HETA 98-0173-2782

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Colorado

Jane Brown McCammon, MS, CIH

Lyle McKenzie

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

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.

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
ii

PREFACE

The Hazard Evaluations 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 employer 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 Jane McCammon of HETAB, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and

Field Studies (DSHEFS) with extensive assistance from Lyle McKenzie of the Colorado Department of

Public Health and Environment. Tim Reinhardt of Radian International provided draft materials and technical

assistance that were invaluable in project development. Desktop publishing of this report was performed by

Joyce Woody. Review and preparation for printing were performed by Penny Arthur.

Copies of this report have been sent to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, as well

as employee and management representatives at US Forest Service and DOI Bureau of Land Management

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

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 98-0173-2782

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Colorado

March 2000

Jane Brown McCammon, MS, CIH

Lyle McKenzie

SUMMARY

On March 30, 1998, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) requested assistance

in a project to be conducted in cooperation with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) and the

Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) personnel. The goal of the CDPHE project was to

field-test implementation of a wildland firefighter smoke exposure management and monitoring program outlined

in earlier National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG)-sponsored research. CDPHE also hoped to provide

further exposure data related to fuels in areas of the United States other than the Pacific Northwest where much of

the previous data had been collected. CDPHE requested assistance from NIOSH to train firefighters in the use of

CO dosimeters during wildland fires, and to assist in data collection when the USFS and BLM conducted

firefighting activities during the 1998 fire season.

NIOSH and CDPHE equipped four crews of wildland firefighters (USFS and BLM) with carbon monoxide (CO)

monitors, related equipment for calibration and data transfer, and training for two people from each crew in the use

of the monitors. The firefighters monitored CO exposures from 0 to 176 hours (depending upon the crew) during

the fire season. During 8 of the 41 monitoring periods, CO exposure concentrations exceeded the NIOSH

recommended ceiling exposure limit of 200 parts per million (ppm). During 10 of the 41 sessions, measured CO

concentrations exceeded the ACGIH excursion limit of 125 ppm. Time-weighted average exposures were all

within current occupational exposure limits. During 2 of the 41 periods (each 480 minutes in length), CO exposure

concentrations of 21 and 22 ppm were measured. These exposures approach the American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) time-weighted TLV of 25 ppm.

The data collected in this evaluation indicate that wildland firefighters may be exposed to CO concentrations in

excess of recommended ceiling/excursion limits during as much as 25% of their firefighting efforts. This project

showed that managers and safety officers can establish exposure monitoring and control programs to aid in the

reduction of firefighter exposures to smoke components, given the proper financial and administrative support.

Several issues will need to be further evaluated and addressed before such programs can be optimally effective.

These issues include: availability of equipment and training; consistent documentation of monitoring conditions

among firefighters; a written smoke exposure management plan containing a response strategy when CO monitors

alarm, health surveillance programs, and training and tactics to minimize exposures.

Keywords: SIC Code 0851 (Forestry Services) Wildland firefighter, carbon monoxide, CO, State health

department, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, CDPHE, National Wildfire Coordinating

Group, NWCG, United States Forestry Service, USFS, Department of Interior, DOI Bureau of Land Management,

BLM
iv

Highlights of the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation

Wildland Firefighter-Managed Carbon Monoxide (CO) Exposure

Monitoring

NIOSH investigators joined with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

(CDPHE) to find out if a proposed exposure management program for wildland firefighters would

work. Our goal was to outline strengths and limitations of putting the plan into action. In addition,

our hope was to collect usable data about CO exposures of Colorado-based wildland firefighters.

What NIOSH Did

# We worked with CDPHE to carry out the firefighter

exposure management program proposed by the NWCG

(National Wildfire Coordinating Group). The proposed

program had firefighters measure their exposure to CO

and manage their exposure to smoke.

# We (NIOSH and CDPHE) developed a plan of action to

equip and train firefighters to implement the program.

# Before the fire season, we trained four crews of Federal

wildland firefighters in the use of CO exposure monitors

that were provided to the crews through an Interagency

Agreement.

# We visited the firefighters periodically to provide

technical support and help them with any problems.

What NIOSH Found

# Wildland firefighters were exposed to CO concentrations

above recommended ceiling/excursion limits during 10 of

41 data recording sessions.

# Time-weighted average (TWA) CO exposures were not

above current occupational exposure limits.

# Strengths of the proposed exposure management plan

included: efficient exposure data collection; increased

involvement of firefighters in exposure control; and the

ability to measure exposures early in the firefighting

efforts.

# Limitations of the proposed plan included

inadequate/insufficient computer resources, radio

frequency interference with the CO monitors, inadequate

note-taking by firefighters, and the absence of a defined

planned response to CO monitor alarms.

What Federal Wildland Fire

Management and Safety

Personnel Can Do

# Commit resources to the use of CO monitors as a tool to

manage smoke exposure.

# Develop a written smoke exposure management plan

with a strategy for response to CO monitor alarms,

related health surveillance, training, and tactics to reduce

exposure.

