• 한국산학기술학회논문지
• /
• 제16권7호
• /
• pp.5029-5037
• /
• 2015

본 연구의 목적인 우리나라 일부 학교의 석면함유 건축자재을 조사하고 EPA AHERA rule과 ASTM rule을 적용하여 위해성평가를 실시하였다. 총 100개 학교를 2010년 1월부터 12월까지 조사하였다. 건축년도에 따른 ACM 검출율은 1980년대 이전 건축물은 100%, 1990년대 이전은 94.1%, 2000년대 이전은 100%, 2000대 이후는 62.5%로 나타났다. 학교별 ACM 검출율은 유치원과 고등학교는 100%, 초등학교는 97.1%, 중학교는 92.9%, 특수학교는 80%로 나타났다. 천장 텍스는 2~8 %의 백석면과 갈석면, 밤라이트 보드는 6~11 %의 백석면이 검출되었다. 또한 개스킷과 슬레이트 지붕은 각각 16~17 %, 10~13 %의 백석면이 검출되었다. EPA AHERA rule을 이용하여 ACM의 위해성 평가를 실시한 결과, 모든 건축자재는 "Pool" 등급이 나왔으며, ASTM rule 평가에서는 모든 ACM이 "Q&M program"이 필요한 것으로 나타났다.

• 한국환경보건학회지
• /
• 제38권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국산업보건학회지
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• 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.