Document B3KjNxjqOqpY7Jn4G0M7yOGJ
DUST-PRODUCING POTErTIAL OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PHASE II
REPORT TO HEALTH AKD SAFETY CO.'niTxF.E NATIONAL IliSVLATIO: :tj:ufactltj:hs association
J. LeRoy Balzcr, Ph.D. Bernard D. Tebbens, Sc.D.
V, Clark Cooper, M. D.
Division of Environmental Health Sciences School of Public Health
University of California Berkeley
\ t
August 4, 1971
PLAINTIFFS I. EXHIBIT
II 0tf'tote/
001135
August 4, 1971
"DUST-PRODUCING POTENTIAL OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, PHASE II"
Partially as a result of last year's study, "Dust-Producing Potential
of Construction Materials", a new insulation material not containing
asbestos was commercially developed. This product. Unibest, is a substi
tute for the asbestos-containing material, Unibestos.
The sane protocol as proposed and followed in the last study was
duplicated for the testing of Unibest.
The following operations (described in greater detail below) were
performed on each product by an insulation mechanic (journeyman asbestos
worker).
I. Simulation of pipe covering, and tear-out of heat stressed
.pipe covering.
,
II. Power sawing of the products to simulate on-site fabrication
of specific shapes of the material by a bandsaw; and the
"scoring*of blocks.
,
III. Pounding with a simulated hammer to estimate the effects of
force-fitting (not performed by the insulation mechanic).
In each of these operations (except the tear-out and pounding), the
insulation mechanic was permitted to set his own pace; the specific plan
of operations was determined in consultation with him so that practices
usual to the trade were followed.
The insulation mechanic used a "Vhitecap" supplied-air respirator I
throughout the tests.
001
Sampling and Analysis Air samples were taken by drawing air through Huclepore 0.8 ym wean
pore size membrane filters. Hillipore 0.8 ym mean pore size membrane was used for the elutriator samples. Filters of 37 na diameter were used for the personal breathing zone samples and 47 na diameter filters for all other samples.
During the simulated pipe covering, tear-out, and bandsawing, samples were taken at five locations within the test chamber: 1) in the middle of the chamber, vith the open-face filter holder 8 feet above the chamber floor level ("Roof" samples); 2) from a support projecting into the chamber approximately 1 foot from the vail opposite the work bench on which the covering was done, through an open-face filter holder about 6 feet above the floor ('Room" samples); 3) above the work bench (near the vail closest to the bench) with an open-face filter holder ("Bench" samples); 4) in the same location as the Bench samples but vith the air drawn through a Hexhlct
/
Horizontal Elutriator (Casella-Wilson) before passage through the in-line filter holder ("Elutriator" samples); 5) in the insulator's breathing zone vith disposable llillipore Field Monitors (open face) ("Personal" samples). Sample air flow rates vere: Roof, 1.26 cubic feet per minute (cfm); Room, 0.S4 cfm; Bench, 0.86 cfm; Elutriator, 50.0 liters per minute (1.7 cfm) Personal, 0.11 cfm. See Figures I and II of last year's report for these locations.
During the scoring operation, only two sampling locations vere utilized i< * .
(Room and Personal samples) as shown in Figures I and II of the last report.
001137
-3-
The pounding operation was monitored with four samplers, one on the bench
above the product being pounded ("Bench top") and three others approximately
5 feet distant froa the pounding site, 4 feet above floor level. One of
these filter holders was directed upward ("Up"), another directed downward
("Down"), .and the other directed horizontally ("Horizontal"). Flow rates
here were 0.86 cfa for the Mass, 0.G4 cfo for the Down, and 1.3 cfm for the
remaining two. report.
These locations are shown in Figures III and IV of the last
Analysis of the collected samples was directed at obtaining two measure
of the relative amount of dust production froa the products being tested.
All filters (except selected 37 an Personal sample filters) were weighed
before and after use, each such weighing proceeded by desiccation for two
hours to stabilize weights. Froa this weight data, the graviaetric con
centrations of total airborne dust were computed in milligrams per cubic meter (ng/m^) by dividing the milligrams' change in weight by the total
cubic neters of air which had passed through the filter. This was the sole analysis applied to the "Roof", "Roon", "Bench", and "Elutriator" samples.
The Personal sample filters were analyzed to determine the concentra tions of mineral fibers (selected ones were weighed). This analysis was by the standard method for the determination of asbestos fibers collected on membrane filters: a wedge of the weighed, exposed filter was cut from the filter and the wedge (about 1/8 of the total filter) placed on a standard microscope slide on which was placed a drop of a mounting medium which 'matched the index of refraction of the organic filter. The filter wedge
001138
`'j-:)
/ cSjJiy
thus "cleared" was examined with phase contrast microscopy at 430X
magnification, with the microscopic field of examination linitod to the 2
area bounded by a Porton eyepiece reticle (0.0061 mm per field). The
mineral fibers seen in each field were recorded and placed into several
r
length and diameter categories.
