Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 1

Evaluation of Instructor and Range Officer 

Exposure to Emissions from Copper-Based 

Frangible Ammunition at a Military Firing 

Range

Report No. 2012-0091-3187

July 2013

Mark M. Methner, PhD, CIH

John Gibbins, DVM, MPH

Todd Niemeier, MS, CIH

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

Contents

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

Abbreviations ..................................... iv

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations............................. 10

Appendix A ........................................ 13

Appendix B......................................... 16

Appendix C......................................... 19

References.......................................... 22

Acknowledgements........................... 25

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

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

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

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

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

not be related to this Health Hazard Evaluation.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page i

We assessed instructor and 

range officer exposure to 

emissions from weapons 

during firing events at 

a military firing range. 

No exposures exceeded 

occupational exposure 

limits, yet instructors and 

range officers continued to 

report health symptoms. 

The ventilation system was 

not designed to remove 

air contaminants. We 

recommended modifying 

the system to improve 

removal of air contaminants 

or constructing an enclosed 

range with a suitable 

ventilation system to control 

air contaminants.

Highlights of this Evaluation

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a military firing range in 

North Dakota. The range managers submitted the request because of concern about instructor 

and range officer exposure to weapons emissions during qualification sessions inside the 

partially-enclosed firing range. We measured exposure to weapons emissions and assessed 

health symptoms related to the firing of copper-based ammunition that breaks into pieces on 

impact (known as frangible ammunition).

What We Did

● We sampled the air for contaminants in weapons 

emissions during firing events that occurred in 

February 2012–March 2012.

● We interviewed instructors and range officers and 

documented their health complaints and concerns.

● We measured airflow inside the firing range.

● We observed the instructors’ and range officer’s 

work practices.

● We reviewed medical records, health 

questionnaires, and reports about instructor and 

student symptoms. 

● We talked with engineering, public health, and 

flight surgeon staff about prior evaluations of the 

firing range.

What We Found

● Air contaminant concentrations did not exceed 

occupational exposure limits.

● The ventilation system was not designed to 

remove air contaminants.

● Firing weapons when the propane-fired heater was 

on produced higher carbon monoxide levels than the heater itself produced.

● Levels of very small particles inside the range increased during firing events.

● Some instructors did not wear protective eyewear, or they wore eyewear without 

side shields.

● Instructors reported symptoms such as headache, metallic taste, sore throat, and 

respiratory symptoms they felt were associated with the firing of frangible ammunition.

● The symptoms instructors told us about were similar to those reported by instructors 

in previous surveys at this facility. They are consistent with the types of exposures that 

we measured. 
Page ii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

What We Found (continued)

● Some shooters did not wear hearing protection correctly.

● Some instructors consumed drinks inside the range.

● Some instructors did not wash their hands before eating or smoking after firing events.

 What the Employer Can Do

● Modify the ventilation system so that air contaminants are exhausted out of the range.

● Inspect and adjust the propane-fired heater to reduce the amount of carbon monoxide it 

produces.

● Remind staff periodically on the proper use and type of hearing protection.

● Require all eyewear worn inside the range to be fitted with side shields.

● Rotate range duties, if possible, to minimize time spent inside the range during firing events.

What Employees Can Do

● Report symptoms and health concerns to your supervisor.

● If you get medical care, tell your healthcare provider and the public health office that you 

work at the firing range.

● Do not drink or eat inside the range.

● If you wear protective eyewear during firing events, make sure side shields are attached.

● Wash hands before eating or smoking.

● Participate in programs to help you stop smoking.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page iii

Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In 

addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement 

of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not 

responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document 

were accessible as of the publication date of this report.
Page iv Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

Abbreviations

μm Micrometer

μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter

ACGIH® American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

BEI Biological exposure index

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO Carbon monoxide

IOM Institute of Medicine

Lpm Liters per minute

mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter

mm Millimeter

NA Not applicable

ND Not detected

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

nm Nanometer

OEL Occupational exposure limit

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PEL Permissible exposure limit

PM Particulate mass 

ppm Parts per million

REL Recommended exposure limit

TLV® Threshold limit value

TWA Time-weighted average
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 1

Introduction 

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the managers of a military 

firing range in North Dakota. The request concerned potential occupational exposure of 

training instructors and range officers to copper particulate and gases/aerosols/irritants during 

qualification sessions involving the firing of frangible copper ammunition from small arms 

(M4 rifle using 5.56 millimeter [mm] rounds and M9 handgun using 9 millimeter rounds). 

We evaluated the facility in February–March 2012. We observed instructor and range officer 

work practices, evaluated the firing range heating and ventilation system, and measured 

airborne levels of copper particulate, irritant gases, carbon monoxide (CO), and particle 

number and mass concentrations inside the range. In August 2012, an interim report outlining 

our preliminary findings and recommendations was sent to the requestor, the supervisor of 

the firing range, and the facility health and safety department.

Background

Ammunition

Historically, lead has been used in the manufacture of bullets. However, because of 

environmental and human health concerns, the use of lead ammunition has declined. Over the 

last decade, this range opted to use lead-free frangible ammunition for small arms training with 

M4 and M9 weapons. The frangible ammunition was considered nontoxic because lead was no 

longer present in the bullet or the primer. Also, the frangible bullet presents less ricochet hazard 

because it is designed to fragment upon impact. The frangible bullets evaluated during this 

assessment were made of compacted metal powder (95% copper; 5% zinc). 

Training Sessions

Shooters were required to complete two phases of qualification. Phase 1 qualification 

consisted of each shooter discharging six magazines, each containing four rounds, with the 

M4 rifle at a target 25 meters downrange until it was deemed “zeroed in” by the firing line 

instructor. Once the weapon was zeroed, new targets were installed by the instructors, and 

each shooter then discharged the following: 1 magazine with 5 rounds, 1 magazine with 10 

rounds (5 live/5 blank), and 20 magazines with 3 rounds. Each of the firing events occurred 

from different shooting positions (e.g., prone, standing, kneeling).

