Asbestos Exposure from the World Trade Center Disaster


What was going on during sampling.
The collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11th 2011 resulted into a release of harmful dust particles into the air that mainly originated from the building materials. Airborne dust particles from the collapse and fumes from burning of the towers covered the whole of Lower Manhattan environment with a mixture of asbestos, benzene, glass fiber, and the metals.  Lower Manhattan residents began to raise complaints about the safety of the cleaning methods that were used to remove dust particles from their residential areas (Callahan, 2004). From September 13th to September 27th, environmental samples were collected in around 13 different cluster locations. The main activities that were going on during sampling include; identification of the sampling location, identification of the actual buildings to obtain samples from depending on accessibility, estimation of the number of buildings to sample in each location, and identification of the contaminants of potential concern to sample (Callahan, 2003).

Sampling Methodology
            Once access to the buildings was obtained, and the actual sampling process scheduled to begin, settled dust and air samples were collected from all of the thirteen cluster areas and transported to the laboratory for analysis. All samples were collected and analyzed using the Phase Contrast Microscopy in order to reveal asbestos and other fibers. Data sets were also analyzed using the AIHA Statistical Spreadsheet in order to obtain greater insights on their descriptive statistics, number of samples above the occupational exposure limits for asbestos, the 95th percentile, and exposure category of each individual data set.
            Samples were collected from 13 different cluster points. The sampling methods used consisted of indoor air samples of airborne particulate matter and fibers, micro-vacuum sampling of settled dust on windows and furniture, and wipe samples of settled dust from walls and ceiling boards. All these samples were obtained from areas that are routinely used by the Lower Manhattan residents such as living room, laundry rooms, kitchen and bedroom. The indoor air sample collection methodology mainly targeted particulate matter and airborne fibers which were collected by drawing a specific volume of air through a filter membrane. In certain areas, the air sampling process was conducted using oscillating fans. This sampling method did not employ the use of aggressive techniques because of the risk of dust exposure to the residents during the sampling process.
            The micro-vacuum sample collection method targeted samples of settled dust. These were collected from porous surfaces using micro-vacuum techniques and later analyzed for lead and asbestos. Examples of porous surfaces sampled are like carpets, couches, chairs, rugs, and many others. Under this method of vacuum collection, properties such as adhesiveness and surface texture greatly influenced the collection efficiency. This method was done with a lot of care because it was meant to determine the presence of asbestos contaminants alone. The dust particles on non-porous surfaces were sampled using wipe sample collection these samples were later analyzed for asbestos. The wipe sample collection method employs the use of a piece of cloth wetted in a solution that is use to wipe the dust settled on the non-porous surfaces.
            Another sampling method used involved the bulk dust sample collection. This method allowed for sampling of large amount of material for use in the analysis process. Samples that served as controls were also collected, and these were used to assess the sampling and analytical processes in order to ensure efficiency. The quality control samples were collected each sampling day from September13th to September 27th. The samples included the collection of field blanks, lot blanks and field spike wipe. Quality control samples were collected for air, wipe, and micro-vacuum samples. All the samples obtained using the methods described above were transported to the laboratory for analysis. In the laboratory, the samples were tested for asbestos by using phase-contrast light microscopy to identify fibers of more than 5 mm in length. Some of the samples were tested by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to identify fibers of more than or equal to 0.5 mm in length.
Results
Table 1: Results obtained in the 13 data sets sampled
Cluster Areas
No. of samples
Range of f/cc
A1
7
<0.003-0.024
B1
5
0.003-0.031
A2
34
0.003-0.086
B2
50
0.0013-0.140
C2
5
0.0032-0.041
D2
3
0.003-0.006
A3
22
0.007-0.057
B3
46
0.0011-0.099
C3
12
0.0011-0.041
D3
3
0.0032-0.006
B4
2
0.006-0.012
C4
7
0.011-0.009
D4
8
0.003-0.004
A total of 49 bulk samples taken from debris and dust from 13th September to 27th September revealed asbestos concentrations from non-detected to 1.9% asbestos. Data analysis using the AIHA Statistical Spreadsheet gave the following results for each of the thirteen cluster areas sampled. The Occupational Exposure Limit for Asbestos is 0.1 fibers/ cc.
Area A1: The descriptive statistics gives 7 samples, maximum value of 0.024, min value of < 0.003, range of 0.021, mean of 0.010, media value of 0.009, standard deviation of 0.007, geometric mean of 0.008, and geometric standard deviation of 2.038. In this data set, there no sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.026. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the 0 category because no sample was found to contain asbestos out of the seven samples tested.
Area B1: The descriptive statistics gives 5 samples, maximum value of 0.031, min value of 0.0045, range of 0.0265, mean of 0.015, median value of 0.013, standard deviation of 0.012, geometric mean of 0.012, and geometric standard deviation of 2.428. In this data set, there was no sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.050. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the 0 category because no sample was found to contain asbestos out of the five samples tested.