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

CDC

AND PREVENTION

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 # 98-0173-2782
TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

HHE Supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

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

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

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

Participants in the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Sampling Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Carbon Monoxide (CO) ............................................................ 4

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

CO Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Results of the Pilot Program as a Whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Strengths of having firefighters collect CO exposure data ................................ 5

Limitations of having firefighters collect CO exposure data ............................... 6

Equipment limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Attitude limitations .......................................................... 6

Administrative limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Note-taking problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Smoke management limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782 Page 1

INTRODUCTION

On March 30, 1998, the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a

request for technical assistance from the Colorado

Department of Public Health and Environment

(CDPHE), Denver, Colorado. CDPHE requested

assistance in an interagency project to be conducted

in cooperation with US Department of Agriculture

Forest Service (USFS) and Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) personnel.

CDPHE had entered into an interagency agreement

with USFS to conduct the project. Subsequent to this

agreement, support for the program under which

CDPHE was to conduct the work was discontinued.

The goal of the CDPHE project was to field test

implementation of a cost-effective way to conduct

wildland firefighter smoke exposure management

and monitoring objectives outlined in earlier USFSsponsored research. This research demonstrated that

carbon monoxide (CO) could be used as a surrogate

measure of other smoke-related exposures, and

would provide guidance as to when firefighters

should use administrative controls or air-purifying

respirators to reduce exposures during wildland fires.

Because CDPHE was actively involved in a

surveillance and intervention program for CO

poisoning, the Department made plans to field test

the viability of the proposed monitoring program

outlined in that work (as discussed below). CDPHE

also hoped to provide further exposure data related to

fuels (trees and other vegetation) in areas of the

United States other than the Pacific Northwest, where

much of the previous data had been collected.

CDPHE planned to equip firefighters with carbon

monoxide (CO) monitors that displayed exposure

concentrations, alarmed when high concentrations

were detected, and stored data for transfer to a

computer.

CDPHE had sufficient equipment to initiate the

project but insufficient staff to carry out the work.

The Department therefore requested assistance from

NIOSH to train firefighters in the use of CO

dosimeters during wildland fires, and to assist in data

collection when the USFS conducted controlled

burns in Colorado during the 1998 fire season.

BACKGROUND

During wildland fires in northern California in

1987 and in Yellowstone National Park in 1989,

thousands of firefighters experienced respiratory

problems. To address concerns raised during those

fires, a comprehensive study plan was initiated in

1989 by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group

(NWCG), related agencies, employee groups, and

specialists in occupational medicine, industrial

hygiene, toxicology, and risk management. The plan

was designed to determine the immediate and longterm effects of exposure to forest fire smoke. 

In April 1997, a consensus conference reviewed

progress in each area of the study plan. Conference

participants recommended monitoring to increase

awareness of the health effects of smoke and to limit

exposure. Reinhardt and Ottmar presented guidelines

for a firefighter smoke exposure monitoring

program.1

 The guidelines described a simplified

cost-effective approach to acquire baseline data and

track future progress towards controlling smoke

exposure among firefighters. Reinhardt

demonstrated that exposure to acrolein, benzene,

formaldehyde, and respirable particulate matter could

be predicted from measurements of carbon monoxide

(CO). The authors/presenters concluded that

electronic CO dosimeters were the best tool to assess

smoke exposure on a routine basis. Guidelines from

this presentation, and other direct technical input

from Reinhardt, were used in the design of the

CDPHE/NIOSH protocol discussed here.

Measurement of wildland firefighter exposure has

been hampered by the inability to quickly measure

smoke early in the fire.2

 Data collection efforts have

been poorly suited to the mobility and responsiveness

needed to capture smoke exposure during initial

attack. Most studies have repeatedly obtained

measurements of smoke exposure during the latter

stages of fire suppression, when smoke exposures are

considered low. For example, few exposure

measurements have been taken during initial fire

attack operations, during backfires and burnout

operations, or at the fire camp.

CO monitoring provides key information that

firefighters and fire managers need to work safely

because CO is an identified hazard and it always

accompanies other hazardous components of smoke.

Therefore, establishing a routine CO monitoring

program that is well integrated into the wildland fire

incident management system would ensure that the

monitoring and safer work practices occur (even in
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782

dynamic situations) without imposing an unnecessary

burden on firefighting activities. 

For the work outlined in this report, CDPHE and

NIOSH developed a protocol based on the

suggestions of Reinhardt and Ottmar. Our goal was

to determine the feasibility of implementing the

protocol and to outline strengths and limitations in

the field application of the plan. In addition, our

hope was to collect usable data about the exposures

incurred by wildland firefighters based in Colorado.

METHODS

Participants in the study

A memorandum of understanding to facilitate the

collection and analysis of data was established

between the US Department of Interior (USDI) BLM

Grand Junction District, US Department of

Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service White River

National Forest, and CDPHE. BLM and USFS

selected ten firefighters to participate in the training

and data collection. These firefighters represented

two crews from each agency, for a total

representation of four crews. One of the four crews

was a helitack crew; the remaining three units were

ground-based firefighters. 

