# Final Technical Report of the Public Health Investigation

to Assess Potential Exposures to Airborne and Settled Surface Dust

in Residential Areas of Lower Manhattan

September 2002

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygi ene

and

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

As a part of the



# World Trade Center Environmental Assessment Working Group

# September 11, 2001

In remembrance of those who were lost on September 11, 2001, and to the families and friends who will love them

forever and keep their memories alive.

In grateful recognition of the countless responders and the many who supported their efforts.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

## i 

# CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF FIGURES v

LIST OF SAMPLING EVENT PHOTOGRAPHS vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

ABSTRACT 9

IN TRODUCTION 10

BACKGROUND 10

A. World Trade Center Towers 10

B. Potential Contaminants 11

C. Monitoring in Lower Manhattan After the Collapse of the

World Trade Center 11

D. Community Expo sures 12

E. Human Health Effects of Concern 12

OBJECTIVES 12

METHODS 13

A. Sampling Approach 13

B. Samples Taken 13

C. Field and Laboratory Changes From the Original S ampling Protocol 14

1. Field Changes 14

2. Sample Analysis Changes 15

D. Data Management and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures 15

E. Data Analysis 17

F. Limitations and Uncertainties 17

RESULTS 18

A. Survey 18

B. Settled Surface Dust 19

1. Fiber Analysis of Settled Surface Dust 19

2. Mineral Analysis of Settled Surface Dust 20

3. Alkalinity of Settled Surface Dust 22

C. Ai r 22

## ii 

# Page

1. Fibers in Air 23

a. Indoor Air 23

b. Outdoor Air 24

2. Minerals in Air 24

DISCUSSION 26

A. Discussion of Results 26

1. Association of Asbestos and Synthetic Vi treous Fibers 27

2. Association of Asbestos and Synthetic Vitreous Fiber

Levels Outside of and Within a Building 27

3. Occurrence of Crystalline Minerals 28

4. Buildings Impacted by Asbestos, Synthetic Vitreous Fibers,

and Crystallin

e Minerals 28

5. Significance of Minerals and Fibers in the Settled Surface Dust 29

6. Significance of Minerals and Fibers in Air 29

B. Public Health Evaluation 30

1. Sensitive Populations 31

2. Soluble Minerals: Gypsum , Portlandite, and Calcite 32

3. Mica 33

4. Halite 34

5. Crystalline Silica (Quartz and Cristobalite) 34

a. Silicosis 34

b. Lung Cancer 35

6. Synthetic Vitreous Fibers 36

a. Irritant Effects 36

b. Pulmonary Effects 37

7. Asbestos 38

a. Asbestosis 38

b. Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma 39

8. Multiple Material Exposures 40

a. Irritant Effects 40

b. Noncancer Pulmonary Effects 40

CONCLUSIONS 41

RECOMMENDATIONS 43

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN 44

A. Public Health Actions Taken 44

B. Public Health Actions Planned 45

## iii 

# Page

REFERENCES 46

AUTHORS AND ACKN OWLEDGMENTS 51

TABLES 54

FIGURES 64

SAMPLING EVENT PHOTOGRAPHS 82

APPENDICES 87

A. Particulate Matter Quality Assurance/Quality Control Discussion 88

B. Survey Results 92

C. Detailed Analytical Results 99

## iv 

# LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. General Information on the World Trade Center Towers 55

Table 2. 2000 Census Block Level Population 55

Table 3. Number of Buildings and Areas Within Buildings Sampled for

Settled Surface Dust: Analyzed for Asbestos by PLM and TEM,

SVF by PLM, and Minerals by XRD 56

Table 4. Number of Buildings and Areas Within Buildings Sampled for

Fibers in Air: Analyzed for Total Fiber s by PCM, Asbestos

by TEM, and SVF by SEM 56

Table 5. Number of Locations Sampled for Minerals in Airborne Dust:

