Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
														Search
		×
			NIOSH
			NIOSH
				All CDC
				Submit
			For a full list of topics:A-Z Index
			Advanced Search
		Advanced Search


The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)


Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate





CARBON DIOXIDE								Related Pages
										*OSHA comments from the January 19, 1989 Final Rule on Air Contaminants Project extracted from 54FR2332 et. seq. This rule was remanded by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the limits are not currently in force.*
**CAS:** 124-38-9; **Chemical Formula:** CO2
OSHA’s former limit for carbon dioxide was 5000 ppm as an 8-hour TWA. The ACGIH has a 5000-ppm TLV-TWA with a 30,000-ppm TLV-STEL, and these were the limits proposed. NIOSH has a TWA REL of 10,000 ppm with a 10-minute 30,000-ppm ceiling limit; however, NIOSH (Ex. 8-47, Table N1) concurred that the proposed limits were appropriate. After carefully reviewing the record evidence submitted in response to OSHA’s proposal for carbon dioxide, the Agency has determined that exposure limits of 10,000 ppm (8-hour TWA) and 30,000 ppm (15-minute STEL) are appropriate. Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, noncombustible gas.
Both the ACGIH (1986/Ex. 1-3) and NIOSH (1976a, as cited in ACGIH 1986/Ex. 1-3, p. 102) cite studies indicating that continuous exposure to between 1.5 and 3 percent carbon dioxide (15,000 to 30,000 ppm) results in few, if any, adverse effects. However, electrolyte imbalances and other metabolic changes have been associated with prolonged exposures to 10,000 to 20,000 ppm CO(2) (Schulte 1964/Ex. 1-366; Gray 1950, as cited in ACGIH 1986/Ex. 1-3, p. 102). Increases in the rate of respiration have been observed among resting subjects exposed to 39,500 ppm for periods shorter than a day and among exercising subjects exposed to airborne concentrations below 30,000 for the same period (Sinclair et al. 1969, as cited in ACGIH 1986/Ex. 1-3, p. 102).
OSHA received comments on carbon dioxide from the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) (Ex. 1-1123; Tr. p. 11-24) and the Corn Refiners Association (Ex. 177), among others; both organizations listed CO(2) as a substance affecting their respective industries but did not provide further information. OSHA also received comments from the Beer Institute (Exs. 49 and 142; Tr. 8/9/88, p. 9-26) and from the Anheuser-Busch Company (Ex. 199).
The Beer Institute (Exs. 49 and 142; Tr. 8/9/88, p. 9-26) and the Brewing Industry Safety Advisory Committee submitted comments to OSHA on carbon dioxide. This industry’s position is that there is no health risk to employees exposed to CO(2), even at levels between 15,000 and 20,000 ppm for an 8-hour period (Ex. 49, p. 2). In support of this position, the Beer Institute testified that the 8-hour TWA limit of 5000 ppm is “unnecessarily low and restrictive” (Ex. 49; Tr. 8/9/88, p. 9-27). The Institute also submitted a study by Riley and Bromberger-Barnea (1979/Ex. 49B) on the CO(2) exposure of brewery workers. This study monitored the full-shift exposures of these workers to CO(2) and determined that they average 1.08 percent CO(2)(10,800 ppm).
The Beer Institute testified that the beer industry “is unique relative to carbon dioxide exposure and control....no other industry faces the same engineering difficulties for controlling ambient carbon dioxide as the brewing industry” (Tr. 8/9/88, p. 9-26). These commenters identified two situations where exposure to CO(2) might be a problem for cellar workers (Tr. 8/9/88, p. 9-27). The first situation occurs when excessive CO(2) builds up in the large fermentation tanks used in the beer-making process and blows an escape valve, and the second exposure situation arises when workers must enter the fermentation tanks to flush out the sludge remaining after the tank has been drained. OSHA finds that these situations involve either upset conditions (safety valve blowout) or maintenance (tank cleaning); both of these operations are considered nonroutine, and respiratory protection may be used to protect employees when these situations arise. OSHA’s analysis of the technological feasibility of achieving the final rule’s limits in facilities in the beer industry is presented in Section VII of this preamble.
In response to these commenters, OSHA notes that the limit to which these industry spokesmen are objecting is the CO(2) limit that has been in force since the Agency was founded in 1971. Neither the Beer Institute nor the Brewing Industry Safety Advisory Committee objects to the only change OSHA proposed in this rulemaking (i.e., the addition of a 30,000-ppm STEL for CO 2). According to Gary Nateman, Vice President of the Beer Institute (Tr. 8/9/88, p. 9-30):
It is appropriate in our view for OSHA to adopt the 3-percent [30,000-ppm] short-term exposure limit for carbon dioxide. There is a scientific basis for this limit and in terms of real health benefit, this is the most meaningful approach (Tr. 8/9/88, p. 9-31).
The basis for the beer industry’s objection to the retention of OSHA’s 5000-ppm limit is that NIOSH recommended a higher 8-hour TWA limit of 10,000 ppm in its 1976 criteria document for carbon dioxide (NIOSH 1976a, as cited in ACGIH 1986/Ex. 1-3, p. 102).
After reviewing this evidence, OSHA is persuaded that a 10,000-ppm 8-hour TWA limit, combined with a 30,000-ppm STEL, will protect employees from the adverse effects associated with excessive exposures to CO(2). OSHA bases this conclusion on the fact that, while the evidence has not shown that prolonged exposures to 10,000 ppm are harmful, acute exposures to CO(2) concentrations in excess of 30,000 ppm have been demonstrated to cause changes in respiration rates in humans.
In the final rule, OSHA is establishing a 10,000-ppm PEL as an 8-hour TWA and a 30,000-ppm STEL to protect employees from experiencing the metabolic and respiratory changes, which constitute material health impairments, that are associated with elevated short-term CO(2) exposures. The Agency concludes that adding this limit will substantially reduce the risk associated with the high short-term exposures to CO(2) that are possible in the absence of a STEL. The former 8-hour TWA of 5000 ppm is retained.
										
							
								Page last reviewed:  September 28, 2011						Content source:  	National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH
1988 OSHA PEL Project Documentation
Index of Chemical Names
Index of CAS Numbers Follow NIOSH Facebook
Pinterest
Twitter
YouTube
 NIOSH Homepage NIOSH A-Z
Workplace Safety & Health Topics
Publications and Products
Programs
Contact NIOSH


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue