Evaluation of Exposures to Metals, 

Metalworking Fluids, Alcohols, and 

Volatile Organic Compounds at an 

Acrobatic Equipment

Manufacturer

HHE Report No. 2019-0057-3390

September 2023 
Authors: Nancy C. Burton, PhD, MPH, MS, CIH

Jessica L. Rinsky, PhD, MPH

Analytical Support: Jennifer Roberts, Bureau Veritas North America, Inc.

Desktop Publisher: Shawna Watts

Editor: Cheryl Hamilton

Logistics: Donnie Booher, Kevin Moore 

Keywords: North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 339920 (Sporting and Athletic 

Goods Manufacturing), New York, Welding, Soldering, Metalworking Fluids, MWFs, Volatile 

Organic Compounds, VOCs, Grinding, Glues 

Disclaimer 

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program investigates possible health hazards in the workplace under

the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 669[a][6]). The Health

Hazard Evaluation Program also provides, upon request, technical assistance to federal, state, and

local agencies to investigate occupational health hazards and to prevent occupational disease or

injury. Regulations guiding the Program can be found in Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations,

Part 85; Requests for Health Hazard Evaluations (42 CFR Part 85).

Availability of Report

Copies of this report have been sent to the employer and employees at the company. The state and

local health department and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regional Office

have also received a copy. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced.

Recommended Citation

NIOSH [2023]. Evaluation of exposures to metals, metalworking fluids, alcohols, and volatile

organic compounds at an acrobatic equipment manufacturer. By Burton NC, Rinsky JL. Cincinnati, 

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard Evaluation Report

2019-0057-3390, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2019-0057-3390.pdf. 
Table of Contents

Main Report

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

Our Approach ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Our Key Findings.............................................................................................................................................. 2

Our Recommendations.................................................................................................................................... 2

Supporting Technical Information 

Section A: Workplace Information............................................................................................................ A-1

Building...................................................................................................................................................... A-1

Employee Information ............................................................................................................................ A-1

Process Description ................................................................................................................................. A-1

Section B: Methods, Results, and Discussion .......................................................................................... B-1

Methods: Exposure Assessment ............................................................................................................ B-1

Results: Exposure Assessment ............................................................................................................... B-1

Methods: Facility and Ventilation Observations, Document and Health and Safety Program 

Reviews...................................................................................................................................................... B-2

Results: Facility and Ventilation Observations, Document and Health and Safety Program 

Reviews...................................................................................................................................................... B-3

Methods: Employee Interviews and Observations ............................................................................. B-3

Results: Employee Interviews and Observations ................................................................................ B-3

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. B-4

Limitations................................................................................................................................................. B-6

Conclusions............................................................................................................................................... B-6

Section C: Tables.......................................................................................................................................... C-1

Section D: Occupational Exposure Limits............................................................................................... D-1

Welding Fumes........................................................................................................................................ D-2

Metalworking Fluids ............................................................................................................................... D-3

Contact Dermatitis.................................................................................................................................. D-3

Section E: References.................................................................................................................................. E-1
This page left intentionally blank
1

Introduction

Request

We received a request from employees who work at a company that makes acrobatic equipment. They 

were concerned that exposures to the multiple substances used in or generated during production could 

be causing respiratory and skin irritation and related symptoms.

Workplace

The company manufactured custom acrobatic equipment used by performance artists. The production 

process included the following tasks: 

• Cutting, grinding, milling, drilling, and deburring aluminum pipe

• Heating polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubing

• Resin casting

• Soldering 

• Welding

• Gluing

• Three-dimensional (3-D) printing

• Computer programming for lighting display 

Employees used multiple substances including metalworking fluids, ultraviolet-cured glue, denatured 

alcohol, and soap to accomplish these tasks. During our visit, four company employees (three 

employees and the company owner) completed all production activities in an open plan workshop. 

To learn more about the workplace, go to Section A in the Supporting Technical Information

Our Approach

In February 2019, we spent two days at the facility to learn more from management and employees 

about the production process, work tasks, potential exposures, and health concerns. During our visit, 

we completed the following activities: 

• Observed employees performing all production tasks needed to produce the custom 

acrobatic equipment. 

• Evaluated the local exhaust ventilation systems.

• Collected task-based air samples for metalworking fluids, metals, alcohols, and volatile organic 

compounds.
2

• Held voluntary, confidential interviews with all employees to gather information about 

work history, tasks performed, personal protective equipment use, and health concerns 

and symptoms.

To learn more about our methods, go to Section B in the Supporting Technical Information

Our Key Findings

Employees reported experiencing symptoms that could be worsened by the 

materials and chemicals used in the production process

• At least one employee reported symptoms that included eye, nose, and throat irritation, or 

cough. However, we were not able to determine if these symptoms were caused by a 

specific exposure. 

• By controlling exposures during the work process, the company and employees can possibly 

prevent further illness or a worsening of symptoms.

Personal task-based air samples showed employees were exposed to low levels of 

metals and volatile organic compounds

• The highest levels of metals were detected during welding.

• Isopropyl alcohol and ethanol were detected during PVC skinning and 3-D printing. 

Workplace conditions and practices could be improved to reduce potential 

exposures 

• We identified areas where engineering and administrative controls could be applied to reduce the 

potential for exposure. 

• We observed inconsistent use of personal protective equipment. 

To learn more about our results, go to Section B in the Supporting Technical Information

Our Recommendations

The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to provide a safe workplace.

Benefits of Improving Workplace Health and Safety:

 Improved worker health and well-being  Enhanced image and reputation 

 Better workplace morale  Superior products, processes, and services

 Easier employee recruiting and retention  May increase overall cost savings
3

The recommendations below are based on the findings of our evaluation. For each recommendation, 

we list a series of actions you can take to address the issue at your workplace. The actions at the 

beginning of each list are preferable to the ones listed later. The list order is based on a well-accepted 

approach called the “hierarchy of controls.” The hierarchy of controls groups actions by their likely 

effectiveness in reducing or removing hazards. In most cases, the preferred approach is to eliminate 

hazardous materials or processes and install engineering controls to reduce exposure or shield 

employees. Until such controls are in place, or if they are not effective or feasible, administrative 

measures and personal protective equipment might be needed. Read more about the hierarchy of 

controls at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/. 

We encourage the company to use a health and safety committee to discuss our 

recommendations and develop an action plan. Both employee representatives and 

management representatives should be included on the committee. Helpful guidance can be 

found in Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs at 

https://www.osha.gov/shpguidelines/index.html.