Analyzed by XRD for Minerals 56

Table 6. Summary of Locations With Asbestos or Synthetic Vitreous

Fibers (SVF) in Settled Surface Dust 57

Table 7. Summary of Mineral Components of Settled Surface

Dust by Sampling Location 58

Table 8. Summary of Results for Locations With Airborne Fiber Levels Higher

Than Levels in Comparison Areas Abo ve 59th Street 59

Table 9. Summary of Airborne Fibers at Locations Where Asbestos Was

Detected in Settled Surface Dust 60

Table 10. Summary of Airborne Fibers at Location Where Only Synthetic

Vitreous Fibers (SVF) Were Detected in Settled Surface Dust 61

Table 11. Summary of Minerals in Indoor and Outdoor Air From Lower

Manhattan and Comparison Buildings Above 59th Street 62

Table 12. Highest Amount of Materials Measured in the Indoor Settled

Dust of Each Building 63

## v 

# LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Buildings Damaged in Lower Manhattan, September 11, 2001 65

Figure 2. Lower Manhattan Residential Buildings With Pedestrian and

Vehicular Traffic Restrictions 66

Figure 3. Residential Buildings in Lower Manhattan 67

Figure 4. Lower Manhattan Demographic Information

— 2000 Census 68

Figure 5. Lower Manhattan Ambient Air Sampling Locations

— During

the First Few Weeks After September 11, 2001 69

Figure 6. Residential Buildings Sampled, New York,

November 4

– December 11, 2001 70

Figure 7. Residential Environmental Sampling

— Lower Manhattan,

Airborne Total Fibers (PCM), November 4

– December 11, 2001 71

Figure 8. Residential En vironmental Sampling

— Lower Manhattan,

Asbestos in Dust (PLM), November 4

– December 11, 2001 72

Figure 9. Residential Environmental Sampling

— Lower Manhattan,

Asbestos in Dust (TEM), November 4

– December 11, 2001 73

Figure 10. Residential Environmental Sampling

— Lower Manhattan,

A sbestos in Dust (PLM/TEM), November 4

– December 11, 2001 74

Figure 11. Residential Environmental Sampling

— Lower Manhattan,

Synthetic Vitreous Fibers in Dust (SVF),

November 4

– December 11, 2001 75

Figure 12. Residential Environmental Sampling

— Lower Manhattan,

Maximum Mineral Concentrations in Indoor Dust,

November 4

– December 11, 2001 76

Figure 13. Residential Environmental Sampling

— Lower Manhattan,

Calcite in Dust, November 4

– Dec ember 11, 2001 77

## vi 

# Page

Figure 14. Residential Environmental Sampling

— Lower Manhattan,

Gypsum in Dust, November 4

– December 11, 2001 78

Figure 15. Residential Environmental Sampling

— Lower Manhattan,

Portlandite in Dust, November 4

– Dece mber 11, 2001 79

Figure 16. Residential Environmental Sampling

— Lower Manhattan,

Crystalline Quartz in Dust, November 4

– December 11, 2001 80

Figure 17. Residential Environmental Sampling

— Lower Manhattan,

Materials in Indoor Dust, Novem ber 4

– December 11, 2001 81

## vii 

# LIST OF SAMPLING EVENT PHOTOGRAPHS

Page

Photo 1. Residential Vacuum Sample 83

Photo 2. Residential Air Sampling 83

Photo 3. Residential Air Sampling 84

Photo 4. Re sidential Air Sampling 84

Photo 5. Residential Air Sampling 85

Photo 6. Residential Air Sampling 85

Photo 7. Outside Bulk Sampling 86

Photo 8. Sampling Head 86

## 1 

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

From November 4 through December 11, 2001, environmental samples were collected in

and around 30 residential buildings in lower Manhattan. In addition, four buildings above

59th Street were sampled and used as a comparison area for this investigation. The New

York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYC DOHMH) and the U.S. Agency

for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducted this limited investigation

with support and collaboration from the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Cor ps

Readiness Force and the World Trade Center Environmental Assessment Working Group.

