Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 1

Evaluation of Ergonomic Risk Factors, 

Acute Traumatic Injuries, and Occupational 

Exposures at an Airline Catering Facility 

Report No. 2011-0131-3222

September 2015

Jessica Ramsey, MS, CPE

Melody Kawamoto, MD, MS

Diana Ceballos, PhD, MS, CIH

Douglas Wiegand, PhD

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

Contents

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

Abbreviations ..................................... iii

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

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

Results and Discussion........................ 5

Conclusions........................................ 24

Recommendations ............................ 25

Appendix A ........................................ 30

References.......................................... 33

Acknowledgements........................... 39

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

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

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

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

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

not be related to this Health Hazard Evaluation. Photo by NIOSH.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page i

We evaluated risk factors for 

work-related musculoskeletal 

disorders, injuries, and other 

employee concerns at an airline 

catering facility. We found risk 

factors and hazards that could 

explain employees’ symptoms, 

work-related musculoskeletal 

disorders, and acute traumatic 

injuries. We also found problems 

related to cold exposure, dry ice, 

job stress, and communication.

We recommend addressing the 

exposures discussed in this report 

and providing training that all 

employees can understand.

Highlights of this Evaluation

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a union to evaluate 

airline catering facilities. The union was concerned about risk factors for work-related 

musculoskeletal disorders, injuries, exposures to cold and hot environments, job stress, 

interpersonal relationships at work, and language barriers to communication. This report is 

for the second of two facilities we evaluated for this request. We evaluated the facility in 

January 2013.

What We Did

● We observed job tasks to document risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. 

● We measured workstation heights and reach 

distances to determine injury risk.

● We measured air temperature, air flow, and 

carbon dioxide in the coolers.

● We measured carbon monoxide at the 

loading docks.

● We reviewed 5 years of work-related injury and 

illness information. 

● We interviewed employees about their work, 

their health, and the union’s concerns.

What We Found

● Employees’ tasks involved awkward postures 

and repetitive motions that could increase their 

risk for work-related musculoskeletal disorders 

of the back, shoulders, and arms.

● Most interviewed employees reported that they 

had musculoskeletal symptoms during the week 

before our evaluation.

● The illness and injury logs showed that 22% of all recorded musculoskeletal injuries 

were related to known risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders.

● Most incidents recorded on the illness and injury logs were acute traumatic injuries.

● Our sampling results showed high levels of carbon dioxide in enclosed, unventilated coolers.

● Employees said that they did not have enough water to drink during their work shift.

● Employees reported time pressure, high workload, and a lack of equipment or supplies 

as sources of job stress.

● Some employees felt a lack of support from coworkers.
Page ii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

● Some employees reported difficulty communicating because of language differences, 

which could affect occupational safety and health, including the effectiveness of training.

● The amount of information, complexity of content, and design of training materials 

created barriers to communication and training. 

What the Employer Can Do

● Design work areas to have a standing hand working height of 38 to 47 inches or 

provide adjustable height tables. 

● Rotate employees to different job tasks that use different muscle groups.

● Provide employees in cold environments with ways to warm their hands, such as warm 

water, heaters, glove options, and breaks.

● Use and store dry ice only in designated well ventilated rooms.

● Label dry ice packaging and post warning signs in areas where the use of dry ice is permitted.

● Enforce the prohibition of dry ice inside walk-in coolers and post signs about this 

prohibition at cooler entrances and inside the coolers.

● Provide employees with drinking water in work areas.

● Identify and address the specific causes of job stress.

● Assure that all safety information, labels, warning signs, and trainings are in English 

and Spanish.

● Improve the content and delivery of training to ensure understanding by all employees.

● Include employees in labor-management safety and health committees.

What Employees Can Do

● Modify your work practices so that you only lift and carry things above the knees, 

below the shoulders, and close to the body.

● Do not wear wet clothes in the coolers.

● Take part in safety and health committees.

● Tell your supervisor or the trainer if you do not understand written information such as 

labels, warning signs, and training materials or verbal information during training.

● Report hazards or hazardous conditions to your supervisor as soon as you notice them.

● Report symptoms and injuries to your supervisor as soon as they occur.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page iii

Abbreviations

ACGIH® American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

°C Centigrade degrees

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO Carbon monoxide

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

°F Fahrenheit degrees

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OEL Occupational exposure limit

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PEL Permissible exposure limit

PPE Personal protective equipment

REL Recommended exposure limit

STEL Short-term exposure limit

TLV® Threshold limit value

WEELTM Workplace environmental exposure level
Page iv Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

This page left intentionally blank
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 1

Introduction 

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a union representing 

employees of an airline catering company. The union was concerned about musculoskeletal 

disorders, injuries related to working in the kitchen and on the loading docks, extreme hot 

and cold temperatures, job stress, and interpersonal relationships at work. In September 

2011, we evaluated an airline catering facility in Michigan. The results of that evaluation 

were provided in a separate report [NIOSH 2014b]. In January 2013, we evaluated a facility 

in New York for the same concerns. At this facility, the union had additional concerns about 

carbon dioxide (CO2) exposures related to the use of dry ice in coolers, and about language 

barriers to communication for employees whose primary language was not English. We sent 

a letter, written in English and Spanish, with a brief summary of our New York site visit 

activities and preliminary recommendations on March 11, 2013. This report contains the final 

results and recommendations of our evaluation of the New York facility.

At the time of our January 2013 visit, production took place in a 50,000-square-foot building 

with 181 employees working on the first of two shifts. The company serviced 20 international 

flights and 101 domestic flights per day. Most employees prepared food, beverages, and 

food service items; placed them in drawers; and loaded drawers into food service carts. 

Drivers loaded the carts onto trucks and delivered the carts to planes prior to departure. 

Other employees unloaded drawers off carts from arriving flights, loaded dishwashers, and 

sanitized equipment. Employees typically worked 8-hour shifts with a 30-minute lunch break 

and an additional 20-minute break per 8-hour shift. Drivers’ breaks varied depending on 

delivery schedules. Voluntary overtime was occasionally available.

Methods

Our primary objectives were to evaluate potential exposures to risk factors for work-related 

musculoskeletal disorders, hot and cold temperatures, dry ice, and job stress. Our work 

included (1) observing work practices and procedures, (2) sampling for cold temperatures 

and carbon dioxide, (3) confidential interviews with employees, and (4) reviewing company 

documents about occupational safety and health. We evaluated the facility during the day 

shift; work activities on the second shift were similar.

Confidential Employee Interviews

We selected participants from a roster of all first-shift employees. We included employees 

representing all job titles within each department except maintenance and varying lengths 

of employment within each job title. Participation was voluntary. Spanish was the primary 

language for most employees, and we offered them interviews in Spanish. Although language 

was not a selection criterion, we could interview employees only if they understood and 

spoke English or Spanish. We asked employer and union representatives for translations and 

synonyms of work-related words and terms that employees would understand. One of the two 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) interviewers spoke Spanish; 

a certified interpreter assisted the other NIOSH interviewer.
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

During the interviews, we asked about employees’ work, symptoms, injuries, use of personal 

protective equipment (PPE), concerns about workplace health and safety, job stress, 

psychosocial factors at work, and language and communication. 

Review of Company Records

We evaluated the facility’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Form 

300 Logs of Work-related Injuries and Illnesses for the years 2008 to 2012. The Logs 

included incidents from both shifts and incidents involving nonsupervisory and supervisory 

employees. We focused on recorded incidents that occurred in work areas. We did not include 

injuries that occurred in the parking lot and locker room because they were not relevant to the 

departments we evaluated. We describe the details of our evaluation of the OSHA Logs in the 

methods sections for ergonomics and acute traumatic injuries below.

We reviewed the company’s documents about its occupational safety and health program, 

such as standard operating procedures, training materials, safety and health information, and 

reports of ergonomic and safety evaluations by an insurance company. Most of the materials 

were for company-wide use; some were specifically developed for this facility.

Ergonomics

We observed workplace conditions and work processes and practices for ergonomic risk 

factors. We measured workstation heights and reach distances and noted the availability 

of anti-fatigue mats and other PPE. A full description of the ergonomic evaluation criteria 

we used to determine risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders is provided in 

Appendix A.

During the employee interviews, we asked about risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders 

including lifting heavy objects such as beverage cases and snack trays, extreme postures used 

to reach for things, and bending or stretching the body in awkward positions. Because job 

rotation could provide a reduction in repetitive tasks using the same muscle groups as well 

as provide recovery time, we asked about rotation of tasks within a shift and from day to day. 

We asked if, in the week before the interview, the employee had shoulder, back, neck, hand, 

and wrist pain or numbness or tingling in the hand or wrist, which could suggest work-related 

musculoskeletal disorders. We also asked a separate, open-ended question about health 

problems the employee had and if the employee considered them to be work-related.

We evaluated the OSHA Logs for musculoskeletal injuries and disorders (such as strain, 

sprain, musculoskeletal pain, tendinitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and hernia) that might 

have been caused by risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. We classified 

injuries and disorders as possibly work-related musculoskeletal if the reported cause was 

a work-related risk factor, such as lifting, pushing, pulling, awkward posture, or repetitive 

movements; and the action was part of the usual work tasks in the employee’s department. 

We evaluated these log entries by part of body affected, action listed in the description of 

the incident, and employee’s department. We also calculated the cumulative number of days 

away from work, job transfer, and job restriction. We evaluated injuries caused by single, 

specific incidents separately (Acute Traumatic Injuries, below).
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 3

Acute Traumatic Injuries

During the confidential employee interviews, we asked about work-related injuries that 

employees thought were related to their job, what they thought caused the injury, and how 

long the injury kept them from their usual work. We also asked if, in the week before the 

interview, they had cuts or burns to the hands or arms. This was part of a yes-or-no question 

to screen for a variety of health outcomes (including musculoskeletal symptoms) that could 

be found in the industry. We did not differentiate cuts from burns and did not ask about cause, 

severity, and other details.

We evaluated the OSHA Logs for acute traumatic injuries, such as lacerations, contusions, 

fractures, crush injuries, and musculoskeletal injuries (sprain, strain, or pain). We included 

injuries that were caused by a single specific traumatic incident, such as a slip, trip, fall, 

laceration, puncture, being struck by an object, or reaching to catch a falling object. We 

evaluated the OSHA Log data by type of injury, action and agent listed in the description of 

the incident, and employee’s department. We also calculated the cumulative number of days 

away from work, job transfer, and job restriction.

Exposure to Cold Environments

We evaluated all five coolers at the facility: a receiving cooler in the storeroom and receiving 

cooler department, two production coolers in the cold food kitchen, a thawing area in the 

hot food kitchen, and a holding cooler entered by cold food kitchen and transportation 

employees. We collected information on factors known to influence an individual’s response 

to cold exposure: air temperature, air velocity, humidity, physical activity, work/rest schedule, 

and protective clothing [Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety 2008]. We 

measured air velocities and temperatures inside the coolers using a TSI VelociCalc® Plus 

with a vane anemometer (model 8386A). We measured air velocities at a standing chest 

level to capture what employees may feel at their workstations. We reviewed the company’s 

daily cooler temperature records for day and night shifts and obtained copies of temperature 

records for one summer month and one winter month in 2012. Because of technical problems 

with our HOBO H08-032-IS Pro Series Relative Humidity/Temperature Data Logger, 

we were unable to obtain useful temperature and relative humidity data from continuous 

measurements made in the coolers throughout the day. We observed employees’ physical 

activity, work/rest schedule, and use of protective clothing. During the employee interviews, 

we asked employees if they felt discomfort while working in cold temperatures and if they 

had ever been sick at work because of temperatures that were too cold. We also asked about 

their use of protective clothing during work in the coolers. We did not evaluate the freezers, 

which employees entered only as needed and for brief periods of time. We did not evaluate 

outdoor exposures to cold.

