Current and future risks of asbestos exposure in the Australian community

Our plain-English summary of Current and future risks of asbestos exposure in the Australian community, by C. Gray, R.N. Carey, A. Reid (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2016).

The study

• Authors: C. Gray, R.N. Carey, A. Reid
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2016;22(4):292-299
• Cited by: 11 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

Background: Australia mined asbestos for more than 100 years and manufactured and imported asbestos products. There is a legacy of in situ asbestos throughout the built environment.

Methods: The aim of this study was to identify the possible sources of current and future asbestos exposure from the built environment. Telephone interviews with environmental health officers, asbestos removalists, and asbestos assessors in Australia sought information about common asbestos scenarios encountered.

Results: There is a considerable amount of asbestos remaining in situ in the Australian built environment. Potential current and future sources of asbestos exposure to the public are from asbestos-containing roofs and fences, unsafe asbestos removal practices, do-it-yourself home renovations and illegal dumping.

Conclusion: This research has highlighted a need for consistent approaches in the regulation and enforcement of safe practices for the management and removal of asbestos to ensure that in situ asbestos in the built environment is managed appropriately.

In plain English

This Australian study combined a literature review with 49 telephone interviews, held from May to July 2015, with asbestos removalists (19 Class A, 6 Class B), 3 asbestos assessors, 18 environmental health officers and 3 other officials. It aimed to identify possible sources of current and future asbestos exposure from the built environment, including buildings, fences, illegally dumped material and contaminated soil. Participants described most remaining asbestos as non-friable (bonded), such as cement sheeting, fencing, roofing and vinyl floor tiles. All removalists reported seeing asbestos in poor condition likely to release fibers: five monthly, ten weekly and six daily. Among the environmental health officers, eight saw it monthly and three weekly. Participants raised concerns about weathered roofs, fire- and storm-damaged material, contaminated soil, do-it-yourself renovation, poor-quality removal work and illegal dumping. All but one expected illegal dumping to increase. The study recorded participants' observations and views, not measured exposures. The authors noted that participants may not represent all removalists and officers. They concluded that consistent regulation and enforcement of safe management and removal practices are needed.

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: Qualitative telephone interview study combined with a literature review
• Who was studied: 49 telephone interviews across all Australian states and territories, May to July 2015. The participants were 25 licensed asbestos removalists (19 Class A, 6 Class B), 3 asbestos assessors, 18 environmental health officers (8 urban, 10 rural), plus one member of the Australian Capital Territory Asbestos Response Taskforce, a Remote Program Officer and a Regional Waste Management Coordinator in the Northern Territory.
• Exposure: Asbestos-containing material remaining in place (in situ) in the Australian built environment, both friable and non-friable. No specific fiber types or doses were measured.
• Main results:
  • Interviews and the literature review found that most asbestos remaining in Australian buildings is non-friable.
  • Friable asbestos was less common. In homes it was found behind stoves, as electrical millboard and as pipe insulation.
  • All removalists had seen asbestos in poor condition where fiber release may be likely. Five removalists saw it monthly, ten weekly and six daily. Among environmental health officers, eight saw it monthly and three weekly.
  • Twenty removalists and environmental health officers said asbestos roofs in their area had already begun to weather and become friable.
  • Participants disagreed about fire-damaged asbestos. 13 participants considered asbestos products friable after being burnt.
  • Three participants reported seeing people walk through fire-damaged homes without protection and before decontamination.
  • All participants except one thought illegal dumping of asbestos would increase in future.
  • Removalists saw soil contamination a few times a year on average. Some removalists saw it at every removal job.
  • Eight Class A removalists reported concern about the quality of work done by Class B removalists.
  • Asbestos roofing was often left in place because it was seen as too large and costly to replace.
  • Indigenous communities, particularly in Western Australia, New South Wales and the Northern Territory, were identified as having a large amount of in situ asbestos, mostly in poor condition. The exact amount is unknown.
  • Two removalists thought most asbestos-containing materials would be removed within 20 years. The majority thought in situ asbestos would be an ongoing issue in Australia.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that Australia needs consistent approaches to regulating and enforcing safe practices for managing and removing asbestos, so that asbestos left in buildings is managed appropriately.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The participants may not accurately represent removalists and environmental health officers across Australia.
  • Several environmental health officers declined to take part because they could not identify asbestos or knew little about it.
  • Participating environmental health officers were more likely to be experienced, and several had an interest in asbestos.
  • More Class A than Class B removalists were interviewed, although Class B removalists are more numerous.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos Exposure.

Related studies

• Indigenous health and environmental risk factors: an Australian problem with global analogues? — L.D. Knibbs, P.D. Sly (2014)
• Asbestos concerns in Australian buildings — T.K. Burki (2016)
• Past and current asbestos exposure and future mesothelioma risks in Britain: The Inhaled Particles Study (TIPS) — C. Gilham, C. Rake, et al. (2018)
• Recycling of the product of thermal inertization of cement-asbestos for various industrial applications — A.F. Gualtieri, C. Giacobbe, et al. (2011)
• Thermochemical destruction of asbestos-containing roofing slate and the feasibility of using recycled waste sulfuric acid — S.N. Nam, S. Jeong, et al. (2014)
• Crystal chemistry of the high temperature product of transformation of cement-asbestos — A. Viani, A.F. Gualtieri, et al. (2013)

Browse more research in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, or return to medical research.