10126279632819J Expo Sci Environ EpidemiolJ Expo Sci Environ EpidemiolJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology1559-06311559-064X25052692452039710.1038/jes.2014.52HHSPA704453ArticleFlavoring exposure in food manufacturingCurwinBrian D.1DeddensJim A.1McKernanLauralynn T.2Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio, USAEducation and Information Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio, USACorrespondence: Dr. Brian D. Curwin, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Mailstop R-14, Cincinnati, OH, 45226, USA. Tel.: +1 614 513 841 4432. Fax: +1 614 513 841 4486. bcurwin@cdc.gov2720152372014520153072015253324333

Flavorings are substances that alter or enhance the taste of food. Workers in the food-manufacturing industry, where flavorings are added to many products, may be exposed to any number of flavoring compounds. Although thousands of flavoring substances are in use, little is known about most of these in terms of worker health effects, and few have occupational exposure guidelines. Exposure assessment surveys were conducted at nine food production facilities and one flavor manufacturer where a total of 105 area and 74 personal samples were collected for 13 flavoring compounds including five ketones, five aldehydes, and three acids. The majority of the samples were below the limit of detection (LOD) for most compounds. Diacetyl had eight area and four personal samples above the LOD, whereas 2,3-pentanedione had three area samples above the LOD. The detectable values ranged from 25–3124 ppb and 15–172 ppb for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione respectively. These values exceed the proposed National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended exposure limit for these compounds. The aldehydes had the most detectable samples, with each of them having >50% of the samples above the LOD. Acetaldehyde had all but two samples above the LOD, however, these samples were below the OSHA PEL. It appears that in the food-manufacturing facilities surveyed here, exposure to the ketones occurs infrequently, however levels above the proposed NIOSH REL were found. Conversely, aldehyde exposure appears to be ubiquitous.

Exposureflavoringsdiacetyl2,3-pentanedionefood manufacturing
INTRODUCTION

Flavorings are substances that alter or enhance the taste of food. They are composed of various natural and manmade compounds and may consist of a single chemical, but more often they are complex mixtures of compounds. Workers in the flavoring production industry where flavorings are made, in the flavored food-manufacturing industry where flavorings are added to food products, and in the food industry where flavored foods are used, all may be exposed to any number of flavoring substances in the form of solids, liquids, vapors, or liquid or vapor encapsulated within a particulate. Although thousands of flavoring substances are in use, little is known about most of these in terms of worker health effects, and few have occupational exposure guidelines.

Diacetyl is one of the main components in flavoring that imparts a buttery taste and it has been identified as a prominent volatile organic compound (VOC) in air samples from microwave popcorn plants and flavoring manufacturing plants.18 In flavor formulations, diacetyl and recently 2,3-pentanedione are typically found as components in liquid solutions, but can also be added to powders.

Occurrences of bronchiolitis obliterans (BO) were observed in the microwave popcorn industry in 2000 when eight workers were diagnosed with the disease after exposure to vapors from artificial butter flavoring substances including diacetyl.1,9 Diacetyl is also used as a natural and artificial flavoring ingredient and aroma carrier in bakery products, dairy products, snack foods, and more. Initial research concerning occupational exposure to diacetyl has focused on workers who directly produce flavorings or use them in the microwave popcorn industry, however employment figures for the food production industry suggest that some other workers have potential exposure to diacetyl. For example, respiratory issues have been anecdotally reported for cheese production (Wisconsin), yogurt production (Ohio), and potato chip manufacturing.10 Two cases of BO have been identified in workers employed in a small coffee-processing facility.11 Although the microwave popcorn industry has received the most attention both in the media and in the scientific community, the first occurrences of BO in food production may have been observed in 1985 at a facility, which produced various products for the baking industry.12

Recently, facilities have begun producing and working with flavors without diacetyl, instead using alpha-diketone substitutes such as 2,3-pentanedione, 2,3-hexanedione, and 2,3-heptane-dione.13,14 Reports on the toxicity of 2,3-pentanedione were first published in abstract form in 2010.15,16 Subsequent animal inhalation studies by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences researchers17 indicated similarities in pulmonary effects between 2,3-pentanedione and diacetyl exposures. Preliminary data from yet another study suggests that exposures to either 2,3-pentanedione or diacetyl can cause airway fibrosis in rats.18 As a group, these publications illustrate that the toxicological effects of diacetyl may be shared with alpha-diketones that are close structural analogs such as 2,3-pentanedione, 2,3-hexanedione, and 2,3-heptanedione. Diacetyl substitutes should not be assumed to be safe until toxicology studies are completed.

