Health Hazard 

Evaluation 

Report 

HETA 80-206-1164 

MID-SOUTH TERMINALS MEMPHIS~ TENNESSEE 
PREFACE 


The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch of NIOSH conducts field 

investigations of possible health hazards in the workplace. These 

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

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

authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services, following a written 

reouest from any employer or authorized representative of employees, to 

determine whether any substance normally found in the place of employment has 

potentially toxic effects in such concentrations as used or found. 

The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch also provides, upon

reouest, medical, nursing, and industrial nygiene technical and consultative 

assistance (TA) to Federal, state, and local agencies; labor; industry and 

other groups or individuals to control occupational health hazards and to 

prevent related trauma and disease. 

Mention of company names or products does not constitute endorsement by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 
HETA 80-206-1164 NIOSH INVESTIGATORS: 

AUGUST 1982 Richard Gorman, I.H. 

MID-SOUTH TERMINALS CORPORATION Gary Liss, M.D. 

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 

I. SUMMARY 

On July, 1980, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was 

requested by Local 1671 of the International Longshoremen's Association, Memphis,

Tennessee to evaluate reported skin and eye irritation resulting from exposure to coal 

tar pitch and petroleum pitch (asphalt) among workers involved in transfer operations at 

Mid-South Terminals Corporation in Memphis. Eight to 10 workers are involved in the 

transfer of granular pitch to-and-from water-going vessels. Transfers usually occur once 

every two to three weeks and normally take 2 shifts for each transfer. 

NIOSH conducted site visits on August 20-21, 1981 (coal tar pitch transfer) and on 

October 12-13, 1981 (petroleum pitch transfer) to evaluate exposures and health 

complaints. Personal breathing zone (PBZ) and area air samples were obtained for total 

and respirable pitch dust, benzene solubles, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs) and 

organic vapors. Work practices, personal protective measures and equipment were also 

evaluated. A NIOSH physician interviewed and examined 26 employees (11 pitch and 15 

currently non-pitch workers). · 

Total pitch dust exposures ranged from 0.04-6.80 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

(mean = 1.15) for 10 PBZ samples. Two results {9.52 and 10.1 mg/m3) were considered 

questionable and not included in the previous range of exposures. Area samples 

documented total pitch dust concentrations up to 8.40 mg/m3 in the f11111ediate work 

area. Benzene solubles results ranged from 0.05-1.47 mg/m3 for the petroleum pitch 

samples. All of the coal t~r pitch benzene soluble exposure results approximated or 

exceeded the NIOSH 0.1 mg/m3 exposure criteria. The NIOSH asphalt fume exposure 

criteria of 5 mg/m3 was not exceeded durinq the petroleum pitch operations. 

The following 8 PNAs were quantified in air samples; benzo(k)fluoranthrene, 

benzo(b)fluoranthrene, pyrene, benzo(a}anthracene, chrysene, benzo(e)pyrene, 

benzo(a)pyrene, and fluoranthrene. Air concentrations ranged from 0.02-44.9 micrograms 

per cubic meter {ug/m3). Results indicate that the pitch operations generate 

respirable size particles which have a benzene soluble fraction ranging from 0.09-0.18 

mg/m3. Six PNA's in a concentration range of 0.02-0.07 ug/m3 were identified in 2 

respirable benzene solubles samples. Protective equipment was considered adequate. Deficiencies were noted in work practices. 

Skin and eye irritation were reported almost universally by the workers who participated 

in the NIOSH study. The eye irritation was usually characterized by burning, redness, 

swelling, and watering of the eyes, lasting about 2 days. Photophobia was occasionally 

present. Skin irritation {neck, face, nose, foreanns, lips) was characterized as a 

redness, like a sunburn, lasting 2-3 days, sometimes with drying or peeling by the third 

or fourth day. White workers were more severely affecterl than black. Skin lesions, 

possibly pitch-induced were observed in 4 workers. There was some indication that the 

sun screen lotion recommended after the first visit was beneficial. 

Even though the pitch transfer operations only occur once every 2-3 weeks, working with 

the pitch without the appropriate personal protective equipment would be considered a 

health hazard. Handling the pitch at night and the use of personal protect;ve equipment 

has decreased the associated health risks, but acute health effects are still occuring especially when available protective equipment is not utilized. Recommendations for 

further minimizing exposures are presented in Section VIII. 

KEYWORDS: SIC 4463 {Marine Cargo Handlinq); coal tar pitch, petroleum pitch, benzene 

solubles, phototoxic, photosensitivity, phototoxicity, ultraviolet light, PNAs 
Page 2 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

II. INTRODUCTION 

In July, 1980, Local 1671 of the International Longshoremen's 

Association submitted a request to the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to evaluate health effects and 

exposures resulting from the coal tar pitch and petroleum pitch transfer operations at Mid-South Terminals Corporation, Memphis, 

Tennessee. The primary health effects reported included skin and eye irritation which were most noticeable when the pitch transfers occur 

during the day shift but also of concern during the second shift 

operation. 

Initial field response was delayed first in late 1980 due to OSHA 

activity at the facility and later (spring, 1981) due to a low water 

level which prevented barges from approaching the terminal area. 