Exposure to Hot Environments

We did not evaluate exposures to hot environments because we visited this facility in 

mid-winter. During the employee interviews, we asked if employees felt discomfort while 

working in hot temperatures and if they had ever been sick at work because of temperatures 
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

that were too hot. We also asked whether employees had enough water to drink during their 

shift. Heat stress is addressed in greater detail in our evaluation of the Michigan facility 

[NIOSH 2014b].

Carbon Dioxide

Dry ice, the solid form of CO2, was used to keep food and beverages cool. As dry ice turns 

into gas, air concentrations of CO2 can build up, particularly in unventilated or poorly 

ventilated small spaces, such as walk-in freezers or coolers. To evaluate the possibility 

of employee exposures, we took grab (i.e., instantaneous) samples for CO2 in all five 

coolers using a TSI Q-TRAK Plus Indoor Air Quality Monitor (model 8554) and Dräger 

gas detection tubes. For comparison, we also took CO2 measurements in other areas of 

the facility. A description of occupational exposure limits and health effects for CO2 is in 

Appendix A. More information on dry ice is also provided in Appendix A.

Carbon Monoxide

We used a BW Technologies direct-reading GasAlert Extreme meter to measure carbon 

monoxide (CO) from diesel-powered delivery trucks in the dock area. After performing spot 

checks along the dock at the beginning of the shift, we positioned the meters approximately 

5 feet above the floor for the remainder of the workday. We also talked with employer 

representatives and employees to learn if they had any concerns about exhaust from the 

delivery trucks. A brief description of occupational exposure limits and health effects for CO 

is in Appendix A. More information on diesel exhaust is provided in the report of the other 

facility [NIOSH 2014b].

Job Stress and Psychosocial Factors

During the employee interviews, we asked employees to rate their level of job stress with the 

following question: “During the past week, including today, how would you rate your current 

job stress level on a scale from 0 (as low as it can be) to 10 (as high as it can be)?” Employees 

were shown a picture of the scale with images of a “happy” face and a “distressed” face at their 

respective ends of the scale. Responses of 0–3 indicated low job stress, 4–6 indicated moderate 

job stress, and scores of 7 or greater indicated high job stress [Clark et al. 2011]. An open-ended 

question followed, asking employees to list perceived job stressors.

We asked several questions about psychosocial factors in the workplace with a focus on 

interpersonal relationships with coworkers and supervisors, comfort with reporting health 

and safety concerns, and discrimination. These questions included yes/no or frequency of 

occurrence (never, not often, fairly often, very often) response options. 

Language, Communication, and Training

During the employee interviews, we asked employees about their first and second languages, 

their country of origin, and whether they had problems communicating with others because 

they spoke a different language. We also asked whether training, training materials, and 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 5

health and safety information were available in their primary language. We reviewed some of 

the company’s training and informational materials on workplace safety and health.

Results and Discussion

Confidential Employee Interviews

We interviewed 66 (37%) of 178 first-shift employees (3 maintenance employees excluded). 

Table 1 shows the number of all employees and interviewed employees by department. The 

median age of the interviewed employees was 49 years (range: 18–72 years of age), the 

median length of employment with the company was 11 years (range: < 1–41 years), and 

53% were male.

Table 1. Number of first-shift employees and interview participants by department,* January 2013

Department Number (%) 

of first-shift 

employees

Number (%) 

of interviewed 

employees

Percent of interviewed 

employees by 

department

Storeroom and receiving cooler 13 (7) 9 (14) 69

Cold food kitchen 56 (32) 18 (27) 32

Hot food kitchen 12 (7) 8 (12) 67

Beverage 36 (20) 11 (17) 31

Equipment and sanitation 26 (15) 10 (15) 38

Transportation 35 (20) 10 (15) 29

All departments 178 66 36

*The evaluation was limited to production employees; thus three maintenance employees 

were excluded.

Ergonomics

In the storeroom and receiving cooler, we saw pallets of material placed directly on the floor 

and stacked next to each other. The location of the pallets limited access to only one or two 

sides of the pallet, which required extended reaches (up to 35′′), as well as lifting materials 

anywhere from floor level (8′′) to above shoulder level (58′′). The standard operating 

procedures for lifting and moving bottled water stated that pallets should be accessible from 

all sides, and that cases of water should not be stacked above waist level. The standard 

operating procedure for bottled water was not followed for other palletized items, such 

as other beverages. Shelf heights in the storeroom and cooler ranged from 13.5′′–74′′. In 

both areas, a ladder was available to reach the higher shelves, but no hook or grabber was 

available to pull items closer to the employee to eliminate extended reaches and improve 

ladder safety.

In the two production coolers of the cold food kitchen, we observed employees preparing and 

packaging meals. The assembly tables varied from 34′′–36′′ in height and supporting shelves 

for materials varied from 39′′–60′′ in height. The average depth of the tables was 17′′. Most of 

the shelves were set at an angle, allowing gravity to move the items closer to the employee. 

Employees placed packaged meals on racks and carts in slots from 4′′–64′′ in height. Some of 
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

the workstations had anti-fatigue mats in front of the tables. In the cold food storage cooler, 

an employee worked at a milk and orange juice station that was 28′′ in height. The employee 

had to reach above shoulder level to tear tray liners from a roll located at head level. This 

workstation did not have an anti-fatigue mat. 

In the beverage area, we observed employees disassembling and assembling liquor and 

beverage drawers. In the liquor area, we noted that, in an emergency, the exit path of the 

liquor drawer employee could be blocked by carts. We also noted a roll of tray liners hanging 

from the liquor area ceiling, requiring the employee to reach above shoulder level. In the 

soda area, soda drawers from previous flights were placed on pallets directly on the floor. 

Employees had to lift drawers from floor level (8′′) to the 37′′ high disassembly table then 

lean over the 25′′ deep table to place soda cans in the flow rack, which moved cans by gravity 

to assemblers preparing new drawers. Flow rack heights on the disassembly side ranged 

from 39.5′′–62′′ and the vertical clearance between flow racks varied from 4′′–8′′. On the 

assembly side, flow rack heights ranged from 37′′–55′′, and the vertical clearance between all 

flow racks was 4′′. The assembled soda drawers were placed on pallets directly on the floor, 

resulting in lifts ending as low as floor level (8′′). Disassemblers typically handled only one 

can per hand at a time, while assemblers sometimes grabbed two cans simultaneously with 

one hand, resulting in higher grip forces and awkward hand postures. We also noted that the 

beverage flow rack had sharp metal edges that could cut the employees, particularly on the 

assembly side. Not all liquor and beverage workstations had anti-fatigue mats. 

In the equipment and sanitation department, we observed employees emptying inbound dirty 

carts, loading items into the dish machine, washing carts, and dumping trash. Employees 

placed sorted items from the inbound carts on a table 37′′ in height and 22′′ deep. Silverware, 

glassware, linen, soda, garbage, and other items were removed from drawers and placed into 

their respective bins. The bins for garbage and linen were behind the employees, requiring them 

to turn or twist to place items into the proper bins. The bins for silverware, glassware, and plates 

traveled down a flow rack toward the dish machine. The employee working the dish machine 

retrieved the bins, placed them on a table, and loaded individual items into the dish machine 

(positioned at 39′′ from the floor). At the end of the dish machine, clean items were sorted into 

racks. Shelf height for the racks varied; one particular rack had shelves at 25′′, 32′′, and 48′′. 

On the dock, we noted that the safety mechanisms to activate the compaction of garbage and 

recycling containers had been overridden. We attributed this to the inconvenient location of the 

switches, which required awkward and extended postures to reach. We notified managers about 

this, and they removed the override for the safety mechanisms.

In our confidential interviews with 66 employees, 41 (62%) reported that they lifted heavy 

objects either “fairly often” or “very often,” and 42 (63%) reported that they reached, bent, or 

stretched their body in an awkward position either “fairly often” or “very often.” Nearly half 

of the interviewed employees reported that they rotated jobs or tasks, though most said that 

they rotated jobs from day to day rather than within shifts. Others reported that they changed 

stations from day to day, but that the tasks from station to station were essentially the same. 

Job rotation would not decrease the risk of musculoskeletal disorders if employees continue 

to do tasks that involve the same repetitive motions of the same muscle groups.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 7

Of the interviewed employees, 54 (82%) reported having musculoskeletal symptoms, and 

44 (68%) reported feeling fatigue in the week before our evaluation (Table 2). Symptom 

reports came from all departments. When asked if they believed their symptoms were related 

to work, 25 (39%) responded “yes.” When asked to elaborate on an open-ended question 

that allowed more than one symptom response, the most commonly reported symptoms 

that they related to work were back pain (11, 34% of all who reported back pain), shoulder 

pain (5, 19% of all who reported shoulder pain), and symptoms that suggested carpal tunnel 

syndrome (4, 18% of all who reported symptoms that could be related to carpal tunnel 

syndrome). They attributed their musculoskeletal symptoms to heavy lifting, bending, or 

stretching in awkward positions (work activities that were reported by more than 60% of the 

interviewed employees) or doing tasks that required repetitive motion.

Table 2. Number of interviewed employees who reported musculoskeletal symptoms or fatigue in the week 

before the evaluation, by department, January 2013

Department No. Back 

pain

(%)

Shoulder 

pain

(%)

Hand

pain

(%)

Joint 

pain

(%)

Neck 

pain

(%)

Numbness 

in wrists

or hands

(%)

Any musculoskeletal 

symptoms*

(%)

Fatigue

(%)

Storeroom 

and 

receiving 

cooler

9 5 (56) 2 (22) 3 (33) — 1 (11) 4 (44) 8 (89) 5 (63)†

Cold food 

kitchen

18 7 (39) 6 (33) 4 (24)† 5 (28) 4 (22) 7 (39) 13 (72) 13 (72)

Hot food 

kitchen

8 3 (38) 3 (38) 6 (75) 3 (38) 3 (38) 2 (25) 7 (88) 4 (50)

Beverage 11 6 (55) 5 (46) 5 (46) 4 (36) 2 (18) 3 (27) 8 (73) 8 (73)

Equipment 

and 

sanitation

10 6 (60) 7 (70) 5 (50) 5 (50) 6 (60) 5 (50) 9 (90) 8 (80)

Transportation 10 5 (50) 4 (40) 3 (30) 3 (30) 2 (20) 1 (10) 9 (90) 6 (60)

All 

departments

66 32 (49) 27 (41) 26 (40) 20 (30) 18 (27) 22 (33) 54 (82) 44 (68)

*Includes back pain, shoulder pain, hand pain, joint pain, neck pain, or numbness in the wrists or hands. 

Does not include fatigue.

†One employee was excluded because of a data collection error.

The OSHA Logs for the previous 5 years, 2008‒2012, contained reports of 94 injuries and 

no illnesses. Musculoskeletal injuries related to lifting and other known risk factors that were 

likely to be repeated during usual work tasks accounted for 21 (22%) of all recorded injuries. 

