Evaluation of 

1-Bromopropane Use 

in Four New Jersey 

Commercial Dry 

Cleaning Facilities

Judith Eisenberg, MD, MS

Jessica Ramsey, MS

Health Hazard Evaluation Report

HETA 2008-0175-3111

New Jersey Department of Health and 

Senior Services

July 2010

Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Workplace

Safety and Health

 National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health

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/
The employer shall post a copy of this report 

for a period of 30 calendar days at or near 

the workplace(s) of affected employees. The 

employer shall take steps to insure that the 

posted determinations are not altered, defaced, 

or covered by other material during such 

period. [37 FR 23640, November 7, 1972, as 

amended at 45 FR 2653, January 14, 1980].
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page i

Appendix A

Report Abbreviations.......................................................................i

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

Summary .............................................................................v

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

Assessment.........................................................................2

Results.................................................................................2

Discussion ...........................................................................5

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

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

References ........................................................................11

Contents

Occupational Exposure Limits and Health Effects.............14

Acknowledgments Acknowledgments and Availability of Report.....................1
Page ii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111

1-BP 1-bromopropane

ACGIH® American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

cc/min Cubic centimeters per minute

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

cfm Cubic feet per minute

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CT Computed tomography

ED Emergency department

ft2 square feet

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer

LEV Local exhaust ventilation

LOD Limit of detection

LOQ Limit of quantification

mcg/mL Micrograms per milliliter

meq/L Milliequivalents per liter

mg/L Milligrams per liter

μg/sample Micrograms per sample

MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NJ DEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NJ DHSS New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services

OEL Occupational exposure limit

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PBZ Personal breathing zone

PEL Permissible exposure limit

perc Perchloroethylene

PPE Personal protective equipment

ppm Parts per million

REL Recommended exposure limit

STEL Short term exposure limit

TLV® Threshold limit value

TWA Time-weighted average

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WEEL Workplace environmental exposure limit

Abbreviatio
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page iii

Highlights of 

NIOSH 

Hazard Eval

The National Institute 

for Occupational Safety 

and Health (NIOSH) 

received a technical 

assistance request 

from the New Jersey 

Department of Health 

and Senior Services. 

The request concerned 

a report of health effects 

in an operator using 

1-bromopropane (1-BP) at 

a dry cleaning facility.

What NIOSH Did

● In August 2008, we visited four dry cleaning facilities that 

had converted their systems from perchloroethylene (perc) to 

1-BP.

● We interviewed owners, operators, and an employee about 

their work and any symptoms they thought were work 

related. We later reviewed medical records.

● We collected air samples for 1-BP at the same facilities in 

November 2008.

What NIOSH Found

● An operator reported lightheadedness when cooking 1-BP. 

This is a symptom that can occur with general solvent use.

● No cases of peripheral neuropathy were found among 

owners, operators, or employees.

● Work practices, how conversions were done, and the amount 

of 1-BP used varied widely.

● Operators who converted machines on their own or who 

cooked 1-BP were exposed to high concentrations of 1-BP in 

the air.

● Respirators, gloves, and eye protection were not being used. 

Respirators were not equipped with the correct cartridges for 

1-BP.

What Owners Can Do

● Use a qualified technician to convert the machines from perc 

to 1-BP.

● Follow the manufacturer’s guidelines for safe product use. 

This includes the use of ventilation, specific temperatures, 

and appropriate system settings.

● Use general building ventilation to reduce 1-BP 

concentrations in the air.

● Use local exhaust ventilation or open the doors to outside 

when loading or unloading machines, pouring solvent, and 

maintaining equipment.

What Operators Can Do

● Do not cook 1-BP or cut the drying periods short as this may 

increase 1-BP exposures to operators.
Page iv Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111

Highlights of 

NIOSH 

Hazard Eval

(continued

● Wear eye protection, gloves, and a respirator when handling 

1-BP.

● If personal air monitoring indicates the above steps are not 

effective at reducing exposures below applicable occupational 

exposure limits, then respiratory protection should be used. 

Employees should be fit tested and trained how to use and 

store respirators properly.

What Owners, Operators, and Employees 

Can Do

● If you become lightheaded, short of breath, or nauseated, or 

develop a headache when handling 1-BP, stop immediately 

and go outside. If symptoms do not resolve within minutes

or if you develop muscle weakness or sensory problems, seek 

care at the nearest emergency department. Tell the healthcare 

provider about your workplace exposure to 1-BP.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page v

Summ

We found no cases of 

peripheral neuropathy 

among dry cleaners who 

had switched from perc 

to 1-BP. 1-BP levels that 

exceeded the ACGIH 

TLV-TWA of 10 ppm were 

found. We recommend 

that dry cleaning facilities 

using 1-BP as a perc 

alternative use a qualified 

technician to convert the 

machines.

On May 2, 2008, NIOSH received a technical assistance request 

from the NJ DHSS regarding potential health effects of 1-BP 

in drycleaners. This solvent can be used in the same machine 

as perc after a conversion process. One New Jersey dry cleaner 

owner required medical evaluation after becoming symptomatic 

while doing the 1-BP conversion himself. Initial reports indicated 

the possibility of peripheral neuropathy. Because 1-BP has 

been documented in the medical literature to cause peripheral 

neuropathy, NIOSH was asked to evaluate possible exposures and 

health effects among dry cleaner operators who used 1-BP.

In August 2008, we visited four of eight facilities in New Jersey 

that had been approved to use 1-BP in dry cleaning operations. 

We interviewed owners, operators, and an employee about the 

conversion process, work practices, and adverse health effects they 

associated with 1-BP use. PBZ and area air sampling was performed 

during normal operation of the 1-BP system during our second site 

visit in November 2008.

Six interviews were conducted with owners, operators, and 

employees. One person reported transient lightheadedness, which 

is consistent with general solvent exposure. The owner who sought 

prior medical care for symptoms that occurred while handling 

1-BP had no residual neurological deficits at the time of our 

visit. Review of this individual’s medical records did not reveal 

neurological abnormalities at an ED visit when symptoms first 

developed, and serum bromide levels obtained during that ED visit 

were well under levels associated with adverse health effects.

