Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T12:07:35.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hazardous Materials Incidents: A One-Year Retrospective Review in Central California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Frank G. Walter ,
Richard Dedolph ,
Gene W. Kallsen  and
Robert K. Knopp
Frank G. Walter*
Affiliation:
Division of Toxicology, Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Valley Medical Center, Fresno, Ca.
Richard Dedolph
Affiliation:
Division of Toxicology, Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Valley Medical Center, Fresno, Ca.
Gene W. Kallsen
Affiliation:
Division of Toxicology, Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Valley Medical Center, Fresno, Ca.
Robert K. Knopp
Affiliation:
Division of Toxicology, Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Valley Medical Center, Fresno, Ca.
*
Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Second Floor, Valley Medical Center, 445 S. Cedar Ave., Fresno, CA 93702USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This study describes the epidemiology of hazardous materials (hazmat) incidents in Fresno County, California, and analyzes the emergency medical services (EMS) response to these incidents.

Setting:

The study area has a population of 635,000 people living in an area of 6,004 square miles.

Design:

All Hazmat Emergency Response Team (HERT) reports and related prehospital, emergency department, and inpatient records from ljuly 1988 through 30 June 1989 were reviewed retrospectively.

Results:

There were 107 hazmat incidents involving 156 materials consisting of pesticides (24.4%), miscellaneous chemicals (17.3%), corrosives (16.7%), petroleum products (13.5%), airborne toxins (10.2%), organic solvents (7.7%), unidentified chemicals (5.1%), infectious medical waste (1.9%), empty containers with radioactive warning symbols but without detectable radiation (1.3%), heavy metals (1.3%), and alkali metals (0.6%). In ten (9%) of the 107 incidents, 68 patients required on-scene evaluation and 26 patients were transported to emergency departments. Four of these patients required admission, three because of injuries due to vehicular accidents, and one because of a coincidental cere-brovascular accident. Five incidents produced multiple victims from exposures to airborne toxins, accounting for 63 (93%) of 68 patients. Spills of solid or liquid pesticides occurred in four incidents involving patients. Ambulance personnel and/or equipment became contaminated in three of these four incidents.

Conclusions:

1) Ambulances should be dispatched selectively to hazmat incidents because only 9% of incidents involved patients. 2) training should emphasize personnel protection and proper patient decontamination to help prevent contamination of EMS personnel and equipment. 3) Preparation of EMS personnel should emphasize exposure to airborne toxins because these produced 93% of patients.

Type
Brief Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 151 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Marwick, C: Bhopal tragedy's repercussions may reach American physicians. JAMA 1985;253:2001–2004, 2009–2010, 2013, 2023.Google Scholar
2. Plante, DM, Walker, JS: EMS response at a hazardous material incident: Some basic guidelines. J Emerg Med 1989;7:55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Leonard, RB, Calabro, JJ, Noji, EK et al. : SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act), Title III: Implications for emergency physicians. Ann Emerg Med 1989;18:1212–1216.Google Scholar
4. Burney, RE, Wu, SC, Nemiroff, MJ: Mass carbon monoxide poisoning: Clinical effects and results of treatment in 184 victims. Ann Emerg Med 1982;11:394–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Yoder, E: Hazardous materials response system. Topics Emerg Med 1985;7:1–8.Google Scholar
6. Wanke, LA: Toxic chemical spills. Topics Emerg Med 1985;7:9–20.Google Scholar
7. Linz, DH, Barker, AF, Morton, WE et al. : Occupational toxic inhalations. Topics Emerg Med 1985;7:21–33.Google Scholar
8. Wagner, SL: Pesticides. Topics Emerg Med 1985;7:34–44.Google Scholar
9. Guzzardi, L: Toxic products of combustion. Topics Emerg Med 1985;7:45–52.Google Scholar
10. Barr, SJ: Chemical warfare agents. Topics Emerg Med 1985;7:62–70.Google Scholar
11. Hartnett, L: Environmental contamination. In: Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies. Goldfrank, LR, Flomenbaum, NE, Lewin, NA et al. , (eds), 4th ed. Norwalk, Ct.: Appleton & Lange, 1990, pp 781–788.Google Scholar
12. Doyle, CJ, Upfal, MJ, Little, NE: Disaster management of massive toxic exposures. In: Clinical Management of Poisoning and Drug Overdose. Hadda, LM, Winchester, JF (eds), 2d ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1990, pp 483–500.Google Scholar
13. Leonard, LG, Scheulen, JJ, Munster, AM: Chemical burns: Effect of prompt First aid. J Trauma 1982;22:420–423.Google Scholar
14. Mycroft, FJ, Jones, JR, Olson, KR: Emergency medical response to hazardous materials incidents. In: Poisoning and Drug Overdose. Olson, KR (ed), 1st ed. Norwalk. Ct.: Appleton & Lange, 1990, pp 343–350.Google Scholar
15. Budavari, S (ed): The Merck Index. 11th ed. Rahway, N.J.: Merck Co., Inc., 1989, pp 957–958.Google Scholar