Additional delays resulted from scheduling conflicts. The coal tar and 

petroleum pitch transfers, although pre-scheduled, did not always occur 

on the days scheduled, and on two occasions, last minute schedule 

changes resulted in cancellation of NIOSH field surveys. An initial 

survey was conducted in August, 1981 by a NIOSH team consisting of an 

Industrial Hygienist and an Occupational Physician at which time a coal 

tar pitch transfer was in progress. A follow-up survey was conducted 

in October, 1981 to evaluate a petroleum pitch transfer operation. Due 

to a large backup of "special organic" analysis at the NIOSH contract 

laboratory the last set of air sampling results for benzene solubles 

and PNA's were received in March, 1981. However, reconnnendations for 

minimizing exposure to the pitch dust were forwarded to management and 

labor representatives in November, 1981. Work practices, use of sun 

screen lotion and personal protective equipment were addressed. 

III. BACKGROUND 

Mid-South Term;nals Corporations operates a river terminal at Memphis, 

Tennessee. The primary activity involves the transfer of a variety of 

substances to-and-from water-going vessels and land transport vehicles 

such as trucks and railroad cars. Cargo is also moved in and out of 

large storage warehouses located near the dock. The water level is 

15-20 feet below dock level; therefore, transfer to-and-from 

water-going vessels is accomplished through the use of cranes, drop chutes, and slides. Approximately 60 employees work at the terminal 

which is normally a 5-day, 8:00a-4:30p operation. Second shift and 

weekend operations can occur depending on scheduling priorities and the 

type of material being transferred. This health hazard evaluation 

studied only the coal tar and petroleum pitch transfer operations. 

For the last several years, an attempt has been made to conduct these 

operations on second shift to minimize the health effects experienced 

by the workers involved in the direct transfer of the pitch as well as 

the health effects experienced by other dock workers resulting from the 
Page 3 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

-. 

fugitive pitch dust which can, depending on the wind direction, 

contaminate a large part of the dock area. 

Coal Tar Pitch Transfer 

On August 20 and 21, 1981, second shift, seven workers were studied 

during the transfer of coal tar pitch from a river barge to an ocean 

barge, by crane. The workforce included: 1 foreman, 1 crane operator, 

1 checker (obtains measurements to insure that the barge load is 

distributed properly), and 4 stevedores (assist the crane operator in 

positioning the barge and movement of barge covers). The two barges 

are positioned side by side. A crane bucket is repeatedly filled from 

the river barge and emptied into the ocean barge. Towards the end of 

the transfer, one stevedore f s lowered into the river barge in a bobcat 

to gather residual pitch into one pile so it can more easily transferred with the crane bucket. All seven workers are potentially 

exposed to pitch dust. 

Petroleum Pitch Transfer 

On October 13, 1981, second shift, eight workers were studied during 

the transfer of petroleum pitch from railroad car to ocean barge. The 

workforce included: 1 crane operator, 1 engine (train) operator, 1 

foreman, 1 checker, and 4 stevedores. The railroad cars were 

positioned over a hole fn the dock in such a manner so that when a trap 

door at the bottom of a compartment in the railroad car is opened the 

pitch falls through the hole in the dock onto a conveyor which carries 

the pitch to the edge of the dock, where it drops through a canvas 

chute in to the barge. In addition to the activities on the barge, the 

stevedores open and close the trap doors on the railroad cars and 

insure that the pitch dust maintains a constant flow onto the 

conveyor. When the flow stops, sledge ha11111ers (used to pound on the 

side of the railroad car) and steel rods are used to get the pitch 

moving again. 

Either a coal tar or petroleum pitch transfer occurs once every 2 to 3 

weeks and generally takes 2 shifts to complete. 

IV. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS 

A. Environmental 

Environmental sampling was conducted using personal breathing zone 

and area air sampling techniques to evaluate workers exposure to 

coal tar pitch (August 20-21, 1981) and petroleum pitch (October 

20, 1981). In general, the sampling strategy was designed to 

measure airborne concentrations of pitch dust, benzene solubles, 

PNAs, and organic vapors. An attempt was made to determine if the 

pitch dusts contained a respirable function and if this fraction 
Page 4 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

contained a measurable quantity of benzene solubles and PNAs. 

Specific methods used included: 

1. Bulk Analysis 

A bulk sample of the coal tar pitch and petroleum pitch were 

each submitted for benzene soluble and PNA analysis. Each bulk 

was extracted with benzene. A portion of the extract was 

evaporated to dryness and weighed to determine the benzene 

solubles. Another portion of the dried extract was redissolved 

in acetonitr1le and analyzed for specific PNAs by high-pressure-liquid-chromatography techniques. 

2. Total and Respirable Pitch Oust 

Personal breathing zone and area afr samples for total pitch 

dust were collected on preweighed M-5 filters at a flow rate of 

1.5-2.0 liter per minute (Lpm). Respirable pitch dust samples 

were collected on M-5 filters using 10 11111 cyclones at a flow 

rate .of 1.7 Lpm. All filters were analyzed gravimetrically. 

3. Organic Vapo~ 

Area air samples were collected on 150 mg charcoal tubes at a 

flow rate of 100 cubic centimeters per minute (cc/min) and 

analyzed by gas chromatography (FID) using a 25 meter methyl 

silicone fused silica capillary column. Of particular interest 

was whether or not low-boiling PNAs such as anthracene and 

naphthalene were present. 