Recommendation 1: Install controls and improve work practices to reduce 

employee exposures to metals and volatile organic compounds. 

Why? Employees reported concerns about the potential health effects of exposure to different 

components of the acrobatic equipment and substances used during assembly. Since the workspace 

was one open area, employees could be exposed to the materials their coworkers used during job

tasks.

We identified the following: 

• Welding operations were performed in the open work area, typically when other employees 

were not around. 

• A filter change-out plan or schedule for the portable air filtration units used throughout the 

facility was not available. 

• Guidance on the voluntary use of respiratory protection was not available.

How? At your workplace, we recommend these specific actions:

Create a welding area with local exhaust ventilation to capture welding 

fumes at the source.

• Train employees how to properly use the local exhaust ventilation system.

• Establish an operations and maintenance program for the local exhaust ventilation

system to ensure they continue to function properly.
4

Develop and follow a filter change-out schedule for the portable air 

filtration system based on the manufacturer’s usage recommendations.

Develop a voluntary-use respirator program to ensure that the respirator 

itself will not be a hazard for employees. 

• The program for voluntary use of half-face elastomeric air-purifying respirators should 

include medical evaluation of employees, developing and implementing schedules for 

maintaining the respirators including cleaning, disinfecting, storing, inspection, and

repairing respirators. Provide employees with a copy of Appendix D of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Respiratory Protection 

Standard. Additional detail can be found in OSHA’s Small Entity Compliance Guide for 

the Respiratory Protection Standard (osha.gov). 

• Instruct employees who voluntarily wear respirators on how to wear them properly. The 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has publications for 

employees on how to wear filtering facepiece respirators such as disposable N95 

respirators as well as other types of air-purifying respirators: How to Wear Your 

Filtering Facepiece Respirator (cdc.gov) and A Guide to Air-Purifying Respirators, 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2018-176 (cdc.gov). 

• The OSHA Small Business Safety and Health Handbook provides guidance on 

voluntary respirator use and additional information on respiratory protection. 

Recommendation 2: Reduce employee exposures to metalworking fluids.

Why? Exposure to metalworking fluids can cause a variety of health effects. Skin exposure can lead to 

or worsen symptoms of skin irritation or dermatitis. Breathing aerosols containing metalworking fluid 

can lead to or worsen symptoms of respiratory irritation (e.g., cough) and multiple medical conditions 

(e.g., chronic bronchitis, asthma, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis). 

Although we did not find levels of metalworking fluid aerosols that exceeded recommended exposure 

limits, reducing employee exposures will prevent developing or worsening of irritation and medical 

conditions.

How? At your workplace, we recommend these specific actions:

Continue to use engineering controls such as local ventilation, splash 

guards, and machine enclosures to reduce exposure to metalworking 

fluids and aerosols.
5

Develop and follow a cleaning, decontamination, and routine 

maintenance plan for the computer numerical control (CNC) machine. 

Include in this plan, the tramp oil removal equipment, metalworking 

recycling containers, and all instrumentation that contacts metalworking 

fluid during normal operations.

• When all components of the metalworking fluid system have been decontaminated, 

all used metalworking fluid should be disposed of and replaced with new 

metalworking fluid. 

• Follow manufacturer’s guidance regarding the addition of a biocide (a chemical 

substance that inhibits the growth of living organisms) to the metalworking fluid. 

Train employees working with metalworking fluid on how to properly 

handle and use it. Include training about potential hazards and health 

effects of metalworking fluid exposure.

• Training should include how to avoid skin irritation by washing hands and arms up to 

the elbows to remove fluid; drying hands with clean, dry towels; and using moisturizers 

before and after work to keep the skin in good condition and help protect against the 

irritant effects of metalworking fluids. Also tell employees how to carefully select 

moisturizers, soaps, and skin cleaners. Suggest they avoid ingredients such as lanolin and 

fragrances, which are known allergens and can cause allergic contact dermatitis in 

sensitive individuals.

• Guidelines for metalworking fluid training are included in the NIOSH document What 

You Need to Know about Occupational Exposure to Metalworking Fluids. 

Improve employee access to gloves and require them to wear them during 

tasks where metalworking fluid is used.

Encourage employees to change clothes if their clothing becomes soiled 

with metalworking fluid. 

• Remove soiled clothing to reduce skin exposure, prevent irritation, and prevent 

developing dermatitis.

• Launder soiled clothing separately before wearing again.
6

Recommendation 3: Encourage employees with work-related health concerns to 

talk to their healthcare provider about their exposures to metals, volatile organic 

compounds, and metalworking fluids at work. 

Why? Identifying symptoms early can reduce severity and lead to appropriate treatment if needed. 

How? At your workplace, we recommend these specific actions:

If needed, employees should seek care for work-related medical concerns 

from a healthcare provider knowledgeable in occupational medicine. 

• The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 

(https://acoem.org/Find-a-Provider) and the Association of Occupational and 

Environmental Clinics (http://www.aoec.org/index.htm) maintain databases of 

providers to help locate someone in your geographic area. 

• Consider sharing a copy of this report with the healthcare provider.

Recommendation 4: Address other health and safety issues we identified during 

our evaluation.

Why? A workplace can have multiple health hazards that cause worker illness or injury. Like the ones 

identified above, these hazards can potentially cause serious health symptoms, lower morale, and 

quality of life for your employees, and possibly increased costs to your business. We saw the 

following potential issues at your workplace:

• Some tasks resulted in employees working in awkward postures. Low work heights and nonadjustable workstations place workers at risk for musculoskeletal disorders. 

• Employees mainly stood while completing production tasks. Using anti-fatigue mats for job

tasks requiring prolonged standing, along with routine rotation of job duties, can help reduce 

muscle fatigue.

• Employees prepared and stored food and kitchen supplies in the production space close to 

where production activities occurred. Storing and preparing food in the production area may 

lead to food contamination and ingestion of materials and chemicals used during the 

production process.

• The production area did not have an eye wash station. Safety data sheets for multiple products 

used during production indicated that an eye wash station is necessary if eye contact occurs.

Although they were not the focus of our evaluation, these hazards could cause harm to your workers’ 

health and safety and should be addressed.
7

How? At your workplace, we recommend these specific actions:

Provide adjustable worktables so employees can customize the height to 

avoid awkward postures.

• The optimal adjustable hand-working height is 38"–47" above the standing surface.

• The height of a workstation should be fixed at 42" above the standing surface if an 

adjustable table is not available. 

