Document V3EBrXMEzqw8Yz7Mnxnz6pG5j

'\ a u 1 CM o' Jh\e.c&r-xx) rcLf TherrvNO-V Dtf ' A. C ur. PB-232 578 HEALTH HAZARD E V A L U AT IO N / T O X IC I T Y DETERMINATION. JOHN MORRELL COMPANY, SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA Philiip L. Polakoff, et al National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Cincinnati, Ohio October 1973 J 21086001 BFG09235 FX l? iI BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEE7 1- Report No. MI03H-TR-089-7k 1 PB 232 578 4. "1 dtij Subtitle 5. Report Date Health Hazard Kvaluation/Toxicity Determination Reoort 71-29-89 October 1973 John Morrell Company, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 6. 5j 7. .U:ho:(s) Phillip L. Polakoff, and Fobert Vandervort 9. Performing Organization Name and Address National Institute For Occupational Safety ar.i Health Parklavn Building 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, Maryland__________ 20852___________________________ 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address National Institute For Occupational Safety and Health Parklavn Building j600 Fishers Lane Rockville,' Maryland__________ 20852___________________________ 15. Supplementary Notes 8* Performing Organization Rept. N'- HH3 71-29-69 10. Project/Task/U'ork Unit No. 11. Contract/Grant No. 13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final .Oct.1972-Jan.1973 14. 16. Abstracts In response to a request received from a representative of employees per the authority of Section 20(a)(6) of the Occupational Safety and Health let of 1970, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NI0SH) conducted a health hazard survey to evaluate exposure to thermal decomposition products of polyvinyl chloride meat packag ing film at John Morrell Company, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Based on medical evidence compiled during a limited study of meat wrapping employees it was determined that air contaminants generated by the thermal cutting of polyvinyl chloride ppekaging films in conj nction with the wrapping of meat are potentially toxic to some meat wrapping em ployees. Symptoms range from mild eye, nose and throat irritation to more serious respiratory problems for meat wrappers who have an underlying predisposition to respira tory difficulties. Jecommendations have been suggested to management regarding preemployment examinations and work practices. 17. Key Words and Document Acalysis. 17o. Descriptors Hazardous materials. Toxicity, Toxicology, Criteria, Inspection, Standards, Recommenda tions, Industrial hygiene. Polyvinyl chloride. Packaging, Pyrolysis 17b. Hentifiers/Open-Ecded Terms Health hazard evaluation. Toxicity determination. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Thermal decomposition. Packaging films. Meat wrappers, Meat packing /' f. 17c. COSATI Field/Group 06/20 fceproda'ed by NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE U S Department of Commerce Springfield VA 22151 13. Availability Statement Available to the public. FORM ti TIS- 15 t* t V. 3-7 21 19. Security Class (This Report) i;xci.A^irp:o _ 20. Security Class (this Page ________ (NC!.A<>fFlF.D 21. No. of Pages 15 22. Price . __ 4.00-1.45^ USCOMM-OC I4!2-P;2 BFG09236 r o i i ! ' i i i 16107? U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH CINCINNATI, OHIO HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION DETERMINATION REPORT 71-29- 99 JOHN MORRELL COMPANY SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA OCTOBER 1973 I. -T-O--X--I-C--I-T--Y---D--E--T-E--R-M--I-N--A-T--I-O-N-- Based on medical evidence compiled during a limited study of retail meat wrappers, it has been determined that air contaminants generated by the thermal cutting of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) packaging films in conjunction with the wrapping of meat are potentially toxic to some retail meat wrapping employees. Due to the similarity of wrapping operations (retail vs. whole sale) which employ thermal cutting of PVC packaging films, these air contaminants are also judged to be potentially toxic to some wholesale meat packagers. This study involved a review of the pertinent scientific litera ture, consultation with researchers in this area of investigation, the collection of medical histories, clinical observations at the worksite, pulmonary function testing of retail meat wrappers, and consideration of wrapping procedures, equipment, and meat wrapping environmental conditions. Evidence suggests that a sizeable percentage of retail meat wrappers suffer from mild symptoms to include eye, nose, and throat irritation. A portion of these affected retail meat wrappers who have an underlying predisposition to respiratory difficulties resulting from a variety of conditions (tobccco abuse, asthma, emphysema, and other serious respiratory diseases) experience more serious respiratory problems. These can include shortness of breath, difficulty in