Full-shift sampling for 1-BP conducted at one of the facilities 

resulted in PBZ air concentrations of 40 ppm for the operator and 

17 ppm for the cashier. PBZ concentrations ranging from 1.5 to 

160 ppm were found in partial shift samples taken at the other 

three facilities. These results confirmed the release of 1-BP into the 

environment at all four locations, indicating a potential hazard to 

employees.

We recommend that dry cleaner operators using 1-BP as a perc 

alternative use a qualified technician to convert the machines. 

Operators should not cook the solvent nor cut drying periods 

short, as doing so may increase exposure to 1-BP. Until 1-BP 

exposures can be consistently documented to be below the OEL, 

respirators are recommended. Use of respirators should occur 

within the setting of a comprehensive respiratory protection 
Page vi Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111

Summary (contin

program. General ventilation should always be used to dilute 1-BP 

concentrations in the air.

Symptoms such as lightheadedness, headache, and nausea are 

consistent with solvent exposure. If employees notice these 

symptoms they should leave the area. Employees should not 

resume work until the source of the exposure has been indentified 

and corrected. If symptoms do not resolve shortly after leaving the 

work area, employees should seek immediate medical attention 

and inform their healthcare provider of their potential exposure to 

1-BP.

Keywords: NAICS 812320 (Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services 

(except Coin-Operated)), dry cleaning, 1-bromopropane, n-propyl 

bromide, solvent, neuropathy
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page 1

Introduct

On May 2, 2008, NIOSH received a request for technical assistance 

from the NJ DHSS regarding potential health effects from exposure 

to 1-BP (1-bromopropane), also known as n-propyl bromide, and 

marketed under the trade names of Dry-SolvTM and Fabri-SolvTM. The 

request was prompted by a suspected case of peripheral neuropathy 

in an owner of a dry cleaning establishment who had handled a large 

amount of 1-BP while converting a machine to 1-BP operations. 

The dry cleaning businesses we visited are small establishments. The 

owner is the individual responsible for making business decisions. 

Operators are those personnel who refill the machines with 1-BP and 

who load and unload clothes from the machine. Often the owner 

is also an operator. Employees, such as cashiers and press machine 

operators work in the facility but do not work with the dry-cleaning 

machine containing 1-BP.

Background 

Perc has been the solvent of choice in commercial dry cleaning for 

more than 50 years. In December 2007, the administrator of New 

Jersey’s Bureau of Air Compliance and Enforcement in the NJ DEP 

estimated that 1500 of the 1700 dry cleaning facilities in the state 

utilized perc systems [McAneny 2007].

Although the IARC recognizes perc as a probable human 

carcinogen, its use has only recently been restricted in the United 

States because of its ozone depletion properties and environmental 

pollution contributions. Perc was noted to be one of the top ten air 

contaminants in New Jersey and has also been identified as a source 

of soil and water pollution [NJ DEP 2010a]. The U.S. EPA will ban 

the use of perc in coresidential dry cleaning facilities as of December 

20, 2020 [40 CFR 63.323(5) (i)]. In 2007, California became the first 

state to ban perc use in dry cleaning ahead of the federal ban, and 

other states, such as North Carolina, New York, and Massachusetts, 

are contemplating similar actions. More recently, the NJ DEP has 

encouraged owners to replace their perc machines with hydrocarbon 

dry cleaning systems or professional wet cleaning systems [NJ DEP 

2010b].

Several perc alternatives are available to dry cleaning owners, 

including 1-BP, aliphatic hydrocarbons (DF-2000), silicone-based 

cleaner (GreenEarth®), carbon dioxide, and wet cleaning methods. 

However, 1-BP is the only perc alternative that can be used in the 

original perc machines with alterations. The cost of converting an 

existing perc machine to use 1-BP is approximately $4,000, compared 

to approximately $50,000 to buy a new machine that uses aliphatic 

hydrocarbon or silicone-based cleaners. A 2007 nationwide industry 

survey revealed that of those owners who were considering replacing 

their perc systems, 24% would choose to convert to 1-BP [American 

Drycleaner 2007]. The NJ DEP has instituted a reimbursement 

program offering grants to owners to help offset the costs of switching 

to nonperc systems [NJ DEP 2010b].
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111

Introducti

(continued

Assessment

Anticipated increased use of 1-BP as a perc alternative suggests the 

need for a better understanding of the exposures of dry cleaner 

operators and potential adverse health effects. High 1-BP exposures in 

electronics degreasing and foam cushion manufacturing have resulted 

in cases of peripheral neuropathy in employees [NIOSH 2001; 

NIOSH 2002; NIOSH 2003]. In some cases, these neurologic deficits 

were permanent. In February 2008, the NJ DHSS was made aware 

of one dry cleaning owner believed to have developed symptoms 

consistent with peripheral neuropathy during an exposure to 1-BP, 

which prompted its request to NIOSH for technical assistance. At 

the time of the request, eight dry cleaning facilities in the state were 

licensed to use 1-BP; four of these facilities consented to participate 

in the NIOSH evaluation.

On August 26–28, 2008, we made initial site visits to the four dry 

cleaning facilities, and interviewed the owners, operators, and an 

employee about the conversion process from perc to 1-BP, work 

practices involving 1-BP, and health effects related to 1-BP. Medical 

records release forms were completed by the owner who was evaluated 

for possible 1-BP related symptoms, and these records were reviewed.

On November 18–20, 2008, we returned to the facilities to collect 

PBZ and area air samples for 1-BP. We collected PBZ air samples on 

the operators who ran the machines and the cashiers at the front of 

the store who received and distributed items. The employees wore 

sampling devices with the sample media placed in their breathing 

zones. Area samples were collected in various places around the 

shops, including behind the machines to quantify exposures from 

any leaks. Air samples were only collected during times when the dry 

cleaning equipment was operating because the owners requested we 

stop monitoring when they stopped using the 1-BP machines. We 

collected air samples using NIOSH Method 1025 for 1-BP [NIOSH 

2009]. In this method, air is drawn through a standard charcoal tube 

(SKC Anasorb® CSC Lot 4936) using a calibrated personal sampling 

pump at a nominal flow rate of 50 cc/min. After sampling, the 

charcoal tubes were capped and shipped refrigerated to the analytical 

laboratory. Samples were analyzed for 1-BP using gas chromatography 

with flame ionization detection. The 1-BP LOD was 1 μg/sample, 

and the LOQ was 4 μg/sample. The OELs and potential health 

effects for 1-BP are discussed in Appendix A.

