Exposure of UK industrial plumbers to asbestos, Part II: Awareness and responses of plumbers to working with asbestos during a survey in parallel with personal sampling

Our plain-English summary of Exposure of UK industrial plumbers to asbestos, Part II: Awareness and responses of plumbers to working with asbestos during a survey in parallel with personal sampling, by D. Bard, G. Burdett (The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2007).

The study

• Authors: D. Bard, G. Burdett
• Journal: The Annals of Occupational Hygiene
• Published: 2007;51(2):113-9
• Cited by: 7 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Throughout the European Union, millions tonnes of asbestos were used in the manufacture of products for building and for industrial installations. Today, in the UK, it is estimated that over half a million non-domestic premises alone have asbestos-containing materials in them and it is recognized that those working in building maintenance trades continue to be at significant risk. In part II, the awareness of UK plumbers to when they are working with asbestos was investigated and compared with the monitored levels reported in part I. The plumbers were issued by post with passive samplers, activity logs to monitor a working week and a questionnaire. The activity logs were used to assess whether maintenance workers were knowingly or unknowingly exposed to airborne asbestos fibres during a course of a working week. The questionnaire was designed to gather information on their: age, employment status, current and past perception of the frequency which they work with asbestos and knowledge of the precautions that should be taken to limit exposure and risk. Approximately 20% of workers reported on the sample log that they had worked with asbestos. There was a high correlation (93%) between the sampling log replies that they were knowingly working with asbestos and measured asbestos on the passive sampler. However, some 60% of the samples had >5 microm long asbestos structures found by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis suggesting that the plumbers were aware of about only one-third of their contacts with asbestos materials throughout the week. This increased to just over one half of the plumbers being aware of their contact based on the results for phase contrast microscopy (PCM) countable asbestos fibres. The results from the questionnaire found that over half of the plumbers replying thought that they disturb asbestos only once a year and 90% of them thought they would work with asbestos for<10 h year-1. Their expectations and awareness of work with asbestos were therefore far lower than found during the period of monitoring. The response to an open question on the precautions to be taken, found that 61% of plumbers would avoid disturbance and 59% would use respiratory protection if they did disturb asbestos. However, their awareness of the methods and the need to reduce their risk by control of emissions at source was very low and suggests that further awareness raising and training is needed. The survey was carried out prior to the introduction of the duty to manage and gives a useful baseline to assess the impact of regulatory initiatives.

In plain English

This UK survey asked whether industrial plumbers knew when they were working with asbestos. It was done before the duty to manage asbestos took effect in May 2004. It is Part II of a study whose air-sampling results appear in Part I. Plumbers recruited through the Institute of Plumbers were posted an air sampler, a one-week work log and a questionnaire. 50 samplers came back in Round 1 and 24 in Round 2, along with 48 questionnaires. Across both rounds, 61% of samplers held at least one asbestos structure longer than 5 micrometres, yet about 20% of plumbers reported asbestos work in their logs. Such structures were found on 29 of 55 samplers (53%) from plumbers who answered 'no'. Average concentrations of countable asbestos fibres were 0.05 fibres per millilitre among plumbers who answered yes or were unsure and 0.06 among those who answered no. On the questionnaire, 52% thought they worked with asbestos only once a year. Only 15% mentioned wetting as a precaution. The authors concluded that many plumbers seemed unaware they were disturbing asbestos and applied no controls.

