Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 30, pp 30488–30496 | Cite as

New comprehensive approach for airborne asbestos characterisation and monitoring

  • Miroslav Klán
  • Petra PokornáEmail author
  • David Havlíček
  • Ondřej Vik
  • Martin Racek
  • Jiří Plocek
  • Jan Hovorka
Research Article


High concentrations of airborne asbestos in the ambient air are still a serious problem of air quality in numerous localities around the world. Since 2002, elevated concentrations of asbestos minerals of unknown origin have been detected in the ambient air of Pilsen, Czech Republic. To determine the asbestos fibre sources in this urban air, a systematic study was conducted. First, 14 bulk dust samples were collected in Pilsen at nine localities, and 6 bulk samples of construction aggregates for gravel production were collected in a quarry in the Pilsen-Litice district. The quarry is the largest quarry in the Pilsen region and the closest quarry to the built-up urban area. X-ray diffraction of the asbestos minerals revealed that monoclinic amphibole (MA, namely actinolite based on subsequent SEM-EDX analysis) in the bulk samples accounted for < 1–33% of the mass and that the highest values were found in the bulk dust samples from the railway platform of the Pilsen main railway station. Simultaneously, 24-h samples of airborne particulate matter (PM) at three localities in Pilsen were collected. Actinolite was identified in 40% of the PM samples. The relationship between the meteorology and presence of actinolite in the 24 PM10 samples was not proven, probably due to the long sampling integration time. Therefore, highly time-and-size-resolved PM sampling was performed. Second, sampling of size-segregated aerosols and measurements of the wind speed (WS), wind direction (WD), precipitation (P) and hourly PM10, PM2.5 and PM1 were conducted in a suburban locality near the quarry in two monthly highly time-resolved periods (30, 60, 120 min). Three/eight PM size fractions were sampled by a Davis Rotating-drum Uniform-size-cut Monitor (3/8DRUM) and analysed for the presences of asbestos fibres by scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDX). Asbestos fibre detection in highly time-resolved PM samples and current WD and WS determination allows the apportionment directionality of asbestos fibre sources. The number of critical actinolite asbestos fibres (length ≥ 5 μm and width < 3 μm, 3:1) increased with the PM1–10/PM10 and PM2.5–10/PM10 ratios, WS > 2 m s−1 and precipitation < 1 mm. Additionally, the number of critical actinolite asbestos fibres was not related to a specific WD. Therefore, we conclude that the sources of airborne critical actinolite asbestos fibres in Pilsen’s urban area are omnipresent. Frequent use of construction aggregates and gravel from the metamorphic spilite quarries in the Pilsen region and in many localities around the urban area is a plausible explanation for the omnipresence of the critical actinolite asbestos fibres concentration in Pilsen’s ambient air. Mitigation strategies to reduce the concentrations of critical actinolite asbestos fibres must be developed. Continuous monitoring and performing SEM-EDX analysis of highly time-and-size-resolved PM samples, correlated with fast changing WS and WD, seems to be a strong tool for efficiently controlling the mitigation strategies of critical actinolite asbestos fibres.


Actinolite asbestos Naturally occurring asbestos DRUM sampler SEM-EDX X-ray powder diffraction 



The authors acknowledge the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute Branch, Pilsen, for their cooperation during the measurements and data provision.

Funding information

This work was supported by grant no P503/12/G147 of the Czech Science Foundation and by the Environmental Fund of Pilsen.

