect value, validity unknown 

TWA = Time-Weighted Average = average airborne concentration of a substance during a normal 8- to 

10-hour workday 

Short-term exposure = 15-minute TWA exposure 

Peak = Highest measured concentrations during the work day 

EDS = Explosive Detection System 

NIOSH REL = National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Recommended Exposure Limit 

NIOSH C = Ceiling Value that should not be exceeded at anytime 

OSHA PEL = Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limit 
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 

Table 3 

TSA-Palm Beach International Airport 

Area Q-TRAK Plus Carbon Monoxide Results (ppm) 

HETA 2004-0130 

West Palm Beach, Florida 

April 17-18, 2004 

Work Location 

Activity 

Description Time CO (ppm) 

April 17, 2004 

Break Area by EDS 5 

Light tug activity 

nearby 8:15 AM 4.1 

EDS 3 

Light tug activity 

nearby 8:16 AM 0.5 

EDS 3 by passenger bag 

return carousel 

Light tug activity 

nearby 8:18 AM 0.5 

EDS 2 - 8:19 AM 1.5 

EDS 9 by entrance to 

ramp - 8:20 AM 1 

EDS 3 by entrance to 

ramp Jet at gate 9:05 AM 1.1 

EDS 9 Near running tug 10:25 AM 39 

April 18, 2004 

EDS 9 Bag Screening 11:44 AM 1.4 

Partitioned Office 

between EDS 9 and 8 - 11:46 AM 1.9 

EDS 8 Bag Screening 11:47 AM 1.6 

EDS 8/9 Tug passing aisle 11:51AM 9 

EDS 7 Bag Screening 11:54 AM 1 

EDS 6 Bag Screening 11:59 AM 0.9 

EDS 5 Bag Screening 12:01 PM 0.8 

EDS 4 Bag Screening 12:11 PM 3.5 

EDS 2/3 

Near tug starting 

up 12:16 PM 15 

EDS 1/2 Bag Screening 12:20 PM 1.7 

EDS 5/6 Tug passing aisle 1:18 PM 5 

- 

Gas tug at 

exhaust 3:14 PM 60 

- 

Gas tug at 

exhaust 4:15 AM 600 

 ppm = parts per million 

 EDS = Explosive Detection System 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 Page 17 

Table 4 

TSA-Palm Beach International Airport 

Personal Noise Dosimeter Data 

HETA 2004-0130 

West Palm Beach, Florida 

April 17-18, 2004

Worker Location Sample Time 

hh:mm 

8-hr PEL 

 % Dose 

8-hr AL 

 % Dose 

8-hr REL 

 % Dose 

 

April 17, 2004 

EDS: Lane 1 07:39 40.0 57.6 351.2 

EDS: Lane 3 06:15 3.1 11.2 41.3 

EDS: Lane 4 06:20 1.3 7.8 26.7 

EDS: Lanes 4 & 5 07:36 2.3 11.9 38.0 

EDS: Lane 6 07:58 8.6 25.7 90.4 

EDS: Lane 7 08:01 18.1 34.3 181.0 

EDS: Lane 8 08:02 0.6 5.9 21.8 

EDS: Lane 9 06:08 3.9 11.9 47.9 

 April 18, 2004 

EDS: Lane 2 08:02 1.2 16.4 45.4 

EDS: Lanes 2 & 5 07:49 10.1 24.6 97.2 

EDS: Lane 3 06:42 2.1 12.2 39.7 

EDS: Lane 5 08:02 1.0 8.2 28.1 

EDS: Lane 6 08:08 0.4 7.2 25.5 

EDS: Lane 8 04:30 3.5 12.4 42.0 

EDS: Lane 9 07:49 7.2 16.7 64.2 

Dosimeter data for TSA employees screening baggage at the Explosive Detection System (EDS) 

machines. Sampling time is reported as the hours and minutes that the device was on the worker. All 

percent dose criteria, permissible exposure limit (PEL), action level (AL), and recommended exposure 

limit (REL), have been extrapolated to an 8-hr time-weighted average for each worker. 
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 