Technical assistance and funding for the project was

provided by NIOSH through two programs in the

Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluation, and

Field Studies. Equipment acquired by CDPHE was

purchased through NIOSH Sentinel Event for

Notification of Occupational Risk (SENSOR) funds.

Technical assistance was provided by NIOSH

Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance

Program staff in the Denver Field Office.

Training

CDPHE and NIOSH provided training for ten

firefighters. During the one-day, five-hour hands-on

training session, firefighters were provided with four

self-contained kits that included a total of 11 CO

dosimeters (2-3 per kit), related software and

hardware for transferring stored data to a computer;

calibration gas tanks (0, 50, and 100 parts per million

[ppm] of CO) and flow-regulating valves,

“breatholyzer” devices for collecting and analyzing

expired breath CO concentrations, and simplified

instruction sheets for calibration procedures. Each

crew was asked to provide a notebook computer for

the training and later data collection.

During training, the need for an additional set of

simplified instruction sheets outlining steps to

transfer the data from the datalogger to the computer

became evident. Those instructions were

subsequently developed and distributed. 

The instructors introduced the firefighters to the

project, explaining the objectives and goals. It was

explained that this equipment should be used to

measure exposures, as an alarm to warn firefighters

of high CO concentrations, and as a guide for when

they need to don respirators or move to an area of

lower exposure. Firefighters were guided through

operation of the dosimeters and transferring data.

The importance of record-keeping was emphasized,

and forms for recording field data were provided to

each crew. Each crew was asked to record data that

would facilitate correlation of collected data with fire

type, weather conditions, duration of firefighting

efforts, activities, etc.

All instruction sheets and data collection forms

provided to the firefighters are included with this

report as Attachment 1. 

Communication

The operational bases for these four crews were

greater than 100 linear miles apart. In addition, they

traveled to distant locations nationwide to fight fires.

To facilitate communication between the crews and

CDPHE/NIOSH, the CDPHE project officer was on

call on a 24-hour basis via a cellular telephone

throughout the project period. This allowed

firefighters to check in regarding problems,

questions, and refresher training they might need.

CDPHE visited the bases of the crews three weeks

after the initial training. The hope was that this visit

would serve to remind the crews to actually collect

the data, and also would allow firefighters to ask

questions about problems they had experienced in

using the monitoring equipment.

Each crew was again visited by CDPHE and NIOSH

two months after the training. The purpose of this

visit was to gather interim data, provide additional

assistance, encourage the crews to continue

monitoring CO exposures, and check the status of the
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782 Page 3

project. Dosimeters and stored data were collected

approximately 90 days after the initial training. 

Sampling Instrumentation

All dosimeters provided to the firefighters were

Biosystems Toxilog Model 54-1800-DL Personal

Atmospheric Monitors equipped with CO sensors.

Firefighters were instructed to calibrate the monitors

before use with primary standard calibration gas of

known concentration (0 and 100 parts of CO per

million parts of air) and to conduct a quick check of

calibration periodically using 50 ppm of CO. These

monitors measure airborne CO in concentrations of

0 to 999 parts of CO per million parts of air, and are

accurate to within +5 ppm, according to the

manufacturer. The monitors were set to log data

every minute and to alarm when CO concentrations

exceeded 200 ppm at any time or if 8-hour timeweighted average exposures exceeded 50 ppm. 

Equipment costs for this project are presented here

for use by other agencies that may be interested in

initiating a similar program: $7700 for

11 dosimeters; $540 for 4 data downloading cradles;

$1320 for calibration gas (one each of 0, 50, and

100 ppm per crew); $1500 for 12 gas flow regulators;

$60 for equipment bags ($15 each for each crew);

$100 for parts to assemble 11 expired CO devices

($1100 if the device is purchased preassembled).

Each crew had a computer available for storing

accumulated data. This cost would have to be

considered if a computer were not available. These

costs will change over time with changes in

technology.

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 preexisting 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

criterion. 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

increase 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

Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs),3

 (2) the

American Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists’ (ACGIH®) Threshold Limit Values

(TLVs®),4

 and (3) the U.S. Department of Labor,

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs).5

Employers are encouraged to follow the OSHA

limits, the NIOSH RELs, the ACGIH TLVs, or

whichever are the more protective criterion.

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 95–596, 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.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

CO is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas produced by

incomplete burning of carbon-containing materials;

e.g., natural gas. The initial symptoms of CO
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782

poisoning may include headache, dizziness,

drowsiness, and nausea. These initial symptoms may

advance to vomiting, loss of consciousness, and

collapse if prolonged or high exposures are

encountered. Coma or death may occur if high

exposures continue.6,7,8,9,10,11

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

TWA exposure, with a ceiling limit of 200 ppm

which should not been exceeded.12,13 The NIOSH

REL of 35 ppm is designed to protect workers from

health effects associated with COHb levels in excess

of 5%.6

 The ACGIH recommends an 8-hour TWA

TLV of 25 ppm, with an excursion ceiling limit of

125 ppm (based upon the guidelines that under no

circumstances should exposures for any listed

chemical exceed 5 times the TLV-TWA).4

 The TWA

TLV is intended to protect workers from health

effects associated with COHb levels in excess of

3.5%. The OSHA PEL for CO is 50 ppm for an 8-

hour TWA exposure. 

