HETA 94-0078-2660

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights

Washington, D.C.

Aubrey K. Miller, M.D.

Eric J. Esswein, M.S.P.H., C.I.H.

James Allen, M.D.

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 of 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 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.

The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch 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 the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

This report was prepared by Aubrey K. Miller, M.D., Eric J. Esswein, M.S.P.H., C.I.H., of the Hazard

Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field

Studies (DSHEFS), and James Allen, M.D., a visiting scientist from the U.S. Navy. Field assistance was

provided by Evan Davies, M.D., a visiting scientist from the University of Cincinnati. Desktop publishing

by Patricia C. McGraw.

Copies of this report have been sent to representatives at the Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (CPWR) and

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

this report will be available for a period of three years from the date of this report. To expedite your request,

include a self-addressed mailing label along with your written request to:

NIOSH Publications Office

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

800-356-4674

After this time, copies may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 5825

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

obtained from the NIOSH Publications Office at the Cincinnati address.

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

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

period of 30 calendar days.
iii

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 94-0078-2660

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights

Washington, D.C.

October 1997

Aubrey K. Miller, M.D.

Eric J. Esswein, M.S.P.H., C.I.H.

James Allen, M.D.

SUMMARY

In December 1993, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a request from the

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights in Washington, D.C., to evaluate construction worker exposures and potential

health effects associated with dusts generated by drywall finishing during renovation activities. In response to this

request, personal breathing zone (PBZ) samples were collected on two workers as they performed drywall sanding

at an office building (Machinists Union Building) in Washington, D.C., and eight workers as they performed

drywall sanding at a low-income public housing apartment complex (Ellicott Towers) in Buffalo, New York. A

medical evaluation assessing workers’ health symptoms was also performed in conjunction with the exposure

evaluation of the eight workers at the Buffalo, New York, site. Furthermore, NIOSH researchers performed a

laboratory evaluation of six different off-the-shelf dry wall joint compounds, purchased at retail construction supply

stores in the Cincinnati, Ohio, area, to determine the qualitative mineral composition of each compound.

Results of full-shift PBZ monitoring for the two locations revealed that concentrations of total and respirable dust

exceeded the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limits (PELs) of 15

milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3

) total dust and 5 mg/m3 respirable dust during the time periods sampled.

Exposures exceeding the criteria for total dust were more common than exposures exceeding the criteria for

respirable dusts. Results of PBZ samples for respirable silica indicate that while silica was present, it was at “trace”

concentrations, defined as measurements between the analytical limit of detection (LOD) and the limit of

quantitation (LOQ), for all except two samples. The two PBZ samples collected for respirable silica at the

Washington, D.C., location contained 0.04 and 0.08 mg/m3

 of respirable silica as quartz. One sample exceeded

the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL) of 0.05 mg/m3

 as respirable quartz but did not exceed the OSHA

calculated PEL for silica exposure. Cristobalite was not detected (ND) in any air samples. 

Analysis of the mineral phase of the six bulk samples of joint compound purchased from retail stores revealed that

the products were very similar to each other, with the primary constituent being calcite. None of the samples

contained asbestos, three contained minor quantities of silica and perlite, two contained minor quantities of gypsum

and talc, and one contained a minor quantity of clay. 

Among the eight dry wall finishers surveyed at the Buffalo, New York, site, the most frequently reported nonmusculoskeletal symptoms during the 12 months prior to the survey were phlegm production, cough, shortness of

breath, and eye irritation. All workers reporting phlegm production or cough were either current or former

smokers. Three of these workers reported these symptoms as being chronic (i.e., occurs on most days for as much
iv

as three months during the year). During the survey, the symptoms most frequently identified by workers as workrelated were eye irritation and nasal congestion.

The most frequently reported musculoskeletal symptoms during the 12 months prior to the survey were pain,

stiffness, or numbness in the elbows/forearms, back, and hands/wrists. Workers reported a considerable amount

of chronic (occurrence of a particular symptom at least once a week) musculoskeletal symptoms over the prior year,

with the highest frequency of symptoms occurring in the back (75%), elbows/forearms (63%), and hands/wrists

(50%). Most musculoskeletal symptoms were reported to be of “moderate” intensity, with the greatest severity

reported for the back and shoulder. While workers reported frequent, and at times severe, musculoskeletal

symptoms, only two workers had their conditions (shoulder and back) evaluated by a health care provider. None

of the workers reported missing work, being assigned to a different job, or being placed on work restriction because

of their musculoskeletal conditions. 

An occupational health hazard was determined to exist from exposure to particulates created during drywall

finishing operations. During drywall finishing activities, total dust, and in some cases, respirable dust, exposures

exceeded the OSHA PELs of 15 mg/m3

 for total dusts and 5 mg/m3 for respirable dust. Two personal air samples

from one location had quantifiable concentrations of respirable crystalline silica, one of which exceeded the

NIOSH REL. Otherwise, sampling for respirable silica indicated that while silica (as quartz) was found to be

present in air samples collected during work operations, the values for quartz were found to be between the LOD

and the LOQ. Cristobalite was not detected. Surveyed workers at one site reported work-related eye irritation,

nasal congestion, and shortness of breath. Based on the findings of this investigation, the use of engineering

controls, wet finishing techniques, and personal protective equipment are recommended as methods to limit

exposures to dusts created during dry wall finishing operations. 

