The purpose of this project was to evaluate and assess the usability of the

Occupational Exposure Banding (OEB) system developed by the National Institute

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Nineteen (N = 19) participants

skilled in various occupational exposure backgrounds were presented with an OEB

workshop, distributed a NIOSH OEB rubric, and asked to complete a banding

assignment consisting of two chemicals. The results of those who completed the

assignment were compared to the NIOSH bands for 8 individual endpoints and

overall bands. The causes of incorrect banding assignments made by participants

were assessed. Seventy-eight (65.00%) of the bands assigned by participants

matched at least one of those assigned by NIOSH reviewers (Table 1.). Forty-two

(35.00%) of the bands were incorrectly assigned by participants and therefore did

not match those of NIOSH reviewers. Trends in the incorrectly assigned bands

suggested that there was a combination of user-related errors and potential for

clarification in the NIOSH OEB rubric.

Testing an Adaptable Occupational Exposure Banding Technique for Industrial Hygienists

Kenneth C. Carter, B.S., Christine Whittaker, Ph.D., Stephen Gilbert, M.S.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Introduction

Results

Participants and Workshop Structure:

• Participants (N = 19), skilled in various occupational exposure backgrounds,

attended a workshop on NIOSH’s OEB techniques.

• Groups were trained on two separate days.

• Each session lasted approximately 3 hours consisting of an introduction to

OEBs, a toxicology primer, an overview of Tier 1 banding/examples, an

overview of Tier 2 banding/examples, a demonstration of the Tier 2 worksheet,

and a banding homework assignment.

OEB Task:

Following the workshop the participants were:

• asked to band 2 chemicals according to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 outline from the

NIOSH OEB techniques, along with a post-task questionnaire.

• assigned Butyl Benzyl Phthalate and Chloral Hydrate; two chemicals that

could be banded for Tier 1 and 2.

• requested to return their results within 2 weeks of the day it was assigned.

Data Analysis:

• Evaluated the bands for each endpoint and overall band for concordance and

discordance with the NIOSH bands.

• Methodology and comments from each participant was evaluated to assess

overall usability and possible improvements for clarity of the OEB rubric.

Recommendations

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily

represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Kenneth C. Carter

Project IMHOTEP Summer Intern

kccarter1993@gmail.com

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Risk Evaluation Branch

Education and Information Division

1150 Tusculum Ave.

Cincinnati, OH 45226

Purpose

Abstract

Many chemicals can have adverse effects on human health and the environment.

Today, the use of chemicals has grown substantially and has even expanded to new

sectors of human activity. With this increase of chemical applications, the demand

for awareness has become more prominent than ever. Being that the dosage, potency,

and time frame of exposures serve as dominant factors when determining adverse

effects, occupational exposure is of significant importance. It is essential that we

understand the effects of work-related chemical exposures and develop systems to

ensure the safety of all who come into contact with them. One way to do this is to

classify chemicals by hazard potential and set guidelines for their usage.

Many organizations have adopted the use of Occupational Exposure Limits (OEL) to

determine chemical exposure safety guidelines although there has been much

criticism of the overall system. The assignment of OELs is typically complicated,

untimely, purely quantitative and overall resource-intensive. Because the process of

assigning OELs is complex and there are very few chemicals with exposure

assignments in comparison to the number of chemicals used in commerce, it has

been suggested that stakeholders utilize an alternate system, Occupational Exposure

Banding (OEB). OEB is a systematic methodology using qualitative and quantitative

hazard information on selected health effect endpoint to identify potential inhalation-

based exposure ranges or categories for guiding occupation risk assessment and risk

management.

The use of OEB has allowed for several progressive steps in better understanding

adverse effects of chemicals and providing recommendations for exposures. NIOSH

has developed an efficient OEB system for banding chemicals while considering five

components.

(1) A five–level categorical system of severity, as well as an overall hazard profile

for multiple health hazard endpoints.

(2) The NIOSH OEB provides linkage of hazard-based categories (i.e., bands) to

airborne concentration ranges.