In 2010, California promulgated a regulation for occupational exposure to food flavorings containing diacetyl that requires installation of exposure controls to reduce exposures to the lowest feasible levels, as well as follow-up by the employer if any concentration of diacetyl, diacetyl trimer, acetoin, 2,3-pentane-dione, 2,3-hexanedione or 2,3-heptanedione is used in a work-place where an employee is diagnosed with a fixed obstructive lung disease. In 2012, the American Conference for Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) published a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 0.010 ppm with a short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 0.020 ppm for diacetyl.19 In 2013, NIOSH published its draft recommended exposure limit (REL) for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione of 0.005 and 0.0093 ppm, with STELs of 0.025 and 0.031 ppm, respectively.20

Other flavor compounds are also of interest from a standpoint of worker health. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association lists 34 substances that are high priorities for consideration as substances that may pose respiratory hazards in flavor-manufacturing workplaces.21 Nine of these substances, in addition to diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, 2,3-hexanedone, and 2,3-heptanedione, were selected for this survey because of their potential for respiratory hazards in the workplace.

The purpose of this study is to characterize exposure to 13 flavoring compounds that are potential respiratory hazards in various food production facilities. To date, little exposure characterization of flavor compounds in food production other than microwave popcorn has been conducted.

METHODS

Food production facilities that use flavorings, or where fermentation takes place, were selected for sampling. After consulting a panel of food production experts, snack food, dairy, cereal and baked goods, wine, and confection production facilities were selected for inclusion in the study. One hundred and fifty-three companies were identified and contacted for participation in the study. Sixteen agreed to participate and surveys were conducted at ten facilities with 43 workers being sampled. The ten companies selected for a survey out of the 16 that agreed to participate were selected after a walkthrough survey and were felt to be the best representation of the food-manufacturing categories in the study. The ten facilities included three confection facilities, two dairy facilities, one bakery, one cereal facility, one snack food facility, one winery and one flavoring manufacturer. The workers were selected on the basis of having tasks associated with processes of interest as identified during the walkthrough survey. The main reasons for nonparticipation were no company response (after four attempts), ineligible (flavorings or fermentation were not part of the food production) or an unwillingness to participate. Of the 153 companies contacted, 12 were ineligible, 49 refused or declined to participate, and 76 could not be reached.

Sample Collection and Analysis

Full shift, time-weighted average (TWA) area and personal samples were collected for processes that involved fermentation, or the use or manufacture of flavorings. Sampling for aldehydes, acids, and ketones took place over 1–3 days, depending on processes and production schedules, at all facilities. Generally, one sample for each class of compound (i.e., aldehyde, acid, ketone) per worker was taken, but occasionally additional samples on subsequent days were taken on the same worker. The number of samples per facility varied and depended on the process of the facility. In places where solid flavoring compounds were used, respirable particulate samples were also collected. Sampling pumps were placed on workers and in places near to where flavorings were added or used in a process or where fermentation was actively occurring. Lastly, bulk samples were collected for various flavors used in the facilities. The analytes, and the sampling and analytical methods used are shown in Table 1 and were used for both area and personal samples and for production, handling, and control processes.

The aldehyde samples were collected using dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH)-treated silica tubes at a flow rate of 0.2 liters per minute (l/min). The tubes were changed out approximately every 3 h to avoid overloading and the sample results from all tubes collected during a shift were aggregated over time to obtain a TWA. The samples were analyzed by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) method TO-11a. The ketones samples were collected using two specially dried and cleaned 600-milligram (mg) silica gel tubes in series (an A and a B tube) at a flow rate of 0.05 l/min and were protected from light during sampling and shipping. The two tubes were used to determine whether breakthrough was occurring. As with the aldehyde sampling, both tubes were changed out approximately every 3 h and the sample results aggregated over time for a full shift. The samples were collected and analyzed by gas chromatography with a flame ionization detecter using Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) method 1013. The acids samples were collected using one 600-mg silica gel tube for the whole shift at a flow rate of 0.2 l/min. The samples were analyzed by HPLC using NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM) 5048. Respirable particulate samples were collected using 37-millimeter (mm) polyvinyl chloride filters attached to a Dorn-Oliver cyclone at a flow rate of 1.7 l/min. The samples were analyzed by gravimetric weighing using NMAM 0600.

Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). The data were right skewed so a natural log transformation was applied to normalize the data. One half of the limit of detection (LOD) was the value used for samples that were below the LOD. ANOVA modeling was used to test for differences in the means of the log transformed data in three different categories: process, flavoring, and food. For the data, a Tukey adjusted multiple comparison test in the PROC MIXED procedure was used to simultaneously test for difference of means among the independent variables in each category. Levels with >50% censoring (below the LOD) were excluded from the analyses. The geometric SDs were in some cases large and different from each other, which contravenes the ANOVA assumption of equal variance. Therefore, an analysis was conducted on each category using a nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test statistic to test differences, and then applying a Bonferroni adjustment. However, the results were similar for both the parametric and nonparametric tests for each category. Given that the Tukey adjustment is generally better than a Bonferroni adjustment, and that there is not an easy way to simultaneously test variables within a category using nonparametric tests, no further nonparametric analysis was conducted and the parametric tests are presented here.