Lifting was identified as the cause of 57% of the musculoskeletal injuries, and the low back 

was affected in 48% (Table 3). Although transportation employees were most often affected, 

these injuries affected employees in all departments (Table 4).
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

Table 3. Number of musculoskeletal injuries related to known risk factors by part of body affected and action 

listed in description of the incident on the OSHA Logs,* 2008–2012

Part of body 

affected

Number 

of 

records

Any 

actions

Type of action

Lifting† Pushing Pulling Repetitive 

motion

Bending† Reaching†

Neck 1 1 — 1 — — — —

Chest 1 1 1 — — — — —

Inguinal area 1 1 — 1 — — — —

Low back† 10 12 7 2 1 — 1 1

Shoulder 4 4 2 — 1 1 — —

Upper arm 1 1 1 — — — — —

Hand/Wrist 2 2 1 — — 1 — —

Finger 1 1 — — 1 — — —

Any 21 23 12 4 3 2 1 1

*The Logs included incidents from both shifts. Some of the recorded incidents involved production supervisors 

and employees who did not work in production areas.

†The total number of injuries is more than the total number of records because two records listed bending or 

reaching as well as lifting.

Table 4. Number of musculoskeletal injuries related to known risk factors by department and action listed in 

description of the incident on the OSHA Logs,* 2008–2012

Department† Number 

of 

records

Any 

actions

Type of action

Lifting‡ Pushing Pulling Repetitive 

motion

Bending‡ Reaching‡

Storeroom and 

receiving cooler

2 2 2 — — — — —

Cold and hot 

food kitchens

5 6 2 1 — 2 — 1

Beverage 4 5 2 1 1 — 1 —

Equipment and 

sanitation§

3 3 3 — — — — —

Transportation¶ 7 7 3 2 2 — — —

All departments 21 23 12 4 3 2 1 1

*The Logs included incidents from both shifts. Some of the recorded incidents involved production supervisors 

and employees who did not work in production areas.

†Employee’s department; incident might have happened in another location.

‡The total number of injuries was more than the total number of records because two records listed bending 

or reaching as well as lifting.

§Two equipment and sanitation employees’ lifting injuries took place in the cold food kitchen.

¶Transportation employees’ injuries took place on the facility ramp (3), airport ramp (2), dock (1), and in the 

beverage department (1).

Over the 5 years of OSHA Logs reviewed, the 21 musculoskeletal injuries related to known 

ergonomic risk factors accounted for 33% of total days away from work, job transfer, or job 

restriction. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics definition for a full-time employee, these 

injuries accounted for an equivalent of one full-time employee per year to be away from 

work, on a job transfer, or on a job restriction (Table 5).
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 9

Table 5. Days away from work, job transfer, or job restriction from musculoskeletal injuries related 

to known risk factors listed in description of the incident on the OSHA Logs,* 2008–2012

Type of injury Number of 

recordable 

injuries

Away from work, 

job transfer, or

job restriction

Away from 

work

Job transfer or

job restriction

Musculoskeletal injury 

possibly related to ergonomic 

risk factors

19 1,158 days 198 days 960 days

Musculoskeletal disorder 

attributed to repetitive motion

2 43 days 43 days —

5-year totals 21 1,201 days 241 days 960 days

Annual average 4 240 days 48 days 192 days

5-year FTE† equivalent — 4.8 FTEs 1.0 FTE 3.8 FTEs

Annual average FTE equivalent — 1.0 FTE 0.2 FTE 0.8 FTE

*The Logs included incidents from both shifts. Some of the recorded incidents involved production 

supervisors and employees who did not work in production areas.

†FTE = Full-time employee, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics definition, is someone who 

works 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, or 2,000 hours or 250 days per year.

Work activities such as extended reaching, bending at the back, lifting items from various 

levels, and prolonged standing, whether observed by us or reported by employees, could 

explain the musculoskeletal symptoms, injuries, and disorders that affected employees 

throughout the facility. Similar activities were listed in descriptions of the incident on the 

OSHA Logs. Job-related musculoskeletal disorders make up most of the injuries in food 

service industries [Cal/OSHA 2003], which includes airline catering. The numbers of 

symptoms reported by interviewed employees and the injuries listed on the OSHA Logs 

showed that work-related musculoskeletal disorders and injuries were affecting this airline 

catering facility as well. Redesigning job tasks and work stations, as well as decreasing the 

duration of continuous repetitive movements such as rotation to jobs that use different muscle 

groups are well accepted measures that should reduce employees’ risk for musculoskeletal 

disorders. Additionally, some studies have shown that small increases in break times have 

decreased symptoms with no significant effect on productivity [Dababneh et al. 2001; Faucett 

et al. 2007; Galinsky et al. 2007].

We reviewed the company’s 36-slide new-hire safety orientation, which included a slide on 

pushing carts, a slide on lifting and carrying, and slides showing three stretching exercises. 

We did not evaluate cart pushing policies, which we addressed during our evaluation at 

the Michigan facility. In that evaluation, we reviewed a report by the company’s insurance 

provider, verified some cart push forces, and agreed with the insurance provider’s 

recommendations [NIOSH 2014b]. Few studies have looked at stretching as a measure 

to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders. When studied, results have been 

inconclusive, probably for many reasons, such as individual factors (e.g., hypomobility 

or hypermobility, age), exercise factors (e.g., time of day, duration, repetition, quality), 

relevance (e.g., job tasks, part of body at risk for injury) [Hess and Hecker 2003], and low 

use of stretching exercises by employees [Galinsky et al. 2007]. Moreover, the exercises may 

cause increased musculoskeletal pain [Hess and Hecker 2003]. 
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

The company’s training materials and safety sheets appeared to focus on certain specific risk 

factors for musculoskeletal disorders and preventive measures that are the responsibility 

of the employee. For example, a safety sheet on lifting focused on body posture and lifting 

technique. We did not see training and informational materials about general ergonomic 

principles that would allow employees to recognize risk factors from any work activity. 

Many resources are available for improving workplace ergonomics and ergonomic training. 

California OSHA (Cal/OSHA) Consultation Service, CNA Insurance Companies, Material 

Handling Industry of America, and NIOSH developed ergonomic guidelines for identifying 

high risk manual material handling tasks and reducing the associated physical risk factors 

[Cal/OSHA 2007]. Additionally, the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries 

developed an ergonomics program guideline that includes general awareness tips and 

training to identify musculoskeletal symptoms and risk factors and understand the need to 

eliminate risk factors, prevent injuries, and keep injuries that occur from becoming disabling 

[Washington State Department of Labor & Industries 2008].

A review of participatory ergonomic processes found that training can be tailored to specific 

workplace risks and hazards or targeted solutions [van Eerd et al. 2010]. However, reaching 

goals depends on multiple considerations such as creating teams with appropriate members; 

involving the right people; defining participants’ responsibilities; making decisions using 

group consultations with appropriate roles for employees, employee representatives, and 

employer representatives; providing ergonomic training; and addressing key factors that 

could help or hinder the process [van Eerd et al. 2010].

Acute Traumatic Injuries

Of the 94 injury incidents recorded on the OSHA Logs for 2008‒2012, 73 (78%) were related 

to acute traumatic incidents (Table 6). Musculoskeletal injuries such as sprain, strain, or pain 

(27, 36%) were the most frequent type of injury, followed by laceration (18, 25%), contusion 

(13, 18%), and fracture (11, 15%).
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 11

Table 6. Number of injuries related to acute traumatic incidents by type of injury and type of action listed 

in description of the incident on the OSHA Logs,* 2008–2012

Type of injury Any 

action†

Type of action

Struck by or 

against, 

caught in or 

between†

Cut or 

punctured 

by†

Slip, 

trip, or 

fall†

Catching or 

reaching for 

falling 

object†

Indirect† Not 

specified

Musculoskeletal‡ 27 9 — 11 4 2 1

Laceration 18 3 14 1 — — —

Contusion 13 13 — — — — —

Fracture 11 7 — 3 — — 1

Crush§ 4 4 — — — — —

Puncture¶ 2 — 2 — — — —

Amputation 1 — 1 — — — —

All types of injuries 76** 36 17 15 4 2 2

*The Logs included incidents from both shifts. Some of the recorded incidents involved production supervisors and employees who did not work in production areas.

†See Table 7 for the specific types of action and agents listed under description of the incident on the 

OSHA Logs.

‡Sprain, strain, or pain

§Involved finger, hand, or toe

¶Involved tip of finger

**Three incidents had more than one type of injury.

The most frequent type of action listed in the description of the incident on the OSHA Logs 

was being struck by or against or caught in or between something (36, 49%). The “struck” 

and “caught” actions resulted in 13 contusions, 9 musculoskeletal injuries, 7 fractures, 

4 crush injuries, and 3 lacerations. 

The second most frequent type of action was “cut by” or “punctured by” (17, or 

approximately 3 per year). During our employee interviews, 5 of the 66 employees we 

interviewed said that they had cuts or burns on their hands or arms in the week before our 

evaluation. Two worked in the hot food kitchen, two in equipment and sanitation, and one in 

the beverage department. While the review of 5 years of OSHA logs showed 14 laceration 

injuries (“cut by”) and no burn injuries, the five interview reports of cuts or burns the week 

before our evaluation suggested that these types of injury may be common. We did not 

evaluate severity of the cuts and burns reported to us; thus, we could not determine if these 

were minor injuries, which would not have to be recorded on the OSHA Logs. 

The third most frequent type of action listed in the description of the incident on the OSHA 

Logs was 15 incidents of slip, trip, fall, or other mishap when walking. In response to the 

open-ended question about health and safety concerns, four employees reported floors 
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

slippery with water, ice, or food. Of the five OSHA-Log recorded slips that ended with a fall, 

two were caused by food on the floor and one by water under a mat, which were similar to 

the concerns reported during the employee interviews. Thus, in the presence of floor hazards, 

the use of slip-resistant shoes alone (99% of interviewed employees reported wearing them) 

did not prevent these injuries.

Table 7 shows the agents listed in the description of the incident on the OSHA Logs. Falling 

carts were responsible for at least 9 injuries (6 struck by and 3 catching or reaching for). 

Agents that might have contributed to incidents were not specified for at least 14 incidents. 

Injuries recorded on the OSHA Logs happened in all departments (Table 8).

Table 7. Number of acute traumatic incidents by types of action and agents listed under description 

of the incident on the OSHA Logs,* 2008–2012 

Type of action Number Agents†

Struck by 21 Falling object, such as cart (6), boxes, cart drawer, 

 dock plate, employee 

Door of truck, cart, dish machine

Other object, such as cart, wagon, box, crate milk, dry ice 

 bin lid, floor jack 

Struck against 5 Steering wheel, truck door, wall, oven rack

Caught in or between 10 Cart, door, gate rack, elevator shaft, truck door, jack and 

 pole, latch

Cut or punctured by 15 Sharp tools or instruments, such as knife (4), mandolin, 

 slicer, drill, aluminum foil box blade

Broken dishes (4)

Oven cover

Slip, trip, or fall or 

other mishaps while 

walking

14 Food on floor, water under mat, floor jack

Catching or reaching 

for falling object

4 Falling carts (3), falling box

Indirect 2 In a motor vehicle that struck something, cart jerked when 

 wheel caught by something

*The Logs included incidents from both shifts. Some of the recorded incidents involved production 

supervisors and employees who did not work in production areas.

