Asbestos abatement of pipe and floor tile/mastic and comparison of critical plastic barrier controls

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos abatement of pipe and floor tile/mastic and comparison of critical plastic barrier controls, by J.H. Lange (Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2004).

The study

• Author: J.H. Lange
• Journal: Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
• Published: 2004;72(3):542-6
• Cited by: 4 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This study measured airborne asbestos during removal of pipe insulation and floor tile with mastic at a Pennsylvania exhibition building in summer 2002. The pipe insulation contained 30–45% chrysotile and the floor tile/mastic 3-5% chrysotile. Pipe insulation was removed using glovebags, with or without critical barriers (plastic sheeting sealing doors, windows and other openings). All personal samples were below the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc). For pipe work, the arithmetic mean was 0.013 f/cc without barriers (11 samples) and 0.011 f/cc with them (15 samples). This difference was not statistically significant. The calculated probability that at least 5% of workers would exceed the limit was around 7% in both settings. For floor tile/mastic removal, the mean was 0.005 f/cc from 3 samples. The author concluded that critical barriers gave no benefit in reducing exposure to workers or the public during glovebag work. The author also suggested, while calling the floor tile data limited, that floor tile/mastic does not warrant regulation. The author noted that PCM counts tend to overestimate actual asbestos levels.

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: Field air-sampling study of exposure during asbestos abatement, comparing glovebag removal of pipe insulation with and without critical barriers
• Who was studied: Asbestos abatement workers at an exhibition facility in Pennsylvania, USA, in summer 2002. There were 11 personal samples for glovebag work without critical barriers, 15 with critical barriers, and 3 (4 including one taken when mastic was not being removed) for floor tile/mastic. There were also perimeter samples outside the work area. The number of workers cannot be read in the scanned text.
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos in pipe insulation (30–45%) and in floor tile/mastic (3-5%). The pipe insulation was removed by glovebag with or without critical barriers. The floor tile was removed manually and the mastic with solvent, inside a full containment.
• Main results:
  • All personal samples were below the OSHA permissible exposure limit, which was taken as 0.1 f/cc.
  • Glovebag pipe removal without critical barriers (11 samples): arithmetic mean 0.013 f/cc, geometric mean 0.010, SD 0.009, GSD 2.0, range less than 0.008 to 0.031 f/cc.
  • Glovebag pipe removal with critical barriers (15 samples): arithmetic mean 0.011 f/cc, geometric mean 0.007, SD 0.019, GSD 2.3, range less than 0.004 to 0.08 f/cc.
  • Exposure during pipe insulation removal did not differ significantly with and without critical barriers.
  • Using the arithmetic mean, the probability of overexposure was around 7% both with and without barriers. The methods define this as a probability (confidence coefficient) that at least 5% of workers exceed the PEL, calculated from summary task-length averages. It is not the share of workers overexposed.
  • Perimeter samples collected outside the regulated area during pipe removal were below the PCM final clearance criterion.
  • Floor tile/mastic removal (3 samples): arithmetic mean 0.005 f/cc, geometric mean 0.004, SD 0.004, GSD 2.2, range less than 0.004 to 0.010 f/cc.
  • All floor tile/mastic samples were below the PCM final clearance limit. For floor tile/mastic workers, the probability of overexposure (defined in the methods as the probability that at least 5% of workers exceed the PEL) was less than 5%.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that adding critical barriers to glovebag removal of asbestos pipe insulation does not reduce exposure for workers or the public.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author described the floor tile/mastic data as limited, while still suggesting this material does not warrant regulation.
  • The author noted that PCM fiber counts historically greatly overestimate actual asbestos fiber concentrations.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Abatement.

Related studies

• Airborne exposure during asbestos abatement of floor tile, wall plaster, and pipe insulation — J.H. Lange (2005)
• Type and amount of asbestos in floor tile and mastic — J.H. Lange (2006)
• Air sampling during asbestos abatement of floor tile and mastic — J.H. Lange, K.W. Thomulka (2000)
• 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)
• Emissions concerns during renovation in the healthcare setting: asbestos abatement of floor tile and mastic in medical facilities — W.P. Racine (2010)
• 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)

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