RESULTS

A total of 105 area samples and 74 personal samples were collected from the 10 sites encompassing several food-manufacturing categories. The food categories included baked goods, cereal, chocolate, dairy, flavor manufacture, snack food, and wine. The processes observed can be placed into two broad categories: handling and production. Handling included tasks such as mixing, spraying, loading, packaging, pouring, or weighing when conducted manually. Production process included these tasks when conducted mechanically and also included fermentation, cooking, mechanical pumping, and milling. The flavors that were used and their ketone content can be found in Table 2. In some cases, no flavors were used, and other cases, natural products that included butter, margarine, milk powder, cream, milk chocolate, or chocolate liquor were used.

The majority of the samples for acids and ketones were non-detectable. Only the aldehydes and respirable particulate had >50% detectable samples (Tables 3 and 4). There were no special personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements or engineering controls at any of the facilities visited when handling flavors, with the exception of clothing requirements for food hygiene.

Diacetyl was the most commonly detected ketone for both the area and personal samples. Eight area and four personal samples were above the LOD for diacetyl. All four personal samples and four of the eight area samples were collected at one facility that manufactured flavors using 4% diacetyl in oil. Three of the remaining four area samples above the LOD (Table 1) were collected at a site that manufactured cereal. These samples were collected from an enclosed unventilated room that contained 55 gallon drums of natural butter flavor and natural and artificial maple flavor that were pumped to a closed system. Workers only entered this room occasionally to move the closed system from one drum to another. In a bulk sample analysis, the natural butter flavor contained 4000 ppm of diacetyl. Another detectable diacetyl sample came from a chocolate manufacturer that was collected from the top of the conch tank during the conching process whereby milk chocolate was heated and stirred. No flavors were added during this process. Among the other ketones, 2,3-pentanedione was detected in three area samples only, all in cereal manufacturing; acetoin was detected in seven area samples in cereal and chocolate manufacturing, and three personal samples, all in cereal manufacturing; 2,3-hexanedione was detected in three area and three personal samples, all in cereal manufacturing, and 2,3-heptanedione was detected in three area and one personal sample, all in wine manufacturing. (Tables 5 and 6).

Acetic acid was the most commonly detected acid with 22% of the area samples and 14% of the personal samples being above the LOD (Table 1). Acetic acid was detected during cereal, chocolate, snack food, and wine manufacturing. The remaining acids were detected during cereal manufacturing, with one propionic acid sample being detected during chocolate production (Tables 5 and 6).

Aldehydes were the most commonly detected group of chemicals, with all aldehydes detected in >50% of the samples. Acetaldehyde was detected the most with 99% above the LOD. Respirable particulate was detected in >50% of the samples as well. As >50% of the aldehydes and respirable particulate were above the LOD, these results were further analyzed by food category (Tables 7 and 8), process (control, handling, production) (Table 9), and type of flavoring used (no flavor used, flavor used, natural product that might contain diacetyl, e.g., butter) (Table 10). Generally, baked goods had the highest percent of samples above the LOD and the highest geometric means (GM’s) for all aldehydes and respirable particulate. Production process tended to have the highest GM’s for respirable particulate and all aldehydes with a couple of exceptions, whereas the use of flavors appears to have resulted in the lowest respirable particulate and aldehyde GM’s.

DISCUSSION

Exposure to flavoring compounds in food manufacturing, outside of microwave popcorn production, has been largely unstudied. Exposure to flavor compounds, in particular diacetyl, has been associated with BO in flavor manufacturing and microwave popcorn production. Two cases of BO have been identified in workers who handled flavors in a small coffee-processing facility.11 However, it would appear in the food production and manufacturing industries surveyed here, little exposure to diacetyl is occurring. Only 8 of 105 area samples and 4 of the 74 personal samples were above the LOD for diacetyl at food-manufacturing facilities. The majority of detectable diacetyl samples came from a flavoring manufacturing facility and those sample results are consistent with other studies at flavor-manufacturing facilities.6 The other ketones were also non-detectable in a large majority of the area and personal samples. 2,3-pentanedione was only detected in three area samples and no personal samples. However, among the detectable ketone samples, all exceeded the proposed NIOSH REL and ACGIH TLV TWA and STEL for diacetyl, and all but one sample exceeded the NIOSH REL and STEL for 2,3-pentanedione. Therefore, it appears when exposure is occurring, it is occurring at a sufficient level to cause some concern for health effects. Additionally, the diacetyl substitutes 2,3-heptanedione and 2,3-hexanedione were found above the LOD in six (three personal and three area) and four (one personal and three area) samples, respectively.

