NIOSH HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION REPORT 

HETA #2004-0337-3051 

US Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

Natchitoches, Louisiana 

November 2007 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
PREFACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

potentially toxic effects in such concentrations as used or found. 

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

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

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

endorsement by NIOSH. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

This report was prepared by Bradley King, Angela Warren and Charles Mueller of HETAB, Division of

Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies (DSHEFS). Statistical analysis was provided by 

Charles Mueller, HETAB, DSHEFS. Analytical support was provided by Kathleen Gomez of the

Division of Applied Research and Technology (DART) and DataChem Laboratories, Salt Lake City, 

Utah. Desktop publishing was performed by Robin Smith. Editorial assistance was provided by Ellen 

Galloway.

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management representatives at USDA/FSIS and the 

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

viewed and printed from the following internet address: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe. Copies may be 

purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 

Virginia 22161. 

ii 

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.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NIOSH HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a request for technical 

assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

The request called for assistance in evaluating potential exposures to chloramines in a poultry processing 

facility in Natchitoches, Louisiana. NIOSH investigators conducted the investigation in September 2004. 

What NIOSH Did

 We tested the air for chlorine-related 

compounds called chloramines. 

 We asked inspectors to fill out 

questionnaires about eye and respiratory 

symptoms they had at work. 

What NIOSH Found

 Trichloramine levels were higher at the 

Maestro and Nu-Tech stations than in the

offices or processing areas. Levels of 

soluble chlorine compounds did not differ 

significantly between the Maestro and NuTech stations and processing areas, but were

lower in the offices. 

 Inspectors reported symptoms similar to 

those found in other poultry plants, most 

commonly itchy or runny nose, stuffy nose, 

cough, frequent sneezing, and burning and

stinging eyes.

 Continue to monitor reported health 

problems. 

 Collaborate with the facility’s operators to 

identify specific controls that may be 

implemented to prevent symptoms. 

What USDA/FSIS Inspectors Can Do 

 Tell health personnel at USDA if you have 

health problems that may be associated with 

the work environment. 

What USDA/FSIS Safety and Health 

Staff Can Do 

iii 

What To Do For More Information:

We encourage you to read the full report. If you 

would like a copy, either ask your health and 

safety representative to make you a copy or call 

1-513-841-4252 and ask for 

HETA Report #2004-0337-3051
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2004-0337-3051 

US Department of Agriculture, 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

Natchitoches, Louisiana 

November 2007 

Bradley King, MPH, CIH 

Angela Warren, MPH 

Charles Mueller, MS 

SUMMARY

On July 27, 2004, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a request

for technical assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (FSIS). The request called for assistance in evaluating potential exposures to chloramines in a 

poultry processing facility in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Inspectors from the USDA present on the 

evisceration line had repeatedly reported eye and upper respiratory irritation. FSIS industrial hygienists 

previously assessed chlorine exposures using traditional sampling and analytic methods, but typically

found very low levels of chlorine in the air, none of which exceeded occupational exposure criteria. It was 

believed that chloramine compounds, including mono-, di- and trichloramine, may have been causing the 

symptoms, but due to the lack of an available method to measure chloramines in the air, this had not been

investigated. 

On August 30-September 3, 2004, NIOSH investigators accompanied FSIS personnel during a site visit to

investigate symptoms and potential exposures. While the FSIS conducted sampling for chlorine using

traditional sampling methodologies, NIOSH investigators conducted personal breathing zone and area air 

sampling for chloramines using a draft NIOSH method. Interviews with USDA inspectors were 

conducted by NIOSH investigators over the course of three shifts to document work-related symptoms. 

Trichloramine levels were higher at the Maestro and Nu-Tech stations on the evisceration line (where

chlorinated water was used) than in the offices or processing areas (where little or no chlorinated water

was used). Levels of soluble chlorine compounds did not differ significantly between the Maestro and 

Nu-Tech stations and processing areas, but were lower in the offices. The respiratory symptoms reported

in this study are consistent with findings among other poultry processing workers. The small number of 

participants in this study may have limited our ability to find statistically significant associations between

work-related symptoms and trichloramine or soluble chlorine levels. 