Phase 2 qualification, typically done the following day, involved each shooter firing the 

zeroed weapon from different shooting positions at targets ranging from 3 to approximately 

25 meters downrange. Each shooter discharged the following: 1 magazine with 12 rounds, 

2 magazines with 5 rounds, 3 magazines with 8 rounds, 2 magazines with 9 rounds, 6 

magazines with 4 rounds, 1 magazine with 6 rounds, and 4 magazines with 2 rounds. At 

the conclusion of Phase 2, each shooter’s target was graded by a firing line instructor who 

determined whether the shooter was successful in the qualification attempt.
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

In addition to the Phase 1 and 2 qualification sessions, two other types of weapons training 

occurred during our evaluation. One involved firing 30 rounds with the M4 and 30 rounds 

with the M9. Another training session involved firing 100 rounds using just the M9.

Firing Range 

The range was a wooden structure on a concrete slab. It had 28 shooting lanes, each with 

split doors (upper and lower segments) that allowed shooters to fire at targets located under 

an outdoor ballistic canopy. A ventilation system heated the range during cold weather. A 

main air supply duct ran the length of the range and a direct fire propane burner was in-line 

midway along the main duct. Outdoor air was drawn into the heater via a roof-mounted 

intake. As air moved into the system, it was heated by the propane burner and discharged 

along the length of the supply duct via eight ducts that extended perpendicularly from the 

main duct to the back wall of the range. Each supply duct pointed down and discharged air 

through a louvered rectangular supply register (Figure 1).

We reviewed the results from 

a January 2009 health survey 

of nine range instructors and 

students. All nine instructors 

reported runny nose, chest 

tightness, watery eyes, 

cough, and headache usually 

during or immediately 

after an exposure firing 

event. Among the students, 

7 of 47 (15%) reported 

similar symptoms. These 

results, along with prior 

complaints and concerns 

about exposures at the 

range, prompted the decision 

to modify the ventilation 

system.

Methods

Objectives

1. Measure instructor and range officer exposures to air contaminants generated by firing 

copper frangible ammunition.

2. Characterize the particle number, size, shape, and chemical composition of the aerosol.

3. Evaluate the ventilation system to determine effectiveness in removing air contaminants.

4. Determine whether exposure to air contaminants is linked to health symptoms reported 

by instructors and range officers.

Figure 1. Firing range layout and heating/ventalation system at the 

time of the evaluation.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 3

Air Sampling

Task-based personal and area air samples for elemental analysis were collected during office/

classroom work and qualification sessions using a 37-mm open-faced cassette containing a 

0.8-micrometer (μm) mixed cellulose ester filter. The filter cassette was attached to a personal 

sampling pump operating at 2 liters per minute (Lpm). Personal air sampling devices were 

attached to the lapel of a firing line instructor, range officer, classroom instructor, and shooter. 

Area air samples were collected 3 feet above the floor on a shelf midway between firing lanes 

(1-15), approximately 8 feet behind the firing line. All samples were analyzed by the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 7303 [NIOSH 2013].

Additional air samples were collected on firing line instructors, range officers, classroom 

instructors, and some shooters during qualification sessions using the Institute of Medicine 

(IOM) inhalable particle sampler. These samplers were outfitted with a MultiDustTM 

polyurethane foam prefilter followed by a 25-mm mixed cellulose ester filter [SKC 

Inc. 2013]. The foam prefilter allowed us to measure inhalable and respirable fractions 

[Mohlmann et al. 2002; SKC Inc. 2013]. The sample collected on the foam was analyzed 

separately and added to the result obtained for the mixed cellulose ester filter to determine the 

inhalable fraction of the aerosol [SKC Inc. 2013]. We did not collect air samples specifically 

for copper fume. However, it is reasonable to compare the respirable copper particulate 

concentration to the copper fume occupational exposure limits (OELs) because the respirable 

particulate and fume are similar in size. Area air samples were also collected using the IOM 

sampler with the polyurethane prefilter. We used a flow rate of 2 Lpm, and each IOM sample 

was analyzed for elements using NIOSH Method 7303 [NIOSH 2013].

To examine the morphology, size, and chemical composition of particulate emitted during 

weapon firing, personal and area air samples were collected using 37-mm, 0.8-μm pore 

size mixed cellulose ester filters and analyzed via transmission electron microscopy using a 

modification of NIOSH Method 7402 (direct air method) [NIOSH 2013]. The modification 

consisted of using a portion of each filter and affixing it to a glass slide using a clearing 

solution (35% dimethyl formamide, 15% glacial acetic acid, and 50% deionized water). Once 

cleared, each filter was carbon coated and placed onto three 200 mesh nickel grids without 

plasma ashing. Each grid was viewed under various magnifications (15,000X or higher) 

using a FEI/Philips CM-12 microscope equipped with an integrated x-ray fluorescence 

digital imaging system (FEI/Philips Electron Optics). The microscopist examined at least 

40 grid openings or 100 particles, whichever came first, and captured a digital image of the 

particulate. Energy dispersive spectrometry was used to identify the chemical composition of 

the particles observed.

Airborne particle number concentration and particle mass concentration were measured 

with two different instruments. Particle number concentration across the size range of 20 

nanometers (nm) to 1,000 nm was measured in the area near the firing line using a TSI 

P-Trak® Model 8525 real-time, datalogging device. The particle mass air concentration was 

measured using the TSI Dust Trak® DRX Model 8533 aerosol photometer, which responds 

to particulate in the range of 0.001 milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3

) to 150 mg/m3. 
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

This instrument simultaneously measures size-segregated particulate mass (PM) fractions 

corresponding to 1 μm (PM1), 2.5 μm (PM2.5), respirable (4 μm), 10 μm (PM10) and 100 

μm (total PM) size fractions.

Area air concentrations of CO, nitric oxide, and nitrogen dioxide were measured using a BW

Technologies Gas Alert Extreme® instrument. 

