Measurement of asbestos emissions associated with demolition of abandoned residential dwellings

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137891Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Asbestos in abandoned residential dwellings (ARDs) is a potential health risk.

  • Data regarding the emissions of asbestos during ARD demolitions are sparse.

  • Air sampling during 25 ARD demolitions identified only two asbestos fibers.

  • Emissions of airborne asbestos during unabated ARD demolitions was negligible.

Abstract

Many cities are revitalizing their urban cores through the demolition of abandoned residential dwellings (ARDs). However, data regarding the emissions of asbestos during such an operation are sparse. We measured airborne asbestos emissions from emergency demolitions (demolitions on structures deemed too dangerous to enter and remove asbestos) of ARDs in Detroit.

High-flow air sampling was conducted during ARD demolitions. Air samples were analyzed using Phased Contrast Microscopy (PCM), and a subset using Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM).

One hundred and one air samples were collected on 25 emergency demolitions. Fifty-four of the 101 PCM samples (53%) exceeded the limit of detection (LOD). However, only 2 of 46 TEM samples (4%) exceeded the LOD for asbestos; these latter samples were from two different demolitions and each contained a single chrysotile asbestos fiber. Using conservative exposure assumptions and commonly-accepted risk estimation formulae, we estimated the lifetime risk of mesothelioma and lung cancer combined to be less than one case per one million people. Emissions of airborne asbestos during emergency (unabated) ARD demolition operations appear to be negligible. As a result, the associated health risk for asbestos-related disease is also negligible. Reconsideration of current regulatory mandates for asbestos abatement in ARDs may be warranted.

Introduction

Abandoned residential dwellings (ARDs) affect community health and well-being. They attract crime, such as drug use and vandalism (Garvin et al., 2013a); harbor rodents, feral dog packs (Lyu, 2015), mold, and insects (Sheffield et al., 2014); and have a high incidence of fires with consequent injuries, deaths, and damage to adjacent structures (Neavling, 2016; USFA/FEMA, 2015). The simple removal of these structures has been demonstrated to significantly reduce crime (Spelman, 1993), possibly reduce gun violence (Jay et al., 2019) and promote health by decreasing anxiety and increasing exercise and active transportation (e.g., walking, running, and bicycling) (Branas et al., 2011; Garvin et al., 2013b). Post-industrial cities across the US struggle with high rates of ARDs. The City of Detroit has the highest percentage of ARDs in the US: >67,000 properties (an estimated 23% of the total housing stock) are abandoned dwellings, of which about 30,000 are residential single-family homes (United States Government Accountability Office, 2011). To address this problem, the City has been engaged in an ambitious effort to demolish these ARDs, with about 18,000 structures demolished over five years, from January 2014 through July 2019 (City of Detroit, n.d.).

The rapid removal of ARDs is complicated by the presence of asbestos in many of these structures. Inhalation exposure to asbestos has been linked to adverse health outcomes including asbestosis (a form of pulmonary fibrosis), lung cancer, and mesothelioma (Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans, 2012; Hodgson and Darnton, 2000; N. R. Council, 1971; Attanoos, 2010). While lung cancer and mesothelioma have been extensively studied in workers (Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans, 2012; Attanoos, 2010; Albin et al., 1999), there is also evidence of adverse health outcomes from asbestos exposures among children (Wilson et al., 2008; Yano et al., 2009; Hansen et al., 1993; Vinikoor et al., 2010; Ryan et al., 2013; Reid et al., 2013; Kang et al., 2013) and others living in communities near industrial facilities with levels elevated above natural background (Kurumatani and Kumagai, 2008; Chang et al., 1999; Marinaccio et al., 2015; Maule et al., 2007; Ravikrishna et al., 2010; Alexander et al., 2012; US Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.). Asbestos has been found in environmental air samples from urban (Selikoff et al., 1972) and rural areas (Royal Society of New Zealand and the Office of the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, 2015; Singh and Thouez, 1985), even in the absence of an obvious industrial source (Pan et al., 2005; Abelmann et al., 2015; Corn, 1994; Luo et al., 2003; Rake et al., 2009). However, there is no evidence that exposure to such ambient background concentrations of asbestos is associated with elevated risk of disease. Asbestos can be classified as serpentine (chrysotile) or amphibole (amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, actinolite); >99% of all asbestos used in the US was chrysotile, crocidolite or amosite (Virta, 2006) While all types of asbestos are carcinogenic (Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans, 2012), the potency with respect to mesothelioma is about 1:100:500 for chrystile:amosite:crocidolite (Hodgson and Darnton, 2000; Berman and Crump, 2008a; Garabrant and Pastula, 2018).

