Scholarlink

Background <p>Occupational exposure to asbestos remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality from asbestos-related diseases (ARDs). Laboratory environments that routinely process asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) are considered low-risk, however there is limited evidence-based data regarding potential airborne exposure during laboratory routine specimen handling and processing. This study aimed to determine asbestos exposure in the laboratory environment during routine analysis of specimens suspected to contain asbestos.</p> Materials and methods <p>The prospective observational cross-sectional study was conducted between January 2023 and November 2024 at the National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH), South Africa. Static and personal air monitoring samples (20 personal, 20 static and 10 control air filters) were collected during routine processing of lung and bulk samples suspected to contain asbestos. All Samples were processed under the biosafety cabinets. Air filters were analysed using scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) by analyst at the NIOH and data was analysed using STATA v16.</p> Results <p>Asbestos fibres were identified in bulk and lung specimens on all the sampling days; however, no asbestos fibres were detected on any of the air monitoring filters. The current study findings indicate airborne fibre concentrations below the analytical detection limit of SEM-EDS under the controlled laboratory conditions.</p> Conclusion <p>No detectable airborne asbestos fibres were detected during routine laboratory processing of probable ACMs. While this may suggest a low potential for occupational exposure, low-level exposure below the detection limit cannot be excluded. The usage of approved protocols and continued exposure monitoring and surveillance remains necessary.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluation of the possibility of workplace environmental asbestos contamination and personnel exposure resulting from laboratory processing of asbestos-containing samples

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月24日

查看全文
  • Lucia N. Mhlongo,
  • Zethembiso B. Ngcobo,
  • Thembi Mashele,
  • Gabriel Mizan,
  • Ngoni Gumbo,
  • Lerato Sebola,
  • Deepna Govind Lakhoo

摘要

Background

Occupational exposure to asbestos remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality from asbestos-related diseases (ARDs). Laboratory environments that routinely process asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) are considered low-risk, however there is limited evidence-based data regarding potential airborne exposure during laboratory routine specimen handling and processing. This study aimed to determine asbestos exposure in the laboratory environment during routine analysis of specimens suspected to contain asbestos.

Materials and methods

The prospective observational cross-sectional study was conducted between January 2023 and November 2024 at the National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH), South Africa. Static and personal air monitoring samples (20 personal, 20 static and 10 control air filters) were collected during routine processing of lung and bulk samples suspected to contain asbestos. All Samples were processed under the biosafety cabinets. Air filters were analysed using scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) by analyst at the NIOH and data was analysed using STATA v16.

Results

Asbestos fibres were identified in bulk and lung specimens on all the sampling days; however, no asbestos fibres were detected on any of the air monitoring filters. The current study findings indicate airborne fibre concentrations below the analytical detection limit of SEM-EDS under the controlled laboratory conditions.

Conclusion

No detectable airborne asbestos fibres were detected during routine laboratory processing of probable ACMs. While this may suggest a low potential for occupational exposure, low-level exposure below the detection limit cannot be excluded. The usage of approved protocols and continued exposure monitoring and surveillance remains necessary.