†When specified. Number of incidents in parentheses when involved in more than one incident. 

Agents were not specified for 14 incidents.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 13

Table 8. Number of injuries related to acute traumatic incidents by department and action listed in 

description of the incident on the OSHA Logs,* 2008–2012 

Department† Any 

action

Type of action

Struck by or 

against, 

caught in or 

between‡

Cut or 

punctured 

by‡

Slip, 

trip, or 

fall‡

Catching or 

reaching 

for 

falling 

object‡

Indirect‡ Not 

specified

Storeroom and 

receiving cooler

4 2 — 1 1 — —

Cold food kitchen 13 4 6 3 — — —

Hot food kitchen 5 3 2 — — —

Beverage 12 6 4 1 — — 1

Equipment and 

sanitation

12 7 1 4 — — —

Transport 21 13 — 2 3 2 1

Other§ 6 4 1 1 — — —

All departments 73 36 15 14 4 2 2

*The Logs included incidents from both shifts. Some of the recorded incidents involved production 

supervisors and employees who did not work in production areas.

†Employee’s department; incident might have happened in another location

‡See Table 7 for the specific types of action and agents listed under description of the incident on 

the OSHA Logs. 

§Nonproduction employees, e.g., supervisor or cafeteria employee

On the OSHA Logs, the 73 injuries related to acute traumatic incidents accounted for 67% 

of the total days away from work, job transfer, or job restriction. Using the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics definition for a full-time employee, these injuries caused the equivalent of two full-time 

employees per year to be away from work, on a job transfer, or on a job restriction (Table 9).

Table 9. Days away from work, job transfer, or job restriction related to injuries caused by acute 

traumatic incidents recorded on the OSHA Logs,* 2008–2012

Injuries caused by acute 

traumatic incidents

Number of 

recordable 

injuries

Away from work, 

job transfer, or 

job restriction

Away from 

work

Job transfer or

job restriction

5-year totals 73 2,468 days 751 days 1,717 days

Annual average 14.6 493.6 days 150.2 days 343.4 days

5-year FTE† equivalent 9.9 FTEs 3.0 FTEs 6.9 FTEs

Annual average FTE 

equivalent

2.0 FTEs 0.6 FTE 1.4 FTEs

*The Logs included incidents from both shifts. Some of the recorded incidents involved production 

supervisors and employees who did not work in production areas.

†FTE = Full-time employee, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics definition, is someone who 

works 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, or 2,000 hours or 250 days per year.
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

When combining possible work-related musculoskeletal disorders and acute traumatic 

injuries, the incidence rates of injuries recorded on the OSHA Logs ranged from 5.0 to 5.8 

injury cases per 100 full-time employees from 2008‒2012 (Table 10); the facility’s rate 

ranged from 0.5 to 1.3 times the rate found by the special food services industry [BLS 2015], 

which includes airline catering facilities. The facility’s rates in the last 3 years of our review 

were basically the same as industry rates.

Table 10. Incidence rates for all injuries recorded on the OSHA Logs, 2008–2012,* compared with 

rates in the special food services industry (NAICS 7223)

Year Number of facility’s 

recordable injuries

Facility’s

total recordable 

injury cases

per 100 FTEs†

Special food 

services industry

injury cases 

per 100 FTEs‡

Company to 

industry 

rate ratio

2008 18 5.2 9.5 0.5

2009 18 5.5 4.2 1.3

2010 20 5.8 5.4 1.1

2011 19 5.1 5.0 1.0

2012 19 5.0 5.7 0.9

*The Logs included incidents from both shifts. Some of the recorded incidents involved production 

supervisors and employees who did not work in production areas.

†FTE = Full-time employee, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics definition, is someone who 

works 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, or 2,000 hours or 250 days per year.

‡Bureau of Labor Statistics annual tables of incidence rates of nonfatal occupational injuries and 

illnesses by industry and case types, 2008‒2012

The OSHA Logs show that injury rates at the facility are similar to the overall special 

food services industry rates. This comparison can be useful when evaluating injury trends 

over time and a company’s direct and indirect costs, such as medical care, temporary and 

permanent disability, lost work time, and replacing injured personnel. However, these costs 

do not measure the burden on injured employees and their families.

Reports of ergonomic evaluations by the company’s insurance carrier gave recommendations 

for preventing acute traumatic injuries, some of which appeared in company-developed 

standard operating procedures, trainings, and informational materials. Additional measures 

could be taken to reduce acute traumatic injuries. Summarizing OSHA Log data can be useful 

in identifying risk factors to target for improving workplace safety. The OSHA Logs can also 

help determine priorities. For example, severe injuries can be identified by type of injury 

and days away from work, job transfer, or job restriction; common injuries can be identified 

by frequencies of types of injury; and common causes can be identified by frequencies of 

actions (e.g., struck by) and agents (e.g., falling carts) listed in the description of the incident. 

Descriptions of actions and agents that contribute to injuries can suggest preventive measures 

(e.g., falling objects, floor hazards). However, missing information on the Logs (e.g., lack 

of action or agent in the description of the incident) leads to unidentified causes and gives 

misleadingly low numbers that would affect decisions about priorities.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 15

We reviewed the company’s standard operating procedures and training materials about 

safety hazards that can cause acute traumatic injuries. Our findings and discussion on these 

documents are covered in the section on language, communication, and training below.

Exposure to Cold Environments 

Temperatures that we measured in all five coolers were approximately 40°F, the temperature 

required by food safety standards. The air temperature was maintained by recirculating roofmounted refrigerator units (heat pumps) located on the roof of each room. No outdoor air was 

introduced into the coolers by the heat pumps. Each cooler had a thermometer that displayed 

the temperature inside the cooler. The temperature was also displayed outside the room. 

Temperatures were documented daily for both shifts and the thermometers were checked 

monthly for accuracy against a calibrated thermometer.

At the time of our evaluation, 53 of the 56 first-shift cold food kitchen employees were 

food preparers. Employees working in the production coolers of the cold food kitchen were 

potentially exposed to cold temperatures and drafts from vents and fans blowing directly on 

them during the majority of their shift. We estimated the activity level for most employees 

working in the production coolers as light to moderate, depending on the job tasks for the 

day. The facility provided mandatory PPE to protect the food from contamination (e.g., 

lab coat, hairnet, plastic sleeve guards, plastic or polyvinyl chloride gloves, and apron) 

and optional PPE for warmth (e.g., coat, hat, and liner gloves). Employees also reported 

wearing additional personal clothing for warmth. Employees outside the cold food kitchen 

were exposed to indoor cold temperatures when entering coolers to stock and retrieve items 

from the storage and thaw area coolers and to move carts into and out of the holding cooler. 

Transportation department employees were also exposed to outdoor cold temperatures.

Table 11 describes the number of employees we observed in the different coolers during 

our visit and the air velocity measurements taken during our visit. All room air velocities 

were below the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®) 

cold stress threshold limit value (TLV®) guideline of 200 feet per minute for job sites inside 

refrigerated rooms [ACGIH 2015]. 

Table 11. Air velocities measured in coolers at chest height on January 15 and 16, 2013

Cooler 

number

Departments Description Approximate number 

of employees

Air velocity,

feet per minute

1 Storeroom and 

receiving cooler

Storage cooler 0–1 0–60

2 Cold food kitchen Production cooler

in cold food prep

7–12 0‒125

3 Hot food kitchen Thaw area 1–2 0

4 Cold food kitchen Production cooler

in cold food prep

2–5 0

5 Cold food kitchen

Transportation

Holding area 1‒3 0–50
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

We reviewed daily cooler temperature records obtained from the company for 2 months in 

2012. Temperatures recorded by the company were fairly uniform between the months and 

work shifts, at approximately 40°F, which is required by food safety standards, and similar to 

the measurements we took (Table 12).

Table 12. Cooler daily temperature records provided by the company, 2012

Month, Year Shift Temperature, °F

Cooler 

#1

Cooler 

#2

Cooler 

#3

Cooler 

#4

Cooler 

#5

September 2012 Day Average 40.0 39.6 39.9 39.9 39.4

Minimum 39.0 36.0 38.0 39.0 37.0

Maximum 40.0 40.0 41.0 40.0 40.0

Night Average 40.0 39.4 39.7 39.6 39.2

Minimum 39.0 37.0 37.0 38.0 36.0

Maximum 41.0 41.0 42.0 41.0 40.0

December 2012 Day Average 39.9 40.0 40.2 39.0 40.2

Minimum 39.0 38.0 39.0 37.0 39.0

Maximum 41.0 41.0 41.0 40.0 41.0

Night Average 40.0 40.2 40.1 37.9 40.0

Minimum 40.0 39.0 38.0 32.0 38.0

Maximum 40.0 42.0 42.0 41.0 41.0

Almost half (47%) of the 66 employees we interviewed reported that they worked in the cold 

(Table 13). Most (78%) of them worked in the cold food kitchen. However, employees from 

all departments except the hot food kitchen reported working in the cold. Transportation 

employees reported being exposed to cold temperatures in winter because some trucks did 

not have heat. Nearly all (90%) of the employees who reported working in the cold also 

reported that they wore a coat. Nineteen (29%) of the interviewed employees reported that 

they felt discomfort working in cold temperatures, particularly in the freezer or coolers; 

several mentioned that their feet and hands got the coldest while working in these locations. 

Some employees reported cold fingers but felt that using gloves would impair their dexterity. 

Sixteen (24%) of the interviewed employees reported that they had become ill from exposure 

to extreme temperatures at work but, for this interview question, we did not differentiate 

extreme cold from extreme heat. Nine of the sixteen employees who answered “yes” to this 

question said that they worked in cold temperatures. However, six of them also reported that 

they worked in hot temperatures.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 17

Table 13. Interviewed employees by department who reported work in the cold, experiencing 

discomfort working in cold temperatures, and becoming sick because of extreme temperatures 

at work, January 2013

Department Number of 

interviewed 

employees

Number (%) of interviewed employees who reported:

Work in

the cold*

Discomfort working 

in cold 

temperatures*

Ever becoming sick 

because of extreme 

temperatures at work†

Storeroom and 

receiving cooler

9 4 (44) 4 (44) 2 (22)

Cold food kitchen 18 14 (78) 7 (39) 2 (11)

Hot food kitchen 8 — 1 (13) 1 (13)

Beverage 11 2 (18) 2 (18) 3 (30)

Equipment and 

sanitation

10 3 (30) 4 (40) 4 (40)

Transportation 10 8 (80) 1 (10) 4 (40)

All departments 66 31 (47) 19 (29) 16 (24)

*In two departments (hot food kitchen and equipment and sanitation), the number reporting 

discomfort from cold was larger than the number reporting work in the cold. This could be 

explained by the following: (1) the two questions about “work in the cold” and “discomfort working 

in cold temperatures” were asked in different parts of the interview; (2) hot food employees entered 

the thaw area cooler and freezer as needed; and (3) some cold exposures might have been related 

to outdoor temperatures.

†For this interview question, we did not differentiate extreme cold from extreme heat. Nine of these 

reports came from employees who reported work in cold temperatures, six of whom also reported 

work in hot temperatures.

