HETA 99-0252-2831

State of Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement

Des Moines, Iowa

Nancy Clark Burton, MPH, MS, CIH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PREFACE

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

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

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

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

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

to determine whether any substance normally found in the place of employment has potentially toxic effects

in such concentrations as used or found.

HETAB also provides, upon request, technical and consultative assistance to Federal, State, and local

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

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

by NIOSH.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

This report was prepared by Nancy Clark Burton of HETAB, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations

and Field Studies (DSHEFS). Field assistance was provided by Robert McCleery and Kevin Renton of

DSHEFS. Analytical support was provided by Ardith Grote, Division of Applied Research and Technology,

and Data Chem Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah. Desktop publishing was performed by David Butler.

Review and preparation for printing were performed by Penny Arthur.

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management representatives at State of Iowa Division

of Narcotic Enforcement and the OSHA Regional Office. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely

reproduced. Single copies of this report will be available for a period of three years from the date of this

report. To expedite your request, include a self-addressed mailing label along with your written request to:

NIOSH Publications Office

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

800-356-4674

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

5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Information regarding the NTIS stock number may be

obtained from the NIOSH Publications Office at the Cincinnati address.

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

posted by the employer in a prominent place accessible to the employees for a

period of 30 calendar days.
iii

Highlights of the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation

Evaluation of Drug Evidence Holding Room

In July 1999, NIOSH representatives conducted a health hazard evaluation (HHE) of the narcotics evidence

holding room at the State Police Division of Narcotics Enforcement facility in Des Moines, Iowa. The

requesters were concerned over employees’ exposures to materials stored in the evidence room. There were

three reported cancer cases among workers. Several people reported headaches while at the workplace.

What NIOSH Did

# We gathered air samples for volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), ethyl ether, acids, and

cocaine. We collected wipe samples for cocaine.

We tested for fungal growth on two samples of

dust from a shelf.

# We measured temperature and relative humidity

levels. 

# We looked at the ventilation systems and used

smoke tubes to see how the air moved.

What NIOSH Found

# We found low levels of VOCs, some of which

could have come from the stored chemicals. Low

levels of hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid,

and sulfuric acid were found.

# Cocaine, ethyl ether, hydrobromic acid, nitric

acid, and phosphoric acid were not detected.

# Common fungi (Eurotium, Aspergillus and

Cladosporium genera) were detected at low

levels in dust samples.

# There was no source of outside air for the

evidence room and employee breakroom. 

# There was no visible air movement in the

evidence room except near the exhaust fan. 

# One of the ventilation systems for the front office

area was not working.

# There were open areas between the ceiling of the

evidence room and the front office ceiling

plenum. 

# The three cancer cases were of two different

types, and their timing did not suggest an

occupational origin.

What the Narcotic Enforcement

Managers Can Do

# Provide a new HVAC unit for the evidence room

with a source of outside air.

# Add a mechanical ventilation system to the

breakroom area.

# Develop a preventive maintenance program for

the ventilation systems.

# Fix the front office area HVAC unit.

# Seal the walls between the evidence room and

ceiling space.

# Clean and organize the room to remove trip

hazards. 

# Store chemicals in chemical storage cabinets. 

What the Narcotic Enforcement Employees

Can Do

# Report symptoms to supervisors.

# Seek medical attention if needed.

# Clean and keep evidence room walkways clear of

boxes.

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

CDC

AND PREVENTION

What To Do For More Information:

We encourage you to read the full report. If you

would like a copy, either ask your health and

safety representative to make you a copy or call

1-513/841-4252 and ask for 

HETA Report # 99-0252-2831
iv

HHE Supplement

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 99-0252-2831

State of Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement

Des Moines, Iowa

February 2001

Nancy Clark Burton, MPH, MS, CIH

SUMMARY

In June 1999, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a confidential

employee request for a health hazard evaluation (HHE) of the narcotics evidence holding room at the State

Police Division of Narcotics Enforcement facility in Des Moines, Iowa. The HHE requesters expressed

concern over employees’ exposures to materials collected from clandestine methamphetamine laboratories

and other drug cases that were stored at the facility. They also reported that there were three recently

diagnosed cancer cases among narcotics enforcement staff, and several employees had severe headaches

which they associated with the workplace. In response, NIOSH personnel conducted a site visit at the office

on July 26 and 27, 1999. Area air samples were collected for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ethyl

ether, inorganic acids, and cocaine in the evidence room and surrounding areas. Wipe samples for cocaine

were collected in the evidence room. Two samples of debris were gathered from the shelves and examined

for fungal contamination. 

