1

NIOSH HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION REPORT 

HETA #2002-0306-2911 

Warren Tech 

Lakewood, CO 

August 2003 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PREFACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

employment has potentially toxic effects in such concentrations as used or found. 

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

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

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

endorsement by NIOSH. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

This report was prepared by Eric J. Esswein, MSPH, CIH, CIAQP of HETAB, Division of Surveillance, 

Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies (DSHEFS). Field assistance was provided by Charles S. 

McCammon, PhD, CIH of Tri County Health Department, John Martyny, PhD, CIH and Shawn 

Arbuckle, MS of National Jewish Hospital, Denver CO.. Analytical support was provided by Data Chem 

Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah and Ardith Grote, NIOSH, Division of Applied Research and 

Technology, Cincinnati, Ohio.. Desktop publishing was performed by Suzanne Eugster, NIOSH, Denver 

Field Office.. Review and preparation for printing were performed by Penny Arthur. 

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management representatives at and the OSHA 

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

and printed from the following internet address: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe. Single copies of this 

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

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

NIOSH Publications Office 

4676 Columbia Parkway 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 

800-356-4674 

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

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

obtained from the NIOSH Publications Office at the Cincinnati address. 

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

shall be posted by the employer in a prominent place accessible to the 

employees for a period of 30 calendar days.
iii

Highlights of the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation

Evaluation of Respiratory Problems Among Employees at the 

Warren Tech Vocational/Technical School 

Lakewood, Colorado

NIOSH received a management request from the Director of Environmental Services at Jefferson County 

Schools (hereafter JEFFCO) to investigate indoor environmental quality in Building A of Warren Tech, a 

vocational/technical school in Lakewood, Colorado. The request asked NIOSH to determine whether 

indoor health complaints from staff working in Building A were related to chemical compounds generated 

and released from products used in programs taught in Building A of Warren Tech.

What NIOSH Did

 We conducted a survey of the building and 

inspected air handling units in Building A. 

 We used tracer gas to evaluate air movement 

out of the print shop and the cosmetology 

areas.

 We collected air samples for volatile organic 

compounds, acids, and methacrylates. 

 We talked to employees who worked in 

Building A (and other buildings) that 

reported health symptoms believed to be 

related to building occupancy.. 

What NIOSH Found

 Chemicals used in the print shop can be 

widely distributed throughout the first floor 

by the single ventilation system (AHU #7) 

that serves that floor of the building.

 The exhaust fan installed in the nail tech 

room does not keep this under negative 

pressure and chemicals used in this area can 

escape to the main cosmetology area and the 

main administration area.

 Air exhausted from the permanent wave 

room may be entering the outside air intake 

for the Dental lab. 

 Employee health complaints may be due to 

inhalation exposures of low level 

concentrations of mixed volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) from the print shop on 

the first floor, and the nail technology and 

cosmetology program on the second floor. 

What the Warren Tech 

Managers Can Do 

 Install a dedicated ventilation system for the 

print shop so that solvent vapors used in the 

area are not recirculated to other parts of the 

Building A.

 Assure that the nail technology room is 

maintained under negative pressure.

 Insure that the room exhaust from the 

permanent wave room is not entrained into 

the outside air intake for the Dental lab or 

any other building air intakes.

What the Warren Tech 

Employees Can Do 

 Always keep the lid on the parts washer 

closed when you are not using it. 

 Keep lids and caps on containers of 

chemical products to prevent evaporation. 

Use the minimum amounts of chemicals 

necessary to do the job. 

What To Do For More Information:

We encourage you to read the full report. If you 

would like a copy, either ask your health and 

safety representative to make you a copy or call 

1-513-841-4252 and ask for 

HETA Report #2002-0306-2911
iv

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2002-0306-2911 

Warren Tech 

Lakewood, CO 

August 2003 

Eric J. Esswein, MSPH, CIH, CIAQP 

SUMMARY

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

request for a health hazard evaluation (HHE) at Warren Tech, a vocational/technical school 

located in Lakewood, Colorado. NIOSH was asked to investigate whether employee health 

complaints of headache, upper respiratory irritation, asthma, eye irritation, nausea, and dizziness 

were related to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released from products used in vocational 

and technical programs that are taught in Building A of Warren Tech. According to management 

and employees, building-related health complaints first began in Building A in spring of 1999 

when the building underwent construction and renovation. An opening conference and a 

building walkthrough survey was conducted on September 10, 2002. The building’s air handling 

units were inspected and a tracer gas study was conducted to determine if VOCs from two 

suspected source areas (the print shop and cosmetology area) could be distributed to other areas 

of the building. Interviews were conducted with employees working in Building A, McLain 

High School and the Longview Temporary building. Air samples were collected for VOCs, 

acids, and methacrylates. Air sampling results (collected in 2002 and 2003) demonstrate that 

VOCs from printing operations are widely distributed throughout the first floor of the building 

by the ventilation system and to a lesser extent, to other areas on the second floor. Tracer gas 

and chemical smoke tests show that ceiling-mounted extraction fans installed in two areas of the 

cosmetology program either failed to maintain negative pressurization (as intended), or resulted 

in exhaust entrainment to other areas of the building. 

Employee complaints of upper respiratory irritation, headaches, eye irritation, 

nausea, dizziness, and exacerbation of asthma at Warren Tech, Building A, may 

be related to inhalation exposures of low level concentrations of various VOCs 

emitted from two sources: the print shop on the first floor, and the nail technology 

and cosmetology program on the second floor. Recommendations are included in 

this report to change the ventilation systems to control the distribution of VOCs in 

the indoor environment of Building A. 

Keywords: 8249 Trade Schools, not classified elsewhere 
Table of Contents 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation Criteria .....................................................................................................................................4

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

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................9

Conclusions................................................................................................................................................11

Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................11

References..................................................................................................................................................12
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 Page 1 

INTRODUCTION

In June 2002, the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

received a request for a health hazard 

evaluation (HHE) from the Director of 

Environmental Services, Jefferson County 

Public Schools (JEFFCO) in Lakewood, 

Colorado. NIOSH was requested to 

investigate Building A of Warren Tech to 

determine if employee health complaints 

including headache, upper respiratory 

irritation, asthma, eye irritation, nausea and 

dizziness were related to exposures in 

Building A. NIOSH sent an interim letter to 

the requester in February 2003 that 

contained results and recommendations of 

the NIOSH investigation. 

BACKGROUND

Warren Tech is a vocational technical school 

that is part of JEFFCO Public Schools. Students 

attending Warren Tech receive training and 

education in three buildings on the campus (A, 

B, and C). Warren Tech offers 21 

career/vocational programs. Approximately 60 

employees work in Building A, including 

administrators, teachers, technicians, secretaries, 

custodians, and other staff. The following 

vocational programs are taught in Building A: 

business services/technology, computer 

technology, cosmetology, culinary arts, dental 

assisting,, drafting, graphic communications, 

graphic design/computer art, library/media 

services, hospitality, travel and tourism, 

multimedia communication, and nail 

technology. Building A is a two story, 

southwest-facing masonry building that is built 

into an excavated hillside on the school campus. 

