The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that, in 1988, 42% of existing public and commercial buildings contained asbestos floor tiles. Nonetheless, many current structures still contain asbestos-containing floor tiles. Although there is little evidence as to why the six primary processors of asbestos vinyl tile opted to phase out asbestos from their products, presumably this action was in response to the passage of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) in 1986 or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issuance of an emergency temporary standard for the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of asbestos from 2 to 0.5 f/cm 3. VAT production eventually ceased by the end of 1986. For example, in 1981, the production of VAT was 58,352,864 square yards, but by 1985, production had decreased to 18,300,000 square yards. In the 1980s, manufacture and use of asbestos-containing floor tiles began to decrease. Furthermore, VAT is resistant to physical and chemical degradation and is often used in areas of high traffic or with potentials for spills of liquid or solid materials (e.g. Historically, the widespread and increasing use of asbestos floor tiles, and VAT in particular, was a result of the cost-effectiveness in covering large amounts of surface area.

VAT production accounted for up to 95% of the asbestos used by the floor tile industry.

The floor tile industry historically produced two main types of products: vinyl-asbestos tile (VAT) and asphalt-asbestos tile.

Exposures associated with handling asbestos floor tiles, under working conditions normally encountered, do not generally produce airborne concentrations at levels that exceed the current OSHA PEL nor do they appear to approach the threshold cumulative asbestos dose concentrations that have been previously associated with an increased risk of asbestos-related disease.Īsbestos-containing floor tiles were among the most common building materials between 19. Tasks that involved buffing or burnishing, scoring or snapping, and scraping or lifting had the highest personal PCM concentrations, while stripping floor tile and removing it with chemical solvent had the lowest concentrations. Phase contrast microscopy (PCM) personal airborne fiber concentrations were highest for maintenance activities, followed by removal and installation. Arithmetic mean time-weighted-average fiber concentrations over an 8-h working day were 0.02 and 0.01 f/cm 3 for personal and bystander samples, respectively. The arithmetic mean airborne fiber concentrations were 0.05, 0.02, and 0.01 f/cm 3 for personal, bystander, and area samples, respectively. In total, 22 studies, including 804 personal, 57 bystander, and 295 area samples, were included in the analysis. Personal breathing zone, bystander, and area sample exposure concentrations were differentiated and compared against current occupational exposure limits to asbestos. In this meta-analysis, exposures to airborne asbestos during work with or around floor tiles were characterized according to several variables: study, sample type, activity, and task.

Asbestos floor tiles