The purpose of the sampling was to assess the composition of both outdoor and indoor

settled surface and airborne dust within residential areas around the World Trade Cen ter.

This information was used to help determine whether additional public health actions are

needed to address any remaining World Trade Center

- related dust inside residential areas.

The information collected could also be used to compare the findings fro m the locations

that were known or were likely to have received dust directly from the collapse of the

World Trade Center towers, to findings from areas that were unlikely to have received dust

directly from the disaster (comparison areas).

Attention was given to those materials reasonably expected to be in the original dust cloud

and in dust generated by ongoing activities at the World Trade Center. The focus was on

building materials that have been shown to have irritant properties (e.g., synthetic vitre ous

fibers [SVF] and gypsum) and be associated with long

- term health concerns (i.e.,

crystalline silica and asbestos). The samples collected during this investigation were

analyzed for the following materials: asbestos, SVF, mineral components of concrete

(crystalline silica, calcite, and portlandite), and mineral components of building wallboard

(gypsum, mica, and halite). Efforts were made to get as much information as possible with

the sampling that could be conducted, given accessibility and equipment l imitations.

Results from this investigation do not necessarily reflect conditions that would be found in

other buildings, at other times just following the collapse, or after the sampling period. The

measurements reflect conditions present at the time of the sampling (November 4

– December 12, 2001) in the buildings and areas sampled. The limited number of results

obtained from the comparison areas above 59th Street was an attempt to determine the

New York City

– specific background levels of asbestos, SVF, mi neral components of

concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite), and mineral components of building wallboard

(gypsum, mica, and halite).

Sampling Overview

U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps Readiness Force Officers were detailed

to the New Yo rk City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and composed the

sampling teams for this investigation. The teams completed a survey form for each

sampling location. The information collected by the survey was obtained from direct

observations and from own ers or representatives of building management when available.

The survey form and photographs were reviewed along with the analytical results to put the

## 2



# sampling results into the context of where and how the samples were obtained and to

determine the gener al conditions of the sampling locations.

Air and settled surface dust samples were collected and analyzed for the following

materials used in WTC construction components: asbestos, SVF, crystalline silica, calcite,

portlandite, gypsum, mica, and halite. S VF ( e.g., fiberglass) is used in thousands of

products because of its chemical resistance, strength, and ability to insulate against heat

and sound. All of the crystalline minerals analyzed in this project are commonly used in

building construction materia ls. Quartz, a form of crystalline silica , is a naturally

occurring mineral and is a component of cement. Cristobalite and tridymite are different

crystalline forms of silica. Calcite and portlandite are naturally occurring, high pH

minerals used in cements and mortars. Gypsum is a naturally occurring mineral used in

plaster, wallboard, and in some cements. Mica is a group of naturally occurring minerals

that are used in paint, joint cements, plastics, roofing, and rubber. Halite (also known as

rock salt or sodium chloride) is used in ceramic glazes, fire extinguishing, metallurgy, and

highway de

- icing and table salt.

In addition to analyzing the samples for the fibers and minerals found in common building

materials, when a sufficient quantity of settled sur face dust was present, it was mixed with

water and the pH of the resulting mixture was measured.

Air Samples

Air samples were collected using vacuum pumps to draw air through a filter positioned at

an adult’s breathing level. In addition to a filter for fiber analysis, multiple particulate

samplers were placed at each sampling location to collect different particle sizes including

respirable (PM4 and PM2.5), thoracic (PM10), and total inhalable (PM100). This resulted

in the collection of overlapping, or n ested, particulate size fractions.

The particle size determines how deeply a particle can travel into the respiratory tract.