It is not entirely surprising that diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione were not detected in the majority of samples. The amounts of liquid flavors used in the food production observed were generally small, with the largest addition being ~1–2 liters. Diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione were detected in only nine and three bulk flavor samples, respectively, with the detected concentrations of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione generally <50 ppm despite a couple of notable exceptions. However, all but one of the detectable diacetyl air samples occurred when neat diacetyl or a flavor-containing diacetyl was being used at the time of sampling. In only one instance was diacetyl detected when a flavor or neat diacetyl was not used, and this process involved heating of milk powder, cocoa butter, and chocolate liquor during milk chocolate production. Similarly, 2,3-pentanedione was detected in air samples only when a flavor that contained 2,3-pentanedione was used. Conversely, there were several instances where diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione were detected in flavors being used, but not detected in the air samples.

The aldehydes were detected in the majority of samples, with acetaldehyde found in all but two samples collected. In a NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation22 of a flavoring manufacturer, acetaldehyde was one of the most commonly used compounds, being used daily. However, in a VOC screen using thermal desorption tubes, acetaldehyde was not detected as a major peak. In a survey of 15 adult inhabitants of Helsinki, acetaldehyde levels found in their workplaces averaged 4700 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m3).23 Acetaldehyde occurs widely in nature and is produced in large scale industrially, and is a common contaminant in work-place, indoor, and ambient environments.24 This may explain why acetaldehyde was so widely detected in our samples. However, acetaldehyde exposure is a concern. Acetaldehyde is classified as a probable human carcinogen (Group B2) by the United States EPA,25 a potential occupational carcinogen by NIOSH,26 and possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)27 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The levels found in this study are well below the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 360 mg/m3 and the ACGIH-ceiling limit of 45 mg/m3. These exposure limits, however, are based on irritation and not carcinogenic effects. Further, acetaldehyde could not be ruled out as a possible causal or contributing agent for BO in a study of BO among workers in a diacetyl production facility.28

One area where exposure may be of concern is in the use of powders. Solid powdered flavor use ranged from one half pound to hundreds of pounds depending on the batch size. One of the bulk powdered flavor samples had a diacetyl concentration of over 3000 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg). However, to date there is no analytical method available for detecting diacetyl in particulate air samples. The sampling method used to measure diacetyl in the personal and area samples only detects diacetyl in vapor form. As a surrogate for exposure, respirable particulate samples were collected alongside the diacetyl samples when powdered flavors were used. With >50% of the respirable particulate samples above the LOD, and with an average of 357 and 425 μg/m3 for area and personal samples, respectively, the potential for diacetyl and other ketone exposure exists from these respirable particles. However, sources other than powder flavors may be contributing to the detectable respirable particulate samples found. For example, flour, corn starch, and other non-flavor powders used in food manufacturing could also be contributing to the levels seen.

It is difficult to determine which type of food production studied might have the greatest flavor compound exposure, given the large number of non-detectable samples. It is also difficult to ascertain whether the type of food production was a factor or if the recipes used was the driving factor. Cereal manufacturing had the greatest number of detectable analytes, and both cereal and chocolate had a relatively higher percentage of detectable samples. However, baked goods had either the highest or second highest GM aldehyde and respirable particulate values for both personal and area samples. The differences between food production type were not always significant however. For process type, aldehydes GM’s were generally higher during production tasks than handling or control tasks, however, in two cases the control samples were higher for propionaldehyde and benzaldehyde. It is not clear why this may have occurred. Interestingly, the GM’s tended to be the lowest when flavorings were used, and highest for either no flavors or natural products. It appears that aldehydes are fairly ubiquitous in food production, and may not necessarily relate to flavoring use.

There are a few limitations to the study. First, it is not clear if company recruitment had an impact on the generalizability or bias of the results. Forty-nine companies declined to participate, and whereas most companies did not give a reason, anecdotal evidence suggest that some reasons were liability concerns and busy operations. Perhaps some of the companies that refused to participate might have had higher exposures. Unfortunately, the reason to not participate and company statistics were not collected from refusing companies, therefore any potential exposure bias cannot be determined. Second, the large number of non-detectable samples and relatively small sample size once broken out by food and flavor category make it difficult to conduct any inferential statistics. Last, although the focus was on food production that had a high potential to use flavors, and the food categories were selected based on expert opinion, there are likely other food production industries that would warrant inclusion in this study.

CONCLUSION

On the days sampled, the majority of exposures to diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione were below the limit of detection in the facilities surveyed in this study. However, for detectible samples, all were above the proposed NIOSH TWA RELs for diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. In addition, all diacetyl samples above the LOD were also above the ACGIH TWA. In facilities where exposures were observed above existing and proposed occupational exposure limits, exposures should be controlled using appropriate engineering controls and PPE, if necessary. This study also illustrated that the diacetyl substitiutes 2,3-heptanedione and 2,3-hexanedione are in use. Conversely, the aldehydes appear to be ubiquitous in food production. Acetaldehyde was detected in nearly every sample, and is classified as a possible human carcinogen.

