The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 19 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Asbestos-containing materials in abandoned residential dwellings in Detroit
Open accessAbstract
Objective The efforts of many municipalities to demolish abandoned residential dwellings (ARDs) are hampered by the presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) in these structures. However, the extent of such materials is unknown. Our study sought to characterize ACMs present in ARDs demolished in Detroit. Methods Working with the City of Detroit, we obtained information on all ARDs demolished from 2014 to 2017. We randomly sampled 605 ARDs and analyzed the presence, type, and amount of ACM present, and the associated abatement and demolition costs. Results Asbestos was present in about 95% of the sampled ARDs. The most common types of ACMs were flooring, roofing, siding, and duct insulation. The material containing the greatest fraction of asbestos was duct insulation. The type of asbestos generally present was chrysotile. Only eight (1%) ARDs contained commercial amphibole asbestos; another 36 contained vermiculite. The total cost of demolition averaged $13,645 per home, of which 20.1% was asbestos abatement. Conclusions The majority of the ACM in the ARDs was nonfriable and consisted of chrysotile. This study contributes information about the nature and extent of ACM in ARDs, which can provide part of the foundation for making an assessment of possible asbestos-containing air emissions during the demolitions of ARDs, and the nature or extent of pre-demolition abatement that may be needed (if any) to protect the public's health.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 Own result · 8 Own method · 8 Own interpretation · 7 Sources not found · 3 No full text of the sources · 3 No basis given · 2 Partly supported · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For mesothelioma, the risk ratio for the most prevalent commercial fiber types has been estimated to be in the range of 1:100:500 for chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite, respectively (Hodgson & Darnton, 2000; Korchevskiy et al., 2019).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hodgson & Darnton, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Korchevskiy et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction reports the mesothelioma-potency order crocidolite > amosite ≫ chrysotile, and the Discussion says chrysotile is about two orders of magnitude less potent than typical amphibole asbestos. But our copy does not give the specific 1:100:500 ratio; it uses potency factors from particular cohorts and notes variation between deposits. Thus it supports the broad comparison, not that numerical estimate. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“while all forms of asbestos are capable of causing cancer, amphibole forms of asbestos have higher potency than chrysotile fibers, particularly in relation to mesothelioma (Berman & Crump, 2008; Garabrandt & Pastula, 2018; Hodgson & Darnton, 2000; Korchevskiy, Rasmuson, & Rasmuson, 2019).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Berman & Crump, 2008 source
The Mesothelioma Potency Factors section (page not provided) reports that the two pure-amphibole studies had among the largest mesothelioma potency factors, while predominantly chrysotile exposures had among the smallest. The Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma Potency Factors section also identifies differences between chrysotile and amphibole potency, particularly for mesothelioma. The paper discusses cancer risks from both fiber types. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Garabrandt & Pastula, 2018 source
- Not matchedcites Hodgson & Darnton, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only eight (1%) ARDs contained commercial amphibole asbestos; another 36 contained vermiculite.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“commercial amphibole was found in only 8, or 1%.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In almost 99% of ARDs in which asbestos was found to be present, the asbestos consisted of chrysotile.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The type of asbestos generally present was chrysotile.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Asbestos was present in about 95% of the sampled ARDs.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Asbestos was documented to be present in 95% of the ARDs, with the vast bulk of asbestos consisting of chrysotile; commercial amphibole was found in only 8, or 1%.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ten most prevalent types of ACM found in these ARDs are summarized in Table 2, including flooring (51% of homes), roofing (48%), siding (34%), and duct insulation (32%).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ten most prevalent types of ACM found in these ARDs are summarized in Table 2, including flooring (51% of homes), roofing (48%), siding (34%), and duct insulation (32%).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ten most prevalent types of ACM found in these ARDs are summarized in Table 2, including flooring (51% of homes), roofing (48%), siding (34%), and duct insulation (32%).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The total cost of demolition averaged $13,645 per home, of which 20.1% was asbestos abatement.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“the mean total cost, including abatement and demolition, was $13,645, with a range of $4,722 to $39,700.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The material containing the greatest fraction of asbestos was duct insulation.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“The mean percent chrysotile content varied considerably, from to 54.9% (duct insulation) to 1.6% (plaster), with a similar, though not identical, pattern for the medians.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
- Probably not a substantial claim. 13
- It may state two separate claims as one. 28
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Asbestos was used in a variety of common construction materials, including duct and pipe insulation, cement, siding, flooring, roofing, and in sealants, caulks, and glazes, throughout the 20th century, until it was partially banned in the 1970s (Allen, Baez, Stern, Takahashi, & George, 2018).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Allen et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) says asbestos was used primarily in construction materials and that some countries began partial bans in the 1970s. It does not identify the specific materials listed in the citing sentence. The Discussion (page unavailable) also reports continued asbestos consumption after the 1970s, so the bans did not mark a worldwide end to its use. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of these 36 homes, 28 had reports which noted, “roof system and vermiculite insulation material not sampled,” while another eight reports stated that the vermiculite was sampled. For these eight homes, the labs did not actually test for asbestos, but simply noted, “Assumed.””