Buildings B and C are adjacent to Building A, 

but are physically separated. McClain High 

School, also part of JEFFCO Public Schools, is 

located directly west of Building A. The 

building underwent extensive interior and 

exterior renovation from spring 1999 through 

autumn 2000. Prior to spring 1999, employee 

complaints of poor indoor environmental quality 

(IEQ) were not reported in Building A. 

Complaints of poor IEQ began after construction 

and renovation started, which included floor 

space additions and interior reconfiguration of 

existing spaces. The requester reported to 

NIOSH that during the process of construction 

and renovation, adequate containment such as 

dust barriers and negative pressure ventilation 

was not maintained. Staff who worked in 

Building A during the time of construction and 

renovation also reported to NIOSH that 

construction dust and odors were present and 

that dust barriers or ventilation controls were not 

effective. It is unclear why staff complaints of 

poor IEQ persisted after construction and 

renovation activities ended. One programmatic 

change that occurred after building renovation 

was completed was that the cosmetology 

program was changed from a night program (4-9 

p.m.) to a day program. Some staff at Warren 

Tech reported to NIOSH they believed that dusts 

and chemical odors from construction products 

and building finishes caused people to become 

sensitized, and that the various chemicals that 

are currently used in the building are related 

to the current and ongoing IEQ complaints. 

Previous IEQ Evaluation 

Previous environmental investigations have 

been conducted in Building A because of 

employee complaints of poor IEQ. 

Investigations were conducted by an 

engineering firm hired by JEFFCO Public 

Schools in 2000 and 2001. In February 

2000, a consultant investigated various 

aspects of building IEQ, including daily 

indoor carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, 

temperature and relative humidity 

measurements, and limited air sampling for 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 

carbon monoxide. The results indicated that 

adequate dilution ventilation was being 

supplied to the building. Indoor 

temperatures were reported across a wide 

range (suggesting poor temperature control 

in the building), and relative humidity was 

reported to be low (in a range of 10-20%). 
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 

Three air samples were collected and the 

only chemical that was detected was 

methylene chloride. In 2001, a ventilation 

test and balance was conducted. The results 

suggested that for the most part, the HVAC 

systems provided ventilation to building 

design specifications. The investigations did 

not report a specific IEQ problem that could 

be shown to be associated with the health 

complaints reported by Warren Tech 

employees. A number of recommendations 

were provided in the reports, including: 

provide local exhaust to the print shop; use 

appropriate barriers to prevent migration of 

construction-related contaminants from 

entering occupied areas of the building; and 

continue communications with employees, 

district management and the facilities design 

team. 

Ventilation Systems 

Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning 

(HVAC) is provided to the two floors of 

Building A by seven constant air volume 

systems. A single HVAC system (AHU #7) 

serves the first floor areas, which include the 

following: business services/technology; 

computer technology; culinary arts; graphic 

communications; graphic design/computer 

art; drafting, multimedia communication; 

and other areas. Six smaller HVAC units 

serve the programs on the upper level of the 

building: cosmetology and nail technology; 

dental assisting; library; the main office; 

student services; and other areas. Outside 

air is supplied to each of the air handling 

units from air intakes located on the north 

and west sides of the building and from 

roof- mounted louvers for the six systems 

that serve the second floor of the building. 

Dedicated, ceiling-mounted exhaust fans are 

installed in the print shop, the nail 

technology room (236H), and in the 

permanent wave room, (240A). The fans in 

rooms 236H and 240A were replaced shortly 

after the NIOSH investigation began, 

apparently because a previously conducted 

test and balance study determined that these 

fans did not “achieve desired airflow.”

METHODS

On September 10, 2002, NIOSH held an 

opening conference and conducted a 

building walkthrough. Later that month, and 

in October 2002, inspections of the 

ventilation systems were conducted and 

blueprints of the building’s HVAC systems 

were reviewed with the requester and a 

building commissioning engineer for 

JEFFCO Schools. Background information 

on IEQ at Warren Tech and material safety 

data sheets (MSDSs) that were provided to 

NIOSH by the requester were also reviewed. 

In November 2002, NIOSH interviewed 

employees who reported experiencing 

building-related health complaints. A tracer 

gas study was conducted in December 2002. 

Air samples were collected on a series of 

dates in October, November, December 

2002, and in January and February 2003. 

Employee Interviews

Fifteen employees that reported health 

symptoms that they believed were related to 

working in Building A were interviewed. 

The principal at Warren Tech provided 

NIOSH with a list of 15 employees who 

reported experiencing health symptoms 

while working in Building A. Four of the 

fifteen had previously worked in Building A 

but were relocated to offices or areas in the 

McClain Community School and the 

Longview Temporary Building due to their 

health symptoms. These employees reported 

that they no longer experienced buildingrelated health symptoms since they had been 

relocated. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 Page 3 

Air Sampling

Sample Locations

In October, November, and December 2002, 

and in January and February 2003, air 

samples were collected using thermal 

desorption tubes to screen for the presence 

of a wide variety of airborne VOCs in 

Building A, the Longview Temporary 

Building and the McClain High School. On 

October 1, 2002, air samples were collected 

on the first floor in the return air plenum of 

AHU #7, inside the print shop, and in room 

123 which is across the hall from the print 

shop. One offset printing press was being 

used in the print shop at the time the 

samples were collected and the cosmetology 

program was in session. On November 26, 

2002, thermal desorption tubes were used to 

collect twelve air samples on the upper and 

lower levels of the building when neither the 

print shop nor the nail technology program 

was training students. Sample locations 

included: the print shop, hallway outside 

room 119, and rooms 113 and 140 on the 

lower level, and library, dental, room 200B, 

the main office area, and cosmetology on the 

upper level. On January 16 and 22, and on 

February 6 2003, air samples were collected 

for qualitative and quantitative assessment 

of VOCs. Quantitative sampling was also 

done for the presence of acids and ethyl and 

methyl methacrylates. 

Air samples were also collected in room 

120F of the McClain High School, and at 

the teacher’s desk in the Longview 

Temporary building. These samples were 

collected for comparisons with samples 

collected in Bldg A because neither 

Longview nor the McClain building had 

known or suspected sources of indoor air 

pollutants, which is the reason why staff 

who complained of health symptoms in 

Building A were moved to these locations. 

Air samples were also collected in outdoor 

air (on the west side of Building A near the 

outdoor air intake) to compare with samples 

collected indoors. 

Air Sampling Methods 

To sample for a wide range of VOCs, 

qualitative sampling was conducted with 

SKC® Pocket Pumps® and Supleco® 

stainless steel thermal desorption (TD) tubes 

containing three beds of sorbent material 

(Carbopack Y, Carbopack B, and Carboxen 

1003). Sampling pumps were connected to 

sample media using Tygon® tubing. The 

samples were analyzed by the NIOSH 

Division of Applied Research and 

Technology according to the NIOSH 

Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 

Method 2549 (Volatile Organic Compounds, 

Screening). 