4. Benzene Solubles/PNAs 

Personal breathing zone and area air samples for benzene 

solubles and PNA's were collected on glass fiber/silver

membrane filters at a flow rate of 1.0-1.5 Lpm. The benzene 

soluble fraction was determined by NIOSH Method P&CAM 217. The 

PNA's were analyzed by liquid chromatography (NIOSH Method 

P&CAM 206). 

B. Medical 

The NIOSH physician interviewed and examined a total of 26 

employees during the coal tar pitch and petroleum pitch transfers. 

The employees were evaluated by (1) questionnaire and (2) a brief 

physical examination of the skin and eyes. The medical 

questionnaire included an inquiry into previous and current 

symptoms related to the skin, eyes, nose, throat, and lower 

respiratory system, into the use and effect of personal protective 

equipment and what the cause for the symptoms might be. 
Page 5 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

V. TOXOCOLOGY AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 

A. Toxocol ogy 

1. Coal Tar Pitch 

Coal tar is a coproduct of the destructive distillation of 

coal. Coal tar pitch is a residue from the fractional 

distillation of coal tar and is estimated to contain thousands 

of compounds of which only about 300 have been identified. The 

coal tar pitch evaluated during this survey was received from 

Koppers in granular form. The benzene soluble fraction of coal 

tar pitch has been shown to contain substances referred to as 

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs). The potential adverse health effects of these fused carbon ring compounds are 

well recognized,1-3 and can be classified as either acute or 

chronic. 

Regarding the latter, several PNAs such as benzo(a)pyrene, 

benzanthracene, and pyrene have been shown to be carcinogenic in animals. Moreover excess risk for lung cancer, oral cancer, 

and skin neoplasms (benign and malignant) have been found in 

working populations handling coal tar products which NIOSH has 

defined to include coal tar, coal tar pitch, and creosote.2 

The acute toxic effects of exposure to coal tar pitch include 

skin and mucous membrane irritation mediated directly and more 

noticeably through photosensitivity reactions of the phototoxic 

type involving an interaction between the photosensitizing 

agent (PNAs) and ultraviolet (UV} radiation. Most phototoxic 

reactions require UV-A {320-400nm}. The mechanism involves the 

absorption of this radiant energy by the skin and by the PNAs 

on the skin which can then result in cell changes.1 As 

expected, these reactions affect outdoor workers who handle 

these materials and receive exposure to sunlight. Thus these 

reactions are more frequent and severe in the summer and during mid-day when UV radiation is most intense. The effects most 

often described include erythemia (reddening of the skin) and 

burning and itching of the skin, photophobia and 

conjunctivitis. Typically, onset of symptoms may be delayed until the day after exposure when the pitch worker goes outdoors and receives UV light that can interact with the PNAs 

on the skin. Elimination of either the light or contact with 

the phototoxic substance eliminates the problem. Increased 

skin pigmentation (melanin) such as in blacks has been shown to 

have a protective effect. 
Page 6 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

2. Petroleum Pitch 

Petroleum pitch, ofter referred to as asphalt, is the residue 

from the fractional distillation of petroleum products. The 

petroleum pitch evaluated in this survey was a granular product 

received from Mobil-Ashland. The reported biological effects 

of petroleum pitch have been viewed as confusing and 

contradictory due to the failure to distinguish between 

petroleum pitch and coal tar pitch.2 There fs general 

agreement that petroleum pitch is substantially less toxic than 

coal tar pitch, presumably because the petroleum pitch has 

fewer identifiable PNAs and in lower concentrations. None of 

the reports in the literature which were cited in the NIOSH 

Criteria Document on Asphalt Fume2 demonstrated conclusively 

that asphalt fume has carcinogenic potential in man or 

animals. Skin, eye, and respiratory effects have been reported in those involved in paving and roofing operations but to a 

much lesser extent. 

Occupational exposures to coal tar and petroleum pitch studied 

in the past have generally been during heated processes involving pitch volatiles. There has been less research into 

these pitches during non-heated exposures {two investigations 

are sunmarized in the Oiscussion3,8). 

B. Criteria 

1. General Conments 

A number of sources recommend airborne levels of substances 

under which ;tis believed that nearly all workers may be 

repeatedly exposed day after day without adverse effect. Such 

airborne levels are referred to as standards or threshold limit 

values (TLV 1 s). It is believed that concentratfons below these 

limits represent conditions under which nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed 8 to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week, 

without suffering adverse health effects. Due to variations in 

individual susceptibility, a small percentage of workers may 

experience effects at levels at or below the threshold limit; a 

smaller percentage may be more seriously affected by aggravation of a pre-existing condition or by a 

hypersensitivity reaction. 

The three main sources of criteria for this study are: (1) 

NIOSH Criteria Documents with recommended standards for 

occupational exposure; (2) General Industry Safety and Health 

Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA;b (3) Threshold 

Limit Values (TLV's), and their supporting documentatfon, 

issued by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists {ACGIH),7 
Page 7 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

2. 	 Coal Tar and Petroleum Pitch Criteria 

The following criteria are available for consideration of coal 

tar 	and petroleum pitch (asphalt) exposure~. 

Coal Tar 

Substance 	 Criteria* Source Conment 

1. 	 Coal Tar Pitch Volatiles (CTPV) 0.20 mg/m3 OSHA heated process 


2. 	 CTPV 0.20 mg/m3 ACGIH heated process 


3. 	 Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons 0.20 mg/m3 ACGIH heated process 


4. 	 Coal Tar Products 0.10 mg/m3 NIOSH not specified 


5. 	 Coke Oven Emissions 0.15 mg/m3 OSHA heated process 


6. 	 PNAs see Note (a) 

* 	 Expressed as benzen or cyclo hexane solubles. 