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining ARDs in the database (about 90%) generally have a completed pre-demolition inspection report of RACM and are the focus of this investigation.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > METHODS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also examined the associations between age of ARD and total cost, and between age of ARD and abatement cost (data not shown). Correlation coefficients for both associations were negative (approximately −0.09) and marginally significant (p=0.03–0.04).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Four types of ACM, flooring, siding, plaster and the “other” category, were each significantly correlated with abatement costs and the total cost of the removal of the ARD. In addition, asbestos-containing roofing was significantly correlated with total cost, but not abatement cost.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Abatement costs in the homes with vermiculite were slightly lower than the overall sample, while total demolition costs were slightly higher.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the mean square footage of asbestos-containing plaster in homes found to have this material (n=95) was nearly 4,400 square feet, while the mean square footage in homes found to have asbestos-containing cement (n=106) was only 4.1 square feet.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plainn = 95- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean abatement cost was $2,740 (Table 1), and the mean total cost, including abatement and demolition, was $13,645, with a range of $4,722 to $39,700.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“The cost of asbestos inspections and abatement among the 605 sampled ARDs was $2,740 on average, or 20.1% of the $13,645 average total cost to remove an ARD.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On February 14, 2017, the on-line demolition database was downloaded; on this date, there were 11,043 ARDs in the database.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > METHODS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The range of year of construction was 1924 – 1969, with 1937 as the mean.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, when vermiculite insulation was visually identified by inspectors working on behalf of the City of Detroit, some took samples for analysis (though none were actually analyzed by the labs), while others did not, simply assuming the vermiculite to be ACM.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > METHODS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These ARDs were slightly smaller and older than the overall sample, and more likely to be single story.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In four of the five cases in which the location was described, the ACM was located in the basement, and the amount was relatively small (up to 23 square feet).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plainn = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each ARD with commercial amphibole had only one type of ACM that contained such amphibole, with the content ranging from 2% to 40%.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on the 605 ARDs examined in this study, the typical ARD in Detroit was a single-family house consisting of two stories, with almost 90% comprising less than 2,000 square feet (Table 1).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The estimated or bid cost for the demolition of these ARDs ranged from about $3,500 to $30,000, with the mean just under $11,000.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The year of construction ranged from 1885 to 1974, with the mean being 1929.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study showed that the majority of the potentially friable asbestos was inside the home, with the few commercial amphibole ACMs located in the basement.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > CONCLUSIONS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such hazardous ARDs are considered “emergency demolitions”, and represent about 10% of all demolitions listed in the database.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > METHODS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To avoid the possibility of differential error in our abstraction process, all data abstractors were trained on the identification and the recording of information about ACM in the reports.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > METHODS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of the ACM in the ARDs was nonfriable and consisted of chrysotile.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > Abstract > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While these differences could introduce bias into our findings, the fact that all inspectors were licensed and trained in a consistent manner, and that the labs were all externally accredited, we believe any errors introduced by the different inspectors and laboratories would be random and most likely bias our results towards the null.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The NESHAP regulations require that all RACM be removed prior to demolition of all buildings with an exemption for residential buildings of four or fewer dwelling units, based on a National Academy of Sciences study stating “…single-family residential structures contain only small amounts of asbestos…” (National Research Council, 1971).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites National Research Council, 1971
