Assessing Exposures from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response and Clean-up

  • Patricia Stewart
  • , Caroline P. Groth
  • , Tran B. Huynh
  • , Melanie Gorman Ng
  • , Gregory C Pratt
  • , Susan F. Arnold
  • , Gurumurthy Ramachandran
  • , Sudipto Banerjee
  • , John W. Cherrie
  • , Kate Christenbury
  • , Richard K. Kwok
  • , Aaron Blair
  • , Lawrence S. Engel
  • , Dale P. Sandler
  • , Mark R. Stenzel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

26 Scopus citations

Abstract

The GuLF Study is investigating adverse health effects from work on the response and clean-up after the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil release. An essential and necessary component of that study was the exposure assessment. Bayesian statistical methods and over 135 000 measurements of total hydrocarbons (THC), benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, and n-hexane (BTEX-H) were used to estimate inhalation exposures to these chemicals for >3400 exposure groups (EGs) formed from three exposure determinants: job/activity/task, location, and time period. Recognized deterministic models were used to estimate airborne exposures to particulate matter sized 2.5 μm or less (PM2.5) and dispersant aerosols and vapors. Dermal exposures were estimated for these same oil-related substances using a model modified especially for this study from a previously published model. Exposures to oil mist were assessed using professional judgment. Estimated daily THC arithmetic means (AMs) were in the low ppm range (<25 ppm), whereas BTEX-H exposures estimates were generally <1000 ppb. Potential 1-h PM2.5 air concentrations experienced by some workers may have been as high as 550 μg m-3. Dispersant aerosol air concentrations were very low (maximum predicted 1-h concentrations were generally <50 μg m-3), but vapor concentrations may have exceeded occupational exposure excursion guidelines for 2-butoxyethanol under certain circumstances. The daily AMs of dermal exposure estimates showed large contrasts among the study participants. The estimates are being used to evaluate exposure-response relationships in the GuLF Study.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)I3-I22
JournalAnnals of Work Exposures and Health
Volume66
Issue numberSuppl 1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ZO1 ES 102945). Dr. Sudipto Banerjee acknowledges funding from the following grants: NIH/NIEHS RO1ES027027-01; NIH/NIESH R01ES030210-01; NSF DMS-1513654, NSF IIS- 1562303, NSF DMS-1916349. Dr Tran Huynh was also supported, in part, by CDC/NIOSH award K01OH011191 award

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Occupational Hygiene Society 2022.

Keywords

  • Deepwater Horizon
  • dispersant
  • exposure assessment
  • PM
  • total hydrocarbons
  • Hydrocarbons/analysis
  • Humans
  • Bayes Theorem
  • Dronabinol
  • Occupational Exposure/adverse effects
  • Particulate Matter
  • Petroleum Pollution/adverse effects

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
  • Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing Exposures from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response and Clean-up'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this