{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012612612612612612, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036036036036036037, 'mean_word_length': 5.8580246913580245, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The clinical consequences of an industrial aerosol plant explosion.

The factors relating to the clinical outcome of an industrial aerosol plant explosion are reviewed. Eighteen of 24 workers inside the plant required hospitalization and five died. Proximity to the blast was associated with extensive injuries unless workers were shielded by physical barriers or partitions. Burn severity and mortality were increased in those wearing synthetic garments compared to their counterparts wearing fiber clothing. Facial burns occurred in all unprotected workers. Forearm and hand burns in 11 patients required decompressive escharotomies. Topical treatment with silver sulfadiazine was associated with more significant leukopenia and neutropenia than treatment with silver nitrate. We conclude that industrial design should include safeguards which isolate workers from flammable materials, including isolation of explosive materials from working areas, alarm systems to detect leakage of flammable agents, protective barriers and shields, and the regulation and institution of flame and flash-resistant clothing.