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: Postal survey combining personal passive air sampling, a one-week activity log and a questionnaire (Part II of a two-part study; the sampling analysis itself is reported in Part I)
• Who was studied: UK industrial plumbers recruited through the Institute of Plumbers (target 100). 96 samplers and questionnaires were sent out. 50 samplers with logs were returned in Round 1 and 24 in Round 2, plus 48 questionnaires completed in Round 1. Of respondents, 54% were employees and 46% self-employed, and 90% worked for companies of fewer than 10 employees. 72% of logged jobs were in domestic premises. The study was carried out before May 2004; exact dates are not given.
• Exposure: Airborne asbestos measured over a working week with personal passive samplers analysed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Counts were reported as PCME (phase contrast microscopy equivalent) asbestos fibres and as asbestos structures longer than 5 micrometres. These were compared with the plumbers' own reports of working with asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). The materials logged included cement products, pipe and boiler lagging, gaskets, packings and sprays, tapes and ropes, and insulation boards.
• Main results:
  • Across both rounds, 41% of samplers contained at least one PCME asbestos fibre and 61% contained at least one asbestos structure longer than 5 micrometres.
  • About 20% of workers reported work with ACMs on the sample logs. Counting 'no' replies that described asbestos material being disturbed, some 16 workers (22%) were thought to be working with asbestos.
  • Among plumbers who answered 'yes' to working with ACMs, 14 of 15 samplers (93%) had asbestos structures longer than 5 micrometres. Among all 19 who thought, suspected or knew they had, the figure was 16 of 19 (84%).
  • Among plumbers who answered 'no' to working with asbestos (55 samples over both rounds), asbestos structures longer than 5 micrometres were detected in 53% and PCME asbestos fibres in 31%.
  • Over both rounds, the average PCME asbestos concentration was 0.05 fibres per millilitre for plumbers who answered yes or were unsure about working with ACMs. Table 4 labels this group 'Yes/?', and the authors' text describes it as plumbers who indicated they had worked with ACMs.
  • Over both rounds, the average PCME asbestos concentration was 0.06 fibres per millilitre for plumbers who answered no.
  • Reported work with ACMs totalled 18 h 10 min, on average 0.5% of working time.
  • The most common ACM types disturbed during sampling were cement products (30%) and pipe and boiler lagging (19%).
  • On the questionnaire, 52% of respondents thought they worked with ACMs only once a year.
  • 90% of respondents thought that over the last year they had not worked with asbestos at all (30%) or had worked with it for less than 10 hours (60%).
  • 79% of plumbers thought they were able to recognize ACMs.
  • Asked an open question on precautions, 61% said they would avoid disturbing ACMs or not work with asbestos, and 59% said they would wear respiratory protective equipment.
  • Only 15% mentioned wetting as a precaution.
  • No respondent mentioned using hand tools in preference to power tools.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that, although open to interpretation, the implication is that many plumbers were unaware they were disturbing ACMs and applied no controls. They also wrote that further awareness raising and training is needed, and that the survey serves as a baseline for assessing the duty to manage asbestos.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors noted that the work durations given on the questionnaire disagreed with the sampling results, so caution is needed in interpreting questionnaire responses.
  • For the longest reported asbestos work (packings and loose insulating sprays), it was not clear whether the materials were directly disturbed or only nearby.
  • The authors noted that the higher average exposure among plumbers who thought they were not working with asbestos could be explained by precautions taken by those who knew they were.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM), Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), phase contrast microscopy (PCM), Respirator.

Related studies

• Exposure of UK industrial plumbers to asbestos, Part I: Monitoring of exposure using personal passive samplers — G. Burdett, D. Bard (2007)
• Industrial-grade talc exposure and the risk of mesothelioma — B. Price (2010)
• Carcinogenic hazards from inhaled carbon black, titanium dioxide, and talc not containing asbestos or asbestiform fibers: recent evaluations by an IARC Monographs Working Group — R.A. Baan (2007)
• Greek employee awareness of carcinogenic exposure — C. Chatzis, K. Karvounis, et al. (2004)
• Comparison of soil sampling and analytical methods for asbestos at the Sumas Mountain Asbestos Site-Working towards a toolbox for better assessment — J. Wroble, T. Frederick, et al. (2017)
• An evaluation of the risks of lung cancer and mesothelioma from exposure to amphibole cleavage fragments — J.F. Gamble, G.W. Gibbs (2008)

Browse more research in The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, or return to medical research.