Health Concerns 

A published report of the owner exposed to 1-BP stated that he 

experienced symptoms of headaches, fatigue, visual disturbances, 

tremors, and “muscle twitching” [CDC 2008]. During our interview 

Results
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page 3

Results (continued) with this owner regarding the incident, he recalled a slightly different

set of symptoms including headache, shortness of breath, fatigue, and 

chest tightness while converting his machine to 1-BP from perc. He 

contacted the local poison control center and was advised to report 

to the nearest ED for evaluation. Review of his ED medical records 

showed that the physical examination, chest x-ray, and head CT were 

normal. The only abnormality on the standard blood tests was an 

elevated serum chloride level of 110 meq/L (reference range: 96–106 

meq/L). A serum bromide level was ordered during his ED visit, 

but the laboratory that analyzed the sample did not have this result 

available until 4 days after the visit. As per the reporting laboratory, 

bromide toxicity is expected with serum levels greater than or equal 

to 1250 mcg/mL, which is much higher than the 144 mcg/mL level 

reported for this owner [Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, Chantilly, 

Virginia]. This owner reported no persistent neurological deficits and 

developed no signs or symptoms that would indicate a need for an 

evaluation by a neurologist.

Another owner reported often feeling lightheaded and “buzzed” 

while handling 1-BP particularly when “cooking” the solvent (boiling 

the solvent to remove impunties). These symptoms resolved minutes 

after he went outside. None of those interviewed reported persistent 

weakness, sensation deficits, or balance disturbances.

Environmental Sampling 

PBZ air sampling results for 1-BP are included in Table 1.

Table 1. Personal breathing zone air concentrations of 1-BP at four dry cleaning facilities

 Job Title

#

of 

Loads

Cooking Sampling Time (minutes) Concentration 

(ppm)

Full 

Shift 

TWA 

(ppm)

Operator – Facility 1

10 Yes

07:43 – 11:43 (241) 56

40

11:45 – 15:44 (240) 23

Cashier – Facility 1 07:44 – 11:47 (243) 24

17

11:47 – 15:52 (245) 10

Operator – Facility 2

3 No

08:35 – 12:04 (209) 7.2 N/A*

Cashier – Facility 2 08:37 – 12:09 (212) 1.5 N/A

Operator – Facility 3 1 No 07:10 – 09:52 (163) 11 N/A

Operator – Facility 4

1 Yes

11:43 – 15:43 (241) 160 N/A

Cashier – Facility 4 11:41 – 15:45 (246) 2.4 N/A

*N/A = not applicable
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111

Results (continued) Facility 1 was using a Multimatic 35-pound machine (Multimatic,

Northvale, New Jersey). The machine had been converted from perc 

to 1-BP by the owner. During sampling, 10 loads of dry cleaning 

were run. No solvent was added to the machine during the sampling 

period. Although most modern machines can run multiple loads 

through an automated software program, the operator at this facility 

manually ran each load and cooked after every load. Full-shift TWA 

exposures were calculated for the owner/operator (40 ppm) and 

cashier (17 ppm). Other employees were using press machines next to 

the dry cleaning machine while the cashier moved around the shop 

retrieving finished items and handling customer transactions. Area 

air samples were collected behind (103 ppm in the morning and 48 

ppm in the afternoon) and in front (66 ppm in the morning and 36 

ppm in the afternoon) of the dry cleaning machine for approximately 

8 hours. In the morning, at the beginning of the sampling period, the 

building’s ventilation system was off, the doors were closed, and the 

front windows were open. In the afternoon, the back door was open, 

and the ventilation system was on to improve dilution and air mixing.

Facility 2 was using a VIC 35-pound machine (Dalex, Concord, 

Ontario). The machine had been converted by Enviro Tech 

International, the company that provided this dry cleaner with the 

1-BP material. During sampling, three loads of dry cleaning were run. 

No solvent was added to the machine during the sampling period, 

and no cooking was performed. An oscillating fan next to the door 

of the dry cleaning machine was on during the sampling period. The 

fan blew air towards the operator as he loaded and unloaded the 

machine. Other employees were using press machines next to the 

dry cleaning machine; after the operator had loaded and started the 

machine, he also used a press machine. The cashier in this facility 

mainly stayed in the front of the building taking clothing from 

customers, writing receipts, and handling payment transactions. Area 

air samples were collected behind (1.5 ppm) and in front (6.4 ppm) of 

the dry cleaning machine for the 3.5-hour sampling period while PBZ 

air sampling was performed.

Facility 3 used a Frimair 20–25-pound machine (Frimair, Turnersville, 

New Jersey). The machine had been converted to 1-BP use by Enviro 

Tech International. On the day of sampling, only one load of dry 

cleaning was run, and the operator had just started the load before we 

began sampling. The operator was the only employee on the premises, 

and he did the dry cleaning while also handling front counter duties, 

which included clothing intake, writing receipts for customers, and 

payment transactions. We collected an area air sample at the front 

counter that measured 8.6 ppm, similar to the operator’s PBZ air 

concentration of 11 ppm. After the single run was completed, the 

operator explained that he would only perform counter duties for the 

remainder of the work day. Because he planned to do no more runs 

that day, the operator asked that we discontinue sampling at the end 

of the cycle. No solvent was added to the machine, and no cooking 

was performed during the sampling period.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page 5

Results (continued) Facility 4 was using a Frimair 30–35-pound machine (Frimair,

Turnersville, New Jersey). The owner of the facility had converted 

the machine. During sampling, most of the operator’s time was 

spent behind the machine, monitoring it while cooking the solvent. 

One load of dry cleaning was run at the end of the sampling period. 

Another employee performed the cashier duties in this facility; he 

also used a press machine next to the dry cleaning machine. Area air 

samples were collected behind (170 ppm) and in front (33 ppm) of 

the dry cleaning machine for the approximate 4-hour period that PBZ 

air sampling was performed. The front door of the facility was open, 

and a large building exhaust fan was on during the sampling period. 

The operator explained that he always ran the exhaust fan while he 

was cooking. Although he did cook solvent, none was added to the 

machine during the sampling period.

General Observations

None of the operators at the four locations used gloves or eye 

protection when handling or pouring the solvent. Two of the four 

operators had elastomeric half mask respirators; however, they did 

not have the correct organic vapor cartridges.