Employee reports of discomfort while working in cold environments could be explained 

by the temperatures we found in the freezers and coolers, where employees spent varying 

amounts of work time. These findings indicate that preventive measures against cold 

exposure might not be adequate. Studies have shown that cold indoor work in the food 

industry often involves light physical activity and repetitive movements [Mäkinen and Hassi 

2009], similar to what we found at this facility. Mild cold exposures can cause unpleasant 

sensations and temperature discomfort, which can distract from the performance of tasks 

requiring concentration and vigilance and may increase the risk of traumatic incidents and 

injuries. Cooling of body tissue can reduce physical and mental performance, which may 

contribute to the risk of potentially traumatic incidents and injuries [Mäkinen and Hassi 

2009]. Additionally, cold indoor work has been associated with musculoskeletal symptoms 

and disorders as well as the aggravation of chronic medical conditions [Piedrahita 2008; 

Mäkinen and Hassi 2009]. Measures to improve employees’ general heat balance include 

reducing their exposure to drafts, keeping cold goods away from work stations, and adding 

clothing to protect from draft, moisture, and water. Underwear, insulating middle layers, 

and the outer layer should be integrated into a functional and protective system. Headgear 

and footwear should be insulated to preserve warmth. The hands and fingers are particularly 

sensitive to cold. Gloves improve protection but affect dexterity. Thin gloves may be 

sufficient but additional measures, such as insulated handles on tools and equipment, spot 

heating, and routine breaks for recovery and rewarming, may be needed [Dahlström et al. 
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

2011]. ACGIH recommends that if fine work is to be performed with bare hands for more 

than 10–20 minutes in an environment below 60.8°F, special provisions should be established 

for keeping the employee’s hands warm [ACGIH 2015]. The chapter on cold environment 

and cold work in the International Labor Organization Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health 

& Safety [Dahlström et al. 2011] includes information about conditioning programs for cold 

store workers, the selection of protective clothing, and other protective measures.

Exposure to Hot Environments

Although outdoor temperatures were low during our visit, the potential for work in hot 

conditions exists, particularly during the summer months. Nearly half (49%) of interviewed 

employees reported that they felt discomfort working in hot temperatures. When asked to 

elaborate about the cause in an open-ended question, the most frequently reported responses 

were lack of air conditioning, having too few fans, and weather during summer months. 

Transportation department employees reported being exposed to heat in summer because 

some delivery trucks did not have air conditioning. As reported in Table 13 above, 16 (24%) 

of the interviewed employees reported that they had become ill from exposure to extreme 

temperatures at work. For this interview question, we did not differentiate extreme cold from 

extreme heat. When we asked them to describe their symptoms, three employees reported 

symptoms more likely to be related to heat exposure than to cold exposure, such as dizziness, 

fast heartbeat, stomach cramps, and nausea. These employees worked in beverage, equipment 

and sanitation, and the hot food kitchen. We discussed work in hot environments and made 

recommendations about exposure to hot environments in the report of our earlier evaluation 

at the company’s airline catering facility in Michigan [NIOSH 2014b].

Dehydration and Drinking Water

Performance can be affected by dehydration from sweat losses and fluid restriction or 

unavailability [Cheuvront and Kenefick 2014]. Work factors, such as physical exertion, hot 

environments, and cold environments can contribute to sweat losses. In hot environments and 

during physical exertion, increased sweat production is part of the evaporative mechanism to 

cool the body [Kenney 2011]. In cold environments, protective clothing can cause increased 

sweat production because of its heat-retaining properties or by adding to an employee’s 

workload because of its weight [Dahlström et al. 2011]. Thus, employees who worked in hot 

environments, performed tasks that required physical exertion, or wore protective clothing 

with heat-retaining properties might have been at risk for increased sweat loss. 

Twenty-five (38%) of the interviewed employees reported that they did not have enough 

water to drink during their shift. Employees reported that they were permitted to drink water 

only on breaks, drinking water was not available in most work areas, the drinking fountain 

in the storeroom had been replaced with an eye wash, the water fountains located in the 

receiving area and the cafeteria did not meet the needs of employees in departments that 

did not have a drinking fountain, and open bottles of water were prohibited in work areas. 

Thirst is not a good indicator of dehydration and may be satisfied well before total body 

water is fully restored even when dehydration is substantial [Cheuvront and Kenefick 2014]. 

Employee reports of not having enough water to drink suggest that some employees were 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 19

thirsty because of dehydration; however, additional employees might have been dehydrated 

without feeling thirsty.

Dehydration can cause unpleasant symptoms such as dry mouth, thirst, headache, 

tiredness, and decreased alertness. These and other symptoms may be distracting and affect 

performance. Additionally, tasks that have an aerobic or endurance component, such as 

day-long manual labor, appear to be significantly impaired by dehydration [Cheuvront and 

Kenefick 2014]. Thus, the lack of access to drinking water in work areas led to involuntary 

fluid restriction, which could increase the risk of dehydration that could affect employees’ 

work performance. 

Carbon Dioxide

We observed the use of dry ice, a source of CO2 in air, not only in the coolers and prep areas, 

but also throughout the facility. Although the employer had prohibited the use of dry ice in 

coolers, we saw dry ice in drawers on top of ice cream and juice containers in coolers 

4 and 5, even though these were unventilated spaces. The cooler doors and interiors did not 

have signs warning employees about the hazards of dry ice or that its use was prohibited in 

coolers. Our grab sample results showed that CO2 concentrations in the air were elevated 

in the coolers and in prep areas 1 and 2 (Table 14). The highest CO2 concentrations were 

found in coolers 3 and 5, even though dry ice was not in use in these coolers when we took 

our measurements (Table 14). Grab sample results cannot be used reliably to estimate an 

employee’s personal exposure to CO2 or to compare with the occupational exposure limits 

(OELs). However, these results indicated a possibility that, if dry ice is used in unventilated 

coolers, CO2 concentrations could build up and remain high; employees working in coolers 

with dry ice for extended time periods could be exposed to CO2 levels above the OSHA 

permissible exposure limit (PEL) and NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL) of 

5,000 ppm as a time-weighted average over the work shift. Because dry ice was not being 

used at the time of sample collection in the coolers, we could not determine whether CO2

concentrations in the coolers would be able to reach the NIOSH short-term exposure limit 

(STEL) of 30,000 ppm. 

Employees had been trained about the hazards of CO2 in Spanish and English, and the hazard 

communication training material on CO2 was available in Spanish. However, language, 

communication, and training issues might have affected training effectiveness (see the 

section on language, communication, and training later in this report). We did not evaluate 

whether other factors, such as the role of supervisors, might have contributed to the practice 

of using dry ice where prohibited.

A ventilation outdoor air rate of 10 cubic feet per minute per occupant is recommended 

inside a freezer or refrigerated area (< 50°F) to provide indoor air quality that is acceptable 

to human occupants and that minimizes adverse health effects [ANSI/ASHRAE 2013]. 

This means that, at this facility, an ideal ventilation outdoor air rate would need to supply a 

minimum of 120 cubic feet per minute, if 12 employees work inside the cooler during most 

of their shift. If dry ice use continues inside coolers, the ventilation outdoor air rate would 

need to be higher. Employee exposures to CO2 should be monitored to ensure they are below OELs.
Page 20 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

Table 14. Air concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in air from grab samples, January 15 and 16, 2013

Sample 

Location

Description Dry ice used

during sampling?

CO2 concentration, ppm

Q-track Dräger tubes

Cooler 1 Storage cooler in storeroom 

and receiving cooler

No 1,320 —

Cooler 2 Production cooler in 

cold food kitchen

No 1,882 —

Cooler 3 Thaw area in hot food kitchen No

No

> 3,000

—

3,000

9,000

Cooler 4 Production cooler in 

cold food kitchen

No 2,353–2,430 3,200

Cooler 5 Holding area from cold food 

kitchen to transportation

No

No

No

—

> 3,000

—

7,000

> 2,000

2,000

Prep area 1 Near cooler 4 Yes — 3,000

Prep area 2 Near silverware rolling Yes — 2,000

Prep area 3 Preparing breakfast trays Yes — 1,000

Loading dock Dry ice loader Yes — 500

Office area Conference room No 893–911 —

OSHA PEL* (8-hr TWA) and NIOSH REL† (10-hr TWA) 

NIOSH STEL‡

5,000

30,000

5,000

30,000

*PEL = permissible exposure limit as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA)

†REL = recommended exposure limit for up to a 10-hour TWA

‡STEL = short-term exposure limit

Carbon Monoxide

We did not detect CO (limit of detection was 1 ppm) in the dock area, which suggested that 

truck exhaust was negligible in this work area. We noted that docks were sealed and delivery 

trucks were parked at a distance while idling during winter months. Employees in the area 

did not express concerns about truck exhaust. Our observations suggest that no changes need 

to be made to the docks at this facility. If concerns about truck exhaust arise in the future, 

we suggest that the employer assess employees’ exposures to truck exhaust because diesel 

exhaust is a probable human and occupational carcinogen [NIOSH 1988; International 

Agency for Research on Cancer 1989].

Job Stress and Psychosocial Factors

Psychosocial factors are those aspects of the design and management of work (e.g., 

scheduling, job demands, task complexity) as well as its social and organizational contexts 

(e.g., interpersonal relationships, role requirements, organizational climate) that have the 

potential for causing physical or psychological harm to employees [Cox and Griffiths 

2005]. Many psychosocial factors are associated with job stress, or the harmful physical 

and emotional responses that occur when the requirements of a job are a poor match to the 

capabilities, resources, or needs of the worker [NIOSH 2009]. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 21

We asked the interviewed employees to rate their level of job stress over the past week on 

a scale from 0 (as good as it can be) to 10 (as bad as it can be) [Clark et al. 2011]. Sixty-six 

employees answered this question, with the average response being 5.6. Figure 1 shows 

the distribution of responses to this question. Twenty percent of scores were 0–3 (low job 

stress), 42% were 4–6 (moderate job stress), and 38% were 7–10 (high job stress) [Clark et 

al. 2011]. The job stress scores reported at this facility were greater than those reported at 

the company’s facility we evaluated in Michigan, where 49% of employees reported low job 

stress, and the average job stress score was 4.2 (N = 53) [NIOSH 2014b].

Figure 1. Reported job stress level over the past week (n = 66).

We also asked the interviewed employees an open-ended question regarding what factors 

contributed to their perception of job stress. Fifty-three (80%) employees reported one or 

more job stressor(s). Job stressors reported by five or more employees are listed in Table 

15. Employees could report more than one job stressor. The most commonly reported job 

stressors were time pressure, high workload, limited access to resources, and having to work 

more to make up for the shortcomings of coworkers. These were also the most commonly 

reported job stressors at the company’s facility in Michigan [NIOSH 2014b].
Page 22 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

Table 15. Reported job stressors among employees (n = 66), 

January 2013

Job stressor Number of 

employees (%)

Time pressure (e.g., being rushed) 24 (36)

High workload 14 (21)

Limited access to resources 13 (20)

No reported job stressor(s) 13 (20)

Making up for shortcomings of coworkers 11 (17)

Having to work overtime 8 (12)

Understaffed 8 (12)

We asked several questions related to interpersonal relationships at work. Sixty-one (94%) 

of 66 interviewed employees reported that they never or rarely argued with their coworkers. 

Forty-two (67%) reported that they believed their coworkers help and support each other. 