Note (a): Only benzo(a)pyrene and chrysene have been addressed 

directly. A TWA of 0.2 ug/m3 was recommended by the coke oven 

advisory committee for benzo(a)pyrene under the OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1029 

coke oven emissions standards, but was r.ot adopted;2 and a special 

NIOSH hazard review of chrysene reconmended that it be controlled as an 

occupational carcinogen. Also, ACGIH has added chrysene to its list of 

industrial substances suspect of carcinogenic properties for man.7 

The carcinogenic potential of the other polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (benzo(a)anthracene, anthracene, pyrene, and fluoranthene) 

has also been documented.2 

Petroleum Pitch (Asphalt) 

Substance 	 Criteria Source 

Aspha1t Fumes 5 mg/m3 ACGIH 


Asphalt Fumes 5 mg/m3 NIOSH 


The selection of exposure criteria for the substances evaluated 

during this study is not as straightforward as with many other 

substances. Most of the available criteria for both coal tar 

and 	petroleum pitch have been generated and applied for work 

exposure situations 	where a material is heated thereby 

volatilizing the coal tar or petroleum pitch. The operation 
Page 8 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

evaluated during this study fnvo1ved exposure to coal tar and 

petroleum pitch dust at ambient temperatures. 

The chemicals of concern in coal tar or petroleum pitch are 

large molecule, polycyclic hydrocarbons cormionly referred to as 

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs). Several PNAs are 

known carcinogens and there are potentially thousands of PNAs 

in coal tar pitch. The PNAs that have been identified are 

soluble in benzene. By limiting exposure to benzene solubles, 

PNA exposures, and therefore, cancer risks are thought to be 

minimized. 

NIOSH has recommended that cyclohexane be substituted for 

benzene due to the high toxicity of benzene. At the time of 

this writing, analytical data suggests that benzene solubles 

and cyclohexane solubles results would be expected to be 

similar for air samples but can be different for bulk samples. 

It is presumed that this is due to sample mass-to-solvent 

ratio. For example, in a bulk analysis where 10 grams of a 

bulk material may be dissolved in 50 grams of solvent (20i 

solution), the amount of hydrocarbon material dissolved in the 

solvent will be affected by solubilities of the individual 

components of the pitch. Whereas, with an air sample, the 

solvent/hydrocarbon mass ratio is so much greater that 

essentially lOOi of the PNAs are expected to be dissolved fn 

either benzene or cyclohexane. Benzene was used in this study 

because it was thought to be a better solvent for the bulk 

analysis. The air samples were also extracted with benzene to 

maintain consistency. 

3. ~iteria Selected for this Study 

The NIOSH criteria for coal tar products (0.1 mg/m3, 

cyclohexane solubles) and asphalt fume {5 mg/m3) were used as 

a guide in evaluating employee exposure to the pitch dusts; 

however, analysis for specific PNAs influenced interpretation 

of exposure data. 

VI. RESULTS 

A. Environm~ntal 

1. Bulk Analysis 

The benzene soluble fraction was detennined to be 57% for the 

coal tar pitch and 97i for the petroleum pitch. 

The following PNAs (with concentrations) were detected in the 

benzene soluble fraction of the bulk samples. The lower limit 

of quantification (LOQ) for a given PNA was 0.5 ppm ~ 
Page 9 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

Compound Concentration (ppm) 

-- .• 	 By Weight 

Coal Tar Pitch 

Phenanthrene 5.4 

Anthracene 1.5 

Benzo(k)fluoranthrene 11.2 

Benzo(b)fluoranthrene 22.4 

Pyrene 14.3 

Benz(a)anthracene 8.4 

Chysene 19.6 

Benzo(e)pyrene 14.3 

Benzo( a )pyrene 16.0 

Petroleum Pitch 

Anthracene <0.5 

Phenanthrene <0.5 

Fluoranthene 1.1 

Pyrene 1.5 

Benz(a)anthracene 1.2 

Chrysene 1.2 

While the benzene soluble fraction of the petroleum pitch was 

much greater (97t compared to 57i for the coal tar pitch) the 

number and concentration of PNAs was much less. This has been 

attributed to different thennal histories. Maximum 

temperatures during the production of petroleum pitch is 350 to 

450°C and greater than 1000°C for coal tar pitch. 

2. Total and Respirable Pitch Dust 

It should be noted that all of the workers monitored were 

wearing protective equipment, including respirators, while 

working in dusty areas . Therefore, the data presented in 

Tables I and II and summarized below does not reflect actual 

exposures. The data would represent exposures for a worker not 

wearing protective equipment. 

Total airborne particulate results ranged from 0.04 to 9.52 

mg/m3 for the 11 samples obtained during the coal tar pitch 

transfer and 0.18 to 10.1 mg/m3 for the 8 samples obtained 

during the petroleum pitch operation. Respirable airborne 

particulate results ranged from not detectable to 0.33 mg/m3 

for the 7 coal tar pitch transfer samples. Two petroleum pitch samples were ND and 0. 16 mg/m3. 
Page 10 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

3. Organic Vapor 

Anthracene and naphthalene were not detected in any of the 

seven air samples submitted for organic vapor analysis. Traces 

of tolulene were present but not in amounts high enough to be 

quantitated. 