At the time of the request, eight dry cleaning facilities in the state of 

New Jersey were licensed by the NJ DEP to use 1-BP. We collected 

PBZ and area air samples at four of the eight locations that elected 

to participate in our evaluation. No two locations were performing 

the same amount or type of work, and work practices varied greatly, 

making comparisons difficult. The work volume at the facilities 

ranged from one to ten loads of dry cleaning over a workday, and 

some operators cooked the solvent, while others did not.

Because of initial reports that one owner had developed symptoms 

while using 1-BP, including some that were consistent with peripheral 

neuropathy, we were asked to focus on this health effect in our 

evaluation. Previous investigations have linked peripheral neuropathy 

to high-level 1-BP exposure in electronics degreasing [NIOSH 2001] 

and foam cushion manufacturing [NIOSH 2002; NIOSH 2003]. 

Case reports in the medical literature describe debilitating, sometime 

permanent, motor weakness and chronic neuropathic pain in young 

workers exposed to 1-BP as part of the spray adhesive used in foam 

cushion manufacturing. In one series of case reports of peripheral 

neuropathy associated with high level 1-BP use, affected employees 

had a 7-hour TWA exposure to 1-BP of 108 ppm [Majersik et al. 

2007]. In a study of employees working in a 1-BP production facility, 

investigators found decreased vibration sense, decreased conduction 

velocity in sensory nerves, difficulty in digit recall, and decreased 

visual tracking ability [Ichihara et al. 2004]. This study found no 

motor deficits. Inhalational exposure studies on rats exposed to 200–

Discussi
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111

Discussio  (continued) 800 ppm 1-BP over several weeks revealed both motor and senso

neuropathies [Ichihara et al. 2000]. 1-BP has also been associated with 

adverse effects on the reproductive system [NIH 2003].

Human exposure to 1-BP can be assessed using a serum bromide 

level. This test is not usually available as a routine laboratory test. 

The results of a serum bromide level may not be available for several 

days, so this test is used to confirm an exposure, rather than to 

help establish an initial diagnosis. As per Goldfrank’s Toxicological 

Emergencies, “Normal serum bromide concentrations are less 

than 500 mg/L” (this converts to 500 mcg/mL). Background levels 

of bromide result from intake of trace bromide in water due to 

absorption from surrounding rocks/soil containing bromide, produce 

treated with bromide-containing fumigants (methyl bromide and 

ethylene dibromide) and not washed thoroughly before eating, 

taking over-the-counter medications that contain bromide (e.g., 

dextromethorphan bromide used as a cough suppressant in cold 

medicine, brompheniramine maleate used as an antihistamine, 

bromo-seltzer, etc.), or after general anesthesia with halothane 

[Flomenbaum et al. 2006]. Toxicity from bromide had been reported 

with acute exposure to methyl bromide fumigant, overdose of 

medications containing bromide, or ingestion of bromide-containing 

neutralizers used in permanent wave hair products [Perez and McKay 

2007]. Because the owner involved in the initial exposure incident 

did not have a serum bromide level done prior to this incident, we 

have no baseline for comparison to determine if the serum bromide 

level increased as a result of his exposure. However, the serum 

bromide level of 144 mcg/mL at the time of the exposure is well 

under the 1250 mcg/mL level associated with adverse health effects.

A laboratory finding of immediate use in determining exposure to 

1-BP and other bromides is the chloride level on a routine standard 

metabolic assay. Depending on the equipment used to run the 

test, the chloride level may be elevated because of the bromide ion 

being counted as a chloride ion [Burkhart 2006]. Bromide can also 

be measured in the urine. This test was developed and evaluated 

against inhalational 1-BP exposure in workers exposed via use of 

spray adhesives; however, this test is not widely available [Hanley et al. 

2006].

Full-shift sampling for 1-BP conducted at Facility 1 resulted in PBZ 

air concentrations of 40 ppm for the operator and 17 ppm for the 

cashier. This operator’s exposure to 1-BP was well in excess of the 

current ACGIH TLV of 10 ppm. This operator ran a high number 

of loads on the day of sampling and cooked the solvent after each 

load, a practice that is not recommended by the manufacturer. 

Even the cashier, who did not operate the machine, had a PBZ air 

concentration that exceeded the recommended level, indicating 

that 1-BP poses a potential hazard to other employees in this facility 

(e.g., press operators who work next to the machines). Area air 

samples confirmed the release of high concentrations of 1-BP into 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page 7

Discussio  (continued) the environment surrounding the machine. At this facility, a

concentrations of 1-BP were higher in the morning, possibly because 

the general ventilation system was turned off during that time.

Partial shift sampling was conducted at the other three facilities 

because the owners requested that we remove the sampling 

equipment once they had finished running the dry cleaning 

machines. However, employees can have continued exposure to 1-BP 

after the last load is finished because of existing contamination in 

the environment. This exposure can be significant for facilities that 

do not have good general dilution ventilation or whose ventilation 

systems are not always in operation. PBZ concentrations ranging from 

1.5 to 160 ppm were found in these 3.5- to 4-hour PBZ air samples 

collected at facilities 2, 3, and 4. The highest concentration (160 

ppm) was measured at Facility 4. Although only one load was run by 

this operator, most of his time was spent cooking the solvent. Even 

if the operator had no further exposure to 1-BP during this work 

day, his full-shift PBZ concentration would be well in excess of the 

ACGIH TLV. An area air sample collected behind the machine at this 

facility confirmed the release of a high concentration of 1-BP into 

the work environment (170 ppm), again indicating a potential hazard 

to others in this work area. Machine leaks may have contributed to 

the high exposures; the owner had converted the machine himself 

and indicated that he had difficulty finding the correct materials for 

the conversion. Opening the front door of this facility and using an 

exhaust fan near the dry cleaning machine may have helped to keep 

this cashier’s exposure low (2.4 ppm) on the day of sampling. This 

improvement was evident from the marked decrease in solvent odor 

after the fan was turned on and the front door was opened.