Supplementary material

11356_2018_2791_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 4086 kb)


  1. Baumann F, Carbone M (2016) Environmental risk to mesothelioma in the United States: an emerging concern – epidemiological issues. J Toxicol Environ Health 19:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berman DW, Crump KS (2008) Update of potency factors for asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma. Critical review Toxicity 38:1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloise A, Punturo R, Catalano M, Miriello D, Cirrincione R (2016) Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) in rock and soil and relation with human activities: the monitoring example of selected sites in Calabria (southern Italy). Italian J Geoscience 135:268–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cahill C.F., 2003. Asian aerosol transport to Alaska during ACE-Asia. Journal of Geophysical Research 108 (D23):32, 1–8Google Scholar
  5. Cahill TA, Goodart C, Nelson JW, Eldred RA, Nastrom JS, Feeney PJ (1985) Design and evaluation of the drum impactor. In: Ariman T, Veziroglu TN (eds) Proceedings of international symposium on particulate and multi-phase process, vol 2. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, pp 19–25Google Scholar
  6. Case BW, Abraham JL (2008) Heterogeneity of exposure and attribution of mesotheliom: trend and strategies in two American countries. J Phys Conf Ser 151:1–15Google Scholar
  7. Catherine H, Skinner W (2003) Mineralogy of asbestos minerals. Indoor Built Environ 12:385–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Červenka, V., 2005. Zpráva o kontaminaci venkovního ovzduší amfibolovým azbestem z neznámého zdroje (Report of ambient air contamination via amphibole asbestos of unknown source), Foster Bohemia spol. s r.o., final report, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  9. Chlupáč I, Brzobohatý R, Kovanda J, Stráník Z (2002) Geologická minulost České republiky. Academia Praha, Czech, p 436Google Scholar
  10. Davis, B.L., 1988. Reference intensity method of quantitative X-ray diffraction analysis, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid CityGoogle Scholar
  11. Falzone L, Marconi A, Loreto C, Franco S, Spandidos DA, Libra M (2016) Occupational exposure to carcinogens: benzene, pesticides and fibers. Mol Med Rep 14:4467–4474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fiala F (1977) Proterozoický vulkanismus Barrandienu a problematika spilitů. Sborník Geologických věd, Geologie 30:7–247 in CzechGoogle Scholar
  13. Franck AL, Joshi TK (2014) The global spread of asbestos. Annals Global Health 80:257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harper M (2008) 10th anniversary critical review: naturally occurring asbestos. J Environ Monit 10:1394–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris, K.E., Bunker, K.L., Strohmeier, B.R., Hoch, R., Lee, R.J., 2007. Discovering the true morphology of amphibole minerals: complementary TEM and FESEM characterization of particles in mixed mineral dust. In: Méndez-Vilas, a., Diaz, J., editors. Modern research and educational topics in microscopy, vol. 2. Formatex research center, Badajoz, Spain. ISBN-13: 978-84-611-9420-9Google Scholar
  16. Hovorka J, Pokorná P, Hopke PK, Mikuška P, Křůmal K, Píšová M (2015) Wood combustion, a dominant source of winter aerosol in residential district in proximity to a large automobile factory in Central Europe. Atmos Environ 113:98–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IARC, 2012. A review of human carcinogens: arsenic, metals, fibres, and dusts. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinogen Risks Hum 100C
  18. IARC, 1977. Asbestos. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 14Google Scholar
  19. ICDD, 2011. International Centre for diffraction data, powder diffraction file - release 2011, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  20. Larson TC, Vinicius C, Bove FJ (2010) Vermiculite worker mortality: estimated effect of occupational exposure to Libby amphibole. J Occup Environ Med 5:555–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luo S, Liu X, Mu S, Tsai SP, Wen CP (2003) Asbestos related diseases from environmental exposure to crocidolite in Da-Yao, China. Review of exposure and epidemiological data. Occup Environ Med 60:35–41 discussion 41–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ondruš, P., 1994: ZDS Software pro analýzu RTG práškových difrakčních záznamů, verze 5.14, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  23. Paoletti L, Batisti D, Bruno C, Di Paola M, Gianfana A, Mastrantonio M, Nesti M, Comba P (2000) Unusually high incidence of malignant pleura mesothelioma in a town of eastern Sicily: an epidemiological and environmental study. Archives of Environ Health 55:392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peipins LA, Lewine M, Campolucci S, Lybarger JA, Miller A, Middleton D, Weis C, Spence M, Black B, Kapil V (2003) Radiographic abnormalities and exposure to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite in community of Libby, Montana, USA. Environ Health Perspect 14:1753–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perkins RA, Hargesheimer J, Vaara L (2008) Evaluation of public and workers exposure due to naturally occurring asbestos in gravel discovered during a road construction project. J Occup Environ Hyg 5:609–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pokorná P, Hovorka J, Kroužek J, Hopke PK (2013) Particulate matter source apportionment in a village situated in industrial region of Central Europe. