search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
INSIGHT | H&S - COMPRESSED AIR WORK


Above Left: A humeral shaft lesion as seen on MRI (Ref: https://www.eurorad.org/case/14398 , with permission) Above right: A Chinese air diver with significant advanced DON of both femurs reported in 2018 (Re: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k637, with permission)


In a manual labour workforce, DON is therefore a


potentially career-ending condition. Affected workers are eligible to claim compensation through the Industrial Injuries and Disablement Benefit scheme11


and are liable


to litigate against employers through the civil courts due to enforced unemployment or change of career.


THE EVOLUTION OF DON IN COMPRESSED AIR WORK DON, historically known as ‘caisson disease of the bone,’ was first described in 191312


1940s revealed a 75% prevalence among asymptomatic compressed air workers, prompting more systematic investigation13


. By 1980, UK radiological data from over


2,500 compressed air workers demonstrated a 17.6% DON prevalence—significantly higher than the 4.2% observed in North Sea divers9


. Despite improved decompression protocols and


hyperbaric working practices over time, DON remains a risk in CAW. To this day, fear of ‘bone rot’ persists in the UK


compressed air workforce, particularly those with family or community members who have worked in the tunnelling industry and developed functionally limiting disease in the second half of the 20th Century. Modern data regarding the condition is scarce. A 1996


Japanese study found an 11.1% prevalence among 3,554 compressed air workers14


reported a prevalence of 34.5%15


, while a 2018 Chinese study . The decompression


techniques used for the respective compressed air work were inaccessible or not documented. This appears to represent the most recent published evidence and highlights the ongoing risk of the condition in hyperbaric tunnelling work globally.


32 | July 2025


The last reported case of DON in the UK was in . Initial skeletal surveys in the


1999, in a worker exposed using the standard UK air decompression table (Blackpool Air Table) despite using relatively conservative work exposures and good site management of the decompression procedure. Since the introduction of statutory oxygen decompression in 2001, no further UK cases have been recorded. However, recognition of the condition has always been hindered by difficulties in following up a typically transient workforce. The apparent decrease in the incidence of DON in UK compressed air workers coincided with a significant reduction in the number of hyperbaric tunnelling exposures compared to historical averages. This limits the ability to draw any definitive conclusions. Comparison between historical and modern


compressed air projects illustrate this shift. The Second Dartford Tunnel, hand-excavated between 1974–1977, required 1,200 compressed air workers who incurred 122,000 pressure exposures. In contrast, each of the twin tunnels at Swanscombe on the High Speed 1 (HS1) line, excavated by TBM in 2002-2003 under similar geological conditions, required roughly 125 hyperbaric exposures by a workforce of 20-3016


. The continued incidence of decompression sickness


in modern compressed air work remains significantly higher than commercial diving practice. The strong association between decompression sickness and DON suggests that compressed air work still presents a risk for bone disease. While improvements in decompression safety have


likely contributed to a reduction in DON incidence, definitive surveillance data is lacking. There is no published evidence, either in the UK or from overseas, which confirms the incidence or absence of DON


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45