The NIOSH evaluation revealed that exposures to 1-BP can exceed 

the ACGIH TLV for 1-BP even for employees who do not operate 

the machines. It is expected that 1-BP exposures on a given day can 

be higher or lower at a given facility depending on work volume and 

work practices. Although we cannot make definitive conclusions 

based on our limited sampling, the highest concentrations of 1-BP 

were found at the two facilities that had converted the machines 

themselves and were cooking the solvent, a practice that had been 

performed widely for perc but is no longer recommended by the 

manufacturers for 1-BP operation. Further evaluation is needed to 

understand the relative contributions to the overall 1-BP exposures 

from possible machine leaks and practices such as cooking the 

solvent. This evaluation has shown that operators often rely on 

natural ventilation (opening doors and windows) for controlling 

exposures to 1-BP. This is not a good practice because weather 

conditions may preclude it. Although one owner reported transient 

symptoms consistent with general solvent exposure, we found no 

evidence of symptoms suggesting peripheral neuropathy in dry 

cleaners using 1-BP.

Conclusion
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111

Based on our findings, we have several recommendations to create 

more healthful work places. We encourage owners of dry cleaning 

establishments to use these recommendations to develop an action 

plan based, if possible, on the hierarchy of controls approach 

(Appendix A: Occupational Exposure Limits and Health Effects). 

This approach groups actions by their likely effectiveness in reducing 

or removing hazards. In most cases, the preferred approach is to 

eliminate hazardous materials or processes and install engineering 

controls to reduce exposure or shield employees. Until such controls 

are in place, or if they are not effective or feasible, administrative 

measures and/or personal protective equipment may be needed. 

If operators or employees develop symptoms consistent with 1-BP 

exposure (such as lightheadedness, headache, or nausea), they should 

leave the area until the source of the exposure has been indentified 

and remediated. If symptoms do not resolve shortly after leaving the 

work area, or if the individuals develop extremity muscle weakness or 

sensory problems, they should seek immediate medical attention and 

notify their healthcare provider of the potential exposure to 1-BP.

Elimination and Substitution

Elimination or substitution of a toxic/hazardous process material 

is a highly effective means for reducing hazards. Incorporating this 

strategy into the design or development phase of a project, commonly 

referred to as “prevention through design,” is most effective because it 

reduces the need for additional controls in the future.

1. Consider switching to wet cleaning methods. A wide variety 

of garments that are currently dry cleaned can be wet 

cleaned satisfactorily while controlling fabric deterioration 

and shrinkage [Gottlieb et al. 1997]. Wet cleaning has fewer 

health and safety concerns, as well as a reduced burden of 

environmental regulations [NIOSH 1997a]. Other alternatives 

include selecting a dry cleaning machine that uses petroleumbased solvents; these solvents are generally considered less 

toxic, although they are flammable and present a fire hazard 

[NIOSH 1997a].

Engineering Controls 

Engineering controls reduce employee exposures by removing the 

hazard from the process or placing a barrier between the hazard and 

the employee. Engineering controls are very effective at protecting 

employees without placing primary responsibility of implementation 

on the employee. 

1. Isolate machines from other work areas to reduce the exposure 

of employees who do not run the machine, such as press 

operators and cashiers.

Recommendatio
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page 9

Recommendatio

(continued) 2. Use LEV at or near the machine door to reduce worker

exposure during machine loading and unloading and while 

performing maintenance. Airflow capacity through a retrofit 

hood should not be less than 100 times the door opening area 

in square feet (i.e., a 4 ft2 door opening would need a flow rate 

of at least 400 cfm). The exhaust hood should be isolated from 

crossdrafts caused by general ventilation, floor or other shop 

fans, and high personnel traffic areas [NIOSH 1997b].

3. Use general ventilation to dilute background 1-BP 

concentrations. Generally accepted guidelines recommend 12 

air changes per hour with a minimum of 30 cfm of outside 

air per person for dry cleaning establishments. The direction 

of airflow should move from a clean area (customer counters) 

to one that is less clean (dry cleaning machine area). A 

qualified ventilation system contractor should be contacted for 

assistance [NIOSH 1997b].

Administrative Controls 

Administrative controls are management-dictated work practices 

and policies to reduce or prevent exposures to workplace hazards. 

The effectiveness of administrative changes in work practices 

for controlling workplace hazards is dependent on management 

commitment and employee acceptance. Regular monitoring and 

reinforcement are necessary to ensure that control policies and 

procedures are not circumvented in the name of convenience or 

production.

1. Use a qualified technician to convert the machines from perc 

to 1-BP to ensure the use of proper materials for replacement 

parts (e.g., gaskets), correct machine settings, and proper safety 

measures during the process.

2. Follow manufacturer guidelines on the use of ventilation, 

temperature, and system settings when using 1-BP.

3. Conduct air sampling periodically for 1-BP and whenever 

changes in work practices, procedures, or ventilation may affect 

employee exposures.

4. Do not cook the solvent. The manufacturer of Dry-Solv states 

that, unlike perc, the solvent does not require cooking.

5. Keep the machine door closed except when loading and 

unloading.

6. Advise the operator to keep his or her head out of the machine 

and stay as far away as possible from the door when loading 

and unloading. A tool with a long handle could be used to 

retrieve clothes from the back of the drum.
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111

Recommendatio

(continued) 7. Use the full drying period, as cutting drying periods short may

cause solvent to remain on the items and increase operator 

exposure.

8. Consider limiting the number of loads per day to reduce 

exposures below the OELs.

Personal Protective Equipment 

PPE is the least effective means for controlling employee exposures. 

Proper use of PPE requires a comprehensive program, and calls for a 

high level of employee involvement and commitment to be effective. 

The use of PPE requires the choice of the appropriate equipment to 

reduce the hazard and the development of supporting programs such 

as training, change-out schedules, and medical assessment if needed. 

PPE should not be relied upon as the sole method for limiting 

employee exposures. Rather, PPE should be used until engineering 

and administrative controls can be demonstrated to be effective in 

limiting exposures to acceptable levels.

1. Wear safety glasses/goggles and gloves appropriate for 1-BP 

when handling the solvent as the Dry-Solv Material Safety 

Data Sheet suggests. Viton® or SilverShield® gloves offer the 

best protection.

2. Ensure that employees whose exposures can exceed 

the ACGIH TLV wear respirators until ventilation and 

administrative controls can be demonstrated to reduce 

employee exposures below applicable guidelines.