The building consists of office space in the front and a back area which contained the evidence room,

breakroom, and storage. There were other businesses on both sides of the state police area, separated by fire

walls. Low levels of VOCs, including toluene and ethylene glycol, were detected in the evidence room,

breakroom area, and the adjacent office. Cocaine was not found in the air or wipe samples. Ethyl ether was

not detected in the evidence room or breakroom area. Low levels of hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid,

and sulfuric acid (up to 0.11 parts per million [ppm]) were detected in the evidence room, breakroom area,

and the adjacent office. Fungi (Eurotium, Aspergillus, and Cladosporium genera) were detected at low levels

on the shelf material collected from the evidence room. There is no provision of outside air to the evidence

room or breakroom. Testing indicated no visible air movement in the evidence room except next to the

exhaust fan. One of the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) units serving the front office area

was not working at the time of the site visit. There was shared air between the evidence room and the open

ceiling plenum, which serves the front office area. A strong organic odor was noted in the evidence room

and office areas. The occurrence of a few cases of different types of cancer over a period of years was not

suggestive of an occupational origin. 

The monitoring data collected during this evaluation indicated that there is a need to improve general

ventilation within the building. Recommendations for improving and repairing the general ventilation

systems, cleanup of the evidence room, and the addition of chemical storage cabinets are included in

the report. The three cancer cases were of two different types, and their timing did not suggest an

occupational origin. 

Keywords: SIC 9221 (Police Protection), evidence room, clandestine laboratories, narcotics, cocaine,

methamphetamine, inorganic acids, volatile organic compounds, ventilation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

HHE Supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

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

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

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

Methods ........................................................................... 1

Qualitative Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ............................. 1

Ethyl Ether . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Cocaine Air Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Cocaine Wipe Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Inorganic Acids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Indoor Environmental Quality Measurements .......................................... 2

Microbial Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

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

Occupational Exposure to Narcotics and Other Drugs During Law Enforcement Activities ....... 3

Chemical Hazards From Drug Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Ethyl Ether . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Sulfuric Acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Hydrochloric Acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Indoor Environmental Quality ....................................................... 5

Cancer Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Results/Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

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

Ethyl Ether . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Cocaine Area Air Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Cocaine Wipe Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Inorganic Acids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Bulk Dust Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

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

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252 Page 1

INTRODUCTION

In June 1999, the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

received a confidential employee request from

employees of the State Police Division of

Narcotics Enforcement in Des Moines, Iowa, for

a health hazard evaluation (HHE) of the narcotics

evidence holding room. The HHE requesters

expressed concern over employees’ exposures to

degrading samples of chemicals, drugs, and plant

materials collected from clandestine

methamphetamine laboratories and other narcotic

cases. They also reported that there were three

recently diagnosed cancer cases among narcotics

enforcement staff, and several employees had

severe headaches while at the workplace. In

response, NIOSH personnel conducted a site visit

to the office on July 26 and 27, 1999.

BACKGROUND

The evidence storage room is located in a singlestory office building with other businesses on

either side. There is an office area with open and

individual offices in the front half of the building.

The back half of the building is open warehouse

space. It contains the evidence room, the

employee break area, and storage. Two evidence

room clerks work in the evidence room as needed,

which can be from eight to 40 hours a week.

Occasionally, detectives also work in the evidence

room. There are eight administrative employees

who also work in the building, and field detectives

frequently visit the office.

The front office area is served by two package

heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC)

units on the roof. One of these HVAC units was

not operating at the time of the site visit.

Conditioned air is supplied to the office area

through unlined ducts, and some of the air is

recirculated from an open ceiling plenum. There

are fire walls between the businesses. The walls

of the evidence room do not go to the ceiling and

there are areas that are open to the ceiling plenum.

There is no provision of supply air to the

warehouse area that includes the evidence room

and employee break area. The evidence room has

a ceiling exhaust fan that is controlled by a toggle

switch outside the room. The employees keep the

evidence room door open when working in the

room. One of the evidence room clerks

occasionally wears TyvekTM overalls and rubber

gloves to clean the evidence room with a US

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

approved biocide.

At the time of the site visit, the evidence room

contained drug evidence from 1983 to date.

Evidence can be destroyed by court order after all

of the associated legal cases are completed. Some

of the more unusual drugs are kept for training

purposes. The agency has a contract with the

local hospital to destroy the evidence using

incineration. In 1998, there were approximately

370 clandestine laboratory investigations

conducted by narcotics agents. There are eight

individuals on the laboratory team. Personal

protective equipment (PPE) used in the field to

collect samples include Level A TychemTM suits,

self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)

respirators, rubber gloves, and shoe covers.

During each investigation, the investigators

usually collect eight to ten analytical samples in

plastic bottles, glass vials, or plastic bags. A

hazardous waste disposal company has a contract

to remove any remaining substances at the

investigation site. After the analyses are

completed by the police analytical laboratory,

samples are returned to the evidence room for

storage. Marijuana is also stored in the evidence

room.