Air samples for methacrylates were 

collected using XAD-7 solid sorbent tubes 

connected to SKC® pocket pumps with 

Tygon® tubing. The sampling trains were 

calibrated prior to sampling to a flow rate of 

100 cubic centimeters per minute. Samples 

for methacrylates were analyzed according 

to the NMAM, Method 2537 (Methyl 

Methacrylate). 

Inorganic acids (including hydrofluoric, 

hydrochloric, hydrobromic, nitric, 

phosphoric, and sulfuric) were sampled 

using ORBO 53 solid sorbent tubes 

connected in-line with Tygon® tubing to 

Gilian® personal sampling pumps. The 

sampling trains were calibrated to a flow 

rate of 100 cc/minute. Samples were 

analyzed by ion chromatography according 

to NMAM Method 7903 (Inorganic Acids). 

Sampling for specific VOCs 

(perchloethylene, tri-methyl benzenes and 

total hydrocarbons, as decane) was 
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 

conducted using coconut shell activated 

carbon solid sorbent tubes connected in-line 

using Tygon® tubing to Gilian® personal 

sampling pumps. The sampling trains were 

calibrated to a flow rates of 50 and 100 

cc/minute. Samples were analyzed by gas 

chromatography (GC) according to NMAM 

Method 7903 (Hydrocarbons) with 

modifications. 

Tracer Gas Ventilation 

Assessment

On December 18, 2002, a sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6) tracer gas evaluation was 

conducted in Building A by NIOSH with 

assistance from the Tri-County Health 

Department and National Jewish Hospital in 

Denver, Colorado. 

Sulfur hexafluoride is a colorless, odorless 

gas that is used as a tracer because it is 

chemically and toxicologically inert.1,2 

Target concentrations of this gas are 

typically in the range of 1 to 1000 parts per 

trillion (ppt), well below the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 

NIOSH and American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

(ACGIH) time-weighted average exposure 

limits for SF6 of 1000 parts per million 

(ppm.)3,4,5 Before the tracer gas was 

released, air samples were collected on the 

lower and upper levels of the building and 

also in outside air to evaluate for 

background concentrations. After the gas 

was released, samples were collected on 

both levels of the building. The intent of the 

study was to assess the migration of the 

tracer gas to various locations in the 

building as a surrogate for the distribution of 

chemical contaminants from suspected 

source generation areas. 

Pure SF6 was released in three locations 

(two in cosmetology and one in the print 

shop) at three different times. Air samples 

for tracer gas were collected on both levels 

of the building, including Room 200B, 

Dental, Library, Rooms 113, 124, and 142, 

the main administration area, the hallway 

outside the cosmetology program and the 

top of the stairs near the main office area. 

The locations where the tracer gas samples 

were collected included areas of the building 

where IEQ complaints were most commonly 

reported. 

Tracer gas was released first on the upper 

level of the building at 10:30 a.m. in the nail 

tech room and then at 11:25 a.m. in the 

permanent wave room. In the afternoon, 

tracer gas was released in the print shop at 

1:20 p.m. Air samples were collected using 

new 30 cc medical syringes. The syringes 

was first purged, then the sample was 

collected by withdrawing the plunger to the 

30 cc mark. After the sample was collected, 

the tip of the syringe was sealed and the 

sample was brought to the staging area for 

on-site analysis. Tracer gas was analyzed 

using an Autotrac Tracer Gas Monitor, 

Model 101 (Lagus Applied Technologies, 

San Diego, CA.) The GC was calibrated 

prior to the investigation at a concentration 

of 4 parts per billion (ppb), and in a range of 

20 ppt to 100 ppb. 

To visualize pressurization in various 

location in the building, chemical smoke 

tubes were used to produce smoke traces at 

doorways, and in corridors stairs and 

hallways. The movement of the smoke was 

used as a visual tool to understand 

pressurization in the area being evaluated. 

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Indoor Environmental 

Quality
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 Page 5 

Environmental Evaluations 

Environmental deficiencies observed in the 

indoor environment have been associated 

with inadequate ventilation systems, 

overcrowding, microbiological 

contamination, outside air pollutants, odors, 

dust or particulate exposures, or low level 

chemical exposures from office furnishings, 

office machines, tobacco smoke, cleaning 

products, personal hygiene products, and 

structural components of the building and its 

contents. Problems related to comfort 

issues, reduced job satisfaction, and stress 

are commonly present where IEQ 

complaints are raised. Comfort problems 

may be due to improper temperature and 

relative humidity (RH) conditions, poor 

lighting, unacceptable noise levels, 

unfamiliar odors, or adverse ergonomic 

conditions. Reduced job satisfaction and 

stress occurring among workers in buildings 

with IEQ concerns may be related to 

personnel organizational factors, conflict 

among personnel, or lack of job security. 

Poor communication between employees 

and supervisors is a particularly common 

finding in workplaces NIOSH has evaluated 

for IEQ concerns.6,7,8 

A NIOSH study of 104 buildings where IEQ 

problems were reported found one or more 

deficiencies in the operation, design, or 

maintenance of heating, ventilating, and airconditioning (HVAC) systems in 93 of the 

buildings.9

 The same study found 

symptoms associated with one or more 

HVAC deficiencies, as well as with poor 

housekeeping, job conflict, being female, 

and being over 40 years of age.10 A 

literature review in the early 1990s found 

consistent associations between symptoms 

and air-conditioning, carpets, crowding, use 

of video display terminals, introduction of 

outside air at rates below 10 liters per 

second per person (ls-1/person), job 

stress/dissatisfaction, being female, and 

having allergies or asthma.11

Standards specific to the non-industrial 

indoor environment do not exist. 

Measurement of indoor environmental 

contaminants has rarely proved helpful in 

determining the cause of symptoms except 

where there are unusual sources, or a proven 

relationship between specific exposures and 

disease. With few exceptions, 

concentrations of frequently measured 

chemical substances in the indoor work 

environment fall well below the published 

occupational standards or recommended 

exposure limits set by OSHA, NIOSH, and 

ACGIH. The American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI)/American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has 

published recommended building ventilation 

and thermal comfort guidelines.12,13 The 

ACGIH has also developed a manual of 

guidelines for approaching investigations of 

building-related symptoms that might be 

caused by airborne living organisms or their 

effluents.14 Other resources that provide 

guidance for establishing acceptable IEQ are 

available through the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) at their website; 

www.epa.gov/iaq. This website includes the 

joint NIOSH/EP, and a document entitled, 

Building Air Quality, A Guide for Building 

Owners and Facility Managers, available at 

www.epa.gov/iaq/largebldgs/baqtoc.html.

Heating, Ventilating, and AirConditioning 

One of the most common deficiencies in the 

indoor environment is the improper 

operation and maintenance of ventilation 

systems and other building components. 

NIOSH investigators have found correcting 

HVAC problems often reduces worker 

symptoms. The majority of studies of 
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 

ventilation rates and building-related 

symptoms have shown that rates below 10 

liters per second (ls-1) per person (which 

equates to 20 cubic feet per minute per 

person [cfm/person]), are associated with 

one or more health symptoms.15 Moreover, 

higher ventilation rates, from 10 ls-1 per 

person up to 20 ls-1 per person, have been 

associated with further significant decreases 

in the prevalence of symptoms. Thus, 

improved HVAC operation and 

maintenance, higher ventilation rates, and 

comfortable temperature and relative 

humidity can all potentially serve to improve 

symptoms without ever identifying any 

specific cause-effect relationships. 

