Background:The 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster led to the largest ever marine oil spill. Individuals who worked on the spill were exposed to toxicants and stressors that could lead to adverse effects.Objectives:The GuLF STUDY was designed to investigate relationships between oil spill exposures and multiple potential physical and mental health effects.Methods:Participants were recruited by telephone from lists of individuals who worked on the oil spill response and clean-up or received safety training. Enrollment interviews between 2011 and 2013 collected information about spill-related activities, demographics, lifestyle, and health. Exposure measurements taken during the oil spill were used with questionnaire responses to characterize oil exposures of participants. Participants from Gulf states completed a home visit in which biological and environmental samples, anthropometric and clinical measurements, and additional health and lifestyle information were collected. Participants are being followed for changes in health status.Results:Thirty-two thousand six hundred eight individuals enrolled in the cohort, and 11,193 completed a home visit. Most were young (56.2% ≤ 45 years of age), male (80.8%), lived in a Gulf state (82.3%), and worked at least 1 day on the oil spill (76.5%). Workers were involved in response (18.0%), support operations (17.5%), clean-up on water (17.4%) or land (14.6%), decontamination (14.3%), and administrative support (18.3%). Using an ordinal job exposure matrix, 45% had maximum daily total hydrocarbon exposure levels ≥ 1.0 ppm.Conclusions:The GuLF STUDY provides a unique opportunity to study potential adverse health effects from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.Citation:Kwok RK, Engel LS, Miller AK, Blair A, Curry MD, Jackson WB II, Stewart PA, Stenzel MR, Birnbaum LS, Sandler DP for the GuLF STUDY Research Team. 2017. The GuLF STUDY: a prospective study of persons involved in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up. Environ Health Perspect 125:570–578; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP715

Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.Objectives: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.Discussion: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health.Citation: Pearce N, Blair A, Vineis P, Ahrens W, Andersen A, Anto JM, Armstrong BK, Baccarelli AA, Beland FA, Berrington A, Bertazzi PA, Birnbaum LS, Brownson RC, Bucher JR, Cantor KP, Cardis E, Cherrie JW, Christiani DC, Cocco P, Coggon D, Comba P, Demers PA, Dement JM, Douwes J, Eisen EA, Engel LS, Fenske RA, Fleming LE, Fletcher T, Fontham E, Forastiere F, Frentzel-Beyme R, Fritschi L, Gerin M, Goldberg M, Grandjean P, Grimsrud TK, Gustavsson P, Haines A, Hartge P, Hansen J, Hauptmann M, Heederik D, Hemminki K, Hemon D, Hertz-Picciotto I, Hoppin JA, Huff J, Jarvholm B, Kang D, Karagas MR, Kjaerheim K, Kjuus H, Kogevinas M, Kriebel D, Kristensen P, Kromhout H, Laden F, Lebailly P, LeMasters G, Lubin JH, Lynch CF, Lynge E, ‘t Mannetje A, McMichael AJ, McLaughlin JR, Marrett L, Martuzzi M, Merchant JA, Merler E, Merletti F, Miller A, Mirer FE, Monson R, Nordby KC, Olshan AF, Parent ME, Perera FP, Perry MJ, Pesatori AC, Pirastu R, Porta M, Pukkala E, Rice C, Richardson DB, Ritter L, Ritz B, Ronckers CM, Rushton L, Rusiecki JA, Rusyn I, Samet JM, Sandler DP, de Sanjose S, Schernhammer E, Seniori Costantini A, Seixas N, Shy C, Siemiatycki J, Silverman DT, Simonato L, Smith AH, Smith MT, Spinelli JJ, Spitz MR, Stallones L, Stayner LT, Steenland ...

Background. 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. Objectives. To develop an ordinal job-exposure matrix (JEM) of airborne total hydrocarbons (THC), dispersants and particulates to estimate study participants’ exposures. Methods. 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 EG, assigned an ordinal value, 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. Results. Considerable differences in THC exposure levels were found among EGs. Based on the maximum THC level participants experienced across any job held, about 14% of the subjects were identified in the highest exposure category. Approximately 10% of the cohort was exposed to dispersants or particulates. Conclusions. Considerable differences were found across exposures of the various EGs, which facilitates investigation of exposure-response relationships. The JEM is flexible to allow for different assumptions about several possibly relevant exposure metrics.

Exposure assessment, the first step in risk assessment, has traditionally been performed for a variety of purposes. These include compliance determinations; management of specific programs that are implemented by comparison with an occupational exposure limit (such as medical surveillance, training, and respiratory protection programs); task/source investigations for determination of exposure control strategies; epidemiologic studies; worker compensation/toxic tort cases; health complaint or problem investigations; risk assessment and management; and evaluation of future changes in the workplace (e.g., introduction of a new chemical). Each purpose requires slightly different approaches, but there are also many similarities. The goal of this paper is to identify a general approach to assessing exposures that can be used for all purposes with only slight modifications. Five components of exposure assessments are identified: collection of data, identification of the hazard, selection of exposure metrics, definition of exposure groups and estimation of the exposures. The characteristics of these components for each type of assessment are discussed. From this review, it is clear that there is substantial overlap across the types of assessment. A single exposure assessment program is suggested that encompasses all the needs of these assessments and incorporates assessment of exposures for an entire workforce at a site at minimal cost by using prediction models and validation with measurements.