3. Instruct employees at Facility 1 to wear a minimum of an 

elastomeric half-mask air-purifying respirator with organic 

vapor cartridges, because air sample results indicate that the 

operator and cashier were exposed to 1-BP above the ACGIH 

TLV of 10 ppm. This respirator has an assigned protection 

factor of 10, meaning that exposures would be expected to be 

reduced by a factor of 10 if the respirator is properly fitted and 

worn in full accordance with the OSHA respirator standard. 

At Facility 4, the operator’s exposure was much higher, 

indicating the need for a respirator with a higher assigned 

protection factor if cooking solvent is continued. This would 

include a minimum of a full facepiece air-purifying respirator 

or a powered air purifying respirator equipped with organic 

vapor cartridges. Although full-shift air sampling was not 

conducted at Facilities 2 or 3, it is possible that operators’ 

full-shift exposures could exceed the 10 ppm guideline 

depending on the workload and other factors. We recommend 

conducting additional full-shift sampling at these facilities 

over multiple days to determine if respiratory protection is 

needed as an interim measure until additional ventilation and 

administrative controls are implemented.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page 11

Recommendatio

(continued) 4. Ensure that all applicable requirements of the OSHA

Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134) are met 

where respirators are used. This includes medical screening, 

annual fit testing, training on the proper use and limitations 

of the respirator, and instruction on how to properly clean 

and store the respirator. A Small Entity Compliance Guide 

for the OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard is available 

at http://www.osha.gov/Publications/SECG_RPS/secg_rps.

html. Additional information regarding respirator cartridge 

changeout is also available online at http://www.osha.gov/

SLTC/etools/respiratory/change_schedule.html.

Other Recommendations

OSHA has a consultation service that is free to businesses that may 

prove helpful in conducting air sampling and establishing a respirator 

program. This service is separate from the OSHA compliance office, 

and use of its services cannot result in citations. Please see the OSHA 

website for further information at http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/

smallbusiness/consult.html.

American Drycleaner [2007]. Most drycleaners will consider 

alternatives. American Drycleaner 74(6):8.

Burkhart KK [2006]. Methyl bromide and other fumigants. In: 

Flomenbaum NE, Goldfrank LR, Hoffman RS, Howland MA, Lewin 

NA, Nelson LS eds. Goldfrank’s toxicological emergencies. 8th ed. 

New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., pp. 1556–1563.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) [2008]. 

Neurologic illness associated with occupational exposure to the 

solvent 1-Bromopropane – New Jersey and Pennsylvania, 2007–2008. 

MMWR 57(48):1300–1302.

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

Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register.

Flomenbaum NE, Goldfrank LR, Hoffman RS, Howland MA, Lewin 

NA, Nelson LS, eds [2006]. Goldfrank’s toxicological emergencies. 

8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. [http://elib.cdc.

gov:2090/Document/Document.aspx?FxId=68&DocId=1&SessionId

=1205F29GMKJWMRKL]. Date accessed: April 2010.

Gottlieb R, Goodheart J, Sinsheimer P, Tranby C, Bechtel L [1997]. 

Wet cleaning vs. dry cleaning of clothes. Research Note 97-14 from 

report “Evaluation and Demonstration of Wet Cleaning 

Referenc
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111

Reference  (continued) Alternatives to Perchloroethylene-Based Garment Care.” Californ

Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. December 

1997. [http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/resnotes/notes/97-14.htm]. 

Date accessed: June 2010.

Hanley KW, Petersen M, Curwin BD, Sanderson WT [2006]. Urinary 

bromide and breathing zone concentrations of 1-bromopropane from 

workers exposed to flexible foam spray adhesives. Ann Occup Hyg 

50(6):599–607.

Ichihara G, Kitoh J, Yu X, Asaeda N, Iwai H, Kumazawa T, Shibata 

E, Yamada T, Wang H, Xie Z, Takeuchi Y [2000]. 1-Bromopropane, 

an alternative to ozone layer depleting solvents, is dose-dependently 

neurotoxic to rats in long-term inhalation exposure. Toxicol Sci 

55(1):116–123.

Majersik JJ, Caravati EM, Steffens JD [2007]. Severe neurotoxicity 

associated with exposure to the solvent 1-bromopropane (n-propyl 

bromide). Clin Toxicol 44(3):270–276.

McAneny DJ [2007]. N.J. forcing dry cleaners to clean up their act. 

New Jersey On-Line LLC [www.nj.com/south/index.ssf/2007/12/

nj_forcing_dry_cleaners_to_cle.html]. Date accessed: June 2010.

NIH [2003]. NTP-CERHR monograph: The potential human 

reproductive and developmental effects of 1-bromopropane. Research 

Triangle Park, NC. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

National Toxicology Program, Center for the Evaluation of Risks to 

Human Reproduction, NIH Publication No. 04-4479.

NIOSH [1997a]. Hazard Control HC17: Control to exposure of 

percholroethylene in commerical drycleaning (Substitution). U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 97-155 [http://www.cdc.

gov/niosh/hc17.html]. Date accessed: June 2010.

NIOSH [1997b]. Hazard Control HC19: Control to exposure of 

percholroethylene in commerical drycleaning (Ventilation). U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 97-157 [http://www.cdc.

gov/niosh/hc19.html]. Date accessed: June 2010.

NIOSH [2001]. Hazard evaluation and technical assistance report: 

Trilithic Inc., Indianapolis, IN. By Reh CM, Nemhauser JB. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health, NIOSH HETA Report No. 2000-0233-2845.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page 13

Reference  (continued) NIOSH [2002]. Hazard evaluation and technical assistance repor

STN Cushion Company, Cincinnati, OH. By Harney JM, Hess 

J, Reh CM, Trout D. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA 

Report No. 2000-0410-2891.

NIOSH [2003]. Hazard evaluation and technical assistance report: 

Marx Industries Inc., Thomasville, NC. By Harney JM, Nemhauser 

JB, Reh CM, Trout D. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA 

Report No. 1999-0260-2906.

NIOSH [2009]. NIOSH manual of analytical methods (NMAM®). 

4th ed. Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 94-113 (August 1994); 

1st Supplement Publication 96-135, 2nd Supplement Publication 

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

docs/2003-154/]. Date accessed: June 2010.

NJ DEP [2010a]. Notice of Rule Proposal – Control and 

Prohibition of Air Pollution by Toxic Substances; N.J.A.C. 7:27-17. 