KEYWORDS: SIC 1742 (special trade contractors: plastering, drywall, and insulation), dry wall, sanding,

gypsum, joint compound, calcite, calcium carbonate, silica, talc, kaolin, perlite, respirable dust, total dust, silica,

respirable crystalline silica, particulates, particulate exposures.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

Introduction ......................................................................... 2

Background ......................................................................... 2

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

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

Personal Breathing Zone Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Joint Compound Bulk Sample Analysis ............................................. 3

Medical (Buffalo, New York) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

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

Drywall or Joint Compound ......................................................... 4

Particulates, Not Otherwise Classified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Criteria for Specific Constituents Potentially Found in Joint Compound ..................... 5

Respirable Silica and Cristobalite .................................................. 6

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Industrial Hygiene ................................................................. 6

Particulates n.o.c. .............................................................. 6

Respirable Silica ............................................................... 6

Results of Drywall Compound Labeling and Bulk Sample Analysis ........................ 7

Medical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Industrial Hygiene ................................................................. 8

Medical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078

INTRODUCTION

In December 1993, the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a

request from the Center to Protect Workers’ Rights

in Washington, D.C., to evaluate construction worker

exposures to total and respirable particulates,

possibly containing silica, generated from drywall

finishing during building renovation. In response to

this request, NIOSH investigators performed a health

hazard evaluation (HHE) for the Center to Protect

Workers’ Rights (a research arm of the Building and

Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO)

and the International Brotherhood of Painters and

Allied Trades to evaluate worker exposures and any

health symptoms associated with drywall finishing

work. 

On December 16, 1993, personal breathing zone

(PBZ) samples were collected on two drywall

finishers as they performed drywall sanding during

renovation of an office building in Washington, D.C.

On August 11-12, 1994, PBZ monitoring was

performed on eight drywall finishers as they sanded

drywall installed during renovation of a low-income

public housing apartment complex (Ellcott Towers)

in Buffalo, New York. A medical evaluation

assessing workers’ health symptoms was performed

in conjunction with the exposure evaluation at the

Buffalo, New York, site. NIOSH researchers also

performed a laboratory evaluation of six different

off-the-shelf dry wall joint compounds, purchased at

retail construction supply stores in the Cincinnati,

Ohio, area, to qualitatively determine the mineral

composition of each compound, including specific

testing for silica and asbestos. 

BACKGROUND

Construction or renovation of building interiors often

involves installation of drywall, plasterboard, or

“sheetrock,” as it is commonly referred to in the

trades.1

 The drywall consists of a non-combustible

core, primarily gypsum, with paper or vinyl

coverings on the sides and the long edges.1

Drywall “installers” fit these boards to wall studs or

ceiling joists and secure them with screws. After

installation, drywall “finishers” (DWFs) prepare the

surfaces for painting. The joints between the drywall

sheets are taped and then pasted over with joint

compound, commonly called mud, to fill the joints

and any defects in the drywall board.2

 Drywall joint

compound is applied as a wet paste, which is

troweled into the drywall joints. Once the drywall

compound has dried it is quite firm and has the

consistency and texture of chalk. The joint

compound is then sanded or finished to create a

smooth uniform surface. DWFs typically use dry

sanding techniques to create the desired surface. Dry

sanding involves rubbing a coarse sand paper over

the dried joint compound. Depending on the location

of the work, the DWFs may use pole-mounted,

swivel-head pad sanders and occasionally they hand

sand surfaces using a sanding block. These work

activities can generate a tremendous amount of fine

dust. Overhead sanding, and sanding in tight

confines such as closets, appears to cause the greatest

amount of dust to fall in the worker’s breathing zone.

The alternative, wet sanding, requires an extra step of

wetting the dried joint compound prior to sanding.

Wet sanding techniques greatly reduce the airborne

dust levels but also delays subsequent work, such as

painting, until the wall is completely dry.2

METHODS

Industrial Hygiene

Personal Breathing Zone Samples

To characterize exposures to total and respirable

particulates, ten employees (two in Washington,

D.C., and eight in Buffalo, New York) were asked to

wear two personal sampling trains; one sampling

train was configured to sample for respirable

particulate, another was configured to sample for

total particulate. Respirable particulates were

collected using tared 37 millimeter (mm), 5-μm PVC

membrane filter closed-face cassettes mounted in 10

mm nylon Dorr-Oliver cyclones and attached to

Gilian® personal sampling pumps. Total
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078 Page 3

particulates were collected using tared 37 (mm), 5-

μm PVC filters mounted in closed-face cassettes.

The sampling trains were calibrated to a flow rate of

either 1.7 (respirable) or 2 liters (total) per minute

(Lpm). Cassettes were positioned in the worker's

breathing zone. Pre-and post-sampling calibration

(including flow checks during the day) were

performed using a calibrated hand-held rotameter.

Samples were analyzed gravimetrically for total

weight according to NIOSH Method 06003

 with two

standard laboratory modifications: 1) filters were

stored in an environmentally controlled room to

reduce the stabilization time between tare weighings

to 5-10 minutes and; 2) the filters and backup pads

were not vacuum desiccated. The instrumental

precision of the weighings (using an electrobalance)

was reported at 0.02 milligrams (mg). All samples

were analyzed for total weight. Respirable dust

samples were also analyzed for the presence of

crystalline silica (as quartz and cristobalite) using

x-ray diffraction (XRD) for analysis. NIOSH

Method 75004

 was used for silica analysis with the

following laboratory modifications: 1) filters were

dissolved in tetrahydrofuran rather than ashed in a

furnace; and 2) standards and samples were run

concurrently and an external calibration curve was

prepared from the integrated intensities rather than

using the suggested normalization procedure.

Joint Compound Bulk Sample

Analysis

To determine the accuracy of drywall joint

compound product labeling and to further evaluate

the potential for silica and asbestos exposure, six

different containers of drywall joint compounds, of

varying sizes, were purchased (off the shelf) from

retail construction supply stores in the Cincinnati,

Ohio, area. These samples were analyzed by XRD

and polarized light microscopy. The former permits

quantitative analysis of silica while the later permits

a semi-quantitative analysis of silicates based on

their microscopic appearance. 

Medical (Buffalo, New York)

All eight drywall finishers at the Buffalo, New York,

site were recruited to participate in a health

assessment. During a rest break, workers were given

a health questionnaire which collected information

concerning pertinent past medical and work histories,

recent health symptoms (emphasis on eye, nose,

throat, and respiratory systems), and tobacco use.

Additionally, information concerning

musculoskeletal symptoms was collected because of

observations, by NIOSH investigators, of DWF

work practices involving risks for musculoskeletal

injury (i.e., awkward postures, repetitive forceful

motion, and overhead work) at the Washington,

D.C., site. Information concerning the frequency,

severity, and work-relatedness of symptoms was

solicited.

