Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Published Online First: 19 October 2007. doi:10.1136/oem.2007.035303
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2008;65:404-411
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Exposures and reported symptoms associated with occupational deployment to the Buncefield fuel depot fire, England 2005

O Morgan1, N Q Verlander2, F Kennedy3, M Moore4, S Birch5, J Kearney6, P Lewthwaite7, R Lewis4, S O’Brian3, J Osman8, M Reacher1

1 East of England Regional Epidemiology Unit, Health Protection Agency, Cambridge, UK
2 Centre for Infections, Health Protection Agency, Cambridge, UK
3 Hertfordshire Constabulary, UK
4 Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, UK
5 Hertfordshire County Council, UK
6 Dacorum Primary Care Trust, Hertfordshire, UK
7 Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust, Luton, Bedfordshire
8 Health and Safety Executive, London, UK

Dr Oliver Morgan, Health Protection Agency, East of England Regional Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Public Health, University Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK; omorgan{at}bigfoot.com

Objectives: An explosion at the Buncefield fuel depot outside London occurred on 11 December 2005. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of airborne exposures and health status for workers deployed.

Methods: Deployed individuals were identified through their occupational health departments. We sent a self-completion questionnaire asking about health symptoms during the burn and post-burn phases. The prevalence of health symptoms in workers was compared to symptoms in local residents not under the smoke plume.

Results: Of 1949 eligible individuals, 815 returned questionnaires (response rate 44%). Respiratory protection was used by 39%. Symptoms were reported by 41% of individuals during the burn phase compared with 26% in the post-burn phase. In a final multivariable model, reporting of any symptoms was associated with deployment inside the inner fire cordon during the burn phase (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.47) and wearing a face mask (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.26). Compared with the general public, eye irritation (prevalence ratio (PR) 2.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.0), coughing (PR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.8) and headaches (PR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.5) were more common in workers deployed during the burn phase but not the post-burn phase.

Conclusions: Increased reporting of symptoms close to the fire during the burn phase was consistent with increased exposure to products of combustion, although no major acute illness was reported. That only a minority of individuals used face masks, which were not protective for symptoms, raises questions about the availability of adequate respiratory protection for such incidents.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

Occupational, Public, Community health jobs

Occupational, Public, Community health jobs