As the laboratory director of a large asbestos environmental laboratory since
1992, I have seen countless examples of
“non-standard” samples, including those
with human tissue and biohazard-filled
muck (use your imagination). Most memorably, a major building owner in a large
city in the eastern United States once
submitted a cockroach on the theory that
it was responsible for transporting asbestos throughout the building.
The environmental health and safety
and laboratory communities dealing primarily with asbestos hazards have a
long history of developing and practicing the most effective protocols to ensure reliable analytical data, which are
eventually used to promote worker
safety and public health. Usually, these
protocols address standard situations
faced by professionals who design, engineer, remove, and test asbestos samples.
This article will address non-standard
samples, focusing primarily on asbestos
in effluent.
The question confronting
professionals concerns how
to gather a sample for testing
without adding false positives
or contributing any false
negatives, while still using
the most efficient means to
have the “best” sample that
might represent the circumstance or field situation.
The Flow of Asbestos in Water
Science
In 1994, asbestos was added to the list of
hazards that were required to be tested in
the U.S. water system. Over the last thirty
years, investigators have conducted sig-
nificant research into asbestos in both
potable and non-potable water. Several
studies noted the ubiquitous nature of as-
bestos in many water systems and the
numerous sources from which it might
originate. These include:
• naturally occurring asbestos sources in
reservoirs, rivers, and lakes
• deteriorating asbestos cement pipe
(used extensively in public drinking
and waste water systems)
• auto repair solvent reclamation and
water run-off
• mine waste and tailings
• waste dumped in or near water sources
by asbestos manufacturers
• illegally dumped asbestos building ma-
terials in and near water sources
• asbestos-laden water from worker
showers during removal activities
• run-off of water after a catastrophic
event such as the World Trade Center
tragedy and other post-fire incidents
Piecing together several studies, EPA
estimated that 33,000 pounds of asbestos
fibers were released into the public’s
drinking water systems between 1987
and 1993. But what does this mean? The
health and toxicity dose/response rela-
tionships and thresholds for bioactivity
have not been clearly established by pub-
lic health regulators. Philip Cooke’s 1983
study looked at ingested asbestos and po-
tential disease. In summary, no one really
knows quantitatively what may create a
health risk and subsequent illness result-
ing from the ingestion of asbestos-conta-
minated drinking water.
Creative Approaches
What do regulators have to say about im-
provisational, creative approaches to ana-
lytical investigations? AIHA’s Affiliated
Laboratory Programs has wrestled with
laboratories’ abilities to employ non-stan-
dard methods under their accreditation
and approved field of testing. Yet labora-
tories perform a service by using good lab
practices, due diligence, validation metrics,
etc. when developing in-house methods to
detect asbestos in irregular samples. With-
out official peer-reviewed and established
methodologies, laboratories have little
choice except to improvise.
Grab and Go
The industrial hygiene professional uses
many tools to collect samples in the
field. These tools vary from a soil auger
to tweezers, from a five-gallon pail to
filters, and hand collection devices of
all shapes and sizes. Figuratively, the
tools that must be employed are based
upon circumstances, the experience of
the practitioner, precedents in the industry, regulatory guidelines (
requirements), and the ability to adapt all of