Volatile Organic Compounds

VOCs are a large class of organic chemicals 

that contain carbon rings or carbon chains of 

varying lengths (e.g., C7-C9 are carbon 

chains of 7 and 9, respectively) that have a 

sufficiently high vapor pressure to allow 

some of the compound to exist in the 

gaseous state at room temperature. These 

compounds are emitted in varying 

concentrations from many sources, 

including building materials and furnishings, 

carpeting, fabrics, adhesives, solvents, 

paints, cleaners, waxes, cigarettes, and 

combustion sources. IEQ studies have 

measured widely ranging VOC 

concentrations in indoor air, as well as 

differences in the mixtures of compounds 

present. However, concentrations are 

usually several fold lower than any 

occupational standards, except in rare cases 

with unusual sources. A measurement of 

total VOCs (TVOCs) has been used in some 

studies, to try and predict certain types of 

health effects, but results have been 

inconsistent.16,17 Currently no guideline or 

standard exists for VOCs in nonindustrial 

workplaces. Recently, the European 

community has revised the concept of 

TVOC measurement to include the 

identification and quantification of 67 

specific chemicals. This is outlined in a 

report by the Nordic Committee on Building 

Regulations, which recommends 26 

chemical guidelines and presents 

toxicologically-based methodology for 

preparing more.18 Although important to 

IEQ research, these guidelines are still two 

to three orders of magnitude higher than 

typical indoor VOC concentrations.19 A 

NIOSH health hazard evaluation found that 

forest service workers who used tree 

marking paint were exposed to to low level 

concentrations of mixed solvents including 

petroleum distillates, petroleum napthas, 

trimethyl benzenes and methyl ethyl ketone 

reported respiratory irritation, nausea, 

vomiting, headaches and fatigue.20 

Employee exposures were all well below 

any occupational health criterion. Another 

study (not by NIOSH) reported that ongoing 

cumulative exposures to multiple chemicals 

in the indoor environment lowered the 

threshold for which upper respiratory 

irritation occurred.21

Odors and Irritation 

Odors greatly influence how building 

occupants perceive the quality of the indoor 

environment because odors are distinguished 

as either pleasant or unpleasant, acceptable 

or unacceptable. Irritation caused by 

exposures to VOCs results from stimulation 

of mucosal tissues and is a form of 

chemesthesis or chemically stimulated skin 

sensation. Only rarely does a VOC lack the 

potential to cause irritation.22 Chemically 

reactive substances that covalently bind to 

tissues can cause irritation. Potency of 

irritants including alcohols, acetates, and 

alky benzenes (all found in this 

investigation) increases with increasing 

carbon chain length.23 Some studies show 

a general relationship between odors and 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 Page 7 

irritation thresholds with increasing 

hydrocarbon carbon chain length.24 Nasal 

pungency (irritation), odor thresholds and 

eye irritation for a series of acetates and 

aliphatic alcohols were also shown to be 

related to increasing carbon chain length.25 

RESULTS

Tracer Gas Evaluation

 

Results from the tracer gas study are listed 

in Tables 1 and 2. Tracer gas values are 

listed in ppt with the exception of a sample 

from the first release collected in room 

236H (the nail tech room) which is several 

orders of magnitude higher and shown in 

ppb. Background measurement values (in a 

range of 6-22 ppt) are due to background 

electrical signal (also referred to as “noise”). 

This is not uncommon in GC’s equipped 

with electron capture detectors. A target 

concentration of SF6 at 100 ppt or greater 

was agreed as a positive sample. This 

determination was made before samples 

were collected. Samples below 100 ppt 

were treated as less than the limit of 

quantitation (LOQ). 

In the first release, tracer gas was detected 

above the LOQ in the main cosmetology 

area, the hallway at the main entrance to 

cosmetology area, in the main administrative 

office area, and in the nail tech room. 

Smoke testing conducted during the tracer 

gas evaluation confirmed that room 236H 

was strongly positively pressurized in 

relation to the main cosmetology area, but 

that the general cosmetology area was under 

slight negative pressure in relation to the 

hallway outside the entrance to this area. 

This indicates that VOCs released during 

nail technology procedures can leave that 

room and go into the cosmetology area. The 

exact pathway for tracer gas movement to 

the main administration area is unclear but 

may be into the hallway outside that room 

(due to positive pressurization of the nail 

tech room) then possibly under the door 

leading into the hallway that goes toward the 

main office area, or possibly via the ceiling 

plenum above the nail tech area to the 

ceiling plenum above the hallway on the 

north side of the nail tech room. A floor 

plan listing room locations in Building A is 

included as Appendix A in this HHE. 

The second column in Table 2 shows results 

from the second tracer gas release in Room 

240A. In this release, tracer gas was 

detected twice on the first floor in the dental 

lab, in samples collected 25 minutes apart. 

Smoke testing confirmed that Room 240A is 

under strong negative pressure in relation to 

the main cosmetology area and the dental 

lab was under slight negative pressure in 

relation to the hallway near the staff/student 

entrance. This release demonstrated that 

tracer gas released in room 240A enters the 

dental lab, and by extension, chemicals from 

cosmetology are liable to follow the same 

pathway. Chemicals from 240A may also 

be entering dental from re-entranment of 

exhausted air that is taken into the outside 

air louver for the dental lab AHU. 

The third column of Table 2 describes 

results of the tracer gas release in the print 

shop. Tracer gas was detected in every 

sample location on the lower level (the main 

hallway, and rooms 113, 123, 140 and 142). 

Tracer gas was detected at the top of the 

stairs by the main entrance and in the main 

administration area. Smoke tube testing 

confirmed that the print shop is positively 

pressurized in relation to its main hallway 

door, as well as the door leading to the 

hallway by the staff restrooms. Widespread 

distribution of tracer gas on the first floor 

was expected because a single AHU 

supplies ventilation to the entire lower level 

of the building. This means that VOCs from 

chemicals used in the print shop can be 
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 

entrained into AHU #7 and then recirculated 

throughout all ventilation zones on the lower 

level. Positive pressurization of the print 

shop also plays a role in the distribution of 

chemicals on the lower level, and to a minor 

degree, on the upper level of the building. 