RESULTS

CO Data Collection

Three of the four firefighting crews used the CO

monitoring equipment provided for them. The extent

of participation among the 3 crews, characterized by

the number of hours and minutes of data collection,

is presented below:

Group # Hours of Data Collection

1 0

2 35

3 (Helitack) 152

4 176

The data collection effort lasted for one summer

firefighting season, with approximately 90 days

between training and the last data gathered. The four

crews were dispatched to 41 wildfires during the

course of this project. These fires occurred in

Colorado, Florida, and Idaho. The helitack crew

spent approximately 20 days of the season at a

helibase in Florida with minimal exposure to smoke.

The fire season was characterized as average to

above average nationwide, but significantly below

average in Colorado. Many of the prescribed burns

conducted during this season did not involve the

personnel or resources of the crews in this HHE.

Thus, no data were gathered during this activity even

though it was an initial goal based upon gaps in

existing data.

It was difficult to correlate exposure data to specific

tasks, operations, or fire types. Although forms for

recording date, fire name, fire location, site data, and

activities related to exposures were provided, use of

the forms proved difficult. The crew that logged over

175 hours of data used the forms on four fires during

which data were collected. The crew that logged

over 152 hours of data took sketchy notes related to

three of the days during which data were collected.

The third crew took no notes related to working

conditions during data collection. 

Firefighters verbally reported that CO exposure data

were collected primarily during firefighting activities

(as compared to collecting data when they used

gasoline-powered tools, for example). However, one

crew’s field notes indicated that the monitor was used

when there was no fire on two of four occasions for

which notes were taken. Most firefighters reported

that they activated the CO monitors when they left

base to fight the fire, and deactivated them upon

returning to base. 

One firefighter reported that his worst exposure was

when he stood next to the fire truck operating the

truck-mounted gasoline-powered water pump (peak

exposure logged during this time was 450 ppm CO).

He indicated that he used the CO monitor to

determine the best place to stand while operating the

pump, thus reducing his exposure through changing

his work practices.

The helitack crew indicated that maximum CO

readings were noted immediately upon exiting the

aircraft. This may have represented exposure to CO

from the engine exhaust. 

Dates and times recorded by the CO monitors were

often incorrect, having been set by incorrect

computer dates during calibration or other

computer/CO monitor interfacing operations. (This

potential problem had been addressed in training.)

Thus, it was difficult to correlate written notes with

recorded CO data. Data were lost due to data storage

errors (i.e., new files were stored over old files of the

same name, thus erasing the old files).

One CO monitor was damaged and became nonfunctional during the course of this project, one data
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782 Page 5

downloading cradle was damaged, and no equipment

was lost.

All crews reported difficulty measuring expired CO

concentrations (commonly referred to by the crews as

“breatholyzer” CO measurements). Only one crew

did that measurement, and only on one occasion. No

data from that measurement were recorded.

A summary of CO exposure data collected by the

firefighters is presented in Table 1. These data reflect

sessions during which more than one hour of CO

exposure information was recorded by the monitors.

If the CO monitor recorded data for greater than 8

hours, the 8 hours of highest exposure were used to

calculate the time-weighted average (TWA)

exposure. (This was done to take the most

conservative approach, and because so little

information was available about tasks during the

exposure monitoring.) Exceptions to this included

three exposure monitoring periods that were 47.6,

12.7, and 10.8 hours in duration, during which CO

measurements ranged from 0 to 4 ppm.

Fuel types noted by the crew that gathered the most

data included grass, light fuels, cottonwoods,

tamarisk, rabbit brush, heavy pinon growth, and

juniper. This crew also noted humidity

concentrations of 8, 18, and 20% (twice) during four

of the data collection periods. Wind speed during

each of these four fires was noted at approximately

5 miles per hour. That crew also noted such things

as: “Most readings came while working hot spots,”

“CO went up with areas of good activity,” and “CO

around pump exhaust always bad.”

During 8 of the 41 exposure monitoring periods, CO

exposure concentrations exceeded the NIOSH

recommended ceiling exposure limit of 200 ppm.

During 10 of the 41 sessions, measured CO

concentrations exceeded the ACGIH excursion limit

of 125 ppm. No time-weighted average exposures

exceeded current occupational exposure limits.

During 2 of the 41 periods (each 480 minutes in

length), CO exposure concentrations of 21 and

22 ppm were measured. These exposures

approached the ACGIH time-weighted TLV of

25 ppm. 

Results of the Pilot Program

as a Whole:

Data collection was only one aspect of this project.

All participating groups (BLM, USFS, CDPHE, and

NIOSH) were interested in the field application of a

program proposed during the Hazards of Smoke

conference discussed earlier in this report. The many

useful lessons (both positive and negative) learned in

this pilot program are outlined below.

