Personal protective equipment for preventing asbestos exposure in workers

BACKGROUND

Asbestos exposure can lead to asbestos-related diseases. The European Union (EU) has adopted regulations for workplaces where asbestos is present. The EU occupational exposure limit (OEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre of air (f/cm3) as an eight-hour average. Different types of personal protective equipment (PPE) are available to provide protection and minimise exposure; however, their effectiveness is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of personal protective equipment (PPE), including donning and doffing procedures and individual hygienic behaviour, compared to no availability and use of such equipment or alternative equipment, on asbestos exposure in workers in asbestos demolition and repair work.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus (September 2022), and we checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that measured asbestos concentration outside and inside PPE (considering outside concentration a surrogate for no PPE), exposure to asbestos after doffing PPE, donning and doffing errors, nonadherence to regulations, and adverse effects of PPE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I. We categorised PPE as full-face filtering masks, supplied air respirators (SARs), and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). Values for asbestos outside and inside PPE were transformed to logarithmic values for random-effects meta-analysis. Pooled logarithmic mean differences (MDs) were exponentiated to obtain the ratio of means (RoM) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The RoM shows the degree of protection provided by the respirators (workplace protection factor). Since the RoM is likely to be much higher at higher outside concentrations, we presented separate results according to the outside asbestos concentration, as follows. • Below 0.01 f/cm3 (band 1) • 0.01 f/cm3 to below 0.1 f/cm3 (band 2) • 0.1 f/cm3 to below 1 f/cm3 (band 3) • 1 f/cm3 to below 10 f/cm3 (band 4) • 10 f/cm3 to below 100 f/cm3 (band 5) • 100 f/cm3 to below 1000 f/cm3 (band 6) Additionally, we determined whether the inside concentrations per respirator and concentration band complied with the current EU OEL (0.1 f/cm3) and proposed EU OEL (0.01 f/cm3).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six studies that measured asbestos concentrations outside and inside respiratory protective equipment (RPE) and one cross-over study that compared the effect of two different coveralls on body temperature. No studies evaluated the remaining predefined outcomes. Most studies were at overall moderate risk of bias due to insufficient reporting. The cross-over study was at high risk of bias. Full-face filtering masks Two studies evaluated full-face filtering masks. They provided insufficient data for band 1 and band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 2: RoM 19 (95% CI 17.6 to 20.1; 1 study, 3 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 69 (95% CI 26.6 to 175.9; 2 studies, 17 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 455 (95% CI 270.4 to 765.1; 1 study, 16 measurements; low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 2752 (95% CI 1236.5 to 6063.2;1 study, 3 measurements; low certainty) The inside measurements in band 5 did not comply with the EU OEL of 0.1 f/cm3, and no inside measurements complied with the proposed EU OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Supplied air respirators Two studies evaluated supplied air respirators. They provided no data for band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 11 (95% CI 7.6 to 14.9; 1 study, 134 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 63 (95% CI 43.8 to 90.9; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 528 (95% CI 368.7 to 757.5; 1 study, 38 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 4: RoM 4638 (95% CI 3071.7 to 7044.5; 1 study, 49 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 5: RoM 26,134 (16,647.2 to 41,357.1; 1 study, 22 measurements; moderate certainty) All inside measurements complied with the current OEL of 0.1 f/cm3 and the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Powered air-purifying respirators Three studies evaluated PAPRs. The results per band were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 8 (95% CI 3.7 to 19.1; 1 study, 23 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 90 (95% CI 64.7 to 126.5; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 104 (95% CI 23.1 to 464.1; 3 studies, 14 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 706 (95% CI 219.2 to 2253.0; 2 studies, 43 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 1366 (544.6 to 3428.9; 2 studies, 8 measurements; low certainty) • Band 6: RoM 18,958 (95% CI 4023.9 to 90,219.4; 2 studies, 13 measurements; very low certainty) All inside measurements complied with the 0.1 f/cm3 OEL when the outside concentration was below 10 f/cm3 (band 1 to band 4). From band 3, no measurements complied with the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Different types of coveralls One study reported the adverse effects of coveralls. A polyethylene suit may increase the body temperature more than a ventilated impermeable polyvinyl (PVC) coverall, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.17 °C, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.42; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Where the outside asbestos concentration is below 0.1 f/cm3, SARS and PAPRs likely reduce exposure to below the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. For outside concentrations up to 10 f/cm3, all respirators may reduce exposure below the current OEL, but only SAR also below the proposed OEL. In band 5 (10 to < 100 f/cm3), full-face filtering masks may not reduce asbestos exposure below either OEL, SARs likely reduce exposure below both OELs, and there were no data for PAPRs. In band 6 (100 f/cm3 to < 1000 f/cm3), PAPRs may not reduce exposure below either OEL, and there were no data for full-face filtering masks or SARs. Some coveralls may increase body temperature more than others. Randomised studies are needed to directly compare PAPRs and SARs at higher asbestos concentrations and to assess adverse effects. Future studies should assess the effects of doffing procedures.