METHODS

Qualitative Analysis of

Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOCs)

To look for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

that might be associated with clandestine drug

laboratories, eight area air samples were collected

in the evidence room, break room, and office area

on thermal desorption tubes containing three beds

of sorbent material. The samples were analyzed

for VOCs according to NIOSH Method 2549

using a Tekmar thermal desorber interfaced

directly to a gas chromatograph and a mass

selective detector (TD–GC–MSD).1
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252

Ethyl Ether

Five area air samples were collected in the

evidence room, break room, and office area for

ethyl ether, which is used in illicit phencyclidine

(PCP) laboratories. The area air samples were

collected at a flowrate of 0.05 liters per minute

(L/min) using charcoal tubes and analyzed for

ethyl ether according to NIOSH Method 1310

using gas chromatography with a flame ionization

detector (GC/FID).2

 For this data set, the

analytical limit of detection (LOD) was 0.0005

milligrams (mg), which is equivalent to

a minimum detectable concentration (MDC) of

0.007 parts per million (ppm) assuming a sample

volume of 22.2 liters. The limit of quantitation

(LOQ) was 0.002 mg, which is equivalent to a

minimum quantifiable concentration (MQC) of

0.03 ppm, assuming a sample volume of 22.2

liters.

Cocaine Air Samples

Five area air samples for cocaine dust were

collected at a flowrate of 2 L/min using 2

micrometer (μm) polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)

filters. The filters were desorbed in methanol and

analyzed for cocaine using GC/FID. Liquid

standards were used by the contract analytical

laboratory for comparison. The analytical LOD

was 0.02 mg, which is equivalent to a MDC of

0.02 ppm, assuming a sample volume of 870

liters. The LOQ was 0.06 mg, which is equivalent

to a MQC of 0.07 ppm, assuming a sample

volume of 870 liters.

Cocaine Wipe Samples

A new analytical method was attempted to look at

possible surface contamination. Seven wipe

samples were collected from the shelves and

computer work area in the evidence room. Mixed

cellulose ester filters (0.8 μm 37 millimeter [mm])

were moistened with methanol and a 10-

centimeter by 10-centimeter area was wiped. The

filters were transferred to vials in the field.

Unexpectedly, at the analytical laboratory, the

filters totally dissolved in methanol. The

solutions were refrigerated for three days to

precipitate out insoluble material. The

supernatants were decanted and one-milliliter

aliquots from each sample were placed in separate

vials. These aliquots were dried, and the resultant

solids were dissolved in methylene chloride.

These solutions were analyzed for cocaine using

GC/FID. Liquid standards were spiked onto

filters for comparison. The analytical LOD and

LOQ were 0.05 mg/sample and 0.2 mg/sample,

respectively. The method had a low recovery

level (20%) for the spiked filters, most likely due

to the fact that the filters were soluble in

methanol.

Inorganic Acids

Five area air samples for acids were collected in

the evidence room, break room, and office area at

a flowrate of 0.05 L/min using silica gel tubes.

The samples were analyzed for hydrofluoric acid,

hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, nitric acid,

phosphoric acid, and sulfuric acid according to

NIOSH Method 7903 using ion chromatography.3

The analytical MDCs for hydrofluoric acid,

hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, nitric acid,

phosphoric acid, and sulfuric acid were between

0.004 and 0.09 milligrams per cubic meter

(mg/m3

), assuming a sample volume of 22.8 liters.

The MQCs were 0.1 to 0.31 mg/m3

, assuming a

sample volume of 22.8 liters. Sample

concentrations were field-blank corrected.

Indoor Environmental

Quality Measurements

Carbon dioxide (CO2), temperature, and relative

humidity (RH) measurements were collected

using a Q-TrackTM Model 8550 IAQ Monitor.

This portable, battery-operated instrument

monitors CO2 through non-dispersive infrared

absorption with a range of 0-5000 ppm with a

sensitivity of + 50 ppm. It also directly measures

dry bulb temperature (range: 32°F to 122°F) and

RH (range: 5% to 95%). Instrument calibration

was done prior to use. The CO2 sensor

malfunctioned during the evaluation, so data was

only collected for temperature and RH.

Microbial Assessment

Two bulk dust samples were collected from the

shelves of the evidence room. The dust samples

were submitted for culturable fungal analysis and
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252 Page 3

were processed, extracted, and inoculated on 2%

malt extract agar (MEA) and dichloran glycerol

(DG-18) media. The plates were incubated at

25°C, and the taxa and rank of the organisms was

identified.

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),4

 (2) the

American Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists (ACGIH®) Threshold Limit Values

(TLVs®),5

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

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs).6

Employers are encouraged to follow the OSHA

limits, the NIOSH RELs, the ACGIH TLVs, or

whichever are the more protective criterion.

OSHA requires an employer to furnish employees

a place of employment that is free from

recognized hazards that are causing or are likely

to cause death or serious physical harm

[Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,

Public Law 95–596, sec. 5.(a)(1)]. Thus,

employers should understand that not all

hazardous chemicals have specific OSHA

exposure limits such as PELs and short-term

exposure limits (STELs). An employer is still

required by OSHA to protect their employees

from hazards, even in the absence of a specific

OSHA PEL.

A time-weighted average (TWA) exposure refers

to the average airborne concentration of a

substance during a normal 8- to 10-hour workday.

Some substances have recommended STEL or

ceiling values which are intended to supplement

the TWA where there are recognized toxic effects

from higher exposures over the short-term.

Occupational Exposure to

Narcotics and Other Drugs

During Law Enforcement

Activities

There have been some studies of occupational

exposures to drugs and their components during

law enforcement activities. The identified routes

of exposure for workers were inhalation and skin

absorption from collecting, analyzing and

packaging/repackaging the drug samples. There

are no occupational exposure limits for the drugs

that law enforcement officers and evidence room

clerks may encounter. 