Strengths of having firefighters

collect CO exposure data

• A learning experience was provided for the

firefighters that makes them much more aware of

their exposures.

• CO monitors enabled firefighters to take an active

role in controlling their exposures (re: the gasolinepowered pump example listed above).

• This program got firefighters thinking about other

sources of exposure beyond fires (again, the above

pump example).

• The program allowed for efficient data collection.

Data from many fires in several states were

collected without the need for additional travel

time/money/personnel. In addition, data were

gathered from the initial firefighting efforts which

have been difficult to gather otherwise.

• The program generated curiosity among

firefighters about occupational exposures in

general because they were measuring exposures

themselves, as compared to outside professionals

conducting the measurements. 

• Firefighters received immediate positive feedback

regarding extent of exposure, how to reduce that

exposure, and how their actions impact on that

exposure.

Limitations of having firefighters

collect CO exposure data

Equipment limitations:

• Generally speaking, the firefighting crews had

inadequate computer resources to fully carry out

the data logging aspects of this program (lack of

readily available computer support, outdated

computers, etc.).
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782

• Again, generally speaking, the crews had

inadequate computer knowledge to carry out the

data logging aspects of this program. In the

training session, it became apparent that these

firefighters, who were very adept at their job

(which did not involve the use of computers), did

not know how to turn the computer on, go between

DOS and Windows, save files, set their computer

clock, etc. All of these things are necessary for

downloading data stored by the CO monitors.

• Radio frequency (RF) interference was a problem

for all groups. Each of these firefighting crews

used two-way radios for communication. These

CO monitors respond when two-way radios are

triggered for transmission purposes (i.e., incoming

communication is not a problem, only outgoing).

The CO monitor alarms when the microphone is

triggered and records a high peak of CO (usually

off-scale, and appearing as a peak with no width).

Crews had to compensate for this interference by

changing the placement of the dosimeter so that

their body acted as a shield against the RF

interference. (Initial placement of the dosimeter

was on the shoulder strap of their pack, which put

it near their transceivers.)

• The warning alarm on the CO monitors caused

problems during radio communications.

Attitude limitations:

• Some of the firefighters displayed a reluctance to

use unfamiliar technology (specifically when faced

with calibrating the monitors and downloading

data). This was evidenced by the fact that one

crew never used the technology, even after further

encouragement to do so throughout the project.

• Monitors were often left behind when crews went

to fight fires. This was evidenced by a number of

facts. First, firefighters made such verbal

comments as “We should have had these on during

that last big fire where we were crawling on the

ground to get away from the smoke it was so bad”

during interim conversations with the investigators.

Second, one crew never used the monitors, but

fought several fires during the season. And finally,

the 41 fires to which these crews were assigned

were only partially represented in the collected

data.

 

Administrative limitations:

Note-taking problems:

• Firefighters were not able/willing to take notes

during data collection. This may have been due to

the fact that firefighters were given too much to

learn and do all at once. This resulted in difficulties

correlating data with activities, and fire and fuel

type. 

• Time limitations for the firefighters was a factor in

quality and quantity of data collection. (Some

crews were dispatched to fires two hours after

returning from a previous fire. There was often no

time to add CO monitoring to their already packed

schedule between fires.)

Smoke management limitations:

• While firefighters were willing/able to reduce CO

exposure from the gasoline-powered pump, they

were less willing/able to reduce fire-related

exposures, especially in the absence of specific

guidance about what to do when the alarms

sounded. 

DISCUSSION

Data collected by the wildland firefighters

participating in this pilot project documented that CO

exposures exceeded the ACGIH recommended

excursion limit in 25% of the listed data recording

sessions, exceeded the NIOSH recommended ceiling

limit in 20% of the data recording sessions, and

approached (but did not exceed) the ACGIH TLV for

CO during 5% of the sessions. No time-weighted

average exposures were in excess of the OSHA

standard.

To ensure that the recorded peak exposures did not

represent RF interference from the firefighters’

radios, individual data points associated with the

peaks were examined. All recorded peak exposures

were associated with an incremental rise and fall over

a number of minutes (i.e., the peaks had width) and

were not off the recording scale for the CO monitors.

As stated earlier, RF interference peaks typically

appear with no width and go off the recording scale.

For these reasons, and because firefighters verbally

reported peak exposures that caused the monitors to

sound, the peak exposure measurements were judged

to represent true exposures. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782 Page 7

These data certainly justify implementation of a

smoke exposure management program. With some

limitations, this project demonstrated that field

implementation of a smoke management program is

feasible.

Previous investigators have indicated that wildland

firefighters are overexposed to CO during 1 to 5% of

their firefighting efforts.2

 The data collected in this

investigation indicates that these estimates may be

low if excessive peak exposures are included in the

figures. Differences in those estimates may be

related to the fact that the data reported here were

collected by the firefighters from the beginning of the

firefighting effort, during direct attack (both of which

would be expected to result in high exposures), and

through hot spot mop up. Previous data collection

efforts have been poorly suited to the mobility and

responsiveness needed to capture smoke exposure

during initial fire attack, and thus may have

underestimated overall exposure. Differences in

estimates of overexposure may also be related to

differences in fire fuel types, and use of timeweighted average exposures only in calculated

estimates.