Respirable particles with diameters of 4 microns or less (PM4) are very small particles

that can be breathed in and can travel dee ply into the air sacs of the lung. At some locations

another sampler was used that collected a smaller set of respirable particles, those with

diameters of 21⁄2 microns (PM2.5) or less. Another sampler collected particles with

diameters of 10 microns (PM10) or less. This sampler would collect not only respirable

particles, but also those slightly larger particles that tend to land in the upper regions of the

respiratory tract, including the throat. A fourth sampler collected a larger set of particles,

those 1 00 microns (PM100) or less in diameter. The larger particles in this fraction can

land in the nose and throat. Where a particle lands determines what types of health effects

might be experienced. Particles too large to travel into the narrower passages of the lower

respiratory tract might deposit in the upper airways (e.g., the nose and throat) and cause

irritation. Similarly, larger particles might cause eye irritation. If the settled surface dust

contains sufficient amounts of particles of a very small si ze, then effects consistent with

particles reaching the lower respiratory tract might occur (coughing, shortness of breath).

## 3



# Each of the particulate air sample fractions was analyzed for crystalline minerals (quartz,

cristobalite, tridymite, calcite, port landite, gypsum, mica, and halite). X

- ray diffraction

analysis (XRD) identifies a mineral by the unique diffraction pattern given off when the x

ray strikes its surface. The diffraction pattern serves as a “fingerprint” to identify the

mineral present.

Ot her air samples were screened for fibers using phase contrast microscopy (PCM) to

count the total number of all fibers present. If the concentration of total fibers was higher

than the maximum concentration of fibers found in the comparison homes (0.003 fi bers per

cubic centimeter of air) the sample was re

- analyzed for asbestos by transmission electron

microscopy (TEM). Additionally, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to look

for SVF if the PCM fiber counts was higher than 0.003 fibers per cubic ce ntimeter (f/cc)

and if the settled surface dust sample from that area contained SVF.

Settled Surface Dust Samples

The composition of settled surface dust reflects particles and fibers that have been tracked

into an area or that were present in the air an d have with time, deposited on surfaces.

Settled surface dust was collected indoors using a specialized vacuum cleaner. Outside

settled surface dust was collected by scooping any visible dust

- type material into a

container

. As with the air samples, the set tled surface dust samples were analyzed to

assess the presence of fibers and minerals. The analysis performed does not allow the

determination of what size particles are present in the dust. The composition of the settled

surface dust was evaluated to dete rmine if, on the basis of its composition, it could be an

irritant if it became airborne or came in contact with skin or eyes during cleaning

activities.

The dust samples were analyzed for the presence of asbestos and SVF using polarized light

microscopy (PLM). PLM can distinguish between fiber types by their unique appearance

and color when viewed under different wavelengths of light. In addition, TEM analysis

was conducted on all dust samples that showed asbestos content by PLM as less than 1%.

TEM analy sis is very specific, can detect smaller fibers of asbestos, and is subject to less

interference than PLM.

The dust samples were also analyzed for mineral content using XRD as described

previously for the air samples. For the dust samples, the mineral and the fiber results are

expressed as a percent, indicating the weight percent each component represents in the

portion of the dust sample analyzed. The different analytical techniques, XRD and

microscopy (PLM, TEM, SEM), help to characterize what was in the settled surface dust;

however the results from the two methods each performed on a portion of the dust

collected, cannot simply be added together to “sum up” what was in the dust. XRD results

are based upon the weight of the dust sample analyzed. While, P LM, TEM, and SEM

results are based on the surface area viewed under the microscope.

## 4



# Limitations

While the goal of the sampling was to evaluate the air and dust samples for a range of

contaminants, there is no one sample collection method or analysis tha t can provide all of

the determinations that were desired. The analysis strategy was to identify what

components were present in order to provide the public with information quickly if any of

the analyses revealed a significant concern. In order to strive for both of those goals, some

modifications to conventional protocols were made which limited some analyses from

determining the precise level of the materials in the sample (e.g., XRD conducted on air

and dust samples). Whenever an analysis is expanded be yond its specific intent, there is the

potential loss of sensitivity and an increase in the variability in the data. Those particular

analytical results are reported as estimated values and marked with a “J.”