Equip all standing work areas with anti-fatigue mats to prevent muscle 

fatigue, low back pain, and stiffness in the neck and shoulders from 

prolonged standing.

• Mats should be ≥0.5" thick and have an optimal compressibility of 3%–4%. They 

should also have beveled edges to minimize trip hazards and be placed at least 8" under 

a workstation to prevent uneven standing surfaces.

• Mats should cover the entire area in which the employee moves while performing work 

tasks. Replace them when they appear worn out or are damaged.

Keep food, food preparation areas, and kitchen supplies separate from the 

production space.

Create a labeled eye wash station in the production area. 

• A faucet in the sink already located in the production space can be modified to also 

serve as an eye wash station. 
Supporting Technical Information

Evaluation of Exposures to Metals, Metalworking 

Fluids, Alcohols, and Volatile Organic Compounds at 

an Acrobatic Equipment Manufacturer

HHE Report No. 2019-0057-3390

September 2023 
A-1

Section A: Workplace Information

Building

The company rented space in a single-story concrete block building built in 1960, which had many prior

industrial uses. There was a large, open work area with a smaller connected area that contained an 

office, 3-D printer, and meeting space. The space had one connecting door to the rest of the building 

complex, which led to a corridor with restrooms. Although other businesses used space in the building, 

none were immediately adjacent to the work area.

Employee Information

Total employees at time of evaluation: 4 

Median hours worked per week: 33 hours (range: 15–55 hours)

Median age: 30 years (range: 22–37 years)

Median job tenure: 17 months (range: 1–32 months)

Process Description

Employees performed multiple tasks to make the hardware for each customized piece of acrobatic 

equipment. Each piece had computer software developed and installed to customer specifications.

Cutting and Milling Aluminum Pipe

Using a miter saw, employees cut aluminum pipe sections to a specified length. Employees then placed 

the pipe into an enclosed computer numerical control (CNC) milling machine with a hood. A pump 

sprayed semi-synthetic metalworking fluid (MWF) into the CNC milling machine. MWF was 

recirculated using a sump kept under the machine. Most tasks completed with the CNC milling machine 

were completed with the doors closed; however, some tasks required the doors to be open. A local 

exhaust with a carbon air filter was located in the corner of the CNC machine enclosure. During tasks 

where the machine doors were open, employees installed a splash guard to prevent spray. At times, 

employees used compressed air to clean the work surfaces inside the CNC machine.

Hand Drilling, Tapping, and Deburring Aluminum Pipe

Employees clamped aluminum pipe sections to a worktable and used handheld drills and other tools to 

drill holes into the sections. Drilling created aluminum shavings, which employees attempted to collect 

by hand in a towel. While drilling holes into the pipe, employees manually applied metal cutting oil. 

Finally, employees deburred the pipe sections by holding them to an electric deburring wheel.
A-2

Die Grinding

Employees used a handheld die grinder to drill holes into the aluminum pipe. A vacuum was used to 

collect aluminum shavings and other small pieces created during grinding. Employees also used the 

vacuum to clean aluminum material off the worktable and their clothes after completing the task. 

A portable WEN air filtration unit (Model 3410) with a 5-μm pre-filter and 1-μm pleated filter was 

used during the dust generating activities. 

Soldering, Resin Casting, and Attaching Electronic Components

Employees soldered light-emitting diode (LED) components into long strings that they laid on a 

molding table. They then mixed resin and quickly poured it onto the LED components, smoothing the 

resin. This was left to dry for about 24 hours. The LED strips were then attached to the aluminum pipe 

using ultraviolet (UV) cured glue. A small, portable local exhaust ventilation hood system was available 

to use during the soldering process. Employees used the system during one round of environmental 

sampling.

PVC Skinning

Employees used a handheld heater to heat the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. Then they sprayed the 

inside with either denatured alcohol or soap as a lubricant. With the pipe anchored to a floor stand, 

employees manually slid the PVC pipe onto the aluminum pipe. 

Welding

An employee welded sections of aluminum pipe and other metal components using tungsten inert gas 

(TIG) welding equipment, occasionally using a metal workbench for support. Only one person welded 

and did so when all other employees were out of the workspace. The welding operation took place 

every few months depending on the production schedule. Welding work was done in the open 

work area.
B-1

Section B: Methods, Results, and Discussion

We focused on the following objectives during our site visit: 

• Evaluate employee exposures to metals, MWFs, alcohols, and volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) during the production process. 

• Characterize symptoms, medical conditions, and health concerns experienced by employees. 

• Identify engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment (PPE) 

that may be useful in controlling exposures.

Methods: Exposure Assessment

Metals

We collected one task-based personal sample during the grinding process and several area samples 

throughout the workshop for various tasks, including welding, over a two-day period. The samples were 

collected using 37-millimeter diameter, 0.8-micrometer (μm) pore-size, mixed cellulose ester with plastic 

dome filters and pumps calibrated at a flow rate of 2 liters per minute (LPM). We analyzed each sample 

for aluminum, copper, iron oxide, lead, and zinc using NIOSH Method 7303 [NIOSH 2023].

Volatile Organic Compounds 

We collected task-based samples for qualitative identification of VOCs. Samples were collected on 

thermal desorption tubes with sampling pumps calibrated at a flow rate of 0.1 LPM. Samples were 

analyzed by modified NIOSH Method 2549 [NIOSH 2023]. Additional samples were collected on 

charcoal tubes at a flow rate of 0.1 LPM for quantification of specific VOCs based on the results of the 

thermal desorption tube analysis. The charcoal tubes were analyzed for alpha(α)-pinene, methyl isobutyl 

ketone, acetone, xylenes, and ethyl acetate using NIOSH Methods 1501/1552 [NIOSH 2023].

One personal air sample for isopropyl alcohol and ethanol was collected during the skinning process. 

Two area air samples for isopropyl alcohol and ethanol were collected during 3-D printer usage and 

skinning with alcohol. The air samples were collected on charcoal tubes with sampling pumps calibrated 

at a flow rate of 0.1 LPM. Samples were analyzed using NIOSH Method 1400 [NIOSH 2023].

Metalworking Fluids

We collected task-based area samples at four locations around the CNC machine using tared 

polytetrafluoroethylene filters in cassettes with sampling pumps calibrated at 1.6 LPM. The air samples 

were analyzed using NIOSH Method 5524 [NIOSH 2023].