4. Benzene Solubles/PNAs 

Total benzene solubles results ranged from 0.05 to 1.47 mg/m3 

for the 12 air samples obtained during the coal tar pitch transfer and 0.11 to 2.40 mg/m3 for the 7 air samples for the 

petroleum pitch. The 5 samples obtained to determine if there 

were benzene solubles in the respirable fraction of the pitches 

ranged from ND to 0.18 mg/m3. 

If results are rounded to the nearest tenth, all benzene 

solubles results equalled or exceeded the NIOSH 0.1 mg/m3 coal tar products criteria. However, the criteria applies to a 

40-hour workweek and the transfers normally occur every 2 to 3 

weeks for 16 to 20 hours. 

The following 8 PNAs were quantified in the air samples 

obtained during the coal tar and petroleum pitch transfer 

operations (Tables I and II). 

Concentration 

PNA range (ug/m3) Transfer Operation 

Benzo(k)fluoranthrene 0.02 - 12.88 Coal Tar 

Benzo(b)fluoranthrene 0.05 - 34.76 Coal Tar 

Pyrene 0.46 - 44.99 Coal Tar and Petroleum 

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.11 - 34. 76 Coal Tar and Petroleum 

Chrysene 0.32 - 26.58 Coal Tar 

Benzo ( e) pyrene 0.09 - 38.85 Coal Tar 

Benzo( a )pyrene 0 .11 - 38 .85 Coal Tar 

Fluoranthrene 0. 93 - 3. 72 Petroleum 

Six of the eight samples for benzo~a)pyrene exceeded the 

proposed OSHA standard of 0.2 ug/m which, as mentioned in 

section V has not been promulgated. Phenanthrene and 

anthracene were detected but not present in quantifiable 

amounts. Specific PNA analysis was not run on several benzene 

soluble extracts based on a prioritization procedure which was 

applied at the request of the laboratory. The concentration of 

PNAs in the bulk pitch and the limit of detection of the 
Page 11 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

analytical method were combined to arrive at a benzene solubles · quantity that would be necessary to have detectable amounts of 

PNAs. This level was set at 0.5 mg benzene solubles for the 

petroleum pitch air samples. 

5. Work Practices/Personal Protective Equipment Program 

The personal protective equipment available for use by the 

pitch handlers included hard hats, goggles, disposable 

respirators, disposable coveralls, disposable hoods and 

gloves. There was also a powered-air-purifying respirator unit 

for use by the bobcat operator. A barrier cream, which did not 

contain sunscreen~ was available but was generally not used as 

it was felt to aggravate the effects of the pitch. Goggles 

were frequently lifted up and positioned on the hard hat which 

lead to pitch contamination of the goggle/face seal area. In 

some cases, goggles were re-used. The outside and, to some 

degree, the inside of gloves became contaminated quickly which 

resulted in prolonged skin contact. Although shower facilities 

were available, very few workers showered after handling pitch 

and in most instances work clothing was worn home. Coveralls 

offered some protection but the clothing worn under the 

coveralls was still contaminated. 

B. Medical 

1. Demographic Data 

Of the 26 employees who participated, 11 were currently working 

with the pitch on one or both visits. The other 15 represented 

a random sample of approximately half of the remaining 

Mid-South employees (i.e., not handling the pitch on these two 

occasions). All the employees were male, their ages ranged 

from 20 to 56 (mean - 32.9 years). Five men were white and 21 

were black. Ten described their occupation as stevedores, 6 

were crane operators (heavy equipment operators), 4 were 

checkers, 3 were light equipment operators (fork lift), 1 

bobcap operator, 1 maintenance, 1 combined heavy equipment 

operator/stevedore. Duration of employrrent ranged from 0.33 to 

8 years (mean 2.6 years). 

2. ?Jmpt~ 

a. Past Symptoms 

As the pitch transfer operations were generally considered 

unpleasant and had for the past year been performed on the 

evening shift (to decrease sun and ultraviolet light exposure), workers currently handling the pitch tended to 

be those with least seniority. All except 4 of the 26 
Page 12 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

employees examined had handled the pitch at some time in 

the past. The prevalence of past symptoms is shown in 

Tab1 e III. 

Complaints of skin and eye irritation were essentially 

universal. It was also emphasized by workers that exposure 

to skin and eye irritation resulting from pitch dust was 

possible on the dock even when not directly handling the 

material, as it could be blown about and affect 

non-handlers. 

The 	 eye irritation was described as burning, redness, 

swelling, and watering of the eyes, lasting about 2 days. 

At times, an associated photophobia was present. 

The 	skin irritation was characterized as redness like a 

sunburn, lasting 2 to 3 days, sometimes with drying and 

peeling by the 3rd or 4th day. The burning was often worse 

in the sun or on the next day following exposure, which is 

typical of photosensitivity reactions where an interaction 

with ultraviolet radiation occurs. Both black and white 

employees felt the white workers were more severely 

affected. The affected areas were usually sun-exposed: neck, face, malar area, nose, forearms, lips. 

Only 2 individuals attributed these symptoms to any 

material handled other than the pitch. Or.e felt corn and 

soy 	affected him as much as pitch and another reported fertilizer caused more problems than pitch. All others 

attributed the problem to pitch only. 

b. 	 ~mptoms Present During NIOSH Visits 

1) 	 During the first visit (CTP transfer, August 1981), the 

day was cloudy and the wind was favorable (blowing out 

onto the river). No acute symptoms were reported. 

