Risk assessment of asbestos containing materials in a deteriorated dwelling area using four different methods

Our plain-English summary of Risk assessment of asbestos containing materials in a deteriorated dwelling area using four different methods, by Y.L. Zhang, H.S. Byeon, W.H. Hong, et al (Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2021).

The study

• Authors: Y.L. Zhang, H.S. Byeon, W.H. Hong, G.W. Cha, Y.H. Lee, Y.C. Kim
• Journal: Journal of Hazardous Materials
• Published: 2021;410:124645
• Cited by: 10 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

The release of asbestos fibers in old buildings, during demolition, or remodeling is associated with severe public health risks to building occupants and workers. In Korea, asbestos was used in several building materials during the 20th century. Although the use of asbestos is currently banned, its widespread earlier use and the current government initiatives to revitalize dilapidated areas make it essential to accurately evaluate the location and status of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). This study surveyed buildings in an area of deteriorated dwellings targeted for renewal and determined the status and distribution of ACMs in that area. Asbestos distribution maps were generated and asbestos characteristics were analyzed. In addition, the risk posed by the identified ACMs was assessed using four international methods (the Korean Ministry of Environment, US Environmental Protection Agency, American Society for Testing and Materials, and UK Health and Safety Executive methods), and the results were compared. Notable differences between the assessment results were identified and were found to reflect the specific characteristics of buildings in the study area. These findings suggest ACM risk assessments should be specifically tailored to the regions in which they are applied, thereby improving ACM management and promoting both worker and occupant health.

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

In plain English

The authors surveyed all 790 buildings (75,331 square metres) in Daeyeon's Second District, a deteriorated housing area in Busan, Korea, scheduled for demolition. The survey ran July 2014 to January 2015. Inspectors collected 1432 samples of suspected asbestos-containing materials and examined them under microscopes. Materials with more than 1% asbestos were counted as asbestos-containing. Asbestos was found in 418 samples (29.2%) and in 271 buildings (34.3%). All 418 positive samples contained chrysotile, and three of them also contained amosite. By area, slate made up 80.5% of the asbestos-containing material, followed by gypsum cement boards, cement/wood boards and gaskets. The authors then rated the positive samples with four methods: those of the Korean Ministry of Environment, US EPA AHERA, ASTM and UK HSE. The methods' results differed, especially on potential future fiber release. For future scattering or exposure potential (scores, not measured fiber release), AHERA rated 366 samples "high", ASTM 155 and HSE 17. The authors concluded that assessment methods should account for regional building characteristics. They stated that their specific results may apply only to the area studied.

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 survey of all buildings in one redevelopment area, with bulk sampling of building materials, microscope analysis, and a comparison of four asbestos risk assessment methods applied to each positive sample. No air measurements or health outcomes were reported.
• Who was studied: 790 buildings with a combined area of 75,331 square metres in Daeyeon's Second District, a deteriorated dwelling area in Busan Metropolitan City, Korea, scheduled for demolition. Surveyed July 2014 to January 2015 by four trained inspectors. 1432 samples were collected.
• Exposure: Asbestos in building materials: slates (roofing), gypsum cement boards (ceilings), cement/wood boards (walls or partitions) and gaskets. Fibers detected were chrysotile and amosite. Materials with more than 1% asbestos were classed as asbestos-containing.
• Main results:
  • Of 790 buildings, 271 (34.3%; 27,122 square metres, 36.0% of area) contained asbestos. Of 1432 samples, 418 (29.2%) contained asbestos.
  • Chrysotile was found in all 418 asbestos-containing samples. Amosite together with chrysotile was found in 3 samples (1 slate, 2 gypsum cement boards).
  • By share of asbestos-containing material area: slates 80.5%, gypsum cement boards 18.1%, cement/wood boards 1.3%, gaskets 0.1%.
  • Average asbestos content by material: gaskets 14.9%, slates 12.3%, cement/wood boards 10.0%, gypsum cement boards 5.0%.
  • By building category, asbestos-containing material area was largest in brick/stone buildings (9742 square metres, 82.5%), single-story buildings (8680 square metres, 73.5%) and buildings 30 to 40 years old (7965 square metres, 67.5%).
  • Korean Ministry of Environment method, 418 asbestos-containing samples: no "high", 51 "medium" and 367 "low" for current damage. This method does not assess future scattering potential.
  • EPA AHERA method, 418 samples: 129 rated as having scattering potential and 289 as non-scattering. Damage was rated 314 "low", 76 "medium" and 28 "high". Scattering potential was rated no "low", 52 "average" and 366 "high".
  • ASTM method, 418 samples: damage was rated 28 "high", 176 "medium" and 214 "low". Scattering potential was rated 83 "low", 180 "average" and 155 "high". 228 needed maintenance and 190 needed dismantling and removal.
  • UK HSE method, 418 samples: none were rated "high" for material condition. 17 were rated "high" for exposure potential, 16 of them slates.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the different results from the four methods show the influence of regional building characteristics. They concluded that choosing and revising asbestos assessment methods should account for regional differences.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The results may contain biases and may not represent all buildings or areas.
  • The specific results may apply only to the residential area that was investigated.
  • Risk assessments may reflect the investigator's subjective views. To reduce this, one investigator recorded all samples at each site.

Topics

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

Related studies

• 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)
• Optimal management program for asbestos containing building materials to be available in the event of a disaster — Y.C. Kim, W.H. Hong (2017)
• Two different methods, three different variations, four different sources: what bulk asbestos PLM method is your laboratory using? Part 1 — D.B. McGrath, D.R. Van Orden, et al. (2010)
• Analytical performance issues. Two different methods, three different variations, four different sources: what bulk asbestos PLM method is your laboratory using? Part 2 — D.B. McGrath, D.R. Van Orden, et al. (2010)
• Asbestos-containing materials in abandoned residential dwellings in Detroit — 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)

Browse more research in Journal of Hazardous Materials, or return to medical research.