Search

Background Assess if people who lived or worked in an area polluted after an oil tank explosion had persistent respiratory health impairment as compared to a non-exposed population 5.5 years after the event. Methods A follow-up study 5.5 years after the explosion, 330 persons aged 18–67 years, compared lung function, lung function decline and airway symptoms among exposed persons (residents 20 km away). Also men in the exposed group who had participated in accident related tasks (firefighting or clean-up of pollution) were compared with men who did not. Data were analysed using Poisson regression, adjusted for smoking, occupational exposure, atopy and age. Results Exposed men who had participated in accident related tasks had higher prevalence of lower airway symptoms after 5.5 years (n = 24 [73%]) than non-exposed men (28 [48%]), (adjusted relative risk 1.51 [95% confidence interval 1.07, 2.14]). Among men who participated in accident related tasks FEV1 decline was 48 mL per year, and 12 mL among men who did not (adjusted difference −34 mL per year [−67 mL, −1 mL]), and at follow-up FEV1/FVC ratio was 71.4 and 74.2% respectively, (adjusted difference −3.0% [−6.0, 0.0%]). Conclusion Residents and workers had more airway symptoms and impaired lung function 5.5 years after an oil tank explosion, most significant for a group of men engaged in firefighting and clean-up of pollution after the accident. Public health authorities should be aware of long-term consequences after such accidents. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12890-016-0357-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Oil tanks containing a mixture of hydrocarbons, including sulphuric compounds, exploded and caught fire in an industrial harbour. This study assesses airway symptoms and lung function in the nearby population 1½ years after the explosion. Methods A cross-sectional study included individuals ≥18 years old. Individuals living 20 km away formed a control group. A questionnaire and spirometry tests were completed by 223 exposed individuals (response rate men 70%, women 75%) and 179 control individuals (response rate men 51%, women 65%). Regression analyses included adjustment for smoking, occupational exposure, atopy, infection in the preceding month and age. Analyses of symptoms were also adjusted for stress reactions related to the accident. Results Exposed individuals experienced significantly more blocked nose (odds ratio 1.7 [95% confidence interval 1.0, 2.8]), rhinorrhoea (1.6 [1.1, 3.3]), nose irritation (3.4 [2.0, 5.9]), sore throat (3.1 [1.8, 5.5]), morning cough (3.5 [2.0, 5.5]), daily cough (2.2 [1.4, 3.7]), cough >3 months a year (2.9 [1.5, 5.3]) and cough with phlegm (1.9 [1.2, 3.1]) than control individuals. A significantly increasing trend was found for nose symptoms and cough, depending on the proximity of home address to explosion site (daily cough, 3-6km 1.8 [1.0, 3.1], 1 adjusted mean difference −123 mL [95% confidence interval −232, -14]), FEV1% predicted −2.5 [−5.5, 0.5], FVC −173 mL [− 297, -50], FVC% predicted −3.1 [− 5.9, -0.4], and airway obstruction (GOLD II/III). Conclusions Based on cross sectional analyses, individuals living in an area with air pollution from an oil tank explosion had more airway symptoms and lower lung function than a control group 1½ years after the incident.