| Course | PU635 Survey of Environmental and Occupational Health |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Hazard identification walkthrough |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PU635 Unit 2
Silo to Sanitation Across Two Shifts: A Unit 2 Hazard Identification Walkthrough Recording Twenty-Three Agents, Tasks and Routes at a Composite Wholesale Bakery
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
PU635: Survey of Environmental and Occupational Health
Unit 2 Hazard Identification Walkthrough
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Corliss Street Bakery, its workers and its records are composite; the hazard classes, the exposure science and the research cited are real.
Scope and Method
Corliss Street Bakery employs 186 people across two production shifts and a night sanitation crew of 22 supplied by a staffing agency. It makes sandwich bread, rye and buns for grocery chains and restaurants. The walk covered eleven stops in order of product flow on a Tuesday, starting at 5:00 a.m. and ending at 2:00 a.m. Wednesday, with the production manager by day and the agency lead by night. Three record sets fed the magnitude column: the insurer's noise survey from last year, two years of the OSHA 300 log, and safety data sheets for 41 products. At each stop I wrote what I saw and heard before writing what I thought it meant, and an observation became a row only when I could name the agent.
Floor Plan Stops
1. Silo and bulk receiving. 2. Ingredient room. 3. Mixing. 4. Make-up and dividers. 5. Proofing. 6. Ovens. 7. Cooling spiral. 8. Slicing and bagging. 9. Flavor room. 10. Shipping dock. 11. Night sanitation, which covers every other stop.
Hazard Inventory, by Area
Each row reads area, task, agent, class, route, who and when, magnitude, and the source of the magnitude.
1. Ingredient room; slitting and tipping 50-pound rye sacks into the hopper; flour dust; chemical, sensitizer; inhalation in short dense clouds; 2 workers, day; not measured, visible cloud at each tip; observation only.
2. Ingredient room; same task; fungal alpha-amylase in the dough improver; chemical, sensitizer; inhalation; same 2 workers; not measured; safety data sheet lists it as a respiratory sensitizer.
3. Ingredient room; lifting sacks from a floor pallet to a 44-inch hopper rim; manual handling; ergonomic; back and shoulder loading; 2 workers, about 24 lifts an hour; six of nine strains on the 300 log came from mixing and ingredients; log.
4. Mixing; mixer start with dry ingredients; flour dust; chemical; inhalation, burst at start-up; 4 workers, day; not measured; observation.
5. Mixing; dough troughs moved by hand; push and pull force; ergonomic; shoulder; 4 workers; not measured; workers' reports.
6. Make-up; dusting flour shaken over the divider and the bun line; flour dust; chemical; steady inhalation through the shift; 9 workers, day and swing; not measured; observation.
7. Make-up; clearing jams at the divider; moving parts; safety, caught-in; hands; 9 workers; one near miss reported last year; production manager.
8. Make-up; compressed air blown over the divider at changeover; flour dust; chemical; inhalation, dense burst; 1 to 2 workers each changeover; not measured; observation.
9. Proofing; working in the proof box; heat and humidity; physical; whole body; 2 workers, short entries; not measured; observation.
10. Ovens; loading and unloading pans; radiant heat and hot surfaces; physical; skin burns and heat strain; 3 workers; two first-aid burns this year; first-aid log.
11. Cooling spiral; clearing fallen loaves; moving conveyor; safety; hands and arms; 2 workers; not measured; observation.
12. Slicing and bagging; bun bagger running; noise; physical; hearing; 6 workers; 88 to 92 dBA spot readings; insurer survey.
13. Slicing; blade changes; sharp edges; safety, laceration; hands; 1 mechanic weekly; not measured; maintenance.
14. Flavor room; butter flavoring poured into a heated margarine kettle; diacetyl; chemical; inhalation as vapor; 3 workers, day; never measured; safety data sheet names diacetyl as a component.
15. Flavor room; lifting the kettle lid for each addition; diacetyl; chemical; inhalation, short peaks; same 3 workers; never measured; observation of a butter smell at each lift.
