4.2 Article

World Trade Center Disaster: Assessment of Responder Occupations, Work Locations, and Job Tasks

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE
Volume 54, Issue 9, Pages 681-695

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20997

Keywords

World Trade Center; WTC; 9/11; emergency responder; disaster; task; exposure; exposure assessment; emergency planning; occupational health

Funding

  1. Centers for Disease Control and NIOSH [UIO 0H008232, U10 OH008225, U10 OH008239, U10OH008275, U10 OH008216, U10 OH008223]
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH) [200-2002-0038]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background To date there have been no comprehensive reports of the work performed by 9/11 World Trade Center responders. Methods 18,969 responders enrolled in the WTC Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program were used to describe workers' pre-9/11 occupations, WTC work activities and locations from September 11, 2001 to June 2002. Results The most common pre-9/11 occupation was protective services (47%); other common occupations included construction, telecommunications, transportation, and support services workers. 14% served as volunteers. Almost one-half began work on 9/11 and >80% reported working on or adjacent to the pile'' at Ground Zero. Initially, the most common activity was search and rescue but subsequently, the activities of most responders related to their pre-9/11 occupations. Other major activities included security; personnel support; buildings and grounds cleaning; and telecommunications repair. Conclusions The spatial, temporal, occupational, and task-related taxonomy reported here will aid the development of a job-exposure matrix, assist in assessment of disease risk, and improve planning and training for responders in future urban disasters. Am. J. Ind. Med. 54:681-695, 2011. (C) 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available