We are unaware of any previous studies of airborne asbestos releases from the demolition of ARDs. Two studies of partially-abated structures found no or minimal increases in airborne asbestos following demolition (Perkins et al., 2007; Wilmoth et al., 1994). Notably, neither of the two demolitions studied by Perkins et al., was a single-family dwelling: one was a 4-story commercial hotel (floor area estimated to be ~18,300 square feet), the other was an entire city block of wooden structures (combined floor area estimated to be ~17,760 square feet). Similarly, the report by Wilmoth et al. focused on asbestos emissions during the demolition of two elementary schools (approximate areas of 22,000 and 24,000 square feet). There was no indication of increased asbestos-related disease following the destruction of the World Trade Center from this short but intense exposure (Nolan et al., 2005). These limited data suggest that demolition may not result in an increased risk of asbestos-related disease to community residents due to the low airborne asbestos emissions and the short duration of exposure, particularly where the asbestos is not in a friable form (Lange, 2001). Furthermore, a large proportion of the released asbestos is likely to be chrysotile, the least potent type of asbestos (Hodgson and Darnton, 2000; Berman and Crump, 2008b), and single-family ARDs are likely to contain a smaller amount of asbestos than commercial and industrial structures (National Research Council, 1971). To date, there are no estimates of the risk of asbestos-related disease stemming from widespread ARD demolition, and no assessment of the association between benefits and cost of abatement and demolition.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements for demolition-related asbestos abatement have undergone periodic revisions. In 1973, the agency stated that the need for asbestos abatement prior to demolition applied to apartment buildings only if they included four or more dwelling units (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1973), which the agency later updated to specifically exclude residential buildings (including condominiums, cooperatives, apartments, and other multi-dwelling structures) having four or fewer dwelling units (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995). This determination was consistent with an earlier National Academy of Sciences finding that “…single-family residential structures contain only small amounts of asbestos…” (National Research Council, 1971). However, in 1995, the EPA issued a clarification stating that ARDs that were to be demolished as part of commercial or public works projects would be classified as a facility and consequently would require abatement (Environmental Protection Agency, 1995). This ruling substantially increased the economic burden on cities seeking to reduce urban blight, as the cost of asbestos abatement significantly increases the cost of ARD demolitions, without a demonstrated improvement in public health, given the NAS's assessment that single-family structures do not contain appreciable asbestos.

Over 93% of the housing stock in Detroit was built before 1978 (Michigan Department of Community Health, 2013), largely before the use of asbestos in residential construction was discontinued in the late 1970s and 1980s. Thus, most homes can be assumed to contain various forms of asbestos-containing materials, including window caulk, insulation, plaster and taping compounds, floor and roofing tiles, and siding. According to the Detroit Land Bank Authority, the average cost of ARD demolitions in 2016 was $12,619, of which $3971 was the cost of asbestos abatement, nearly a third of the overall cost. Based on the information available to date, this expenditure of public funds for asbestos abatement of uninhabited dwellings may not provide a commensurate improvement in public health. Furthermore, the inspection and asbestos abatement process adds additional time to blight removal, impeding the safety and public health benefits achieved through demolition.

To determine concentrations of asbestos present during the demolition of abandoned residential dwellings, we measured airborne asbestos concentrations during the demolition of ARDs which were sufficiently damaged due to fire and/or structural deterioration that asbestos inspection and abatement could not be performed prior to demolition. Such ‘emergency’ demolitions are conducted by Detroit Land Bank Authority under specially-permitted conditions. Samples of airborne asbestos were collected during these demolitions and analyzed using the standard technique used by demolition contractors and regulators, Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM). This technique has been criticized as it cannot differentiate asbestos fibers from other non-asbestos fibrous materials or distinguish among types of asbestos fibers (Corn, 1994; Dement and Wallingford, 1990). Numerous studies have shown that PCM significantly overestimates the amount of asbestos present; for example, in a study by Burdett and Jaffrey, measurements were conducted in 39 buildings where asbestos was present in the heating systems (Burdett and Jaffrey, 1986). Two hundred thirty-five samples were analyzed by PCM and 13% gave fiber concentrations above 0.01 f/mL. However, a parallel analysis using TEM showed that most of the fibers counted were not asbestos, and, in only one location, did the asbestos fiber concentrations exceed 0.001 f/mL. A similar pattern was reported by Perkins et al. (Perkins et al., 2007). Thus, it appears that PCM may overestimate asbestos concentrations by at least an order of magnitude.