A retrospective cohort study was undertaken of

law enforcement chemists (journal subscribers)

and clandestine laboratory investigation team

members in Washington State.7

 The study had a

low response rate (46/270 chemists and 13/23

team investigators). Symptoms reported were

headache, and skin, respiratory, and mucous

membrane irritation which occurred usually

during chemical analysis. 

NIOSH conducted HHEs in the mid-1980s to

evaluate potential occupational health hazards

associated with the seizure of clandestine drug

laboratories by the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA).8

 Five of eight forensic

chemists reported headaches when working on
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252

clandestine laboratory evaluations. Also four

narcotics agents reported headaches when

investigating clandestine laboratories in the field.

The NIOSH researchers recommended that PPE

including chemical protective suits and SCBA be

worn for all situations. Training on the hazards

associated with the wide range of chemicals that

can be found in clandestine laboratories was also

stressed. An evaluation of the Hazardous

Substances Emergency Events Surveillance

(HSEES) system maintained by the Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)

found that from 1996-1999, 112 reported events

were associated with methamphetamine (0.5% of

total reported).9

 Fifty-three percent of the events

resulted in “injuries” to the first responders.

Injuries reported included respiratory irritation,

eye irritation, nausea and vomiting,

dizziness/central nervous system symptoms,

shortness of breath, and chemical burns. Police

officers were most likely to report these problems.

Recommendations included the increased use of

PPE, training on the hazards associated with

methamphetamine laboratories, and establishing

decontamination processes.

One study evaluated exposures to cocaine from

handling crime scene evidence.10 The

investigators were responsible for inspecting,

fingerprinting, and analyzing the cocaine samples,

and reportedly wore latex gloves during this work.

Urine samples were collected and analyzed for

cocaine and benzoylecgonine (a metabolite). Two

investigators had detectable levels of cocaine and

benzoylecgonine in their urine after analyzing

evidence. These two compounds were not

detected in urine samples collected at the

beginning of the workday. Laboratory managers,

who were used as controls, had no detectable

urine concentrations of the two chemicals. 

In one instance, three individuals died as a result

of phosphine gas exposure while making

methamphetamine in a motel room.11 Officers

entered the room without PPE and determined the

individuals were dead. Follow-up assistance from

a clandestine laboratory task force and a

hazardous materials team found levels of

phosphine gas greater than 0.3 ppm in the area of

the apparatus. This level exceeded the current

NIOSH, OSHA, and ACGIH full-shift TWA

exposure limits of 0.3 ppm, but not the NIOSH

STEL of 1 ppm. 

Another investigation looked at exposures to PCP

while handling investigative samples.12 The

investigators found that one police department

chemist had detectable concentrations of PCP in

his/her blood six months after the last known

exposure, and another chemist had detectable

concentrations of PCP in his/her blood despite the

use of a laboratory hood for sample processing.

The issue of recreational usage was not addressed.

Chemical Hazards From

Drug Storage13

There are no published articles that specifically

address the storage of drugs and chemicals in

evidence rooms. Clandestine laboratories use

several different methods to manufacture drugs,

therefore, it is difficult to predict the chemical

hazards that will be encountered during the initial

investigation. Most of the small clandestine

laboratories in this part of the country

manufacture methamphetamine using the sodium

ammonia or "Nazi" method. The "Nazi" formula

of methamphetamine production utilizes

ephedrine/pseudoephedrine reduction, as well as

sodium or lithium metal and other dangerous

chemicals such as anhydrous ammonia,

hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, sodium

hydroxide, antifreeze (ethylene glycol), or drain

cleaner (sodium hydroxide) in the process.

Sodium metal is a fire hazard and will ignite upon

contact with water. This production technique has

spread throughout the Midwest since anhydrous

ammonia is readily available because of its

widespread use as an agricultural fertilizer.

Another common production method uses red

phosphorus instead of anhydrous ammonia. A

more detailed list of the potential chemicals that

can be used in methamphetamine laboratories and

stored in the evidence room is provided in

Appendix A.

For cocaine laboratories, potential chemical

hazards include allyl benzene, calcium oxide,

ethanol, hydrochloric acid, petroleum ether, and

sodium metal. For PCP, potential chemical

hazards include benzene, ethanol, piperidine,

cyclohexanone, ethyl ether, sodium bisulfite,

hydrochloric acid, iodine, sodium cyanide,

bromobenzene, and magnesium metal.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252 Page 5

Ethyl Ether

Ethyl ether is used in illicit PCP manufacturing.

It is also used as an anesthetic and as a solvent in

the production of dyes, plastics, and rayon. It can

cause eye and respiratory irritation. At high

concentrations, it can cause central nervous

depression, which can include headache, nausea,

vomiting, drowsiness, dizziness, and narcosis.