Thermal desorption tubes were used to collect area air samples to identify volatile organic 

compounds using NIOSH Method 2549 [NIOSH 2013]. Based on these results we used 

charcoal tubes to quantify the air concentration of volatile organic compounds in accordance 

with NIOSH Method 1300 [NIOSH 2013]. Task-based area air samples using silica gel tubes 

were collected at a flow rate of 200 cubic centimeters per minute and analyzed for inorganic 

acids (hydrobromic, hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, nitric, phosphoric, and sulfuric) using 

NIOSH Method 7903 [NIOSH 2013]. Dräger® colorimetric detector tube samples were 

collected near the instructors midway through two firing events to estimate air concentrations 

of phosgene, ammonia, hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen cyanide.

Ventilation assessment 

We characterized the airflow patterns created by the ventilation system and measured the 

centerline air velocity at each firing lane doorway using a TSI Velocicalc® Plus model 8386A 

anemometer. Triplicate measurements were collected at each shooting lane door opening at 

two heights (approximately 3 feet and 5 feet). To visualize airflow patterns created by the 

ventilation system, we used a Rosco Laboratories Inc. fog-generating machine. 

Interviews

We held voluntary, confidential interviews with all 12 enlisted personnel assigned to the 

range. This included instructors, range officers, armory personnel, and instructor trainees. On 

February 28, 2012, we met with the flight surgeon, engineering officer in charge and staff, 

and the public health officer in charge and staff to discuss their past involvement with the 

firing range and review records. We reviewed records, including five medical records from 

personnel who reported seeking medical care for their symptoms and three occupational 

illness/injury reports filed in January 2009/2010 for range instructors. We also reviewed 

copies and summaries of health symptom surveys that had been administered by the public 

health officer to range students and instructors.

Results 

Air sampling

During our evaluation 63 shooters completed the qualification course, discharging 6,904 

frangible bullet rounds. Eight individuals served as firing line instructors, range officers, or 

classroom instructors during 5 days of sampling. Many of the instructors and range officers 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 5

rotated roles during qualification sessions. For example, an instructor working the firing line 

during the morning session served as the range officer during the afternoon session.

We collected 127 task-based and shorter-term air samples during seven weapon qualification 

sessions and longer-term air samples during office/classroom activities. For firing line 

instruction and range officer work, task-based sampling times ranged from 26 to 142 minutes. 

Sampling times ranged from 210 to 386 minutes for office/classroom work. OELs for copper 

are presented in Table 1.

None of the personal air samples collected on instructors, range officers or shooters exceeded 

any applicable occupational exposure limit for copper (Table 2). Total copper concentrations 

for instructors ranged from not detected (ND) to 26 μg/m3

 while concentrations for range 

officers were much lower (range = ND to 4.5 μg/m3

). The three shooters had total copper 

concentrations that ranged from 9–24 μg/m3

. Short-term air sample results from three 

shooters measured higher total copper concentrations when compared to most instructors and 

all range officers (range = 9 to 24 μg/m3

) (Appendix A, Table A2). One short-term exposure 

limit sample collected on a shooter resulted in a copper concentration of 18 μg/m3

. The eight 

area air samples had copper concentrations ranging from ND to 19 μg/m3

 (Appendix A, Table 

A1). Copper was not detected (< 0.14 μg/m3

) on air samples collected on instructors or range 

officers while they were engaged in office/classroom work.

Table 1. OELs for copper in air samples (μg/m3)

Dusts/Mists Copper (Inhalable) Copper (Fume)

NIOSH REL 1,000 NA 100

OSHA PEL 1,000 NA 100

ACGIH TLV 1,000 NA 200

MAC (Netherlands) NA 100 NA

MAK (Germany-DFG) NA 100 NA

MAK (Germany-DFG) NA 200* NA

μg/m3

 = micrograms per cubic meter, ACGIH = American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists, NA = not applicable, OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration, REL 

= recommended exposure limit (up to 10 hours), PEL= permissible exposure limit (eight hour 

time-weighted average), TLV = threshold limit value (eight hour time-weighted average), MAC 

(Netherlands) = maximum allowable concentration for inhalable copper particulate, MAK (GermanyDFG) = maximum eight hour time-weighted average.

*MAK (Germany-DFG) for short-term 15 minute average. 
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

None of the inhalable or respirable fractions collected with the IOM samplers exceeded 

their applicable OELs. Range officers generally had lower inhalable copper concentrations 

than instructors.

All of the personal and area air samples submitted for transmission electron microscopy 

analysis showed the presence of singular, spherical elemental copper and copper particulate 

(e.g., copper sulfide) ranging from 50–250 nm in diameter (Appendix B, Figure B1). Zinc 

and iron particulate in the same size range were found but copper was more prevalent.

As shown in Appendix B, Figure B2, the particle number concentration in the 20–1,000 nm 

size range measured with the P-Trak instrument rapidly increased during firing events. The 

same pattern was observed when measuring the area particle mass air concentration using the 

Dust Trak instrument (Appendix B, Figure B3).

The CO concentration averaged 8 parts per million (ppm) (range: 4–23 ppm) during firing 

events with the heat on and the shooting lane doors open (Appendix B, Figures B4 and B5). 

With the heat on and the shooting doors closed (no firing), the CO concentration averaged 13 

ppm. Once the shooting doors were opened, the CO concentration decreased to an average 

of 6 ppm but when firing began, the CO concentration increased quickly, peaking at 23 ppm 

(Appendix B, Figures B4 and B5). These concentrations are below the OSHA time-weighted 

average (TWA) permissible exposure limit of 50 ppm and NIOSH ceiling limit of 200 ppm. 

Nitric oxide concentrations averaged 0.3 ppm and nitrogen dioxide concentrations averaged 

0.2 ppm; both were well below their applicable OELs.