Results: Exposure Assessment

Metals

Results from the short-term personal sample for the grinding process are presented in Table C1. We 

found a quantifiable level of aluminum and iron oxide. We did not detect (ND) copper, lead, or zinc 

oxide. We cannot compare the short-term air sampling results to full-shift occupational exposure limits 
B-2

(OELs) since the sample did not cover the entire shift, but the sampling results show the exposures for 

that task. The full-shift OELs are provided for information.

The results for the area air samples are shown in Table C2. The detected concentrations are low for the 

different areas. The highest concentrations of aluminum and iron oxide were detected during the 

soldering process without the local exhaust and during the welding activities. Detectable but not 

quantifiable levels of lead and zinc oxide were detected during the bending process. 

Volatile Organic Compounds

The major compounds identified from the qualitative thermal desorption tube analyses included 

acetone, α-pinene, decane, ethanol, ethyl acetate, isopropanol, methanol, methyl isobutyl ketone, 

nonane, and xylenes. Using charcoal tubes, we found detectable but not quantifiable levels of ethyl 

acetate and methyl isobutyl ketone during the UV-cured gluing (Table C3). We found a low level of 

methyl isobutyl ketone during the resin casting process (Table C3). We did not detect α-pinene, acetone, 

or xylenes. We noted that because area air samples are not personal air samples collected directly on an 

employee, the NIOSH recommended exposure limits (RELs) do not directly apply to the results for 

exposure monitoring purposes. However, area air samples can highlight areas with higher exposure risk. 

The personal air sample results collected during PVC skinning (Table C4) show detectable 

concentrations of isopropyl alcohol (0.4 parts per million [ppm]) and ethanol (50 ppm). We cannot 

compare the short-term sample to full-shift OELs since the sample did not cover the entire shift. 

However, the sampling results showed the exposures for that task. For reference, the full-shift OELs 

are provided in Table C4. Area air sampling results for isopropyl alcohol and ethanol, collected on the 

workbenches during the PVC skinning and 3-D printing processes, are shown in Table C5. Detectable 

levels of isopropyl alcohol (121 ppm) and detectable but not quantifiable levels of ethanol were found 

for 3-D printing. Detectable levels of ethanol (100 ppm) and detectable but not quantifiable levels of

isopropyl alcohol were found for PVC skinning.

Metalworking Fluids

No particulates were detected for the four MWF air samples on the tared filters at a limit of detection 

of 30 micrograms per sample. The filters used in the sample collection had not been cleaned according 

to the laboratory method for MWFs, so the analytical laboratory did not run the chemical analysis.

Methods: Facility and Ventilation Observations, Document and Health and

Safety Program Reviews 

During our site visit, we observed the facility processes along with the work practices and procedures of 

the four employees actively performing various tasks during the workday. We reviewed the safety data 

sheets for the chemicals used in the facility. We also learned about measures that the employer 

implemented to minimize employees’ exposures during the various tasks including general and local 

ventilation and a portable air filtration unit. 
B-3

Results: Facility and Ventilation Observations, Document and Health and 

Safety Program Reviews 

We saw no general ventilation systems for the work areas. Outdoor air was provided to the workspace

using a window air-conditioning unit in the rear window of the large work area. We saw no filter change 

protocol for the portable WEN air filtration unit.

We observed a central air filtration unit mounted on the ceiling in the middle of the large work area and

a fixed cyclone local exhaust unit directly over the grinding/welding area. Heating was provided during 

the colder seasons with a natural gas heating unit mounted on the ceiling. 

We saw no visible splashing on the floor when the machine was run with the door to the enclosure 

open. The company had not established a set protocol for changing the MWF, and employees reported

the coolant reservoir tank had a buildup of residual material. We saw a microwave and refrigerator in 

the main production area. We did not see a labeled eye wash station for employees to use. 

Methods: Employee Interviews and Observations

We conducted confidential, semi-structured interviews with all four company employees. During the 

interviews, we asked each employee about the following topics: 

• Demographics

• Work history

• Tasks performed on a regular basis

• PPE use

• Symptoms and medical conditions

• Health concerns

In cases where an employee reported seeking medical care for a medical condition, we requested 

permission to review the employee’s medical records.

We also observed employees while they worked, paying special attention to potential exposures and 

their use of exposure controls such as PPE.

Results: Employee Interviews and Observations

Demographics, Work History, and PPE Use

The four interviewees had a median age of 30 years (range: 22–37 years) and had been working at the 

company for a median 17 months (range: 1–32 months). Employees worked a median 33 hours per 

week (range: 15–55 hours).

All employees reported wearing closed-toed shoes while at work. Employees mainly reported wearing 

short-sleeved shirts while working. All employees reported using gloves, safety glasses, hearing 

protection, a protective jacket, and a respirator depending on the task they were completing.
B-4

Through observation, we saw that employee glove use was variable when performing tasks involving 

potential skin contact with MWF. We observed one employee voluntarily use a half-face, air purifying 

respirator with a P100 cartridge for particulates while die grinding. The respirator was stored in an open

cubby in the production area; the employee returned the respirator to this storage location at the end of 

use. The company did not have respirator storage, filter change, or cleaning policies in place. 

Symptoms, Medical Conditions, and Health Concerns

At least one employee reported experiencing eye, nose, and throat irritation, or cough. Multiple 

employees reported experiencing either dry, scaly, or irritated skin since starting work at the facility. In 

addition, multiple employees reported a history of asthma or eczema prior to working at the facility. 

Management and employees expressed commitment to ensuring a safe and healthy workplace and were 

specifically interested in ways to control exposures that could cause or exacerbate respiratory or skin 

conditions. Multiple employees also expressed concern about the potential for unintentionally carrying 

exposures home from work, commonly referred to as take-home exposure. At least one employee 

mentioned concern that plans to expand fabrication may lead to greater exposures in the limited 

workspace.

Discussion

We did not identify concerning levels of exposure to metals, VOCs, or MWFs during this evaluation.

Many of the work tasks were of short duration (less than 1 hour). Although we found low levels of 

exposures, opportunities existed for improved exposure control using engineering controls, 

administrative controls, and PPE. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the 

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) developed a Small Business Safety and 

Health Handbook (osha.gov) to help small businesses develop safety and health plans to improve the 

occupational work environment [OSHA/NIOSH 2022].

We found low exposure levels for metals during the grinding and welding operations. The highest levels 

were detected during welding. The same workspace was used for both tasks. The workstation was used 

by multiple employees. However, the workstation had fixed dimensions and therefore may not 

optimally fit all the employees using it, potentially leading to awkward postures while working with each 

piece of equipment. The central air filtration and local exhaust units likely helped reduce particulate

levels but were not located next to where the actual tasks were being performed. Positioning the local 

exhaust closer to the work tasks would improve its ability to capture air contaminants. Additional 

information concerning potential exposure and health issues associated with welding can be found in 

Section D.

