rss
Occup Environ Med 2008;65:404-411 doi:10.1136/oem.2007.035303
  • Original article

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

  1. O Morgan1,
  2. N Q Verlander2,
  3. F Kennedy3,
  4. M Moore4,
  5. S Birch5,
  6. J Kearney6,
  7. P Lewthwaite7,
  8. R Lewis4,
  9. S O’Brian3,
  10. J Osman8,
  11. M Reacher1
  1. 1
    East of England Regional Epidemiology Unit, Health Protection Agency, Cambridge, UK
  2. 2
    Centre for Infections, Health Protection Agency, Cambridge, UK
  3. 3
    Hertfordshire Constabulary, UK
  4. 4
    Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, UK
  5. 5
    Hertfordshire County Council, UK
  6. 6
    Dacorum Primary Care Trust, Hertfordshire, UK
  7. 7
    Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust, Luton, Bedfordshire
  8. 8
    Health and Safety Executive, London, UK
  1. 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
  • Accepted 5 October 2007
  • Published Online First 19 October 2007

Abstract

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.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

This Article

  1. All Versions of this Article:
    1. oem.2007.035303v1
    2. 65/6/404 most recent

Services

  1. Request permissions

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Social bookmarking

Register for free content


Free sample
This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of OEM.
View free sample issue >>

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for OEM. 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, back to volume 1 issue 1.
Register to access the free archive >>

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