Keywords: NAICS 311615 (poultry processing), turkeys, chlorine, chloramine, soluble chlorine, 

trichloramine, eye irritation, upper respiratory irritation, evisceration, engineering controls.

iv 
Table of Contents 

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

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

Highlights of the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation .............................................................................iii

Summary.....................................................................................................................................................iv

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

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

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

Industrial Hygiene ..................................................................................................................................2

Medical.....................................................................................................................................................2

Statistical Analysis ..................................................................................................................................3

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

Chloramines.............................................................................................................................................4

Soluble Chlorine..................................................................................................................................4

Trichloramine......................................................................................................................................4

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

Industrial Hygiene ..................................................................................................................................4

Medical.....................................................................................................................................................5

Discussion and Conclusions .......................................................................................................................5

Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................5

References....................................................................................................................................................5

Tables ...........................................................................................................................................................7

Appendix....................................................................................................................................................12
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0337-3051 Page 1 

INTRODUCTION

On July 27, 2004, the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

received a request for technical assistance from 

the Environmental Health, and Safety Branch 

(EHSB) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service 

(FSIS). The request concerned potential 

exposures of USDA inspectors to chlorinerelated compounds, such as chloramines at a 

poultry-processing facility in Natchitoches, 

Louisiana. Symptoms reported by the inspectors 

included intermittent eye and upper respiratory 

irritation. 

On August 30 – September 3, 2004, NIOSH 

investigators conducted a site visit to the facility 

in conjunction with a site visit by personnel 

from EHSB. While EHSB investigators 

collected area air samples for chlorine, NIOSH 

investigators collected personal breathing zone 

(PBZ) and area air samples for chloramines, and 

conducted interviews with the facility’s USDA 

inspectors to determine the extent of symptoms 

among these employees. 

BACKGROUND

The FSIS is responsible for ensuring that the 

nation's commercial supply of meat, poultry, and 

egg products is safe, wholesome, and correctly 

labeled and packaged. The EHSB within the 

FSIS is responsible for the planning, policy 

development, and management of the FSIS 

Safety and Health Program. EHSB health and 

safety staff respond to occupational health 

concerns from USDA/FSIS inspectors present 

on all poultry processing lines in U.S. facilities. 

The FSIS inspectors at Establishment P-5787 in 

Natchitoches, Louisiana, conduct inspections of 

poultry for visible contamination or disease 

conditions as the poultry passes through the 

evisceration line. The facility uses both Nu-Tech 

(Stork Gamco, Inc.) and Maestro (Meyn Poultry 

Processing, LLC) brands of evisceration line 

systems. The water washes on both systems use 

city-supplied, chloraminated water, described as 

having 1-4 parts per million monochloramines; 

the water was further chlorinated through the 

addition of calcium hypochlorite onsite. The 

facility used a Tomco hypochlorous acid 

pathogen management system (Tomco 

Equipment Co.), which added carbon dioxide 

(CO2) to drive down the pH of the chlorinated 

water used in the washes to that of hypochlorous 

acid (pH between 6.5-7), resulting in improved 

pathogen kill. 

The inspectors had reported intermittent eye and 

upper respiratory irritation for many years, 

sometimes severe enough to cause the inspectors 

to stop inspection activities and temporarily 

leave the evisceration line. The EHSB health 

and safety staff had conducted repeated site 

visits to this poultry plant over the past few 

years. Air sampling using traditional analytical 

methods for chlorine had not found levels in 

excess of the occupational exposure criteria, and 

typically levels had been very low. As a result of 

this ongoing irritation, the EHSB planned to 

visit the Natchitoches plant in September 2004 

to conduct air monitoring for chlorine. 

Assistance was requested from NIOSH for PBZ 

and area air sampling for chloramines to 

determine if they may have been a factor in the 

irritative symptoms experienced. 

In the past, chloramines, specifically 

trichloramine (NCl3), have been suspected as a 

primary cause of such symptoms. Trichloramine 

is produced from the reaction between 

chlorinated water and the nitrogenous material 

from the poultry.1

 There have been numerous 

reports of eye and upper respiratory tract 

irritation among poultry processing workers and 

USDA inspectors during processing steps 

involving the use of super-chlorinated water, and 

this is considered to be a widespread problem in 

the industry.1,2,3,4

 Reported symptoms generally 

are intermittent, vary in severity, and may be 

accompanied by reports of a "chlorine-like" 

odor. 

Investigations to identify the cause of irritation 

and determine appropriate remedial action have 

been conducted by the USDA, NIOSH, and 

others at several poultry processing plants. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0337-3051 Page 2 

Efforts to identify obvious contaminants such as 

chlorine or ammonia in air as the cause of 

irritation have generally been inconclusive. 