No volatile organic compounds related to the firing of weapons were detected on the thermal 

desorption tube air samples. Concentrations of hydrobromic, hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, 

Table 2. Range of task-based copper concentrations (μg/m3) during qualification sessions 

Job Weapon 37-mm cassette 

total copper

37-mm cassette 

total copper shortterm*

IOM inhalable 

copper

IOM respirable 

copper

Instructor

N = 14

M4 1.6–26 3.5–16 1.5–19 ND (< 1.5)–15

M4+M9 ND (< 2.0) [2.8] ND (< 2.0) ND (< 2.0)

M9 ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.7) ND (< 1.5) ND (< 1.5)

Range officer

N = 7

M4 ND (< 1.0)–4.5 NS 1.0–4.0 1.0–3.8

M4+M9 ND (< 2.0) NS ND (< 2.0) ND (< 2.0)

M9 ND (< 1.0) NS [3.1] [2.2]

Shooter

N = 3

M4 9–24* 18** NS NS

NS = not sampled

*Short-term samples ranged from 7−30 minutes.

**One short-term exposure limit sample collected

Note: Values in parentheses indicate the minimum detectable concentration (MDC) for those 

samples; values in brackets are between the MDC and the minimum quantifiable concentration 

(MQC); more uncertainty is associated with these samples. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 7

nitric, phosphoric, and sulfuric acids were below their respective OELs (Appendix A, Table 

A3). Phosgene, ammonia, hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen cyanide were not detected on 

colorimetric detector tubes during two firing events.

Ventilation assessment 

Air velocities at the door opening of each of the shooting lanes 1–15 (those in use during 

firing events) ranged from 50 feet per minute to approximately 200 feet per minute. Air 

velocities in shooting lanes 16–28 (not used during the assessment) were higher, and more 

variable (range = 98 to 307 feet per minute). These measurements are higher than the NIOSH 

recommended range of 50 to 75 feet per minute for indoor firing ranges [NIOSH 2009]. With 

the ventilation system operating and using the fog-generating machine, airflow appeared to 

be turbulent and circular. The supply duct directed air downward towards the floor. The air 

then moved along the floor toward the shooting lane door opening, moved up the wall toward 

the ceiling, and then moved back toward the rear wall. Very little air was observed exiting the 

shooting lane door openings. We also observed, on occasion, fog exiting one doorway and 

re-entering an adjacent doorway.

Observations

We saw some range officers and instructors consuming beverages in the range. Some range 

officers and instructors did not wash their hands after leaving the range. We also saw some 

instructors and students wearing eyewear without protective side shields and some students 

wearing foam insert ear plugs incorrectly.

Interviews 

The 12 personnel we interviewed had been assigned to this range for an average of 20 

months (range: 2 weeks to 54 months). All reported one or more health symptoms (Table 3). 

Five instructors reported working for brief periods (typically 2–4 months on average) at other 

firing ranges. One of the five reported acute upper respiratory symptoms while at another 

firing range. Nearly all (11 of 12) reported that symptoms occurred within 1–2 hours after 

firing commenced. Most personnel said that symptoms typically improved within hours after 

the firing ended. One employee said that his symptoms lasted until the next day and recurred 

if he worked on the firing line that day.

When asked what conditions contributed to their symptoms, 9 of 12 reported symptoms were 

more likely to occur with a larger class size. Most had symptoms when at least 6–8 students 

were in the class. Other contributing factors mentioned were night-fire classes, northerly wind 

direction that resulted in weapon emissions being directed back into the range, and firing the 

M4 weapon. Five of 12 reported seeking medical care primarily for headache and respiratory 

symptoms either at the facility’s medical clinic or at an urgent care facility. Two instructors 

reported instances where students had previously complained about nausea during class.
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

We learned that on October 6, 2010, 15 students using the firing range were given a health 

symptom survey. We reviewed these surveys and summarized the results. When asked if they 

developed any symptoms during or within 30 minutes of ending training, 5 of 15 reported 

symptoms, 8 of 15 reported no symptoms, and 2 of 15 did not respond. Among those 

reporting symptoms, 4 of 5 reported itchy, watery eyes, and 2 of 5 reported sore/scratchy 

throat. Headache and “bad” metallic taste, the symptoms most commonly reported during 

our instructor interviews, were not listed choices on the student survey. All personnel who 

reported symptoms reported that their symptoms resolved in less than a day after training. 

Additionally, we analyzed the results of surveys administered to five range personnel by the 

public health office on September 23–24, 2010. All five personnel reported having symptoms 

either during or within 30 minutes of the end of training. Reported symptoms were similar 

to the results of our February 2012 interviews and included headache, cough, sore throat, 

and other respiratory symptoms. Symptoms were reported to occur most of the time during 

training by four of five instructors, and all instructors reported symptoms resolved within 

hours to one day after the class.

We discussed the range medical surveillance program and confirmed that annual audiograms 

were the only medical test administered to range personnel, on the basis of prior risk 

assessment and industrial hygiene sampling. We reviewed three occupational illness/injury 

reports that were completed by the flight surgeon in January 2009 and 2010. These three 

range personnel sought medical care for headache, nausea, vomiting, and cough that occurred 

during weapons firing at the range. A determination of work-related illness was made on 

the basis of temporal association of symptoms to weapons firing. No specific diagnosis or 

additional medical follow-up was documented on these forms.

We reviewed medical records for five range instructors who reported seeking medical care 

for symptoms they experienced during weapons firing at the range. These five instructors 

were seen by three different healthcare providers, making it difficult to associate symptoms 

with a specific job or shop. Chronic headaches (occurring periodically for weeks to months 

when working on the range) were reported by four personnel. All four personnel reported 

headaches were more common with larger class sizes and were associated with the use 

of frangible ammunition. Individuals used a variety of over the counter or prescription 

medication for their headaches. Shortness of breath/wheeze was reported by three instructors. 