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 63:1412–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pokorná P, Hovorka J, Hopke PK (2016a) Elemental composition and source identification of very fine aerosol particles in a European air pollution hot-spot. Atmospheric Pollution Res 7:671–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pokorná P., Hovorka J., Brejcha J., 2016b. Impact of mining activities on the air quality in the village nearby a coal strip mine, IOP Conf. Series: Earth Environ Sci, 44, 032021Google Scholar
  29. Roggli VL (2015) The so-called short-fiber controversy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 139:1052–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sakai K, Hisanaga N, Kohyama N, Shibata E, Takeuchi Y (2001) Airborne fiber concentration and size distribution of mineral fibers in area with serpentinite outcrops in Aichi prefecture, Japan. Ind Health 39:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scherbakov, S. V., Kashansky, S., Domnin, S.G., Kogan, F.M., Kozlov, V. Kochelayev, V.A., Nolan, R. P. in: The Health Effects of Chrysotile Asbestos: Contribution of Science to Risk Management Decisions, eds. Nolan, R. P., Langer, A. M., Ross, M., Wicks, F. J., Martin, R. F., 2001. Mineralogical Association of Canada, Canadian Special Publication 5, 187–198Google Scholar
  32. Stayner L, Welch LS, Lemen R (2013) The worldwide pandemic asbestos-related diseases. Annual Rev Public Health 34:4.1–4.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strohmeier BR, Huntington JC, Bunker KL, Sanchez MS, Allison K, Lee RJ (2010) What is asbestos and why is it important? Challenges of defining and characterizing asbestos. Int Geol Rev 52:801–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sullivan PA (2007) Vermiculite, respiratory, disease, and asbestos exposure in Libby, Montana: update of a cohort mortality study. Environ Health Perspect 4:579–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swayze GA, Kokaly RF, Higgins CT, Clinkenbreard JP, Clark RN, Lowers HA, Sutley SJ (2009) Mapping potentially asbestos-bearing rocks using imaging spectroscopy. Geological Soc Am 37:763–766Google Scholar
  36. White N, Nelson G, Murray J (2007) South African experience with asbestos related environmental mesothelioma: is asbestos fiber type important? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 52:S92–S96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. World Health Organisation (WHO), 2000. Air quality guidelines for Europe. Second edition. WHO Regional publications, European Series, No. 91Google Scholar
  38. World Health Organisation (WHO), 2010. Asbestos: elimination of asbestos-related diseases. Fact sheet N 343, July.
  39. Wylie A, Candela P (2015) Methodologies for determining the sources, characteristics, distribution and abundance of asbestiform and nonasbestiform amphibole and serpentine in ambient air and water. J Toxicology Environ Health, Part B 18:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zachariáš, J., 2009. Mineralogická charakteristika vzorků kameniva (mineralogical characteristic of the bulk samples), study, Institute of Geochemistry, Mineralogy and Mineral Resources, Faculty of Science, Charles UniversityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miroslav Klán
    • 1
  • Petra Pokorná
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David Havlíček
    • 3
  • Ondřej Vik
    • 3
  • Martin Racek
    • 4
  • Jiří Plocek
    • 5
  • Jan Hovorka
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Environmental Studies, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPrague 2Czech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Aerosol Chemistry and PhysicsInstitute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CASPrague 6Czech Republic
  3. 3.Institute of Chemistry, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPrague 2Czech Republic
  4. 4.Institute of Petrology and Structural Geology, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPrague 2Czech Republic
  5. 5.Institute of Inorganic Chemistry of the CAS, v.v.i.Řež u PrahyCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations