Validation of a full-shift benzene exposure empirical model developed for work on offshore petroleum installations on the Norwegian continental shelf.

Workers on offshore petroleum installations might be exposed to benzene, a carcinogenic agent. Recently, a full-shift benzene exposure model was developed based on personal measurements. This study aimed to validate this exposure model by using datasets not included in the model. The exposure model was validated against an internal dataset of measurements from offshore installations owned by the same company that provided data for the model, and an external dataset from installations owned by another company. We used Tobit regression to estimate GM (geometric mean) benzene exposure overall and for individual job groups. Bias, relative bias, precision, and correlation were estimated to evaluate the agreement between measured exposures and the levels predicted by the model. Overall, the model overestimated exposure when compared to the predicted exposure level to the internal dataset with a factor of 1.7, a relative bias of 73%, a precision of 0.6, a correlation coefficient of 0.72 (p = 0.019), while the Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) was 0.53. The model underestimated exposure when compared to the external dataset with a factor of about 2, with a relative bias of -45%, a precision of 1.2, a correlation coefficient of 0.31 (p = 0.544), and a Lin's CCC of 0.25. The exposure model overestimated benzene exposure in the internal validation dataset, while the precision and the correlation between the measured and predicted exposure levels were high. Differences in measurement strategies could be one of the reasons for the discrepancy. The exposure model agreed less with the external dataset.

Benzene Exposure From Selected Work Tasks on Offshore Petroleum Installations on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, 2002-2018.

OBJECTIVES: Work on offshore petroleum installations may cause exposure to benzene. Benzene is a carcinogenic agent, and exposure among workers should be as low as reasonably practicable. We aimed to assess short-term (less than 60 min) benzene exposure from the most frequent work tasks on offshore installations on the Norwegian continental shelf and identify determinants of exposure. In addition, we aimed to assess the time trend in task-based benzene measurements from 2002 to 2018. METHODS: The study included 763 task-based measurements with a sampling duration of less than 60 min, collected on 28 offshore installations from 2002 to 2018. The measurements were categorized into 10 different tasks. Multilevel mixed-effect Tobit regression models were developed for two tasks: sampling and disassembling/assembling equipment. Benzene source, season, indoors or outdoors, design of process area, year of production start, sampling method, and work operation were considered as potential determinants for benzene exposure in the models. RESULTS: The overall geometric mean (GM) benzene exposure was 0.02 ppm (95% confidence intervals 95%(CI: 0.01-0.04). The pipeline inspection gauge (PIG) operation task was associated with the highest exposure, with a GM of 0.33 ppm, followed by work on flotation cells, disassembling/assembling, and sampling, with GMs of 0.16, 0.04, and 0.01 ppm, respectively. Significant determinants for the disassembling/assembling task were work operation (changing or recertifying valves, changing or cleaning filters, and breaking pipes) and benzene source. For sampling, the benzene source was a significant determinant. Overall, the task-based benzene exposure declined annually by 10.2% (CI 95%: -17.4 to -2.4%) from 2002 to 2018. CONCLUSIONS: The PIG operation task was associated with the highest exposure out of the ten tasks, followed by work on flotation cells and when performing disassembling/assembling of equipment. The exposure was associated with the type of benzene source that was worked on. Despite the decline in task-based exposure in 2002-2018, technical measures should still be considered in order to reduce the exposure.

Occupational Benzene Exposure in the Norwegian Offshore Petroleum Industry, 2002-2018.

PURPOSE: Workers on offshore petroleum installations are at risk of being exposed to benzene which is carcinogenic to humans. The present study aimed to assess the time trend of full-shift benzene exposure from 2002 to 2018 in order to characterize benzene exposure among laboratory technicians, mechanics, process operators, and industrial cleaners, and to examine the possible determinants of benzene exposure. METHODS: A total of 924 measurements of benzene exposure from the Norwegian petroleum offshore industry were included. The median sampling duration was 680 min, ranging from 60 to 940 min. The overall geometric mean (GM) and 95% confidence interval, time trends, and determinants of exposure were estimated using multilevel mixed-effects tobit regression analyses. Time trends were estimated for sampling duration below and above 8 h, both overall and for job groups. The variability of exposure between installation and workers was investigated in a subset of data containing worker identification. RESULTS: The overall GM of benzene exposure was 0.004 ppm. When adjusting for job group, design of process area, season, wind speed, and sampling duration, industrial cleaners had the highest exposure (GM = 0.012). Laboratory technicians, mechanics, and process operators had a GM exposure of 0.004, 0.003, and 0.004 ppm, respectively. Overall, the measured benzene exposure increased by 7.6% per year from 2002 to 2018. Mechanics had an annual increase of 8.6% and laboratory technicians had an annual decrease of 12.6% when including all measurements. When including only measurements above 8 h, mechanics had an increase of 16.8%. No statistically significant time trend was found for process operators. Open process area, high wind speed, and wintertime were associated with reduced exposure level. CONCLUSIONS: An overall increase in measured exposure was observed from 2002 to 2018. The increase may reflect changes in measurement strategy from mainly measuring on random days to days with expected exposure. However, the time trend varied between job groups and was different for sampling duration above or below 8 h. Industrial cleaners had the highest exposure of the four job groups while no differences in exposure were observed between laboratory technicians, mechanics, and process operators. The design of the process area, job group, wind speed, and season were all significant determinants of benzene exposure.

Oil mist and vapour concentrations from drilling fluids: inter- and intra-laboratory comparison of chemical analyses.

OBJECTIVES: There are no recognized analytical methods for measuring oil mist and vapours arising from drilling fluids used in offshore petroleum drilling industry. To inform the future development of improved methods of analysis for oil mist and vapours this study assessed the inter- and intra-laboratory variability in oil mist and vapour analysis. In addition, sample losses during transportation and storage were assessed. METHODS: Replicate samples for oil mist and vapour were collected using the 37-mm Millipore closed cassette and charcoal tube assembly. Sampling was conducted in a simulated shale shaker room, similar to that found offshore for processing drilling fluids. Samples were analysed at two different laboratories, one in Norway and one in the UK. Oil mist samples were analysed using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), while oil vapour samples were analysed by gas chromatography (GC). RESULTS: The comparison of replicate samples showed substantial within- and between-laboratory variability in reported oil mist concentrations. The variability in oil vapour results was considerably reduced compared to oil mist, provided that a common method of calibration and quantification was adopted. The study also showed that losses can occur during transportation and storage of samples. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to develop a harmonized method for the quantification of oil mist on filter and oil vapour on charcoal supported by a suitable proficiency testing scheme for laboratories involved in the analysis of occupational hygiene samples for the petroleum industry. The uncertainties in oil mist and vapour measurement have substantial implications in relation to compliance with occupational exposure limits and also in the reliability of any exposure-response information reported in epidemiological studies.

Effect of drilling fluid systems and temperature on oil mist and vapour levels generated from shale shaker.

Workers in the drilling section of the offshore petroleum industry are exposed to air pollutants generated by drilling fluids. Oil mist and oil vapour concentrations have been measured in the drilling fluid processing areas for decades; however, little work has been carried out to investigate exposure determinants such as drilling fluid viscosity and temperature. A study was undertaken to investigate the effect of two different oil-based drilling fluid systems and their temperature on oil mist, oil vapour, and total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) levels in a simulated shale shaker room at a purpose-built test centre. Oil mist and oil vapour concentrations were sampled simultaneously using a sampling arrangement consisting of a Millipore closed cassette loaded with glass fibre and cellulose acetate filters attached to a backup charcoal tube. TVOCs were measured by a PhoCheck photo-ionization detector direct reading instrument. Concentrations of oil mist, oil vapour, and TVOC in the atmosphere surrounding the shale shaker were assessed during three separate test periods. Two oil-based drilling fluids, denoted 'System 2.0' and 'System 3.5', containing base oils with a viscosity of 2.0 and 3.3-3.7 mm(2) s(-1) at 40°C, respectively, were used at temperatures ranging from 40 to 75°C. In general, the System 2.0 yielded low oil mist levels, but high oil vapour concentrations, while the opposite was found for the System 3.5. Statistical significant differences between the drilling fluid systems were found for oil mist (P = 0.025),vapour (P < 0.001), and TVOC (P = 0.011). Increasing temperature increased the oil mist, oil vapour, and TVOC levels. Oil vapour levels at the test facility exceeded the Norwegian oil vapour occupational exposure limit (OEL) of 30 mg m(-3) when the drilling fluid temperature was ≥50°C. The practice of testing compliance of oil vapour exposure from drilling fluids systems containing base oils with viscosity of ≤2.0 mm(2) s(-1) at 40°C against the Norwegian oil vapour OEL is questioned since these base oils are very similar to white spirit. To reduce exposures, relevant technical control measures in this area are to cool the drilling fluid <50°C before it enters the shale shaker units, enclose shale shakers and related equipment, in addition to careful consideration of which fluid system to use.