Document E6NQM2Dy54r1xroXzGYEzB0N

RESPIRATOR WORKPLACE PROTECTION FACTORS FOR ASBESTOS SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND Workplace protection factors for elastomeric and single use half-mask respirators were measured during asbestos removal operations. The operations consisted of asbestos removal from a ceiling (fire proofing) and removal of pipe insulation. The use of water/surfactant solutions to spray fire proofing and insulation resulted in conditions of high humidity for in-doors operations. Out-of-doors operations were also under high humidity conditions since light rain occurred on two of four days of out-of-doors sampling. Temperatures for both operations were in the 65-85F range. The respirators were used in the context of a respirator program that followed the guidance in 29 CFR 1910.134 and ANSI Z88.2 (1980) including proper respirator selection and fit testing. A total of seventeen volunteers participated in the study. One or two workplace protection factors were determined for each respirator for which the fit test had been passed. The respirators tested were: One successfully fitted elastomeric facepiece respirator chosen for comfort from six respirators (MSA Cqmfo II and Survivair 2000 brands - small, medium or large sizes). These respirators were tested using a dust, fume and mist type filter and a high efficiency filter. DU 062494 DUP 1160011 2 Each of three disposable respirators successfully- fitted (3K 9910, 3M 8710 and American Optical R1050). A successfully fitted North 7700 elastomeric facepiece respirator, chosen from the small, medium or large size facepieces. In addition two workplace protection factor measurements were made for a self-contained breathing apparatus operated in the pressure-demand mode. Results showed that, with the exception of the American Optical (AO) R1050. all respirators tested reliably provided workplace protection factors of ten or greater based on estimates of the lower 5th percentile. The AO R1050 reliably provided a protection factor of five or greater. These results are consistent with information supplied to the record by Los Alamos National Laboratory which reported on the penetration of asbestos through respirator filter media. Results for the self-contained breathing apparatus suggest that it may not provide appreciably better protection than the two better disposable respirators and the elastomeric facepiece respirators, though it creates significantly greater hazard of falling because of the weight and awkwardness of the tanks. Myhre et al.^2* and Raven^ have shown that pressure-demand type respirators do not maintain positive pressure inside the facepiece when workloads are increased from DU 062495 DUP 1 1 6 0 0 1 2 rest conditions. 3 This may explain in part why no significant difference exists between half facepiece negative pressure and pressure-demand respirators. PROCEDURE Prior to testing, each person was trained in the selection and fit testing of respirators using the National Paint and Coatings Association Training Program^. Each was then fit tested using the saccharin fit test^4). Respirators selected for use by participants are listed above and in Table I. Two individuals were also trained in use of a pressure-demand self-contained breathing apparatus. Fit testing was not done, as it is not required for pressure-demand equipment in the ANSI Z88.2 (1980) standard. During sample collection, each participant was observed continually to ensure that the sample train remained intact and did not interfere with the respirator seal on the face, and to note occurances which might have affected respirator performance, such as movement of the respirator on the face. The participants were very busy with their work activities and soon ignored the presence of the researchers. AIR SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS To determine the workplace protection factors, concurrent samples were taken from inside the respirator (in-mask) at nose level and outside the respirator at the DUP 1 1 6 0 0 1 3 DU 062496 lapel (lapel). Closed-face Glasrock (#1505) cassette filter holders fitted with half inc h extenders and probes developed by NIOSH^5^ were used for both the in-mask and lapel samples, The sample probes are 6pecia lly designed to minimize the loss of particulates. The casset tes contained 0.8 um. 25mm cellulose ester filters. The sample trains were calibrated before and after taking each sample using a mass flow meter. The mass flow meter was calibrated against a bubble flow meter at the beginning and end of the study. A flow rate of 2 Lpm was used for in-mask samples. Lapel samples were taken at 0.5-1.0 Lpm to avoid overloading. Samples were collected for a one to two hour period. Each sample represented a single wearing of the respirator. Fiber counts were done per NIOSH procedure P&CAM 239^6^ (phase contrast microscopy), except that the triacetin/acetone mounting method was used as described in NIOSH method 7400 f 7 } . Counting was done according to the "A" counting rules in method 7400. Five hundred fields were counted for in-mask samples to increase analytical sensitivity. All analyses were done by one counter who participates successfully in the American Industrial Hygiene Association's Proficiency Analytical Testing quality assurance program. Concentrations were calculated from the actual number of fibers counted (even if fewer than 50 fibers were counted) per the formulas in the NIOSH method. DU 062497 DUI> 1 1 6 0 0 M 5 NIOSH method P&CAM 239 reports a coefficient of variation of 0.12 which applies to lapel samples in this study. We estimate that the coefficient of variation for the in-mask samples is 0.4 at the median in-facepiece concentration and fiber count (Table III). SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHOD VERIFICATION In-mask sampling required use of closed-face filter cassettes. The Glassrock #1505 25mm filter cassettes used have a unique tapered design for the outlet and a half inch extender which improves the deposition patterns , To minimize sample loss, the NIOSH^5^ probe was used