Ethyl ether is considered a mild skin irritant. The

OSHA PEL and ACGIH TLV for ethyl ether are

both 400 ppm as an 8-hr TWA over the

workshift.5,6 ACGIH has also established a STEL

of 500 ppm.5

 NIOSH does not have an

occupational exposure limit for ethyl ether.4

Sulfuric Acid

Sulfuric acid can be used in clandestine

methamphetamine laboratories. It is a primary

irritant and is corrosive in high concentrations.14,15

It will cause chemical burns when in contact with

the skin and mucous membranes and is

particularly hazardous to the eye. Ingestion of

sulfuric acid will result in severe throat and

stomach destruction.14 The NIOSH REL, OSHA

PEL, and ACGIH TLV for sulfuric acid are all 1

mg/m3

 as a TWA over the workshift.4,5,6 ACGIH

has published a notice of intended change for

sulfuric acid of 0.1 mg/m3

.

5

Hydrochloric Acid

Hydrochloric acid can be used in the production

of methamphetamine, cocaine, and PCP. It is an

irritant of the eyes, mucous membranes, and skin.

NIOSH, OSHA, and ACGIH have all established

a 5 ppm ceiling limit for exposure to hydrochloric

acid.4,5,6

Indoor Environmental

Quality

Scientists investigating indoor environmental

problems believe that there are multiple factors

contributing to building-related occupant

complaints.16,17 Among these factors are

imprecisely defined characteristics of HVAC

systems, cumulative effects of exposure to low

concentrations of multiple chemical pollutants,

odors, elevated concentrations of particulate

matter, microbiological contamination, and

physical factors such as thermal comfort, lighting,

and noise.16,17,18 

With few exceptions, pollutant concentrations

observed in the indoor work environment fall well

below the NIOSH, OSHA, and ACGIH published

occupational standards or recommended exposure

limits. The American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers

(ASHRAE) has published recommended building

ventilation and thermal comfort guidelines.19,20

The ACGIH has also developed a manual of

guidelines for approaching investigations of

building–related symptoms that might be caused

by airborne living organisms or their effluents.21

Measuring ventilation and comfort indicators such

as CO2, temperature, and RH is useful in the early

stages of an investigation in providing information

relative to the proper functioning and control of

HVAC systems.

ASHRAE's most recently published ventilation

standard, ASHRAE 62-1999, Ventilation for

Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, recommends

outdoor air supply rates of 20 cubic feet per

minute per person (cfm/person) for office spaces,

and 15 cfm/person for reception areas,

classrooms, libraries, auditoriums, and corridors.20

The American National Standards Institute

(ANSI)/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 specifies

conditions in which 80% or more of the occupants

would be expected to find the environment

thermally acceptable.19 Assuming slow air

movement and 50% RH, the operative

temperatures recommended by ASHRAE range

from 68-74o

F in the winter, and from 73-79oF in

the summer. The difference between the two is

largely due to seasonal clothing selection.

ASHRAE also recommends that RH be

maintained between 30 and 60% RH.19 Excessive

humidities can support the growth of

microorganisms, some of which may be

pathogenic or allergenic.

Cancer Clusters

Cancer is a group of different diseases that have

the same feature, the uncontrolled growth and

spread of abnormal cells. Each different type of

cancer may have its own set of causes. Many
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252

factors play a role in the development of cancer.

The importance of these factors is different for

different types of cancer. Most cancers are caused

by a combination of factors that interact in ways

that are not fully understood. Some of the factors

include: (a) personal characteristics such as age,

sex, and race, (b) family history of cancer, (c)

diet, (d) personal habits such as cigarette smoking

and alcohol consumption, (e) the presence of

certain medical conditions, (f) exposure to cancercausing agents in the environment, and (g)

exposure to cancer-causing agents in the

workplace. In many cases, these factors may act

together or in sequence to cause cancer. Although

some causes of some types of cancer are known,

we don’t know everything about the causes of

cancer. This can be frustrating to researchers and

to people whose lives have been affected by

cancer.

Cancers often appear to occur in clusters, which

scientists define as an unusual concentration of

cancer cases in a defined area or time. A cluster

also occurs when the cancers are found among

workers of a different age or sex group than is

usual. The cases of cancer may have a common

cause or may be the coincidental occurrence of

unrelated causes. The number of cases may seem

high, particularly among the small group of people

who have something in common with the cases,

such as working in the same building. In many

workplaces the number of cases is small. This

makes it difficult to detect whether the cases have

a common cause, especially when there are no

apparent cancer-causing exposures.

When cancer in a workplace is described, it is

important to learn whether the reported location of

a cancer represent the primary site or a metastasis

(spread of the primary cancer into other organs).

For occupational cancer investigations, the

primary site is used for looking further into

specific types of cancer. To assess whether the

cancers among employees could be related to

occupational exposures, the number of cancer

cases, the types of cancer, the likelihood of

exposure to potential cancer-causing agents, and

the timing of the diagnosis of cancer in relation to

the exposure should be considered.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOCs)

All of the air samples contained low levels of

similar compounds. The major identified

compounds include toluene, siloxanes, heptanes,

perchloroethylene, a mixture of C9-C12 aliphatic

hydrocarbons and alkyl benzenes,

trichloroethylene, methyl propanoic acid esters,

ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, butanol, butyl

cellosolve, limonene, methanol, 1,1,1,-

trichloroethane, and isopropanol. Some of these

chemicals have been associated with clandestine

laboratories (toluene and ethylene glycol),

however, they have other sources and have been

found in the air in non-industrial buildings.

