No abstract

An evaluation of airborne lead exposure was conducted during abatement of a building as part of its demolition. Personal airborne exposure concentrations were collected over 29 working days. These results suggest, for this study, that exposure levels are highly variable, exhibit a nonnormal distribution and fre quently exceed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissi ble Exposure Limit for lead. Various engineering and work practice controls were employed during this project to reduce exposure levels, although the con tractor did at times employ prohibited practices. Exposure results from this study suggest that lead abatement workers involved in demolition are not a homogenous group for sampling purposes. Studies are needed to evaluate engineering controls, work practices and worker exposure to airborne lead during abatement of buildings that are being demolished.

An evaluation of airborne lead exposure was conducted during abatement of a building as part of its demolition. Personal airborne exposure concentrations were collected over 29 working days. These results suggest, for this study, that exposure levels are highly variable, exhibit a nonnormal distribution and frequently exceed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limit for lead. Various engineering and work practice controls were employed during this project to reduce exposure levels, although the contractor did at times employ prohibited practices. Exposure results from this study suggest that lead abatement workers involved in demolition are not a homogenous group for sampling purposes. Studies are needed to evaluate engineering controls, work practices and worker exposure to airborne lead during abatement of buildings that are being demolished.

Air sample data were collected during asbestos abate ment of two buildings using area and personal sampling methods. Abatement involved removal of pipe insula tion from crawl spaces. The two sampling methods were compared to determine if there was a relationship be tween them. A relationship was observed between area and personal airborne samples in building 2 as deter mined 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 be tween 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 concentra tions 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 person al samples measure two different population concentra tions of airborne fibers. Use of area samples in lieu of personal measurements should only be employed with caution.

No abstract