Results for the airborne particulate matter we re rejected due to issues found during the

quality assurance analysis. However, the XRD analysis for airborne minerals that used the

same filter samples as the particulate matter analysis are considered valid because the

analysis method does not depend on the filter sample weighing process used to determine

the particulate matter concentration. The XRD mineral air concentrations are based on

individual mineral weight standard curves

— not the weight of the dust sample collected on

the filters. These standard curves are not impacted by pre

- and post

- sampling filter weight

variability.

Air Sampling Results

Total fiber counts of air samples taken in lower Manhattan were similar to the comparison

areas above 59th Street sampled during this investigation. The si x lower Manhattan areas

that had elevated total fiber counts were re

- examined by TEM and SEM to determine the

types of fibers. The TEM and SEM results indicated that neither asbestos nor synthetic

vitreous fibers (e.g., fiberglass) contributed to the eleva ted total fiber counts.

Air sampling results for minerals detected quartz (a form of crystalline silica) and other

building

- related materials in lower Manhattan. The other forms of crystalline silica were

not detected in any air samples except for a one

- t ime detection of cristobalite. The

estimated concentrations of these minerals in air were low. In some locations, mineral

components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite) and mineral components of

building wallboard (gypsum, mica, and halite) were detected in air samples at higher

estimated levels in lower Manhattan residential areas than in samples taken at comparison

residential areas above 59th Street. The levels of minerals seen in airborne dust do not

pose potential health hazards even for a c ontinuous year of exposure at the highest levels

detected.

Settled Surface Dust Results

Results of the settled surface dust analysis indicate the composition of settled surface dust

in lower Manhattan is different than the dust analyzed from the comparis on areas above

59th Street. Although the materials found are consistent with materials expected from the

## 5



# World Trade Center collapse, these results cannot determine the actual source of the

materials present because these materials are common building comp onents and can come

from other sources in a busy urban area.

In lower Manhattan, asbestos was found in indoor dust in 15 of 83 (18%) samples from

residential units and common areas at levels ranging from less than 1% (<1%) to 1.5%.

Asbestos was detected i n 6 of 14 (43%) outdoor samples at levels ranging from <1% to

3.4%. Indoor settled surface dust contained SVF in 40 of 83 (48%) locations ranging from

2% to 35% of the dust content. SVF was detected in 11 of 14 (79%) outdoor locations at

levels ranging fro m 1% to 72%. No asbestos or SVF was detected in dust in the

comparison areas above 59th Street.

The XRD analysis for crystalline minerals in settled surface dust is semiquantitative

(estimated values, indicated by “J”). However, quartz, calcite, portlandi te and gypsum

appear to make up a higher percentage of dust in some buildings in lower Manhattan when

compared to settled surface dust samples from buildings above 59th Street. Quartz was

detected up to an estimated 31%J versus up to 2%J found in the compa rison areas above

59th Street. Neither cristobalite nor tridymite was detected in any of the settled surface

dust samples. Similarly gypsum was found at a maximum estimated concentration of 30%J

in settled surface dust, higher than the 4%J estimated in the comparison areas above 59th

Street. Calcite and portlandite had maximum concentrations of 21%J and 8%J respectively.

At lower Manhattan locations sampled, quartz was detected in 81% of common areas and

53% of residences. Gypsum was seen in 88% of common a reas and 79% of residences.

Minerals were found in all lower Manhattan outdoor settled surface dust samples at

estimated values ranging as high as 27%J quartz, 19%J calcite, 6%J portlandite, and 27%J

gypsum. No visible settled outdoor dust was available in the comparison areas above 59th

Street.

Several of the minerals detected in the settled surface dust samples, such as portlandite and

calcite, can make the dust more alkaline, or raise the pH. Only two dust samples provided

enough material for the determ ination of pH. The samples, collected from two outdoor

locations in lower Manhattan, had pH levels of 8.6 and 9.8. On the pH scale, values less

than 7 are considered acidic, a value of 7 is neutral, and values above 7 are alkaline or

basic. Based on the re sults of the pH analyses, these dust samples are slightly alkaline.

This is consistent with the detection of portlandite and calcite (alkaline minerals present in

concrete) in the mineral analysis of the dust sample from the same location.