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
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078

increase the overall exposure. Finally, evaluation

criteria may change over the years as new

information on the toxic effects of an agent become

available.

The primary sources of environmental evaluation

criteria for the workplace are: (1) NIOSH

recommended exposure limits (RELs)5

, (2) the

American Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists' (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values

(TLVsTM)6

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

OSHA permissible exposure limits (PELs)7

.

In July 1992, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

vacated the 1989 OSHA PEL Air Contaminants

Standard. OSHA is currently enforcing the 1971

standards which are listed as transitional values in

the current Code of Federal Regulations; however,

some states operating their own OSHA approved job

safety and health programs continue to enforce the

1989 limits. NIOSH encourages employers to follow

the 1989 OSHA limits, the NIOSH RELs, the

ACGIH TLVs, or whichever are the more protective

criteria. The OSHA PELs reflect the feasibility of

controlling exposures in various industries where the

agents are used, whereas NIOSH RELs are based

primarily on concerns relating to the prevention of

occupational disease. It should be noted when

reviewing this report that employers are legally

required to meet those levels specified by an OSHA

standard and that the OSHA PELs included in this

report reflect the 1971 values.

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 short-term exposure

limits (STEL) or ceiling values which are intended to

supplement the TWA where there are recognized

toxic effects from higher exposures over the

short-term.

Drywall or Joint Compound 

Many different formulations are marketed under the

generic terms wallboard compound or joint

compound. The specific formulation of joint

compounds vary. Joint compound is typically

composed of a “mineral phase,” which provides the

bulk of the material, and an “organic phase” which is

the adhesive binder. Calcite (calcium carbonate) is

commonly used in the mineral phase, and starch is a

commonly used in the organic phase of joint

compounds. Premixed joint compounds are typically

60% mineral phase, 40% water, and less than 1%

organic phase (wet weight).

A material safety data sheet (MSDS) for the readymix joint compound used at the Buffalo, New York,

site listed water, calcite (calcium carbonate), mica

(aluminum silicate), and quartz (crystalline silica) as

the predominant mineral phase constituents. The

MSDS also indicated that talc (magnesium silicate),

gypsum (calcium sulfate), perlite (a noncrystalline

silicate), and clays (which include attapulgite and

kaolinite) may be present in the compound. 

Particulates, Not Otherwise Classified

The health effects associated with long-term chronic

airborne exposure to the dust or particulates

generated during drywall sanding are not known.

When the individual components of an airborne

particulate do not have established occupational

health criterion, it has been standard convention to

apply a generic exposure criterion to the dust.

Formerly referred to as “nuisance dust,” a preferred

terminology for these dusts is "particulates not

otherwise classified”6

 (p.n.o.c) or "not otherwise

regulated" (n.o.r.).7

The ACGIH recommended TLV for exposure to

p.n.o.c. is 10 mg/m3

 for total dust and 3 mg/m3 for

respirable particulate, both as 8-hour time-weighted

averages (TWAs).6

 The OSHA PEL for an 8-hour

TWA p.n.o.r. is 15 mg/m3

, and 5 mg/m3 for the

respirable fraction.7

 These generic criteria for

airborne dusts are based on the premise that the

substances comprising the dust do not produce

significant organic disease when exposures are kept

under reasonable control.6

 These criteria may be

legally applicable, but are not necessarily

toxicologically appropriate for dusts containing

substances (e.g., silica) that have a demonstrable

biologic effect.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078 Page 5

Criteria for Specific Constituents Potentially Found in Joint Compound

The respiratory effects associated with airborne exposure to the joint compound constituents identified during this

evaluation have been previously studied in workers under different working conditions. The known respiratory

effects and evaluation criteria for these joint compound constituents are presented below (Table 1).

Table 1

Toxicity and Exposure Criteria Information

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (HETA 94-0078)

Compound Toxicity Review Exposure Criteria 

Calcite 

(calcium carbonate)

Calcite is the chief constituent of limestone and typically is the

primary constituent of joint compounds. Inhalation of calcite dust

in humans has not been associated with adverse lung effects.8

 

The NIOSH REL is 10 mg/m3

 total dust and 5

mg/m3

 respirable dust, 10-hour TWA. 

The OSHA PEL is 15 mg/m3

 total dust and 5

mg/m3

 respirable dust, 8-hour TWA. 

The ACGIH TLV® is 10 mg/m3

 inhalable dust; 8-

hour TWA (<1% crystalline silica, no asbestos). 

Gypsum

(calcium sulfate) 

In humans, radiographic changes consistent with

pneumoconiosis have been observed in a few groups of gypsum

miners, however, it is generally felt that these findings were

related to the presence of quartz (silica) in the dust.9

 Despite the

radiographic changes seen in some gypsum miners, rates of

respiratory symptoms and lung function abnormalities were not

increased.8

 In animals, prolonged inhalation of gypsum has not

been shown to cause pulmonary fibrosis.9

 

The NIOSH REL is 10 mg/m3 total dust and 5

mg/m3

 respirable dust, 10-hour TWA.

The OSHA PEL is 15 mg/m3

 total dust and 5

mg/m3

 respirable dust, 8-hour TWA. 

The ACGIH TLV® is 10 mg/m3

; 8-hour TWA (<1%

crystalline silica, no asbestos). 

Mica 

(aluminum silicate)

Pneumoconiosis has rarely been associated with

uncontaminated exposure to the mica group of minerals

(Muscovite, phlogopite, vermiculite). In the few workers with

radiographic changes consistent with pneumoconiosis, the

abnormalities are usually mild. In animals, prolonged inhalation of

mica has not been shown to cause pulmonary fibrosis.10

The NIOSH REL is 3 mg/m3

 respirable, 

10-hour TWA (<1% crystalline silica). 

The OSHA PEL is 20 mppcf, 8-hour TWA (<1%

quartz). 

The ACGIH TLV® is 3 mg/m3

; 8-hour TWA. 

