Impact of muffle furnace preparation on the results of crystalline silica analysis.

A prior report demonstrated an unacceptably low level of accuracy in silica analytical testing, with a general negative bias (i.e., underreporting) although other inaccuracies included false-positive results when analyzing blank filters. The possible bias may have been due to the loss of sample during shipping and or sample preparation. We report on a follow-up study that was designed to mimic the original study, but in which sources of variability were evaluated. We found no effect on silica recoveries due to shipping and confirmed the prior study results that the muffle furnace ashing process led to low overall recoveries (49-104%), depending on the adherence to the recommended preparation method. Plasma ashing recoveries ranged from 89 to 108%. Our results suggest that muffle-furnace ashing using a crucible should be restricted. More broadly, however, muffle-furnace ashing is only one source of analytical error that contributes to the relatively poor overall performance revealed by Cox et al. Whatever the case, OSHA should ensure that its proposed requirements to improve laboratory performance will actually lead to the discovery and correction of all major sources of error by participating laboratories. This is particularly important in light of OSHA's proposed reduction in the PEL and action level proposed by OSHA.

How reliable are crystalline silica dust concentration measurements?

To determine how reliably commercial laboratories measure crystalline silica concentrations corresponding to OSHA's proposed limits, 105 filters were prepared with known masses of 20, 40, and 80 µg of respirable quartz corresponding to airborne silica concentrations of 25, 50, and 100 µg/m(3) and were submitted, in a blind test, to qualified commercial laboratories over a nine month period. Under these test conditions, the reported results indicated a lack of accuracy and precision needed to reliably inform regulatory compliance decisions. This was true even for filters containing only silica, without an interfering matrix. For 36 filters loaded with 20 or more micrograms of silica, the laboratories reported non-detected levels of silica. Inter-laboratory variability in this performance test program was so high that the reported results could not be used to reliably discriminate among filters prepared to reflect 8-h exposures to respirable quartz concentrations of 25, 50 and 100 µg/m(3). Moreover, even in intra-laboratory performance, there was so much variability in the reported results that 2-fold variations in exposure concentrations could not be reliably distinguished. Part of the variability and underreporting may result from the sample preparation process. The results of this study suggest that current laboratory methods and practices cannot necessarily be depended on, with high confidence, to support proposed regulatory standards with reliable data.

Asbestos exposure from the overhaul of a Pratt & Whitney R2800 engine.

This study assessed the asbestos exposures of airplane piston engine mechanics while performing overhaul work on a Pratt & Whitney R2800 radial engine, with tools and practices in use since the time these engines were manufactured. Approximately 40% of the bulk samples collected during this test were found to contain chrysotile. Air samples were collected during the overhaul and were analyzed by phase contrast microscopy (PCM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The average worker exposure during disassembly was 0.0272f/ml (PCM) and ranged from 0.0013 to 0.1240f/ml (PCM) during an average sample collection time of 188min. The average worker exposure during reassembly was 0.0198f/ml (PCM) and ranged from 0.0055 to 0.0913f/ml (PCM) during an average sample collection time of 222min. Only one worker sample (during reassembly) was found to contain asbestos at a concentration of 0.0012f/ml (PCME). Similar results should be found in other aircraft piston engines that use metal clad and non-friable asbestos gaskets, which are the current standard in aircraft piston engines.

Assessment of potential asbestos exposures from jet engine overhaul work.

Asbestos fibers have been used in a wide variety of products and numerous studies have shown that exposures from the use or manipulation of these products can vary widely. Jet engines contained various components (gaskets, clamps, o-rings and insulation) that contained asbestos that potentially could release airborne fibers during routine maintenance or during an engine overhaul. To evaluate the potential exposures to aircraft mechanics, a Pratt & Whitney JT3D jet engine was obtained and overhauled by experienced mechanics using tools and work practices similar to those used since the time this engine was manufactured. This study has demonstrated that the disturbance of asbestos-containing gaskets, o-rings, and other types of asbestos-containing components, while performing overhaul work to a jet engine produces very few airborne fibers, and that virtually none of these aerosolized fibers is asbestos. The overhaul work was observed to be dirty and oily. The exposures to the mechanics and bystanders were several orders of magnitude below OSHA exposure regulations, both current and historic. The data presented underscore the lack of risk to the health of persons conducting this work and to other persons in proximity to it from airborne asbestos.

Naturally occurring asbestos: a recurring public policy challenge.

