Abstract
The potential for para-occupational, domestic, or take-home exposures from asbestos-contaminated work clothing has been acknowledged for decades, but historically has not been quantitatively well characterized. A simulation study was performed to measure airborne chrysotile concentrations associated with laundering of contaminated clothing worn during a full shift work day. Work clothing fitted onto mannequins was exposed for 6.5 h to an airborne concentration of 11.4 f/cc (PCME) of chrysotile asbestos, and was subsequently handled and shaken. Mean 5-min and 15-min concentrations during active clothes handling and shake-out were 3.2 f/cc and 2.9 f/cc, respectively (PCME). Mean airborne PCME concentrations decreased by 55% 15 min after clothes handling ceased, and by 85% after 30 min. PCM concentrations during clothes handling were 11-47% greater than PCME concentrations. Consistent with previously published data, daily mean 8-h TWA airborne concentrations for clothes-handling activity were approximately 1.0% of workplace concentrations. Similarly, weekly 40-h TWAs for clothes handling were approximately 0.20% of workplace concentrations. Estimated take-home cumulative exposure estimates for weekly clothes handling over 25-year working durations were below 1 f/cc-year for handling work clothes contaminated in an occupational environment with full shift airborne chrysotile concentrations of up to 9 f/cc (8-h TWA).
Highlights
IntroductionPublished studies and reviews related to asbestos and take-home exposures have primarily explored the association between disease incidence and the reported potential for household or non-occupational exposure.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] Beginning in 1976, a number of epidemiological studies reported on the risk for developing pleural mesothelioma in the household contacts of asbestos workers.[1,4,9,10,11,12,13] Some studies have noted that cases of disease in the household contacts of asbestos workers occurred more commonly in certain professions, such as insulation workers and miners, as well as some asbestos product manufacturing and shipyard workers.[2,3,5,8,9,10]When studies have reported the asbestos mineral fiber type associated with disease in household contacts, authors have cited exposure of the workers to amosite, 4,13 crocidolite,[6] or general/mixed amphibole and chrysotile exposure.[8,9] It is notable that there is a large body of evidence in the published literature supporting substantial differences in fiber potency according to asbestos mineral type, with chrysotile being the least potent of the common industrial mineral types for lung cancer and mesothelioma, and the amphiboles (including both amosite and crocidolite) being far more potent.[14,15,16,17,18] The accumulated evidence to date points to the potential for increased risk of disease in household populations with take-home exposure above some cumulative lifetime exposures to amphiboles or mixed asbestos fiber types.[8,9,13]
The results of the current study indicated that for loading over a full work shift at 8-h time-weighted average (TWA) airborne concentrations of approximately 9 f/cc, the household concentrations related to the handling of contaminated work clothing were consistently a small proportion of the simulated workplace airborne exposures
When the results of this study were considered together with the prior study, a clear trend was seen of increasing TWA airborne concentrations of asbestos during clothes handling with increasing TWA workplace concentrations in ratios of approximately 1% or less for clothes handling to workplace concentrations
Summary
Published studies and reviews related to asbestos and take-home exposures have primarily explored the association between disease incidence and the reported potential for household or non-occupational exposure.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] Beginning in 1976, a number of epidemiological studies reported on the risk for developing pleural mesothelioma in the household contacts of asbestos workers.[1,4,9,10,11,12,13] Some studies have noted that cases of disease in the household contacts of asbestos workers occurred more commonly in certain professions, such as insulation workers and miners, as well as some asbestos product manufacturing and shipyard workers.[2,3,5,8,9,10]When studies have reported the asbestos mineral fiber type associated with disease in household contacts, authors have cited exposure of the workers to amosite, 4,13 crocidolite,[6] or general/mixed amphibole and chrysotile exposure.[8,9] It is notable that there is a large body of evidence in the published literature supporting substantial differences in fiber potency according to asbestos mineral type, with chrysotile being the least potent of the common industrial mineral types for lung cancer and mesothelioma, and the amphiboles (including both amosite and crocidolite) being far more potent.[14,15,16,17,18] The accumulated evidence to date points to the potential for increased risk of disease in household populations with take-home exposure above some cumulative lifetime exposures to amphiboles or mixed asbestos fiber types.[8,9,13].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