Kaolin 

(hydrated, 

aluminum silicate) 

Workers exposed to kaolin (china clay) have been found to have

varying degrees of pneumoconiosis, with the prevalence of

abnormal radiographic findings corresponding to the length of

exposure. 8,10 Additionally, pulmonary function impairment has

been associated with kaolin exposure and correlates with findings

of worsening pneumoconiosis. 8,10 

The NIOSH REL is 10 mg/m3

 total dust and 5

mg/m3

 respirable dust, 10-hour TWA. 

The OSHA PEL is 15 mg/m3

 total dust and 5

mg/m3

 respirable dust, 8-hour TWA. 

The ACGIH TLV® is 2 mg/m3

 respirable dust;

8-hour TWA. 

Perlite

(noncrystalline 

silicate)

Perlite has not been associated with adverse lung effects in

humans or animals.8,11

The NIOSH REL is 10 mg/m3 total dust and 5

mg/m3

 respirable dust, 10-hour TWA. 

The OSHA PEL is 15 mg/m3

 total dust and 5

mg/m3

 respirable dust, 8-hour TWA.

The ACGIH TLV® is 10 mg/m3

 inhalable dust;

8-hour TWA (<1% silica, no asbestos). 
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078

Talc

(magnesium silicate)

Workers exposed to talc have been found to have varying types of

pulmonary abnormalities (nodular lesions, interstitial fibrosis,

foreign body granulomas) and severity of pneumoconiosis. 

However, the majority of talc workers have also be exposed to

other fibrogenic dusts (silica, tremolite, mica); thus, it is not clear if

exposure to pure talc really causes pulmonary fibrosis. 

Progressive symptoms of chest tightness and cough tend to

develop after 15 years of exposure to industrial grade (š50%

impurities) talc. Pulmonary function impairment has been

associated with talc exposure, and generally the degree of

impairment corresponds with radiographic findings of worsening

pneumoconiosis.10

The NIOSH REL is 2 mg/m3, 10-hour TWA 

(no asbestos). 

The OSHA PEL is 2 mg/m3

, 8-hour TWA 

(no asbestos). 

The ACGIH TLV® is 2 mg/m3

 respirable dust; 8-

hour TWA (no asbestos).

Respirable Silica and Cristobalite

Crystalline silica (quartz) and cristobalite have been

associated with silicosis, a fibrotic disease of the lung

caused by the deposition of fine particles of

crystalline silica in the lungs. Symptoms including

cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, weakness,

wheezing, and non-specific chest illnesses usually

develop insidiously. Silicosis usually occurs after

years of exposure, but may appear in a shorter period

of time if exposure concentrations are very high.12

The NIOSH RELs for respirable quartz and

cristobalite, published in 1974, are 50 μg/m3 (or, 0.05

mg/m3

), as TWAs, for up to 10 hours per day during

a 40-hour work week.8,13 These RELs are intended

to prevent silicosis. However, more recent evidence

indicates that crystalline silica is a potential

occupational carcinogen and NIOSH is currently

reviewing the data on carcinogenicity.14,15 The OSHA

PEL for respirable silica is dependent upon the

percent silica in the sample, the respirable dust

exposure for an 8-hour TWA must not exceed the

value obtained from the formula:

The ACGIH TLVs for respirable quartz and

cristobalite are 100 and 50 μg/m3

, respectively, as 8-

hour TWAs.6

RESULTS

Industrial Hygiene

Particulates n.o.c.

On December 16, 1993, two workers were monitored

at a construction site in Washington, D.C., and on

August 11-12, 1994, eight workers were evaluated at

a site in Buffalo, New York. Work practices in both

locations involved the use of a pad-mounted pole

sander with occasional hand sanding as needed. 

Personal breathing zone sampling results for two

workers on December 16, 1993, are listed in Table 2.

One sample exceeded the 15 mg/m3

 OSHA PEL for

total dust (this sample contained 17.9 mg/m3 of total

particulate). On August 11-12, 1994, 23 sample sets

(total, respirable, and respirable quartz) were

collected on eight workers performing renovations at

a public housing complex (Table 3). Overall,

concentrations of total dust were found to be much

higher than concentrations of respirable dusts. Total

dust measurements ranged from less than the OSHA

PEL to more than 10 times the OSHA PEL. Eight of

9 samples (89%) collected for total dust exceeded the

OSHA criterion of 15 mg/m3

, but only 2 of 13 (15%)

of the respirable dust samples were greater than the

OSHA criterion of 5 mg/m3

. 

Respirable Silica

The minimum detectable concentration (MDC) for

silica in these samples was calculated to be 0.01

mg/m3

 based on average sample volumes of 747
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078 Page 7

liters (L). The analytical limit of detection (LOD)

for the sample set was reported as 0.01 mg/sample.

Respirable silica (as quartz) was reported above the

limit of detection on both of the samples from the

Washington, D.C., investigation (Table 2) and in

trace quantities on 15 of 22 (68%) of the samples

from the Buffalo, New York, investigation (Table 4).

When the presence of silica was reported by the

laboratory, it was found to be quartz. Cristobalite

was not reported on any samples. Table 4 describes

the results of the PBZ samples collected for total

dust, respirable dust, and respirable quartz at the

Buffalo, New York, investigation. The quartz

concentrations were determined to be either not

detected (ND) or at trace concentrations which are

between the analytical limit of detection (LOD) and

the limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the method.

Samples which were determined to contain quartz

greater than the LOD were the two PBZ samples

from the Washington, D.C., investigation. These

samples were found to contain 0.04 mg/m3

 and 0.08

mg/m3

 as quartz, respectively. One PBZ sample

(0.08 mg/m3

) exceeded the NIOSH REL of 0.05

mg/m3

 crystalline silica. The calculated OSHA PEL

for this sample (based on the presence of 0.41%

crystalline silica) is 4.10 mg/m3

. Thus, while the

measured concentration is in excess of the NIOSH

criteria, the calculated results are below the OSHA

PEL. 

Results of Drywall Compound

Labeling and Bulk Sample Analysis

Analysis of six bulk samples of joint compound was

performed to determine the composition of the premixed compound prior to application and sanding.

