The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Statistical analysis of data on airborne asbestos levels collected in an EPA survey of public buildings
Abstract
Data from a recent EPA study of airborne asbestos levels in 49 buildings occupied by the General Services Administration (GSA) are statistically analyzed. The study focuses on differences between indoor and outdoor levels, and on differences among buildings with no asbestos-containing material (ACM) (6 buildings), buildings with ACM generally in good condition (6 buildings), and buildings containing damaged ACM (37 buildings). Seven indoor samples and a single outdoor sample were collected from most buildings and analyzed by TEM (transmission electron microscopy) using a direct preparation method. No statistically significant differences were detected in asbestos levels between indoors and outdoors or among the three categories of buildings. The average indoor concentration of asbestos was 0.00073 fibers/cc (f/cc) for all fibers and 0.00007 f/cc for fibers 5 microns or longer. The current OSHA occupational standard is 0.2 f/cc for fibers 5 microns or longer as measured by phase-contrast microscopy.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“These results are consistent with published exposure data in indoor air obtained by TEM, indicating a high proportion of SAF; 90 to 100% in most studies [5-9].”
From Quantification of short and long asbestos fibers to assess asbestos exposure: A review of fiber size toxicity (2014) · cites this paper as [6]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Battelle Columbus Division, 1987, Assessing Asbestos Exposure in Public Buildings
- Burdett, 1986, Airborne asbestos concentrations in buildings, Ann. Occup. Hyg., 30, 185, 10.1093/annhyg/30.2.185 · DOI
- Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, Asbestos-containing materials in schools; proposed rule and model accreditation plan; rule, Fed. Reg., 52, 15820
- Hatfield, 1987, Preliminary Analysis of Asbestos Air Monitoring Data
- Hatfield, 1987, Public Buildings Study Quality Assurance Plan. Final Report
- Mantel, 1963, Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom: Extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure, J. Amer. Stat. Assoc., 58, 680, 10.2307/2282717 · DOI
- Petrondus, 1983, Multiple comparisons by rerandomization tests, J. Amer. Stat. Assoc., 78, 949, 10.2307/2288209 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Boulanger, G., Andujar, P., Pairon, J.-C., Billon-Galland, M.-A., Dion, C., Dumortier, P., Brochard, P., Sobaszek, A., Bartsch, P., Paris, C., et al. (2014) · Environmental Health · doi:10.1186/1476-069x-13-59 · Cited by 176
Airborne asbestos in buildings
Lee, R. J., & Van Orden, D. R. (2008) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.10.005 · Cited by 70
Ambient monitoring of asbestos in selected Italian living areas
Gualtieri, A. F., Mangano, D., Gualtieri, M. L., Ricchi, A., Foresti, E., Lesci, G., Roveri, N., Mariotti, M., & Pecchini, G. (2009) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.007 · Cited by 41
The natural reduction of threat in selected systems of old buildings containing asbestos
Obmiński, A. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-04487-y · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Crump, K. S., & Farrar, D. B.
- Venue
- Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1989-08
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-62
- ISSN
- 0273-2300
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical analysis of data on airborne asbestos levels collected in an EPA survey of public buildings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0273-2300(89)90012-3
- The paper
- Crump, K. S., & Farrar, D. B. (1989). Statistical analysis of data on airborne asbestos levels collected in an EPA survey of public buildings. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2300(89)90012-3
