4.6 Article

Development of a total hydrocarbon ordinal job-exposure matrix for workers responding to the Deepwater Horizon disaster: The GuLF STUDY

Journal

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jes.2017.16

Keywords

Deepwater Horizon; dispersants; exposure assessment; oil drilling; particulate; total hydrocarbons

Funding

  1. NIH Common Fund
  2. Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [ZO1 ES 102945]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [ZIAES102945] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The GuLF STUDY is a cohort study investigating the health of workers who responded to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The objective of this effort was to develop an ordinal job-exposure matrix (JEM) of airborne total hydrocarbons (THC), dispersants, and particulates to estimate study participants' exposures. Information was collected on participants' spill-related tasks. A JEM of exposure groups (EGs) was developed from tasks and THC air measurements taken during and after the spill using relevant exposure determinants. THC arithmetic means were developed for the EGs, assigned ordinal values, and linked to the participants using determinants from the questionnaire. Different approaches were taken for combining exposures across EGs. EGs for dispersants and particulates were based on questionnaire responses. Considerable differences in THC exposure levels were found among EGs. Based on the maximum THC level participants experienced across any job held, similar to 14% of the subjects were identified in the highest exposure category. Approximately 10% of the cohort was exposed to dispersants or particulates. Considerable exposure differences were found across the various EGs, facilitating investigation of exposure-response relationships. The JEM is flexible to allow for different assumptions about several possibly relevant exposure metrics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available