Nearly all (97%) employees reported that their supervisor never or rarely yelled at them; 

however, 7 employees (11%) reported that they had been cursed at by their supervisor. Of the 

62 interviewed employees who answered the question on reporting concerns about safety and 

health matters to their supervisor, 8 (13%) reported that they did not feel safe to do so. Of the 

66 interviewed employees, 10 (15%) employees reported that they felt discriminated against 

at work due to their race, ethnicity, color, or national origin. We did not ask questions about 

whether the perceived discrimination came from supervisors or coworkers. We also did not 

ask questions to determine whether these perceptions might have been related to language 

differences or other communication problems. 

Research supports a strong association between job stress, psychosocial factors, and workrelated musculoskeletal disorders [NIOSH 1997; Warren 2001]. Job stress may cause chronic 

increased muscle tension, thus making soft tissues more susceptible to the effects of physical 

stressors. Job stress may also raise awareness of musculoskeletal disorder symptoms and 

affect reporting behavior [NIOSH 1997]. For example, the interactive effects of adverse 

psychosocial factors (e.g., high workload, low social support, and low job control) and 

physical stressors are related to the development of musculoskeletal pain in the lower 

back [De Beeck and Hermans 2000; World Health Organization 2010]. A combination of 

ergonomic, job design (e.g., rotation of tasks), and psychosocial interventions may result in a 

decrease in job stress and musculoskeletal pain.

Language, Communication, and Training

The sample of employees we interviewed was diverse in terms of ethnicity and primary 

language. They came from 18 different countries of origin, with the most common being 

the Dominican Republic (32%) and Colombia (14%). Most employees (71%) reported that 

Spanish was their primary language, while only about 20% reported English as their primary 

language. Other primary languages included Indonesian, Italian, Romanian, Tibetan, and 

Vietnamese. Thirty-three employees (50%) reported that they spoke at least some English as 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 23

a secondary language. We were unable to interview one selected employee because he did 

not speak English or Spanish.

Most (80%) of the interviewed employees reported having no difficulty communicating 

with others at work (Table 16). Most (83%) reported that they were trained in their primary 

language and that training materials and health and safety information were available in 

their primary language (Table 16). Additionally, most (92%) did not feel pressure to learn 

English or another language. However, 17% reported that training, training materials, and 

health and safety information were not in their primary language, and 20% reported problems 

communicating with others because they spoke a different language. These findings suggest 

that, for some employees, language was a barrier to effective training and communication 

regarding workplace safety and health. NIOSH has long recognized the need for labels and 

warning signs to be available in the predominant language of non-English-reading employees 

and the need to inform those who cannot read the labels and signs because of literacy levels 

or language [NIOSH 1976]. An OSHA memorandum to OSHA regional administrators about 

employers’ obligations for employee training states that training should be in a language and 

vocabulary that employees understand, which would be expected when communicating work 

instructions and other workplace information to employees who have a limited vocabulary or 

whose primary language is not English [OSHA 2010].

Table 16. Employee responses to interview questions about language, January 2013

Interview question Number 

answering 

question

Number (%) 

of “yes” 

responses

At work, do you have problems communicating with others 

because they speak a different language?

66 13 (20)

Were you trained for your job in your primary language? 63 52 (83)

Are job training materials and health and safety information 

available to you in your primary language?

63 52 (83)

At work, have you felt pressure to learn English or another 

language?

65 5 (8)

We reviewed the new-hire orientation, standard operating procedures, and training and 

informational materials that the company developed to inform employees about workplace 

hazards. Most of the materials relied heavily on the written word, often in the form of lists 

of bullets, to convey a lot of complex information. Standard operating procedures were 

mostly one or two pages long. A 14-page training module that covered hazard analysis and 

control, government compliance policies and procedures, PPE, housekeeping tips, and safe 

behavior also contained checklists for rating good practices. A 36-slide new hire orientation 

had colorful background graphics that were not relevant to the training, had few photographs, 

and relied heavily on the written word. One of the informational materials about preventing 

slip hazards was in poster format with photographs of unsafe and good practices, but the 

safety message was not immediately obvious. The football player analogy in a poster about 

PPE might be appropriate for an American-born workforce; its relevance to a workforce of 
Page 24 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

multinational origin is unclear. These findings suggest that communication barriers other than 

language, such as unclear, distracting, and culturally inappropriate visual images and written 

materials, could have a negative impact on safety and health. 

Training is most effective when adult learning principles and learning styles are taken into 

account [United Nations Environment Programme 2015]. The only document we reviewed 

that appeared to have been developed according to the principles of adult learning and the 

consideration of learning styles was the company’s “Safety short: housekeeping at work,” 

which gave instructions on how to hold a work-area training session that involved the active 

participation of employees. Information and guidance on the use of adult learning principles 

in developing training are available online. Examples include those posted by the U.S. 

Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the United 

Nations Environment Programme [Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy 2010, 2011; U.S. 

DOT National Highway Institute 2003; United Nations Environment Programme 2015]. 

Additionally, participatory evaluation and training programs may be useful for improving 

ergonomics [van Eerd et al. 2010], as well as workplace safety and health in general 

[Henning et al. 2009; Arcury et al. 2010]. For example, a review article on the evaluation of 

cold environments stated that engaging employees in the evaluation and recommendation 

processes leads to solutions based on the specific conditions of the workplace and improves 

workers’ acceptance of changes [Holmer 2009]. 

Other Findings from Confidential Employee Interviews

When we asked an open-ended question about health and safety concerns, 33 (50%) of the 

interviewed employees reported concerns. The most frequently reported concerns were that 

certain equipment was broken or not working properly (n = 7) and that there were slippery 

floors (n = 4). Other concerns were only reported by three or fewer employees and are not 

listed in this report. 

When we asked about the use of PPE, 64 (97%) of the interviewed employees reported using 

plastic, cloth, or “other” gloves, 10 (15%) of the interviewed employees reported using 

safety glasses, and 9 (14%) reported using hearing protection. Sources of noise at this facility 

included noise from machines and noise caused by metal-on-metal contact involving carts, 

kitchen tools, and work surfaces. We did not measure employees’ noise exposures or evaluate 

the hearing conservation program. Noise exposure measurements taken by the company’s 

insurance carrier at another similar facility indicated that noise exposures were slightly below 

the OSHA action level and the NIOSH REL of 85 decibels, A-weighted. A noise survey 

would be necessary at this facility to determine if noise levels were different from those 

measured at the other facility. 

Conclusions

Employees were exposed to a combination of risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal 

disorders, including awkward postures, forceful exertions, repetitive motions, job stress, and 

adverse psychosocial factors that could cause the musculoskeletal symptoms, injuries, and 

disorders we found. Employees were also exposed to workplace safety hazards that can lead 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 25

to the types of acute traumatic incidents documented in the OSHA Logs. The temperatures 

we found in the freezers and coolers could explain employee reports of discomfort while 

working in the cold food kitchen and other departments. Employees also reported discomfort 

that they related to heat. Transportation department employees were also affected by outdoor 

temperature extremes. Dehydration related to increased sweat loss, the lack of drinking 

water in work areas, and limiting drinking of water to breaks could explain why employees 

reported that they did not have enough water to drink. We found dry ice used throughout the 

facility, including inside coolers that were not ventilated, despite a company prohibition, and 

where some employees spent the majority of the work shift. We measured high instantaneous 

levels of CO2 inside the coolers that require further evaluation. Most employees reported a 

moderate to high level of job stress. The most commonly reported job stressors were time 

pressure, high workload, and limited access to resources. One third of interviewed employees 

reported a lack of support from coworkers. The training materials and signs that we reviewed 

did not appear to fully meet the language and culturally appropriate needs of a diverse, 

multinational workforce.

Recommendations 

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

airline catering facility to use a labor-management health and safety committee or working 

group to discuss our recommendations and develop an action plan. Those involved in the 

work can best set priorities and assess the feasibility of our recommendations for the specific 

situations at the airline catering facility.

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

protective equipment may be needed.

Ergonomics

Many of the recommendations listed below were obtained from The Handbook of Ergonomic 

Design Guidelines [Humantech 2009]. The height recommendations below are for the North 

American population. When designing reaches, design for the smallest or shortest people in 

the working population. Do not design for the average; it excludes a majority of the working 

population.

1. Design for adjustability when possible. 

○ Standing hand working height should be adjustable from 38′′–47′′ or fixed at 42′′. 

○ Part bins supporting the process should be placed in front of the employee with 

less than 16′′ reaching distance at a vertical height of 24′′–70′′. 

○ More frequently used items or heavy items should be located 38′′–49′′ above 

standing surface.
Page 26 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

○ All work should be performed within 22′′ from the edge of the workstation 

(horizontal work distance guideline) to eliminate extended reaches.

2. Ensure that flow racks (such as the soda assembly and disassembly stations) have the 

following dimensions: 38′′–49′′ retrieval height, 38′′–62′′ replenish height, rack angles 

of 0°–30°, and a minimum 5′′ clearance from the top of the bin to the bottom of the 

next shelf.

3. Provide tools to aid in reaching, such as a hook to pull material closer to the employee.

4. Provide lift tables or load levelers for palletized materials such as soda, beer, or water. 

A rotating top will help reduce reach distances when access is not available on three 

sides of the pallet.

5. Provide industrial mats for employees who stand for 90% or more of their working 

hours. Mats should be ≥ 0.5′′ thick, have an optimal compressibility of 3%–4%, have 

beveled edges to minimize trip hazards, and be placed at least 8′′ under a workstation 

to prevent uneven standing surfaces. Mats should cover the entire area that employees 

move while performing their work task and be replaced when they appear worn out or 

are damaged.

6. Modify the standard operating procedures for lifting and moving pallets of bottled 

water to also include other palletized items, such as soda beverages. Employees should 

be reminded to keep heavy loads close to the body when lifting and carrying.

7. Cross-train employees who perform repetitive tasks on different jobs and rotate 

employees through jobs with different physical demands every 2 hours to reduce the 

stress on limbs and body regions. 

8. Educate employees on musculoskeletal disorders and ergonomics, covering specific 

operations that have been identified by NIOSH or the company as causing or likely to 

cause musculoskeletal disorders. 

9. Develop a system for employees to provide information and feedback on work 

equipment and procedure modifications.

10.Evaluate the effectiveness of engineering and administrative controls.

Acute Traumatic Injuries

1. Make sure floors are free of water, food, and obstacles to reduce slips, trips, and falls. 

2. Repair uneven floors and maintain wheels on carts to reduce injuries caused by cart accidents.

3. Assure that information recorded on the OSHA 300 Logs is complete, particularly the 

descriptions of factors that contribute to incidents.

4. Evaluate OSHA Logs and investigate incidents to identify (a) priorities, such as causes 

of injuries with the highest days away from work, job restriction, or job transfer; (b) 

causes of injuries, particularly severe and irreversible ones, such as crush injuries and 

amputation; and (c) causes of the most frequent injuries.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 27

Exposure to Cold Environments

1. Rotate employees performing work requiring fine manual dexterity between warmer 

and colder areas throughout the workday. Rotating every 2 hours will also allow for 

breaks from cold temperatures.

2. Evaluate using thinner, fingertipless, or fingerless liner gloves that employees could wear 

under the required plastic gloves when performing work requiring fine manual dexterity.

3. Provide hand warmers (e.g., warm water or dry air heaters) outside of the coolers so 

employees can warm their hands periodically.

4. Implement a replacement schedule for gloves and other nondisposable PPE that 

includes checking for breakdown of the materials, excessive wear, tears, or other 

factors that may decrease their effectiveness.

