The study evaluated the usability of NIOSH's Occupational Exposure Banding system by having 19 participants complete a banding assignment for two chemicals. Seventy-eight percent of the participant's bands matched those of NIOSH reviewers, while 35% were incorrect. Incorrect bands suggested a combination of user errors and potential clarification needs in the NIOSH rubric. Recommendations include providing incentives for task completion and informing participants of time commitments to improve usability.

1. 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
4
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
ParticipantsWithIncorrectBands
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
Cancer
Repro.Tox
Stot-Re.
Genotox.
Resp.Sens.
SkinSens.
Acute
SkinIrr.
EyeIrr.
Overall
BandedIncorrectly
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.