The potential environmental hazards and associated public health issues related to exposure to respirable dusts from the vicinity of natural in-place asbestos deposits (commonly referred to as naturally occurring asbestos, NOA) have gained the regulatory and media spotlight in many areas around the United States, such as Libby, MT, Fairfax County, VA, and El Dorado Hills, CA, among others. NOA deposits may be present in a variety of geologic formations. It has been suggested that airborne asbestos may be released from NOA deposits, and absent appropriate engineering controls, may pose a potential health hazard if these rocks are crushed or exposed to natural weathering and erosion or to human activities that create dust. The issue that needs to be addressed at a policy level is the method of assessing exposures to elongated rock fragments ubiquitous in dust clouds in these same environments and the associated risk. Elongated rock fragments and single crystal minerals present in NOA have been construed by some as having attributes, including the health effects, of asbestos fibers. However, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) found that the scientific evidence did not support this assumption. As in many environmental fields of study, the evidence is often disputed. Regulatory policy is not uniform on the subject of rock fragments, even within single agencies. The core of the issue is whether the risk parameters associated with exposures to commercial asbestos can or should be applied to rock fragments meeting an arbitrary set of particle dimensions used for counting asbestos fibers. Inappropriate inclusion of particles or fragments results in dilution of risk and needless expenditure of resources. On the other hand, inappropriate exclusion of particles or fragments may result in increased and unnecessary risk. Some of the fastest growing counties in the United States are in areas where NOA is known to exist and therefore this issue takes on national significance. This ongoing national dilemma has raised public and business concerns. There has been continuing political and scientific debate and widespread miscommunication over perceived versus actual health risks, the validity of various analytical sampling and testing methods, the questionable necessity and escalating costs of remediation procedures, and the combined negative impact on numerous commercial and public interests. Thus, conflicting research and regulatory positions on the distinctions between and hazards of true asbestos and ordinary rock fragments is all that is presently available to the public until the differing scientific communities and government agencies arrive at a consensus on these issues. The risk assessment methodology and the analytical technology needed to support inferences drawn from existing research are available, but have not been organized and implemented in the manner needed to resolve the NOA controversy. There should exist nationally adopted and peer-reviewed NOA standards (developed jointly by the scientific community, health risk professionals, and government regulators) that establish: (1) a scientific basis for risk evaluation and assessment of NOA and rock fragments; (2) accepted analytical protocols for determining if NOA actually exists in a given area and for separating NOA from related non-asbestos rock fragments and single crystal minerals; and (3) effective public policies for managing NOA, minimizing potential hazards, and protecting public health. This article will review some of the key issues involved with the current NOA debate, propose improved analytical methodologies, describe potential solutions for dealing with NOA, and outline the benefits to be gained by creating a practical national NOA public policy.

Airborne asbestos in buildings.

The concentration of airborne asbestos in buildings nationwide is reported in this study. A total of 3978 indoor samples from 752 buildings, representing nearly 32 man-years of sampling, have been analyzed by transmission electron microscopy. The buildings that were surveyed were the subject of litigation related to suits alleging the general building occupants were exposed to a potential health hazard as a result the presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). The average concentration of all airborne asbestos structures was 0.01structures/ml (s/ml) and the average concentration of airborne asbestos > or = 5microm long was 0.00012fibers/ml (f/ml). For all samples, 99.9% of the samples were <0.01 f/ml for fibers longer than 5microm; no building averaged above 0.004f/ml for fibers longer than 5microm. No asbestos was detected in 27% of the buildings and in 90% of the buildings no asbestos was detected that would have been seen optically (> or = 5microm long and > or = 0.25microm wide). Background outdoor concentrations have been reported at 0.0003f/ml > or = 5microm. These results indicate that in-place ACM does not result in elevated airborne asbestos in building atmospheres approaching regulatory levels and that it does not result in a significantly increased risk to building occupants.

Exposure to airborne asbestos in buildings.

The concentration of airborne asbestos in buildings and its implication for the health of building occupants is a major public health issue. A total of 2892 air samples from 315 public, commercial, residential, school, and university buildings has been analyzed by transmission electron microscopy. The buildings that were surveyed were the subject of litigation related to suits alleging the general building occupants were exposed to a potential health hazard as a result of exposure to the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACM). The average concentration of all asbestos structures was 0.02 structures/ml (s/ml) and the average concentration of asbestos greater than or equal to 5 microns long was 0.00013 fibers/ml (f/ml). The concentration of asbestos was higher in schools than in other buildings. In 48% of indoor samples and 75% of outdoor samples, no asbestos fibers were detected. The observed airborne concentration in 74% of the indoor samples and 96% of the outdoor samples is below the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act clearance level of 0.01 s/ml. Finally, using those fibers which could be seen optically, all indoor samples and all outdoor samples are below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure level of 0.1 f/ml for fibers greater than or equal to 5 microns in length. These results provide substantive verification of the findings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency public building study which found very low ambient concentrations of asbestos fibers in buildings with ACM, irrespective of the condition of the material in the buildings.

Evaluation of ambient asbestos concentrations in buildings following the Loma Prieta earthquake.

On October 17, 1989, an earthquake struck central, coastal California including San Francisco and the Bay Area, damaging many buildings. Because of concern over the possible exposure to asbestos in the damaged buildings, building owners/managers hired several Bay Area industrial hygiene firms to collect air samples in suspect buildings. RJ Lee Group analyzed a total of 419 air samples from 55 buildings (25 school, 3 university, 20 commercial, 5 public, and 2 residential buildings) using transmission electron microscopy and has compiled the results. The data from each building were averaged and grouped accordingly into three classifications: indoor buildings, buildings with asbestos abatement in progress at the time of the earthquake, and buildings where sampling was performed to monitor clean-up of debris. Several buildings were sampled on more than 1 day. The results indicate that asbestos levels differed little from outdoor levels, even immediately after the earthquake. Exceptions to this were samples collected in the vicinity of debris clean-up and in buildings undergoing abatement which were higher than the indoor or outdoor samples. However, these samples generally had concentrations below the AHERA clearance levels and all were well below the OSHA action limit.