Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


Main Title Assessment of assay methods for evaluating asbestos abatement technology at the Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory /
Other Authors
Author Title of a Work
Karaffa, M.
Publisher U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Engineering Research Laboratory,
Year Published 1987
Report Number EPA/600-S2-86-070
OCLC Number 16071980
Subjects Asbestos in building--United States--Safety measures. ; Asbestos fibers--Testing. ; Asbestos in building--Safety measures.
Additional Subjects Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory.
Internet Access
Description Access URL
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
EJBD ARCHIVE EPA 600-S2-86-070 In Binder Headquarters Library/Washington,DC 02/01/2018
EJBD  EPA 600-S2-86-070 In Binder Headquarters Library/Washington,DC 11/06/2018
Collation 7 pages : 1 illustration ; 28 cm
Caption title. At head of title: Project summary. Distributed to depository libraries in microfiche. "Jan. 1987." Includes bibliographical references (page 7). "EPA/600-S2-86-070."
Contents Notes
"Two analytical methods and two sampling techniques were evaluated for their effectiveness in a project to remove air-entrainable asbestos from the Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. The two analytical methods were phase contrast microscopy (PCM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The sampling techniques included a static (nonaggressive) method and an aggressive one using a blower. Air sampling was conducted at an EPA office building that had undergone an amosite asbestos abatement program. The aggressive sampling technique revealed that air-entrainable asbestos remained in work areas after completion of abatement actions. Results also confirm that under similar sampling conditions, TEM analysis detects more fibers than PCM because of the former's better resolving capability. Because PCM does not discriminate between asbestos and other fibers and cannot resolve fibers thinner than about 0.2 [micro]m, this method may not accurately reflect the true hazard potential. TEM coupled with aggressive sampling should be recommended as the analytical method of choice for final post-abatement clearance testing."