The authors thank the many NIOSH colleagues who assisted on the study, in particular Kevin H. Dunn and James Couch for help with the study development; Alberto Garcia, Kevin L. Dunn, Karl Feldmann, Ken Sparks, Matt Dam, Steve Bertke and Steve Wurzelbacher with sample collection; and Shawna Watts for travel arrangements. The authors are indebted to Marianne Yencken and Jennifer Cohen of Battelle for their tireless efforts in company recruitment. This study was supported in part by an interagency agreement between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) (Y1-ES-9018-02) as a collaborative National Toxicology Program research activity.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Akpinar-ElciMTravisWDLynchDAKreissKBronchiolitis obliterans syndrome in popcorn production plant workersEur Respir J200424229830215332401KanwalRLetter of July 2, 2003, from R. Kanwal, Division of Respiratory Disease StudiesNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, to Frank Morrison, Nebraska PopcornClearwater, NE2003KanwalRMartinSLetter of May 13, 2003, from R. Kanwal and S. MartinDivision of Respiratory Disease Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, to Keith Heuermann, B.K. Heuermann Popcorn, IncPhillips, NE2003KanwalRKullmanGPiacitelliCBoylsteinRSahakianNMartinSEvaluation of flavorings-related lung disease risk at six microwave popcorn plantsJ Occup Environ Med200648214915716474263NIOSHHazard evaluation and technical assistance report: American Pop Corn Company, Sioux City, IAU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthCincinnati, OH2004MartynyJWVan DykeMVArbuckleSTowleMRoseCSDiacetyl exposures in the flavor manufacturing industryJ Occup Environ Hyg511679688200818720288ParmetAJVon EssenSRapidly progressive, fixed airway obstructive disease in popcorn workers: a new occupational pulmonary illness?J Occup Environ Med443216218200211911019AshleyKMcKernanLTBurroughsEDeddensJPendergrassSStreicherRPAnalytical performance criteria. Field evaluation of diacetyl sampling and analytical methodsJ Occup Environ Hyg511D111D116200818726763KreissKKullmanGAFedanGSimoesKEnrightEJPLClinical bronchiolitis obliterans in workers at a microwave-popcorn plantN Engl J Med3475330338200212151470AllemanTCase report: bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia in a spice process technicianJ Occup Environ Med443215216200211911018CDCObliterative bronchiolitis in workers in a coffee-processing facility - Texas, 2008–2012MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2013621630530723615673NIOSHHealth Hazard Evaluation: International Bakers Services - Indiana; July 1986. HETA 85-171-1710US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionNational Instuitute for Occupational Safety and HealthCincinnati, OH1986DayGLeBoufRGroteAPendergrassSCummingsKKreissKIdentification and measurement of diacetyl substitutes in dry bakery mix productionJ Occup Environ Hyg2011829310321253982BoylsteinRCase study: identification of diacetyl substitutes at a microwave popcorn production plantJ Occup Environ Hyg20129D33D3422233226HubbsAFMoseleyAEGoldsmithWTJacksonMCKashonMLBattelliLAAirway epithelial toxicity of the flavoring agent, 2,3-pentanedioneJ Soc Toxicol2010114S-1319MorganDLJokinenMPPriceHCBosquetRWTaylorGJGageNInhalation toxicity of acetyl proprionyl in rats and mice Abstract 1492The Toxicologist2010114S-1316MorganDLJokinenMPPriceHCGwinnWMPalmerSMFlakeGPBronchial and bronchiolar fibrosis in rats exposed to 2,3-pentanedione vapors: implications for bronchiolitis obliterans in humansToxicol Pathol2012a40344846522215510MorganDLJokinenMPJohnsonCLGwinnWMPriceHCFlakeGPBronchial fibrosis in rats exposed to 2,3-butanedione and 2,3-pentanedione vaporsToxicol Sci2012b126186ACGIH2012 TLVs and BEIs: threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indicesCincinnati, OHAmerican Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists2012NIOSHCriteria for a Recommended Standard, Diacetyl and 2, 3-Pentanedione, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Pub # xxxxxxUS Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionNational Instuitute for Occupational Safety and HealthCincinnati, OH2013FEMARespiratory Health and Safety in the Flavor Manufacturing WorkplaceThe Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association of the United StatesWashington2004NIOSHHealth Hazard Evaluation: Lung function (Spirometry) testing in employees at a flavorings manufacturing plant – Indiana; June 2011. HETA 2008-0155-3131US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Instuitute for Occupational Safety and HealthAtlanta, GA2011JurvelinJVartiainenMJantunenMPasanenPPersonal exposure levels and microenvironmental concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in the Helsinki metropolitan area, FinlandJ Air Waste Manag Assoc5111724200111218421SpenglerJDMcCarthyJFSametJMIndoor Air Quality HandbookMcGraw-Hill Professional PublishingNew York, NY2000EPAHealth Assessment Document for Acetaldehyde. EPA/600/8-86-015AUS Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and DevelopmentResearch Triangle Park, NC1987NIOSHNIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemcial Hazards. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthCincinnati, OH2007IARCIARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 71: Re-evaluation of Some Organic Chemicals, Hydrazine and Hydrogen PeroxideWorld Health OrganizationInternational Agency for Research on CancerLyon, France1999van RooyFGRooyackersJMProkopMHoubaRSmitLAHeederikDJBronchiolitis obliterans syndrome in chemical workers producing diacetyl for food flavoringsAm J Respir Crit Care Med2007176549850417541015