In order to provide a more accurate assessment of asbestos concentrations, we also analyzed samples using Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), which can more definitively identify and quantify asbestos fibers, but is not as frequently used for routine asbestos measurements because of the greater expense. Finally, we compared characteristics of the ARDs in our sample of emergency demolitions that were not abated prior to demolition, with those from a database of abated ARD demolitions in Detroit, randomly sampled, to determine the difference in demolition costs (Franzblau et al., 2019). The risk of adverse health outcomes, specifically lung cancer and mesothelioma, associated with emissions of airborne asbestos from ARDs removed via emergency demolition, was estimated using methods described by Hodgson and Darnton (Hodgson and Darnton, 2000) and Berman and Crump (Berman and Crump, 2008b; Berman and Crump, 2008c). This paper complements our companion paper (Franzblau et al., 2019) describing asbestos bulk sampling results for abated and demolished ARDs in Detroit.

Section snippets

Selection of demolitions for air emissions sampling

We worked with the Detroit Land Bank Authority and participating demolition contractors to identify 25 emergency demolitions planned during the sampling time period, October 2017 to March 2018. Once particular demolitions were identified, we worked directly with contractor staff to determine the specific date and time of each demolition, and arranged to be at the site prior to the start of the demolition to allow sufficient time for sampling setup.

Collection of air samples

Flite 3 air sampling pumps (SKC, Inc) were

Results

The vast majority of the demonlition homes (88%) had 1.5 or more floors (Supplemental Materials, Table S1). The mean total square footage was 1795 ± 873 square feet; 20% of homes were <1000, and 28% ≥ 2000, square feet. All homes were built between 1900 and 1970 (average year 1919). Most (56%) homes, based on visual observations of the researcher staff, did not appear to be fire damaged.

Roughly half (52%) of the 25 demolitions took place during days when the air temperatures was below freezing

Discussion

Demolition of abandoned residential dwellings in post-industrial cities represents a method for revitalization of the urban core. However, it is thought that demolition may release toxic materials, such as asbestos, into the surrounding community. Our study appears to be one of the first to evaluate emergency demolitions of structures without abatement of asbestos in a city where the vast majority of the housing stock is likely to contain asbestos, as indicated by the presence of asbestos in

Conclusions

Our results indicate that asbestos emissions resulting from the demolition of ARDs that likely contained asbestos were negligible and consistent with background levels. In the two cases of demolitions where a single fiber of asbestos was detected, the asbestos fiber was chrysotile, the least hazardous type of asbestos. Calculations of the health risk to community residents from airborne asbestos associated with ARD demolitions showed a lifetime cancer risk of <1 × 10−6, a level that is

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Richard L. Neitzel: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - original draft. Stephanie K. Sayler: Project administration, Investigation, Writing - review & editing. Avery Demond: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Hannah d'Arcy: Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. David H. Garabrant: Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. Alfred Franzblau: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Franzblau and Dr. Garabrant have served as expert witnesses in asbestos-related litigation.

None of the other authors have any financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Brian Farkas, the Detroit Building Authority (DBA), and the Detroit Land Bank Authority (DLBA), as well as the management and workers of the participating demolition contractors, without whose logistical assistance this research would not have been possible. We also wish to thank Dr. Abdul el-Sayed, previously Director of the Detroit Health Department, for his support of the project. Additionally, we wish to thank the following individuals for their assistance

References (67)

  • D. W. Berman and K. S. Crump, “Update of potency factors for asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma.,” Crit....
  • D.W. Berman et al.

    Update of potency factors for asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma

    Crit. Rev. Toxicol.

    (2008)
  • D.W. Berman et al.