(3) NIOSH’s methodology uses a three-tiered assessment approach that allows for

application with traditional occupational hygiene expertise and the option of more

in-depth approaches in consultation with specialists in occupational medicine and

toxicology

(4) The OEB approach provides for a systematic documentation of data availability

and information about whether data is available for a sufficient array of separate

endpoints to derive a band assignment.

(5) The NIOSH process is translatable for nontraditional work scenarios, such as

task-based work( i.e. less than 8 hour work shifts)

(1)To examine the ability of novice participants outside of NIOSH to assign

OEBs according to Tier 1 and Tier 2 guidelines administered through a

NIOSH OEB rubric and workshop.

(2)To determine improvements that can be made to maximize the overall clarity

and usability of the NIOSH OEB system.

(3)Use lessons learned to provide employers guidance in implementing this

system of assigning OEBs.

Methods

Limitations

Conclusion

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health made this research possible through funding

Project: IMHOTEP at Morehouse College. The Education and Information

Division of the Risk Evaluation Branch provided assistance in compiling data. I

would like to especially thank Christine Whittaker, Ph.D., Stephen Gilbert, M.S.,

Lauralynn McKernan, Sc.D., CIH,, Melissa Seaton, M.S., Ashley Bush, MPH.,

and Christine Uebel, A.S. for making this project possible.

Acknowledgments

Contact Information

Figure 1. Tier 1 Flow-chart

Fig. 1. Outlines the systematic approach for banding chemicals

according to Tier 1 standard.

Chemical Cancer Repro.

Tox.

Stot-Re Genotox Resp.

Sens.

Skin

Sens.

Acute Skin Irr. Eye Irr. Overall

Butyl Benzyl

Phthalate

4 1 6 5 6 3 5 0 1 5

Chloral

Hydrate

5 6 1 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

Table 1. Agreement of participants’ OEB to NIOSH OEB for Butyl Benzyl Phthalate

& Chloral Hydrate

Table 1. Indicates the number of participants (N = 6) who matched at least one of the bands

assigned by NIOSH reviewers.

6

27

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Pa

rtic

ipa

nts

Wit

h I

nco

rrec

t B

an

ds

Errors

Reasons For Incorrect OEB Assignments

Did Not Finish Required Steps Used Wrong Source/Missed Revelant Data User Error/ Did Not Follow Directions Other

Fig. 2

Fig. 2. Illustrates the errors associated with incorrect band assignments made by participants.

3

5 5

4

1

3

2

7

8

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Can

cer

Rep

ro. T

ox

Sto

t-R

e.

Gen

oto

x.

Res

p. S

ens.

Skin

Sen

s.

Acu

te

Skin

Irr.

Eye

Irr.

Ove

rall

Ban

ded

In

corr

ectl

y

Endpoints

Incorrect Band Assignments By Endpoint

Fig 3.

Fig. 3. Illustrates the incorrect bands assigned according to individual

endpoints. The six participants banded each endpoint for both chemicals,

resulting in a total of 12 bands per endpoint.

• Participants did not dedicate much effort to the task, did not complete all of

the recommended steps, and/or did not spend much time during the process

• Instructions for banding the endpoints “respiratory and skin sensitization”

could benefit from revisions for clarity by NIOSH.

• Instructions for banding the endpoints “skin irritation and corrosion” and

“eye irritation and damage” could benefit from revisions for clarity by

NIOSH.

• NIOSH OEB rubric provides a particularly simplified criteria for banding,

however the process still requires significant concentrated effort.

(1) Provide an incentive for the completion of the task to participants.

(2) Inform participants of the time commitment and effort required prior to

sessions.

(3) Implement a system to concretely delineate between overlapping banding

categories for “skin irritation and corrosion” and “eye irritation and

damage.”

(4) Indicate the difference between “no band” and band “A” for “respiratory

and skin sensitization.”

• The small sample size effected our ability to come to strong conclusions

about the usability of the NIOSH OEB rubric.

• Participants not fully dedicating themselves to the task served as a

confounding variable to the overall conclusiveness of the data.