breathing, coughing, and general physical distress. This study has not established whether or not presently healthy (wholesale or retail) meat wrappers may develop respiratory difficulties after prolonged exposures to contaminants from thermal decomposition of PVC packaging films. Although substances in the wholesale and retail meat wrapping environments other than those associated with PVC films may be responsible for the pre viously stated clinical manifestations, the available evidence strongly implies that tne air contamination from thermal cutting of PVC packaging film is the causative agent. As yet, the pathophysiologic mechanism for this nialady is not clearly understood. Based on present experience with this particular problem, it Is recom mended that the following practices be instituted: 1. Pre-employment physical examinations, including chest x-rays and pulmonary function tests be performed on all individuals entering the meat wrapping industry. (Individuals who are found to have severely compromised pulmonary function or who exhibit strong predisposition to pulmonary disorder should not enter the meat wrapping profession.) 21086003 BFG09237 Page 2 - Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report 71-29 2. Meat wrapping machinery should be clean and well maintained. Machines with controlled low temperature cut-ofr wires are to be preferred. (There is need for further study with regard to con trolling contamination at its source via new cutting mechanisms or local exhaust ventilation, etc. In this case it appears advantageous to outfit film dispensing machines with ventilation similar to that shown for the machine in Photo No. 1.) 3. Meat wrapping should be conducted in well ventilated surroundings. II. DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY OF THE DETERMINATION REPORT Copies of this Determination Report are available upon request from the Hazard Evaluation Services Branch, NIOSH, U.S. Post Office Building, Room 508, 5th and Walnut Streets, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Copies have been sent to: a) Authorized representative of employees b) John Morrell Company - Sioux.Falls, South Dakota c) U.S. Department of Labor - Region VIII d) NIOSH - Region VIII For the purposes of informing the 4 to 6 affected meat wrappers the employer w'.-' promptly "post" the Det-rmination Report in a prominent place(s) near where affected employees work for a period of 30 calendar days. III. INTRODUCTION Section 20(a)(6) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 669 (a)(6), authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, following written request by 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 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received such a request from an authorized representative of the meat wrapping employees at the John Morrell Company, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, regard ing employee exposures to the potentially toxic substances emitted from thermal decomposition of polyvinyl -.hloride (PVC) packaging films in use in the Meat Cooler and Meat Processing Departments of the Sioux Falls, South Dakota, meat processing plant. IV. HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION A. Description of Process - Conditions of Use Prior to shipment to retail and wholesale meat distributors, sections of beef and lamb carcasses are wrapped in polyvinyl chloride packaging film. BFG09238 / fT' ' tn Page 3 - Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report 71-29 Photo No. 1 shows a film dispensing machine utilizing a hot wire to cut the PVC film. Pnoto No. 2 shows an employee wrapping a section of beef carcass with the PVC film. The wrapping process involves: (1) pulling out a desired length of film, (2) wrapping the film around the section of carcass, and (3) severing the film from the supply roll using the hot wire cut-off. Air contaminants generated by the hot wire cutting of PVC packaging films and their alleged toxic effects on meat wrapping employees constitute the subject of this health hazard evaluation. B. Background Information The John Morrell Company in Sioux Falls, South Dakota was initially visited on October 19, 1972 by NIOSH Region VIII, Industrial Hygienist, Dr. Bobby J. Gunter. A follow-up visit was conducted on January 3, 1973 by Dr. Bobby J. Gunter and Dr. Phillip L. Polakoff. Meat wrapping operations were observed in the Meat Cooler Room which had three wrapping machines, and in the Meat Fabricat:ng Room which had one wrapping machine equipped with auxiliary ventilation. Four to six individuals were involved in wrapping meat on a day to day basis. Health questionnaires were administered to five employees. One of these wrapping employees who had allegedly sustained adverse health effects while engaged in wrapping meat was no longer wrapping. Three employees who wrapped in the Meat Cooler Room stated that occasionally they experienced eye and