Use of direct versus indirect preparation data for assessing risk associated with airborne exposures at...

At asbestos-contaminated sites, exposure assessment requires measurement of airborne asbestos concentrations; however, the choice of preparation steps employed in the analysis has been debated vigorously among members of the asbestos exposure and risk assessment communities for many years. This study finds that the choice of preparation technique used in estimating airborne amphibole asbestos exposures for risk assessment is generally not a significant source of uncertainty. Conventionally, the indirect preparation method has been less preferred by some because it is purported to result in false elevations in airborne asbestos concentrations, when compared to direct analysis of air filters. However, airborne asbestos sampling in non-occupational settings is challenging because non-asbestos particles can interfere with the asbestos measurements, sometimes necessitating analysis via indirect preparation. To evaluate whether exposure concentrations derived from direct versus indirect preparation techniques differed significantly, paired measurements of airborne Libby-type amphibole, prepared using both techniques, were compared. For the evaluation, 31 paired direct and indirect preparations originating from the same air filters were analyzed for Libby-type amphibole using transmission electron microscopy. On average, the total Libby-type amphibole airborne exposure concentration was 3.3 times higher for indirect preparation analysis than for its paired direct preparation analysis (standard deviation = 4.1), a difference which is not statistically significant (p = 0.12, two-tailed, Wilcoxon signed rank test). The results suggest that the magnitude of the difference may be larger for shorter particles. Overall, neither preparation technique (direct or indirect) preferentially generates more precise and unbiased data for airborne Libby-type amphibole concentration estimates. The indirect preparation method is reasonable for estimating Libby-type amphibole exposure and may be necessary given the challenges of sampling in environmental settings. Relative to the larger context of uncertainties inherent in the risk assessment process, uncertainties associated with the use of airborne Libby-type amphibole exposure measurements derived from indirect preparation analysis are low. Use of exposure measurements generated by either direct or indirect preparation analyses is reasonable to estimate Libby-type Amphibole exposures in a risk assessment.