Specific Operations
All operations were identical to those described in the previous report. Results (Pipe Covering)
Tables 1 and 2 show the results of the air sampling for these
operations, expressed as milligrams cf total particulate per cubic meter
3 of air (ng/m ), total nineral fibers per clllilitcr of air (f/nl), as
compared to the Unibestos results of the previous study. Figure I presents *11 products used in the previous study as compared to the new Unibest (B,) for pipe covering operations. The tcar-out is graphed in Figure II. Results (Eandsav)
The bandsaving results arc listed as total mineral fibers per/mlllillte
In Table 3 and total particulate, milligrams per cubic meter, in Table 4.
Figure III compares the results to the last study.
Results (Scoring)
Table 5 and Table 6 6hov the scoring results along with the comparisons
. of the previous study, Figure IV.
Results (Pounding)
Table 7 gives the results from this experiment.
i 'results with the previous study.
Figure V compares
OOllGS
rTOTAL AIRBORNE DUST (C R AVIM ZTR IC )
CONCENTRATIONS FROM A LL P IP E COVERING OPERATIONS
fig <Ho
oc
5
_) u:
C/5 O HcW/5 D--I JS
yUo.-
03 rLO-
/I ra
V) HvO. :*
** =3 8 ce
uo c
o
HV)
PROCESS
Hand
S a w in g
Mean STANDARD DEVIATION
UNIBEST
UNIBESTOS UNIBEST
0IS
1 .5 9 2 .8 9 2 .0 5
0 .7
_
1 3 .5
___--______
1
_
3 .2 3 .5 1 3 .0 6 .6
5 .6
IS
9*8 |
i 1
r- *-( o
A p p lic a tio n
.n
Mean STANDARD DEVIATION
T c a ro u t
03
3 .9 83.26
1 1 .5 1 .8
19.16
0 .5 0 .8 3 .9 3 .1
O H ri
O'
1 0 .5 8 .1
. 9.3
1 .0
2 .3 A .9 3 .0
j
8 '0
i
ri -< C
o
27.29
fOcA'
<P
f- f-
s r". *e r"i
6*0 ]
3
cMc
17.7 11.2
6 .9 55.37
O.A
3 .3 5 .9 3.2 8.8
i
8 .5
fis
- 0.28
A .8 0 .7
1 .8
3.96
2.7 3 .A
5.5 3.71
UHVJ)
ut-4 5S
/Hr m
001140
AIRBORNE MINERAL FIBERS CONCENTRATIONS* ' FROM ALL
PIPE COVERING OPERATIONS
TABLE 2
PPvOCESS
PERSONAL
UNIBEST
UNIBESTOS
MINERAL
fibers
ASBESTOS FIBERS
ROOF
UNIEEST UNIEESTOS MINERAL ASBESTOS FIBERS fibers
ROOM
UNIBEST
MINERAL FIBERS
UNIBESTOS
ASBESTOS FIBERS
sawing
HE AN STANDARD DEVIATION'S
APPLICATION
MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION
2.44_ . 2.19
5.77 ' 3.5
2.0
1.4 1.1 1.4 1.3
0.17
.
193.80
0.43. 0.69 1.50 0.9
127.1
57.48
0.5
\
56.9
113.9 .
51.6
0.7 0.9 0.6 0.8
t 42.1
0.2 7.5
0.71 0.85 0.63 0.73
0.11
0.1 0.6 0.95 0.6
0.4
94.5 57.5
/
32.1 7.1
TEAROUT
26.55
268.40
*
--
*FAil
0011'1
7 Figure I lunges and Means for All Samples - Applications
00111:2'
Figure II Ranges L HeArts For All Sartplcs - Taarout
100
Products
001143
-91
AIRBORNE MINERAL FIBERS CONCENTRATIONS* FROM BANDSAVUNG
TABLE 3
UNIBEST
MINERAL FIBERS
13.94
24.70
30.52
MEAN
23.05
STANDARD DEVIATION
8.41
PERSONAL
UNIBESTOS ASBESTOS FIBERS
754.76 376.22
*F/ML
1
(
C01144
3 0-
TOTAL AIRBORNE DUST (GRAVIMETRIC) * CONCENTRATIONS FROM BAHDSAVIKG
TABLE 4
t
ROOF
UNIBEST UNIEESTOS
22.91
56.02
99.95
>EAH
59.63
103.90'
STANDARD DEVIATION 38.65
67.50
ROOM
BENCH
ELUTR2AT0R
UMIEEST UNIBESTHS UNIBEST UNIDF.ST05 UNIBEST unit
17.43
73.33
12.17
35.86
125.18
6.48
121.60 58.30
47.1?