throat irritation from air contami nants generated by the wraoping process. The fifth wrapper who wrapped solely in the Meat Fabricating Room stated that prior to the installation of auxiliary ventilation for his wrapping machine, he experienced frequent eye ana throat irritation accompanied by headaches. Following installation..of auxiliary ventilation, which carried the film decomposition products from kit wire cutting outside the building, the symptoms diminished appreciably. No physical examinations or clinical testing was performed on these individuals. In an exit interview, management was strongly encouraged to provide auxiliary ventilation for the wrapping machines in the Meat Cooler Room. Although the data used to evaluate employee exposures to air contaminants from thermal cutting of PVC meat packaging film In this toxicity determination did not result from direct evaluation of the working environment at the John Morrell Company, the data are generally applicable to wholesale meat wrapping operations using PVC films. Therefore, to serve 3S supporting documentation for this toxicity determination, a portion of the report prepared for the limited study of retail meat wrappers is included. The included portion begins with pertinent background information similar to that just presented for the John Morrell Company. ti BFG09239 ./ C n n c jo n T 'y FT-- ,i s' / ! i- , l-.W.! / \i Page 4 - Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report 71-29 Photo No. 1 - Film Dispensing Machine :i !' f: ! f- Photo No. 2 - Employee wrapping section of beef carcass with PVC film. o GO BFG09240 I Page 5 - Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report 71-29 IV. HEALTH HAZARD EVALUftTON A. Description of Process - Conditions of Use Although several types of meat wrappina machines were observed during the course of this study, most machines incorporated the basic features of the "typical* hand wrapping machine shown in Figure 1. Wrapping meat involves: (1) pulling out a desired length of film, (2) wrapping the film around a tray-or cut of meat, (3) severing the film from the supply roll using the hot wire cut-off, (4) folding the film ends under the package, and (5) sealing the folded ends under the package by touching the package to the heated pad. Air contaminants generated by the hot wire cutting of PVC packaging films and their alleged toxic effects on meat wrapping employees constitute the subject of this health hazard evaluation. There are approximately 75,000 meat wrapping employees in the United States, according to union and industry estimates. B. Study Background and Design Polyvinyl chloride and wrapping film is made from pure PVC resin and a variety of additives. All additives must be approved by the federal Food and Drug Adminstration for use in meat packaging ma terials. These additives include plasticizers, stabilizers, antifog agents, lubricants, and c loranf.s. Plasticizers (dioctyl adipate di-2-ethyl hexyl adipate, and epoxidized soya or soybean oil) can comprise up to 30% of the film. Stabilizers (calcium-zinc stearate) antifog agents (e.g., polyoxyethylene derivatives of sorbitan monooleate), lubricants (e.g., stearic acid), and colorants together makeup roughly 2-6% of the film. Several investigators have attempted to identify and quantitate air contaminants generated by the hot wire cutting of PVC film in the meat wrapping environment. Early field measurements for hydrogen chloride (HC1) detected trace amounts (less than 1 ppm) in the vicinity of meat wrapping operations.2 A later laboratory study of air contaminants from hot wire nutting of PVC film confirmed the presence of HC1 and related its rate of generation together with the rate of generation of particulate to the operating temperature of the hot wire.3 As would be expected, the production of both HC1 and airborne particulate increase with increasing wire temperature. BFG09241 ^. 21086007 yjanw ii * - ? i?- l | & t. t; [>>, /f v i p, S' i S f. i I 5 Page 6 - Health Hazard Evaluation Determination FIGURE 1: Typical Hand-Wrapping Machine sooggnTz: Manufacturers of Wrapping Equipment: Automatic, Semi-Automatic, and Hand Wrappina Cleveland-Detroit Corporation, Clamco Division J. B. Dove and Sons, Incorporated Heat Sealing Equipment Manufacturing Company The Hobart Manufacturing Company Package Machinery Company Reliance Electric Company, Toledo Scales and Systems BFG09242 Page7 - Health Hazard Evaluation Dctermnatim To date, three researchers have found the film plasticizer to be the predominant contaminant generated by the thermal decomposition of PVC meat wrapping film. 3orai toxicity cf di-2-ethyi hexyl adipate, as determined by animal experimentation, is relatively low. However, no data are currently available regarainq che in halation toxicity of di-2-ethyl hexyl adipate. It is interesting to note that one researcher, Bovee, et al. identified the plasticizer to be diisooctyl adipate while