to withdraw in-mask samples. To eliminate possible bias, the same closed-face/probed cassette was used for both in-mask and lapel samples. To document whether concentrations determined from closed-face/probe cassette sampling differed from open-face sampling, twelve area samples were taken using both methods. Results are compared in Table II with Student's and Variance Ratio tests. The two sampling methods were found to give similar results with no significant bias or difference in precision. RESULTS ANT? DISCUSSION Transmission electron microscopic analyses were made on four lapel samples to document the distribution of fiber diameters and lengths. Distributions are shown in Figures 1 and 2. Fiber diameters and lengths covered a wide range. DU 062498 DUP I 1 6 0 0 1IS 6 The overall median concentrations of fibers for in-mask and lapel samples are given in Table III. The median number of fibers counted for in-mask (500 fields counted) and lapel (<100 field counted) samples are also given in Table III. Cumulative distributions, geometric means, geometric standard deviations, best estimates of 5th percentiles and lists of workplace protection factors are given in Figures 3 through 8 for each respirator. The distributions of workplace protection factors were found to be approximately lognormal for all respirators studied. Therefore, logs were used for the plots, geometric means are reported as the proper measure of central tendancy and geometric standard deviations are reported as the proper measure of variability. Best estimates of 5th percentiles represent the workplace protection factors that most (95\) respirator users are expected to obtain from each respirator. Distribution plots and geometric standard deviations include variability from the sampling and analytical method as veil as from the workplace protection factors. The unavoidable inclusion of the sampling and analytical variability in the plots results in best estimates of 5th percentile protection factors which are conservative (lower than actual). This should be considered in evaluating results. DU 062499 DUP 1 1 6 0 0 1 6 7 Workplace protection factors were determined for a self-contained breathing apparatus for two individuals. Results are reported in Table IV. Table V gives geometric means and standard deviations for all respirators studied. A Bonferroniv ' test for differences (p-0.05) was done and results are given in Table V. Workplace protection factors for the 3M 9910 were found to be significantly higher than those for the AO R1050. No other significant differences were found. The relatively low results for the AO R1050 are likely due to poorer filter efficiency for asbestos, reported by Dr. Ortiz of Los Alamos National Laboratory.^ The unexpected comparability of the results from the 3M disposable respirators, and elastomeric facepiece respirators with both dust, mist and fume filters and high efficiency filters may be explained by several factors. First, the limiting factor in performance with the respirators is likely face fit, not filter efficiency (except for the AO R1050 as noted above). Since the same fit test was used to select good fitting respirators for the study, comparable results would be expected. In addition, the researchers noted a tendency for elastomeric respirators to slip around when 6ome wearers' faces became wet with the water/surfactant spray. This did not occur with the disposable respirators because their fibrous material of construction clung to the skin. DU 062500 DUI> 1 1 6 0 0 1 / 8 It is particularly noteworthy that the workplace protection factors for the self-contained breathing apparatus were not superior to the better disposable and elastomeric respirators. Myhre(2) and Raven(3) have shown that at workloads exceeding approximately 35* of maximal aerobic capacity pressure inside the facepiece of pressure-demand type respirators does not remain positive with respect to the surrounding atmosphere. This would provide an opportunity for asbestos to be drawn into the facepiece. The volunteers who wore the self-contained breathing apparatus complained of stress and discomfort due to its weight and bulk. Movement and balance were difficult and one volunteer almost fell from a step ladder as a result. Based on their observations, the researchers believe that routine use of self-contained breathing apparatus for asbestos removal in the chemical industry would likely result in injuries, in view of the large amount of climbing involved. Certainly, acceptance will be much poorer than for the other respirators studied, due to discomfort which would discourage respirator use. Transmission electron microscopic analyses were done on in-mask and lapel samples. Resultant workplace protection factors are reported in Table VI. Results for small diameter fibers (<0.2um - the diameter below which fibers cannot be resolved with the standard optical microscopic method) do not appear to differ from those for large diameter (>0.2um) fibers, for 5 um or longer lengths. Thus, results for fibers visible DU 062501 DUP 1 1 6 0 0 1 8 9 with the phase contrast method (>0.2um diameter) appear to be representative of those for smaller diameter fibers for the 3M 8710 and 9910, and for elastomeric respirators with a dust, fume and mist filters and high efficiency filters. DU 062502 DUP 1 1 6 0 0 1 9 10 CONCLUSIONS 1. All respirators tested provided protection against asbestos. The American Optical R1050 disposable respirator reliably provided workplace protection factors of 5 or greater. The 3M 9910, 3M 8710, and elastomeric half-face respirators with both dust, fume and mist and high efficiency filters reliable provided workplace protection factors of 10 or greater. 2. Use of higher efficiency filters did not appear to improve the workplace protector factors of the elastomeric respirators. 3. Workplace protection factor measurements for a pressure demand self-contained breathing apparatus were not significantly higher than those for the better disposable and elastomeric respirators. Comments from the test volunteers and observations indicate that acceptance of the self-contained breathing apparatus will be poorer than that of the other respirators tested. In addition, they present a significant risk of tripping or falling where removal work requires climbing ladders and working from scaffolding. 