Table 5 

TSA-Palm Beach International Airport 

Area Noise Samples 

HETA 2004-0130 

West Palm Beach, Florida 

April 17-18, 2004 

Input Side Output Side Screening Lane dB SPL dBA dB SPL dBA 

1 83.3 75.7 85.7 77.5 

2 82.7 74.8 82.9 76.6 

3 81.7 74.7 83.0 77.7 

4 81.7 73.4 83.9 76.9 

5 81.7 74.3 83.1 75.4 

6 81.9 75.2 82.5 77.1 

7 81.3 72.4 80.9 73.5 

8 80.9 73.0 82.9 75.9 

9 82.1 74.7 80.9 74.6 

 Overall area noise levels at each of the EDS baggage screening machines measured at the input side 

where baggage is moved from the carrousel to the conveyor belt and at the output side where the baggage 

is further inspected or placed on the airline’s carrousel for delivery to the aircraft. Values are reported as 

unweighted (dB SPL) or weighted (dBA). 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 Page 19 

Figure 1 

TSA-Palm Beach International Airport 

Instantaneous CO Results for Screener Working in Lane 6 

HETA 2004-0130 

West Palm Beach, FL 

April 17, 2004 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

6:056:186:326:456:597:127:267:397:538:068:208:338:479:009:149:279:419:54

10:0810:2110:3510:4811:0211:1511:2911:4211:5612:0912:2312:3612:5013:0313:1713:3013:4413:5714:11

Time

CO (ppm)

Instantaneous peak 

measurement of 1150 

ppm
Page 20 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 

Figure 2 

TSA-Palm Beach International Airport 

Instantaneous CO Results for Screener Working in Lane 4 & 5 

HETA 2004-0130 

West Palm Beach, Florida 

April 17, 2004 

0

5

10

15

20

25

5:446:206:416:547:097:217:317:447:548:088:208:368:458:589:129:289:419:54

10:0610:1910:3110:4710:5611:0411:1311:2611:4211:5112:0312:1712:2612:4012:4913:0113:1013:18

Time

CO (ppm)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 Page 21 

Figure 3 

TSA-Palm Beach International Airport 

Instantaneous CO Results for Screener Working in Lane 6 

HETA 2004-0130 

West Palm Beach, Florida 

April 18, 2004 

0

5

10

15

20

25

10:3710:5011:0311:1611:2911:4211:5512:0812:2112:3412:4713:0013:1313:2613:3913:5214:0514:1814:3114:4414:5715:1015:2315:3615:4916:0216:1516:2816:4116:5417:0717:2017:3317:4617:5918:1218:25

Time

CO (ppm)
Page 22 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0130-2945 5:46 AM 6:00 AM 6:30 AM 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM

Time of Day

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

N

ois

e

L

e

v

el [d

B

A]

NIOSH Criterion: TWA(8)=81.2 dBA

Figure 4

TSA-Palm Beach International Airport

E3 - Lane 3 Baggage Screener

HETA 2004-0130

Palm Beach, Florida

April 17, 2004

10:32 AM11:00 AM11:30 AM12:00 PM12:30 PM

 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:17 PM

Time of Day

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

N

ois

e

L

e

v

el [d

B

A]

NIOSH Criterion: TWA(8)=81.7 dBA

Figure 5

TSA-Palm Beach International Airport

E3 - Lane 1 Area Sample from Concrete Pole near Output Side of Machine 

HETA 2004-0130

Palm Beach, Florida

April 18, 2004
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998 OFFICIAL BUSINESS Penalty for private use $300 

Delivering on the Nation's promise: 

Safety and Health at work for all people 

through research and prevention

To receive NIOSH documents or information 

about occupational Safety and Health topics 

contact NIOSH at: 

1-800-35-NIOSH (356-4674) 

Fax: 1-513-533-8573 

E-mail: pubstaft@cdc.gov

or visit the NIOSH web site at: 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html

S A F E R • H E A L T H I E R • P E O P L ETM