Table 3. Self-reported health symptoms by range personnel, 

February 27–28, 2012

Health symptom Number of personnel 

reporting symptoms

Percent (%)

Headache 11/12 92

“Bad” metallic taste 5/12 42

Sore throat 4/12 33

Shortness of breath 3/12 25

Nasal/sinus irritation 3/12 25

Nausea 1/12 8

Note: Some personnel reported more than one symptom.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 9

Two instructors had further medical follow-up with chest x-rays, complete blood count, and 

metabolic profile, all of which were within normal limits. One instructor had spirometry 

(lung function) results that were within normal limits, and one was referred for pulmonary 

follow-up; test results were not available. One instructor was seen for seasonal allergies. All 

instructors returned to work without restriction of duties. 

Discussion 

During our assessment of the range, a large volume of monitoring data was collected using 

direct-reading instruments. Regardless of the weapon fired and the session, day, or amount 

of ammunition discharged, each instrument showed an increase in airborne contaminants 

when weapons were fired. These results suggest that the existing ventilation system in the 

firing range was not effective in controlling emissions from weapons during firing events, 

resulting in unnecessary exposures for employees working inside the range. Although these 

contaminants do not exceed any OELs, instructors and range officers consistently reported 

health symptoms that they believed were related to their exposure during qualification 

sessions. The results of our air sampling and interviews are consistent with past surveys at 

this and other similar locations [AFIOH 2008]. Furthermore, the material safety data sheet 

for the frangible ammunition acknowledges the potential for respiratory irritation. The 

concentrations of CO and the duration of exposure measured are below the levels typically 

associated with headache and nausea. Although no contaminants exceeded their OELs, a 

combination of these exposures could have contributed to reported health symptoms as 

previously reported in other settings [AFIOH 2008].

The ventilation system at the range was intended for heating, not air contaminant control. 

We observed that because the range is partially open to the outdoors, wind direction and 

wind speed created turbulent air movement in the range. This resulted in weapons emissions, 

on occasion, being directed back into the range. Data from the meteorological office 

indicated that the prevailing wind direction during our evaluation was mostly from the north 

(towards the shooters) at speeds ranging from 14 to 29 miles per hour. With substantial 

wind speed from the north (toward the shooting lane doors), the ventilation system may 

not be able to remove air contaminants. To account for this situation, an alternative exhaust 

ventilation system may be needed until a fully enclosed range is constructed. Additionally, 

the ventilation system needs to be designed to address the CO generated by the propane gas 

furnace and weapon firing. 

One of the objectives of this assessment was to characterize the aerosol generated during 

firing events. On the basis of the air sampling data and microscopic examination, the aerosol 

produced during firing events consists primarily of nano- and fume-sized copper particulate. 

Because this small copper particulate contains little mass but a high surface area it may be 

more reactive than larger copper particles. The toxicity of nano-sized copper has been studied 

in cell cultures and in animals. These studies concluded that, because of the small size and 

increased surface area of the nano-sized particles, inhalation exposure could result in cellular 

uptake, formation of reactive oxidative species and subsequent inflammation and irritation 
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

[Pettibone et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2012]. This may explain why health symptoms were 

reported, yet no mass-based OEL was exceeded.

In general, range officers were exposed to less copper than instructors and shooters. This may 

be because the range officer is located farther away from the firing activity when compared 

to the instructors and shooters. Also, copper concentrations were generally higher when more 

rounds were fired. When comparing weapon type and measured concentrations of copper, 

it appears that the M9 handgun produced less airborne copper particulate than the M4 rifle. 

This may be due to a smaller amount of copper in the 9 mm bullet and also the shorter barrel 

length resulting in less opportunity to mechanically abrade or heat the copper bullet and 

produce particulate as it travels through the barrel.

It should be noted that this evaluation may not be indicative of a worst-case scenario because 

the range was not fully occupied. Also, variability in airflow out of the range due to changing 

wind patterns makes drawing definitive conclusions difficult. Furthermore, our evaluation 

was conducted over a short period of time and different results may be found under different 

environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction).

Conclusions 

Despite measuring exposures that were below OELs, it is possible that reported symptoms 

are related to emissions generated during weapons firing. An exposure to very small copper 

particulate (nano-size to fume size), along with other respiratory irritants (acid gases and 

CO), could result in the health symptoms reported by the instructors and range officers.

During our site visit, range personnel mentioned that construction of an indoor range is 

scheduled for completion in approximately 3–4 years. Such a facility, if appropriately 

constructed and ventilated, should further reduce the exposures measured in this evaluation 

[USN 2002, NIOSH 2009]. However, until a new range is constructed, modifications to the 

ventilation system are recommended. 

Recommendations 

On the basis of our findings, we recommend the actions listed. We encourage the facility 

to create a firing range staff-management working group to discuss our recommendations 

and develop an action plan. This committee should work closely with the occupational 

health and safety group. The working group can set priorities and assess the feasibility of 

our recommendations.

Our recommendations are based on an approach known as the hierarchy of controls 

(Appendix C). This approach groups actions by their likely effectiveness in reducing or 

removing hazards. In most cases, the preferred approach is to eliminate hazardous materials 

or processes and install engineering controls to reduce exposure or shield employees. Until 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 11

such controls are in place, or if they are not effective or feasible, administrative measures and 

personal protective equipment may be needed. 

Elimination and Substitution

Eliminating or substituting hazardous processes or materials reduces hazards and protects 

employees more effectively than other approaches. Prevention through design, considering 

elimination or substitution when designing or developing a project, reduces the need for 

additional controls in the future. The plans for a new enclosed range would allow for a 

prevention-through-design approach. However, until such a facility is operational, the 

following should be considered:

Engineering Controls

Engineering controls reduce employees’ exposures by removing the hazard from the process 

or by placing a barrier between the hazard and the employee. Engineering controls protect 

employees effectively without placing primary responsibility of implementation on the 

employee. 

1. Consult with a ventilation engineer to determine changes to the ventilation system to 

ensure that air contaminants are directed out the shooting lane door openings. During 

warmer months, use the existing air handler in “fan only” mode to provide adequate 

airflow out of each door opening. If such a modification is not feasible, consider 

designing and installing an exhaust system capable of removing air contaminants and 

directing them outdoors.