105.83 203.4;
172.29
26.93 15.19
-
55.59
23.40
26.20
15.47 10.55
3
/
001145
11'
Figure III Ranges and Means for All Samples - Bandsawing
Products
001146
-12-
AIRBORNE MINERAL FIBERS CONCENTRATIONS* FROM SCORING
TABLE 5
~
,,
#
MEAN
STANDARD DEVIATION
UNIBEST MINERAL FIBERS 55.89 109.48
24.18 3.18
43.12
PERSONAL
UHIBESTOS' ASBESTOS FIBERS
* *
2629.74 444.84
*F/ML
\I
001147
TOTAL AIRBORNE DUST (CRAVUIETRIC) * CONCENTRATIONS FROM SCORING
TABLE 6*
UNIBEST
MEAN
STANDARD | DEVIATION
.288.16 403.43 345.80
81.51
*Mg/M3
ROOM
' UNIBESTOS
159.C3 151.96
I
001148
FtrxT* IV Ranges ani Menus for All Scn-plc:-- - Scoring
Products
0011*9
Q
-15-
TOTAL AIRBORNE DUST (GRAVIMETRIC) * CONCENTRATIONS FROM POUNDING
TABLE 7
BENCH TOP
UP DOWN
HORIZONTAL
UNITEST
UNIBCSTOS
UNILEST
UNIBESTOS
2.57 O.G7 '
\ . 3.38
4.20
2.83 t
3.65
/
MEAN
3.27 2.87 5.74 3.96
3.57
-4.20 1.26 2.94 2.86
1.06
STANDARD DEVIATION
1.55
1.73
1.22
3.71
`hr/M3
\
OOllSO
16
Figure V Ranges & Means For All Semples - Founding .
Products 1
001151
-17-
Dlccusslon of Results It is clear from these results that Unibcr.t is a definite improvement
over the previous product Unibestos, not only ir. that the asbestos fibers have been removed but also in the production of total dust from most installation processes. -The amount of dust left from the normal operation of handsawing and application is presented in Table 8. The diameter fiber differs in that the mineral fiber in the aerosol averages 4.2 Pm versus Unibescos at 1.7 pn.
Mechanical operations using savs produced total gravimetric conccn3
trations of airborne particulate matter above the proposed TLV of 10 og/n for inert dusts. From analysis of the data, it would indicate that the high concentration would occur in the immediate area and settle out relatively quickly. Figure VI compares the mean values for all operations, milligrams per cubit meter (mg/m^), with the Tesults of the last tests. Overall, the total airborne dust concentration is similar to the c&lcium silicate products tested previously. However, the absence of asbestos fibers in Unibest results in s nuisance dust condition rather than an overt biological hazard, i.e., asbestos exposure.
vI
001152 .
-18-
DEBRIS FROM PIPE COVERING OPERATIONS, IN OUNCES
TABLE 8
MEAN
UNIBEST 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.5
DEBRIS
UNIBEST05
11.0 31.0 ll.P
______________________UA____
1
001153
19FiRure VI Accumulated Ranges and Means for all samples (except scoring)
/
Mg/M
Products
001154
Conclusions 1. General installation operations of Unibcst produce less total airborne
particulate atter than Unibestos. 2. Comminution (echanical aethods) results in airborne concentration of
particulates greater than the proposed nuisance TLV dust value, 10 mg/n
1
001155
ft.
t.
_/
0*
-IF/-:
<>.
mm."
No. 236
>r '., <
IV
puZl 'U&S.
,1 4
/*
\ ?* , * ,r>
.r *
.\
* : r* *# *
V'*' * I
A
- . * V
* .*\J
>
e-16-71
'if. '
1. t".4 *fi *
ICETIllGS, AUGUST 17, 1571/ OF THE EHPtHYEES OF THE FOLLOWING OEPARTHENTS AHO SHIFTS ARE SCHEDULED 111
; r; DS' .* >
THE ENGINEERING ROOM IN THE'pLAHT OFFICE AT THE FOL
Louiiic Tins*
t `4 :% v
.
7*50.A. H. **00 A. H. J. 1*30 Pt H* , 2*30 P. M* . **0 P. M.
V JfiD SHIFT PRODUCTION
' v ,, *''
,v
.4T SHIFT PRODUCTlCH t\ . - . :
V
' ` . ' .
.SHIPPING^JECEIVINS 6 .HUNTuNANCE \ *
, ^
FINISHING DEPARTMENT
f
2nd SHIFT PRODUCTION
4;-^: / '.. V ,* .. . t . .-1 .
*. .* *'
.4
\
^'
.
* .V
*
%I
...'V :
`i 1
1.
. *,' <- . '* /.
. .*. / '# / _ * (*'
. . * . V j * * * , *
.
'
** ;
s*/. .* .S .V 'v'
<
%* *.
#
-
..
.
W !.*
. I.
/ '* ' . . #.
.
* I
/
. s i'*. . ''v.VV?;*-i
. ..
t \ . . vt :i'.1. *r* ^ ^ * j .*. 1 j,
y'. *,:
.1 -
rv-
.* !: ,v.*L
M *
,v:
* .
" J. ,
-i .
> If T.
\ ;
\
#8iffv * *
,#