Personal exposure during abatement of various asbestos-containing materials in the same work area

Our plain-English summary of Personal exposure during abatement of various asbestos-containing materials in the same work area, by J.H. Lange, K.W. Thomulka, S.S. Sites, et al (Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2005).

The study

• Authors: J.H. Lange, K.W. Thomulka, S.S. Sites, G. Priolo, A. Buja, G. Mastrangelo
• Journal: Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
• Published: 2005;74(6):1034-6
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This short report gave personal air-sampling results for workers during removal of several asbestos-containing materials in five abatement projects. The available text lacks the introduction and most methods, so location and dates are not stated. Floor tile, pipe, fitting and boiler insulation, and plaster had reported chrysotile content; caulking was also removed, but no asbestos content was given for it. Boiler insulation in one project contained less than 1% amosite. The authors wrote that the results suggested no exposures exceeded the US OSHA limit of 0.1 f/cc (time-weighted average). In the largest project (63 samples) the arithmetic mean was 0.014 f/cc, and the estimated probability of overexposure was 10%. Mastic removed by shot blasting (4 samples) and caulking (5 samples) had means of 0.006 and 0.005 f/cc. The authors noted that their method counts all fibers, so reported levels are probably higher than actual asbestos levels. The authors wrote that the results suggested the work practices kept exposures below the OSHA limit. They also suggested that, under controlled practices, exposure is similar whatever type of material is being removed.

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: Workplace exposure measurement study: personal air samples collected during asbestos abatement on five projects, with summary statistics and a probability-of-overexposure estimate
• Who was studied: Personal air samples from workers on five asbestos abatement projects. Project sample counts include 8, 4, 6 and 63; the count for project 1 is garbled in the table. Location and dates are not given in the available text.
• Exposure: Removal of floor tile (5% to 65%), mastic (tested negative for asbestos), plaster (3%), pipe insulation (65%), fitting insulation (70%) and boiler insulation (65%, including less than 1% amosite). Percentages refer to chrysotile unless otherwise noted. Caulking was also removed in project 5, but no asbestos percentage or fiber type is given for it. Mastic was removed by shot blasting in project 5.
• Main results:
  • The authors wrote that the results suggested none of the measured exposures exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 0.1 f/cc (time-weighted average). Arithmetic and geometric means were all well below it.
  • Project 5 (63 samples): arithmetic mean 0.014 f/cc, geometric mean 0.009, SD 0.013, geometric SD 2.4, range below 0.006 to 0.065 f/cc. Probability of overexposure 10%.
  • Project 3 (4 samples, floor tile and mastic): arithmetic mean 0.011 f/cc, geometric mean 0.008, SD 0.008, geometric SD 2.3. Probability of overexposure 6%. The other projects had a probability of overexposure below 5%.
  • In project 5, mastic removed by shot blasting (4 samples) had an arithmetic mean of 0.006 f/cc, and caulking (5 samples) had an arithmetic mean of 0.005 f/cc.
  • All exposure distributions were non-normal.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors wrote that the results suggested the work practices used were effective in keeping exposures below the OSHA limit. They also suggested that exposure under controlled practices is similar regardless of the type of material abated. They argued that respirator use for this type of work may be inappropriate and that current regulation is more stringent than warranted.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The fiber counting method counts all fibers, not only asbestos, so the reported levels are probably much higher than the actual airborne asbestos concentrations.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Abatement, Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM).

Related studies

• Personal airborne asbestos exposure levels associated with various types of abatement — J.H. Lange, K.W. Thomulka, et al. (2006)
• Area and personal exposure measurements during asbestos abatement of a crawl space and boiler room — J.H. Lange, M. Wang, et al. (2005)
• Area and personal airborne exposure during abatement of asbestos-containing roofing material — J.H. Lange, K.W. Thomulka (2000)
• Asbestos-containing materials in New York City buildings — P. Lundy, M. Barer (1992)
• A study of personal and area airborne asbestos concentrations during asbestos abatement: a statistical evaluation of fibre concentration data — J.H. Lange, P.R. Lange, et al. (1996)
• Airborne exposure during asbestos abatement of floor tile, wall plaster, and pipe insulation — J.H. Lange (2005)

Browse more research in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, or return to medical research.