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This assertion that PLM is not an accurate means of determining whether vermiculite is ACM, with the simultaneous endorsement of continued use of the PLM as the measurement method, was adopted as policy by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in a memo addressed to asbestos inspectors (MDEQ, 2017).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > METHODS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MDEQ, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Consequently, in 2004, the EPA issued a statement: “the EPA is informing the public to consider all vermiculite insulation as asbestos-containing material” (EPA, 2004).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites EPA, 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“nearly 80% of the vermiculite used worldwide came from Libby, Montana, which contained a variety of asbestiform amphibole fibers, including winchite, richterite and tremolite (collectively labeled ‘Libby amphibole’) (Hilbert et al., 2013; Lockey et al., 2015).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In 2004, the EPA noted that the PLM method “is not accurate and yields false negatives when used on vermiculite insulation” (EPA, 2004). Nevertheless, in the same memo the EPA stated that, if used correctly, the standard PLM method would “satisfy EPA’s minimum requirement for the analysis of asbestos in vermiculite loose fill insulation.””
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > METHODS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites EPA, 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“asbestos-containing floor tiles (Lange, 2002) and roofing materials (Sheehan, Mowat, Weidling, & Floyd, 2010) have not been shown to create elevated levels of airborne asbestos during abatement and scraping, respectively.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For lung cancer, the risk differential between chrysotile and the two main commercial amphiboles (amosite and crocidolite) is between 1:10 and 1:50 (Hodgson & Darnton, 2000).”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hodgson & Darnton, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Information about the presence of asbestos was missing for only 9 of the 605 ARDs, or 1.5% of the sample in this study.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, it is possible that vermiculite was more prevalent than was noted in the ARD inspection reports. Some inspectors may not have recorded vermiculite systematically (though we have no evidence to suggest this), which would introduce bias into our estimates of the presence of vermiculite and the associated potential for ACM.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the sample size of 605 demolished ARDs is relatively large, and was from among >10,000 ARDs removed in Detroit over a three-year period, it is nevertheless possible that these results are biased in some way.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Knowing the extent and types of ACM present can help in making an assessment of the possibility of asbestos-containing air emissions during the demolitions of ARDs, and the nature and extent of pre-demolition abatement that may be needed to protect the public’s health.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > INTRODUCTION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The guidelines for inspection do call for recording the presence of vermiculite, so we believe this to be a relatively low likelihood.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the homes are collapsed inward, and usually sprayed with water during demolition, reducing the possibility of asbestos airborne emissions.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > CONCLUSIONS
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Abandoned residential dwellings are collapsed inward and usually sprayed with water during demolition.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We initially targeted a sample size of 600, but oversampled slightly to account for potential missing data in the selected ARDs.”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > METHODS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
If tested, all vermiculite in the abandoned residential dwellings would contain amphibole asbestos or asbestiform amphiboles.
“assuming that, if tested, all of the vermiculite in ARDs actually contained amphibole asbestos and/or asbestiform amphiboles”
The paper relies on this without support.
No previous study has documented the nature and extent of asbestos-containing material in abandoned residential dwellings in any US city.
“To our knowledge, this is the first study to document the nature and extent of ACM in ARDs in any city in the US.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Abandoned residential dwellings are collapsed inward and usually sprayed with water during demolition.
“Furthermore, the homes are collapsed inward, and usually sprayed with water during demolition, reducing the possibility of asbestos airborne emissions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There have been no studies to assess asbestos emissions during demolition of abandoned residential dwellings.