the other two (Van Houten and Jaeger) found di-2-ethyl hexyl adipate. Diisooctyl adipate has exactly the same molecular weight as di-2-ethyl hexyl adipate and possesses very similar physical properties. Hydrogen chlor-'de is possibly the second most important degradation product. HC1 can be detected at concentrations of 1-5 ppm and is disagreeable at concentrations of 5-10 ppm. Other film degradation products have been identified, but are present in small quantities when compared to the film plasticizer. Thes j other materials include chlorinated hydrocarbons and breakdown products of film additives. Workplace concentrations of PVC film decomposition products are difficult to measure. As previously, stated, HC1 has been found in very low concentrations in +he meat wrapping environment. La- boratory experiments by Van Houten et al. suggest that airborne concentrations of HC1 in the plume of "smoke" directly over the hot wire can reach 2 ppm. These measurements were made during "artificially severe operating conditions," which would rarely occur during actual meat wrapping. (It should also be noted that an employee's exposure would be to a significantly lower concentratfon than that found ir the plume close to the wire. In the same study plasticizer concentrations in the plume were'found as high as 13 rmj/M3. Again, this value was found during artificially severe operating conditions. i | j j I j j Clinical complaints allegedly resulting from exposure to air contaminants from PVC meat wrapping film were first referenced in an unpublished study conducted by NIOSH's predecessor the Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health.? According to that investigation, state health officials in Virginia became involved i with complaints from meat wrappers in the summer of 1969. Since that time complaints have come in by letter and telephone from f several cities across the Nation. Due to the informal nature of j most of the reports, it is difficult to accurately estimate the | true number of individuals involved. However, a small group cf j medical investigators scattered throughout the Nation have re- % } ported approximately 50-75 cases of pronounced clinical symptoms. J 21086009 !\ 3 i BFG09243 \ i i ri. * I Page 8- Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Subjective estimates from union officials, university investigators, medical professionals, and meat wrappers suggest that a large number of meat wrappers are less seriously affected. To better delineate the clinical manifestations of exposure to contaminants from PVC film decomposition a preliminary survey of meat wrapping operations was made. Five retail stores in and around Seattle, Washington were visited during August 7-9, 1972. Meat wrapping operations were observed in each retail store and eighteen meat wrappers with varied work experience with PVC films were inter viewed. Each worker was questioned in an attempt to elicit symptoms of upper respiratory tract irritation, irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, and occupational dermatoses. Spirometric measurements were obtained from thirteen of the meat wrappers. At the completion of this preliminary survey it was clear that a more detailed scientific study would be necessary to elucidate the full ramifications of the potential health problems associated with the use of PVC films. The assistance of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workme of North America was solicited to facilitate the location of metropolitan areas where sizeable numbers of meat wrappers were allegedly being adversely affected by air con taminants from PVC films. Following a nationwide search, the City of Louisville, Kentuckywas selected as a site fof further investi gatory research. A research protocol was developed under the guidance of pulmonary specialists from the NIOSH Appalachian Laboratory of Occupational Respiratory Diseases. The protocol called for the administration of a health questionnaire and the conduction of pulmonary function testing on meat wrappers and suitable controls. The orientation of the questionnaire and the subsequent interview with a NIOSH physician placed emphasis on occupationally related health problems, especially respiratory health problems. On January 22, 1973, in Louisville, Kentucky, seventeen meat wrappers and twenty non-meat wrappers (office personnel serving as controls) completed medical questionnaires and participated in pre- and post-workshift pulmonary function testing. Technical problems regarding environmental sampling prevented evaluation of employee exposures on the day of testing, ms observed in a number of retail establishments, meat wrappers* exposures to contaminants from hot wire cutting of PVC meat packaging film are intermittent ar.d highly variable. To be useful in inter preting employee symptoms, breathing zone air samples would have to reflect both average and short term exposures. Although these contaminants have been measured in undiluted form near the source of generation^, there is at present no suitable method of sufficient sensitivity to measure variable breathing zone concentrations. BFG09244 ; i j Jo iiiu s e o z SBWPI"!t>P Page 9- Health Hazard Evaluation Determination C. Evaluation Methods 1. Medical Questionnaire The medical questionnaire consisted of twenty-six sots of questions. Its purpose as to gather pertinent information concerning ar. in dividual's past medical history, smoking history, past occupational exposures, current respiratory status and adverse effects allegedly . arising from exposure to air contaminants from PVC films. 