Others could be substances that were created

during the manufacturing process.

Ethyl Ether

The area air sampling results for ethyl ether are

shown in Table 1. Ethyl ether was not detected in

the area air samples at a MDC of 0.007 ppm.

Cocaine Area Air Samples

The area air sampling results for cocaine are

presented in Table 2. Cocaine was not detected in

the area air samples at a MDC of 0.02 mg/m3

.

Cocaine Wipe Samples

Cocaine was not detected in any of the seven wipe

samples that were collected at a LOQ of 0.05

mg/sample. It is difficult to interpret these data

since the analytical method which was used for

the first time had a very low recovery rate (20%).

Inorganic Acids

The area air sampling results for inorganic acids

are shown in Table 3. Low levels of hydrofluoric

acid (up to 0.04 ppm), hydrochloric acid (trace

levels), and sulfuric acid (up to 0.11 ppm) were

found on the day of the survey. Hydrobromic

acid, nitric acid, and phosphoric acid were not
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252 Page 7

detected in the samples at MDCs of 0.004 mg/m3,

0.004 mg/m3

, and 0.09 mg/m3, respectively.

Bulk Dust Samples

The fungal species identified from the loose

material on the shelves in the evidence room were

Eurotium (Aspergillus) repens, Eurotium

(Aspergillus) rubrum, Aspergillus versicolor, and

Cladosporium cladosporioides. Total fungal

counts ranged from 1.4 x 103 to 8.2 x 103

 colony

forming units per gram. The counts of these

organisms were low, and all of the fungi are

commonly found in indoor environments. The

Eurotium species are associated with household

dust; Aspergillus versicolor organisms are

associated with wet indoor environments; and

Cladosporium species are very common in moist

outdoor and indoor environments.

Observations

There was a strong odor of organic material in the

evidence room and surrounding office areas.

Some of the evidence in powder form was stored

in heat-sealed plastic bags within manila

envelopes. Some of these bags were coming open

during storage. The evidence room clerks

reported that mice chew holes in the bags of

marijuana. A dead mouse was observed during

the survey on a shelf. Some of the aisles were

blocked, creating a trip hazard.

Smoke tube patterns showed that there was no air

movement in the evidence room in the back areas

away from the exhaust fan. Some of the

individuals who worked in the evidence room

reported developing headaches while working in

that area. Inside the evidence room and in the

break area, the morning temperature was 79°F and

the RH was 61%. The outside temperature was

82°F and the RH was 79%. The inside

temperature measurement was at the top of the

suggested range of 73-79°F in the summer, and

the inside RH measurement exceeded the

ASHRAE guidelines of relative humidity of 30

and 60% RH.19 

 

Cancer

Three cases of cancer were reported during the

site visit (one breast and two non-Hodgkins

lymphoma). Two of the three individuals worked

in the narcotics department for less than two

years. The other individual had worked more than

ten years as a field investigator.

Cancer is common in the United States, and

occurs among people at any workplace. One in

two men and one in three women will develop

some type of cancer in their lifetime. One of

every four deaths in the United States is from

cancer. These figures show the unfortunate

reality that cancer occurs more often than many

people realize. When several cases of cancer

occur in a workplace, they may be part of a true

cluster when the number is greater than we expect

compared to other groups of people similar with

regard to age, sex, and race. While comparing the

expected number of people with cancer with the

observed number is sometimes done to assess

whether the occurrence of cancer in a particular

group is unusual, such a comparison often is not

very informative, particularly in the early phases

of a cluster investigation. Cancer rates are very

variable in small populations and rarely match the

overall rate for a larger area, such as the state, so

that for any given time period some groups of

people have cancer rates above the overall rate

and others have rates below the overall rate. So,

even when there is an excess, this may be

completely consistent with the expected random

variability in cancer rates. Focusing on other

aspects of the perceived cluster, as described

below, usually is more helpful. These

considerations address more directly the

possibility of a link between the reported cancers

and the work environment.

The time between first exposure to a cancercausing agent and clinical recognition of the

disease is called the latency period. Latency

periods vary by cancer type, but usually are 15 to

20 years. In some instances the latency period

may be shorter, but it is rarely less than 10 years.

Because of this, past exposures are more relevant

than current exposures as potential causes of

cancers occurring in workers today. Often, these

exposures are hard to document.
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252

1. NIOSH [1996]. Volatile organic compounds

(screening): method no. 2549, issue 1. In: Eller

PM and Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of

analytical methods (NMAM). 4th. ed.

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

Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, National

Cancer clusters thought to be related to a

workplace exposure usually consist of the same

types of cancer. When several cases of the same

type of cancer occur in a workforce, and that type

is not common in the general population, it is

more likely that an occupational exposure is

involved. When the cluster consists of multiple

types of cancer, without one type predominating,

then an occupational cause of the cluster is less

likely.