Using a draft sampling and analytical method 

based on work published by French researchers,5

NIOSH investigators have evaluated chloramine 

exposures in poultry processing plants and have 

found them to be associated with respiratory and 

mucous membrane symptoms experienced by 

the workers at the sites.4,6

METHODS

Industrial Hygiene 

PBZ air samples were collected on USDA 

inspectors, and area air samples were collected 

in areas of high (Maestro and Nu-Tech lines) 

and low (processing and office areas) 

chlorinated-water use for trichloramines and 

”soluble chlorine” (a combination of chlorine 

compounds such as monochloramine, 

dichloramine, hypochlorite, and hypochlorous 

acid). The samplers are a combination of an 

adsorption tube (analyzed for soluble chlorine) 

and a treated filter cassette (analyzed for 

trichloramine). Samplers were constructed from 

a tube containing silica gel coated with 

sulphamic acid and a 37-millimeter (mm) 

polystyrene cassette containing two quartz fiber 

filter pads in series pre-treated with sodium 

carbonate and diarsenic trioxide. NIOSH 

laboratorians used inductively coupled plasma 

atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) to 

analyze the sample tubes and the filters rather 

than an ion-selective electrode technique for the 

tube and ion chromatography for the filter, as 

described in the original French method.

Analysis involved a simple extraction followed 

by ICP-AES for both tube and filter. During 

sampling, air was pulled through the silica gelcontaining tube prior to passing through the 

filter-containing cassette. The soluble chlorine 

compounds were collected in the silica gelcontaining tube, while the trichloramine passed 

through the tube. The trichloramine was then 

trapped separately by the filters as it chemically 

reacted with them. The air samples were 

collected using calibrated SKC sampling pumps 

at a flow rate of one liter per minute (Lpm). The 

sampling pumps were pre- and post-calibrated 

using a primary standard. Samplers were 

shipped overnight to the NIOSH laboratory after 

daily sampling. Upon receipt, the samples were 

immediately desorbed and stored (refrigerated 

in the dark) until analysis. 

During analysis of the tubes, extraction was 

performed by placing the impregnated silica gel 

from the tube into a 20 milliliter (mL) vial. Ten 

mL of a 1 gram/liter (g/L) sulfamic acid solution 

was added to each vial and allowed to sit for 1 

hour with occasional agitation. The sample 

extracts were decanted into another vial and 

refrigerated until analysis. Samples were 

analyzed for chloride using an ICP-AES method 

at a wavelength of 134.724 nanometers (nm). An 

instrumental limit of detection (LOD) was 

determined to range between 1 and 4 

micrograms (μg)/sample, with a limit of 

quantitation (LOQ) that ranged between 4.7 and 

13 μg/sample, depending on the batch of 

samples processed per day. 

During analysis of the filters, each filter was 

removed from the cassette, placed in a 20 mL 

sample vial, and 10 mL of deionized water was 

added. The filters were rotated for 1 hour, then 

analyzed on the ICP-AES at a wavelength of 

134.724 nm. An instrumental LOD for 

trichloramine was determined to range between 

1 and 3 μg/sample, with a LOQ ranging between 

3.6 and 10 μg/sample, depending on the batch of 

samples processed per day. 

Additionally, NIOSH investigators collected a 

side-by-side sample at each of the sample 

locations. These were sent to a private contract 

laboratory to investigate the possibility of using 

ion chromatography rather than ICP as the 

method of analysis. Sampling results from the 

contract laboratory and the comparison with the 

NIOSH laboratory analysis can be found in the 

Appendix. 

Medical 

Because this was a technical assistance request 

from the USDA, only USDA line inspectors 

were asked to complete the questionnaires. Four 

shifts with six line inpsectors per shift were 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0337-3051 Page 3 

assessed. Some inspectors worked primarily in 

the office area, but went onto the line 

periodically. Two types of questionnaires were 

given to the inspectors. The first questionnaire, 

or baseline questionnaire, had questions about 

demographics (age, gender, job title, and years 

worked); personal history of allergies, eczema, 

asthma, and smoking; whether upper and lower 

respiratory symptoms occurred at work in the 

last 4 weeks (not related to having a cold); and 

whether those symptoms remained the same, 

occurred more or less frequently, or did not 

occur at all on days off work. The inspectors 

completed this questionnaire at home and 

returned it to the NIOSH investigators during 

their next work shift. An “end of the work shift” 

questionnaire was given to the inspector on days 

that PBZ samples were collected for that 

inspector. This questionnaire assessed acute 

upper and lower respiratory symptoms 

experienced during the shift. Symptoms related 

to having a cold were not included. Upper 

respiratory symptoms included burning or 

stinging eyes, watery eyes, stuffy or itchy nose, 

frequent sneezing, and sore throat. Lower 

respiratory symptoms included wheezing, 

shortness of breath, and chest tightness. Cough 

was also included on the questionnaire and could 

be classified as either an upper or lower 

respiratory symptom. 