[http://www.state.nj.us/dep//rules/proposals/121707b.pdf]. Date 

accessed: June 2010.

NJ DEP [2010b]. Dry Cleaner Equipment Replacement 

Reimbursement Program. [http://www.state.nj.us/dep/

enforcement/drycleanergrant.html]. Date accessed: June 2010.

Perez A, McKay C [2007]. Halogens (bromine, iodine and chlorine 

compounds) In: Shannon MW, Borron SW, Burns MJ, eds. 

Haddad and Winchester’s clinical management of poisoning and 

drug overdose. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc., pp. 1385–1397.
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111

In evaluating the hazards posed by workplace exposures, NIOSH investigators use both mandatory (legally 

enforceable) and recommended OELs for chemical, physical, and biological agents as a guide for making 

recommendations. OELs have been developed by Federal agencies and safety and health organizations to 

prevent the occurrence of adverse health effects from workplace exposures. Generally, OELs suggest levels 

of exposure that most employees may be exposed up to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week for a working 

lifetime without experiencing adverse health effects. However, not all employees will be protected from 

adverse health effects even if their exposures are maintained below these levels. A small percentage may 

experience adverse health effects because of individual susceptibility, a preexisting medical condition, and/

or 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 employee 

to produce health effects even if the occupational exposures are controlled at the level set by the exposure 

limit. Also, some substances can be absorbed by direct contact with the skin and mucous membranes in 

addition to being inhaled, which contributes to the individual’s overall exposure.

Most OELs are expressed as a TWA exposure. A TWA refers to the average exposure during a normal 8- 

to 10-hour workday. Some chemical substances and physical agents have recommended STEL or ceiling 

values where health effects are caused by exposures over a short period. Unless otherwise noted, the STEL 

is a 15-minute TWA exposure that should not be exceeded at any time during a workday, and the ceiling 

limit is an exposure that should not be exceeded at any time.

In the United States, OELs have been established by federal agencies, professional organizations, state 

and local governments, and other entities. Some OELs are legally enforceable limits, while others are 

recommendations. The U.S. Department of Labor OSHA PELs (29 CFR 1910 [general industry]; 29 

CFR 1926 [construction industry]; and 29 CFR 1917 [maritime industry]) are legal limits enforceable in 

workplaces covered under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. NIOSH RELs are recommendations 

based on a critical review of the scientific and technical information available on a given hazard and the 

adequacy of methods to identify and control the hazard. NIOSH RELs can be found in the NIOSH Pocket 

Guide to Chemical Hazards [NIOSH 2005]. NIOSH also recommends different types of risk management 

practices (e.g., engineering controls, safe work practices, employee education/training, personal protective 

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

effects from these hazards. Other OELs that are commonly used and cited in the United States include 

the TLVs recommended by ACGIH, a professional organization, and the WEELs recommended by the 

American Industrial Hygiene Association, another professional organization. The TLVs and WEELs are 

developed by committee members of these associations from a review of the published, peer-reviewed 

literature. They are not consensus standards. ACGIH TLVs are considered voluntary exposure guidelines 

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

hazards” [ACGIH 2009]. WEELs have been established for some chemicals “when no other legal or 

authoritative limits exist” [AIHA 2009].

Outside the United States, OELs have been established by various agencies and organizations and include 

both legal and recommended limits. Since 2006, the Berufsgenossenschaftliches Institut für Arbeitsschutz 

(German Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) has maintained a database of international 

OELs from European Union member states, Canada (Québec), Japan, Switzerland, and the United 

States available at http://www.dguv.de/bgia/en/gestis/limit_values/index.jsp. The database contains 

international limits for over 1250 hazardous substances and is updated annually.

Employers should understand that not all hazardous chemicals have specific OSHA PELs, and for some 

agents the legally enforceable and recommended limits may not reflect current health-based information. 

Appendix A: Occupational Exposure Limits and H
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page 15

Appendix A: Occupational Exposure Limits and Helth Effect

However, an employer is still required by OSHA to protect its employees from hazards even in the absence 

of a specific OSHA PEL. OSHA requires an employer to furnish employees a place of employment free 

from recognized hazards that cause or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm [Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–596, sec. 5(a)(1))]. Thus, NIOSH investigators encourage 

employers to make use of other OELs when making risk assessment and risk management decisions to 

best protect the health of their employees. NIOSH investigators also encourage the use of the traditional 

hierarchy of controls approach to eliminate or minimize identified workplace hazards. This includes, in 

order of preference, the use of: (1) substitution or elimination of the hazardous agent, (2) engineering 

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

(e.g., limiting time of exposure, employee training, work practice changes, medical surveillance), and (4) 

personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection, gloves, eye protection, hearing protection). 

Control banding, a qualitative risk assessment and risk management tool, is a complementary approach 

to protecting employee health that focuses resources on exposure controls by describing how a risk 

needs to be managed. Information on control banding is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/

ctrlbanding/. This approach can be applied in situations where OELs have not been established or can be 

used to supplement the OELs, when available.

1-Bromopropane 

As with other solvents, occupational exposure to 1-BP may occur via both inhalation and skin absorption. 

Health effects related to overexposure to 1-BP (and many other solvents) may include irritation of the eyes, 

mucous membranes, upper respiratory tract, and skin. At higher levels of exposure, central nervous system 

depression (characterized by headache and dizziness, and possibly loss of consciousness) may occur.

Neither NIOSH nor OSHA has OELs for 1-BP. However, NIOSH is developing an REL. The ACGIH has 

set a TLV of 10 ppm for 1-BP as an 8-hour TWA exposure [ACGIH 2009]. The primary basis for the TLV 

is liver damage, embryo/fetal damage, and neurotoxicity.

The U.S. EPA determined that 1-BP is acceptable for use as a substitute for ozone-depleting substances in 

metal cleaning, electronics cleaning, and precision cleaning applications. This determination was based 

upon the conclusion that 1-BP exposures in the range of 17–30 ppm in such applications would not likely 

cause adverse human reproductive effects. However, the U.S. EPA also proposed that the use of 1-BP in 

aerosol or adhesive applications is not acceptable based on higher than anticipated workplace exposures. 

U.S. EPA does not regulate the use of solvents in dry cleaning under the Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program [72 Fed. Reg. 30142(2007)].