Exposures to VOCs were low during our site visit. Isopropyl alcohol was one of the VOCs that was

used in the 3-D printing process; the levels detected in this evaluation were similar or higher than those 

detected in other 3-D printer surveys of 3-D printing operations [NIOSH 2017; Stefaniak et al. 2017]. 

VOCs are a large class of chemicals that contain carbon and have a sufficiently high vapor pressure to 

allow some of the compound to exist as a gas at room temperature. These chemical compounds are 

commonly used for tasks such as cleaning, painting, printing, degreasing, thinning, and extraction. 
B-5

Occupational exposure criteria exist for some individual VOCs, but do not exist for VOCs as a group

[NIOSH 2007]. 

Inhalation and dermal exposure are both important routes of exposure to VOCs in the workplace

[Cone 1986]. Most VOCs cause skin irritation because they remove fat from the skin. VOCs may cause 

minimal to mild irritation of the respiratory system [Rosenberg et al. 1997]. This irritation is usually 

restricted to the upper airways, mucous membranes, and eyes, and it generally resolves quickly without 

long-term effects [Rosenberg et al. 1997]. Most VOCs can cause acute, nonspecific central nervous 

system depression. The symptoms of significant acute solvent exposure are like those from drinking too 

many alcoholic beverages, including headache, nausea and vomiting, dizziness, slurred speech, impaired 

balance, poor concentration, disorientation, and confusion. These symptoms go away quickly upon 

cessation of exposure [Guidotti 2010, Chapter 10]. Subtle, reversible decrements in performance on 

attention and reaction time testing have been observed with acute exposures to solvents but may not be 

directly attributable to nervous system dysfunction since similar effects are seen when the main effect of 

exposure is headache or eye irritation [Guidotti 2010, Chapter 10]. 

Although we did not find detectable airborne levels of MWFs, we observed that employees had skin 

exposure to MWFs when adjusting the parts that were being machined as well as when cleaning the 

CNC machine. Skin contact with MWFs is known to cause allergic contact dermatitis, irritant contact 

dermatitis, or oil folliculitis (irritation or infection of hair follicles) depending on the chemical 

composition, additives and contaminants, type of metal being machined, and the exposed individual’s 

tendency for developing allergies [Chew and Maibach 2003; Slodownik et al. 2008]. Limiting skin 

exposure is critical to preventing allergic and irritant skin disorders related to MWF exposure. Studies 

have shown that about one in four employees diagnosed with occupational contact dermatitis will have 

persistent symptoms despite treatment or job change [Cvetkovski et al. 2006; Jungbauer et al. 2004]. 

Additional information about MWFs, contact dermatitis, and tips to reduce or prevent work-related 

contact dermatitis are given in Section D.

Limiting exposure to MWF aerosols is also prudent because previous exposures to some MWFs have 

been associated with increased risk of some types of cancer [NIOSH 2013]. Colbeth et al. [2023] found

that exposure to water-based synthetic MWF was associated with an increased risk of rectal and prostate 

cancers, and exposure to soluble MWF was associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin 

lymphoma and prostate cancer. Although changes in the formulation and use of MWFs in the last 

several decades have reduced the cancer risk from MWF exposure, it is not known if these actions have 

eliminated the risk [NIOSH 2013].

The employees expressed concerns over the possibility of taking contaminants home from the 

workplace. In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed the Workers’ Family Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 671a) that

required NIOSH to study take-home contamination from workplace chemicals and substances. NIOSH 

found that take-home exposure is a widespread problem [NIOSH 1995]. Workplace measures effective 

in preventing take-home exposures were (1) reducing exposure in the workplace, (2) changing clothes 

before going home and leaving soiled clothing at work for laundering, (3) storing street clothes in areas 

separate from work clothes, (4) showering before leaving work, and (5) prohibiting the removal of toxic 

substances or contaminated items from the workplace.
B-6

Limitations

This evaluation had a cross-sectional design. This means that information on exposures and health 

outcomes was collected at a single point in time, and we may not have seen all the production 

processes. This design may not accurately capture changes in exposures or symptoms over time. In 

addition, our assessment was designed to assess the presence of symptoms or adverse health outcomes 

that employees had experienced prior to or at the time of our visit. Because employees were relatively 

young and had worked with these exposures for only a short time, this evaluation is unable to capture 

symptoms or health effects that may occur following long-term, low-level exposure to the agents 

evaluated. The analytical sampling methods available to evaluate exposures were developed for full-shift

exposures and may not be able to accurately measure short-term exposures based on the limit of 

detection for a chemical or metal collected. Finally, the production process used at this facility was 

unique; findings from this evaluation may not be generalizable to other facilities.

Conclusions

Our task-based and area air sampling results showed that levels of exposure to metals, VOCs, and 

MWFs were low in the facility. However, employees had experienced and were concerned about eye, 

nose, and throat irritation, and cough they thought were related to workplace exposures. Although 

exposures were found to be low, we recommended implementing additional controls to reduce 

potential exposures. In addition, because many production tasks did not take long to complete and 

varied from day to day, employees should report new, persistent, or worsening symptoms to facility 

management and to their personal healthcare provider.
C-1

Section C: Tables

Table C1. Task-based personal air sample results for selected metals during February 2019 (micrograms per 

cubic meter)

Location Time (minutes) Aluminum Copper Iron oxide Lead Zinc oxide

Grinding 51 21 ND 13 ND ND

NIOSH REL 15,000 1,000 10,000 50 5,000

OSHA PEL 10,000 1,000 5,000 50 5,000

ACGIH TLV 1,000 1,000 5,000 50 2,000

MDC 0.8 0.4 2.0 1.0 0.4

MQC 3.0 1.3 6.4 3.8 1.2

ND = Not detected, i.e., result is below the MDC; MDC = Minimum detectable concentration; MQC = Minimum 

quantifiable concentration; REL = Recommended exposure limit; PEL = Permissible exposure limit; TLV = 

Threshold limit value.

A sample volume of 0.266 cubic meter was used to calculate the MDC and MQC.