The bulk samples evaluated varied from a half pint

container, typically used for home repairs, to a 62-

pound pail, commonly used by commercial

contractors. Two of the containers had printed labels

providing warnings of potential silica exposure

during usage. Three of the containers had labeling

which recommended the use of a respirator during

sanding and four recommended wet sanding

techniques to reduce exposures. 

Compositional analysis of the mineral phase of the

six bulk samples revealed that the products were very

similar to each other, with the primary constituent

being calcite. None of the samples contained

asbestos. Three of the samples contained minor

quantities of silica and perlite, two contained minor

quantities of gypsum and talc, and one contained a

minor quantity of clay (Table 5). For the most part,

the results of each sample analysis agreed with the

composition stated in the manufacturers’ material

safety data sheets (MSDS’s) accompanying each

product.

Medical

All eight of the workers at the Buffalo, New York,

site completed the health questionnaires. All

workers were male, with an average age of 33 years

(range 25-42 years). The average duration of

employment as a DWF was 12 years (range 4 months

- 25 years). Six of the workers had worked as DWFs

for more than ten years, one worker was an

apprentice and had been working for only four

months, and one worker did not answer the question.

Table 6 shows the prevalence of nonmusculoskeletal symptoms. The first column of

Table 6 shows the percentage of workers who

reported the occurrence of a particular symptom at

any time during the preceding 12 months prior to the

survey. The most frequently reported symptoms

were phlegm production (63%), cough (50%),

shortness of breath (50%), and eye irritation (38%).

All workers reporting phlegm production or cough

were either current or former smokers. Three of

these workers reported that their symptoms were

chronic (i.e., occurs on most days for as much as

three months during the year). The second column

of Table 6 shows the percentage of all eight workers

who specifically reported a symptom to be

temporally associated with their drywall finishing

work activities or reported that the symptom

improved when they were away from work. With

the exception of eye irritation and nasal congestion,

a lower percentage of symptoms were identified as

having an apparent work-related pattern. The

symptoms that were most frequently identified as
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078

work-related were eye irritation, nasal congestion,

and shortness of breath. 

None of the workers reported a past history of

emphysema, tuberculosis, bronchitis, pneumonia, or

asthma. Two workers reported a history of hay fever

or seasonal allergies. Three workers currently

smoked cigarettes, four were former smokers, and

one did not provide a smoking history.

Table 7 shows the prevalence of work-related

musculoskeletal symptoms (i.e., symptom frequency

and severity was reported to be temporally associated

with drywall finishing work activities). The first

column shows the percentage of workers who

reported the occurrence of a particular symptom

during the preceding 12 months prior to the survey.

The most frequently reported symptoms were pain,

stiffness, or numbness in the elbows/forearms (88%),

back (75%), and hands/wrists (63%). The second

column of Table 7 shows the percentage of workers

who experienced a particular symptom at least once

a week for the 12 months preceding the survey.

Workers reported a considerable prevalence of

chronic musculoskeletal symptoms over the prior

year, with the most commonly affected areas being

the back (75%), elbows/forearms (63%), and

hands/wrists (50%). The third column shows the

percentage of reported symptoms classified by the

intensity of the condition. Symptom intensity was

classified as “no pain,” “mild,” “moderate,”

“severe,” and the “worst pain ever in life.” Most

musculoskeletal symptoms were reported to be of

“moderate” intensity, with the greatest severity of

symptoms reported for the back and shoulder. 

All workers were right-handed and tended to report

a higher frequency and intensity of musculoskeletal

symptoms in their right extremities. While workers

reported frequent and, in many cases, severe

musculoskeletal symptoms, only two workers had

their conditions (shoulder and back) evaluated by a

health care provider. None of the workers reported

missing work, being assigned to a different job, or

being placed on work restriction because of their

musculoskeletal conditions. 

DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS

Industrial Hygiene

The purpose of the industrial hygiene component of

this HHE was to evaluate the dusty conditions

encountered during drywall sanding and finishing

and determine if employee exposures to total and

respirable dusts, and respirable silica, represented a

potential health hazard to employees. Based on

observations of work practices and sampling results,

considerable variability in PBZ exposures was

present during the work activities. For example,

when workers were sanding ceilings, or in tight

confines such as closets or in corners, more dust

appeared to be present in the workers’ breathing

zones than when they were sanding flat surfaces

below eye-level, such as horizontal sections of

wallboard joints. The sampling results reflect these

observations; the two highest concentrations of total

dust measured occurred during ceiling sanding.

Also, when several finishers were working together

in the same room, there was increased generation of

particulates and worker dust exposures. While most

of the dust did not appear to be respirable, workers

were exposed to varying levels of respirable dust

(two samples exceeded the OSHA PEL for respirable

dust), depending on workplace conditions.

Exposures in excess of the OSHA PEL for total dust

were more frequent than exposures exceeding the

standard for respirable particulate (15 mg/m3

 vs. 5

mg/m3 , respectively). 

The MSDSs which were obtained from the

manufacturers of the joint compounds used at the job

sites indicated that quartz was present, but no

concentration percentages were shown on the

MSDS. This finding is consistent with a review of

MSDS’s taken from six different off-the-shelf joint

compounds purchased in the Cincinnati, Ohio, area.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078 Page 9

It is possible, and indeed likely, that minor product

variations are attributable to variation in the natural

mineral content from which the constituents are

obtained, and also from product manufacturing

variations.

Bulk sample analysis of the six different off-the-shelf

joint compounds revealed the presence of small

amounts of silica in three of the six samples tested.

This finding in conjuction with personal sampling

conducted during this survey indicates that: 1) silica

is present in joint compounds and, 2) the sanding of

silica-containing joint compounds during drywall

finishing may result in silica exposures which exceed

applicable exposure criteria under certain conditions

(i.e., one PBZ sample was above the NIOSH REL for

silica exposure). Given the low percentage of silica

found in the PBZ and bulk samples, silica exposures

during drywall sanding are typically expected to be

below the OSHA PEL. None of the bulk samples of

joint compound contained asbestos, suggesting that

asbestos, which had previously been used in joint

compounds, is no longer a constituent of these

products.