The relationship between some agents and certain

cancers has been well established. For other

agents and cancers, there is suspicion but the

evidence is not definitive. When a known or

suspected cancer-causing agent has been present,

and the types of cancer occurring have been

linked with these exposures in other settings, the

connection between cancer and a workplace

exposure is more likely. This was not the case at

the Iowa State Police Narcotics Enforcement

Facility.

CONCLUSIONS

The ventilation for the evidence room is

inadequate. There is no provision of outside air to

the evidence room and back warehouse area

where the employee breakroom is located, and the

smoke tube tests showed no air movement in the

back portion of the evidence room. In addition,

one of the HVAC units for the front office area

was not working at the time of the site visit.

Openings near the ceiling of the evidence room

resulted in air mixing with the open ceiling

plenum, which serves the front office area. Odors

from the evidence room were also prevalent in the

office areas. No hazardous exposures to

chemicals or fungi were found. The reported

health symptoms could be related to the odor or

the inadequate ventilation. The occurrence of

three cases of two different types of cancer over a

period of three years, in two cases within two

years of starting work, is not suggestive of an

occupational origin. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Mechanical ventilation should be provided to

the warehouse area to provide employees with

comfortable working conditions.19 ASHRAE

recommends a minimum of 20 cubic feet per

minute per person of outside air.20

2. There are no ventilation guidelines specifically

for evidence rooms. Based on general laboratory

recommendations developed for the use and

storage of chemicals, the evidence room should

have a dedicated HVAC unit which maintains the

room at negative pressure and provides

approximately 6 air changes per hour (ACH), a

portion of which should be outside air.22 The air

should be exhausted directly to the outside, away

from occupied areas. Ideally, the air should be

supplied in two locations at either end of the room

and exhausted from the center. 

3. The HVAC unit for the front office area should

be repaired and a comprehensive preventive

maintenance program should be developed to

ensure that the ventilation systems work properly.

4. The evidence room should be sealed to

minimize air mixing between the evidence room

and the office areas.

5. The evidence room should be cleaned and

organized to eliminate trip hazards from boxes in

the walkways. 

6. Liquid chemicals should be stored in

appropriate commercially available chemical

storage cabinets.

7. Employees should continue to report any

adverse health symptoms to their supervisors

when they occur and seek appropriate medical

attention if symptoms persist.

8. All evidence should be appropriately sealed and

protected from rodents, in order to avoid surface

contamination and potential employee exposures.

REFERENCES
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252 Page 9

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.

2. NIOSH [1994]. Ethyl ether: method no.

1610, issue 2. In: Eller PM and Cassinelli ME,

eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods

(NMAM). 4th. ed. 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. 94-113.

3. NIOSH [1994]. Acids, inorganic: method

no. 7903, issue 2. In: Eller PM and Cassinelli

ME, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods

(NMAM). 4th. ed. 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. 94-113.

4. 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.

5. ACGIH [2001]. 2001 TLVs® and BEIs®:

threshold limit values for chemical substances and

physical agents & biological exposure indices.

Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

6. Code of Federal Regulations [1997]. 29 CFR

1910.1000. Air contaminants. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, Federal

Register.

7. Burgess JL, Barnhart S, Checkoway [1996].

Investigating clandestine drug laboratories:

adverse medical effects in law enforcement

personnel. American Journal of Industrial

Medicine. 30:488-494.

8. NIOSH [1987]. Hazard evaluation and

technical assistance report: Drug Enforcement

Administration, Washington, DC. Cincinnati,

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Service, Centers for

Disease Control, National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH Report

No. HHE 86-0194.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[2000]. Public health consequences among first

responders to emergency events associated with

illicit methamphetamine laboratories - selected

states, 1996-1999. MMWR 49(45):1021-1024.

10. Le SD, Taylor RW, Vidal D, Lovas JJ, Ting

E [1992]. Occupational exposure to cocaine

involving crime lab personnel. Journal of

Forensic Sciences. 37(4):959-968.

11. Willers-Russo LJ [1999]. Three fatalities

involving phosphine gas, produced as a result of

methamphetamine manufacturing. Journal of

Forensic Science. 44(3):647-652.

12. Pitts FN, Allen RE, Aniline O, Yago LS

[1981]. Occupational intoxication and long-term

persistence of phencyclidine (PCP) in law

enforcement personnel. Clinical Toxicology.

18(9):1015-1020.

13. U.S. Department of Justice, Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) [2000].

Methamphetamine. [http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/

concern/meth.htm].

14. Hathway GJ, Proctor NH, Hughes JP [1996].

Proctor and Hughes’ chemical hazards of the

workplace. 4th ed. New York, NY: Van

Nostrand Reinhold.

15. NIOSH [1997]. NIOSH pocket guide to

chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Public

Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication

No. 97-140.
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252

16. Morey PR, Shattuck DE [1989]. Role of

ventilation in the causation of building-associated

illnesses. Occupational Medicine: State of the

Art Reviews 4(4):625-642.