5. Educate employees on the symptoms of cold stress as well as the importance of using 

the appropriate protective clothing and staying hydrated. Train employees in how 

to appropriately limit the effects of cold temperatures (e.g., appropriate use of PPE, 

changing wet clothing immediately, taking short breaks to warm hands).

6. Make sure all new trucks have heat. 

Exposure to Hot Environments

1. Evaluate heat exposures of drivers during summer months. If needed, establish work/

rest schedules based on temperature, humidity, and the type of work. Provide medical 

surveillance, develop an emergency response procedure for heat-related injuries, and 

encourage employees to take regular breaks and to drink cool water throughout the 

work shift. For more information on heat stress and heat strain, see http://www.cdc.

gov/niosh/topics/heatstress. An OSHA–NIOSH information sheet on heat illness that 

can be carried around by managers and employees is available at http://www.cdc.gov/

niosh/docs/2011-174.

2. Provide drinking water with disposable cups in all work areas. If water containers are 

used, they must be cleaned and refilled daily and kept away from heat. 

3. Make sure all new trucks have air conditioning. 

Carbon Dioxide

1. Enforce the prohibition of use or storage of dry ice in coolers unless ventilation in 

coolers is improved following ASHRAE guidelines [ASHRAE 2013] and personal 

monitoring of CO2 is performed. Place English and Spanish warning signs at cooler 

entrances prohibiting dry ice in the coolers.

2. Perform personal and area air monitoring for CO2 inside the coolers and other 

locations where dry ice is used to determine employees’ exposures. If personal 

exposures exceed OELs, use engineering or work practice controls to reduce and 

control exposures. 
Page 28 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

3. Label dry ice packaging and post warning signs in areas where dry ice is used and 

stored with the following wording, as recommended in NIOSH guidelines: “Solid 

carbon dioxide (CO2) – Dry ice – Warning! Extremely cold (−109F). Causes severe 

burns, liberates gas which may cause suffocation, avoid contact with skin and eyes; do 

not taste, do not put in stoppered or closed containers, and use and store only in wellventilated areas” [NIOSH 1976]. All labels and warnings should be printed in English 

and Spanish. Other means of communication would be necessary for employees who 

do not read English or Spanish.

4. Provide hazard communication training for employees with potential for exposure to 

CO2 from dry ice, such as employees working in the cooler and prep areas.

Carbon Monoxide

1. Maintain and inspect trucks following Environmental Protection Agency guidelines found 

at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/im.htm to identify high emission vehicles that need repair.

2. Make sure that dock doors remain closed while trucks are not docked to keep diesel 

exhaust from entering the building.

Job Stress and Psychosocial Factors

1. Explore further and address causes of job stress. An open discussion with employees 

may help identify job stressors, opportunities for improvement, and barriers to change. 

Otherwise, hiring a consultant with expertise in organizational psychology or a related 

field may be beneficial. The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 

maintains a consultant locator at http://www.siop.org/consultantlocator/search.aspx. 

The American Society of Safety Engineers also maintains directories of qualified 

consultants at http://www.asse.org/practicespecialties/consultants/.

2. Ensure that employees are protected from retaliation when reporting their health and 

safety concerns to supervisors.

3. Evaluate whether increasing staff during peak hours would improve efficiency and 

lower job stress. 

4. Ensure that all employees have the equipment necessary to complete their jobs before 

the beginning of a shift. If the necessary equipment is lacking, the need to purchase 

additional equipment or supplies should be addressed.

Language, Communication, and Training

1. Ensure that employees understand the potential hazards in their workplace and how 

to protect themselves. OSHA’s hazard communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) 

requires that employees are informed and trained on potential work hazards and 

associated safe practices, procedures, and protective measures. Refer to the OSHA 

website for additional information: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_

document?p_table=standards&p_id=10099.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 29

2. Present all information (e.g., safety information, labels, warning signs, trainings, and 

messages) to employees in a manner that they are able to understand. When employees 

do not understand English, communication and training should be available in other 

languages. Alternative forms to written communication may be useful. 

3. Use training and communication methods developed according to the principles 

of adult learning, multiple learning styles, effective messaging, and health 

communication. Examples and references in the section on language, communication, 

and training, are available under Findings and Discussion.

Other Recommendations

1. Improve ventilation in coolers where employees spend the majority of their shift to 

meet established ventilation guidelines in freezer or refrigerated areas (< 50°F) to 

provide indoor air quality that is acceptable to human occupants and that minimizes 

adverse health effects [ANSI/ASHRAE 2013]. 

2. Encourage all employees to report work-related symptoms (e.g., musculoskeletal, 

cold, and heat stress) to their supervisor without penalty. Employees with work-related 

symptoms should promptly seek medical attention from their healthcare provider. 

Certain chronic health conditions (for example, asthma, hypertension, diabetes) or 

certain medications can increase an individual’s susceptibity to the effects of extreme 

heat and cold. 

3. Determine whether the use of hearing protection is necessary in the workplace by 

conducting noise monitoring. If it is determined that hearing protection is necessary, 

integrate the proper use of this PPE in training and encourage supervisors to observe 

these practices and provide feedback, both positive and negative, to employees.
Page 30 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

Appendix A: Occupational Exposure Limits and 

Health Effects

NIOSH investigators refer to mandatory (legally enforceable) and recommended OELs for 

chemical, physical, and biological agents when evaluating workplace hazards. OELs have 

been developed by federal agencies and safety and health organizations to prevent adverse 

health effects from workplace exposures. Generally, OELs suggest levels of exposure that 

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

working lifetime, without experiencing adverse health effects. However, not all employees 

will be protected if their exposures are maintained below these levels. Some may have 

adverse health effects because of individual susceptibility, a pre-existing medical condition, 

or a hypersensitivity (allergy). In addition, some hazardous substances act in combination 

with other exposures, with the general environment, or with medications or personal habits of 

the employee to produce adverse health effects. Most OELs address airborne exposures, but 

some substances can be absorbed directly through the skin and mucous membranes.

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

a normal 8- to 10-hour workday. Some chemical substances and physical agents have 

recommended STELs or ceiling values. Unless otherwise noted, the STEL is a 15-minute 

TWA exposure. It should not be exceeded at any time during a workday. The ceiling limit 

should not be exceeded at any time.

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

organizations, state and local governments, and other entities. Some OELs are legally 

enforceable limits; others are recommendations.

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

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

These limits are enforceable in workplaces covered under the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970.

● NIOSH RELs are recommendations based on a critical review of the scientific and technical 

information and the adequacy of methods to identify and control the hazard. NIOSH 

RELs are published in the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards [NIOSH 2010]. 

NIOSH also recommends risk management practices (e.g., engineering controls, safe work 

practices, employee education/training, personal protective equipment, and exposure and 

medical monitoring) to minimize the risk of exposure and adverse health effects.

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

are recommended by ACGIH, a professional organization, and the workplace 

environmental exposure levels (WEELsTM), which are recommended by the American 

Industrial Hygiene Association, another professional organization. The TLVs and 

WEELs are developed by committee members of these associations from a review of 

the published, peer-reviewed literature. These OELs are not consensus standards. TLVs 

are considered voluntary exposure guidelines for use by industrial hygienists and others 

trained in this discipline “to assist in the control of health hazards” [ACGIH 2015]. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 31

WEELs have been established for some chemicals “when no other legal or authoritative 

limits exist” [AIHA 2015].

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

and include legal and recommended limits. The Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen 

Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German 

Social Accident Insurance) maintains a database of international OELs from European Union 

member states, Canada (Québec), Japan, Switzerland, and the United States. The database, 

available at http://www.dguv.de/ifa/GESTIS/GESTIS-Internationale-Grenzwerte-fürchemische-Substanzen-limit-values-for-chemical-agents/index-2.jsp, contains international 

limits for more than 1,500 hazardous substances and is updated periodically. 

OSHA requires an employer to furnish employees a place of employment free from 

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

[Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–596, sec. 5(a)(1))]. This is 

true in the absence of a specific OEL. It also is important to keep in mind that OELs may not 

reflect current health-based information.

When multiple OELs exist for a substance or agent, NIOSH investigators generally 

encourage employers to use the lowest OEL when making risk assessment and risk 

management decisions. NIOSH investigators also encourage use of the hierarchy of controls 

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

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

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

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

surveillance), and (4) PPE (e.g., respiratory protection, gloves, eye protection, hearing 

protection). Control banding, a qualitative risk assessment and risk management tool, is a 

complementary approach to protecting employee health. Control banding focuses on how 

broad categories of risk should be managed. Information on control banding is available at 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ctrlbanding/. This approach can be applied in situations 

where OELs have not been established or can be used to supplement existing OELs.

Musculoskeletal Disorders and Ergonomics

Musculoskeletal disorders are those conditions that involve the nerves, tendons, muscles, 

and supporting structures of the body. They can be characterized by chronic pain and limited 

mobility. Work-related musculoskeletal disorder refers to (1) musculoskeletal disorders 

to which the work environment and the performance of work contribute significantly, or 

(2) musculoskeletal disorders that are made worse or longer lasting by work conditions. A 

substantial body of data provides strong evidence of an association between musculoskeletal 

disorders and certain work-related factors (physical, work organizational, psychosocial, 

individual, and sociocultural). The multifactorial nature of musculoskeletal disorders 

requires a discussion of individual factors and how they are associated with work-related 

musculoskeletal disorders. Strong evidence shows that working groups with high levels of 

static contraction, prolonged static loads, or extreme working postures involving the neck/

shoulder muscles are at increased risk for neck/shoulder musculoskeletal disorders [NIOSH 
Page 32 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

1997]. Further strong evidence shows job tasks that require a combination of risk factors 

(highly repetitious, forceful hand/wrist exertions) increase risk for hand/wrist tendonitis 

[NIOSH 1997]. Finally, strong evidence shows that low-back disorders are associated with 

work-related lifting and forceful movements [NIOSH 1997]. A number of personal factors 

can also influence the response to risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders: age, sex, 

smoking, physical activity, strength, and body measurements. Although personal factors may 

affect an individual’s susceptibility to overexertion injuries/disorders, studies conducted in 

high-risk industries show that the risk associated with personal factors is small compared to 

that associated with occupational exposures [NIOSH 1997].

In all cases, the preferred method for preventing and controlling work-related 

musculoskeletal disorders is to improve the ergonomics of the workplace -- design jobs, 

workstations, tools, and other equipment to match the physiological, anatomical, and 

psychological characteristics and capabilities of the employee. Under these conditions, 

exposures to risk factors considered potentially hazardous are reduced or eliminated.

Carbon Dioxide and Dry Ice

CO2 is a colorless, odorless, and nonflammable gas [NIOSH 1976] that is normally present 

in our atmosphere at approximately 300–400 ppm. It is also a normal body constituent 

arising from cellular respiration. Commercial uses of solid CO2 (dry ice) primarily includes 

refrigeration of food. Dry ice is much colder than regular ice, and can severely freeze the skin 

like frostbite. Insulated gloves should be worn when handling dry ice. Safety glasses and a 

face shield should be worn when cutting or chipping it. 