AIR SAMPLING 

Qualitative Sampling for Volatile 

Organic Compounds (VOCs) 

Chemicals identified on the three TD air 

samples collected on the first floor on 

10/1/02 (print shop, return air plenum of 

AHU #7, and room 123B) included 

perchloroethylene (peak 27), isopropyl 

alcohol (peak 7), limonene (peak 35) and a 

constellation of C9-C14 aliphatic 

hydrocarbons, alkyl decahydronapthalenes, 

and C9-C10 alkyl benzenes (i.e.,trimethyl 

benzenes) which are grouped together and 

labeled as 28. Chemicals identified at lower 

relative concentrations (by comparisons of 

chromatograms) included propylene glycol, 

methyl ether acetate, toluene, xylene, C6-C8

hydrocarbons, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, 

1,1,1, trichloroethane, and trace amounts of 

ethyl methacrylate. Perchloroethylene, 

isopropanol and trimethyl benzenes appear 

in greatest concentrations (based on peak 

height and area under the peak) in these air 

samples. These samples were collected as 

one press was running in the print shop. The 

sample locations included the print shop, 

the return air plenum in AHU #7, and in 

room 123B. The samples collected in the 

return air plenum of AHU#7 and room 123B 

are virtually identical, demonstrating that 

AHU#7 is a pathway for volatile solvents 

from the print shop to other ventilation 

zones of the building. All results are shown 

in the form of chemical chromatographs 

(and a peak identification sheet) identified 

for the sampling date of October 1, 2002 

(Appendix B). 

Major chemical compounds identified on 

twelve TD air samples collected on 

November 26, 2002 included 

percholoethylene (peak 40), isopropyl 

alcohol (peak 11), limonene (peak 57), 

ethanol (peak 8), acetone (peak 9), siloxane 

compounds (peak 61), toluene (peak 35), 

ethyl acetate (peak 19), and C6-C7 alkane 

hydrocarbons (peaks 16 &17). Other 

compounds detected in lower abundance 

included xylene, chloro-dimethyl phenol, 

methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, 

akyl benzenes, 2-ethyl-1 hexanol, phthalic 

anhydride and other hydrocarbons. In areas 

other than the print shop and cosmetology, 

siloxanes (which often originate from copy 

machines) and toluene appeared in greater 

abundance. Perchloroethylene was again 

detected in greatest concentration in the 

print shop and on the sample collected in the 

hallway outside room 119. These results are 

shown in the chromatograms in Appendix B 

labeled for the sampling date of November 

26, 2002. 

Additional TD samples for VOCs were also 

collected on January 16 and 22, 2003, when 

the print shop and the cosmetology 

programs were in session. The types and 

relative concentrations of the major 

chemical compounds detected varied greatly 

(as was expected) in the various sample 

locations. The major compounds identified 

included a naptha mixture of alkyl benzenes 

and C9-C12 aliphatic hydrocarbons (grouped 

as peak 43), ethyl benzene and xylene 

monomers (peak 42), perchloroethylene 

(peak 38), ethyl methacrylate (peak 35), 

toluene (peak 34), butyl acetate (peak 37), 

limonene (peak 54), ethanol (peak 5), 

acetone (peak 6) and isopropanol (peak 8). 

The sample collected in the nail technology 

program was very concentrated with ethyl 

methacrylate (peak 36), and the sample 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 Page 9 

collected in the print shop was very 

concentrated with perchloroethylene and 

trimethyl benzenes (peaks 38 and 43). The 

clear presence of perchloroethylene and 

trimethyl benzenes were notable in room 

142, on the landing of the north stairs 

leading to the administration area, in the 

administration area, and in the dental area. 

Ethyl methacrylate was notable in room 

236H (the nail tech area) in the hallway 

outside room 236H, in the administration 

area, and in the dental lab. 

Almost identical chromatograms indicating 

the presence of isopropanol, ethyl 

methacrylate, perchloroethylene, C9-C14

hydrocarbons, napthalenes, and trimethyl 

benzenes are seen for samples collected in 

the dental lab, outside room 201D in the 

administration area, and at the landing of the 

north stairs. These samples show the clear 

presence of “marker solvents” known to 

originate from the print shop (i.e., 

perchloroethylene, C9-C14 hydrocarbons, 

napthalenes, isopropanol and trimethyl 

benzenes) as well as those known to 

originate from the cosmetology area (ethyl 

methacrylate, and acetone) 

 

Acids 

On January 16 and 22, 2003, five air 

samples were collected to screen for the 

presence of acids. The samples were 

collected for a short period of time (2-3 

hours) while the nail technology program 

was in session and various nail tech products 

were being used. Each sample was analyzed 

for the presence of six acids: hydrochloric, 

hydrofluoric, hydrobromic, phosphoric, 

nitric and sulfuric acid. Three of the samples 

were collected on January 16, 2003, two in 

room 236H and one in the dental lab. These 

samples were all determined to below the 

limit of detection for the six acids that were 

analyzed. Two more samples were collected 

on January 22, 2003, in room 236H, again 

when the nail tech program was operating 

and nail products were being used. These 

samples both contained low levels of 

hydrofluoric (HF) and sulfuric acids (H2S04) 

. A personal breathing zone sample (PBZ) 

was collected on a nail tech instructor and an 

area sample was collected on a table near to 

where the instructor worked. The 

concentration of HF in the PBZ sample was 

0.07 milligrams per cubic meter of air 

(mg/m3

), the area sample was 0.05 mg/m3. 

The concentrations of H2S04 was 0.07 

mg/m3

 for both the PBZ sample and the area 

sample. 

Methacrylates

On February 6, 2003, six samples were 

collected for the presence of ethyl and 

methyl acrylates. Samples were collected in 

room 236H, in the hallway outside room 

236H, in the library, and in room 113. The 

nail tech program was operating when the 

samples were collected. All samples for 

methyl methacrylate were reported as not 

detected. Two samples for ethyl 

methacrylate were at “trace” concentrations 

(i.e., a value above the limit of detection, but 

below the limit of quantitation.) A PBZ 

sample for ethyl methacrylate collected on 

the nail tech instructor was 7.6 mg/m3

. 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

On January 16 and 22, 2003, ten air samples 

were collected for VOCs including 

perchloroethylene, tri-methyl benzenes, and 

total hydrocarbons (referenced to decane, a 

nonaromatic hydrocarbon). On January 16, 

samples were collected in the print shop, 

rooms 113, 123, and 230, and the dental lab. 

On January 22, samples were collected in 

the print shop, room 200B, the 

administration area and in the JEFFCO Net 

Academy (located across from Building A in 
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 

the McClain High School). The samples 

were collected to quantitate the presence of 

selected VOCs that had been identified in 

the indoor air of Building A using thermal 

desorption tube sampling. Only a limited 

number of samples for quantitative analysis 

were collected because VOCs in the nonindustrial indoor environment are generally 

present in low concentrations (tenths of 

microgram amounts) which are below the 

threshold of detection for the sampling 

method. Of the 10 samples collected, only 

one (collected in the print shop on January 

16) had detectable concentrations. The 

sample contained 1.2 mg/m3 of 

perchloroethylene, 2.7 mg/m3

 of tri-methyl 

benzenes, and a trace amount of total 

hydrocarbons referenced to decane. This 

sample was collected for a short time in the 

afternoon, from 1:00 to 4:35pm (315 

minutes), when printshop operations 

occurred. The reason that so many samples 

were reported as “not detected” is believed 

to be due to insufficient volumes of air 

sampled during a short period of time. 

Employee Interviews 

The most commonly reported health 

complaints included headache, upper 

respiratory irritation, eye irritation, 

congestion, and perceived eye dryness. 

