Air sampling during asbestos abatement of floor tile and mastic

Our plain-English summary of Air sampling during asbestos abatement of floor tile and mastic, by J.H. Lange, K.W. Thomulka (Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2000).

The study

• Authors: J.H. Lange, K.W. Thomulka
• Journal: Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
• Published: 2000;64(4):497-501
• Cited by: 13 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Summary of the article

This study examined airborne asbestos concentrations during the abatement of floor tile and mastic, and whether area and personal air samples were related. Area and personal samples were collected during a 1997 abatement project in a three-story dormitory-type building in Pennsylvania, USA, covering 25,000 square feet. Both the floor tile and the mastic contained chrysotile asbestos at 3-7%. Floor tile was removed by scrape and lift, and mastic by chemical solvent. Controls included negative air machines, polyethylene barriers and a three-stage decontamination station. Abatement activities, including setup and final air clearance, lasted about 20 days. An independent technician collected samples with low-flow pumps. Samples were analyzed by phase contrast microscopy (NIOSH method 7400) and reported as actual and time-weighted average (TWA) concentrations. Four personal samples and one area sample were below the detection limit. All TWA and non-TWA measurements were below the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit. Both sample types fitted a logarithmic distribution. The highest values (area 0.067 f/cc, personal 0.094 f/cc) were outliers. Personal samples were statistically higher than area samples, with and without outliers, and the two methods were not correlated. The authors concluded that area samples cannot be used in place of personal measurements. They stated that this type of abatement results in exposures below the OSHA limit of 0.1 f/cc-TWA, that the data do not support respirator use, and that limited control measures would appear appropriate.

PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

In plain English

This study measured airborne asbestos during a 1997 project that removed floor tile and mastic from a three-story dormitory-type building in Pennsylvania, with 25,000 square feet abated. Both materials contained chrysotile asbestos at 3-7%. Tile was removed by scrape and lift, and mastic by chemical solvent. The work was done inside plastic barriers with negative air machines. An independent technician collected personal samples, worn by workers, and area samples, taken at locations the technician chose. The samples were analyzed by phase contrast microscopy. The highest values were 0.067 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc) for area samples and 0.094 f/cc for personal samples. The authors reported that all measurements were below the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit. Personal samples were statistically higher than area samples, with or without the highest outlying values, and the two sampling methods were not correlated. The authors concluded that area and personal samples were not related and that area samples cannot be used in place of personal measurements. The article's data tables did not come through in the text, so sample counts and average concentrations are not available here.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Air-sampling (exposure measurement) study during one asbestos abatement project, comparing area and personal samples
• Who was studied: Workers and work areas during abatement of a three-story dormitory-type building (25,000 square feet abated) in Pennsylvania, USA, in 1997, over about 20 days; workers and area locations were selected by an independent technician; number of samples not available in the text
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos at 3-7% in floor tile and mastic; tile removed by scrape and lift with little water, mastic removed by chemical solvent; fibers counted by phase contrast microscopy (NIOSH 7400 method)
• Main results:
  • All personal and area measurements, both time-weighted and actual concentration values, were below the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit
  • The largest values were 0.067 f/cc for area samples and 0.094 f/cc for personal samples; each was a statistical outlier
  • Personal samples had statistically higher concentrations than area samples, with and without outliers
  • Area and personal sampling results were not correlated and were statistically different
  • Four personal samples and one area sample were below the detection limit
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that area and personal samples are not related and that area samples cannot be used in place of personal measurements

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Air Sampling, Abatement, Personal Breathing Zone Sample, Chrysotile, phase contrast microscopy (PCM), NIOSH Method 7400, Time-Weighted Average (TWA), Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL).

Related studies

• Asbestos abatement of pipe and floor tile/mastic and comparison of critical plastic barrier controls — J.H. Lange (2004)
• Airborne exposure during asbestos abatement of floor tile, wall plaster, and pipe insulation — J.H. Lange (2005)
• Emissions concerns during renovation in the healthcare setting: asbestos abatement of floor tile and mastic in medical facilities — W.P. Racine (2010)
• Type and amount of asbestos in floor tile and mastic — J.H. Lange (2006)
• Exposure to airborne asbestos during abatement of ceiling material, window caulking, floor tile and roofing material — J.H. Lange, S.L. Sites, et al. (2008)
• Exposure to airborne asbestos during abatement of ceiling material, window caulking, floor tile, and roofing material — J.H. Lange, S.L. Sites, et al. (2006)

Browse more research in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, or return to medical research.