Sampling and analytical methods and analytes.

CompoundAnalysis methodMediaAnalytesLOD
Aldehydes (μg/sample)EPA TO-11aDinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH)-treated silica2-FuraldehydeAcetaldehydeBenzaldehydeIsovaleraldehydePropionaldehyde0.03–0.50.008–0.40.02–0.400.02–0.30.01–0.1
Acids (μg/sample)Draft NIOSH NMAM 5048Silica gel (600 mg)Acetic AcidButyric AcidPropionic Acid4–305–205–20
Ketones (μg/sample)OSHA 1013Silica gel (600 mg)DiacetylAcetoin2,3 pentanedione2,3-hexanedione2,3-heptanedione0.5–10.3–20.2–10.5–10.5–1
Bulk sample Ketones (mg/kg)Bureau Veritas internal method for bulksN/ADiacetylAcetoin2,3 pentanedione2,3 hexanedione2,3-heptanedione0.2–100.4–200.2–100.2–90.3–9
Size selective particulates (μg/sample)NMAM 060037-mm PVC filterRespirable particulate40–100

Flavors used and their ketone content (mg/kg).

FlavorTypeHeptanedioneHexanedionePentanedioneAcetoinDiacetyl
CheeseP340000
Cheese blendP5400570
Blueberry creamP00000
CreamerP00000
Vanilla ice creamP00003300
Peach creamP00000
Butter berryL0000990
Strawberry juice concentrateL00000
Natural butterL0NA46045004000
Natural and artificial mapleL00000
Strawberry creamP00000
Acid and flavorLNA00064
Peppermint double distilledL5.7503.311
Natural blackberryL01.40.5700.81
Natural rasberryL00000
Natural lemonL2.19.14.7011
Peppermint oil redistilledL2.60.55008.1
Peanut butterL000242.1
Loaded spudP0390220
Cheddar and sour creamP043000
Parmesan and garlicP069000
Jalapeno and cheddarP000110
Buffalo blue cheeseP0350170
French onionP0170130
Sour cream and onionP0130160
Sour cream and green onionP02005.10
Au gratinP025000

Abbreviations: L, liquid; NA, not analyzed owing to analytical interferences; P, powder.

Zero indicates below the LOD.

Number and percent of detectable area samples for each flavoring compound.

Flavoring classFlavoring compoundNNo. detected (%)MinaMaxAvga
Aldehydes (μg/m3)Acetaldehyde105104 (99)2.813495.81307.34
Benzaldehyde10573 (70)0.29663.2271.44
Isovaleraldehyde10577 (73)0.552398.80162.19
Propionaldehyde10581 (77)0.24376.5924.91
2-Furaldehyde10560 (57)0.3010349.85540.35
Acids (μg/m3)Acetic acid10523 (22)79.295244.73761.06
Butyric acid1056 (6)66.45297.69175.15
Propionic acid1055 (5)141.393654.401185.17
Ketones (ppb)Diacetyl1058 (8)25.153123.99856.70
Acetoin1057 (7)11.7996.4052.75
2,3-Pentanedione1053 (3)15.14172.0776.22
2,3-Hexanedione1053 (3)30.09991.67432.83
2,3-Heptanedione1053 (3)37.13174.0695.19
Particulate (μg/m3)Respirable particulateb4324 (56)52.792966.83357.04

Minimum and arithmetic mean value for detectable samples only. Excludes non-detectable samples.

Respirable particulate samples were taken only where powdered flavors were used or where particulate exposure might occur.

Number and percent of detectable personal samples for each flavoring compound.

