Measurement of asbestos emissions associated with demolition of abandoned residential dwellings

Our plain-English summary of Measurement of asbestos emissions associated with demolition of abandoned residential dwellings, by R.L. Neitzel, S.K. Sayler, A.H. Demond, et al (The Science of the Total Environment, 2020).

The study

• Authors: R.L. Neitzel, S.K. Sayler, A.H. Demond, H. d'Arcy, D.H. Garabrant, A. Franzblau
• Journal: The Science of the Total Environment
• Published: 2020;722:137891
• Cited by: 13 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

Many cities are revitalizing their urban cores through the demolition of abandoned residential dwellings (ARDs). However, data regarding the emissions of asbestos during such an operation are sparse. We measured airborne asbestos emissions from emergency demolitions (demolitions on structures deemed too dangerous to enter and remove asbestos) of ARDs in Detroit. High-flow air sampling was conducted during ARD demolitions. Air samples were analyzed using Phased Contrast Microscopy (PCM), and a subset using Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). One hundred and one air samples were collected on 25 emergency demolitions. Fifty-four of the 101 PCM samples (53%) exceeded the limit of detection (LOD). However, only 2 of 46 TEM samples (4%) exceeded the LOD for asbestos; these latter samples were from two different demolitions and each contained a single chrysotile asbestos fiber. Using conservative exposure assumptions and commonly-accepted risk estimation formulae, we estimated the lifetime risk of mesothelioma and lung cancer combined to be less than one case per one million people. Emissions of airborne asbestos during emergency (unabated) ARD demolition operations appear to be negligible. As a result, the associated health risk for asbestos-related disease is also negligible. Reconsideration of current regulatory mandates for asbestos abatement in ARDs may be warranted.

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

In plain English

The authors measured airborne asbestos during 25 'emergency' demolitions of abandoned Detroit houses, October 2017 to March 2018. These houses were too damaged for asbestos inspection and removal beforehand. Pumps stood typically 40 to 60 feet from each house, three feet off the ground. All 101 air samples were examined by phase contrast microscopy, which cannot tell asbestos from other fibers; 54 (53%) were above the detection limit. Of these, 46 were also examined by transmission electron microscopy, which can identify asbestos. Only 2 of these 46 (4%) had detectable asbestos. Each held one chrysotile fiber; the samples came from two neighboring houses demolished the same day, and both fibers may have come from one demolition. No amphibole fibers, such as amosite or crocidolite, were found. For community residents, the authors assumed exposure at their measured 90th-percentile asbestos level, 0.0001 fibers/cc, for one working month. From this they estimated a lifetime lung cancer and/or mesothelioma risk below one in a million. They concluded emissions were negligible and consistent with background levels. They could not be certain the houses contained asbestos.

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 during demolitions, with a cancer risk estimate and a cost comparison against a random sample of abated demolitions
• Who was studied: 25 emergency (unabated) demolitions of abandoned residential dwellings in Detroit, October 2017 to March 2018; 101 air samples collected
• Exposure: Airborne asbestos released during demolition without prior asbestos removal. It was measured with pumps typically 40 to 60 feet from the demolition zone, at a height of three feet. All samples were analyzed by PCM and a subset by TEM.
• Main results:
  • 54 of the 101 samples (53%) were above the PCM limit of detection
  • Asbestos was detectable in 2 of the 46 TEM samples (4%). Non-asbestos fibers, mostly organic matter, were detectable in 39 (85%).
  • Each of the two samples with detectable asbestos held a single fiber, and both fibers were chrysotile. The samples were taken at two adjacent homes demolished on the same day. The authors could not rule out that both fibers came from one of these demolitions.
  • No amphibole asbestos (such as amosite or crocidolite) and no non-regulated amphibole fibers were detected in any TEM sample
  • The 90th percentile concentration was 0.0097 fibers/cc for all fibers by PCM, versus 0.0001 fibers/cc for asbestos by TEM
  • The risk estimate for community residents assumed exposure to 0.0001 fiber/cc of chrysotile (the 90th percentile of the TEM measurements) for one 'working month', with follow-up to 80 years. The estimated lifetime risk of lung cancer and/or mesothelioma, and its upper bound, were both below 1 in 1,000,000.
  • The median total cost of the emergency (unabated) demolitions was about $2,000 higher than that of the non-emergency demolitions, which included inspection and abatement ($15573 vs $13645)
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that asbestos emissions from demolishing these abandoned houses, which likely contained asbestos, were negligible and consistent with background levels
• Limitations the authors state:
  • Because of budget constraints, only a subset of samples was analyzed by TEM
  • The authors could not be certain that the sampled houses contained asbestos
  • The emergency demolitions may have contained less asbestos than expected because of material removal or deterioration
  • Pre-demolition background samples were taken at only one demolition, because of safety concerns
  • Both asbestos fibers may have come from only one of the two adjacent demolitions
  • The filter from one of the two homes with asbestos was overloaded, giving a higher detection limit for that sample
  • A full visual inspection of the houses before demolition was often not possible

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Air Sampling, Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), Chrysotile, Mesothelioma, Lung Cancer, Abatement.

Related studies

• Asbestos-containing materials in abandoned residential dwellings in Detroit — A. Franzblau, A.H. Demond, et al. (2020)
• Response to Letter to the Editor regarding Franzblau et al., Asbestos-containing materials in abandoned residential dwellings in Detroit, from Prof. Arthur Frank, MD, PhD — A. Franzblau, A.H. Demond, et al. (2020)
• Letter to Editor regarding Franzblau et al. 2020: Asbestos-containing materials in abandoned residential dwellings in Detroit, Science of Total Environment, v714,1-8 — A.L. Frank (2020)
• Measurement and removal of asbestos in residential dwellings to be demolished-urban transformation experience in Izmir, Turkey — Y.Ö. Tetik, İ.B. Zümrüt, et al. (2024)
• Estimating the Additional Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Korea: Focused on Demolition of Asbestos Containing Materials in Building — Y.C. Kim, W.H. Hong, et al. (2016)
• Early detection of malignant pleural mesothelioma through measurement of soluble mesothelin-related protein and positron emission tomography — E.L. O'Lone, E.K. Park, et al. (2009)

Browse more research in The Science of the Total Environment, or return to medical research.