Emissions concerns during renovation in the healthcare setting: asbestos abatement of floor tile and mastic in medical facilities

Our plain-English summary of Emissions concerns during renovation in the healthcare setting: asbestos abatement of floor tile and mastic in medical facilities, by W.P. Racine (Journal of Environmental Management, 2010).

The study

• Author: W.P. Racine
• Journal: Journal of Environmental Management
• Published: 2010;91(7):1429-36
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Healthcare facilities undergoing renovation have specific concerns that are exacerbated when the restoration requires asbestos abatement of aged floor tile and mastic. The current state of the art for removal of these materials involves manual removal of floor tile and chemical stripping of mastic. Utilization of these stripping chemicals is a concern for facilities whose perception is based on a safe, caring, and healthy environment. In this study, wet grinding is evaluated as an alternative to chemical stripping of asbestos-containing floor tile mastic. This study endeavors to answer the question; what is the difference between these two methodologies in terms of their operational efficacy and suitability in the healthcare setting. Wet grinding and chemical stripping are evaluated in a side-by-side comparison using a mixed methods approach. The data shows that the methodologies are statistically similar in terms of their cost and emissions data. The data indicates that the benefits associated with the wet grinding method offer advantages that are not present using the chemical stripping method. This study also demonstrates that wet grinding is a viable alternative to chemical stripping especially in healthcare facilities.

Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In plain English

This study compared two ways of removing asbestos-containing floor tile adhesive (mastic) at two medical centers in Northeast Ohio. One site used the chemical stripping method; the other used wet grinding with water and fine sand. The author measured airborne fibers, reviewed the contractor's costs, and interviewed 15 employees at the chemical stripping site and 20 at the wet grinding site. Average area fiber levels were about four times background during chemical stripping and about seven times background during wet grinding. The author reported both increases as statistically significant. The difference between the two methods was not statistically significant. No individual sample exceeded the OSHA limit of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter. Wet grinding cost $1.72 per square foot versus $1.65, which the author called 4.2% more, mostly due to extra labor time. At the chemical stripping site, a manager reported that five employees took sick days and fifteen others voiced concerns over symptoms. Complaints at the wet grinding site were minimal. The author concluded that wet grinding is a viable alternative to chemical stripping, especially in healthcare settings.

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: Side-by-side field comparison of two asbestos abatement methods using mixed methods: air sampling, a review of cost records, and stakeholder interviews
• Who was studied: Two operating medical centers in Northeast Ohio, with about 5,000 square feet of floor removed at each. At the chemical stripping facility 15 of 60 employees were interviewed. At the wet grinding facility 20 of about 300 employees were interviewed. The owner, the new flooring contractor and regulatory officials were also interviewed.
• Exposure: Airborne fibers released while asbestos-containing floor tile and mastic were removed by chemical stripping or by wet grinding. The asbestos fiber type in the tile and mastic is not stated. Air samples were analyzed by phase contrast microscopy (NIOSH Method 7400), counting fibers longer than 5 micrometers.
• Main results:
  • During chemical stripping, average area airborne fiber levels were about four times the background level. The author reported this as a statistically significant increase (p = 0.0029).
  • During wet grinding, average area airborne fiber levels were about seven times the background level. The author reported this as a statistically significant increase (p = 0.0037).
  • Wet grinding produced higher mean emissions than chemical stripping, but the difference between the two methods was not statistically significant (p = 0.1226)
  • The maximum emissions reported over each project were 0.006 f/cc for chemical stripping and 0.009 f/cc for wet grinding
  • No individual air sample at either site exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.1 f/cc
  • The author stated that wet grinding cost 4.2% more than chemical stripping, with most of the difference coming from added labor time. This figure matches the contractor's average cost per square foot in the cost table: $1.72 for wet grinding versus $1.65 for chemical stripping. Total contractor costs were $8,699.00 for 5,060 square feet versus $8,076.00 for 4,890 square feet.
  • At the chemical stripping facility, the personnel manager reported that five employees used one to three sick days each and fifteen others voiced concerns over symptoms. The facility administrator reported that three physicians rescheduled exams and procedures because of the odors.
  • At the wet grinding facility, employee complaints were minimal
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that wet grinding is a viable alternative to chemical stripping, especially where odors may be a problem, as in healthcare settings. The author also stated that the rise in fibers over background was not considered biologically (health) significant.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The employees interviewed were different groups at the two facilities
  • The cost comparison excluded professional fees (project design, air monitoring, oversight) and laboratory fees

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Abatement, State-of-the-Art Defense.

Related studies

• Air sampling during asbestos abatement of floor tile and mastic — J.H. Lange, K.W. Thomulka (2000)
• Asbestos abatement of pipe and floor tile/mastic and comparison of critical plastic barrier controls — J.H. Lange (2004)
• 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)
• Airborne exposure during asbestos abatement of floor tile, wall plaster, and pipe insulation — J.H. Lange (2005)

Browse more research in Journal of Environmental Management, or return to medical research.