Area A2: The descriptive statistics gives 34 samples, maximum value of 0.086, min value of 0.003, range of 0.0676, mean of 0.022, median value of 0.016, standard deviation of 0.019, geometric mean of 0.015, and geometric standard deviation of 2.717. In this data set, there was no sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.076. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the 0 category because no sample was found to contain asbestos out of the 34 samples tested.
Area B2: The descriptive statistics gives 50 samples, maximum value of 0.14, min value of 0.0013, range of 0.0136, mean of 0.043, median value of 0.015, standard deviation of 0.049, geometric mean of 0.024, and geometric standard deviation of 2.438. In this data set, there was only one sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.081. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the first category because only one sample was found to contain asbestos out of the 50 samples tested.
Area C2: The descriptive statistics gives 5 samples, maximum value of 0.041, min value of 0.0032, range of 0.0378, mean of 0.015, median value of 0.008, standard deviation of 0.018, geometric mean of 0.009, and geometric standard deviation of 2.959. In this data set, there was no sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.055. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the 0 category because no sample was found to contain asbestos out of the 5 samples tested.
Area D2: The descriptive statistics gives 3 samples, maximum value of 0.006, min value of 0.003, range of 0.003, mean of 0.005, median value of 0.005, standard deviation of 0.002, geometric mean of 0.004, and geometric standard deviation of 1.633. In this data set, there was no sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.010. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the 0 category because no sample was found to contain asbestos out of the 3samples tested.
Area A3: The descriptive statistics gives 22 samples, maximum value of 0.057, min value of 0.007, range of 0.007, mean of 0.010, median value of 0.010, standard deviation of 0.003, geometric mean of 0.010, and geometric standard deviation of 1.385. In this data set, there was no sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.015. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the 0 category because no sample was found to contain asbestos out of the 22 samples tested.
Area B3: The descriptive statistics gives 46 samples, maximum value of 0.099, min value of 0.011, range of 0.016, mean of 0.038, median value of 0.027, standard deviation of 0.032, geometric mean of 0.030, and geometric standard deviation of 1.964. In this data set, there was no sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.092. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the 0 category because no sample was found to contain asbestos out of the 46 samples tested.
Area C3: The descriptive statistics gives 12 samples, maximum value of 0.041, min value of 0.011, range of 0.006, mean of 0.005, median value of 0.004, standard deviation of 0.003, geometric mean of 0.004, and geometric standard deviation of 1.664. In this data set, there was no sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.032. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the 0 category because no sample was found to contain asbestos out of the 12 samples tested.
Area D3: The descriptive statistics gives 3 samples, maximum value of 0.006, min value of 0.0032, range of 0.0028, mean of 0.005, median value of 0.005, standard deviation of 0.002, geometric mean of 0.004, and geometric standard deviation of 1.560. In this data set, there was no sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.009. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the 0 category because no sample was found to contain asbestos out of the 3 samples tested
Area B4: The descriptive statistics gives 2 samples, maximum value of 0.012, min value of 0.006, range of 0.006, mean of 0.004, median value of 0.003, standard deviation of 0.019, geometric mean of 0.006, and geometric standard deviation of 1.760. In this data set, there was no sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.0010. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the 0 category because no sample was found to contain asbestos out of the 2 samples tested
Area C4: The descriptive statistics gives 7 samples, maximum value of 0.009, min value of 0.0011, range of 0.008, mean of 0.005, median value of 0.006, standard deviation of 0.021, geometric mean of 0.059, and geometric standard deviation of 1.430. In this data set, there was no sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.0065. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the 0 category because no sample was found to contain asbestos out of the 7 samples tested
Area D4: The descriptive statistics gives 8 samples, maximum value of 0.004, min value of 0.003, range of 0.001, mean of 0.004, median value of 0.004, standard deviation of 0.001, geometric mean of 0.004, and geometric standard deviation of 1.181. In this data set, there was no sample above the Occupational Exposure Limit. The 95th percentile exposure level of this data set was 0.005. The workers’ exposure in this data set would be placed in the 0 category because no sample was found to contain asbestos out of the 8 samples tested.
References
Callahan, K. (2003). World Trade Center: Background Study Report. New York, NY: New York.
Callahan, K. (2004). Monitoring for Asbestos: US EPA Methods. Journal of Environmental Health, 112 (13): 731.
OSHA website: http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/wtc.html 