The limitations of the data collected were basically in

two areas - quality control and accountability. There

was no indication that firefighters were consistently

able to calibrate the dosimeters following the one

training session with which they were provided.

Further, variations between verbal reports and the

scant notes available made it difficult to establish that

the monitors were always used when exposure was

expected. Thus, it was difficult to differentiate

between low CO exposure at a fire, versus low CO

exposure when the monitor was activated at the

beginning of a shift during which no fire occurred.

Conversely, graphs of data that indicated significant

CO exposure were consistent with what would be

expected during firefighting efforts.

Administrative and other limitations of the project as

a whole indicate improvements are needed to

maximize the use of this type of smoke management

program. However, the strengths of the project

combined with the data collected indicate that this

program is both needed and feasible. 

Smooth operation of this type of CO monitoring

program may take several fire seasons to accomplish.

If all crews are similar to the ones participating in this

project, the first season will involve familiarizing

administrators and firefighters with the CO

monitoring concept, including how it works and why

it is needed. During the second season there should

be some converts to the concept, all will need

refresher training, and data collection will be more

meaningful. By the third season, the CO monitoring

program administrator’s expectations should be more

realistic, and unless there are significant personnel

changes, the firefighters will have experience and a

higher level of involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Wildland firefighters may be exposed to CO

concentrations in excess of current occupational

exposure ceiling or excursion limits during as much

as 25% of their firefighting efforts. Sources of CO

exposure include smoke, vehicle, and other engine

exhaust. 

Given the proper financial and administrative

support, managers and safety officers can establish

CO exposure monitoring programs to aid in the

reduction of firefighter exposures to smoke

components. However, several issues will need to be

further evaluated and addressed including availability

of equipment and training, consistent documentation

of monitoring conditions among firefighters; a

written smoke exposure management plan containing

a response strategy when CO monitors alarm, health

surveillance programs, and training and tactics to

minimize exposures.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are offered toward

effective implementation of a CO-based smoke

management program. Fire management and safety

officers responsible for the health and safety of

firefighting personnel should:

1. Strongly consider using CO monitors primarily to

manage firefighters’ acute overexposure to

components of smoke. To monitor acute

exposures, field staff simply need to know how to

calibrate a CO monitor and activate it. There are

no computers involved. The monitors are already

set to alarm at certain levels, and can be used as

an “early warning device” to trigger actions to

reduce exposures.
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782

1. USFS [1997]. Health hazards of smoke:

recommendations of the consensus conference

April 1997. Brian Sharkey, ed. Tech. Rep. 9751-

2836-MTDC. Missoula, MT: Missoula

Technology and Development Center. p. 84.

2. Reinhardt TE, Ottmar RD [1997]. Smoke

exposure among wildland firefighters: A review

and discussion of current literature. USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station:

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-373.

Seattle WA. February 1997: 61p.

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

4. ACGIH [1999]. 1999 TLVs® and BEIs®:

threshold limit values for chemical substances and

physical agents. Cincinnati, OH: American

Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists.

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

Federal regulations. Washington, DC: U.S.

2. Develop a written smoke exposure management

plan. This plan should focus on a strategy to

respond to CO monitor warning alarms and

should discuss health surveillance, training, and

tactics to minimize exposure. The plan should

also take into account the various sources of CO

exposure during firefighting efforts.

3. Consider the following recommendations if the

CO monitors are to be used as part of an

overall exposure monitoring/recording

program. (The use of CO monitors to record

data over a long period requires more thorough

knowledge about the operation of CO monitors,

transferring and storing data, and relating the

collected data to recommended and required

standards.) 

a. Select a designated person to have prime

responsibility for the CO monitoring program at

each fire. The duties of this designated person

would include maintaining, calibrating, and

assigning the CO monitor; coordinate recording of

exposure information (i.e., fuel type, wind speed,

duties of the person wearing the monitor -

specifically duties when the monitor sounds an

alarm); downloading and storing the accumulated

data; developing signed and dated records for

compliance purposes; and spearheading the

development of a protocol for action to be taken

when a monitor alarms. 

b. Provide designated personnel with repeated

training on the operation of CO monitors and

related computer functions. Training should be

repeated one month after initial training, using the

data that has been gathered during that month to

demonstrate the need to take notes, refresh

previous training, address problems experienced in

using the CO monitors, and catch errors that will

adversely affect the entire fire season’s data

collection effort (i.e., writing over files because of

errors in data transfer, etc.). Training on the

operation of the CO monitors should then be

repeated at the beginning of each fire season to

refresh previous training and to ensure that new

personnel are familiar with the program.

c. Have designated personnel then train

firefighting crews about the goals of the

monitoring program, the fundamentals of operating

the CO monitors, what it means when the monitor

alarm sounds, and what to do when the alarm

sounds. This training should be repeated at the

beginning of each new fire season.

d. Designated personnel should look for other

ways to get information about exposure conditions

while firefighters wear CO monitors. This pilot

project demonstrated that the full use of exposure

data for intervention purposes is limited if

information about tasks and fire characteristics

cannot be correlated with the data. The pilot

project also demonstrated that getting this

information is one of the more difficult aspects of

exposure monitoring by firefighters who have high

demands during firefighting efforts. This

information might be verbally gathered during

debriefings through the use of miniature recorders,

for example.

