• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.66-72
• /
• 2012

Objectives: The AHERA method by the US EPA, ASTM E2356-04, and HSG264 by the UK HSE, all of which are hazard/risk assessment methods for asbestos-containing building materials, were reviewed and compared based on 231 homogeneous areas. In addition, the current Act on Asbestos Safety Management (enforcement: April 29, 2012) was reviewed and analyzed. This trial provided fundamental data for improving the current asbestos hazard/risk assessment method. Methods: For the hazard/risk assessment of 77 asbestos-containing public buildings including schools, 231 homogeneous areas were selected, each of which was assessed using AHERA, ASTM E2356-04, and HSG264. Results: The matching rate of the hazard/risk assessment stood at 20.4 percent between AHERA and ASTM, at 71.4 percent between AHERA and HSG264 and at 17.8 percent between ASTM and HSG264. The AHERA method includes a seven-category rating scale. There were three categories, two of which have three subcategories. ASTM provides two decision-making charts consisting of ten rating scales for current condition estimation and for potential for disturbance estimation. In addition, the HSG264 method has a total of 20 scores with four items, and then provides four grades. This HSG264 method cannot clearly separate current condition and potential for disturbance. Conclusions: In the Korean Act on Asbestos Safety Management, the hazard/risk assessment method for asbestos-containing building materials should consider balance between current condition estimation and the potential for disturbance estimation.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.16 no.7
• /
• pp.5029-5037
• /
• 2015

The objective of this study is to investigate the distribution of asbestos containing materials and to evaluate risk assessment method in some schools, Korea. For the survey on ACM risk assessment, we used both EPA AHERA rule and ASTM rule. We investigated 100 schools between January and December in 2010. Detection rate of the ACM according to construction year showed that before 1980's, 1990's, 2000's, after 2000's buildings were 100%, 94.1%, 100% and 62.5%, respectively. Compared with school types, detection rate of the ACM in Kindergarten, Elementary, Middle, High, Special Education schools were 100%, 97.1%, 92.9%, 100%, 80%, respectively. Ceiling textiles contained chrysolite/mixed amosite(2~8 %) and wall cement flat boards contained chrysolite(6~11 %). Also, gasket contained chrysolite(16~17 %), slate roof contained chrysolite(10~13 %). In this study, risk assessment EPA AHERA rule of ACM showed that all materials were "Pool" grade. And, ASTM rule risk assessment showed that all materials were "Q&M program" grade.

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.213-232
• /
• 2009

This document was prepared to review and summarize the analytical methods for airborne and bulk asbestos. Basic principles, shortcomings and advantages for asbestos analytical instruments using phase contrast microscopy(PCM), polarized light microscopy(PLM), X-ray diffractometer (XRD), transmission electron microscopy(TEM), scanning electron microscopy(SEM) were reviewed. Both PCM and PLM are principal instrument for airborne and bulk asbestos analysis, respectively. If needed, analytical electron microscopy is employed to confirm asbestos identification. PCM is used originally for workplace airborne asbestos fiber and its application has been expanded to measure airborne fiber. Shortcoming of PCM is that it cannot differentiate true asbestos from non asbestos fiber form and its low resolution limit ($0.2{\sim}0.25{\mu}m$). The measurement of airborne asbestos fiber can be performed by EPA's Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) method, World Health Organization (WHO) method, International Standard Organization (ISO) 10312 method, Japan's Environmental Asbestos Monitoring method, and Standard method of Indoor Air Quality of Korea. The measurement of airborne asbestos fiber in workplace can be performed by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 7400 method, NIOSH 7402 method, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ID-160 method, UK's Health and Safety Executive(HSE) Methods for the determination of hazardous substances (MDHS) 39/4 method and Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA) CODE-A-1-2004 method of Korea. To analyze the bulk asbestos, stereo microscope (SM) and PLM is required by EPA -600/R-93/116 method. Most bulk asbestos can be identified by SM and PLM but one limitation of PLM is that it can not see very thin fiber (i.e., < $0.25{\mu}m$). Bulk asbestos analytical methods, including EPA-600/M4-82-020, EPA-600/R-93/116, OSHA ID-191, Laboratory approval program of New York were reviewed. Also, analytical methods for asbestos in soil, dust, water were briefly discussed. Analytical electron microscope, a transmission electron microscope equipped with selected area electron diffraction (SAED) and energy dispersive X-ray analyser(EDXA), has been known to be better to identify asbestiform than scanning electron microscope(SEM). Though there is no standard SEM procedures, SEM is known to be more suitable to analyze long, thin fiber and more cost-effective. Field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM) imaging protocol was developed to identify asbestos fiber. Although many asbestos analytical methods are available, there is no method that can be applied to all type of samples. In order to detect asbestos with confidence, all advantages and disadvantages of each instrument and method for given sample should be considered.