Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Indoor and Built Environment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lange, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Airborne Asbestos Concentrations during Abatement of Floor Tile and Mastic: Evaluation of Two Different Containment Systems and Discussion of Regulatory Issues

John H. Lange

Envirosafe Training and Consultants, Pittsburgh, Pa., USA

Regulatory agencies in the United States identify asbes tos-containing floor tile as a friable material when abated. Such categorisation appears to be based on legislation rather than science and exposure data or health risks. This investigation suggests that occupation al (personal) exposure during abatement of floor tile and mastic results in low airborne concentrations of asbestos as determined by phase contrast microscopy. Compari son of personal exposure results for two asbestos abate ment school projects, which collected exposure data dur ing abatement of floor tile and mastic together, one involving full containment and the other a partial con tainment system (critical barriers), suggests a statistical difference in concentrations. However, this difference was not considered to be biologically (health) significant. Other studies that collected exposure data on floor tile and mastic separately support findings of low exposure in studies reporting measurements of these building components together. Summary results as arithmetic and geometric means for occupational samples were below the Occupational Safety and Health Administra tion permissible exposure limit for airborne asbestos fibres. The basis for classifying floor tile and mastic as a friable asbestos-containing material does not appear to be supported by scientific evidence. A discussion of reg ulatory issues associated with asbestos-containing floor tile and mastic is presented.

Key Words: Personal exposure • Legislating science • Asbestos regulations • Airborne contaminants • Asbestos abatement

Indoor and Built Environment, Vol. 10, No. 3-4, 193-199 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X0101000312


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?