4. Transmission electron microscopic analyses indicate that overall workplace penetration of small diameter (<2um) fibers (longer than 5 um) is not discernibly higher than that of larger diameter fibers for the 3M 8710 and 3M 9910 disposable respirators nor for elastomeric respirators with dust, fume and mist or high efficiency filters. DU 062503 o<:oo911 tin a 11 REFERENCES 1. Ortiz, L. W. et al: "Interim Report: Penetration of Respirator Filters by an Asbestos Aerosol," May 2, 1984 (Los Alamos National Laboratory). 2. Myhre, L. G.. R. D. Holden, F. W. Baumgardner and D. Tucker: Physiological Limits of Firefighters. Unclassified Report #ESL-TR-79-06, AFESC. Tyndall AFB, Florida (June 1979). 3. Raven, P. B. et al.: "Physiological Response to Pressure-Demand' Respirator Wear", Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 43 (10): 773-781 (1982). 4. "Guide to Respirator Fit Testing" (1981). National Paint and Coating Association, Washington. D.C. 5. Liu, B. Y. U. et al: "In-Mask Aerosol Sampling for Powered Air Purifying Respirators." Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 45(4) :278-283 (1984). 6. U.S. Department of Health. Education and Welfare; NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods. Second Edition. Volume I (April 1977). 7. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Method 7400, February 15, 1984. 8. Adams. M. J. et al. "Cassette Extenders: Effects on Chrysotile Fiber Deposition and Concentration Measurements", Presented at the American Industrial Conference. May 24. 1983. 9. Snedecor. G. W. and W. G. Cochran: Statistical Methods, 7th Ed., Iowa State University Press. Ames. Iowa (1980). DU 062504 Respirator Name Survivair 2000 Corafo II 3M 8710 3M 9910 American Optical R1050 North 7700 Scott Air-Pak TABLE I Respirators Studied Type Elastomeric (6ilicone rubber) with dust, fume and mist and high efficiency filters Elastomer (neoprene) with dust, fume and mist and high efficiency filters Disposable with nonad justable 6traps Disposable with ad justable straps Disposable with nonad justable straps Elastomeric (silicone rubber) with high efficiency filters Self-contained breathing apparatus, pressure-demand ______ Vendor U.S.D. Corp. Mine Safety Appliance Co. 3M Company 3M Company American Optical Company North Company Scott Aviation DUP 1 1 6 0 0 ? ? DU 062505 TABLE II COMPARISON OF ASBESTOS SAMPLING METHODS (OPEN-FACE VERSUS CLOSED-FACE WITH PROBE) Mean Parameter Standard Deviation T Statistic* Variance Ratio** Data Open-face cassette: Closed-face cassette Value 2.2 fibers/mL - open face filter cassette 2.3 fibers/mL - closed face cassette with probe 0.264 fibers/mL - open face cassette 0.286 fibers/mL - closed face cassette with probe 1.28 1.17 1.9. 1.9, 2.0, 2.1, 2.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2, 2.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.9 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.3, 2.3, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4, 2.5, 3.0 * 1.28 is less than a comparison t statistic of 1.78 Cp=0.05). Therefore, the means do not differ significantly. ** 1.17 is less than a comparison F statistic of 2.69 (p*0.05). Therefore, the variances (precision) of the methods do not differ significantly. DUP 1 l6 0 0 ? .i DU 062506 TABLE III MEDIAN ASBESTOS CONCENTRATIONS AND COUNTS FOR WORKPLACE PROTECTION FACTOR STUDY FOR ALL RESPIRATORS COMBINED Concentrations Inside Respirator Outside Respirator 0.006 fibers/mL (8 HR. TWA 0.003)* 2.6 fibers/mL (8 HR. TWA ~ 1.3)* Counts Inside Filter Outside Filter 9 fibers 130 fibers No more than four of eight work hours were spent doing asbestos removal. Therefore, a factor of 0.5 (4 HRS/8 HRS) was applied to concentrations to estimate B HR TWA concentrations. DUI> 1 1 6 0 0 7 4 DU 062507 TABLE IV WORKPLACE PROTECTION FACTORS FOR SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS (PRES SURE-DEMAND) Workplace Protection Factors: 400 880 Geometric Mean: 620 DUP 1 1 6 0 0 7 ^ DU 062508 <mmmt MB TABLE V COMPARISON OF WORKPLACE PROTECTION FACTORS FOR SEVEN RESPTRATns*; Respirator 3M 8710 Number of Measurements 18 Workplace Protection Factor Geometric Mean (Geora. S.D.) 310 (5.3) Significant Differences 3M 9910 American Optical R1050 Elastoraeric/Dust. Fume and Mist Filter 14 7 17 580 (4.2) 52 (4.2) 240 (6.3) Higher than R 1050 Lower than 3M 9910 Elastomeric/High Efficiency Filter 14 94 (3.0) North 7700 High Efficiency Filter 14 250 (6.9) Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus Pressure-Demand 2 620 Lower 5t Percenti1 20 55 5 12 16 11 * Based on a Bonferroni test^^ at a 0.05 level of significance, only the 3H 9910 and AO R1050 differed. 9 /.0 0 9 I i <ina DU 062509 TABLE VI WORKPLACE PROTECTION FACTORS FROM TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPIC ANALYSES Workplace Protection Factor Respirator Fibers Exceeding 0.2 um Diameter and 5 um Length* All Diameter Fibers Exceeding 5 um Lencth 3M 8710 3M 9910 Survivair 2000 with Dust. Mist and Fume Filter 330 47 28 120 41 29 Survivair 2000 with High Efficiency Filter 21 19 * Those which would be counted by the standard phase contrast microscopy method. DU 062510 DUI* IIG O O ? Figure 3 - Workplace Protection Factors for 3M 8710 Respirator Cumulative Distribution: (Lognormal) - C H - r - -- C D > C D O JItJ o /.o o o ii <tna Geometric Mean: 310 Geometric Standard Deviation: 5.3 DU0625n Best Estimate of 5th Percentile: 20 Data: 7.4, 15, 61, 110, 110, 180, 200, 310, 400, 420, 430, 1000, 1000, 1100, 1500, 1600, 1800, 3200 Figure 4 - Workplace Protection Factors for 3M 9910 Respirator Cumulative Distribution: (Lognormal) DUP I 1 6 0 0 7 9 Geometric Mean: 580 Geometric Standard Deviation: 4.2 DUO62512 Best Estimate of 5th Percentile: 55 Data: 94, 110, 150, 150, 170, 280, 550, 630, 710, 1300, 2400, 3000, 3700. 