2. If a modified ventilation system is installed, carry out follow-up exposure assessments 

with medical interviews and health record reviews to ensure a reduction in exposure 

and associated health effects.

3. Inspect the liquid propane gas furnace and adjust the burner air/gas mixture so that 

CO concentrations are as low as reasonably achievable. Install a CO monitor that will 

provide an audible alarm above a threshold concentration.

Administrative Controls

The term administrative control refers to employer-dictated work practices and policies 

to reduce or prevent hazardous exposures. Their effectiveness depends on employer 

commitment and employee acceptance. Regular monitoring and reinforcement are necessary 

to ensure that policies and procedures are followed consistently.

1. Increase the rotation of instructors and range officers between classroom/office activities 

and firing line activities. This will reduce their time inside the range during firing.

2. Instruct personnel not to eat or drink while inside the range.

3. Instruct personnel to wash their hands with soap and water immediately after leaving 

the range area.
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

4. Ask range personnel to notify the public health office when medical attention is sought 

from military or civilian personnel because of symptoms they feel may be related to 

exposures, so appropriate investigation, trend analysis, and follow-up can occur. 

5. Encourage range personnel to inform healthcare providers that they work at the 

range when seeking care for symptoms that may be related to occupational exposure. 

Healthcare providers should also report these encounters to the public health office for 

further evaluation in accordance with facility policy.

6. Require managers to participate in health and safety meetings when the range is 

periodically evaluated. Health and safety team members should be involved in any 

committees or working groups. 

Personal Protective Equipment

Personal protective equipment is the least effective means for controlling hazardous 

exposures. Proper use of personal protective equipment requires a comprehensive program 

and a high level of employee involvement and commitment. The right personal protective 

equipment must be chosen for each hazard. Supporting programs such as training, changeout schedules, and medical assessment may be needed. Personal protective equipment should 

not be the sole method for controlling hazardous exposures. Rather, personal protective 

equipment should be used until effective engineering and administrative controls are in place.

1. Provide all range officers, instructors, and students with safety glasses with side 

shields before they are allowed into the range. Provide attachable side shields for 

individuals who wear prescription glasses.

2. Instruct students on how to correctly insert foam earplugs. Information on proper 

technique for inserting foam earplugs can be found on the NIOSH website at http://

www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/content/earplug.html.

3. Use dual hearing protection (earplugs and earmuffs) when firing weapons, provided 

using these devices do not interfere with the ability to hear instructor and range officer 

commands [NIOSH 2009].
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 13

Appendix A: Tables

Table A1. Total, inhalable, and respirable copper particulate during qualification sessions in 2012

Date Weapon Phase 

and time

No. of 

shooters/

Rounds 

fired

Sample 

time

(min)

Sample

type

Concentration (μg/m3

)

Total Inhalable Respirable

2-27 M4 1 (pm) 9/846 142 Instr 4.2 4.4 3.5

142 Instr 18 19 15

145 RO 4.5 4.0 3.3

140 Area 9.3 9.5 7.9

2-28 M4 2 (am) 9/918 85 Instr 4.8 5.4 4.4

81 Instr [1.9]* [2.4] [1.9]

85 RO [1.4] [2.1] [1.7]

90 Area 5.6 4.3 3.7

2-28 M4/M9 NA (pm) 7/420 27 Instr ND (< 2.0)† NS NS

26 Instr ND (< 2.0) ND (< 2.0) ND (< 2.0)

28 RO ND (< 2.0) ND (< 2.0) ND (< 2.0)

35 Area ND (< 2.0) ND (< 2.0) ND (< 2.0)

2-29 M9 NA (pm) 8/800 43 Instr ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.5) ND (< 1.5)

40 Instr ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.5) ND (< 1.5)

45 RO ND (< 1.0) [3.1] [2.2]

48 Area ND (< 1.0) ND (< 1.5) ND (< 1.5)

3-1 M4 1 + 2 (am) 10/1960 131 Instr 26 15 12

138 Instr 4.0 [1.8] [1.5]

129 RO 3.2 4.5 3.8

127 Area 19 18 13

3-1 M4 1 (pm) 10/940 131 Instr 8.4 10 7.6

125 Instr 2.6 2.3 1.7

131 RO [1.2] [0.9] [0.9]

132 Area 7.2 ND (< 0.5) ND (< 0.5)

3-2 M4 2 (am) 10/1020 71 Instr 3.5 [1.5] [1.2]

70 Instr [1.6] [2.0] [1.6]

74 RO ND (< 1.0) [1.4] [1.0]

69 Area 5.0 [2.0] [1.9]

Instr = Instructor breathing zone air sample

min = Minutes

RO = Range officer breathing zone air sample

*Results shown in brackets indicate the value is between the MDC and the MQC; more uncertainty 

is associated with these sample results. Because of different sampling times the MDC for the total 

particulate samples ranged from 0.13–1.9 μg/m3

 and 0.19–1.9 μg/m3 for the IOM samples, and 

the MQC for the total particulate samples ranged from 1.5–2.3 μg/m3

 and 2.5–8 μg/m3 for the IOM 

samples.

†Values shown in parenthesis indicate the MDC for that sample.

Note: Other metals present on samples but in amounts not quantifiable include barium, zirconium, 

tellurium, manganese, iron, antimony, chromium, tin, vanadium, potassium, titanium, strontium, 

aluminum, calcium.
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

Table A2. Total copper particulate short-term samples in the breathing zone of instructors and 

shooters during weapon qualification sessions

Date Weapon Phase and 

time

No. of shooters/

Rounds fired

Sampling time

(min)

Sample

type

Concentration 

(μg/m3

)

2-28 M4 2 (am) 9/918 15 Instr 3.5*

7 Instr 3.9*

2-28 M4+M9 NA (pm) 7/420 15 Instr [2.8]*†

2-29 M9 NA (pm) 8/800 15 Instr ND (< 1.7)*

3-1 M4 1+2 (am) 10/1960 16 Instr 16*

15 Shooter 18*

27 Shooter 24‡

28 Shooter 8.6‡

3-1 M4 1 (pm) 10/940 15 Instr 16*

15 Instr 11*

3-2 M4 2 (am) 10/1020 30 Instr 3.5‡

25 Instr 4.7‡

*Short-term exposure limit sample

†MDC for this sample was 6.3 μg/m3

.

