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

Abstract

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.

Effectiveness of Engineering Controls for Airborne Lead Exposure during Renovation/Demolition of a Commercial Building

“…Although it is true that these controls also provide information for protection to the environment and public (public health) [5]. Previous studies have suggested that occupational exposure (personal) sampling and area sampling are not related [21,31,33,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] and provide statistically different exposure concentrations [21,33,35]. Comparison studies have further shown that personal (occupational) measurements are often statistically greater in concentration than area samples [21,33,35].…”

“…Previous studies have suggested that occupational exposure (personal) sampling and area sampling are not related [21,31,33,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] and provide statistically different exposure concentrations [21,33,35]. Comparison studies have further shown that personal (occupational) measurements are often statistically greater in concentration than area samples [21,33,35]. Since the purpose of engineering/ work practice controls is for occupation exposure protection [4,33], the best measure of this effectiveness is personal sampling [4,12,19,21,41].…”

“…Comparison studies have further shown that personal (occupational) measurements are often statistically greater in concentration than area samples [21,33,35]. Since the purpose of engineering/ work practice controls is for occupation exposure protection [4,33], the best measure of this effectiveness is personal sampling [4,12,19,21,41]. Other suggested requirements [32] such as condition of building and/or material, its age, type of material and concentration of hazardous substance of interest, sampling information, filter collection description (e.g.…”

“…Other suggested requirements [32] such as condition of building and/or material, its age, type of material and concentration of hazardous substance of interest, sampling information, filter collection description (e.g. pore size of collecting filter) and analysis protocol are of importance and necessary to understand conditions and activities undertaken [4,12,19,21,32,33].…”

“…This is based on the premise that personal air samples are for 'compliance purposes and not part of a protocol in a scientific project' [32]. Such an assumption is fallacious based on the concept that controls employed in abatement industries are primarily for occupational protection [4,6,12,33,34]. Although it is true that these controls also provide information for protection to the environment and public (public health) [5].…”