5600 Figure 5 - Workplace Protection Factors for AO R1050 Respirator Cumulative Distribution: (Lognormal) < H -- r- -- a 3 > 0 0 O 3 J "D os o o o i i <na Geometric Mean: 52 Geometric Standard Deviation: 4.2 Best Estimate of 5th Percentile: 5 Data: 9.7, 26, 28, 38, 52, 75, 970 DU 062513 Figure 6 - Workplace Protection Factors for Survivair 2000 and MSA Comfo Halfmask Respirators with Dust, Fume and Mist Filters Cumulative Distribution: (Lognormal) -<H --r- --CD>CDOHTI DUI' l lf> 0 0 .S t Geometric Mean: 240 Geometric Standard Deviation: 6.3 du 625i4 Best Estimate of 5th Percentile: 12 Data: 15, 24, 45, 46, 47, 74, 88, 140, 190, 370, 480, 1000, 1100, 1100, 1800, 4100, 4200 -< --I -- r~ -- C D ! > r o 0 3 3 " D /.V009I l Figure 7 - Workplace Protection Factors for Survivair 2000 and MSA Comfo Halfmask Respirators with High Efficiency Filters Cumulative Distribution: (Lognormal) Geometric Mean: 94 Geometric Standard Deviation: 3.0 Best Estimate of 5th Percentile: 16 Data: 12, 28, 32, 42, 65, 85, 110, 120, 140, 160, 160, 220, 220, 780, 7900* Figure 8 - Workplace Protection Factors for North 7700 Haifmask Respirators with High Efficiency Filters Cumulative Distribution: (Lognormal) v s '0 0 9 i i <mo Geometric Mean: 250 Geometric Standard Deviation: 6.9 duo62516 Best Estimate of 5th Percentile: 11 Data: 12, 20, 36, 60, 74, 110, 260, 350, 400, 1000, 1900, 2000, 2400, 3100  17 2 CV *-4C (gulp) E. 1. du Pont de Nemours & Company Wilmington, Delaware EMPLOYEE RELATIONS DEPARTMENT sce.s;o s W. Xarrh, M G. Pace, Jr c October 10, 1983 C. F. REINHARDT, M.D CHAIRMAN, AEL COMMIT CR&D HASKELL LAB' AEL The A.sbestos Issue .Ccordinatinc Committee met n 10/7/83 t discuss the question cf whether an AEL Determination or Asbestos should be initiated at this time. All members of the Asbestos Issue Coordinating Committee in attendance were unanimous m referrmg the question to your Committee for consideration Establishing an AEL for Asbestos is certainly not an emergent issue at this time. However, expeditious consideration of this subject before your Committee would be highly appreciated and does reflect the desires of many of the Asbestos Issue Coordin ating Committee members. Asbestos material in our Company has generally been determined to be chrysotile or a mixture of amosite and chrysotile. We are not aware of crocicolite asbestos being used in cur plants with the possible exception of specialized gasketing material. I would hope that this impression is correct and would anticipate that your Committee's data and deliberations could confirm this impression. Speaking for the Asbestos Issue Coordinating Committee would appreciate your prompt action in bringing this issue before the A.EL Committee. MEDICAL DIVISIC1 Chairman Asbestos Issue" Coor cu iw oooi i ana EWC/mch DU 062517 22 3 ZA 2s OUJ 2 'C. H oO a. OI II 2<r -i ui O S3 ll si n5 1 O Z SAFETY EXPOSURE LIMITS FOR AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS SSoED this page REUSED STANOAAO RgAf fiQMEO ENGINEERING STANDARD APRIL 1961 MARCH 1981 MARCH 1981 e9 T Paja 1 of 9 Tr'.is stanoa'C .rciudes requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1570 (C3HA) as puCusheo in the Federal Register. OSHA information is printed m red. 1. SCOPE 1.1 This standard presents information and data sources on exposure limits of air contaminants to provide criteria for safe Company work environments. Guidance on ap plication of exposure limits is provided. 1.2 The OSHA information presented is a legal re quirement in the United States. Local regulations in other countries must be followed. 1.2.1 State and local regulations in the United States are not covered, but must be followed if applicable. 2. SOURCES OF EXPOSURE LIMIT INFORMATION 2.1 OSHA. Permisaible Exposure Limits (PELs) from OSHA regulations. Section 1910.1000, Tables Zl, Z2, and Z3 are presented as Tables 1, 2, and 3. These tables are minimum legal requirement! in the United States for the substances listed. The OSHA tables were originally based on the 1968 ACGIH TLV tables (see 2.2). OSHA has made some changes to the tables, but has not made all of the changes made by ACGIH. 2.1.1 OSHA Regulated Materials 2.1.1.1 Rules applying to the manufacture, processing, packaging* handling, and storage of these materials are specified in OSHA regulations 1910.1001 through 1910.1046 as listed below. 1910.1029 Coke oven emission* 1910.1043 Cotton dust 1910.1044 1, 2*Dibromo-3-chluroprupane 1910.1045 Acrylonitrile 1910.1046 Exposure to cotton dust in cotton gins 2.1.1.2 CAUTION. Regulations are frequently subject to litigation. At the time of this revision the ben zene and lead regulations and parts of the arsenic regulation were under court review. Consult the Legal Department for latest information. 2.1.1.3 These OSHA regulations specify exact and demanding methodology for sampling, employee notification, training, record keeping, and protective equipment. 2.2 American Conference of Governmental Induatrlal HyglanistS (ACGIH). The ACGIH annually publishes a booklet containing Threshold Limits Values for many chemical substances and physical agents. Copies of the booklet can be obtained from the Chemical Hazards In formation Section, ISD, Centre Road Bldg. The updated booklet is usually available in October. ACGIH TLVs should be used where a Du Pont AEL (see 2.3) has not fbeen established and the TLV is either lower than the OSHA PEL or the material is not listed by OSHA. 2.2.1 TLVs are intended to be used only as guidelines toward the establishment of safe working environments. 1910.1001 Asbestos 1910.1002 Coai tar pitch volatiles 1910.1003 4-Nitrobiphenyl 1910.1004 ilpha-Napthylamine 1910 1006 Methvi chioromcthyl ether 1910.1007 3, 3-Dichlorobcuzidinc (and its salts) 1910.1008 bivChlnrutneih) 1 ether 10 10 1009 b^tu-NaphthyUmine S9 ;0.;0 ]0 Benzidine ! 9 ] 0,10: 1 4- A mi nodi ph^nv i 19J0 1012 Elh\ leuetmtne ( Ethyloniininc ) IV 10 1013 beta-Prupiola.ttonr 1910.1Q1 \ 2*4celvUnunofiuorrnc 19 10.11'! 5 L Umu-thy l,iiMinn.-zulK- iirriie i9)U.1016 N."sitru^uJiMinths 1 jimne 19 i 0. i 0 I 7 V in\ 1 i hioride ! 