Statistical Analysis 

SAS version 9.1.3 was used for statistical 

analysis. Medians were calculated for each air 

measure for those with and without each daily 

symptom. Exact Wilcoxon two-sample tests 

were used to compare air measures for those 

with and without each daily symptom. Only 

NIOSH laboratory results were used in these 

analyses. Paired t-tests were used to determine 

how closely the results of the NIOSH 

laboratory’s analytical method matched the 

results from the contract laboratory. Pearson’s 

correlation coefficient was used to determine the 

strength of the relationship between the NIOSH 

laboratory results and the contract laboratory 

results. Values for sampling results that were 

‘non-detectable’ were assigned the value of one 

half the LOD. A p-value of less than 0.05 was 

considered statistically significant. 

EVALUATION CRITERIA

As a guide to the evaluation of the hazards posed 

by workplace exposures, NIOSH field staff 

employ environmental evaluation criteria for the 

assessment of a number of chemical and 

physical agents. These criteria are intended to 

suggest levels of exposure to which most 

workers may be exposed up to 10 hours per day, 

40 hours per week for a working lifetime 

without experiencing adverse health effects. It 

is, however, important to note that not all 

workers will be protected from adverse health 

effects even though their exposures are 

maintained below these levels. A small 

percentage may experience adverse health 

effects because of individual susceptibility, a 

pre-existing medical condition, and/or a 

hypersensitivity (allergy). In addition, some 

hazardous substances may act in combination 

with other workplace exposures, the general 

environment, or with medications or personal 

habits of the worker to produce health effects 

even if the occupational exposures are controlled 

at the level set by the 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 increases the 

overall exposure. Finally, evaluation criteria 

may change over the years as new information 

on the toxic effects of an agent become 

available. 

The primary sources of environmental 

evaluation criteria for the workplace are: (1) 

NIOSH recommended exposure limits (RELs),7

(2) the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

permissible exposure limits (PELs),8

 and (3) the 

American Conference of Governmental 

Industrial Hygienists’ (ACGIH®) threshold 

limit values (TLVs®).9

 Employers are 

encouraged to follow the OSHA limits, the 

NIOSH RELs, the ACGIH TLVs, or whichever 

are the more protective criteria. 

OSHA requires an employer to furnish 

employees a place of employment that is free 

from recognized hazards that are causing or are 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0337-3051 Page 4 

likely to cause death or serious physical harm 

[Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 

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

employers should understand that not all 

hazardous chemicals have specific OSHA 

exposure limits such as PELs and short-term 

exposure limits (STELs). An employer is still 

required by OSHA to protect their employees 

from hazards, even in the absence of a specific 

OSHA PEL. 

A time-weighted average (TWA) exposure 

refers to the average airborne concentration of a 

substance during a normal 8- to 10-hour 

workday. Some substances have recommended 

STEL or ceiling values which are intended to 

supplement the TWA where there are 

recognized toxic effects from higher exposures 

over the short-term. 

Chloramines 

Chloramines are formed by the reaction between 

chlorine disinfectants and nitrogenous 

compounds such as ammonia, amines, or 

organic nitrogen-containing material. The 

species and concentrations of chloramine are 

influenced by the concentration of residual 

chlorine, ammonia (or other nitrogen sources), 

pH, and temperature.4 In general, the lower the 

pH and the greater the chlorine to ammonia 

ratio, the higher the likelihood of producing 

chloramines. 

Soluble Chlorine 

The term soluble chlorine is used in this report 

to designate a combination of chlorine 

compounds collected using the silica gelcontaining tube portion of the sampler used. 

These chlorine compounds include 

monochloramine, dichloramine, hypochlorous 

acid, and hypochlorite. No occupational 

exposure criteria have been developed for 

soluble chlorine or for any of its specific 

constituents. 

Trichloramine 

Trichloramine, or nitrogen trichloride (NCl3), is 

a brownish-yellow gas, has a pungent chlorine 

odor (sometimes described as rotting grapefruit 

or geraniums) and is a strong irritant that causes 

excessive tearing of the eyes.4,10 NCl3 has low 

solubility, aerates easily, and decomposes 

rapidly in sunlight. Eye and respiratory tract 

irritation appear to be the primary effects of 

exposure, although asthma has been documented 

in lifeguards and swimming instructors.11 The 

irritant characteristics of NCl3 seem to be similar 

to that of chlorine.12 Occupational exposure 

criteria for NCl3 have not been established. 