Previous investigations have linked peripheral neuropathy to high level 1-BP exposure in electronics 

degreasing [NIOSH 2001] and foam cushion manufacturing [NIOSH 2002; NIOSH 2003]. Case reports 

in the medical literature describe debilitating, sometimes permanent, motor weakness and chronic 

neuropathic pain in young workers exposed to 1-BP as part of the spray adhesive used in foam cushion 

manufacturing. In one series of case reports of peripheral neuropathy associated with high level 1-BP use, 

affected employees had 7-hour TWA exposure to 1-BP of 108 ppm [Majersik et al. 2007]. In a study of 

employees working in a 1-BP production facility, investigators found decreased vibration sense, decreased 

conduction velocity in sensory nerves, difficulty in digit recall, and decreased visual tracking ability 

[Ichihara et al. 2004]. This study found no motor deficits. Inhalational exposure studies done on rats 

exposed to 200–800 ppm 1-BP over several weeks revealed both motor and sensory neuropathies [Ichihara 

et al. 2000].
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111

Appendix A: Occupational Exposure Limits and Heth Effects

Human exposure to 1-BP can be assessed using a serum bromide level. This test is not usually available as 

a routine laboratory test. The results of a serum bromide level may not be available for several days, so this 

test is used to confirm an exposure, rather than to help establish an initial diagnosis. However, a laboratory 

finding of immediate use in determining exposure to 1-BP and other bromides is the chloride level on a 

routine standard metabolic assay. Depending on the equipment used to run the test, the chloride level 

may be elevated because of the bromide ion being counted as a chloride ion [Burkhart 2006]. Bromide can 

also be measured in the urine. This test was developed and evaluated against inhalational 1-BP exposure in 

workers exposed via use of spray adhesives; however, this test is not widely available [Hanley et al. 2006].
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page 17

Appendix A: Occupational Exposure Limits and Helth Effect

References 

ACGIH [2009]. 2009 TLVs® and BEIs®: threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical 

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

Industrial Hygienists.

AIHA [2009]. AIHA 2009 Emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) & workplace environmental 

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

Burkhart KK [2006] Methyl bromide and other fumigants. In: Flomenbaum NE, Goldfrank LR, Hoffman 

RS, Howland MA, Lewin NA, Nelson LS eds. Goldfrank’s toxicological emergencies. 8th ed. New York: 

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., pp. 1556–1563.

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

Federal Register.

72 Fed. Reg. 30142 [2007]. Protection of stratospheric ozone: listing of substitutes for ozone-depleting 

substances-n-propyl bromide in solvent cleaning. (To be codified at 40 CFR Part 82) [http://www.epa.gov/

fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2007/May/Day-30/a9707.pdf]. Date accessed: June 2010.

Hanley KW, Petersen M, Curwin BD, Sanderson WT [2006]. Urinary bromide and breathing zone 

concentrations of 1-bromopropane from workers exposed to flexible foam spray adhesives. Ann Occup 

Hyg 50(6):599–607.

Ichihara G, Kitoh J, Yu X, Asaeda N, Iwai H, Kumazawa T, Shibata E, Yamada T, Wang H, Xie Z, Takeuchi 

Y [2000]. 1-Bromopropane, an alternative to ozone layer depleting solvents, is dose-dependently neurotoxic 

to rats in long-term inhalation exposure. Toxicol Sci 55(1):116–123.

Ichihara G, Li W, Shibata E, Ding X, Wang H, Liang Y, Peng S, Itohara S, Kamijima M, Fan Q, Zhang 

Y, Zhong E, Wu X, Valentine WM, Takeuchi Y [2004]. Neurologic abnormalities in workers of a 

1-bromopropane factory. Environ Health Perspect 112(13):1319–1325.

Majersik JJ, Caravati EM, Steffens JD [2007]. Severe neurotoxicity associated with exposure to the solvent 

1-bromopropane (n-propyl bromide). Clin Toxicol 44(3):270–276.

NIOSH [2001]. Hazard evaluation and technical assistance report: Trilithic Inc., Indianapolis, IN. By Reh 

CM, Nemhauser JB. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA Report No. 2000-0233-

2845.

NIOSH [2002]. Hazard evaluation and technical assistance report: STN Cushion Company, Cincinnati, 

OH. By Harney JM, Hess J, Reh CM, Trout D. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH 

HETA Report No. 2000-0410-2891.

NIOSH [2003]. Hazard evaluation and technical assistance report: Marx Industries Inc., Thomasville, 

NC. By Harney JM, Nemhauser JB, Reh CM, Trout D. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111

Appendix A: Occupational Exposure Limits and Heth Effects

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

NIOSH HETA Report No. 1999-0260-2906.

NIOSH [2005]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/]. Date 

accessed: June 2010.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2008-0175-3111 Page 19

Acknowledgments a

Availability of Rep

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 Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(6) which authorizes 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services, following a written 

request from any employers or authorized representative of 

employees, to determine whether any substance normally found 

in the place of employment has potentially toxic effects in such 

concentrations as used or found. HETAB also provides, upon 

request, technical and consultative assistance to federal, state, and 

local agencies; labor; industry; and other groups or individuals to 

control occupational health hazards and to prevent related trauma 

and disease.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily represent the views of NIOSH. 

Mention of any company or product does not constitute 

endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to websites 

external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of 

the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. 

Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these 

websites. All Web addresses referenced in this document were 

accessible as of the publication date.

This report was prepared by Judith Eisenberg and Jessica Ramsey 

of HETAB, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field 

Studies. Health communication assistance was provided by Stefanie 

Evans. Editorial assistance was provided by Ellen Galloway. 

Desktop publishing was performed by Robin Smith.

Copies of this report have been sent to the New Jersey Department 

of Health and Senior Services and the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration Regional Office. This report is not 

copyrighted and may be freely reproduced. The report may be 

viewed and printed at www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe. Copies may be 

purchased from the National Technical Information Service at 

5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Below is a recommended citation for this report:

NIOSH [2010]. Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of 1-bromopropane use 

in four NJ commercial dry cleaning facilities, various locations, NJ. By Eisenberg 

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA No. 2008-0175-3111.

To receive NIOSH documents or information about 

occupational safety and health topics, contact NIOSH at:

1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636)

TTY: 1-888-232-6348

E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov

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

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to 

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

Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people

through research and prevention.

 National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health