Historical ambient airborne asbestos concentrations in the United States

Our plain-English summary of Historical ambient airborne asbestos concentrations in the United States, by M.M. Finkelstein (Inhalation Toxicology, 2016).

The study

• Author: M.M. Finkelstein
• Journal: Inhalation Toxicology
• Published: 2016;28(10):429-30
• Type of article: Comment
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This item is a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reports no new measurements. The author criticized a 2015 paper by Abelmann and colleagues, which estimated historical ambient airborne asbestos concentrations in the United States from 2058 samples drawn from 17 published and unpublished studies. That paper's abstract gave an overall median of 0.00022 f/cc. The author argued that Abelmann et al. reported the smallest detected value as the median, even though 98.6% of data points were below it, and said this artificially inflated the median. The author said several entries in Abelmann's data table could not be reproduced. Nine California samples from Baxter et al. were listed as SEM, although Baxter reported TEM. Six samples from Chesson et al. were PCM measurements, which include non-asbestos fibres, and were geometric means. One sample was listed from Sawyer, whose table showed 12. The author argued that summary data cannot be used with the reverse Kaplan–Meier method Abelmann et al. applied, and asked for clarification. The author declared consulting work for lawyers in United States asbestos litigation.

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: Letter to the editor criticizing the methods and data of a previously published analysis (Abelmann et al., 2015); no original data
• Who was studied: No study population. The letter examines the dataset of Abelmann et al. (2015), described as 2058 ambient air samples from 17 published and unpublished studies across the United States, 1960s through 2000s
• Exposure: Ambient airborne asbestos concentrations in the United States, measured by TEM, SEM or PCM in the source studies
• Main results:
  • The author stated that Abelmann et al. reported the minimum detected concentration as the median, even when 98.6% of data points were below that value. In the author's view, this artificially inflated the median ambient concentration. The abstract of Abelmann et al. gave a median of 0.00022 f/cc.
  • Abelmann et al. listed nine California samples from Baxter et al. (1983) as SEM data. The author stated that Baxter's report says the measurements were made by TEM, and that Abelmann et al. did not explain how they selected the nine samples or whether industrial and point-source sites were excluded.
  • Abelmann et al. listed six samples from Chesson et al. (1985), measured before, during and after asbestos abatement at four schools. The author stated that these were PCM measurements, which count both asbestos and non-asbestos fibres, and that they were geometric means of multiple samples rather than individual data points.
  • Abelmann et al. listed a sample size of one for Sawyer (1977) in New Haven. The author stated that Sawyer's table lists 12 samples.
  • The author argued that the reverse Kaplan–Meier estimator used by Abelmann et al. needs a measured value or detection limit for each data point, so it cannot be used with averages. The author contrasted this with the negative binomial methods used by Lee and van Orden (2008), which treat zero counts as legitimate values.
• The authors' conclusion: The author was concerned that Abelmann et al. were not forthcoming about their dataset and that readers of their abstract would be misled about median ambient asbestos concentrations. In the author's opinion, substantial clarification of the methods and results is needed.

Related studies

• Historical ambient airborne asbestos concentrations in the United States - an analysis of published and unpublished literature (1960s-2000s) — A. Abelmann, M.E. Glynn, et al. (2015)
• Letter Concerning: Glynn ME, Keeton KA, Gaffney SH, Sahmel J. Ambient Asbestos Fiber Concentrations and Long-Term Trends in Pleural Mesothelioma Incidence Between Urban and Rural Areas in the United States (1973-2012). Risk Analysis 2018;38(3):454-471 — M.M. Finkelstein (2018)
• Response to Letter to the Editor Regarding "Ambient Asbestos Fiber Concentrations and Long-Term Trends in Pleural Mesothelioma Incidence Between Urban and Rural Areas in the United States (1973-2012)" by Finkelstein — K.A. Keeton, M.E. Glynn, et al. (2018)
• Potential artifacts associated with historical preparation of joint compound samples and reported airborne asbestos concentrations — G.P. Brorby, P.J. Sheehan, et al. (2011)
• An analysis of workplace exposures to asbestos at three steel mills located in the United States (1972-1982) — D. Hollins, A. Burns, et al. (2019)
• Airborne concentrations of asbestos in 71 school buildings — M. Corn, K. Crump, et al. (1991)

Browse more research in Inhalation Toxicology, or return to medical research.