RESULTS

Industrial Hygiene 

NIOSH laboratory results from the sampling are 

summarized in Tables 1 through 3. Table 1 

shows the results of the area air samples 

collected near three evisceration line stations 

where chloraminated washwater is used (NuTech station #3, Nu-Tech station #4, Maestro 

cabinet, and Maestro station #4). Table 1 also 

shows the results of area air samples from the 

processing area, located away from the usage of 

the water. Table 2 shows the results of PBZ 

samples collected on inspectors at these stations 

on the evisceration line. Table 3 shows the 

results of PBZ samples collected on inspectors 

who worked the majority of their shifts in an 

office at the facility. 

 The mean of the trichloramine concentrations in 

the area air samples in the Maestro and Nu-Tech 

stations (near the super-chlorinated water 

sources) was 189.5 μg/m3

 compared to 4.8 

μg/m3

 in the processing area (away from the 

chlorinated water sources) (p<0.01). The means 

of the soluble chlorine concentrations in these 

two areas were not significantly different. 

The mean trichloramine concentrations of PBZ 

samples from inspectors on the evisceration line 

was 119.3 μg/m3 compared to 30.1 μg/m3 for

those in the office (p<0.01). Soluble chlorine 

levels were also higher on the line, with a mean 

of 67.2 μg/m3

 compared to 17.3 μg/m3 in the 

office (p<0.01). 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0337-3051 Page 5 

Medical 

Of 24 inspectors, 12 (50%) completed an initial 

questionnaire. The mean age of inspectors who 

completed this questionnaire was 46.4 years 

(range: 33-62 years). Their mean tenure was 

11.8 years (range: 1 month-26 years). Sixtyseven percent reported a history of hay fever, 

and 25% reported a history of asthma. There 

were no current smokers, but 44% reported 

being former smokers. Itchy or runny nose, 

stuffy nose, cough, and frequent sneezing were 

the most frequently reported work-related 

symptoms (Table 4). 

End of the work-shift symptom questionnaires 

were administered to 14 of 24 (58%) inspectors. 

Only four inspectors completed two separate end 

of the work-shift symptom questionnaires; the 

total number of questionnaires was 18. The most 

commonly reported symptoms reported on this 

questionnaire were itchy or stuffy nose, burning 

or stinging eyes, and cough. The median 

trichloramine and soluble chlorine levels were 

higher among workers reporting these three 

symptoms than those without symptoms (see 

Table 5). None of the differences were 

statistically significant. 

DISCUSSION AND 

CONCLUSIONS

Trichloramine levels were higher at the Maestro 

and Nu-Tech stations, where large quantities of 

chlorinated water was used, than in the offices or 

processing areas, where additional water was 

either not used or used very little. Decreasing the 

solution pH, as was done at the Maestro and NuTech stations, favors formation of trichloramine, 

and may explain the predominance of 

trichloramine over soluble chlorine compounds. 

Levels of soluble chlorine compounds did not 

differ significantly between the Maestro and NuTech stations and processing areas, but were 

lower in the offices. 

Itchy/runny nose, stuffy nose, cough and 

frequent sneezing were the most commonly 

reported work-related symptoms reported in the 

4 weeks prior to the survey. The respiratory 

symptoms reported in this study are consistent 

with findings among other poultry processing 

workers. The small number of participants in 

this study may have limited NIOSH 

investigators’ ability to find statistically 

significant associations between work-related 

symptoms and trichloramine or soluble chlorine 

levels. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. USDA/FSIS inspectors should continue to 

report symptoms they experience to 

occupational safety and health specialists at 

USDA to allow for continued investigation of 

the specific conditions that may be associated 

with times of increased symptoms. 

2. USDA staff should continue to collaborate 

with the facility’s operators to identify specific 

controls that may be implemented for the 

prevention of such symptoms. Solutions found 

to be helpful in other poultry processing plants 

where similar symptoms have occurred include 

improving ventilation throughout the 

evisceration areas, improving engineering 

controls for capturing airborne chlorine 

compounds around equipment such as sprayers, 

and improving flushing of used wash water. 

REFERENCES

 1. Sanderson W, Weber A, Echt A [1995]. 

Case reports: epidemic eye and upper respiratory 

irritation in poultry processing plants. Appl 

Occup Environ Hyg 10(1):43-49. 