REFERENCES
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782 Page 9

Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal

Register.

6. 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. 73-11000. 

7. NIOSH [1977]. Occupational diseases: a

guide to their recognition. Revised 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.

8. NIOSH [1979]. A guide to work-relatedness

of disease. Revised 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. 79-116.

9. Proctor NH, Hughes JP, Fischman ML

[1988]. Chemical hazards of the workplace.

Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Company.

10. ACGIH [1986]. Documentation of threshold

limit values and biological exposure indices (with

1990 supplements). 5th ed. Cincinnati, OH:

American Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists.

11. NIOSH [1990]. Pocket guide to chemical

hazards. 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. 90-117. 

12. CDC [1988]. NIOSH recommendations for

occupational safety and health standards 1988.

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers

for Disease Control; National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health. MMWR 37

(supp. S-7).

13. Code of Federal Regulations [1989]. 29 CFR

1910.1000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, Federal Register.
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782

Table 1

CO Exposures Monitored by Wildland Firefighters

USDI BLM Grand Junction District, and USFS White River National Forest

May - August 1998

HETA 98-0173-2782

Crew Minutes of

 CO Monitoring

TWA CO Exposure

 (ppm)

Peak CO

Exposure (ppm)

Notes

2 65 0 10

480 21 319

431 10 164

480 6 365

480 2 43

3* 108 0 0

2857 0 3

104 0 1

97 0 2

241 0 15

425 1 10

477 1 76

209 1 16

242 1 22

480 1 22

480 2 12

645 0 3

480 10 171

205 0 6

4 175 2 5

390 2 392

222 0 29

277 2 120

764 0 4

167 0 9

133 4 59

270 0 3

480 4 104

196 0 14
Table 1 - Continued

CO Exposures Monitored by Wildland Firefighters

USDI BLM Grand Junction District, and USFS White River National Forest

May - August 1998

HETA 98-0173-2782

480 6 365

Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782 Page 11

480 2 68 Fuel - grass, light fuels, cottonwood;

windspeed 5-7 mph; humidity 20%.

Monitor activated when crew flew in

to work hot spots and continued

operating throughout this and next

shift.

208 1 60 Second shift of the above fire.

480 0 28 Fuel - tamarisk, rabbit brush,

cottonwood; windspeed 5-7 mph;

humidity 20%. Monitor activated

soon after arriving at the fire

location. Fire suppression/mop up

activities.

415 12 207

480 4 56 Fuel - grass, brush; windspeed 5-10

mph; humidity 8%. Monitor

activated as crew started towards the

fire, and ran through mobile attack/

burnout.

480 6 450 Fuel - heavy pinon, juniper;

windspeed 3-5 mph; humidity 18%.

Monitor worn by driver/pump

operator. “CO around pump exhaust

always bad.”

480 6 51

370 1 86

483 3 286

480 22 260

397 2 53

112 4 17

*Crew 3 was the Helitack crew. The tasks of this crew are quite different than those of the other crews. 
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782

Attachment 1

Written Materials Provided to Firefighters

Exposure Monitoring Note-Taking Sheet

Quality Control Check

Instruction Sheets for Calibration

Instruction Sheet for Transferring Logged Data to a Computer

Instructions for Measuring CO in Breath Samples

Down-Loading Data from the CO Monitor
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782 Page 13

Exposure Monitoring Note-Taking Sheet

Date: Fire name: Location:

Site Data

Windspeed: Humidity: Fuel type/loading:

Carbon Monoxide Exposure Monitoring Data

Datalogger Firefighter: Datalogger Firefighter:

A Time Activities/Smoke B Time Activities/Smoke

shift start: shift start:

log start: log start:

log stop: log stop:

shift stop: shift stop:

Notes: Notes:

Datalogger Firefighter: Datalogger Firefighter:

C Time Activities/Smoke D Time Activities/Smoke

shift start: shift start:

log start: log start:

log stop: log stop:

shift stop: shift stop:

Notes: Notes:

Datalogger Firefighter: Datalogger Firefighter:

E Time Activities/Smoke F Time Activities/Smoke

shift start: shift start:

log start: log start:

log stop: log stop:

shift stop: shift stop:

Notes: Notes:

Data Recorder (signature) Location/date:
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782

Quality-Control Check

Conduct a quick quality control check before and after each sampling 

period to ensure accurate data.

 Procedure for the quality control check:

1. Activate on the CO monitor by pressing the “on/off mode” button.

2. Check the zero reading of the datalogger in clean ambient air. If the ambient air is not free

of CO, as during atmospheric inversions or near engine exhaust, attach the zero air to the

monitor using the calibration cup assembly. Unlike calibration, it is important to leave the

zero levels unadjusted.