‡Short duration sample

Note: Task-based samples resulted in different MDCs and MQCs. Values in parentheses indicate 

the MDC for those samples; values in brackets are between the MDC and the MQC; more 

uncertainty is associated with these samples.

Note: Short-term exposure limit samples collected at a flow rate of 4 Lpm.

Note: Other metals present on samples but in amounts not quantifiable include; barium, zirconium, 

tellurium, manganese, iron, antimony, chromium, tin, vanadium, potassium, titanium, strontium, 

aluminum, calcium.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 15

Table A3. Acid gases collected on area samples during weapon qualification sessions

Date Weapon Phase 

And Time

No. of 

shooters/

Rounds 

fired

Sampling time

(min)

Concentration

(μg/m3

)

Comments

2-27 M4 1 (pm) 9/846 141 [170] Nitric acid

MQC = 350

2-28 M4 2 (am) 9/918 90 630 Nitric acid

90 [180] Phosphoric acid

MQC = 560

90 [67] Sulfuric acid

MQC = 560

2-28 M4+M9 NA (pm) 7/420 34 190 HCl

2-29 M9 NA (pm) 8/800 44 ND (< 200) No acids detected

3-1 M4 1+2 (am) 10/1960 128 [130] Nitric acid

MQC = 390

3-1 M4 1 (pm) 10/940 133 [140] Nitric acid

MQC = 380

3-2 M4 2 (pm) 10/1020 71 [170] Nitric acid

MQC = 700

HCl = Hydrochloric acid

Note: Task-based samples resulted in different MDCs and MQCs. Values in parentheses indicate 

the MDC for those samples; values in brackets are between the MDC and the MQC; more 

uncertainty is associated with these samples.
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

Appendix B: Figures

Figure B1. Transmission electron microscope image of particles collected in an instructor’s 

breathing zone during firing of M4 and M9 weapons. Spherical particulate consisting of 

copper/zinc in the 50–100 nm size range was observed on the MCE filter. 

Figure B2. Area particle number concentration within the size range of 20 nm to 1000 nm during the firing of an 

M4 using the P-Trak instrument. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 17

Figure B3. Area particle mass concentration (mg/m3) during firing of an M4 using the Dust-Trak 

instrument. 
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

Figure B4. Carbon monoxide concentration inside the range before, during, and after firing events.

Figure B5. Carbon monoxide concentration inside range before, during and after firing events. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 19

Appendix C: Occupational Exposure Limits and 

Health Effects

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 pre-existing 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 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 limit or ceiling values. Unless otherwise noted, the shortterm exposure limit 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 PELs (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 2010]. NIOSH also recommends risk management practices (e.g., 

engineering controls, safe work practices, employee education/training, personal 

protective equipment, and exposure and medical monitoring) to minimize the risk of 

exposure and adverse health effects.

● Other OELs commonly used and cited in the United States include the TLVs, which 

are recommended by ACGIH, a professional organization, and the WEELs, which are 

recommended by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, another professional 

organization. The TLVs and WEELs are developed by committee members of these 

associations from a review of the published, peer-reviewed literature. These OELs are 

not consensus standards. TLVs are considered voluntary exposure guidelines for use 
Page 20 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

by industrial hygienists and others trained in this discipline “to assist in the control of 

health hazards” [ACGIH 2013]. WEELs have been established for some chemicals 

“when no other legal or authoritative limits exist” [AIHA 2011].

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 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/en/gestis/limit_values/index.jsp, contains international 

limits for more than 1,500 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. NIOSH investigators also encourage use of the hierarchy of controls 

approach to eliminate or minimize workplace hazards. This includes, in order of preference, 

the use of (1) substitution or elimination of the hazardous agent, (2) engineering controls 

(e.g., local exhaust ventilation, process enclosure, dilution ventilation), (3) administrative 

controls (e.g., limiting time of exposure, employee training, work practice changes, medical 

surveillance), and (4) personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection, gloves, 

eye protection, hearing protection). Control banding, a qualitative risk assessment and risk 

management tool, is a complementary approach to protecting employee health. Control 

banding focuses on how broad categories of risk should be managed. Information on control 

banding is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ctrlbanding/. This approach can be 

applied in situations where OELs have not been established or can be used to supplement 

existing OELs.

Below we provide the OELs and surface contamination limits for some of the compounds 

we measured, as well as a discussion of the potential health effects from exposure to 

these compounds.

Copper Particulate (as fume or dust/mist) 

Copper is a widely used metal that is capable of forming numerous alloys. One of the potential 

uses of the metal is to form an alloy using zinc which can then be used to produce frangible 

ammunition. Based on the measurements from this evaluation, under weapon firing conditions 

of high heat, pressure, and mechanical abrasion, copper-based frangible ammunition can 

produce fume and nano-sized and larger particulate. The OSHA PEL and the NIOSH REL for 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 21

copper fume is 0.1 mg/m3, and 1 mg/m3 as a dust or mist [NIOSH 2010]. The ACGIH TLV is 

0.2 mg/m3

 for the fume and 1 mg/m3 for the dust or mist [ACGIH 2013].

Health effects from copper fume consist of upper respiratory irritation, metallic taste, nausea, 

metal fume fever, and possibly discoloration of the hair and skin [ACGIH 2007]. One study 

identified a condition similar to metal fume fever in workers exposed to metallic copper dust 

in concentrations on the order of 0.1 mg/m3

 [Gleason 1968]. However, extensive industrial 

experience related to copper welding and refining in Great Britain indicated that no ill effects 

result from exposures to fumes at concentrations up to 0.4 mg/m3

 [Luxon 1972].