Shortness of breath or aggravation of asthma 

was reported by three persons. Two 

employees reported an onset of physiciandiagnosed asthma which occurred during the 

time of the Building A renovation. 

Employees reported a range of symptom 

onset, some said they experienced eye and 

upper respiratory irritation within minutes of 

entering the building, others reported that 

their symptoms begin after a few hours at 

work. Most employees said their symptoms 

improved over the weekends and on days 

when they were away from work and on 

vacation. Many of the employees 

interviewed reported that they first noticed 

their symptoms after the building renovation 

began in 1999. Employees who were 

relocated to work areas outside of Building 

A (McLain High School and the Longview 

Temporary Building) reported that they did 

not experience IEQ-related health symptoms 

in their new work areas. Two employees 

reported that whenever they entered 

Building A they experienced health 

symptoms, and so they avoided spending 

time in the building if possible. Employees 

reported that they routinely smelled 

chemicals, but the perceived strength and 

pungency varied.. 

DISCUSSION

The use of tracer gas demonstrated the 

presence of pathways for volatile chemicals 

from cosmetology and the print shop to be 

distributed to other occupied areas of 

Building A. Tracer gas released on either 

the lower or upper level of the building 

generally remained on that level. Tracer gas 

released in nail tech and the permanent wave 

room did not move to the lower level of the 

building, but was distributed to the main 

office area, suggesting the same distribution 

would occur for VOCs generated from 

these areas. Tracer gas was detected in the 

hallway outside the cosmetology program 

but this is believed to be due to trace 

amounts being “walked out” of the area on 

air currents from people leaving the area. 

Less widespread distribution of chemicals 

was expected on the upper level of the 

building because six separate AHU’s 

provide ventilation to different areas on this 

floor, whereas a single AHU serves the 

entire lower level of the building. When 

tracer gas was released in the print shop, it 

was detected throughout the lower level, and 

also at the top of the stairs near the main 

entrance to the building, and in the main 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 Page 11 

office above that entrance. This is probably 

due to the fact that the door to the print shop 

is normally open, and that the print shop is 

positively pressurized. Chemicals 

originating in the print shop may also be 

migrating out of this area due to a slight 

“chimney effect” or upwelling of air through 

the north stairway that leads to the main 

office area. 

Air sampling demonstrated that chemicals 

including perchloroethylene, tri-methyl 

benzenes, isopropanol, and a wide variety 

of long chain aliphatic and aromatic 

hydrocarbons are present and widely 

distributed on the lower level of the 

building, and to some degree on the upper 

lever as well. Sampling results also show 

that chemicals from cosmetology products, 

including, but not limited to ethyl 

methacrylate, ethanol, acetone, acetates and 

aliphatic hydrocarbons, can be detected 

inside as well as outside the cosmetology 

area (specifically in the dental lab and the 

main administration area). 

Air sampling revealed the definitive 

presence of certain “marker solvents”, or 

chemicals that could be associated with 

certain sources. The sources of 

perchloroethylene, isopropanol, tri-methyl 

benzenes, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane were 

from the print shop. Perchloroethylene, 

1,1,1-trichloroethane, and Stoddard Solvent 

are all listed on the MSDS for Safety Kleen 

105. Stoddard Solvent is a mixture of 30-

50% C7-C12 aliphatic hydrocarbons, 30%-

40% cycloalkanes/napthenes and 12%-20% 

aromatic hydrocarbons (including trimethyl benzenes). The presence of 

isopropanol was confirmed to be from 

various isopropyl alcohol-based roller and 

plate cleaners used in the print shop. 

Acetone, ethyl methacrylate, ethyl and butyl 

acetates were determined to be from 

cosmetology and the nail tech program. 

These chemicals were not evident in 

samples collected in outside air or in the 

samples collected in either McClain High 

School and the Longview Temporary 

Building, areas where staff had been 

relocated and currently do not report 

building-related health complaints based on 

interviews with these staff. However, certain 

solvents were detected on air samples from 

Longview and McClain, including toluene 

and certain siloxane compounds. Siloxanes 

are commonly seen in indoor air and are 

believed to originate from rubber products, 

silicon containing lubricants, and personal 

care products. Toluene is commonly seen in 

low concentrations in the indoor 

environment from a variety of sources. 

Ethyl methacrylate, hexane, ethyl and butyl 

acetate, and and various other chemicals are 

listed on the MSDSs for products from the 

nail tech area and the cosmetology program 

(i.e., methacrylates in artificial nail products, 

alcohols and hydrocarbons used as solvents 

and in aerosol sprays.) Ethyl methacrylate 

is not currently regulated with an OSHA 

Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) nor does 

it have a NIOSH Recommended Exposure 

Level (REL), or an ACGIH Threshold Limit 

Value (TLV). Ethyl methacrylate has similar 

irritant health effects to methyl 

methacrylate. Methyl methacrylate is 

regulated with an OSHA PEL of 410 mg/m3

as an 8 hour TWA. NIOSH has developed a 

recommended exposure limit (REL) which 

is also 410 mg/m3 as an 8 to 10 hour TWA. 

The ACGIH TLV is 205 mg/m3 as an eight 

hour TWA. It is important to note that these 

criteria are intended for occupational 

exposures in the industrial environment, 

they are not intended and may not be 

suitable for exposures to office workers or 

workers in the non-industrial environment. 

The source for the HF and H2SO4 that were 

detected on the air samples collected in the 

nail technology program is unclear. 

Reviews of the MSDSs for products used in 
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 

this area did not identify either of these acids 

but other acids (methacrylic and propenoic) 

were listed on products used in this area. It 

is possible that artificial nail products 

contain various acids in concentrations 

below the reporting thresholds for MSDSs, 

which is 1% for chemicals that have not 

been identified as human carcinogens. 

Acids were not detected on air samples 

collected in this area on January 16, but 

were detected on samples collected on 

January 22,

 suggesting that different nail 

products, or combinations of nail products, 

or different artificial nail techniques were 

used on January 22. The samples for acids 

are considerably below the most stringent 

occupational exposure criterions established 

by either OSHA, NIOSH or the ACGIH. 

The criterion for HF is 2.5 mg/m3

 as an 8 

hour TWA, and 6 mg/m3 as a short term 

exposure limit (STEL). The criterion for 

H2S04 is 1 mg/m3 as a TWA and 3 mg/m3 as 

a STEL (a fifteen-minute average). The 

PBZ exposures were an order of magnitude 

below the ACGIH criterion when 

considering the calculation formula for 

chemical mixtures having additive effects 

such as these two acids. 