2. Pulmonary Function Testing Each pulmonary function test required the employee to make three forced expiratory volume practice maneuvers after which three forced expiratory volume maneuvers (reproducible within 55;) were recorded as flow volume loops. A waterless, high fidelity spirometer equipped with an air temperature probe was used. The flow volume loops were displayed on a storage oscilloscope and recorded on magnetic tape. A photograph of each oscilloscope display was taken for backup. Computer analysis of flow volume loops provided the following parameters forced expiratory volume in one second (FTV! 1, and flow rates at 25,50,75 and 90 per cent of forced vital capacity (FVC). D. Evaluation Results 1. Preliminary Survey (Seattle, Washington and vicinity) Sixteen of the eighteen meat wrappers interviewed in tt>e nrelimnaTM survey were known to have suffered ill effects from air co.itami wants from PVC films. Only two workers were free cf any clinical symp tomatology. Eight had similar case histories and admitted ex periencing varying degrees of sneezing rhinorrhea, snd eye ir ritation. Most Individuals gave a like story that the ill effects came on from one to three hours after the commencement of meat wrapping in the morning. The workers stated that ar. the workday progressed the prodromal manifestations increased in intensity. The sneezing, rhinorrhea, and throat and eye irritation would abate In the evening hours ar.d would be non-existent during week ends and vacations. Five workers experienced more severe clinical symptomsto logy necessitating physician intervention and, on occasion, hospitali zation. These individuals seemed to suffer with "occupational brochlolitls." They suffered at times with severe dyspnea, productive cough, and nasal congestion. Onset of these symptoms was from one-half -o two and one-half hours after commencement of work. These ill effects led to increased absenteeism. All were on one form of medication or another. This group also stated that a period of several days away from the meat wrapping environment was required for them to feel like their norms! foi.TM N BFG09245 1086011 r A jjgai'Sg ivsyj3g?^ PagelO - Health Hazard Evaluation Determination i Four of these workers had fifteen or more pack-years of cigarette f smoking behind them. ; Three meat wrappers had pre-existing susceptibility to upper i respiratory symptomatology caused by severe disease procet.es (rheumatic fever, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung \ abscess). i 2. Medical Questionnaires (Louisville Study) ! Seventeen meat wrappers and a control population of twenty ! individuals completed the questionnaire. None of the controls re ported any ad/erse clinical symptomatology associated with their 1 particular form of employment. The majority of the controls worked f as clerks in retail grocerystores. | As a group the seventeen meat wrappers averaged nine years and I three months of experience in the meat wrapping profession. F^rty- five per cent of these meat wrappers complained of irritation vrom film contaminants which resulted in watering and itching eyes. Thirty per cent of the wrappers complained of burning or dryness j of the throat. Three wrappers (18%) stated that they experienced [ "painful breathing" and shortness of breath while working with ! PVC meat wrap. It is importan . co note that these same three j individuals had a history ol allergies, were on medication and j were under physician care. 1 3. Pulmonary Function Testing (Louisville Study) i All pulmonary function data were analyzed by fcio-statisticians at the NIOSH Appalachian Laboratory for Respiratory Diseases. T'e i data can be suranarized by examining the following statistical tests: I Note: df degrees of freedom (number of employees tested minus one) P * probability that a difference occurred by chance alone. The "student t test" was used to determine whether there were significant differences between groups of Individuals with respect to changes in FEV-i's and FVC's. To be significant, a difference between groups would have a probability of occurring by chance of less than 5% or P less than 0.05. BFG09246 21086013 Page 11 - Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Test No. 1 - When all exposed (meat wrappers) were