Flavoring classFlavoring compoundNaNo. detected (%)MinbMaxAvgb
Aldehydes (μg/m3)Acetaldehyde7372 (99)1.473569.29266.20
Benzaldehyde7360 (82)0.32848.1263.75
Isovaleraldehyde7354 (74)1.222218.00167.74
Propionaldehyde7359 (81)0.813889.92103.11
2-Furaldehyde7347 (64)0.461505.72113.12
Acids (μg/m3)Acetic acid7210 (14)127.6711009.701507.38
Butyric acid723 (4)75.2728950.349704.31
Propionic acid722 (3)150.559310.224730.38
Ketones (ppb)Diacetyl744 (5)60.63631.88324.53
Acetoin743 (4)9.6318.7913.08
2,3-Pentanedione740 (0)NDNDND
2,3-Hexanedione743 (4)31.84821.79313.61
2,3-Heptanedione741 (1)119.03119.03119.03
Particulate (μg/m3)Respirable particulate12915 (52)61.152139.04425.32

Respirable particulate samples were taken only where powdered flavors were used or where particulate exposure might occur.

Seventy-four personal samples were taken, however two acid samples and one aldehyde sample were not processed owing to pump failures or sampling errors.

Minimum and arithmetic mean value for detectable samples only. Excludes non-detectable samples.

Number of area samples above the LOD by food production category.

Food categoryNAldehydes
Acids
Ketones
RPa
AcetalBenIsoPropionalFurAceticButyricPropionicDiaAcetoinPentHexHept
Baked goods242323232323000000007 (8)
Cereal21217147156643333011 (18)
Chocolate212120192010901140000 (3)
Dairy77333000000000NS
Flavor manufacture88888100040000NS
Snack food1414601410600000006 (14)
Wine10106106120000003NS

Abbreviations: Acetal, acetaldehyde; Ben, benzaldehyde; Dia, diacetyl; Fur, 2-furaldehyde; Hept, 2,3, heptanedione; Hex, 2,3-hexanedione; Iso, isovaleraldehyde; N, number of samples collected; NS, not sampled; Pent, 2,3-penanedione; Propional, propionaldehyde; RP, respirable particulate.

The number in parenthesis indicates the number of samples collected. The number of particulate samples collected depended on the process being sampled and differed from the other samples.

Number of personal samples above the LOD by food production category.

Food categoryNAldehydes
Acids
Ketones
RPa
AcetalBenIsoPropionalFurAceticButyricPropionicDiaAcetoinPentHexHept
Baked goods222121202021111000006 (8)
Cereal996427021030305 (9)
Chocolate17171515168600000000 (3)
Dairy55233000000000NS
Flavor manufacture66666300040000NS
Snack food997197300000004 (9)
Wine6b5353100000001NS

Abbreviations: Acetal, acetaldehyde; Ben, benzaldehyde; Dia, diacetyl; Fur, 2-furaldehyde; Hept, 2,3, heptanedione; Hex, 2,3-hexanedione; Iso, isovaleraldehyde; N, number of samples collected; NS, not sampled; Pent, 2,3-penanedione; Propional, propionaldehyde; RP, respirable particulate.

The number in parenthesis indicates the number of samples collected. The number of samples collected depended on the process being sampled and differed from the other samples.

Only five aldehyde samples were collected.

Aldehyde and respirable particulate area sample concentrations by food category (μg/m3).

Food categorynn>LODGMGSDDiffa
Ace
 Baked goods2423108.648.58A
 Cereal212156.154.74A,B
 Chocolate212142.591.93A,B
 Dairy776.481.46C
 Flavor manufacture8810.642.12B,C
 Snack food141430.191.38A,B,C
 Wine10101000.552.62D
Ben
 Baked goods242357.337.41A
 Cereal2171.342.60B,C
 Chocolate21203.622.09B
 Dairy730.951.26B,C
 Flavor manufacture8839.653.98A
 Snack Food1460.401.34C
 Wine1060.732.32C
Iso
 Baked goods242355.697.45A
 Cereal21143.173.12B
 Chocolate211928.0810.71A,C
 Dairy731.471.31B,C
 Flavor manufacture884.111.82B,C
 Snack food140NA
 Wine101013.242.05A,B,C
Pro
 Baked goods242322.464.89A
 Cereal2171.212.18B,C
 Chocolate21202.292.10B,C,D
 Dairy730.981.34B,C
 Flavor manufacture880.961.43B,C
 Snack food14143.581.10D
 Wine1062.991.52C,D
Fur
 Baked goods242338.267.25A
 Cereal211529.2118.71A
 Chocolate21102.024.0B
 Dairy70NA
 Flavor manufacture81NA
 Snack food14102.165.66B
 Wine101NA
RP
 Baked goods87162.602.02A
 Cereal181188.594.47AB
 Chocolate30NA
 Dairy00
 Flavor manufacture00
 Snack food14639.211.84B
 Wine00

Abbreviations: Ace, acetaldehyde; Ben, benzaldehyde; Fur, 2-furaldehyde; Iso, isovaleraldehyde; Pro, propionaldehyde; RP, respirable particulate.

Levels with the same letter are not significantly different in a Tukey multiple comparison procedure with a level of significance of 0.05.

Aldehyde and respirable particulate personal sample concentrations by food category (μg/m3).