 2. NIOSH [1994]. Hazard evaluation and 

technical assistance report: Tyson Foods, 

Monett, Missouri. 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, NIOSH HETA 

Report No. 93-230-2405. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0337-3051 Page 6 

 3. NIOSH [1989]. Hazard evaluation and 

technical assistance report: Columbia Farms 

Poultry Plant, Columbia, South Carolina. 

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, 

NIOSH HETA Report No. 87-110-1943. 

4. NIOSH [2003]. Hazard evaluation and 

technical assistance report: Bil-Mar Foods, Inc., 

Storm Lake, Iowa. 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, NIOSH HETA 

Report No. 2002-0257-2916. 

5. Hery M, Gerber JM, Hecht G, Subra I, 

Possoz C, Aubert S, Dieudonne M, Andre JC 

[1998]. Exposure to chloramines in a green salad 

processing plant. Ann Occup Hyg 42(7):437-

451. 

6. NIOSH [2000]. Hazard evaluation and 

technical assistance report: Wampler Foods, 

Inc., Hinton, Virginia. 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, NIOSH HETA 

Report No. 2000-0105-2794. 

 7. 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. 

 8. CFR [2003]. 29 CFR 1910.1000. Code of 

Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Office of the 

Federal Register. 

9 ACGIH® [2006]. 2006 TLVs® and BEIs®: 

threshold limit values for chemical substances 

and physical agents. Cincinnati, OH: American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists. 

 10 Barbee SJ, Thackara JW, Rinehart WE 

[1983]. Acute inhalation toxicology of nitrogen 

trichloride. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 44(2):145-146. 

 11. Thickett KM, McCoach JS, Gerber JM, 

Sadhra S, Burge PS [2002]. Occupational 

asthma caused by chloramines in indoor 

swimming-pool air. Eur Respir J 19:827-832. 

 12. Gagnaire F, Axim S, Bonnet P, Hecht G, 

Hery M [1994]. Comparison of the sensory 

irritation response in mice to chlorine and 

nitrogen trichloride. J Appl Toxicol 14:405-409. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0037-3051 Page 7 

TABLES

Table 1 

Area Air Sample Results for Trichloramine and Soluble Chlorine 

USDA/FSIS Inspection Stations 

NIOSH Lab Analysis 

HETA 2004-0337-3051 

August 31-September 2, 2004 

LOCATION DATE/SHIFT 

TRICHLORAMINE 

(μg/m3) 

SOLUBLE 

CHLORINE (μg/m3) 

MAESTRO 4 8/31 AM 243.6 49.4 

MAESTRO 4 8/31 PM 117.3 37.7 

MAESTRO 4 9/2 AM ND 19.6 

MAESTRO 

CABINET 9/2 AM 131.7 30.4 

NU-TECH 3 8/31 AM 368.6 82.6 

NU-TECH 3 8/31 PM 120.5 53.3 

NU-TECH 3 9/2 AM 230.4 69.6 

NU-TECH 4 8/31 AM 337.5 90.8 

NU-TECH 4 8/31 PM 121.9 no sample 

NU-TECH 4 9/2 AM 222.7 86.0 

PROCESSING 8/31 AM ND 93.4 

PROCESSING 8/31 PM 9.5 31.5 

PROCESSING 9/2 AM ND 19.8 

Maestro/Nu-Tech Mean 189.5 57.7 

Processing Mean 4.8* 48.2 

ND denotes non-detectable 

μg/m3

 denotes micrograms per cubic meter 

* LOD/2 was substituted for ND in order to calculate mean 

 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0037-3051 Page 8 

Table 2 

Personal Breathing Zone Air Sample Results for Trichloramine and Soluble Chlorine 

USDA/FSIS Inspectors on the Evisceration Line 

NIOSH Lab Analysis 

HETA 2004-0337-3051 

August 31-September 2, 2004 

DATE/SHIFT 

TRICHLORAMINE 

(μg/m3) 

SOLUBLE CHLORINE 

(μg/m3) 

08/31 AM 176.9 97.5 

08/31 AM 147.5 102.9 

08/31 AM 166.5 78.9 

08/31 AM 193.4 85.1 

08/31 AM 207.3 ND 

08/31 PM 71.3 64.7 

08/31 PM 74.5 46.4 

08/31 PM 57.7 25.6 

08/31 PM 73.2 66.0 

08/31 PM 64.8 46.7 

09/02 AM 118.3 77.1 

09/02 AM 96.9 89.8 

09/02 AM 126.4 64.0 

09/02 AM 96.3 98.2 

09/02 AM 119.1 61.9 

Mean: 119.3 67.2* 

ND denotes non-detectable 

μg/m3

 denotes micrograms per cubic meter 

*LOD/2 was substituted for ND in order to calculate mean 
Table 3 

Personal Breathing Zone Air Sample Results for Trichloramine and Soluble Chlorine 