9 I n. if118 ItKjr^.iim. uf'-rnic -- 191l).iilJ5 Lead 19 10.1028 {>* n/i-ni* _ C'T.O'"S p<.r',<x2 aro Worn CSHA '9 0 '0CC ttucugn '9*0 '0*6 2.2.2 Du Pont Use of STEL Value*. Short-term Exposure Limit (STEL) values arc listed as "tentative values" in the ACGIH "Booklet" and may not have been acted upon by the TLV sui<ommittec of the parent body. STEL* should be used as guides. In most cases SlELs were derived by multiplying the TLV' by an arbitrarily chosen factor ranging from 1.25 tr> 3.0. STEL values are subject to change or withdrawal. Consultation with Haskell Laboratory is recommended !>eforc a significant expenditure is m/tdo to meet iTKL values. 2.3 Du Pont Source* 2.3.1 Haskell borutory has established Ac- cepiahlc Exposure Limit? AKLsi for some clmmicj'a Information ;>n A EL& can l*e obtained from Iiakc!l Lolxjratory. Wh^-re tlicv liav^ heti established, the AfvLs should I urd i nstcud of the AC(III I LV If t In* A L L i * lower than the OSHA IM'.L the A EL should l< used. DUP 1 160035 DU 062518 S2 T ' Page 2 EXPOSURE LIMITS FOR AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS This Page Rev March 1981 2.3.2 A list, "Industrial Chemicals Designated as Requtrtnu Special Control in Du Pont," is published quarterly by Haskell Laboratory. 2.3.3 A "Carcinogen Synonym List" is published annually by the Corporate Chemicals Information Sec tion, ISD. 3. APPLICATION OF PELS 3.1 Many situations where toxic substances are handled may require detailed review by specialized engineers, in dustrial hygierusis. and toxicologists to obtain the op timum in design controls. When additional information is needed on the toxicity of other materials and the health hazard that may be associated with them, consultation should be made with the Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine. where / " Reduction factor for the nontraditional work schedule h m Hours worked per day and the reduced exposure limit is Lyr " /L8 (2) where Lyj- * Exposure limit for nontraditional work schedule Lg ~ Exposure limit for 8-hour workday, e.g., PEL from Table 1 3.2 Safety precautions in DR1T6X shall be followed when handling radioactive materials. 4. EXPOSURE LIMITS FOR NONTRADITIONAL WORK SCHEDULES 4.1 Exposure limits apply to the traditional 8-hour workday. 40-hour workweek including such variations as rotating shifts which may involve up to seven consecutive 8-hour workdays. Human data used for setting exposure limits have, in many cases, come from such rotating shifts and at least 20 years of experience with them has shown no special adverse health effects. Exposure limits do not apply to nontraditional schedules such as 10- or 12-hour workdays or a workweek which routinely exceeds 40 hours. 4.2 Reduction Factor Calculation*. When nontraditional work schedules are used regularly, an un certainty exists concerning the effects of greater employee time exposure to chemical agents. Reduced exposure limits should consider the nature of the air contaminant and the increased exposure hours per day. and the decreased hours per day outside the contaminated environment.* 4.2.1 The reduction factor calculations presented in tins s-.aiiviard wnl satisfy 05HA requirements: however. T'SHA personnel will u-e a less restrictive calculation procedure - see reference in 3.1l, 4.2.2 In the abience of other guideline*, a reduclorn factor / is recommended, calculated us follows isce 4 4 for exceptions): 4.2.3 For the case of a 7-day workweek, the reduction factor is based on exposure hours per week and exposure-free hours per week. 40 U168 - I h \ / Ih)\ 128 ) (3) 4.2.4 For work schedules less than 7 to 8 hours per day or 35 hours per week. Equations (1) and (2) are not applicable. 4.2.5 For 24-hour continuous exposure, Equa* tions (1) through (3) are not applicable. Refer to the 90-day continuous exposure limits of the National Academy of Sciences where applicable.** 4.3 CAUTION: The reduction factor calculation it a theoretical estimate with no guarantee that an adequate safety margin it provided. Consult Haskett Laboratory prior to making significant changes in the workplace. 4.4 Exceptions. No adjustment of the exposure limit necessary for the following: ." a. Those substances whose exposure limits arc based on hurt-tenn effects or rapid einnm.itiuii. b. Substances such as lead arid mercury which .accumulate in the body very slowly. Here, the dailyexposure i* unimportant as long a* the average wcekiv length of exposure remain.* at 40 hour*. {[--8 \,/i-2-4-------h - h ! 10 C. Substances for which a limit U m I on the "lowest feasible hwel" concept. n S &ns S-ca'a a A "OceuDSbonai Eadosu' 'wims Noy. *Vor* Sceedc'oa.' Am*- in* Hygiena Assoc J *67 (Jun 1975, A'--c^c^c- : C2",a'r'Lri''?s r, Scscec'al ooon o' tn Dif'o on kli Siandaras <0' Mannec Sdsc - gnu Scsco Soo^c BostC Nano*-** Acacor'v c' Sc.ar.ces Wasn.ngjon, 0Z, 86 cags iOc!CDer '99l ) DU 062519 DUP I 1600.56 224 Jr- 225 This Page Rev Marcn 1981 EXPOSURE LIMITS FOR Airborne contaminants s2t Page 3 4.S Examples 4.5.1 Far carbon monoxide exposure during 10-hour workday, 4 days per week where Lg " 50 ppm, '.he Lyj- is calculated using Equations (1) and (2)i 8 \ / 24 - 10 / 10 A 16 0.7 Lyf " (0.7) (50) - 35 ppm 4.5.2 For methanol exposure during a 12-hour workday, 5 days per week where Lg m 200 ppm, the Lyj- is calculated using Equations (1) and i2): 8 \ / 24 - 12 / 12/V 16 0.5 Lyp (0.5) (200) 100 ppm 4.5.3 For methanol exposure during an 8-hour workday, 7 days per week where the Lg * 200 ppm, the Lyp is calculated using Equationa (2) and (3): /" 40 168 - 18 x 7) 8 x 7A 128 - 0.625 L.VT - (0.625) (200) - 125 ppm This calculation does not apply to normal rotating shift schedules. See 4.1. 