compared with all non-exposed (controls) with respect to any differencesbetween pre- and post-workshift values of FEVi and FVC, there was no significant difference at the 95% confidence level (i.e. P less than 0.05). TfeVi (35df)= -0.35 TFVC (35df)= -0.42 P = 0.73 P = 0.67 Test No. 2 - When exposed smokers were compared with non-exposed smokers, there was no significant difference. tFEVi (lldf)= 0.22 tFVC (lldf)= 0.31 P = 0.83 P * 0.76 Test No. 3 - When exposed non-smokers were comp; 'ed with non-exposed non-smokers there was no significant difference. tFEVi (22df) = 0.55 tFVC (22df)= 0.11 P = 0.59 P = 0.90 Test No. 4 - Test No. 1 was repeated with respect to peak flow and flow at 25,50,75 and 90% of FVC. There was a significant difference for F90. TpF JF25 tF50 TF75 tF90 (35df) = (35df) = (35df) = (35df) = (35df) = 0.47 0.38 0.01 0.11 2.39 P = 0.64 P = 0.71 P = 0.99 P = 0.91 P = 0.02 Test No. 5 - Test No. 2 was repeated with respect to the preceding parameters and there was a significant difference for F50, JPF tF25 JF50 1>75 TF90 (lldf) = 0.08 (lldf) = 1.36 (lldf) = 2.31 (lldf) = 0.88 (lldf) = 0.54 P = 0.94 P 0.20 P = 0.04 ? = 0.40 P = 0.60 Test No. 6 - Test No. 3 was repeated with respect to the preceding parameters and there were significant differences for F75 and "90. TPF TF25 TF50 JF75 F90 (22df) = 1.14 (22df) = 0.98 (22df) = 1.61 (22df) = 2.26 (22df) = 2.87 P = 0.27 P = 0.34 P = 0.12 P * 0.03 P = 0.01 21086013 BFG09247 i t' ; * i ^m. :; ti I / Page 12 - Health Hazard Evaluation Determination In summary, pulmonary function tests of this small, randomly selected population of meat wrappers revealed no gross pulmonary effects in comparison to a control population after one workshift of meat wrapping. Furthermore, it must be stated that this exposed study group was of general good health and free of serious symptomatology. E. Discussion A study of meat wrapping employees is beset by various intrinsic problems from the onset. These include the following: a) Low density dispersal of meat wrappers in any geographic area. b) No more than two or three meat wrappers employed at any typical retail store. c) Me'-t wrapping work environments, although similar, are not strictly uniform. Differences can exist in packaging equip ment (i.e., operating parameters), type of wrapping material ambient environmental conditions (temperature, humidity), general ventilation provisiors^ork practices, and volume of meat wrapping performed. d) Work shifts for meat wrapping employees are highly variable. e) There is a lack of suitable sampling and analytical methodology for the evaluation of employee exposures to PVC film decomposition products encountered in retail meat wrapping. At present, methods are not sensitive enough to characterize intermittent exposures or variable constant exposure via breathing zone sampling techniques. The above problems interrupted the completion of this preliminary controlled scientific study. At this point, a limited amourt of data have been compiled for a population of basically healthy meat wrappers. There remains- the necessity to study a sizeable population of seriously affected meat wrappers. It is felt that such a pop ulation exists based upon scattered reports of clinical symptomatology from various medical investigators throughout the Nation. V. REFERENCES 1. Vandervort, Robert - Personal Coirmunication by Letter with Major Film Manufacturers, 1970. 2. Vandervort, R. "Polyvinyl Chloride Meat Wrapping Film Study," unpublished USPHS, BOSh, D0IDC, Technical Assist;.! ce Report, Cincinnati, Ohio (1971). i 210860X4 BFG09248 Page 13 - Health Hazard Evaluation Determination 3. Van Houten, R., A.L. Cudworth, C.H. Irvine. Evaluation and Reduction of Air Contaminants Produced by Thermo Cutting and Sealing of PVC Packaging Film. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Hopkinton, Mass. (Unpublished) 4. Bovee, H.H., L.E. Monteith, and R.M. Orheim. Thermal Decomposition of Meat Wrapping Film. Department of Environmental Health, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. (Unpublished) 5. Vandervort, Robert - Personal Communication by telephone with Dr. Rudolph Jaeger, Assistant Professor of Toxicology at Harvard University School of Public Health. 6. Patty, F.A. Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, Vol. II, John Wiley and Sons, 1963. VI. AUTHORSHIP AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Report Prepared By: Phillip L. Polakoff, M.D. Medical Officer Robert Vandervort Industrial Hygienist Field Evaluation: Bobby J. Gunter, Ph.D. Regional Industrial Hygienist Phillip L. Polakoff, M.D. Medical Officer Originating Office: Jerome P. Flesch, Chief Hazard Evaluation Services Branch Acknowledgements N. Leroy Lapp, M.D., ALFORD, Morgantown, West Virginia Arvin G. Apol, Regional Industrial Hygienist, Region X, Seattle, Washington Richard Gais, Pulmonary Technician, ALFORD, Morgantown, West Virginia (T0S80TZ <J1 BFG09249 1 *