Food Categorynn>LODGMGSDDiffa
Ace
 Baked goods2221175.628.16A,B
 Cereal9921.741.68C
 Chocolate171743.701.63C
 Dairy559.741.50C
 Flavor manufacture6636.444.73B,C
 Snack food9931.121.31C
 Wine55929.422.23A
Ben
 Baked goods222119.019.98A
 Cereal962.152.26B
 Chocolate17152.631.96B
 Dairy520.991.17B
 Flavor manufacture66116.851.36A
 Snack food970.601.51B
 Wine530.581.78B
Iso
 Baked goods222025.4010.83A
 Cereal942.112.61B
 Chocolate171525.1010.79A,B
 Dairy531.601.20A,B
 Flavor manufacture665.562.0A,B
 Snack food91NA
 Wine5510.742.69A,B
Pro
 Baked goods222014.9810.40A
 Cereal921.342.04B
 Chocolate17162.451.91B
 Dairy531.051.37B
 Flavor manufacture661.221.28B
 Snack food993.811.14A,B
 Wine532.341.71A,B
Fur
 Baked goods222115.149.77A
 Cereal9730.4810.67A,B
 Chocolate1781.943.68C
 Dairy50NA
 Flavor manufacture630.921.34C
 Snack food973.495.78A,B,C
 Wine51NA
RP
 Baked goods86148.963.55A
 Cereal95133.274.62A
 Chocolate30NA
 Dairy00
 Flavor manufacture00
 Snack food9444.931.78A
 Wine00

Abbreviations: Ace, acetaldehyde; Ben, benzaldehyde; Fur, 2-furaldehyde; Iso, isovaleraldehyde; Pro, propionaldehyde; RP, respirable particulate.

Levels with the same letter are not significantly different in a Tukey multiple comparison procedure with a level of significance of 0.05.

Aldehyde and respirable particulate area and personal sample concentrations by process (μg/m3).

TypeFlavornn>LODGMGSDDiffa
Ace
 AreaControl6646.2011.31A
Handling535243.313.95A
Production464680.668.05A
 PersonalHandling414054.944.76A
Production323278.076.59A
Ben
 AreaControl6680.529.69A
Handling53342.828.83B
Production46333.866.79B
 PersonalHandling41342.665.75A
Production32268.6610.25B
Iso
 AreaControl645.283.98A,B
Handling53334.6212.01A
Production464014.547.78B
 PersonalHandling41275.7412.68A
Production322711.637.20A
Pro
 AreaControl654.8110.53A
Handling53433.553.35A
Production46332.834.88A
 PersonalHandling41343.744.69A
Production32253.616.24A
Fur
 AreaControl646.069.68A
Handling53387.4510.40A
Production46185.5110.87A
 PersonalHandling41285.788.52A
Production32194.447.36A
RP
 AreaHandling332969.822.96A
Production104133.744.56A
 PersonalHandling251386.253.17A
Production42258.993.78A

Abbreviations: Ace, acetaldehyde; Ben, benzaldehyde; Fur, 2-furaldehyde; Iso, isovaleraldehyde; Pro, propionaldehyde; RP, respirable particulate.

Levels with the same letter are not significantly different in a Tukey multiple comparison procedure with a level of significance of 0.05.

Aldehyde and respirable particulate area and personal sample concentrations by flavor used (μg/m3).

TypeFlavornn>LODGMGSDDiffa
Ace
 AreaNone3232110.369.57A
Flavor565638.534.21B
Natural171660.234.73A,B
 PersonalNone1818155.26.19A
Flavor403939.565.35B
Natural151580.293.27A,B
Ben
 AreaNone32214.8913.32A,B
Flavor56352.526.86A
Natural171711.06.49B
 PersonalNone18121.924.44A
Flavor40344.668.71A,B
Natural151410.959.32B
Iso
 AreaNone322511.726.92A
Flavor56373.287.18B
Natural171557.5613.54C
 PersonalNone181317.189.79A
Flavor40283.346.63B
Natural151329.3413.27A
Pro
 AreaNone32214.756.56A
Flavor56442.613.39A
Natural17163.403.09A
 PersonalNone18113.916.02A
Flavor40343.115.03A
Natural15145.385.38A
Fur
 AreaNone32135.066.18A
Flavor56336.1514.01A
Natural171411.968.71A
 PersonalNone18106.726.23A
Flavor40244.279.85A
Natural15136.175.90A
RP
 AreaNone73195.224.84A
Flavor331963.562.97A
Natural32155.381.23A
 PersonalNone63248.163.99A
Flavor19972.333.20A
Natural43122.431.44A

Abbreviations: Ace, acetaldehyde; Ben, benzaldehyde; Fur, 2-furaldehyde; Iso, isovaleraldehyde; Pro, propionaldehyde; RP, respirable particulate.

Levels with the same letter are not significantly different in a Tukey multiple comparison procedure with a level of significance of 0.05.