Using a Mobile Phone App to Identify and Assess Remaining Stocks of In Situ Asbestos in Australian Residential Settings

Our plain-English summary of Using a Mobile Phone App to Identify and Assess Remaining Stocks of In Situ Asbestos in Australian Residential Settings, by M. Govorko, L. Fritschi, A. Reid (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019).

The study

• Authors: M. Govorko, L. Fritschi, A. Reid
• Journal: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
• Published: 2019;16(24)
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were used extensively throughout much of the 20th century and can still be found in many Australian homes. Therefore, we developed a mobile application ("app"), called ACM Check, which guides users through a home inspection to identify and assess certain types of in situ ACM. A cross-sectional study was conducted using the app to collect data on the type and condition of in situ asbestos in Australian residential settings. Since being released in June 2017, we have received data for 702 home inspections. Of these, 578 (82.3%) houses contained a total of 1895 in situ materials categorised as positive for asbestos by the app. The most prevalent ACMs were used for the backing board to electrical meter boxes (50% of homes), eaves and soffit linings (44.2% of homes), and fencing (28.1% of homes). While the majority of ACMs were categorised as 'very low' or 'low' priority for removal or remediation, 6.6% of all ACMs were considered to be of 'high' priority. Mobile apps offer a platform to help increase people's awareness of possible health hazards found in the residential environment, such as asbestos, while also being used to collect data for public and environmental health research.

In plain English

The authors developed a mobile phone app, ACM Check. It guides users through a visual inspection of 14 areas of a home and rates how likely each material is to contain asbestos. In this cross-sectional study, users shared data from 702 Australian home inspections between June 2017 and September 2019. Of these, 336 were in Western Australia (WA). Materials the app rated 'possible' or 'likely' were counted as positive, except wall tile backing, which was counted as negative. The app classed 1,895 materials as positive; 578 of 702 houses (82.3%) had at least one. The most common were backing boards to electrical meter boxes (50% of homes), eaves and soffit linings (44.2%), and fencing (28.1%). The app classed fencing as positive at 50.6% of WA houses versus 7.4% elsewhere. Users also rated the condition and likelihood of disturbance of each 'possible' or 'likely' material. From these, 125 of the 1,895 materials (6.6%) were 'high' priority for removal or remediation. The authors noted a small, self-selected sample and possibly overestimated priority levels. They concluded the app can be used to collect such data.

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: Cross-sectional study using data collected through a mobile phone app (ACM Check) that users completed on their own homes
• Who was studied: 702 home inspections shared by consenting app users aged 18 or older, June 2017 to September 2019. 336 were in Western Australia and 366 in other Australian states and territories, mostly Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.
• Exposure: Suspected in situ asbestos-containing materials (mainly asbestos-cement products) in 14 areas of homes, as identified by the app from users' answers. Materials rated 'possible' or 'likely' were counted as positive, except wall tile backing, which was counted as negative. Fiber types were not reported.
• Main results:
  • 578 of 702 houses (82.3%) had at least one material categorised by the app as positive for asbestos
  • The app categorised 1,895 materials as positive. Most were outside the house (1311; 69.2%).
  • The most frequently detected suspected materials across all houses were backing boards to electrical meter boxes (50% of homes), eaves (44.2%) and asbestos-cement sheet fencing (28.1%)
  • The app categorised corrugated asbestos-cement sheet fencing as positive at 50.6% of WA houses and 7.4% of houses in other states and territories
  • In other states and territories, 167 of 1040 suspected materials (16.1%) were rated in 'poor' condition and 79 of 1040 (7.6%) in 'very poor' condition. In WA, 24 of 855 (2.8%) were rated 'very poor'.
  • Of all 1,895 positive materials, 920 (48.5%) were 'very low' and 443 (23.4%) 'low' priority for remediation or removal
  • 125 materials (6.6%) were 'high' priority, most often interior flooring and asbestos-cement eaves, soffit linings or verandah ceilings
  • 12.6% of houses in other states and territories had at least one 'high' priority material, compared with 8.3% of WA houses
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the app can be used by a range of community members to collect data on the presence, current condition and potential for disturbance of in situ asbestos in Australian homes
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The sample size was limited
  • Participants selected themselves, which can lead to selection bias
  • There were no data on participants' age, sex or socioeconomic status, so results could not be standardised to be representative of the country
  • Priority levels may be overestimated, because app users tended to overrate materials compared with an environmental consultant in the pilot study
  • The analysis assumed all submitted results came from genuine inspections, not from users testing the app

Topics

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

Related studies

• Accuracy of a mobile app to identify suspect asbestos-containing material in Australian residential settings — M.H. Govorko, L. Fritschi, et al. (2018)
• An Australian stocks and flows model for asbestos — S. Donovan, J. Pickin (2016)
• Pleural mesothelioma in relation to meteorological conditions and residential distance from an industrial source of asbestos — J. Tarrés, C. Albertí, et al. (2013)
• Residential proximity to naturally occurring asbestos: health risk or ecologic fallacy? — C.A. Brodkin, J.R. Balmes, et al. (2006)
• Telomerase activity analyzed with TRAP in situ provides additional information in effusions remaining equivocal after immunocytochemistry and hyaluronan analysis — E. Adell, A. Dejmek (2014)
• OccIDEAS: An Innovative Tool to Assess Past Asbestos Exposure in the Australian Mesothelioma Registry — E. Macfarlane, G. Benke, et al. (2012)

Browse more research in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, or return to medical research.