USDA/FSIS Office Staff 

NIOSH Lab Analysis 

HETA 2004-0337-3051 

August 31-September 2, 2004 

DATE/SHIFT

TRICHLORAMINE 

(μg/m3) 

SOLUBLE CHLORINE 

(μg/m3) 

8/31 AM 55.0 21.8 

8/31 PM ND ND 

9/2 AM 21.4 20.7 

Mean: 30.1* 17.3* 

ND denotes non-detectable 

μg/m3

 denotes micrograms per cubic meter 

* LOD/2 was substituted for ND in order to calculate mean 

Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0037-3051 Page 9 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0037-3051 Page 10 

Table 4 

Self-Reported Work-Related Symptomsa

USDA/FSIS Inspectors 

HETA 2004-0337-3051 

August 31-September 2, 2004 

Symptom Number of Inspectors Reporting 

Symptom 

Itchy, runny nose 10/12 

Stuffy nose 10/12 

Cough 9/12 

Frequent sneezing 9/12 

Sore throat 8/12 

Burning or stinging eyes 8/12 

Watery eyes 7/11 

Chest tightness 6/12 

Shortness of breath 5/12 

Wheezing 4/12 

Defined as experienced at work during the last 4 weeks, 

but occurred less frequently or not at all on days away from work
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0037-3051 Page 11 

Table 5 

Symptoms Experienced During Workshifta

USDA/FSIS Inspectors on the Evisceration Line 

HETA 2004-0337-3051 

August 31-September 2, 2004 

TRICHLORAMINE (μg/m3) SOLUBLE CHLORINE (μg/m3) 

n Median p-valueb n Median p-valueb

Wheezing 

 yes 

 no 

0 

18 

N/A 

96.6 

N/A 0 

18 

N/A 

64.4 

N/A 

Cough 

 yes 

 no 

7 

11 

96.9 

73.2 

0.18 7 

11 

85.1 

61.9 

0.21 

Shortness of breath 

 yes 

 no 

0 

18 

N/A 

96.6 

N/A 0 

18 

N/A 

64.4 

N/A 

Chest tightness 

 yes 

 no 

1 

17 

74.5 

96.9 

0.89 1 

17 

46.4 

64.7 

0.67 

Itchy or stuffy nose 

 yes 

 no 

9 

9 

119.1 

71.3 

0.0503 9 

9 

77.1 

46.7 

0.55 

Frequent sneezing 

 yes 

 no 

3 

15 

147.5 

96.3 

0.36 3 

15 

85.1 

61.9 

0.13 

Watery eyes 

 yes 

 no 

1 

17 

71.3 

96.9 

0.67 1 

17 

64.7 

64.0 

1.0 

Burning, stinging eyes 

 yes 

 no 

9 

9 

118.3 

64.8 

0.07 9 

9 

77.1 

46.7 

0.26 

Sore throat 

 yes 

 no 

5 

13 

96.3 

96.9 

0.70 5 

13 

64.7 

64.0 

0.85 

a

defined as experienced during workshift on day of sampling, excluding cold and seasonal allergy symptoms b

Wilcoxon exact test 

μg/m3

 denotes micrograms per cubic meter 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0037-3051 Page 12 

APPENDIX

NIOSH investigators collected a duplicate sample (obtained side-by-side) for each of the samples that was 

to be analyzed by the NIOSH analytical laboratory. The duplicate samples were sent to a private contract 

laboratory to investigate the use of ion chromatography as a method of analysis for both tube and filter, 

rather than ICP as used by NIOSH chemists. For the tube portion of the samplers, the sorbent sections of 

each sample were desorbed in 10 mL of 1.0 g/L sulfamic acid solution. Then 0.10 mL of 0.5M potassium 

iodide was added to each sample. All samples were briefly shook and allowed to stand for several 

minutes. An aliquot of each sample was then analyzed by a Dionex 300 ion chromatograph for the 

chloride ion concentration. The chromatograph was equipped with a WISP 717P autosampler. A 

conversion factor of 1.48 was applied to the results to convert from chloride ion to soluble chlorine. The 

LOD for the soluble chlorine was 3 μg/sample, with an LOQ of 10 μg/sample. For the filter portion of the 

samplers, the front and back filter of each sample were desorbed separately in 10.0 ml of ASTM type II 

water. An aliquot of each desorbed sample was solid-phase extracted with an SPE cartridge. An aliquot of 

solid-phase extracted sample was then analyzed by a Dionex 300 ion chromatograph for the chloride ion 

concentration. A conversion factor of 1.13 was applied to the results to convert from chloride ion to 

trichloramine. The LOD for the trichloramine was 2 μg/sampler with an LOQ of 7 μg/sample. Results of 

the sampling using this method of analysis are summarized in Tables A1, A2, and A3. 