17. Molhave L, Bach B, Pedersen OF [1986].

Human reactions to low concentrations of volatile

organic compounds. Environ Int 12:167-176.

18. Burge HA [1989]. Indoor air and infectious

disease. Occupational Medicine: State of the Art

Reviews 4(4):713-722.

19. ASHRAE [1992]. Thermal environmental

conditions for human occupancy. American

National Standards Institute/ASHRAE standard

55-1992. Atlanta, GA: American Society for

Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Inc.

20. ASHRAE [1999]. Ventilation for acceptable

indoor air quality, standard 62-1999. Atlanta,

GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,

and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

21. ACGIH [1999]. Bioaerosols: assessment and

control. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference

of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

22. ASHRAE [1999]. 1999 ASHRAE

Handbook: Heating, Ventilating, and AirConditioning Applications. Atlanta, GA:

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and

Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252 Page 11

Table 1

Ethyl Ether Area Sampling Results

 State Police Division of Narcotics Enforcement

 Des Moines, Iowa

HETA 99–0252

Sample

Location

Sampling Time Sample Volume

 (Liters)

Concentration

(ppm)*

Evidence Room -

Right Middle Shelf 

7:35 a.m. - 3:22 p.m. 23.4 ND**

Evidence Room - Far

Left Corner

7:30 a.m. - 3:22 p.m. 23.6 ND

Evidence Room -

Computer Work

Station

7:26 a.m. - 3:21 p.m. 23.8 ND

Breakroom Table 7:45 a.m. - 3:20 p.m. 22.8 ND

Office by Storage Area 7:56 a.m. - 3:20 p.m. 22.2 ND

NIOSH REL None

ACGIH TLV 400 ppm

OSHA PEL 400 ppm

Minimum Detectable 

Concentration (MDC)

22.2 0.007

Minimum

Quantifiable

Concentration (MQC)

22.2 0.03

* ppm = parts per million

** ND = not detected
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252

Table 2

Cocaine Area Air Sampling Results

 State Police Division of Narcotics Enforcement

 Des Moines, Iowa

HETA 99–0252

Sample

Location

Sampling Time Sample Volume

 (Liters)

Concentration

(mg/m3

)*

Evidence Room -

Right Middle Shelf 

7:34 a.m. - 3:15 p.m. 922 ND**

Evidence Room - Far

Left Corner

7:30 a.m. - 3:15 p.m. 930 ND

Evidence Room -

Computer Work

Station

7:26 a.m. - 3:14 p.m. 936 ND

Breakroom Table 7:43 a.m. - 3:12 p.m. 898 ND

Office by Storage Area 7:58 a.m. - 3:13 p.m. 870 ND

Minimum Detectable 

Concentration (MDC)

870 0.02

Minimum

Quantifiable

Concentration (MQC)

870 0.07

* mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter

** ND = not detected
ort No. 99-0252 Page 13

Table 3

rganic Acids Area Sampling Results — State Police Division of Narcotics Enforcement

 Des Moines, Iowa

HETA 99–0252

ple

on

Sampling 

Time

Sample

Volume

 (Liters)

Concentration

Hydrofluoric Acid

(ppm)*

Hydrochloric

Acid

(ppm)

Sulfuric

Acid

(mg/m3)**

ght Middle Shelf 7:33 a.m. - 3:31 p.m. 23.9 0.02 ND^ ND

Far Left Corner 7:30 a.m. - 3:31 p.m. 24.1 Trace^^ ND ND

Computer Work

on

7:25 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. 24.3 0.04 Trace 0.11

m Table 7:45 a.m. - 3:29 p.m. 23.2 Trace ND ND

rage Area 7:54 a.m. - 3:29 p.m. 22.8 ND ND Trace

REL 3 5 (ceiling) 1

TLV 3 (ceiling) 5 (ceiling) 1 (0.1)#

PEL 3 5 (ceiling) 1

oncentration (MDC) 22.8 0.005 0.009 0.02

oncentration (MQC) 22.8 0.02 0.03 0.09

million **mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter ^ND = not detected ^^ Trace = between MDC and MQC

ntended Changes
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252

Appendix A
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252 Page 15

Chemicals Associated with Methamphetamine Laboratories13

Acetaldehyde 

Acetic Acid

Acetic Anhydride

Barium Sulfate

Benzaldehyde

Benzyl Chloride

Carbon Disulfide

Ethyl Aldehyde

Formamide

Formic Acid

Hydrogen Gas

Hydrogen Iodide

Hydrogen Peroxide

Lithium Aluminum Anhydride

Magnesium Metal

Mercuric Chloride

Methylamine

Palladium metal

Perchloric Acid

Phenylacetic acid

Phenyl-2-propanone

Phosphorus Pentachloride

Pyridine

Sodium Cyanotrihydroborate

Thionyl Chloride
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 99-0252

For Information on Other

Occupational Safety and Health Concerns

Call NIOSH at:

1–800–35–NIOSH (356–4674)

or visit the NIOSH Web site at:

www.cdc.gov/niosh

!

Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people

through research and prevention