Table C2. Area air sample results for selected metals during February 2019 (micrograms per cubic meter)

Process Time (minutes) Aluminum Copper Iron oxide Lead Zinc oxide

Cutting saw 379 [0.8] [0.4] 12.1 ND ND

Bending 379 [0.8] ND [3.7] [1] [0.4]

Grinding table 51 10 ND 7.3 ND ND

Soldering bench 57 86 ND 609 ND ND

Soldering bench 

— New exhaust

79 [2.4] ND ND ND ND

Welding 33 9.4 ND ND ND ND

Welding 33 89 ND 673 ND ND

MDC 0.8 0.4 2.0 1.0 0.4

MQC 3.0 1.3 6.4 3.8 1.2

ND = Not detected, i.e., result is below the MDC; MDC = Minimum detectable concentration; MQC = Minimum 

quantifiable concentration

Values in brackets indicate concentrations between the MDC and MQC. Brackets are used to indicate there is 

more uncertainty associated with these values. An average sample volume of 0.266 cubic meters was used to 

calculate the MDC and MQC.
C-2

Table C3. Area air sampling results for selected volatile organic compounds during February 2019

Job/Activity Time

(minutes)

Total volume

(liters)

Ethyl acetate 

(ppm)

Methyl isobutyl 

ketone (ppm)

UV-cured gluing 93 3.99 [0.03] [0.03]

Resin pouring next to table 14 1.42 ND 0.23

MDC (for a 3-liter air sample) 0.015 0.011

MQC (for a 3-liter air sample) 0.046 0.035

MDC = Minimum detectable concentration; MQC = Minimum quantifiable concentration; ppm = Parts per 

million

Values in brackets are estimates because they are between the MDC and MQC.

Table C4. Personal breathing zone air sampling results for isopropyl alcohol and ethanol during 

February 2019

Job/Activity Time

(minutes)

Total volume 

(liters)

Isopropyl alcohol

(ppm)

Ethanol 

(ppm)

PVC skinning with alcohol 34 3.31 0.4 50

MDC (for a 3.5-liter air sample) 0.035 0.12

MQC (for a 3.5-liter air sample) 0.28 3.61

NIOSH REL 400 1,000

OSHA PEL 400 1,000

ACGIH TLV 200 1,000 (STEL)

MDC = Minimum detectable concentration; MQC = Minimum quantifiable concentration; ppm = Parts per 

million; REL = Recommended exposure limit; PEL = Permissible exposure limit; TLV = Threshold limit 

value; STEL = Short-term exposure limit

Table C5. Area air sampling results for isopropyl alcohol and ethanol during February 2019

Job/Activity Time

(minutes)

Total volume

(liters)

Isopropyl alcohol 

(ppm)

Ethanol 

(ppm)

Alcohol bath for 3-D printer 39 4.04 121 [0.8]

PVC skinning with alcohol—

workbench

34 3.24 [0.2] 100

MDC (for a 3.5-liter air sample) 0.035 0.12

MQC (for a 3.5-liter air sample) 0.28 3.61

MDC = Minimum detectable concentration; MQC = Minimum quantifiable concentration; ppm = Parts per 

million

Values in brackets are estimates because they are between the MDC and MQC.
D-1

Section D: Occupational Exposure Limits

NIOSH investigators refer to mandatory (legally enforceable) and recommended OELs for chemical, 

physical, and biological agents when evaluating workplace hazards. OELs have been developed by 

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

exposures. Generally, OELs suggest levels of exposure that most employees may be exposed to for up 

to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week, for a working lifetime, without experiencing adverse health 

effects. However, not all employees will be protected if their exposures are maintained below these 

levels. Some may have adverse health effects because of individual susceptibility, a preexisting medical 

condition, or a hypersensitivity (allergy). In addition, some hazardous substances act in combination 

with other exposures, with the general environment, or with medications or personal habits of the 

employee to produce adverse health effects. Most OELs address airborne exposures, but some 

substances can be absorbed directly through the skin and mucous membranes.

Most OELs are expressed as a time weighted average (TWA) exposure. A TWA refers to the average 

exposure during a normal 8- to 10-hour workday. Some chemical substances and physical agents have 

recommended short-term exposure limits (STEL) ceiling values. Unless otherwise noted, the STEL is a 

15-minute TWA exposure. It should not be exceeded at any time during a workday. The ceiling limit 

should not be exceeded at any time.

In the United States, OELs have been established by federal agencies, professional organizations, state 

and local governments, and other entities. Some OELs are legally enforceable limits; others are 

recommendations.

• The U.S. Department of Labor OSHA permissible exposure limits (29 CFR 1910 [general 

industry]; 29 CFR 1926 [construction industry]; and 29 CFR 1917 [maritime industry]) are legal 

limits. These limits are enforceable in workplaces covered under the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970.

• NIOSH RELs are recommendations based on a critical review of the scientific and technical 

information and the adequacy of methods to identify and control the hazard. NIOSH RELs are 

published in the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards [NIOSH 2007]. NIOSH also 

recommends risk management practices (e.g., engineering controls, safe work practices, 

employee education/training, PPE, and exposure and medical monitoring) to minimize the risk 

of exposure and adverse health effects.

• Another set of OELs commonly used and cited in the United States is the American Conference 

of Governmental Industrial Hygienists’ threshold limit values (ACGIH TLVs®). The TLVs are 

developed by committee members of this professional organization from a review of the 

published, peer-reviewed literature. TLVs are not consensus standards. They are considered 

voluntary exposure guidelines for use by industrial hygienists and others trained in this discipline 

“to assist in the control of health hazards” [ACGIH 2023].

Outside the United States, OELs have been established by various agencies and organizations and 

include legal and recommended limits. The Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen 
D-2

Unfallversicherung (Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident 

Insurance) maintains a database of international OELs from European Union member states, Canada 

(Québec), Japan, Switzerland, and the United States. The database, available at 

http://www.dguv.de/ifa/GESTIS/GESTIS-Internationale-Grenzwerte-für-chemische-Substanzenlimit-values-for-chemical-agents/index-2.jsp, contains international limits for more than 

2,000 hazardous substances and is updated periodically.

OSHA requires an employer to furnish employees a place of employment free from recognized hazards 

that cause 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]). This is true in the absence of a specific OEL. It also is important 

to keep in mind that OELs may not reflect current health-based information. 

When multiple OELs exist for a substance or agent, NIOSH investigators generally encourage 

employers to use the lowest OEL when making risk assessment and risk management decisions.

Welding Fumes

The effect of welding fumes on an individual’s health can vary depending on the length and intensity of 

the exposure and the specific metals involved. Of particular concern are welding processes involving 

stainless steel, cadmium or lead-coated steel, and metals such as manganese, iron, nickel, chrome, zinc, 

and copper. Epidemiologic studies and case reports of employees exposed to welding emissions have 

shown an excess incidence of acute and chronic respiratory diseases [Antonini 2003; de Perio et al. 

