Airborne fiber control in buildings during asbestos material removal by amended water methodology

Sawyer, Robert N.; Rohl, Arthur N.; Langer, Arthur M.

doi:10.1016/0013-9351(85)90006-4

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wetting the area where removal is being carried out controls asbestos fibres and reduces airborne contamination (Paik et al, 1983;Sawyer et al, 1985;Lange and Thomulka, 2002), so such techniques have become the recommended working practice over dry methods. This study found no evidence that the use of mainly wet suppression techniques reduced the risk of mortality for workers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational exposure to asbestos and mortality among asbestos removal workers: a Poisson regression analysis

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The asbestos industry has shifted from manufacture to stripping/removal work. The aim of this study was to investigate early indications of mortality among removal workers. The study population consisted of 31 302 stripping/removal workers in the Great Britain Asbestos Survey, followed up to December 2005. Relative risks (RR) for causes of death with elevated standardised mortality ratios (SMR) and sufficient deaths were obtained from Poisson regression. Risk factors considered included dust suppression technique, type of respirator used, hours spent stripping, smoking status and exposure length. Deaths were elevated for all causes (SMR 123, 95% CI 119 -127, n ¼ 985), all cancers including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and circulatory disease. There were no significant differences between suppression techniques and respirator types. Spending more than 40 h per week stripping rather than less than 10, increased mortality risk from all causes (RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2 -1.7), circulatory disease and ischaemic heart disease. Elevated mesothelioma risks were observed for those first exposed at young ages or exposed for more than 30 years. This study is a first step in assessing long-term mortality of asbestos removal workers in relation to working practices and asbestos exposure. Further follow-up will allow the impact of recent regulations to be assessed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational exposure to asbestos and mortality among asbestos removal workers: a Poisson regression analysis

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result of this suggested distribution, summary data would be best represented as GM and GSD [35,49,69]. However, some studies have suggested and reported data as the AM and SD rather than non-normal summary data descriptors [23,52,108].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Area samples are often employed to determine the airborne concentration within an area such as work location (inside the containment or regulated area), outside the containment and for evaluation of engineering controls and work practices. However, many contractors, industrial hygienists and building owners often use these data from area samples for establishing occupational exposure levels and protection requirements for the environment, public and those occupationally employed [22,23,35,38]. Possible reasons for selection of area sampling over personal sampling have been discussed by Lange et al [35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous studies have been published on the airborne concentrations associated with asbestos abatement [2,3,9,18,22,23,[32][33][34][35]. Reports on exposure concentration values provide contractors, consultants, industrial hygienists, toxicologists, epidemiologists and building owners with information on historical and, in part, objective data that may be associated with different types of abatement activities [35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Statistical Evaluation of Asbestos Air Concentrations

Lange¹

1999

Indoor Built Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both area and personal air samples collected during an asbestos abatement project were matched and statistically analysed. Among the many parameters studied were fibre concentrations and their variability. Mean values for area and personal samples were 0.005 and 0.024 f·cm^–3 of air, respectively. Summary values for area and personal samples suggest that exposures are low with no single exposure value exceeding the current OSHA TWA value of 0.1 f·cm^–3 of air. Within- and between-worker analysis suggests that these data are homogeneous. Comparison of within- and between-worker values suggests that the exposure source and variability for abatement are more related to the process than individual practices. This supports the importance of control measures for abatement. Study results also suggest that area and personal samples are not statistically related, that is, there is no association observed for these two sampling methods when data are analysed by correlation or regression analysis. Personal samples were statistically higher in concentration than area samples. Area sampling cannot be used as a surrogate exposure index for asbestos abatement workers.

show abstract

“…Summary airborne asbestos concentrations are reported as arithmetic (AM) and geometric means (GM) [8,34,46]. Variation of these data is provided as standard deviation (SD) [46], geometric standard deviation (GSD) [26,34] and range [8,25].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study of Area and Personal Airborne Asbestos Samples during Abatement in a Crawl Space

Lange

Kuhn

Thomulka

et al. 2000

Indoor Built Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Air sample data were collected during asbestos abatement of two buildings using area and personal sampling methods. Abatement involved removal of pipe insulation from crawl spaces. The two sampling methods were compared to determine if there was a relationship between them. A relationship was observed between area and personal airborne samples in building 2 as determined by correlation and regression but is most likely due to chance. One major outlier was detected for both area and personal measurement sample data sets in building 2. It was concluded that any relationship between area and personal sample measurements must be viewed with caution. Concentrations measured from personal sampling were statistically higher than those from area sampling. Also, the distributions of concentrations in the samples were calculated to be nonnormal (logarithmic form). It is proposed that area sampling under-estimates worker exposure compared to personal measurements and is not applicable for exposure and hazard assessment. It is suggested that area and personal samples measure two different population concentrations of airborne fibers. Use of area samples in lieu of personal measurements should only be employed with caution.

show abstract

Airborne fiber control in buildings during asbestos material removal by amended water methodology

Cited by 19 publications

References 4 publications

Occupational exposure to asbestos and mortality among asbestos removal workers: a Poisson regression analysis

Occupational exposure to asbestos and mortality among asbestos removal workers: a Poisson regression analysis

A Statistical Evaluation of Asbestos Air Concentrations

A Study of Area and Personal Airborne Asbestos Samples during Abatement in a Crawl Space

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About