3. If the CO monitor reads within +3 ppm of 0, proceed to step 4. If the difference is greater

than 3 ppm, start this procedure again with another CO monitor, or recalibrate the monitor if

time permits. 

4. If the zero check is within 3 ppm of zero, remove the zero gas and attach the 50 ppm CO

gas to the CO monitor, again using the calibration cup assembly.

5. If the CO monitor reads within +3 ppm of 50, it has passed the quality control check and is

ready for use.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782 Page 15

PROCEDURE FOR 0 PPM CALIBRATION

1. Remove the back cover of the CO monitor.

2. Activate the CO monitor by pressing the “on/off mode” button until the monitor beeps.

3. Depress the “CAL” lever that is on the back of the monitor under the cover you have

removed. The monitor screen will display “ZERO GAS.”

4. If you suspect that there is CO in the environment, or if the monitor displays >3 ppm CO,

then use the zero calibration gas at this point. Attach the calibration hood assembly tubing to

the zero calibration gas, open the regulator valve, and place the hood over the CO sensor on the

monitor.

If there is no CO in the outdoor environment where you are calibrating the instrument proceed

to step 5 without zero gas.

5. Depress the “CAL” lever again. The monitor screen will display “WAIT ZERO.”

6. After a short time, the monitor screen will display a “0.”

7. Turn the monitor off by depressing the “on/off mode” button for three seconds.

Proceed to the next calibration concentration.
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782

PROCEDURE FOR 100 PPM CALIBRATION

1. Set the 0 calibration point prior to this procedure. See the previous instructions. 

2. Attach the calibration hood assembly tubing to the regulator of the 100 ppm calibration gas

tank.

3. While the monitor is off, depress the “CAL” lever on the back of the monitor. While holding

the lever down, press the “on/off mode” button until the monitor screen alternately displays

“SPAN” and a number (should be “0” or close to it), at which point you let go of the lever and

button. The monitor cannot be calibrated unless the screen displays “SPAN,” so if you miss it on

the first try, start step 2 over again.

4. Firmly hold the calibration hood over the CO monitor sensor, and open the regulator valve

on the gas tank. 

5. Wait for the monitor reading to stabilize.

6. Still holding the calibration hood on the sensor, adjust the display to read “100 ppm” with the

“+” or “-” lever on the back of the monitor (whichever is appropriate).

7. After adjustment of the display, allow 30 seconds for the monitor to stabilize and ensure

accuracy of the reading.

8. Still holding the calibration hood on the sensor, depress the “CAL” button until the display

screen displays “DONE.”

9. The monitor will automatically shut itself off.

10. Turn off the calibration gas. 

11. Replace the back cover of the CO monitor.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782 Page 17

MEASURING PRE- AND POST-FIRE

CARBON MONOXIDE IN BREATH SAMPLES

While at base camp before the crew member goes out to the fire, collect

a breath sample to establish a baseline for comparison with the same

measurement taken when the crew member comes off the fire line.

 Procedure for collecting breath samples:

1. Attach the calibration hood tubing to the connector on the balloon assembly.

2. Ensure that the CO monitor is operating.

3. Collect a breath sample following the procedure listed below:

Have the firefighterer:

• Exhale completely

 • Inhale rapidly until lungs are filled

• Hold breath for 20 seconds

• Exhale a small amount of breath into the ambient air

• Exhale the remainder of the breath into the balloon assembly.

• Repeat this process until the balloon is inflated to approximately 9 inches across.

4. Firmly hold the calibration hood over the sensor on the monitor.

5. Allow the balloon to deflate.

6. When the monitor stabilizes on one reading, record the measurement on the data sheet

provided.

Repeat this procedure when the firefighterer returns to base camp.
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 98-0173-2782

Down-Loading Data from the CO Monitor

Attach cradle to the serial port on the computer.

Plug in the AC adapter power supply and plug into the cradle.

Get to a DOS prompt on the computer.

At the DOS prompt (C:\) type CD\Toxilog. Press “enter” (DOS prompt should read (C:\toxilog).

Type Toxilog (Menu should appear on screen).

Select option 2 (datalogger).

Select option 1 (download data from instrument).

Place instrument in cradle making sure that optical interfaces are aligned and the instrument is

turned off. Press “enter.”

From Menu select option 6.

Type fire # and datalogger # (example: xxxxx-9). Press “enter.”

The data should now be saved.

To check data select option 2 from menu.

Select option 1.

Highlight file to review. Press “enter.”

Select option 5 from menu.

Select option 1 from menu.

Highlight session to review. Press “enter.” 

Select option 1.

Select option 1. Graph should appear.

Press “Escape” twice.

Select option 3 from menu to clear data from instrument.

Select option 0.

Select option 0.
For Information on Other

Occupational Safety and Health Concerns

Call NIOSH at:

1–800–35–NIOSH (356–4674)

or visit the NIOSH Web site at:

www.cdc.gov/niosh

!

Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people

through research and prevention