2) 	 During the second visit (petroleum pitch transfer, 

October 1981}, the day was quite sunny and much 

windier. All of the pitch-exposed employees reported 

some skin/eye irritation (see Signs). There was some 

indication that the sun screen recommended after the 

first visit was beneficial. 

c. 	 S_igns 

1) 	 Acute 

No red eyes or affected skin were observed during the 

first visit. On the second visit, red, tearing 
Page 13 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

irritated eyes (acute conjunctivitis) was observed in 4 

individuals handling the pitch. A crane operator, who 

did not wear goggles, was the most severely affected, 

with moderate photophobia. No tuch signs were observed 

in the non-pitch handlers. Some skin redness was also 

observed where the goggles contacted the facial skin. 

2) Chronic 

Skin lesions that were possibly pitch-induced were 

observed in 4 workers (see Table IV). The mean 

exposure in those with skin lesion was 3.9 years versus 

a mean of 2.3 years in the other 15 for whom exposure duration was known. This suggested a trend of 

increasing frequency of lesion with increasing duration 

(dose-response relationship) but the mean durations 

were not significantly different by t-test. It has 

been reported that 2 years experience with pitch is 

required to get such lesions (eg. pitch warts).9 As 

seen in Table V, this dichotomy does not reach 

statistical significance but is still suggestive of an 

effect. 

VII. DISCUSSION 

It should be noted that there are several pieces of environmental data 

that do not seem consistent with what was observed and/or other 

sampling data. For example, at least 2 total dust results (9.52 and 

10.1 mg/m3) seem unreasonabl~ high. The corresponding total benzene 

solubles (0.34 and 1.60 mg/mJ) taken with a filter on the opposite 

lapel were much lower than expected based on analysis of the bulk 

pitches. For the air samples to be consistent, these total benzene 

solubles would have been expected to have been 5.43 and 9.80 mg/m3, 

respectively. This anomaly was also present in several other sample combinations and is unexplained. Also, several total benzene solubles 

samples were slightly higher than the corresponding total dust. This 

difference may be due to the orientation of each of the 2 samplers on 

the worker. 

A previous Health Hazard Evaluation conducted in 19763 studied a 

roofing tear-off operation {a non-heated process) and found total dust 

levels of over 2 mg/m3, cyclohexane soluble levels of over 1 mg/m3 and benzo[(a)+(e)]pyrene levels of up to 14 ug/m3. A high proportion 

of roofers gave a history of apparent skin photosensitivity, similar to 

the present HHE. A more recent Health Hazard EvaluationB that 

evaluated another roofing tear-off operation reported total dust 

exposures of 1.8 to 6.2 mg/m3, respirable dust levels of 0.67 to 1.7 

mg/m3, cyclohexane solubles of ND to 0.51 mg/m3 and 5 PNAs in 

concentrations up to 26 ug/m3. Workers reported phototoxic effects 

including skin erythema, photophobia, and conjunctivitis. 
Page 14 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

The 	 current study at Mid-South found concentrations of total 

particulate, benzene soluble material, and specific carcinogens 

including benzpyrene in the same order of magnitude as these previous 

investigations. Moreover, a high prevalence of past symptoms, and 

acute conjunctivitis compatible with pitch/PNA-induced photosensitivity 

was 	 observed. Finally, skin lesions that may be pitch-associated were 

found in 4 employees. Benzpyrene, of course, is only a well-known 

indicator for the many other specific PNAs present in such environments. 

As an additional investigation not part of the 1976 HHE study design, 

NIOSH determined that both a respirable fraction of total particulate and of benzene soluble material was detectable. Thus, consideration 

must be given to recommendations for respiratory protection even though 

the operation is performed for only several days each month. 

The 	 natural hi story of the small 11 wart-l ike" 1 esions is such that they 

should be considered pre-cancerous. The vast majority stay the same or 

spontaneously regress, while a small percentage can progress to 

squamous cell carcinoma.4 Thus, the management once found should be 

cessation of exposure, and removal of the lesion by biopsy excision and 

follow-up of biopsy site, or by physical destruction (liquid nitrogen

or dessication and currettage) by a dermatologist. 

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS 

The following recommendations are presented to minimize exposure to 

coal tar and petroleum pitch dust thereby reducing acute health effects 

as well as the potential for long-term health effects. Corranents 

address four major areas: dust control, minimize contact with the 

pitch dust. protection against UV light, and medical monitoring. 

A. 	 Dust Contro1 

1. 	 Continue frequent hosing down the dock area to minimize 

re-entrainment of settled pitch dust. 

2. 	 Explore the possibility of using fine water sprays at points of 

dust generation. 

3. 	 Explore the possibility of using biodegradable agglomerating 

agents at dust generation points or possibly at the crusher 

operations where the pitch granules are produced. One such 

product is Deter Microfoam. In a coal dust application, cost 

of control was reported to be 2 to 5 cents per ton of coal. 