The results of total dust exposure measurements

made during this survey suggest that methods to

control worker exposures, such as wet sanding,

engineering controls, and personal protective

equipment, should be used during drywall finishing.

The OSHA PEL for otherwise unregulated

particulates is based on the premise that the dust is

not toxic. This criterion may not be appropriate to

drywall sanding dust given the presence of various

constituents (i.e., silica, kaolin, talc) which can

potentially affect the lungs. The long term health

consequences from exposure to dust generated from

the joint compounds currently in use is unknown. 

Medical

A number of constituents present in joint compounds

(i.e., talc, calcite, mica, gypsum), and presumably in

the dust, have been associated with varying degrees

of mucosal and respiratory tract irritation.5

 Over

time, these exposures may result in chronic throat

and airway irritation and can lead to symptoms of

cough, phlegm production, and possibly

bronchoreactivity. The findings of this evaluation

are consistant with these effects, although the small

numbers of workers evaluated, and the fact that most

of the workers were current or former smokers,

preclude us from drawing conclusions about the

relationship between workers’ symptoms and their

drywall dust exposures. Additionally, exposed

workers with ongoing respiratory problems, such as

asthma and bronchitis, may experience periodic

exacerbations or a worsening of their condition.

Furthermore, cigarette smoking in conjunction with

continual high dust exposures may result in increased

risk and severity of both cigarette and-dust-related

pulmonary health problems. 

Over 50% of the workers reported experiencing

work-related musculoskeletal symptoms of the back

and upper extremities (excluding the shoulder). For

many of the workers, these symptoms were chronic

(experienced on a weekly basis), though they

typically were not incapacitating and did not

necessitate treatment by a health professional.

Observation of work practices revealed that workers

had to perform constant repetitive sanding motions

with either a pole sander or hand sanding block.

Worker postures during sanding varied in height (i.e.,

kneeling, overhead work) and awkwardness,

depending on the area being finished. Based on

these findings, it is likely that ongoing back and

upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms are either

caused or aggravated by the physical demands (i.e.,

forceful and repetitive motions, awkward postures)

of drywall finishing. Current epidemiologic

evidence implicates risk factors such as force,

posture, and repetition in the development of workrelated musculoskeletal disorders of the neck,

shoulder, hands and wrists, and back.16 Ergonomics

programs which will appropriately modify tools,

materials, and work practices need to be developed

to prevent and reduce work-related musculoskeletal

disorders associated with this trade.
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are offered in the

interests of creating healthy and safe conditions for

workers performing drywall finishing operations. 

1. Engineering controls and respiratory protection

are needed to reduce occupational exposures to

drywall dust. Engineering controls, however, should

be considered the primary means of control.

a. When respirators are used, employees should

use NIOSH approved respirators with a minimum

assigned protection factor (APF) of 10. Variations in

exposures can be significant and the data obtained in

this study indicate that a few TWA total dust

exposures during finishing operations exceeded the

maximum use criteria for traditional half-mask air

purifying respirators having an APF of 10.

Considering this fact, the use of engineering controls

to limit dust generation is particularly important, and

should be used as a primary means of controlling

exposures. When respirators are used a complete

employee respiratory protection program should be

developed. The minimum standards for such a

program are described in the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA) General Industry

Standards, 29 CFR 1910.134. 

b. Some drywall compounds (and the resultant

dust) may contain crystalline silica and other

potentially toxic components. Limiting the potential

for exposures to respirable crystalline silica or other

toxic compounds involves controlling total and

respirable dust exposures. Currently a wide variety

of respirators are commercially available including

the traditional reusable half-masks, disposable half

masks, and resposable masks (reusable for several

times, then disposable). While a half-mask respirator

with an elastomeric face piece will provide the best

protection, other suitable masks offering high

efficiency protection without the weight and bulk of

an elastomeric face piece may be a more reasonable

choice of respirator and may be more acceptable for

workers performing this type of work. NIOSH

approved respirators with a minimum protection

factor of N95 (95% efficient against non-oil based

aerosols) should be used. Since manufacturers of

respirators design the shape of each face piece to be

slightly different, employees should have the option

to choose from a selection of several masks in order

to find a face piece that allows adequate comfort and

fit.

c. While the majority of joint compounds

analyzed had very low amounts of quartz (less than

0.5%), some quartz is present. Wet sanding

techniques should therefore be used whenever

possible. In situations where wet sanding is not

possible, engineering control modifications for

swivel head pole sanders to achieve local exhaust

ventilation on the sander itself, are currently

available, and should be made. A NIOSH

engineering control technology report detailing some

of these commercially available engineering controls

is currently available.17

2. Appropriate medical surveillance for drywall

finishers should be tailored to evaluate each worker’s

potential for past exposure to asbestos-containing

joint compounds, and ongoing medical conditions or

symptoms a worker may be experiencing. Drywall

finishers only exposed to joint compounds, used in

recent years, may not be at greater risk for

pneumoconiosis. However, they may still be at risk

for other pulmonary problems, such as bronchitis.

Drywall finishers working in the industry before the

mid 1980's were most likely exposed to joint

compound formulations containing asbestos18,19 and

higher concentrations of silica.19 These workers are

at increased risk for health problems associated with

these substances and should discuss this issue with

their physicians or occupational health professionals.

Those workers who may have had prior exposure to

asbestos-containing joint compounds should have an

appropriate medical evaluation and ongoing medical

surveillance in accordance with OSHA guidelines.20

3. Cigarette smoking in conjunction with continual

high dust exposures may result in increased risk and

severity of both cigarette and-dust-related pulmonary

health problems. Efforts such as enhanced employee

education, improved smoking policies, and increased
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078 Page 11

1. Gypsum Association [1990]. Levels of

Gypsum Board Finish. GA-214-90.

Gypsum Association, Painting, and

Decorating Contractors of America,

Ceiling & Interior Systems Construction

Association and Association of the Wall

and Ceiling Industries. Washington D.C.

pp. 2 - 3.

2. Gypsum Association [1991]. Using

Gypsum Board for Wall & Ceiling. GA201-90. Gypsum Association,

Washington D.C. pp.1 - 2.

3. NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of

Analytical Methods. Method 0600,

Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated. 

