There are six elongate mineral particles (EMPs) corresponding to specific dimensional and morphological criteria, known as asbestos. Responsible for health issues including asbestosis, and malignant mesothelioma, asbestos has been well researched. Despite this, significant exposure continues to occur throughout the world, potentially affecting 125 million people in the workplace and causing thousands of deaths annually from exposure in homes. However, there are other EMPS, such as fibrous/asbestiform erionite, that are classified as carcinogens and have been linked to cancers in areas where it has been incorporated into local building materials or released into the environment through earthmoving activities. Erionite is a more potent carcinogen than asbestos but as it is seldom used for commercial purposes, exposure pathways have been less well studied. Despite the apparent structural and chemical similarities between asbestos and fibrous erionite, their health risks and exposure pathways are quite different. This article examines the hazards presented by EMPs with a particular focus on fibrous erionite. It includes a discussion of the global locations of erionite and similar hazardous minerals, a comparison of the multiple exposure pathways for asbestos and fibrous erionite, a brief discussion of the confusing nomenclature associated with EMPs, and considerations of increasing global mesothelioma cases.

As the 21st century uncovers ever-increasing volumes of asbestos and asbestos-contaminated waste, we need a new way to stop ‘grandfather’s problem’ from becoming that of our future generations. The production of inexpensive, mechanically strong, heat resistant building materials containing asbestos has inevitably led to its use in many public and residential buildings globally. It is therefore not surprising that since the asbestos boom in the 1970s, some 30 years later, the true extent of this hidden danger was exposed. Yet, this severely toxic material continues to be produced and used in some countries, and in others the disposal options for historic uses – generally landfill – are at best unwieldy and at worst insecure. We illustrate the global scale of the asbestos problem via three case studies which describe various removal and/or end disposal issues. These case studies from both industrialised and island nations demonstrate the potential for the generation of massive amounts of asbestos contaminated soil. In each case, the final outcome of the project was influenced by factors such as cost and land availability, both increasing issues, worldwide. The reduction in the generation of asbestos containing materials will not absolve us from the necessity of handling and disposal of contaminated land. Waste treatment which relies on physico-chemical processes is expensive and does not contribute to a circular model economy ideal. Although asbestos is a mineral substance, there are naturally occurring biological-mediated processes capable of degradation (such as bioweathering). Therefore, low energy options, such as bioremediation, for the treatment for asbestos contaminated soils are worth exploring. We outline evidence pointing to the ability of microbe and plant communities to remove from asbestos the iron that contributes to its carcinogenicity. Finally, we describe the potential for a novel concept of creating ecosystems over asbestos landfills (‘activated landfills’) that utilize nature’s chelating ability to degrade this toxic product effectively.

As our global population increases, the resulting waste mountain continues to rise. It has been identified that the Construction Industry contributes to a large proportion of the waste to landfill (and cleanfill) sites. Whilst there have been a multitude of commercial ventures and research-based activities targeted to challenge waste volumes, the ambitions of a truly circular economy for this industry remain far from realised. This article will discuss industry examples of waste minimisation initiatives which have been implemented successfully to support a less linear approach and encourage sustainable waste management for industrialised nations. We also identify limitations of this decentralised approach to resource management and suggest how the creation of resource markets, on both national and international scales, could connect the waste management loop for a vastly improved environmental outcome.

No abstract

No abstract