More information about this dust control technique is provided 

in Appendix A. 
Page 15 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

B. 	 Minimize Contact With Pitch Dust 

1. 	 Use of personal protective equipment (hard hats, goggles, respirators, disposable suits with hoods,~gloves and safety shoes) should be mandatory for those workers who need to be in 

areas of high dust concentration. Disposable respirators will 

provide an adequate level of protection considering the 

frequency of the transfer operations. Disposable cotton gloves 

may offer more protection from skin contact with pitch material 

than a reusable glove because pitch dust invariably will 

contaminate the inside of a reusable glove thereby prolonging skin contact. Goggles should not be reused unless the pitch contamination can be removed, especially from the goggle/face 

contact point. Once in place, goggles should be left on to 

preclude the excessive contamination on the face seal from 

raising the goggles up to the hard hat where pitch dust is 

usually heavy. A defogging agent will help prevent lens 

fogging. 

2. 	 Good personal hygiene is important. Employees (pitch workers) 

should shower and wash thoroughly with soap and water at the 

end of a shift, preferably at work. A complete change of 

clothes should be made after showering. 

3. 	 Skin contamination to pitch dust should be promptly washed with 

soap and water. 

4. 	 The life jackets worn while working down on the barges tend to 

get grossly contaminated. If they cannot be kept clean, they . should 	at least be stored away from other gear and worn only 

for the pitch barge work. The disposable coveralls should 

adequately protect the wearer. 

C. 	 Protect Agai'!_~~-l!_V~Light 

l. 	 The coal tar and petroleum pitch transfers should continue to 

be scheduled on 2nd shift to minimize the phototoxic effects 

caused by UV light as well as minimize the number of workers 

exposed. 

2. 	 To prevent phototoxic reactions, sun screen such as those 

containing benzophenones should be applied to exposed skin. 

UVAL® (Dome Laboratories) and So1bar® (Person &Covey, Inc.) 

both contain benzophenones. The manufacturing of the former 

product has been recently discontinued. These should be 

applied approximately one-half hour before work and at 

mid-shift break. 
Page 16 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

D. 	 ~edi ~i!_l_ Monitoring 

1. 	 All employees exposed to pitch presently or in the past should 

have access to medical survei·llance including an annual 

examination with medical and occupational history and physical 

exam with emphasis on the skin, eyes, and respiratory system. 

2. 	 When skin lesions are observed, employees should be referred to 

a dermatologist who is informed of the patient's exposure for 

follow-up as described in the Discussion. Letters have been 

sent to the four individuals with skin lesions suggesting they be seen by a dermatologist for removal of lesions. 

IX. REFERENCES 

1. 	 Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. Ninth Edition. New 

York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980. Pp 255-262. 

2. 	 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Criteria for 

a recommended standard--occupational exposure to coal tar 

products. Cincinnati, Ohio; National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, 1978, (OHEW publication no. (NIOSH) 78-107). 

3. 	 Herwin R.L. and E11111ett E.A. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 

75-194-324. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 (1976). 

4. 	 Moshel A., Personal Conmunication. 

5. 	 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Criteria 

for a recommended standard--occupational exposure to asphalt 

fumes. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, 1978. (DHEW publication no. (NIOSH) 78-106). 

6. 	 General Industry Standards. Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration Safety and Health Standards (29 CFR 1910) revised 

January 1976. 

7. 	 American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist: 

Documentation of Threshold Limit Values, 1981. 

8. 	 Tharr, D.G. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 81-432-1105. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Cincinnati, 

Ohio 45226. May, 1982. 

9. 	 Schwartz L., Tudipar L., and Peck S.M. Occupational Diseases of 

the Skin. 3rd Edition. Philadelphia: Lea &Febiger, 1957. 
Page 17 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-206 

X. AUTHORSHIP . AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Report Prepared by: 	 Richard W. Gonnan, M.S., C.I.H. 

Indus triar Hygi en f st 

Industrial Hygiene Section 

Gary M. Liss, M.D. 

Medical Officer 

Medi cal Sectf on 

Analytical Support: 	 NIOSH Contract Lab 

Utah Biomedical Test Lab 

520 Wakara Way Salt Lake City, Utah 

Ed Slick 

Ardith Grote 

Measurement Research Support 

Branch 

NIOSH laboratory Cincinnati, Ohio 

Originating Office: Hazard Evaluations and Technical 

Assistance Branch 

Division of Surveillance, Hazard 

Evaluations, and Field Studies 

Report Typed By: 	 Betty Widener 

Clerk-Typist 

Industrial Hygiene Section 

XI. 
 DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT 

Copies of this report are currently available upon request from NIOSH, 

Division of Standards Development and Technology Transfer, 4676 

Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 . After 90 days, the report 

will be available through the National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS), 5285 Port Royal, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Information 

regarding its availability through NTIS can be obtained from NIOSH 

Publications Office at the Cincinnati address. Copies of this report 

have been sent to: 

1. Mid-South Terminals Incorporated 

2. Local 1671, International Longshoremen ' s Association 

3. NIOSH, Region IV 

4. OSHA, Region IV 

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. 