5. OTHER REFERENCES 5.1 Employment Safety and Health Cuide No. 419 May 24, 1979 "OSHA Industrial Hygiene Field Operations Manual." This manual does not have the authority of a regulation. Its purpose is to guide OSHA industrial hygiene com pliance officers. Du Pont disagrees with many important statements of fact and interpretations given in the manual. The manual should not be used as guidance in Du Pont but may be useful for determining how an OSHA com pliance officer is likely to handle a situation. Sourca: Commerce Clearing House, Inc, 4025 son Avenue. Chicago. II 60646 Peter 5.2 "NIOSH/OSHA POCKET GUIDE TO CHEMICAL HAZARDS" DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-210. This is a useful concise compilation of Information on chemicals, including chemical and physical properties, permissible exposure limits, respirator selection, health hazards, etc. The book contains a number of errors. In ad ! dition, it defines "immediately dangerous to life and health" as the "maximum level from which one could eacape within 30 minutes without any escape impairing aymptoms or any irreversible health effects." The con ventional definition (see ANSI Z882, 1980) is "any at mosphere that poses an immediate hazard to life or produces immediate irreversible effects on health that will be debilitating." In keeping with its definition the Guide's 1DLH values are lower than those which correspond to the ANSI definition. This book inav be useful but any information should be checked using a primary source. Footnolaa ler Tab** 1: s pa'--. f .a::' o- car pe` -----r- pier o' car'aciinnicc a by youi-a ai ll'Z arc 750 M3- piers-ie b xpp-o- --a'a - 7----S o' :ar,:. pia oc< c.ac -reioi d! a-- *,c ps `c i.a: * i* rv .rg ,a-o -'p'a'.ior-. F A" a--rrpy... - ;- o' -c --p-a TCZ yo-- o- oe-s r y o-p ocluvi -ray pa "(K.es!><i''Y -p avo>a reiP'C-'e = '.",-- 5 p-- 02 .a -pp ,v "p-a CZ-* 'S'0 100C Z" DU 062520 c c O' o c S2T Page 4 EXPOSURE LIMITS FOR AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS TABLE 1 - OSHA TABLE 2 - 1 Page Rev March 1981 c*-itng with <r An Prtetdtd by VC** - Citing Value*. if the nt/ne of the metenel m Tab.# t is preceded by A tmpfoytt * txpoturt to A mtteriAi Shall At no lime exceed the ceiling viu# 'C," tht VAiut in th (APIA (A A Othtr Mtxnals - t-Hour Tlmt-Wt<ghttd Avtragt. if tht ntm# of tht m?tnal >n T*oi 1 is not o'tctdtd 5y `C." th* vtiut m fh (api (* an b-hour 'tr^s-ws.j- ao avtragt An tmpioytt s txposur* 10 a mattnai m any ft-hour wont thin of a 40-nour wttx snail not axcaad tha 4-nour umt-wt*ghttd tvsrsgs Sobstanea a) ppm ma/14lB) Substance A) ppm ,6) mig/M3 Acelajcenyoe Acetic acid Acetic anhydride Acetone Acetonitrile Acetylene diehloride. see 1,2- Dichloroethylene Acetylene teuabromide Acrolftm Acrylamide - Skin Aldrin - Skin Allyl alcohol - Skin Allyt chloride C Allylglycidyl ether (AGS) Allyl prcpyl disulfide 2-Ammoethanol, see Ethanolamine 2-Amrncpyriama Ammonia Ammonium sulfamate (Ammata) n-Amy( acetate sec-Amyi acetate Aniline - Skin Anisidine (o, p-isomers) - Skin Antimony and compounds fas Sb) ANTU (alpha naphthyl thiourea) Arsine Azinphos-methyt - Skin 200 10 5 1,000 40 1 0.1 2 1 10 2 0.5 50 100 125 S 0.05 Barium (soluble compounds) p-Benzooumona. see Cumone Benzoyl peroxide Benzyl chloride Biphenyl, see Diphenyl Boron oxide C Boren trifluoride Bromine Bromofcrm - Skin Butadiene n.3-butabiene) Bulaneirc, see S-tyt mercaptan Z-Butanone 2 3v-tcxv et^anp. ;6-tyi Celle- SOtvQl - $*.r Butyl acetate ~-SuV aceta'.oi sec-But, acetate tert-B-'y acetate Butyl aicchoi sec-8-ty. a'Concr tort-Suty: a'cohol C Bu!y`am*no - 5m C ten-Eutyl chrcmota (as CrOv - Skin 'Butyl 9'yC.dyl e'.h.er iSGF) Butyl no'captan c-tor,-0^:..:oiuane 1 1 0.1 0.5 1,000 200 0 ISC 200 200 ICO 150 100 5 50 to 10 360 25 20 2,400 70 14 0.25 0.3 0.25 5 3 45 12 2 35 15 525 650 19 0.5 0 0.3 0z 0.2 0.5 5 5 15 3 0.7 5 2.200 590 240 710 950 950 300 450 300 15 0.1 270 35 60 Calcium oxide Camphor Carbaryt (Savin) Carbon black Carbon dioxide Carbon monoxide Chlordane - Skin Chlorinated camphene - Skin Chlorinated diphenyl oxide C Chlorine Chlorine dioxide C Chiorme trifluoride C Chloroacetaldehyde a-Chtoroacetophenone (phenacylchlondel Chlorobenzene (monochloro- benzene) o-Chiorooenzylidene malononitnle (OC8M) Chlorooromometnane 2-Chloro- 1.3-butadtene, see Chloroprene Chlorodipnenyf (42 percent Chlorine) - Skin Chlorodiphenyt (54 percent Chiorme) - Skin l-Chloro, 2. 3-epoxypropane, see Epichlorhydrin 2-Chloroeihanot, see Ethylene chlorohydrin Chloroethylene. see Vinyl chloride C Chloroform (tnchloro- methane) 1 -Chloro-1 -nitropropane Chloropicrin Chloroprene (2-chloro-l.3- buladionel - Skm Chromium, sol chromic. enrorrous sails as Cr Metal and msol salts Coal tar pitch voidii-es (benzene i sotuoie fraction) anthracene. BaP, pf'.enahinre-e. acnc-ne. Chrysene. pyrene CcCait, metal f-rr,e and dust Cccoer fume Ousts and Mists Cotlon dust fawl Crag herbicide Cresol (an isomers] - Sum 'Crotonaldehyoe Cumene - Skm Cyanide (as CN) - Skin Cvoiohoxane cicnoxanoi C yCiohoxaoone 5,000 so 1 0.1 0.1 1 0.05 75 0,05 200 50 20 0.1 25 5 2 so 300 50 so 5 2 5 3.5 9,000 55 0.5 0.5 0.5 3 03 0.4 3 0.3 350 04 1.050 1 0.5 240 100 0.7 90 0s 1 02 01 01 1 1 '5 22 6 245 5 1.050 200 200 So* cage 3 'or footnotes * Z>' ion: , 'i J n ri'C 1'C ''Os*' OCHA 9*0 *XC -- (Confa on Peps 51 DU> 1 1 6 0 0 5 8 + 226 DU 062521 227 Tbi* Page Rev March 1981 EXPOSURE LIMITS FOR AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS Substance Cyc'cexene Cycicper.tad-ene 2. 4-D OOT - Skm OOVP - Skin Oecaborane - Skin Demeton - Skin Oiacelone alcohol (A-hydroxy- 4-metnyl-2-pmanonal i.2-diammoe:hane. see Ethyienepiamm Oiazometnano D'borane Dibutyi Phoschale Oibuty'phthaiate C o-Dichiorooenzene p-Oichicrooenzene . . Dichlorocilluorcmeihane 1,3-OiCh;oro-5.S-Oimeihyl hydantoi n 1,1-Oichicroethane 1 2*Dichioroethy<ene C Cicrucroetr.yt ether - Skin Dichtoromethane see Methyfenechionde OiChloromono^uorometnane C l.l-Oichicro-'.-ntiroeinane 1,2-DiChloropropane, see P ropytened tchlond e Tetralluoromelhane 0*eldrm - Skin Diethyfamme Dtethyiammo ethanol - Skin Diethy'e'.her. see Ethyl ether Difluorod.sromemetftane C Dig'ycdyi ether (DGE) Oihyd.'OxjOencene. see Hyoroq jinone Onscoutyl ketone Diisop opyiamme - Skin Oimathoxymethane, see Memytai Cimathyl ccetamide - Skin Cmeihv<amtne Oima'hyiarrinooemen. see X/'dene C.~et.*vanitme (N-d;methyl- a-.,i.