Search

Abstract: Potential exposures from ground-level pyrotechnics were assessed by air monitoring and developing emission factors. Total particulate matter, copper and SO2 exposures exceeded occupational health guidelines at two outdoor performances using consumer pyrotechnics. Al, Ba, B, Bi, Mg, Sr, Zn, and aldehyde levels were elevated, but did not pose a health hazard based on occupational standards. Emission factors for total particulate matter, metals, inorganic ions, aldehydes, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were determined for seven ground-supported pyrotechnics through air sampling in an airtight room after combustion. Particle generation ranged from 5 to 13% of the combusted mass. Emission factors (g Kg−1) for metals common to pyrotechnics were also high: K, 23–45; Mg, 1–7; Cu, 0.05–7; and Ba, 0.03–6. Pb emission rates of 1.6 and 2.7% of the combusted mass for two devices were noteworthy. A high correlation (r 2 ≥ 0.89) between metal concentrations in pyrotechnic compositions and emission factors were noted for Pb, Cr, Mg, Sb, and Bi, whereas low correlations (r 2 ≤ 0.1) were observed for Ba, Sr, Fe, and Zn. This may be due to the inherent heterogeneity of multi-effect pyrotechnics. The generation of inorganic nitrogen in both the particulate (NO2 −, NO3 −) and gaseous (NO, NO2) forms varied widely (<0.1–1000 mg Kg−1). Aldehyde emission factors varied by two orders of magnitude even though the carbon source was carbohydrates and charcoal for all devices: formaldehyde (<7.0–82 mg Kg−1), acetaldehyde (43–210 mg Kg−1), and acrolein (1.9–12 mg Kg−1). Formation of lower molecular weight PAHs such as naphthalene and acenaphthylene were favored, with their emission factors being comparable to that from the combustion of household refuse and agricultural debris. Ba, Sr, Cu, and Pb had emission factors that could produce exposures exceeding occupational exposure guidelines. Sb and unalloyed Mg, which are banned from consumer fireworks in the US, were present in significant amounts. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Coaches spend long hours training gymnasts of all ages aided by polyurethane foam used in loose blocks, mats, and other padded equipment. Polyurethane foam can contain flame retardant additives such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), to delay the spread of fires. However, flame retardants have been associated with endocrine disruption and carcinogenicity. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) evaluated employee exposure to flame retardants in four gymnastics studios utilized by recreational and competitive gymnasts. We evaluated flame retardant exposure at the gymnastics studios before, during, and after the replacement of foam blocks used in safety pits with foam blocks certified not to contain several flame retardants, including PBDEs. We collected hand wipes on coaches to measure levels of flame retardants on skin before and after their work shift. We measured flame retardant levels in the dust on window glass in the gymnastics areas and office areas, and in the old and new foam blocks used throughout the gymnastics studios. We found statistically higher levels of 9 out of 13 flame retardants on employees' hands after work than before, and this difference was reduced after the foam replacement. Windows in the gymnastics areas had higher levels of 3 of the 13 flame retardants than windows outside the gymnastics areas, suggesting that dust and vapor containing flame retardants became airborne. Mats and other padded equipment contained levels of bromine consistent with the amount of brominated flame retardants in foam samples analyzed in the laboratory. New blocks did not contain PBDEs, but did contain the flame retardants 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate and 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromophthalate. We conclude that replacing the pit foam blocks eliminated a source of PBDEs, but not 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate and 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromophthalate. We recommend ways to further minimize employee exposure to flame retardants at work and acknowledge the challenges consumers have identifying chemical contents of new products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]