Sustainable management of hazardous asbestos-containing materials: Containment, stabilization and inertization

Asbestos is a group of six major silicate minerals that belong to the serpentine and amphibole families, and include chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite, tremolite and actinolite. Weathering and human disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) can lead to the emission of asbestos dust, and the inhalation of respirable asbestos fibrous dust can lead to 'mesothelioma' cancer and other diseases, including the progressive lung disease called 'asbestosis'. There is a considerable legacy of in-situ ACMs in the built environment, and it is not practically or economically possible to safely remove ACMs from the built environment. The aim of the review is to examine the three approaches used for the sustainable management of hazardous ACMs in the built environment: containment, stabilization, and inertization or destruction. Most of the asbestos remaining in the built environment can be contained in a physically secured form so that it does not present a significant health risk of emitting toxic airborne fibres. In settings where safe removal is not practically feasible, stabilization and encapsulation can provide a promising solution, especially in areas where ACMs are exposed to weathering or disturbance. Complete destruction and inertization of asbestos can be achieved by thermal decomposition using plasma and microwave radiation. Bioremediation and chemical treatment (e.g., ultrasound with oxalic acid) have been found to be effective in the inertization of ACMs. Technologies that achieve complete destruction of ACMs are found to be attractive because the treated products can be recycled or safely disposed of in landfills.

Personal protective equipment for preventing asbestos exposure in workers

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects of personal protective equipment, including donning and doffing procedures and individual hygienic behaviour, compared to no such equipment or alternative equipment, on asbestos exposure in workers exposed to asbestos in demolition and repair work.

An indirect Raman spectroscopy method for the quantitative measurement of respirable crystalline silica collected on filters inside respiratory equipment

This article describes the development of an analytical method to measure respirable crystalline silica (RCS) collected on filters by a miniature sampler placed behind respirators worn by workers to evaluate their 'true' exposure. Test samples were prepared by aerosolising a calibration powder (Quin B) and by pipetting aliquots from suspensions of bulk material (NIST 1878a and Quin B) onto filters. Samples of aerosolised RCS collected onto polyvinyl chloride PVC filters were ashed and their residue was suspended in isopropanol and filtered into a 10 mm diameter area onto silver filters. Samples were also collected by the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) miniature sampler from within the facepiece of a respirator on a breathing manikin during a simulated work activity. Results obtained using Raman spectroscopy were compared with X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements, which was used as a reference method and a linear relationship was obtained. Raman has similar estimates of uncertainty when compared with the XRD methods over the measurement range from 5 to 50 μg and obtained the lowest limit of detection (LOD) of 0.26 μg when compared with XRD and Fourier Transform Infrared FTIR methods. A significant intercept and slope coefficient greatly influenced the higher LOD for indirect XRD method. The level of precision and low LOD for Raman spectroscopy will potentially enable workplace measurements at lower concentrations below the Workplace Exposure Limit (WEL) than are achieved using current analytical instrumentation. Different inward leakage ratio (ILR) measurement approaches were compared using six aerosolised sandstone dust tests. For the three highest inward leakage ratios the Portacount® obtained higher values than the RCS mass or the miniWRAS ratios, the latter of which reporting both particle number and quartz mass concentration. However, these limited ILR data were insufficient to establish statistical correlations between the measurement methods.