4th ed. Vol. 3. Cincinnati, Ohio.

National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health. NIOSH Pub. 94-113.

4. NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of

Analytical Methods. Method 7500.

Silica, Crystalline, respirable. 4th. ed.

Vol. 3. Cincinnati, Ohio. National

Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health. NIOSH Pub. 94-113

5. 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, National Institute

for Occupational Safety and Health,

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 92-

100.

6. ACGIH [1996]. 1996 threshold limit

values for chemical substances and

physical agents and biological exposure

indices. Cincinnati, OH: American

Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists.

7. Code of Federal Regulations [1993]. 29

CFR 1910.1000. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office,

Federal Register.

8. Short S, Petsonk EL; “Nonfibrous

inorganic dusts.” In Occupational and

Environmental Respiratory Disease;

edited Philip Harber et al.; Mosby; St.

Louis, MO, US; 1996; pp. 345-359.

9. Parkes R; “Non-fibrogenic (inert)

minerals and pneumoconiosis.” In

Occupational Lung Disorders; 3rd

edition; edited by Ramond Parkes;

Butterworth-Heinemann; Oxford, UK;

1994; pp. 253-284.

10. Jones NR, Weill H, Parkes R; “Disease

related to non-asbestos silicates.” In

Occupational Lung Disorders; 3rd

edition; edited by Ramond Parkes;

Butterworth-Heinemann; Oxford, UK;

1994; pp. 536-570.

availability of smoking cessation programs should be

undertaken to encourage and help workers to quit

smoking.

4. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders have

been associated with factors such as forceful and

repetitive motions, awkward postures, and overhead

work. Wherever possible, ergonomic modifications

should be implemented to reduce those risk factors

associated with work practices and tool design. For

example, adjustable sanding poles may reduce

overhead sanding and awkward postures in confined

areas. A NIOSH publication “Elements of

Ergonomics Programs” is currently available to help

guide in the development of appropriate ergonomic

programs to prevent and reduce work-related

musculoskeletal disorders.21 

5. Any workers experiencing chronic or worsening

symptoms of mucosal irritation, cough, phlegm

production, or shortness of breath should discuss

their condition and work exposures with their

physician or other knowledgeable occupational

health professionals. 

REFERENCES
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078

11. Weill H, Jones RN; Parkes R; “Silicosis

and related diseases.” In Occupational

Lung Disorders; 3rd edition; edited by

Ramond Parkes; ButterworthHeinemann; Oxford, UK; 1994; pp.

285-339.

12. NIOSH [1986]. Occupational

respiratory diseases. Cincinnati, OH: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Service, Centers

for Disease Control, National Institute

for Occupational Safety and Health,

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No.

86-102.

13. NIOSH [1974]. Abrasive blasting

respiratory protective practices.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, Public

Health Service, Center for Disease

Control, National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW

(NIOSH) Publication No. 74-104, p.

106.

14. IARC [1987]. IARC monographs on the

evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of

chemicals to humans: silica and some

silicates. Vol. 42. Lyons, France: 

World Health Organization,

International Agency for Research on

Cancer, pp. 49, 51, 73-111.

15. DHHS [1991]. Sixth annual report on

carcinogens: summary 1991. Research

Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Public

Health Service, National Institute of

Environmental Health Sciences, pp.

357-364.

16. NIOSH [1997]. Musculoskeletal

disorders and workplace factors: a

critical review of epidemiologic

evidence for work-related disorders of

the neck, upper extremity, and back;

July, 1997. 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. 97-141.

17. NIOSH [1995]. In-depth survey report:

A laboratory comparison of

conventional drywall sanding

techniques versus commercially

available controls; June,1995. 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)

Report No.: ECTB: 208-11a.

18. Rohl AN, Langer AM, Selikoff IJ,

Nicholson WJ [1975]; Exposure to

asbestos in the use of consumer

spackling, patching, and taping

compounds; August, 1975. Science,

Vol. 189, pp.551-553.

19. Fischbein A, Rohl AN, Langer AM,

Selikoff IJ [1979]; Drywall construction

and asbestos exposure; May, 1979. 

American Industrial Hygiene

Association Journal, Vol. 40, pp.402-

407.

20. Code of Federal Regulations [1992]. 29

CFR 1910.1001. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office,

Federal Register.

21. NIOSH [1997]. Elements of

Ergonomics Programs; March, 1997. 

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. 97-117.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078 Page 13

Table 2

Office Building Renovation

December 16, 1993 

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights

HETA 94-0078

(Washington, D (Washington, D ashington, D.C., Site) .C., Site)

2 Employees

work observed

*PPE used

Sample # Sample Type

(i.e., total, respirable,

quartz)

Time

(min)

Volume

(liters)

Filter

weight

(μg)

Concentration**

(TWA mg/m3

)

for period

sampled

Finisher A

sanding ceilings &

walls, 

 dust mask 

4996 respirable 443 753 1220 1.62

4992-96 total 443 886 9860 11.0

4996 respirable quartz 443 753 30

(0.41%

quartz)

0.04

Finisher B

sanding ceilings &

walls, 

 dust mask 

4988 respirable 435 740 2700 3.64

4987-88 total 281 534 9560 17.9

4988 respirable quartz 435 740 60

(0.45%

quartz)

0.08

 * PPE= personal protective equipment 

 ** Bolded concentrations exceeded relevant OSHA criteria
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078

Table 3 Table 3

Apartment Building Renovation Apartment Building Renovation

August 11-12, 1994 

Center to Protect Work Center to Protect Workers’ Rights ers’ Rights

HETA 94-0078 HETA 94-0078

(Buffalo, New York, Site) (Buffalo, New York, Site)

8 Employees

work observed

*PPE used

Sample # Sample Type

(i.e., total or

respirable) 

Time

(min)

Volume

(Liters)

Filter Wt.