CONCLUSIONS

Staff complaints of burning eyes, upper 

respiratory irritation, headaches, 

exacerbations of asthma, and chemical odors 

in Building A of Warren Tech are likely to 

be from inhalation exposures to a mixture of 

irritant chemicals including 

perchloroethylene, tri-methyl benzenes, 

alcohols, ethyl methacrylate, ethyl and butyl 

acetates, and long chain aliphatic 

hydrocarbons. Many of the chemicals 

detected by air sampling in Building A are 

eye, skin and strong mucous membrane 

irritants, especially perchloroethylene, trimethyl benzenes, ethyl methacrylate, butyl 

and ethyl acetates, and alcohols including 

isopropanol.26 Chronic inhalation exposures 

to the mixtures of chemicals that could be 

detected in the building could be expected to 

cause the symptoms of headache, dizziness, 

and the upper respiratory and eye irritation 

symptoms that are reported by the affected 

building occupants.27, 28, 29, 30,31 

Because of the irritant potential of many of 

these chemicals, individuals with asthma 

would be at a heightened risk for worsening 

of their symptoms and possibly for acute 

respiratory effects. Air samples collected in 

this study clearly demonstrate that the 

indoor air of building A contains a wide 

variety of pungent and odorous chemicals, 

the origin of which can be traced back to 

known sources - the print shop on the first 

floor and cosmetology on the second floor. 

Air samples collected when the print shop 

and cosmetology were not training students, 

compared to when these programs were in 

session, reveal differences in the types and 

intensity of chemicals present in indoor air. 

Samples collected in outside air and in the 

Longview and McClain buildings were not 

similar to those collected in Building A in 

type, pattern, or intensity of chemicals. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1) A dedicated air handing system should be 

installed in the print shop so that ventilation 

air for this area is not distributed to other 

areas on the first floor. Exhaust air from this 

AHU should be located so that it is not near 

any outside air intakes. A study in a mixeduse university building found that nonrecirculating general ventilation (100% 

exhausted ventilation) effectively eliminated 

indoor air quality problems.32 

2) The print shop should be designed so that 

it can be maintained under slight negative 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 Page 13 

pressure in relation to the hallway, and to all 

other programmatic areas on the lower level. 

3) The HVAC system and the dedicated 

exhaust system for room 236H should be 

evaluated by in-house engineering personnel 

or a qualified mechanical engineering firm 

that specializes in commercial ventilation. 

One goal of the evaluation should be to 

determine why the room is under positive 

pressure when the exhaust system was 

installed to maintain negative presure in this 

area. Because methacrylates are sensitizers 

and strong mucous membrane irritants, the 

nail tech room should always be maintained 

under negative pressure in relation to the 

general cosmetology area. Return air from 

this area should not be recirculated to other 

areas. 

4) Engineering controls should be used in 

the nail tech room to directly exhaust VOCs 

generated during the application of artificial 

nails. Researchers from NIOSH have found 

that the use of a downdraft ventilation table 

protects the nail technician against breathing 

solvents emitted during application of 

artificial fingernails. Information on design 

and use of ventilated tables can be found in 

NIOSH publication HC 28, entitled: 

Controlling Chemical Hazards During the 

Application of Artificial Fingernails, this 

publication can be found on the world wide 

web at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hc28.html. 

5) The outside air intakes for all AHUs on 

the upper level should be evaluated and 

modified if necessary to prevent 

entranement of exhaust from any of the 

rooftop exhaust fans. 

 

6) Keep the lid on the parts wash bath closed 

whenever possible to limit fugitive 

emissions escape. 

7) Use solvents in the parts wash bath that 

do not contain chlorinated hydrocarbons.

REFERENCES

1.Brüel & Kjaer [1991]. Measuring ventilation 

using tracer–gases: Brüel & Kjaer, Naerum, 

Denmark. 

2.ACGIH [1991]. Documentation of the 

threshold limit values and biological exposure 

indices, 6th edition, American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, 

OH. 

3.NIOSH [1992]. NIOSH recommendations for 

occupational safety and health–– compendium 

of policy documents and statements. National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Cincinnati, OH. 

4.Code of Federal Regulations [1993]. 29 CFR 

1910.1000: Air Contaminants. Federal 

Register, Vol 58, No. 124. June 30, 1993. 

5.ACGIH [2002]. TLVs® and BEIs®. American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists, Cincinnati, OH. 

6.Rosenstock L [1996]. NIOSH Testimony to 

the U.S. Department of Labor on indoor air 

quality. Applied Occupational and 

Environmental Hygiene, 11(12):1365-1370. 

7.Mendell MJ [1993]. Non-specific symptoms 

in office workers: a review and summary of the 

epidemiologic literature. Indoor Air, 3:227-236. 

8.Malkin R, Wicox T, Sieber WK [1996]. The 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health indoor environmental evaluation 

experience. Part two: symptom prevalence. 

Applied Occupational and Environmental 

Hygiene, 11(6):540-545. 

9.Crandall MS, Sieber WK [1996]. The 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health indoor environmental evaluation 

experience. Part one: building environmental 
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 

evaluations. Applied Occupational and 

Environmental Hygiene 11(6):533-539. 

10. Sieber WK, Stayner LT, Malkin R, Petersen 

MR, Mendell MJ, Wallingford KM, Crandall 

MS, Wilcox TG, Reed L [1996]. The National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

indoor environmental evaluation experience. 

Part three: associations between environmental 

factors and self-reported health conditions. 

Applied Occupational and Environmental 

Hygiene, 11(12):1387-1392. 

11. Mendell MJ [1993] Non-specific symptoms 

in office workers: a review and summary of the 

epidemiologic literature. Indoor Air, 3:227-236. 

12. ASHRAE [1992]. Thermal environmental 

conditions for human occupancy. American 

National Standards Institute/ASHRAE Standard 

55-1992. Atlanta, GA: American Society for 

Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc. 

13. ASHRAE [2001]. Ventilation for 

acceptable indoor air quality, standard 62-2001. 

Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 

Inc. 

14. ACGIH [1999]. Bioaerosols: assessment 

and control. Cincinnati, OH: American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists. 

15. Seppanen OA, Fisk WJ, Mendell MJ 

[1999]. Association of ventilation rates and CO2

concentrations with health and other responses 

in commercial and institutional buildings. 

Indoor Air 9:226-252. 

16. Molhave L [1991]. Volatile organic 

compounds, indoor air quality, and health. 

Indoor Air 1:357-376. 

17. Levin H [1998]. Indoor air guideline values 

for organic acids, phenols, and glycol ethers. 

Indoor Air, supplement 5:5-7. 

18. Neilson GD, Frimann Hansen L, Andersen 

Nexo B, Poulsen OM [1996]. Nordic 

Committee on Building Regulations, NKB, 

Indoor Climate Committee (NKB Committee 

and Work Reports 1996:11D). 

19. Brown S, Sim MR, Abramson MJ, Gray 

CN [1994]. Concentrations of volatile organic 

compounds in indoor air. Indoor Air 4:123-

134. 

20. NIOSH [1998]. Hazard Evaluation and 

Technical Assistance Report: US Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, NIOSH Report No. HETA 

93-1035-2686 

21. Hodgson, M [1995] The Medical 

Evaluation. In: Occupational Medicine State of 

the Art Reviews, Effects of the Indoor 

Environment on Health. J. Seltzer ed. p. 185 

22. Cain, Commeto-Muniz [1995] Irritation and 

Odor as Indicators as Indoor Pollution. In: 

Occupational Medicine State of the Art 

Reviews, Effects of the Indoor Environment on 

Health. J. Seltzer ed. p. 135 

23. Ibid. p.139. 

24. Ibid. p.137. 

25. Ibid p.139 

26. Hathaway GJ, ed. [1991] The Chemical 

Hazards. Part Two. In: Proctor and Hughes’ 

Chemical Hazards in the Workplace. New York, 

NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishers, p.55 

27. Cometto-Muniz, J. and Cain, W.S. [1994] 

Sensory Reactions of Nasal Pungency and Odor 

to Volatile Organic Compounds: The 

Aklybenzenes. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 55 

(9):811-817. 