-t- - Skm C me'myioenzene. see Xylene 2r*:ry : 2.d'5romo-2 2-di- c'>,oi'o,.Ky( phosphate Z C-'cm Di^em-yt'crmajm.oe - Skin 2 6-GtmemY',-'>o'vanon. see C.iiocu'y .e:ona l.i-Oime'hv hra,-azine - Skm SifnG'.nyip^jnaiaie Oiruvnys-i'ate - Skin criniifoo^zeno (ad isomers} SKin Omiiroo-crecoi - Sxm Dm-uotctueno - $*m - TABLE 1 - OSHA TABLE 2-1 (CONrO) SI ppm * ,0) 1 mg 1 Subatanca 300 75 0.05 50 1.015 200 10 1 1 0.3 0.1 240 O'Oxan (Oiethyiere dioxide} Skin Diphenyl Oiphenyimetnane dnsccyanale (see Methylene bisphenyt isocyanate (MDI)) Diprcpylene glycol methyl ether - Skin Di-sec, octyl phthalate (Di-2- elhylhexylphthalaie) 02 0.1 1 50 -75 1,000. 100 200 15 1.000 10 1.000 25 10 100 0.5 50 5 10 10 e. -- 10 -- J 05 1 0.4 0.1 5 5 300 450 4.950 02 4CO 790 90 4,200 60 . 7,000 0.25 75 50 860 2.8 290 20 35 18 25 3 30 1 5 5 1 02 15 Endnn -- Skin Epichlorhydrtn - Skin EPN - Skin 1.2-Epoxypropane, see Propyleneoxide 2.3-Epoxy-t-propanot, see Giycidol Ethanethiol, see Ethylmercaptan Elhanolamme 2*thoxyethanoi - Sxm 2-lhoxyeinytacotate (Cello- solve acetate) - Skm Ethyl acelale Ethyl acrylate - Skin Ethyl aicohol (ethanol! Ethytamme Ethyl sec-amyl ketone (5- methyl -3-heptanone) Ethyl benzene Ethyl bromide Ethyl butyl ketone (3- Heptanone) Ethyl chlorioe Ethyl ether Ethyl formate C Eihyl mercaptan Ethyl silicate Ethylene chlorohydrin - Skin Ethylenediamme C Ethylene glycol Omitrate and/or Nitroglycerin - Skm Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, see Methyl ceiiocowe acetate Etnyiono imme - Skm Ethylene oxide E'.hyucme chloride, see V* Ctcmoroethane N-Ethytmorphoine - S*;n Feroam Ferro, anadum dust Ftuonco -'as F) Ftudnne Fljoroinchioromethane Formic acid Furfural - S*m Furturyt aicohol Glycido'. (2.3-Epoxy-'-pfopanol) Glycoi monoethyl other, zee 2-E:hoxyethanol Guihicn see Azinphos.methyl S^a page 2 ' '.oomotes i .c d'Q irc*- CS'-'A rs*3 'ooe-' ^ caps S2 T Page 5 S) ppm too 02 mg 360 1 100 600 5 0 '. 5 19 05 3 200 100 400 25 1.000 10 25 100 200 SO 1,000 400 100 10 100 5 10 "Q.2 6 740 540 1 430 100 1,900 '8 130 435 890 230 2.600 1,200 300 25 850 15 25 1 05 50 20 01 1.000 5 5 50 50 1 90 94 15 1 25 02 5 600 9 20 200 150 (Coni d on Page DU 062522 6 4 0 0 9 1 1 tin <l Page 6 EXPOSURE LIMITS FOR AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS This Page Rev March 1981 TABLE 1 - OSHA TABLE Z-1 (CONTD) Subttane Hafnium Heptachlor - Skin Hegtane m-heptane) HexacMoroetnane - Skin Hexachloronaphthalene - Skin Hexane (n-hexanel 2-Hexanone Hexone (Methyl isobutyl ketone) sec-Hexyl acetate Hydrazine - Skin Hydrogen Bromide C Hydrogen chloride Hydrogen cyanide - Skin Hydrogen peroxide (90%) Hydrogen selenide Hydroquinone C Iodine Iron oxide fume Isoamyl acetate Isoamyt alcohol Isobutyl acetate Isobutyl alconoi isophorone isopropyl acetate Isopropyl alconoi Isopropylamine Isopropylether Isopropyl glycidyl ether (IGE) Ketene Lindane - Skin Lithium hydnde L.P.G. (liquified petroleum gas) Magnesium oxide fume Maiathion - Skin Maleic anhydride C Manganese Mesityl oxide Methaneihiol. see Melhyl mercaptan Methoxycnlor 2-Methoxyetnanol. see Methyl ceilosoive Methyl acetate Methyl acetylene (propyne) Mothvi acety^ene-prcpaC-ene' mixture iMAP! Vethyi ac^'iate - $*in Meihy'a- ,mo;>'crv'r.e'lnano) Metnyi aicono, rmamancii Meinyamine Methy amyi aconc see Methyl isoOutyi oaromol Methy' m-arryi) xeicr-e ;2- Hopianone) C Me:K>: bromide - Skh Mothyi Cutyt ketone. see 2- r-etanone Melhyl cdlosolve - Skin Moihyi ceiiosoixo aeetaie - Sx.n Methyl chtoroiorm MothyiCrC`Ohcxare Mot*vcvciohuxartoi 4) Pt>m 500 1 500 100 100 50 1 3 5 10 1 0.05 0.1 100 100 150 100 25 250 AGO 5 500 50 0.5 1,000 0.25 25 200 1.000 1.000 10 1.000 200 10 100 20 25 25 350 500 10C 0.5 0.5 2.000 10 0.2 1.800 410 410 300 1.3 10 7 11 1.4 0.2 2 1 10 525 360 700 300 140 950 980 12 2,100 240 OS 0.5 0.02S 1.800 15 15 1 5 100 15 610 1.650 1.800 35 3.100 260 12 455 80 80 120 1,900 2.000 470 Substance o-Methylcyclohexanone - Skin Methyl ethyl keione (MEK), see 2-Butanone Methyl formate Methyl iodide - Skin Methyl isobutyl carbinol - Skin Methyl isoOutyt ketone, see Hexone Methyl isocyanate - Skin C Methyl mercaptan Methyl methacrylate Methyl propyl ketone, see 2- Pentanone C a Methyl styrene C Methylene Bisphenyl isocyanate (MDI) Molybdenum: Soluble compounds Insoluble compounds Monomethyl aniline - Skin C Monomethyl hydrazine Skin Morpholine - Skin Naphtha (coaltar) Naphthalene Nickel carbonyl Nickel, metal and soluble compounds, as Ni Nicotine - Skin Nitric acid Nitric oxide p-Nitroaniline - Skin Nitrobenzene - Skin p-Nitrochlorobenzene - Skin Nitroethane C Nitrogen dioxide Nitrogen tnfluonde C Nitroglycerin - Skin Nitromethane 1-Nitropropane 2-Nitropropane Nitrotoluene - Skin Nilrotrichloromethane. see Chloropicrin Octachioronaphthalene - Skin Octane Oil mist, mineral Organic Arsenic compounds (as As) Osmium tetroxido Cuvgen dfiuo>ride Ozone Paraguat - Skin Parairuon - Stun eni2Dorane PentacMoror-aphtha'.ono - Skin Pentachloropheooi - Skm Pemcno I-fomanone Percnloromothyi mercaptan Po'Chto/yf fluonde Pa'ro'cum c.oniiaics (naphtha) Ph.jooi - Skin So P*d 3 lo' footno'ei r'1..* ,r .; va ii^nn CS^A *9'^ ooc (SJE>> 4) ppm 100 ,D) mg/Wl 460 100 250 5 28 25 100 0.02 10 100 0.05 20 410 100 0.02 2 0.2 20 100 10 0.001 2 25 1 1 100 5 10 0.2 100 2S 25 o 480 02 5 15 9 035 70 400 53 0.007 1 OS 5 . 30 6 5 1 310 9 29 2 250 90 90 30 500 005 01 0 005 1.000 200 0.1 3 500 5 0.1 2,350 5 05 0 002 1 01 02 05 01 0.01 05 05 2.950 700 03 13 5 2.0C0 19 (Corn'd on Page 7) DU 062523 ow oo9i i cina 5JS This Page Rev March 1981 EXPOSURE LIMITS FOR AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS S2 T Pag 7 TABLE 1 - OSHA TABLE Z-1 (CONTD FROM PAGE 6) 5u6tanc I) ppm Substance p-Phenyiene diamine - Skin Phenyt ether (vapor) Phenyl ether-biphenyl mixture (vaporl Phenylethylene. see Styrene Phenyl glyodyl ether (PGE) Phenythydrazme - Skm Phosdrtn (Mevinphos) - Skin Phosgene (carbonyl chloride) Phosphine Phosphoric acid Phosphorus (yellow) Phosphorus pehtachlonbe Phosphorus pentasuifide Phosphorus trichloride Phthalic anhydride _ Picric acid - Skin Pival (2-Pivalyl-1,3- indandione) Platinum (Soluble Salts) as Pi Propane n-Propyl acetate Propyl alcohol n-Propyl nitrate Propylene dichloride Propylene imme - Skm Propylene oxide Propyna. see Methylacetytene Pyrethrum Pyridine Quinone Rhodium. Metal fume and dusts, as Rh Soluble salts Ronnel Rotenons (commercial) Selenium compounds (as Se) Selenium hexafluoride Silver, metal and soluble compounds Sodium lluoroacetate (1080) - Skin Sodrum hydroxide Stibrne Stoddard solvent Strychnine Sulfur dioxide Swtur nexaf'.wonde S^ifunc acid Sw'fur rronochioride Swi'ur pentcliuonde Suifuryf MiuofKJe Systox. see Oemeton 2.4 5T Tantalum TEDP - Skin TcHunum Tellurium hexaftuonde TEPP - Skm C Terphenyfs i.i i.2-Tctrachlorc-2.2-diffuoro ethane 1 \ 10 5 0.1 0.3 05 2 1.000 200 200 25 75 2 100 5 0.1 005 - 01 500 5 1.000 1 0 025 5 0O2~ 500 0.1 7 7 60 22 0.1 0.4 04 1 0.1 1 1 3 12 0.1 0.1 0.002 1.800 840 500 110 350 5. 