Dry ice can be a very serious hazard in a small space that is not well ventilated. As dry ice 

sublimes, it turns into CO2 gas. In a small space with poor ventilation, like a walk-in freezer 

or cooler, CO2 gas concentrations can build up. If enough CO2 gas is present, a person can 

become unconscious, and in some cases, die of suffocation because the CO2 will displace 

oxygen. Symptoms of overexposure to CO2 include headache and difficulty breathing, and 

with greater exposure, nausea and vomiting. The main health concerns associated with CO2

in levels above the OSHA PEL are narcosis, respiratory stimulation, or asphyxiation [OSHA 

2015]. Exposure to high levels of CO2 may induce cardiopulmonary effects that can be 

reversed when removed from the environment (Halpern et al. 2004).

The NIOSH REL, OSHA PEL, and ACGIH TLV for CO2 are 5,000 ppm TWA; the NIOSH, 

OSHA, and ACGIH STELs are 30,000 ppm; and the immediately dangerous to life and 

health level is 40,000 ppm [NIOSH 2014a].

Carbon Monoxide

CO is produced by incomplete burning of carbon-containing materials such as diesel fuel. In 

previous evaluations of employees’ exposures to diesel exhaust, NIOSH investigators have 

concluded that a potential health hazard exists when occupational exposures exceed ambient 

background levels – such as when diesel engines are operated in close proximity to work 

areas – and have recommended adopting measures to reduce exposures whenever feasible 

[NIOSH 1992, 1999]. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 33

References

ACGIH [2015]. 2015 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 [2015]. AIHA 2015 emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) & workplace 

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

Hygiene Association.

Arcury TA, Estrada JM, Quandt SA [2010]. Overcoming language and literacy barriers in 

safety and health training of agricultural workers. J Agromedicine 15(3):236–248.

ANSI/ASHRAE [2013]. Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. American National 

Standards Institute/ASHRAE standard 62.1-2013. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

BLS [2015]. Injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. Industry injury and illness data. Supplemental 

news release tables. SNR05. Injury cases - rates, counts, percent relative standard errors - 

detailed industry. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. [http://www.

bls.gov/iif/oshsum.htm]. Date accessed: September 2015.

Cal/OSHA [2003]. Ergonomics in action: a guide to best practices for the food-processing 

industry. [http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/Erg_Food_Processing.pdf]. Date 

accessed: September 2015.

Cal/OSHA [2007]. Ergonomic guidelines for manual material handling. [http://www.cdc.gov/

niosh/docs/2007-131/pdfs/2007-131.pdf]. Date accessed: September 2015.

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety [2008]. Cold environments–working in 

the cold. [http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/cold_working.html]. Date accessed: 

September 2015.

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

Office of the Federal Register.

Cheuvront SN, Kenefick RW [2014]. Dehydration: physiology, assessment, and performance 

effects. Compr Physiol 4(1):257–285.

Clark MM, Warren BA, Hagen PT, Johnson BD, Jenkins SM, Werneburg BL, Olsen KD 

[2011]. Stress level, health behaviors, and quality of life in employees joining a wellness 

center. Am J Health Promot 26(1):21–25.

Cox T, Griffiths A [2005]. The nature and measurement of work-related stress: theory and 

practice. In Wilson JR and Corlett N, eds. Evaluation of human work (3rd ed.). London: CRC 

Press, pp. 553–572. 

Dababneh AJ, Swanson N, Shell RL [2001]. Impact of added rest breaks on the productivity 

and well being of workers. Ergonomics 44(2):164–174.
Page 34 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

Dahlström G, Granberg P-O, Holmér I [2011]. Cold environments and cold work. In: Vogt 

J-J (chapter editor). Heat and cold. In: Stellman JM (editor-in-chief). Encyclopedia of 

occupational health and safety. Geneva: International Labor Organization. [http://www.

iloencyclopaedia.org/component/k2/76-42-heat-and-cold/cold-environment-and-coldwork?Itemid=422]. Date accessed: September 2015.

De Beeck RO, Hermans V [2000]. Research on work-related low back disorders (No. 204). 

[https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/reports/204]. Date accessed: 

September 2015.

Faucett J, Meyers J, Milesc J, Janowitz I, Fathallah F [2007]. Rest break interventions in 

stoop labor tasks. Appl Ergon 38(2):219–226.

Galinsky T, Swanson N, Sauter S, Dunkin R, Hurrell J, Schleifer L [2007]. Supplementary 

breaks and stretching exercises for data entry operators: a follow-up field study. Am J Ind 

Med 50(7):519–527.

Halpern P, Raskin Y, Sorkine P, Oganezov A [2004]. Exposure to extremely high 

concentrations of carbon dioxide – a clinical description of a mass casualty incident. Ann 

Emerg Med 43(2):196–199. 

Henning R, Warren N, Robertson M, Faghri P, Cherniack M, the CPH-NEW Research Team 

[2009]. Workplace health protection and promotion through participatory ergonomics: an 

integrated approach (practice article). Public Health Rep 124(S1):26‒35.

Hess JA, Hecker S [2003]. Stretching at work for injury prevention: issues, evidence, and 

recommendations. Appl Occup Environ 18(5):331–338.

Humantech [2009]. The handbook of ergonomic design guidelines – Version 2.0. Ann Arbor, 

MI: Humantech, Inc.

IARC [1989]. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: diesel 

and engine exhausts and some nitroarenes. Vol 46. Lyon, France: International Agency for 

Research on Cancer.

Kenney WL [2011]. Physiological responses to the thermal environment. In: Vogt J-J 

(chapter editor). Heat and cold. In: Stellman JM (editor-in-chief). Encyclopedia of 

occupational health and safety. Geneva: International Labor Organization. [http://www.

iloencyclopaedia.org/component/k2/76-42-heat-and-cold/physiological-response-to-thethermal-environment?Itemid=422]. Date accessed: September 2015.

Mäkinen TM, Hassi J [2009]. Health problems in cold work (review). Ind Health 47(3):207–220.

NIOSH [1976]. NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to 

carbon dioxide. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center 

for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) 

Publication No. 76-194. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/1970/76-194.html]. Date accessed: 

September 2015.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 35

NIOSH [1988]. Current intelligence bulletin 50: carcinogenic effects of exposure to diesel 

exhaust. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) 

Publication No. 88-116.

NIOSH [1992]. Health hazard evaluation report: Lancaster Fire Department, Lancaster, 

OH. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

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

Report No. 92-0160-2360.

NIOSH [1997]. Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors: a critical review of 

epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper 

extremity, and low back. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

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

Health, (DHHS) Publication No. 97-141. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141/]. Date 

accessed: September 2015.

NIOSH [1999]. Health hazard evaluation report: Costa Mesa Fire Department, Costa Mesa, 

CA. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

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

Report No. 99-0266-2850. 

NIOSH [2009]. Work organization and stress-related disorders. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/

programs/workorg/]. Date accessed: September 2015.

NIOSH [2010]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2010-168c. 

[http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/]. Date accessed: September 2015.

NIOSH [2014a]. Documentation for immediately dangerous to life or health concentrations 

(IDLHs). Carbon dioxide. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

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

Health [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html]. Date accessed: September 2015.

NIOSH [2014b]. Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of ergonomic risk factors, 

thermal exposures, and job stress at an airline catering facility. By Ramsey JG, Musolin K, 

Ceballos D, Wiegand D, Mead K. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

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

Safety and Health, NIOSH HHE Report No. 2011-0131-3221. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/

hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0131-3221.pdf]. Date accessed: September 2015.

OSHA [2010]. OSHA training standards policy statement (memorandum). [https://www.osha.

gov/dep/standards-policy-statement-memo-04-28-10.html]. Date accessed: September 2015.

OSHA [2015]. Carbon dioxide. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration. [https://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_225400.html]. Date 

accessed: September 2015.
Page 36 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

Piedrahita H [2008]. Working in cold conditions indoors: effects of musculoskeletal 

symptoms and upper limb movements. Doctoral thesis. Luleå University of Technology. 

ISSN: 1402–1544.

Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy [2010]. Student-centered learning (TEAL Center fact 

sheet no. 6). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, The 

Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy Center. [https://teal.ed.gov/sites/default/files/FactSheets/6%20_TEAL_Student-Centered.pdf]. Date accessed: September 2015.

Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy [2011]. Adult learning theories (TEAL Center fact 

sheet no. 11). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, The 

Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy Center. [https://teal.ed.gov/sites/default/files/FactSheets/11_%20TEAL_Adult_Learning_Theory.pdf]. Date accessed: September 2015.

United Nations Environment Programme [2015]. What is necessary to know about interactive 

training. In: More on developing and delivering training. United Nations Environment 

Programme. [http://www.unep.org/ieacp/iea/training/guide/default.aspx?id=1185]. Date 

accessed: September 2015.

U.S. DOT National Highway Institute [2003]. National instructor development course: 

principles of adult learning and instructional systems design. [http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/

downloads/freebies/172/PR%20Pre-ourse%20Reading%20Assignment.pdf]. Date accessed: 

September 2015.

van Eerd D, Cole D, Irvin E, Mahood Q, Keown K, Theberge M, Village J, St. Vincent M, 

Cullen K [2010]. Process and implementation of participatory ergonomic interventions: a 

systematic review. Ergonomics 53(10):1153‒1166.

World Health Organization [2010]. Health impact of psychosocial hazards at work: an 

overview. [http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500272_eng.pdf]. Date 

accessed: September 2015.

Warren N [2001]. Work stress and musculoskeletal disorder etiology: the relative roles of 

psychosocial and physical risk factors. Work 17(3):221–234.

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries [2005]. Fitting the job to the worker: 

an ergonomics program guide. [https://ergoweb.com/knowledge/ergonomics-101/standards/

fitting-the-job-to-the-worker/]. Date accessed: September 2015.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 37

Keywords: North American Industry Classification System 722310 (Food Service 

Contractors), New York, airline catering, musculoskeletal disorders, ergonomics, acute 

traumatic injuries, indoor cold environments, carbon dioxide, job stress, language barriers
Page 38 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222

This page left intentionally blank
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2011-0131-3222 Page 39

The Health Hazard Evaluation Program investigates possible health hazards in the workplace 

under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 669(a)

(6)). The Health Hazard Evaluation Program also provides, upon request, technical assistance 

to federal, state, and local agencies to investigate occupational health hazards and to prevent 

occupational disease or injury. Regulations guiding the Program can be found in Title 42, Code 

of Federal Regulations, Part 85; Requests for Health Hazard Evaluations (42 CFR Part 85).

Disclaimer

The recommendations in this report are made on the basis of the findings at the workplace 

evaluated and may not be applicable to other workplaces.

Mention of any company or product in this report does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH.

Citations to Web sites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the 

sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. NIOSH is not responsible for the 

content of these Web sites. All Web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of 

the publication date.

Acknowledgments

Literature Review: Kathleen Connick

Desktop Publisher: Shawna Watts 

Editor: Ellen Galloway 

Logistics: Donnie Booher, Kevin Moore

Availability of Report

Copies of this report have been sent to the employer, employees, and union at the facility. 

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

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

reproduced. 

This report is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0131-3222.pdf.

Recommended citation for this report:

NIOSH [2015]. Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of ergonomic risk factors, 

acute traumatic injuries, and occupational exposures at an airline catering facility. By 

Ramsey J, Kawamoto M, Ceballos D, Wiegand, DM. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HHE Report No. 2011-0131-3222.
To receive NIOSH documents or more information about 

occupational safety and health topics, please contact NIOSH:

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

TTY: 1–888–232–6348

CDC INFO: www.cdc.gov/info

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

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to 

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

Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

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