28. Cometto-Muniz, J. and Cain, W.S. [1994] 

Perception of Odor an Nasal Pungency from 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 Page 15 

Homologous Series of Volatile Organic 

Compounds. Indoor Air (4) 140-145. 

29. Mrlhave, L. [1990] The Sick Building 

Syndrome (SBS) Caused by Exposures to 

Volatile Organic Compounds. In: Weeks, D.M., 

Gammage, R.B., eds. The Practioner’s 

Approach to Indoor Air Quality Investigations. 

American Industrial Hygiene Association, 

Akron, Ohio. p.1. 

30. Springston, JP, Esposito WA, Cleversey, 

KW. [2002]. Baseline Indoor Air Quality 

Measurements Collected From 136 Metropolitan 

New York Region Commercial Office Buildings 

Between 1997-1999. AIHA Journal 63:354-

360. 63:354-360 

31. Girman, JR. [1998]. Volatile Organic 

Compounds and Building Bake Out. In: 

Occupational Medicine State of the Art 

Reviews, Problem Buildings: Building 

Associated Illness and the Sick Building 

Syndrome. Cone, JE., Hodgson, MJ, eds. Haley 

and Belfus Publishers. p.703-705. 

32. Ryan, TJ, Hart, EM, and Kappler, LL 

[2002]. VOC Exposures in a Mixed-Use 

University Arts Building. AIHA Journal. 

63:703-708. 
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 

Table 1 

SF6 Tracer Gas Evaluation, Warren Tech Building A 

Background or “Zero” 

December 18, 2002 

 Concentrations of SF6 in parts per trillion (ppt)

 Time of release 10:00 a.m. 

Location 

Concentration of SF6

@ 10:05 a.m. 

Outside 0 

Room 200B 6 

Dental 0 

Library 18 

Room 123 14 

Room 142 8 

Room 113 22 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. Page 17 

Table 2 

SF6 Tracer Gas Evaluation, Warren Tech Building A 

Nail Tech Room, Cosmetology Area (Permanent Wave Room), 

and Print Shop 

December 18, 2003 

 

Concentrations of SF6 in parts per trillion (ppt) 

Location of Samples Room 236H 

Nail Tech Room 

Release: 10:35 a.m. 

Sampling: 10:40 a.m. 

Room 240A 

Permanent Wave 

Release: 11:25 a.m. 

Sampling: 11:30 a.m. 

Print Shop 

Release: 1:00 p.m. 

Sampling: 1:05 p.m. 

Outside 19 no sample 14 

Room 142 20 29 589 

Room 113 44 no sample 962 

Room 123 13 37 965 

Room 200B 34 no sample 40 

Library 39 53 42 

Dental 13 504, 136 23 

Hallway outside Cosmetology 61 36 no sample 

Hallway outside graphics no sample 57 400 

Cosmetology 892 no sample no sample 

Outside air 39 no sample no sample 

Hallway outside Cosmetology 101 no sample no sample 

Main Administration 136 no sample 169 

Room 236H (nail tech) 20 ppb* no sample no sample 

WT logo, top of stairs, main 

office 

no sample no sample 259 

Room 140 no sample no sample 376 

Print shop no sample no sample 296 

*ppb = parts per billion 
Page 18 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 

Table 3 

Air Sampling for Acids 

Warren Tech, Building A 

January 16 and 22, 2003 

Acids

Hydrofluoric (HF), Hydrobromic (HBr), Hydrochloric(HCl) , Phosphoric (PH3), Nitric (HNO3) 

Sulfuric (H2SO4) 

Date Type of 

Sample/Location 

Results 

1/16/03 PBZ/Rm 236H (Nail 

Tech) 

 ND 

1/16/03 Area, Rm 236H (Nail 

Tech) 

 ND 

1/16/03 Area, Dental ND 

1/22/03 PBZ/ Rm 236H HF = 0.07 mg/m3

 #

H2SO4 = 0.07 mg/m3

 * 

1/22/03 Area/Rm 236H HF = 0.05 mg/m3

H2SO4 = 0.07 mg/m3

PBZ = Personal Breathing Zone sample 

ND = Not Detected 

#

 NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit = 2.5 mg/m3 

* OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit = 1 mg/m3 

MDC = Minimum Detectable Concentration, MDC for HF = 0.005 mg/m3, for H2SO4 = 0.01 mg/m3
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. Page 19 

Table 4 

Air Sampling for Ethyl and Methyl Methacrylates 

Warren Tech, Building A 

February 6, 2003 

Date Type/Location Ethyl 

Methacrylate 

Methyl 

Methacrylate 

Notes 

2/6/03 Area Sample, Rm 

234H 

Trace ND 

2/6/03 PBZ , Rm 236H 7.66 mg/m3

 ND Ethyl methacrylate is 

not currently regulated 

by OSHA, nor is there a 

NIOSH REL 

2/6/03 Library, Rm 230 ND ND 

2/6/03 Rm 113 ND ND 

2/6/03 In the hallway, 

outside Rm 236H 

0.24 mg/m3 ND sample demonstrates 

migration outside nail 

tech 

1/22/03 Outside Air ND ND 

ND = not detected 

Trace = above the limit of detection but below the limit of quantitation 

PBZ = personal breathing zone sample 

MDC = minimum detectable concentration for ethyl methacrylate was 0.0002 mg/m3
Page 20 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 

Table 5 

Air Sampling for Total Hydrocarbons, Perchloroethylene and Trimethylbenzenes 

Warren Tech, Building A 

January 16 and 22, 2003 

Date Type/Location Perchloroethylene Trimethylbenzenes Total 

Hydrocarbons (as 

decane) 

1/16/03 Print Shop Area / 

Rm 234H 

1.2 mg/m3 2.7 mg/m3 Trace 

1/16/03 Rm 123 ND ND ND 

1/16/03 Library, Rm 230 ND ND ND 

1/16/03 Dental Lab ND ND ND 

1/16/03 Rm 113 ND ND ND 

1/22/03 Print shop ND ND ND 

1/22/03 Room 200B ND ND ND 

1/22/03 Main Admin Area ND ND ND 

1/22/03 McLain High School ND ND ND 

ND = not detected 

Trace = above the limit of detection but below the limit of quantitation 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. Page 21 

Appendix A 

Warren Tech, Building A 

First and Second Floor Plans
Page 22 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. Page 23 
Page 24 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2002-0306-2911 

Appendix B 

Chemical Chromatograms of Air Sampling Results 

from October 1, 2002, November 26, 2002, January 16, 2003 and January 22, 2003.