'· 
TABLE I 


PARTICULATE, BENZENE SOLUBLE, AND PNA RESULTS 


Coal Tar Pitch Transfer 


Mid-South Terminal 


August 20-21, 1981 


SAMPLE SAMPLE PARTICULATES (m9/m3) BENZENE SOLUBLES (mg/m3) 

J OR/LOCATION TYPE a VOL.(m3) TOTAL RESPIRABLE TOTAL RESPIRABLE PHENAN R(k)F 

----------------------------------

B(b)F 

PNA' s 

PY RENE 

(ug/m3)b 

B(a)A CHRYSENE B(elP B(a)P 

Aug_ust 2~ 1982 

Stevedore p 0.44 1.17 ---C 0.05 --­ NO ND 0.05 NO 0.07 ND 0.09 ND 

Stevedore P(R) 0.48 --- 0.11 --- 1mrt NO ND 

On barge A 0.49 3.4 --- 1.47 --- ND 12.88 

Crane op. p 0.49 0. 51 0.24 0.29 0.18 NO ND 

P(R) 0.55 --- --- --- --- NO ND 

Ed9e of Dock A 0.51 0.14 0.04 0.08 --- NO ND 

ND 

34.76 

ND 

ND 

ND 

NO 

44.99 

NO 

NO 

ND 

ND ND 

34.76 26.58 

ND ND 

ND ND 

ND NO 

ND 

38.85 

ND 

NO 

NO 

ND 

38.85 

ND 

NO 

NO 

Bobcat op. p 0.45 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.13 ND 5. 77 

P(R) 0.45 --- --- --- -·- NO 0.21 

12.00 

0.42 

15.56 

ND 

13.33 9.56 

0.27 0.27 

14.89 

0.47 

14.22 

0.18 

Augus~.3.!..z.._1982 

Stevedore #1, 

barge work p 0 .17 --- --- 0.30 --- NO 0.40 l.10 l.05 1.16 0.81 1.28 1.63 

Stevedore #2, 

barge work p 0.53 0. 30 --- 0. Oil --- Nil O.?J 

Stevedore p 0.53 9.52 --- 0.34 --- NO 0.99 

0.116 

l.71 

O.llb 

1.90 

0.50 0.32 

1.90 1.37 

0.59 

2.29 

0.53 

1.90 

Check clerk p 0.45 0,42 --- 0.09 --- NO 0,49 0.79 0.74 0.79 0.1)6 1.01 0.67 

On barge A 0.47 1.27 ND 0.09 O.OQ ND 0.04 

On ~arge A(Rl 0.46 --- --- --- --- NO ').02 

ND 

0.09 

ND 

NO 

ND ND 

0.11 NO " 

NO 

0.12 

ND 

0.11

On dock A 0.48 0.08 ND 0.12 --- llO NO ND NO ND NO NO NO 

Crane op. p 0.46 0.04 NO 0.09 --- NO tll) 

Lower Detectab}e Lirnft (microqrams ner samole) .06 .01 

NO 

.O?. 

ND 

.07 

ND ND 

.03 .03 

ND 

.OJ 

ND 

.OJ 

NIOSH Criteria (Full Shift, 40 hour week TWA) 0.1 

OSHA Standard (Full Shift, 40 hour week TWA) ().? 

-------------------------------------------------- Note a P-breathing zone ~ample; P(R)-breathinq zone sa~nle re~p1raDle fraction; A-area samole; A(R)-------

area sa

------

mple, respirable fraction 

b R(k)F-Benzo(R) fluoranthene; B(b)F-Henzo(b) fluoranthene;B(a)A-R~nzo(a) Anthracene; ~(e)P-fiPnzo(e) Pyrene; R(a)P-Benzo(a) Pyrene, Phenan-phenanthrene 

c Notation "·--" means no s<1mpl e of this typ~ run 

d ND-no detectable levels fnund 
TABLE II 


PARTICULATE, BENZENE SOLUBLE, AND PNA RESULTS 


Petroleum Pitch Transfer 


Mid-South Terminal 


October 13, 1981 

SAMPLE SAMPLE PARTICULATE (mg/m3) 
 BENZENE SOLUBLES (mg/m3) PNA'S (ug/m3) 


JOB/LOCATION TYPEa VOL.(m3) TOTAL RESPIRABLE 
 TOTAL RESPIRABLE FLUORANTHENE PYRENE B(a}A ANTHRACENE 


Stevertore p 0.41 ___b o. 72 0.73 --­ *C * * * 

Stevedore p 0.47 0.32 --­ 0.47 --­ * * * * 

Checker p 0.41 10.10 --­ 1.60 --­ 0.93 2.93 2.17 < 1.22 

Stevedore p 0.41 o.oo --­ 0.15 --­ * * * * 

Engine Op. 

Crane Op. 

Edge of doclc II II II 

p 

p 

A(R) 

A 

0.37 

0.39 

0.49 

0.35 

0.18 --­ 0.11 --­ * 

6.80 0.16 0.22 --­ * --- --- --- 0.12 * 

--- --- 2.40 --­ 1.20 

* * 

* * * * 

4.00 3.71 

* 

* 

* 

< 2.86 

Down wind, 

20 ft. A 0.43 8.40 --­ --- --- 3. 72 13.49 10.23 < 5.81 II II " A(R) 0.48 --- o.oo --- --- * * * * 

Down wind. 

30. ft. A 0.31 3.57 --­ --- --- * 

Lower Dectectable Limit (micrograms ner samole) 0.08 

* * 

0.12 0.04 

* 

o.w 

NIOSH Criteria (Full shift. 40 hour week TWA} 
 5.0 

OSHA Standard {Full shift, 40 hour week TWA) 
 none 

---------­ --------­ Note: a P-breathing zone sample; A-area sample; A(R}-area sample, respirable fraction 

b The notation "---" means this type of sample was not run 

c The notation "*" indicates that PNA analysis was not done because the benzene soluble fraction was < 0.5 mg and 

therefore, based on analytical detection limits, PNA's were not expected to ~e present in t1etectable a1T10unts