 Request a similar paper on affordable papers









Popular posts from this blog

Competency vs. Insanity

Image
Competency to stand trial demands that a defendant understands the purpose and nature of the legal proceedings and be able to cooperate effectively with counsel in defense. To appreciate the proceedings, a defendant has to be able to understand the charges and the penalties if convicted. On the other hand, sanity refers to the defendant mental status while committing a crime. A defendant is considered insane if the act’s commission was due to mental defect or disease, and thus lacking, the capacity either to conform his act to the law’s requirement or appreciate the wrongfulness of his act (Stafford  & Sellbom, n.d.). Place Order Now The legal standard employed to establish competency through evaluation demand that a forensic psychiatrist employ mental status examination to evaluate the general mental health of the defendant. This includes cognitive ability, memory, judgment, understanding and appreciation. The psycholegal questions that need to be address include the cu...
Read more

Apple’s New Strategy

Apple’s New Strategy             Apple is one of the big companies that create and sell computer software, electronics, and personal computers worldwide. The company has successfully been able to stand out against its competitors like Samsung due to its current competitive strategies. Varied products such as iPads and iPhones have been recognized as Apple’s main sources of competitive advantage due to high brand awareness that the company creates related to these products. Apple’s managers are aware that they can attract more customers in the market by presenting new products to them through extensive innovation. The innovation strategy developed must in this sense seek to remain the best over those used by its close competitors. One new innovation strategy for Apple that is geared towards maintaining an edge in the industry is to create iPhone 5S that has a bigger screen and more software than Samsung products (Bloomberg, 2013)....
Read more

Fort Mitchell, Alabama Adult Day Care Center

Image
Executive Summary Fort Mitchell Alabama Adult Day Care Center targets people seniors with an annual income of more than $30,000. In addition, it targets caregivers who have incomes of more than 50,000. Therefore, the company would advertise its services through direct mail, newspapers advertisements, and other publications that target the elderly. The center expects to reach a large number of potential clients using the above advertising means. The center would face stiff competition from other centers. Therefore, it would devise innovative programs that meet certain client needs. The center would provide dance therapy lessons, physical, speech, occupational therapy, and support services to caregivers. The center would ensure that it has enough trained professionals who would meet the needs of the clients. Market Analysis Organization and Products The ageing population of the U.S. has necessitated the development of numerous adult day care centers to care for the needs of th...
Read more