Carbon Monoxide

CO is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas produced by incomplete burning of carboncontaining materials such as gasoline or propane fuel. The initial symptoms of CO poisoning 

may include headache, dizziness, drowsiness, or nausea. Symptoms may advance to 

vomiting, loss of consciousness, and collapse if prolonged or high exposures are encountered. 

If the exposure level is high, loss of consciousness may occur without other symptoms. Coma 

or death may occur if high exposures continue [ACGIH 2007]. The display of symptoms 

varies widely from individual to individual, and may occur sooner in susceptible individuals 

such as young or aged people, people with preexisting lung or heart disease, or those living at 

high altitudes.

The NIOSH REL for CO is 35 ppm for full-shift TWA exposure, with a ceiling limit of 200 

ppm that should never be exceeded [NIOSH 1992]. NIOSH has established the immediately 

dangerous to life or health value for CO as 1,200 ppm [NIOSH 2010]. An immediately 

dangerous to life or health value is defined as a concentration at which an immediate or 

delayed threat to life exists or that would interfere with an individual’s ability to escape 

unaided from a space.

The ACGIH recommends an 8-hour TWA TLV of 25 ppm [ACGIH 2013]. ACGIH also 

recommends that exposures never exceed five times the TLV (thus, never to exceed 125 ppm) 

[ACGIH 2013]. The OSHA PEL for CO is 50 ppm for an 8-hour TWA exposure [29 CFR 

1910.1000].
Page 22 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

References

ACGIH [2007]. Documentation of threshold limit values and biological exposure indices. 7th 

ed. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

ACGIH [2013]. 2013 TLVs® and BEIs®: threshold limit values for chemical substances and 

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

Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

AFIOH [2008]. Lead free frangible ammunition exposure at United States Air Force small 

arms firing ranges, 2005–2007. Air Force Institute for Operational Health, Risk Analysis 

Directorate: United State Air Force. IOH-RS-BR-TR-2008-0002. [http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487506]. Date accessed: July 2013. 

AIHA [2011]. AIHA 2011 Emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) & workplace 

environmental exposure levels (WEEL) handbook. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial 

Hygiene Association.

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

Office of the Federal Register.

Gleason RP [1968]. Exposure to copper dust. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 29(5):461–462.

Luxon SG [1972]. Letter to ACGIH from Industrial Hygiene Unit, H.M. Factory 

Inspectorate, London, England (August 1, 1972).

Mohlmann C, Aitken RJ, Kenny LC, Gorner P, Vuduc T, Zambelli G [2002]. Size-selective 

personal air sampling: a new approach using porous foams. Ann Occup Hyg 46(1):386–389.

NIOSH [1992]. Recommendations for occupational safety and health: compendium of policy 

documents and statements. By Dames BL. 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. 92-100.

NIOSH [2009]. NIOSH alert: preventing occupational exposures to lead and noise at indoor 

firing ranges. 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. 2009-136.

NIOSH [2010]. 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. 2010-168c. 

[http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/]. Date accessed: July 2013.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 23

NIOSH [2013]. NIOSH manual of analytical methods (NMAM®). 4th ed. Schlecht PC, 

O’Connor PF, eds. 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 94-113 (August 1994); 1st Supplement Publication 96-135, 

2nd Supplement Publication 98-119; 3rd Supplement 2003-154. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/

docs/2003-154/].

Pettibone J, Adamcakova-Dodd A, Thorne P, O’Shaugnessy P, Weydert J, Grassian V 

[2008]. Inflammatory response of mice following inhalation exposure to iron and copper 

nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology 2(4):189–204.

SKC Inc. [2013]. IOM sampler. [http://www.skcinc.com/instructions/1050.pdf]. Date 

accessed: July 2013.

USN [2002]. Indoor firing ranges industrial hygiene technical guide. U.S. Navy 

Environmental Health Center. Technical manual NEHC-TM6290.99-10. Portsmouth, VA: 

U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy. [http://www.med.navy.mil/sites/

nmcphc/Documents/policy-and-instruction/ih-indoor-firing-ranges-technical-guide.pdf]. Date 

accessed: July 2013.

Wang Z, Li N, Zhao J, White J, Qu P, Xing B [2012]. CuO nanoparticle interaction with 

human epithelial cells: cellular uptake, location, export, and genotoxicity. Chem Res in 

Toxicol 25(7):1512–1521.
Page 24 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187

Keywords: North American Industry Classification System 928110 (National Security), 

copper, frangible ammunition, nanoparticles, weapons emissions, ventilation, carbon 

monoxide
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2012-0091-3187 Page 25

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program investigates possible health hazards in the 

workplace under the authority of Section 20(a)(6) 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 control 

occupational health hazards and to prevent occupational illness and disease. Regulations 

guiding the Program can be found in Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 85; 

Requests for Health Hazard Evaluations (42 CFR 85).

Acknowledgments 

Analytical Support: Bureau Veritas North America

Desktop Publisher: Mary Winfree 

Editor: Ellen Galloway 

Health Communicator: Stefanie Brown 

Logistics: Donnie Booher and Karl Feldmann

Availability of Report

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

state and local health department and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Regional Office have also received a copy. This report is not copyrighted and may be 

freely reproduced.

This report is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2012-0091-3187.pdf.

Recommended citation for this report:

NIOSH [2013]. Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of instructor 

and range officer exposure to emissions from copper-based frangible 

ammunition at a military firing range. By Methner M, Gibbins J, Niemeier 

T. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA Report No. 2012-0091-

3187.
Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention

To receive NIOSH documents or more information about 

occupational safety and health topics, please contact NIOSH:

Telephone: 1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636)

TTY: 1–888–232–6348

CDC INFO: www.cdc.gov/info

or visit the NIOSH Web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to NIOSH 

eNews by visiting www.cdc.gov/niosh/eNews.