    A meta-analysis of asbestos-related cancer risk that addresses fiber size and mineral type

    Crit. Rev. Toxicol.

    (2008)
  • C.C. Branas et al.

    A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space

    Am. J. Epidemiol.

    (2011)
  • C.C. Branas

    Citywide cluster randomized trial to restore blighted vacant land and its effects on violence, crime, and fear

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

    (2018)
  • G.J. Burdett et al.

    Airborne asbestos concentrations in buildings

    Ann. Occup. Hyg.

    (1986)
  • R. Castorina et al.

    Assessment of potential risk levels associated with U.S. environmental protection agency reference values

    Environ. Health Perspect.

    (2003)
  • H.Y. Chang et al.

    Risk assessment of lung cancer and mesothelioma in people living near asbestos-related factories in Taiwan

    Arch. Environ. Health

    (1999)
  • City of Detroit

    Detroit demolitions

  • M. Corn

    Airborne concentrations of asbestos in non-occupational environments

    Ann. Occup. Hyg.

    (Aug. 1994)
  • J.M. Dement et al.

    Comparison of phase contrast and electron microscopic methods for evaluation of occupational asbestos exposures

    Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg.

    (1990)
  • Environmental Protection Agency

    40 CFR Part 61 [FRL-5266-2] Asbestos NESHAP Clarification of Intent

    (1995)
  • A. Franzblau et al.

    Asbestos-containing materials in abandoned residential dwellings in Detroit

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2019)
  • E. Garvin et al.

    More than just an eyesore: local insights and solutions on vacant land and urban health

    J. Urban Health

    (2013)
  • E.C. Garvin et al.

    Greening vacant lots to reduce violent crime: a randomised controlled trial

    Inj. Prev.

    (2013)
  • B.W. Gillespie

    Estimating population distributions when some data are below a limit of detection by using a reverse Kaplan-Meier estimator

    Epidemiology

    (2010)
  • J. Hansen et al.

    Malignant mesothelioma after environmental exposure to blue asbestos

    Int. J. Cancer

    (1993)
  • Health Effect Institute

    Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Current Knowledge

    (1991)
  • R.W. Hornung et al.

    Estimation of average concentration in the presence of nondetectable values

    Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg.

    (1990)
  • J. Jay et al.

    Urban building demolitions, firearm violence and drug crime

    J. Behav. Med.

    (2019)
  • D. Kang et al.

    Systematic review of the effects of asbestos exposure on the risk of cancer between children and adults

    Ann. Occup. Environ. Med.

    (2013)
  • N. Kurumatani et al.

    Mapping the risk of mesothelioma due to neighborhood asbestos exposure

    Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.

    (2008)
  • J. Lange

    Airborne asbestos concentrations during abatement of floor tile and mastic: evaluation of two different containment systems and discussion of regulatory issues

    Indoor and Built Environment

    (2001)
  • Cited by (20)

    • A combined system for asbestos-cement waste degradation by dark fermentation and resulting supernatant valorization in anaerobic digestion

      2022, Chemosphere
      Citation Excerpt :

      Therefore, the presence of materials containing asbestos in buildings or industrial plants represents a risk for human health caused by the release and following inhalation of fibers. The risk increases proportionally with the friability level of the structures that contain asbestos, such as panels, beams, and pipes, and after demolition of wall partitions, roofs, sheets, etc. (Neitzel et al., 2020). For these reasons, the EU Regulation No. (1907)/2006 of December 18, 2006 prohibits the manufacture, placing on the market and use of asbestos fibers and of articles and mixtures containing these fibers added intentionally.

    • Demolition waste contaminated with asbestos

      2022, Advances in the Toxicity of Construction and Building Materials
    • Risk assessment of asbestos containing materials in a deteriorated dwelling area using four different methods

      2021, Journal of Hazardous Materials
      Citation Excerpt :

      Given the current situation, other studies have investigated the quantity, location, and risk of ACMs used in buildings to promote efficient ACM removal before demolition of old and abandoned buildings and to establish proper management measures. Neitzel et al. (2020) studied ACMs and the costs incurred in dismantling abandoned buildings. Kim et al. (2015) and Obmiński (2020) found that as ACM removal intensifies, the amount of asbestos scattering increases.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text