Indoor and Built Environment

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to register and gain free access

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lange, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Indoor and Built Environment, Vol. 14, No. 1, 83-88 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X05050675

Asbestos-containing Floor Tile and Mastic Abatement: Is there Enough Exposure to Cause Asbestos-related Disease?

John H. Lange

Envirosafe Training and Consultants, Pittsburgh, PA, johnhlange{at}worldnet.att.net

Chrysotile asbestos has been reported as a constituent of both floor tiles and mastic. In consequence, asbestos-containing floor tiles and mastic have been identified by regulatory agencies as hazardous materials. The reason for this categorisation is the suggested potential for these materials to cause asbestos-related diseases and as a result special handling has been prescribed. However, studies have reported that little airborne asbestos exposure occurs during abatement of these materials. Evaluation of exposure levels in comparison with levels with the potential of disease causation suggests that there is little likelihood of workers handling or removing these materials developing an asbestos-related disease. When the maximum exposure level of 0.02f·ml–1 (0.8f·ml–1 year) found during studies is considered over a 40-year period and evaluated with epidemiological data, the risk of mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer may be estimated to that reported for background levels. From a practical point of view this represents zero risk. Study results suggest that floor tile and mastic are not likely responsible agents for asbestos disease in either abatement or other workers associated with these products.

Key Words: Asbestos-containing material • Exposure • Occupational disease • Non-friable • Health effects


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