Classical statistical methods for analyzing exposure data with values below the detection limits are well described in the occupational hygiene literature, but an evaluation of a Bayesian approach for handling such data is currently lacking. Here, we first describe a Bayesian framework for analyzing censored data. We then present the results of a simulation study conducted to compare the β-substitution method with a Bayesian method for exposure datasets drawn from lognormal distributions and mixed lognormal distributions with varying sample sizes, geometric standard deviations (GSDs), and censoring for single and multiple limits of detection. For each set of factors, estimates for the arithmetic mean (AM), geometric mean, GSD, and the 95th percentile (X 0.95 ) of the exposure distribution were obtained. We evaluated the performance of each method using relative bias, the root mean squared error (rMSE), and coverage (the proportion of the computed 95% uncertainty intervals containing the true value). The Bayesian method using non-informative priors and the β-substitution method were generally comparable in bias and rMSE when estimating the AM and GM. For the GSD and the 95th percentile, the Bayesian method with non-informative priors was more biased and had a higher rMSE than the β-substitution method, but use of more informative priors generally improved the Bayesian method's performance, making both the bias and the rMSE more comparable to the β-substitution method. An advantage of the Bayesian method is that it provided estimates of uncertainty for these parameters of interest and good coverage, whereas the β-substitution method only provided estimates of uncertainty for the AM, and coverage was not as consistent. Selection of one or the other method depends on the needs of the practitioner, the availability of prior information, and the distribution characteristics of the • 56Ann. Occup. Hyg., 2016, Vol. 60, No. 1, 56-73 doi:10.1093/annhyg/mev049 Advance Access publication 24 July 2015 measurement data. We suggest the use of Bayesian methods if the practitioner has the computational resources and prior information, as the method would generally provide accurate estimates and also provides the distributions of all of the parameters, which could be useful for making decisions in some applications.

Background:The large quantities of chemical oil dispersants used in the oil spill response and cleanup (OSRC) work following the Deepwater Horizon disaster provide an opportunity to study associations between dispersant exposure (Corexit™ EC9500A or EC9527A) and human health.Objectives:Our objectives were to examine associations between potential exposure to the dispersants and adverse respiratory, dermal, and eye irritation symptoms.Methods:Using data from detailed Gulf Long-term Follow-up ( GuLF) Study enrollment interviews, we determined potential exposure to either dispersant from participant-reported tasks during the OSRC work. Between 27,659 and 29,468 participants provided information on respiratory, dermal, and eye irritation health. We estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) to measure associations with symptoms reported during the OSRC work and at study enrollment, adjusting for potential confounders including airborne total hydrocarbons exposure, use of cleaning chemicals, and participant demographics.Results:Potential exposure to either of the dispersants was significantly associated with all health outcomes at the time of the OSRC, with the strongest association for burning in the nose, throat, or lungs [adjusted PR (aPR)=1.61 (95% CI: 1.42, 1.82)], tightness in chest [aPR=1.58 (95% CI: 1.37, 1.81)], and burning eyes [aPR=1.48 (95% CI: 1.35, 1.64). Weaker, but still significant, associations were found between dispersant exposure and symptoms present at enrollment.Conclusions:Potential exposure to Corexit™ EC9527A or EC9500A was associated with a range of health symptoms at the time of the OSRC, as well as at the time of study enrollment, 1–3 y after the spill. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1677

While no differences in lung function were found between workers and nonworkers, lung function was reduced among decontamination workers and workers with high exposure to burning oil/gas compared with unexposed workers.

The GuLF STUDY, initiated by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, is investigating the health effects among workers involved in the oil spill response and clean-up (OSRC) after the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) explosion in April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico. Clean-up included in situ burning of oil on the water surface and flaring of gas and oil captured near the seabed and brought to the surface. We estimated emissions of PM2.5 and related pollutants resulting from these activities, as well as from engines of vessels working on the OSRC. PM2.5 emissions ranged from 30 to 1.33e6 kg per day and were generally uniform over time for the flares but highly episodic for the in situ burns. Hourly emissions from each source on every burn/flare day were used as inputs to the AERMOD model to develop average and maximum concentrations for 1-, 12-, and 24-h time periods. The highest predicted 24-h average concentrations sometimes exceeded 5000 µg m−3 in the first 500 m downwind of flaring and reached 71 µg m−3 within a kilometer of some in situ burns. Beyond 40 km from the DWH site, plumes appeared to be well mixed, and the predicted 24-h average concentrations from the flares and in situ burns were similar, usually below 10 µg m−3. Structured averaging of model output gave potential PM2.5 exposure estimates for OSRC workers located in various areas across the Gulf. Workers located nearest the wellhead (hot zone/source workers) were estimated to have a potential maximum 12-h exposure of 97 µg m−3 over the 2-month flaring period. The potential maximum 12-h exposure for workers who participated in in situ burns was estimated at 10 µg m−3 over the ~3-month burn period. The results suggest that burning of oil and gas during the DWH clean-up may have resulted in PM2.5 concentrations substantially above the U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM2.5 (24-h average = 35 µg m−3). These results are being used to investigate possible adverse health effects in the GuLF STUDY epidemiologic analysis of PM2.5 exposures.