16. Flavor room; cleaning the kettle with a caustic cleaner; sodium hydroxide solution; chemical, corrosive; skin and eyes; 1 worker; not measured; safety data sheet.
17. Shipping dock; forklift traffic beside foot traffic; struck-by; safety; whole body; 11 workers, two shifts; one property-damage incident last year; production manager.
18. Shipping dock; propane forklift in a partly closed dock; carbon monoxide; chemical; inhalation; same workers; not measured; observation that dock doors stay shut in winter.
19. Night sanitation; compressed-air cleaning of every line; flour dust; chemical; inhalation; 22 agency workers; not measured; observation and agency lead's account.
20. Night sanitation; caustic foam and chlorinated sanitizer; chemical, corrosive and irritant; skin, eyes, inhalation; 22 workers; not measured; safety data sheets.
21. Night sanitation; cleaning equipment that may restart; hazardous energy; safety; whole body; 22 workers; lockout locks issued to plant staff only, not agency workers; observation.
22. Night sanitation; wet floors and hoses; slips; safety; whole body; 22 workers; not measured; observation.
23. Whole plant; settled flour dust on beams and ledges above the make-up line; combustible dust; safety, fire and explosion; everyone in the building; not measured; visible layer on overhead surfaces.
Fourteen of the twenty-three rows carry the words not measured, and the inventory treats that as a finding rather than an embarrassment.
Notes From the Walk That Did Not Become Rows
A worker at the bun line rubbed his eyes repeatedly and said his nose ran every morning, which is a symptom rather than a hazard and is recorded for the surveillance discussion in a later unit. The flavor room had no posted signs about the flavoring. The agency crew's safety orientation, according to its lead, is a video in English shown on the first day.
Second Sort: Severity and Number Exposed
Re-sorted by the seriousness of the possible outcome and the number of people exposed, three agents rise to the top. Flour dust appears in six rows, reaches more than forty workers including the whole night crew, and is the leading recognized cause of occupational asthma in bakers (Brisman, 2002). Diacetyl reaches only three workers, but the disease associated with it is severe and irreversible. Manual handling of sacks produces most of the plant's recorded injuries. Noise, hazardous energy for agency workers and settled combustible dust follow closely, and each is carried forward rather than dropped.
Priorities for the Units Ahead
1. Flour dust, including the enzyme in the improver, because exposure-response studies in bakers show sensitization falls when dust levels fall, which makes it a preventable outcome rather than a cost of the trade (Houba et al., 1998).
2. Diacetyl in the flavor room, because the same flavoring chemical was linked to fixed airway obstruction among workers at a microwave popcorn plant, where obstruction rose with cumulative exposure (Kreiss et al., 2002).
3. Manual handling of 50-pound sacks.
References
Brisman, J. (2002). Baker's asthma. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59(7), 498-502. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.59.7.498
Houba, R., Heederik, D., & Doekes, G. (1998). Wheat sensitization and work-related symptoms in the baking industry are preventable: An epidemiologic study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 158(5), 1499-1503. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.158.5.9803055
Kreiss, K., Gomaa, A., Kullman, G., Fedan, K., Simoes, E. J., & Enright, P. L. (2002). Clinical bronchiolitis obliterans in workers at a microwave-popcorn plant. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347(5), 330-338. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa020300
The Purdue Global PU635 Unit 2 instructions
The Unit 2 assignment typically asks you to conduct or simulate a walkthrough of one workplace and record every hazard you can identify. Cover all areas and shifts, and consider each hazard class: chemical, physical, biological, ergonomic and safety. For each hazard, name the task that creates it, the agent, the route or mechanism, who is exposed and when. Estimate magnitude where records allow, using injury logs, safety data sheets or prior surveys, and state the source. Where nothing has been measured, say so and note the observation that placed the hazard on your list. Most prompts want a table or inventory plus a short narrative. Close with a ranking that identifies the few hazards the remaining units will analyze in depth.