The mean of all soluble chlorine results from the NIOSH laboratory was 57.5 μg/m3

 compared to 49.0 

μg/m3

 from the contract laboratory (p=0.09). The results were positively correlated (r =.48). In contrast, 

the mean of all trichloramine results from the NIOSH laboratory was 122.2 μg/m3

 compared to 153.0 

μg/m3

 from the contract laboratory (p<0.01). These results were also positively correlated (r =.91). 

While it appears that the two analytical methods return similar results for soluble chlorine, further work 

may be needed to determine possible causes of differences observed in the trichloramine concentrations. 

These differences may simply be a result of an increased sensitivity of one analytical method over the 

other. As this was the first attempt to compare these two methods based on side-by-side sampling, further 

work may be needed to verify these results in future evaluations and to determine factors in differences 

observed. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0037-3051 Page 13 

Table A1 

Area Air Sample Results for Trichloramine and Soluble Chlorine 

USDA/FSIS Inspection Stations 

Contract Lab Analysis 

HETA 2004-0337-3051 

August 31-September 2, 2004 

LOCATION DATE/SHIFT 

TRICHLORAMINE 

(μg/m3) 

SOLUBLE 

CHLORINE (μg/m3) 

MAESTRO 4 8/31 AM 290.6 63.0 

MAESTRO 4 8/31 PM 159.1 52.3 

MAESTRO 4 9/2 AM 149.0 43.1 

MAESTRO 

CABINET 9/2 AM 158.5 36.6 

NU-TECH 3 8/31 AM 393.1 81.1 

NU-TECH 3 8/31 PM 153.0 65.3 

NU-TECH 3 9/2 AM 272.4 64.2 

NU-TECH 4 8/31 AM 397.0 94.3 

NU-TECH 4 8/31 PM 141.0 76.1 

NU-TECH 4 9/2 AM 237.2 83.0 

PROCESSING 8/31 AM ND 22.6 

PROCESSING 8/31 PM 21.5 38.6 

PROCESSING 9/2 AM 189.7 35.6 

ND denotes non-detectable 

μg/m3

 denotes micrograms per cubic meter 

 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0037-3051 Page 14 

Table A2 

Personal Breathing Zone Air Sample Results for Trichloramine and Soluble Chlorine 

USDA/FSIS Inspectors 

Contract Lab Analysis 

HETA 2004-0337-3051 

August 31-September 2, 2004 

DATE/SHIFT 

TRICHLORAMINE 

(μg/m3) 

SOLUBLE CHLORINE 

(μg/m3) 

08/31 AM 222.2 50.5 

08/31 AM 172.6 50.6 

08/31 AM 169.1 43.8 

08/31 AM 226.8 57.7 

08/31 AM 190.9 62.2 

08/31 PM 84.5 47.9 

08/31 PM 101.8 43.6 

08/31 PM 71.0 51.6 

08/31 PM 91.4 49.4 

08/31 PM 92.3 42.4 

09/02 AM 125.2 65.5 

09/02 AM 131.0 34.7 

09/02 AM 142.9 50.9 

09/02 AM 124.0 70.9 

09/02 AM 139.5 37.3 

μg/m3

 denotes micrograms per cubic meter 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2004-0037-3051 Page 15 

Table A3

Personal Breathing Zone Air Sample Results for Trichloramine and Soluble Chlorine 

USDA/FSIS Office Staff

Contract Lab Analysis

HETA 2004-0337-3051

August 31-September 2, 2004

DATE/SHIFT

TRICHLORAMINE 

(μg/m3)

SOLUBLE CHLORINE 

(μg/m3)

8/31 AM 57.4 16.7 

8/31 PM 16.7 9.4 

9/2 AM 19.2 ND 

ND denotes non-detectable

μg/m3 denotes micrograms per cubic meter 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

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

Delivering on the Nation's promise: 

Safety and Health at work for all people 

through research and prevention

To receive NIOSH documents or more 

information about occupational safety

and health topics 

contact NIOSH at: 

1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-46236) 

TTY: 1-888-232-6348 

E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov

or visit the NIOSH web site at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh

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