240 5 15 0.4 0,1 0.001 15 5 0.2 0.4 0.01 0.05 2 05 2.900 0 15 13 6.000 1 6 0 25 20 10 5 02 01 02 0 05 9 4 170 1.1,2.2-Tetracnioro-1.2-difluoroethane 1,1.2.2-Tetracnioroetnane - Skin Tetrachloromethane, see Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloronaphthalene - Skin Tetraethyl lead (as Pb) - Skin Tetrahydrofuran Tetramethyl lead (as Pb) - Skin Tetrametnyi succmonitrile Skin Tetranitromethane Tetryl (2,4,6-trinitrophenylmethytnitramme) - Skin Thallium (soluble compounds) Skin as Tl Thiram Tin (inorganic compounds. except oxidesi Tin (organic compounds) C Toluene-2.4-du50cyanate o*Toluid;ne - Skin Toxaphene, see Chlorinated camphene Tributyl phcsonate 1,1,1-Trichtoroet.nana see Methyl chloroform 1,1,2-Tnchloroetnane - Skm Titantumdioxide Triehloromethane. see Chloroform Trichloronaphthalene - Skm 1,2.3-Tnchlorocropane 1.1,2-Trichloro 1,2.2-tnlluoroetnane Triethylamme TnfluoromoficDromomethane 2.4,6-Trinitrophenol, see Picric acid 2,4,6-Trinitrophenytmothytmtramme. see Tetryl Trinitrotoluene - Skin Tnorthocresyi phosohate Triphenyl pnosphaie Turpentme Uranium isciuble compounds) Uranium (inso.'uoie compounds) C Vanadium- V2C5 dust V-O. (ume Vinyl benzene, see Styrene Vmyicyan.du. see Acryiontrne Vinyl toluene Wartarm Xylene (xylol) Xyiidme - S<m YUrium Zinc chloride fume Zinc oxide fume Zirconium compounds fas 2r) ppm 500 5 200 0.5 1 0 02 5 10 so 1.000 25 1,000 100 100 100 M3 4.17C 35 2 0.075 590 0 075 3 8 t5 01 5 2 Z1 ou 22 5 45 15 5 300 7,50: IX 6 IX *5 01 3 5 u 05 0 25 Cc 01 460 o 01 c 435 25 ! sh .c 5- I See pigo 3 tor footncie* *.>'-U- S m' ^ j'f '`Jrn a '01: 'ooc T Mr> DU 062524 I S2T Page 8 EXPOSURE LIMITS FOR AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS This Page Rev March 1981 TABLE 2 - OSHA TABLE Z-2 Material Beruene (Z37.4 - 1969)** Beryllium and beryllium compounds (Z37 29 - 1970) Cadmium Oust IZ37 5 - 1970) Cadmium fume (Z37.5 - 1970) Caroon disulfide (Z37 3 - 1968) CarDon leirachlonoe (Z37.17 - 1967) Chromic acid and chromates (Z37.7 - 1971) Ethylene Cibromioe (Z37.31 - 1970) Ethylene dicnicode (Z37.21 - 1969) Fluoride as dust (Z37.2S - 1969) Formaldehyde t'237.16 - 1967) Hydrogen fluoride (Z37.2S - 1969) Hydrogen sulfide tZ37.2 - 1966) Mercury (Z37.8 - '971) Methyl Chloride {Z37.18 - 1969) Methylene Chloride (Z37.23 - 1969) Organo (alkyl) mercury (Z37.30 - 1969) Styrene (237.15 - 1969) Tetrachloroethylene IZ37.22 - 1967) Toluene (Z37 12 - 1967) Tnchlorocthyfeno (Z37.19 - 1967) 8-Hour Tim* Weighted Average 10 ppm 2*xg/M3 0.2 mg/M3 0.1 mg/M3 20 ppm 10 ppm 20 ppm 50 ppm 2.5 mg/M3 3 ppm 3 ppm Acceptable Celling Concentration* 25 ppm 5 m9/M3 0.6 mg/M3 0.3 mg/M3 30 ppm 25 ppm 1 mg/10M3 30 ppm 100 ppm 5 ppm 20 ppm 100 ppm 500 ppm 0.01 mg/M3 100 ppm 100 ppm 200 ppm 100 ppm 1 mg/10M5 200 ppm 1,000 ppm 0.04 mg/M3 200 ppm 200 ppm 300 ppm 200 ppm Acceptable maximum peak above the acceptable celling concentration tor an 8-hour Mft. Concentration Maximum Ourttlon 50 ppm 25 ig/M3 10 minutes 30 minutes 100 ppm 200 ppm 80 ppm 200 ppm 10 ppm 50 ppm 300 ppm 2,000 ppm 600 ppm 300 ppm 500 ppm 300 ppm 30 minutes 5 minutes in any 4 hours. 5 minutes. 5 minutes m any 3 hours. 30 minutes. 10 minutes once only if no other measurable exposure occurs 5 minutes in any 3 hours. 5 minutes in any 2 hours. 5 minutes in any 3 hours. 5 minutos in any 3 hours. 10 minutes. 5 minutes in any 2 hours. * ''Vi* ' a:ceoM".o catling ccncertrat.on" snail not Oe exceeded during an 6-hour smlt except for ma Ci.-na period indicated and me conceniraiion *nov*d undsr "*ccepttd' maximum patK above the accaptabie c#ilmg concentration tor an 8-hour sn.ft ' ** CccuOisc''!' excesses to benzene are Subject to the requirements of Section 1910 1028 except as specthcany exempted by Sect or '5'0 '025.a, T Exposures exempted by Section 1910 1026UH2) are covered by this Section '9t0 1000. r;- c~a o- " trd n 'no c-e 'ron OSr'A '9'0 '!XC -- DU 062525 o c z o 2k s; + 231 This Page Rev March 1981 EXPOSURE LIMITS FOR AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS TABLE 3 - OSHA TABLE Z-3 Mineral Durla Substance S-Hour Time-Weighted Averegee Mppcf Mg/M3 Silica: Crystalline: Quartz (respirable) Quartz (total dust) 250 ** %Si02 h S 10 mg/M1} %SiOj + 2 X mg/M1 Cnstobalite: Use V2 the value calculated from the count or mass tormulae lor quartz. Tridymite: Use '/j the value calculated (rom the formulae lor quartz. Amorphous, including natural diatomaceous earth Silicates (less than 1% crys talline silica): Mica Soapstone Talc (non-asbestos - form) Talc (fibrose). Use asbestos limit Tremolite (see talc, fibrous) Portland cement Graphite (natural) Coal dust (respirable fraction less than 5% SiOj) For more than 5% SiOj Inert or Nuisance Dust: Respirable fraction Total dust %Si02 i- 2 20 20 20n so 15 15 50 80 mg/M1 %SiO? 2.4 mg/M1 or 10 mg/M3 %SiOj + 2 5 mg/M1 15 mg/M1 Not*: Conversion factors mppcf x 35 3 - million particles per cubic meter particles per c c. * Millions o< particles pet cubic fool of air, based on impinger sample* counted by light.field teennioues ** The percentage of crystalline silica m the formula is the amount determined from iif.borne samples, exceot m those instances .n which other methods have been shown to be applicable t Both concentration ano percent Quaru for tn application of this umit are to be determined from me traction passing * size-setecior with the following cha/actenstics tt Containing < t*4 Quartz >1 > t% quartz, use quartz limit T S2T Page 9 C c Portion* pnmod m red are f<om OSHA t9'0 1000 +- DU 062526 o o L*<