(μg)

Concentration**

(TWA mg/m3

)

for period sampled

August 11

Finisher C 2600 respirable 382 649 4550 7.0

sanding ceilings, dust mask 2613,

2598

total 173

Finisher D 2594 respirable 244 415 2420 3.9

sanding all areas, dust mask 2588,

2590

total 80

Finisher E 2605 respirable 373 634 3080 4.8

sanding ceilings, closets, no dust

mask

2604,

2585

total 359 718 81620 114

Finisher F 2577 respirable 251 427 1070 2.5

sanding walls, no dust mask 2603,

2586

total 261 505 29940 59

Finisher G 2595 respirable 263 447 630 1.4

sanding all areas, dust mask 2581,

2599

total 263 523 20420 39

Finisher H 2609 respirable 185 315 530 1.7

sanding all areas, dust mask 2584,

2587

total 184 365 9230 25

Finisher I 2592 respirable 82 139 120 0.86

sanding all areas, dust mask 2597,

2579

total 171 339 9480 28

Finisher J 2596 respirable 165 281 1620 5.8

sanding all areas, dust mask no sample total - - - n/a

August 12

Finisher C

sanding all areas, no dust mask

2591 respirable

(no total dust

sample)

552 938 740 0.78

Finisher D

sanding all areas, no dust mask

2580 respirable

(no total dust

sample)

734 1248 470 0.37

Finisher E 2593 respirable 413 702 2610 3.7

sanding all areas, dust mask 2579,

2606

total 413 826 4901 5.9

Finisher H

sanding all areas, no dust mask

2582 respirable

(no total dust

sample)

361 614 2610 4.3

Finisher I 2583 respirable 412 700 2030 2.9

sanding all areas, dust mask 2589 total 412 824 50530 61

*PPE= personal protective equipment; ** Bolded concentrations exceeded relevant OSHA criteria
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078 Page 15

Table 4

Apartment Building Renovation Apartment Building Renovation

Evaluation for Respirable Crystalline Silica (as quartz)

August 11-12, 1994 

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights

HETA 94-0078

(Buffalo, New York, Site)

8 Employees Sample

#

Sample type

total, respirable 

Time

(min)

Volume

(L)

Filter

weight

(mg.)

Quartz 

(% by

weight)

Quartz 

(mg/m3

)

August 11

Finisher C 2600 respirable 383 649 4.55 ND ND

2598 total 383 779 135 1.2 Tr

Finisher D 2594 respirable 365 621 2.42 0.8 Tr

2588 total 364 728 58.42 0.53 Tr

Finisher E 2605 respirable 373 634 3.08 ND Tr

2585 total 359 718 81.62 0.97 Tr

Finisher F 2577 respirable 251 427 1.07 ND Tr

2586 total 261 505 29.94 0.72 Tr

Finisher G 2595 respirable 263 447 0.63 ND Tr

2581 total 263 523 20.42 0.90 Tr

Finisher H 2609 respirable 185 315 0.53 ND ND

2587 total 184 365 9.23 ND Tr

Finisher I 2592 respirable 82 139 0.12 ND ND

2579 total 171 339 9.48 1.10 Tr

Finisher J 2596 respirable

no total dust sample 

165 281 1.62 ND ND

August 12

Finisher C 2591 respirable

no total sample

552 939 0.74 ND ND

Finisher D 2580 respirable

no total sample

734 1248 0.47 ND ND

Finisher E 2593 respirable 413 702 2.61 ND Tr

2579 total 413 826 4.90 0.80 Tr

Finisher H 2582 respirable

no total sample

361 614 0.73 ND ND

Finisher I 2583 respirable 412 700 2.03 ND Tr

2589 total 412 824 50.53 0.73 Tr

Tr = trace quantity, between LOD and LOQ; ND = not detected to LOD for method
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078

Table 5

Analysis of Joint Compound Bulk Samples 

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights

HETA 94-0078

Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6

Product size 1⁄2 pint 62 lb 50 lb 4.5 gal 8 lb 12 lb

Chrysotile*

(asbestos)

Quartz

(crystalline silica )

+ ++

Talc + +

Mica + + + + +

Calcite** ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Gypsum + +

Clays*** +

Perlite + + +

+ secondary, minor, or trace constituent

++ primary constituent

* includes all species of asbestos

** includes calcium carbonate, dolomite, and limestone 

*** includes attapulgite and kaolinite
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078 Page 17

Table 6

 Non-musculoskeletal Symptoms Experienced by Eight Workers Over the Past 12 Months 

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights

HETA 94-0078

(Buffalo, New York, Site)

Symptoms Symptoms

experienced

during the past 12

months

Symptoms associated with

work or improve when

away from work

phlegm production 

>3 days/week

63% (5/8) 13% (1/8)

Morning or day cough

>3 days/week

50% (4/8) 13% (1/8)

Shortness of breath or

chest tightness

50% (4/8) 25% (2/8)

Red, itching, or

irritated eyes

38% (3/8) 38% (3/8)

Stuffy nose, sinus

congestion or drainage

25% (2/8) 25% (2/8)

Skin rash, dermatitis,

hives, or eczema 

25% (2/8) 13% (1/8)

Wheezing or whistling

noises in the chest

25% (2/8) none
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 94-0078

Table 7

 Work-related Musculoskeletal Symptoms in Eight Workers

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights

HETA 94-0078

(Buffalo, New York, Site)

Symptoms Symptoms

experienced

during the past

12 months

Symptoms 

experienced at experienced at

least once/

week over past

12 months

Intensity of symptoms

experienced over the past experienced over the past 

12 months

Elbows / forearms

pain, stiffness, or

numbness

88% (7/8) 63% (5/8)

mild

moderate

severe

14% (1/7)

57% (4/7)

29% (2/7)

Back pain, stiffness,

or numbness

75% (6/8) 75% (6/8) moderate

severe

17% (1/6)

83% (5/6)

Hands / wrist pain, 

stiffness, or numbness 63% (5/8) 50% (4/8)

mild

moderate

severe

20% (1/5)

60% (3/5)

20% (1/5)

Neck pain or

stiffness 

38% (3/8) 25% (2/8) moderate 100% (3/3)

Shoulder pain,

stiffness, or

numbness

38% (3/8) 25% (2/8)

moderate 

severe 

33% (1/3)

67% (2/3)