How this PU635 Unit 2 example is built
The worksheet begins with scope: the plant's size, its three shifts, the walk's timing and the records consulted. A numbered list of eleven stops follows the product from silo to shipping, with night sanitation as its own stop. The inventory then runs twenty-three numbered rows in a fixed order, so each can be read the same way. Flour dust appears at six points, including sack tipping, dusting flour, compressed air and night cleaning; diacetyl appears at the flavor kettle; noise comes from the insurer's spot readings at the bun bagger. A highlighted line notes the fourteen rows without measurements. Observations that did not become rows are kept separately. A second sort ranks hazards by severity and reach, and three priorities are justified with sensitization and popcorn plant research.
Where the points sit in the PU635 Unit 2 rubric
In this course, walkthrough rubrics tend to reward breadth first: every area, every shift and all five hazard classes considered. Points then follow precision, since a row naming agent, task and route earns more than a vague label like dust or chemicals. Graders value honest magnitude estimates tied to sources, and they accept not measured when it comes with the observation behind it. Including groups that are easy to overlook, such as night crews or agency workers, often separates strong submissions from average ones. A clear prioritization with reasons earns its own block of credit, because it shapes the rest of the term. Organization, a readable table and APA citations for supporting literature account for the remaining points, especially when every row reads in the same order.
PU635 Unit 2 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common shortfall is an inventory organized by department labels that skips shared spaces, night work or maintenance tasks. Walk the product or the process instead. Another is listing hazards without a task or route, which makes later control planning impossible. Students sometimes inflate magnitude with guesses; use records where they exist and leave the rest marked as unmeasured. Do not drop a hazard just because it affects few people, since severity also counts. Keep symptoms separate from hazards, and record them for surveillance rather than as rows. Make your priority list short and defend each choice. If your prompt describes a workplace and you are unsure where to start, send it to us and we will build the inventory and ranking for you.
Get a PU635 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Describe the assigned workplace for PU635 Unit 2, or the one chosen, including its shifts and main tasks, and attach the instructions and rubric. A walkthrough built on that setting, naming each agent with its task, route and an honest estimate of magnitude, is the free first custom sample, returned in 24-48 hours. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More PU635 papers and MPH samples
- PU635 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- PU635 Unit 3: Exposure Route Analysis
- PU635 Unit 4: Control Hierarchy Application
- PU635 Unit 5: Chemical Hazard Case Study
- PU635 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- PU635 Unit 7: Ergonomic Assessment
- PU635 Unit 8: Regulatory Compliance Analysis
- PU635 Unit 9: Worker Training Material
- PU635 Unit 10: Safety Program Document
- PU615 Unit 2: Solicitation Analysis
- PU605 Unit 2: Community Assessment
- PU580 Unit 2: Exposure Assessment Comparison
- PU501 Unit 2: Tattoo Safety Core Functions Analysis
PU635 Unit 2 questions, answered
Can the walkthrough be of a workplace I have not visited?
Many prompts supply a described setting for exactly that reason, and a written case can support a full walkthrough if it gives tasks, materials and layout. Say which details came from the case and which you inferred. For a real workplace, visit if you can, since what people actually do often differs from the procedures they are supposed to follow.
How many hazards should the inventory include?
Enough to cover every area and hazard class in the setting, which for a mid-sized workplace often means fifteen to thirty rows. Quality matters more than count: a row naming an agent, a route and an estimate earns more than three rows describing conditions. Group repeated hazards, such as noise across several machines, rather than listing each machine on its own.
What if I cannot measure anything?
Most student walkthroughs cannot, and graders know it. Use existing records such as injury logs, safety data sheets or earlier surveys, estimate magnitude in rough terms where you can justify it, and name the measurement that would replace the estimate. An honest gap with a sampling plan is worth more than a number with no source behind it.
Where can I find a free PU635 Unit 2 sample paper?
All twenty-three rows of the Unit 2 bakery walkthrough, with the stop list and priority ranking, are open on this page.
Why walk the product instead of the departments?
Following materials from delivery to shipping catches transfer points and shared areas that fall between departments, and it makes sure night cleaning of every line is included.