“However, there have been no studies to assess asbestos emissions during demolition of ARDs.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“the mean square footage of asbestos-containing plaster in homes found to have this material (n=95) was nearly 4,400 square feet, while the mean square footage in homes found to have asbestos-containing cement (n=106) was only 4.1 square feet. When all homes were considered, mean and median amounts were lower by a factor of 2–5”
§ Asbestos-Containing Materials in Abandoned Residential Dwellings in Detroit > RESULTS
Reported 5 · recomputed 6.368421
Citations
Cites
The quantitative risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure
Hodgson, J. (2000) · The Annals of Occupational Hygiene · doi:10.1016/s0003-4878(00)00045-4 · Cited by 661
Addressing the Vacant and Abandoned Property Problem
Accordino, J. J., & Johnson, G. T. (2000) · Journal of Urban Affairs · doi:10.1111/0735-2166.00058 · Cited by 415
Update of potency factors for asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma
Berman, D. W., & Crump, K. S. (2008) · Critical Reviews in Toxicology · doi:10.1080/10408440802276167 · Cited by 188
Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color
Kotelchuck, D., Queen, D., & Bullard, R. D. (1995) · Journal of Public Health Policy · doi:10.2307/3342865 · Cited by 185
National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants
Law, E. A. (2015) · American Legal Encyclopedia · Cited by 105
Rauh, V., Landrigan, P., & Claudio, L. (2008) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1196/annals.1425.032 · Cited by 84
Farfel, M. R., Orlova, A. O., Lees, P. S. J., et al. (2003) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.5861 · Cited by 82
“Everyone called me grandma”: Public housing demolition and relocation among older adults in Atlanta
Keene, D. E., & Ruel, E. E. (2012) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2012.10.011 · Cited by 77
Garabrant, D. H., & Pastula, S. T. (2018) · Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.taap.2018.07.003 · Cited by 71
Farfel, M. R., Orlova, A. O., Lees, P. S. J., et al. (2004) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2004.10.005 · Cited by 54
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- FEMA, 2015, Vacant residential building fires (2010–2012), Top. Fire Rep. Ser., 15, 1
- OSHA, 1994, Safety and health regulations for construction, 1926.1101 occupational exposure to asbestos, Fed. Regist., 59, 40964
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1973, Part 61 - national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants: asbestos, beryllium, and mercury, Fed. Regist., 38, 8820
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995, Asbestos NESHAP clarification of intent, Fed. Regist., 60, 38725
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Predicting the presence of hazardous materials in buildings using machine learning
Wu, P.-Y., Sandels, C., Mjörnell, K., Mangold, M., & Johansson, T. D. (2022) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.108894 · Cited by 52
Measurement of asbestos emissions associated with demolition of abandoned residential dwellings
Neitzel, R. L., Sayler, S. K., Demond, A. H., d'Arcy, H., Garabrant, D. H., & Franzblau, A. (2020) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137891 · Cited by 30
Self-citationProperties and performance of the basalt-fiber reinforced texture roof tiles
Chakartnarodom, P., Prakaypan, W., Ineure, P., et al. (2020) · Case Studies in Construction Materials · doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00444 · Cited by 22
Wu, P.-Y., Mjörnell, K., Mangold, M., et al. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13147836 · Cited by 21
“Furthermore, limited information regarding the extent of the previous adoption is available, leading to a struggle in designing precautionary abatement policy and decontamination plans [6].”
BackgroundInfluentialTetik, Y. O., Zümrüt, İ. B., Çamurcu, A. G., Kale, Ö. A., & Baradan, S. (2024) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-023-31819-4 · Cited by 14
“Due to its strength, asbestos was extensively employed for thermal insulation, including acoustical plaster and as a component in sprayed mixtures on ceilings and walls (Franzblau et al. 2020; Allen et al. 2018).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Franzblau, A., Demond, A. H., Sayler, S. K., D'Arcy, H., & Neitzel, R. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Neitzel, R.L.
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 714
- Pages
- 136580
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7060826
- OpenAlex
- W2998761439
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 2.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Occupational and environmental lung diseases
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
- Keywords
- asbestos-containing materials, demolition, asbestos removal, chrysotile, vermiculite, duct insulation, demolition costs, Detroit
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