2022; NIOSH 1988]. These diseases include metal fume fever, pneumonitis, pulmonary edema, and 

lung cancer.

Airborne welding fume concentrations vary greatly between workplaces [Korczynski 2000; Susi et al. 

2000; Tharr et al. 1997]. The content of welding fumes depends on the base metal being welded, the 

welding process, and parameters such as voltage and amperage, the composition of the consumable 

welding electrode or wire, the shielding gas, and any surface coatings or contaminants on the base 

metal. The flux coating (core) of the electrode/wire may contain several organic and inorganic 

compounds. Welding fume constituents may include minerals, such as silica and fluorides, and metals, 

such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, nickel, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, 

manganese, molybdenum, tin, vanadium, and zinc [NIOSH 1988; Welding Institute 1976].

OSHA has not established a PEL for total welding fumes; however, individual welding fume 

constituents (e.g., iron, manganese) have PELs (29 CFR 1910.1000). NIOSH has concluded that it is 

not possible to establish an exposure limit for total welding emissions because the composition of 

welding fumes and gases varies greatly, and the welding constituents may interact to produce adverse 

health effects. Therefore, NIOSH recommends controlling total welding fumes to the lowest feasible 

concentration and meeting the exposure limit for each welding fume constituent [NIOSH 2010]. 

In addition to welding fumes, many other potential health hazards exist for welders. Welding operations 

can produce gaseous emissions, such as carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and phosgene 

(formed from chlorinated solvent decomposition) [NIOSH 1988; Welding Institute 1976]. Welders can 

also be exposed to hazardous levels of ultraviolet radiation from the welding arc if welding curtains or 

other precautions are not used [Korczynski 2000]. 
D-3

Metalworking Fluids

MWFs are complex mixtures used to cool, lubricate, and remove metal chips from tools and parts 

during machining of metal stock. There are three main types of MWFs: straight, soluble, and synthetic. 

MWFs often contain other substances, including biocides, corrosion inhibitors, metal fines, tramp oils, 

and biological contaminants [Burton et al. 2012; NIOSH 1998]. Inhalation of the aerosol from MWFs

may irritate the throat, nose, and lung. Inhaling MWF aerosol has been associated with chronic 

bronchitis, asthma, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, B-cell lymphocytic bronchiolitis, alveolar ductitis, and 

emphysema (BADE), and worsening of preexisting respiratory problems [Burton et al. 2012; Nett et al. 

2021]. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis is a spectrum of granulomatous, interstitial lung diseases that occur 

after repeated inhalation and sensitization to one or more of a wide variety of microbial agents (bacteria, 

fungi, or amoebae), animal proteins, and low-molecular-weight chemical antigens [Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention 1996; Zacharisen et al. 1998].

Skin contact with MWFs may cause allergic contact dermatitis or irritant contact dermatitis, depending 

on the chemical composition, additives and contaminants, and type of metal being machined, as well as 

the exposed individual’s tendency for developing allergies [NIOSH 1998]. NIOSH recommends 

limiting exposures to MWF aerosols to 0.4 milligrams per cubic meter for the thoracic particulate mass, 

as a TWA concentration for up to 10 hours per day during a 40-hour workweek [NIOSH 1998]. The 

NIOSH REL is intended to prevent or greatly reduce respiratory disorders associated with 

metalworking fluid exposure.

Contact Dermatitis

Contact dermatitis, both irritant and allergic, is an inflammatory skin condition caused by skin contact 

with agents such as chemical irritants (irritant contact dermatitis) or allergens (allergic contact 

dermatitis) [Li and Li 2021]. Irritant contact dermatitis is skin inflammation due to direct cell damage 

from a chemical or physical agent, while allergic contact dermatitis is a delayed immune reaction. 

Usually, only a small percentage of people are susceptible to skin allergens. In contact dermatitis, the 

skin initially turns red and can develop bumps and small, oozing blisters. After several days, crusts and 

scales form. Stinging, burning, and itching often occur. With no further contact with the agent, the 

dermatitis usually disappears in 1 to 3 weeks. With chronic exposure, deep fissures, scaling, and 

darkening of the skin can occur.

Exposed areas of the skin, such as hands and forearms, have the greatest contact with irritants or 

allergens and are most affected. It is often impossible to clinically distinguish irritant contact from 

allergic contact dermatitis, as both can have a similar appearance and both can result in an acute, 

subacute, or chronic condition. Irritant contact dermatitis can be caused by many factors. The most 

common skin irritant at work is “wet work,” defined as exposure of skin to liquid for more than 2 hours 

per day; the use of occlusive gloves for more than 2 hours per day; or frequent hand washing [Chew 

and Maibach 2003; Karagounis and Cohen 2023; Slodownik et al. 2008]. Other common causes of 

irritant contact dermatitis include soaps and detergents, solvents, food products, cleaning agents, 

plastics and resins, petroleum products and lubricants, metals, and machine oils and coolants [Chew and 

Maibach 2003; Li and Li 2021; NIOSH 2018; Slodownik et al. 2008].
D-4

Preventing Contact Dermatitis

Avoiding irritants and allergens and wet work is the first step in dermatitis prevention. Liberal use of 

skin moisturizers helps to prevent contact dermatitis by maintaining a healthy skin barrier and can aid in 

repairing this barrier if it has been compromised [Bauer et al. 2018; Chew and Maibach 2003; 

Karagounis and Cohen 2023].

The following list provides strategies in the prevention of occupational contact dermatitis 

[NIOSH 1988]: 

• Identifying irritants and allergens. 

• Substituting chemicals that are less irritating or allergenic. 

• Establishing engineering controls to reduce exposure. 

• Emphasizing personal and occupational hygiene including handwashing with lukewarm water 

and mild cleansers without perfume, coloring, or antibacterial agents. 

• Establishing educational programs to increase awareness in the workplace. 

• Using PPE, such as gloves and special clothing. 
E-1

Section E: References

Contact Dermatitis 

Bauer A, Rönsch H, Elsner P, Dittmar D, Bennett C, Schuttelaar MLA, Lukács J, John SM, Williams 

HC [2018]. Interventions for preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis. Cochrane Database Syst 

Rev (4):CD004414, https://doi.org/10.1002%2F14651858.CD004414.pub3. 

Chew AI, Maibach HI [2003]. Occupational issues of irritant contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup 

Environ Health 76(5):339–346, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-002-0419-0. 

