z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Comparative hazards of chrysotile asbestos and its substitutes: A European perspective.
Author(s) -
Paul Harrison,
Leonard S. Levy,
G. Patrick,
G. H. Pigott,
Lewis L. Smith
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
environmental health perspectives
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.257
H-Index - 282
eISSN - 1552-9924
pISSN - 0091-6765
DOI - 10.1289/ehp.99107607
Subject(s) - chrysotile , asbestos , asbestos fibers , hazardous waste , glass wool , european union , aramid , fiber , waste management , pulp and paper industry , materials science , composite material , business , engineering , layer (electronics) , economic policy
Although the use of amphibole asbestos (crocidolite and amosite) has been banned in most European countries because of its known effects on the lung and pleura, chrysotile asbestos remains in use in a number of widely used products, notably asbestos cement and friction linings in vehicle brakes and clutches. A ban on chrysotile throughout the European Union for these remaining applications is currently under consideration, but this requires confidence in the safety of substitute materials. The main substitutes for the residual uses of chrysotile are p-aramid, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and cellulose fibers, and it is these materials that are evaluated here. Because it critically affects both exposure concentrations and deposition in the lung, diameter is a key determinant of the intrinsic hazard of a fiber; the propensity of a material to release fibers into the air is also important. It is generally accepted that to be pathogenic to the lung or pleura, fibers must be long, thin, and durable; fiber chemistry may also be significant. These basic principles are used in a pragmatic way to form a judgement on the relative safety of the substitute materials, taking into account what is known about their hazardous properties and also the potential for uncontrolled exposures during a lifetime of use (including disposal). We conclude that chrysotile asbestos is intrinsically more hazardous than p-aramid, PVA, or cellulose fibers and that its continued use in asbestos-cement products and friction materials is not justifiable in the face of available technically adequate substitutes.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here