Cvetkovski RS, Zachariae R, Jensen H, Olsen J, Johansen JD, Agner T [2006]. Prognosis of 

occupational hand eczema: a follow-up study. Arch Dermatol 142(3):305–311,

https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.142.3.305.

Jungbauer FH, van der Vleuten P, Groothoff JW, Coenraads PJ [2004]. Irritant hand dermatitis: severity 

of disease, occupational exposure to skin irritants and preventive measures 5 years after initial diagnosis. 

Contact Dermatitis 50(4):245–251, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.00347.x. 

Karagounis TK, Cohen DE [2023]. Occupational hand dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 

23(4):201–212, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-023-01070-5. 

Li Y, Li L [2021]. Contact dermatitis: classifications and management. Clin Rev Allergy 61(3):245–281, 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-021-08875-0. 

NIOSH [2018]. Evaluation of metalworking fluid exposure, dermatitis, respiratory symptoms, and 

psychosocial factors in an engine machining plant. By Beaucham C, Tapp L, Wiegand D, Couch J, 

Mueller C. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard 

Evaluation Report 2015-0070-3304, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2015-0070-

3304.pdf. 

Slodownik D, Lee A, Nixon R [2008]. Irritant contact dermatitis: a review. Australas J Dermatol 

49(1):1–9, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-0960.2007.00409.x. 

Health Effects of Metalworking Fluids

Burton CM, Crook B, Scaife H, Evans GS, Barber CM [2012]. Systematic review of respiratory 

outbreaks associated with exposure to water-based metalworking fluids. Ann Occup Hyg 

56(4):374–388, http://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mer121. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [1996]. Biopsy-confirmed hypersensitivity pneumonitis in 

automobile production workers exposed to metalworking fluids—Michigan, 1994–1995. MMWR 

45(28):606–610.

Colbeth HL, Chen KT, Picciotto S, Costello S, Eisen EA [2023]. Exposure to metalworking fluids and 

cancer incidence in the United Auto Workers-General Motors cohort. Am J Epidemiol 192(2):171–181, 

https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwac190. 
E-2

Nett RJ, Stanton M, Grimes GR [2021]. Occupational respiratory and skin diseases among workers 

exposed to metalworking fluids. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 21(2):121–127,

https://doi.org/10.1097/aci.0000000000000717. 

NIOSH [1998]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to metalworking fluids. 

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 

No. 98-102, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-102/. 

NIOSH [2013]. Metalworking fluids. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/metalworking/. 

Zacharisen MC, Kadambi AR, Schlueter DP, Kurup VP, Shack JB, Fox JL, Anderson HA, Fink JN 

[1998]. The spectrum of respiratory disease associated with exposure to metalworking fluids. J Occup 

Environ Med 40(7):640–647, https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-199807000-00010. 

Health Effects of Welding 

Antonini JM [2003]. Health effects of welding. Crit Rev Toxicol 33(1):61–103, 

https://doi.org/10.1080/713611032. 

de Perio MA, Hendricks KA, Dowell CH, Bower WA, Burton NC, Dawson P, Schrodt CA, Salzer JS, 

Marston CK, Feldmann K, Hoffmaster AR, Antonini JM [2022]. Welder’s anthrax: a review of an 

occupational disease. Pathogens 11(4):402, https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11040402. 

Korczynski RE [2000]. Occupational health concerns in the welding industry. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 

15(12):936–945, https://doi.org/10.1080/104732200750051175. 

NIOSH [1988]. Criteria for a recommended standard: welding, brazing and thermal cutting. Cincinnati, 

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 88-110, 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/88-110/pdfs/88-110.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB88110. 

Susi P, Goldberg M, Barnes P, Stafford E [2000]. Use of a task-based exposure assessment model 

(TBEAM) for assessment of metal fume exposures during welding and thermal cutting. Appl Occup 

Environ Hyg 15(1):26–38, https://doi.org/10.1080/104732200301827. 

Tharr D, Wallace ME, Lentz TJ, Fajen JM, Palassis J [1997]. Case studies: assessment of students’ 

exposure to welding fumes in a vocational school welding shop. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 

12(11):712–715, https://doi.org/10.1080/1047322X.1997.10387751. 

Welding Institute [1976]. The facts about fume—a welding engineer’s handbook. Cambridge, England: 

The Welding Institute.

Methods 

NIOSH [2023]. NIOSH manual of analytical methods (NMAM). 5th ed. By O’Connor PF, Ashley K, 

eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 
E-3

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 

2014-151, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam. 

Occupational Exposure Limits 

ACGIH [2023]. 2023 TLVs® and BEIs®: threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical 

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

Industrial Hygienists, https://www.acgih.org/tlv-bei-guidelines/policies-procedurespresentations/overview. 

CFR [2023]. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Office 

of the Federal Register, https://www.ecfr.gov/. 

NIOSH [2007]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/. 

Work Processes

Cone JE [1986]. Health hazards of solvents. Occup Med 1(1):69–87.

Guidotti T [2010]. The Praeger handbook of occupational and environmental medicine. Praeger, 

https://publisher.abc-clio.com/9780313360008/. 

NIOSH [1995]. Report to Congress on the workers’ home contamination study conducted under the 

Workers’ Family Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 671a). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-123, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/95-

123/pdfs/95-123.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB95123. 

NIOSH [2017]. Evaluation of 3-D printer emissions and personal exposures at a manufacturing 

workplace. By Stefaniak AB, Hammond D, Johnson AR, Knepp AK, LeBouf RF. Morgantown, WV: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2017-0059-3291, 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2017-0059-3291.pdf. 

OSHA/NIOSH [2022]. Small business safety and health handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2209-07R 2022. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2022-152, 

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/small-business.pdf.

Rosenberg J, Cone JE, Katz EA [1997]. Solvents. In: LaDou J, ed. Occupational and Environmental 

Medicine. 2nd rev. ed. Stamford, CT: Appleton and Lange, pp. 483–513.

Stefaniak AB, LeBouf RF, Yi J, Ham J, Nurkewicz T, Schwegler-Berry DE, Chen BT, Wells JR, Duling 

MG, Lawrence RB, Martin SB Jr, Johnson AR, Virji MA [2017]. Characterization of chemical 

contaminants generated by a desktop fused deposition modeling 3-dimensional printer. J Occup 

Environ Hyg 14(7):540–550, https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2017.1302589.
Promoting productive workplaces through safety 

and health research

HHE Report No. 2019-0057-3390