Conclusions

B ased upon the analytical results of samples taken between November 4 through December

11, 2001, and information collected during the sampling effort, the New York City

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and

Dis ease Registry make the following conclusions (not in order of importance).

## 6 

# • Total fiber counts of air samples taken in lower Manhattan were similar to the

comparison areas above 59th Street sampled during this investigation. The six

lower Manhattan ar eas that had elevated total fiber counts were re

- examined by

transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and scanning electron microscopy

(SEM). The TEM and SEM results indicated that neither asbestos nor SVF

contributed to the elevated fiber counts.

• Low le vels of asbestos were found in some settled surface dust, primarily below

Chambers Street. Many of the lower Manhattan locations sampled had been

previously cleaned prior to this investigation. No asbestos was detected in the

comparison indoor dust samples taken north of 59th Street. The City of New York

has conducted follow

- up activities at the locations where asbestos was detected in

settled surface dust. Only two follow

- up locations, outdoor areas, required

professional asbestos abatement. Following

- up activity at the other locations did

not find any asbestos containing materials.

• When compared with the results obtained from the comparison sampling

locations, the lower Manhattan residential areas sampled by this investigation

tended to have a greater

percentage of SVF (primarily fiberglass), mineral

components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite), and mineral components

of building wallboard (gypsum, mica, and halite) in settled surface dust. However,

the frequency of detections and prevalen ce patterns of these minerals are similar in

both residential areas.

• Exposure to significant amounts of synthetic vitreous fibers (SVF), mineral

components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite), and mineral components

of building wallboard (gy psum) may cause skin rashes, eye irritation, and upper

respiratory irritation, all of which have been voiced as concerns by citizens and

first responders. If the reported irritant effects are associated with World Trade

Center related materials, these effe cts will subside once exposure to SVF, mineral

components of concrete, and mineral components of building wallboard end. Some

people with pre

- existing heart or lung disease (e.g., asthma) or a previous history

of very high levels of exposures (occupational ) to SVF, mineral components of

concrete, and mineral components may be more sensitive to the irritant effects of

SVF, mineral components of concrete, and mineral components of building

wallboard.

• Sometimes mineral components of concrete (calcite and p ortlandite) and mineral

components of building wallboard (gypsum, mica, and halite) were detected in air

samples at higher estimated levels in lower Manhattan residential areas than in

samples taken at comparison residential areas. These detected mineral l evels are

orders of magnitude below occupational standards. Although the occupational

standards do not account for sensitive individuals or extended periods of exposure,

they provide a comparison to an established health guidance value. The levels of

miner als seen in airborne dust do not pose potential health hazards even for a

continuous year of exposure at the highest levels detected.

## 7 

# • Some settled surface dust could become airborne if disturbed. Therefore, people

could potentially inhale the asbestos, SVF, mineral components of concrete (quartz,

calcite, and portlandite), and mineral components of building wallboard (gypsum,

mica, and halite) found in settled surface dust of some lower Manhattan residences.

Because we did not determine the weight of du st present in the areas sampled, it is

not possible to determine whether any particular residence had an elevated dust

loading. Appropriate continued frequent cleaning should minimize exposures.

• Several worst

- case assumptions were made in order to asse ss the potential long

term public health risks of airborne asbestos and quartz. Some of the assumptions

were that no cleaning of indoor spaces has occurred or will occur, all fibers found

in air were asbestos fibers, and the highest levels detected last fa ll in air represent

long

- term air levels. Using these worst

- case assumptions, prolonged exposure

(decades) to airborne asbestos and quartz may increase the long

- term, theoretical

risk of people developing lung cancer and other adverse lung health effects ( more

than 1 additional case in 10,000 people exposed). For individuals who conduct

frequent cleaning of their residences, as recommended in this report, or participate

in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cleaning/sampling program, it is

unlikely th at their exposure would resemble these worst

- case conditions.

• A review of the building sampling results from this investigation indicates that

there is not a consistent spatial distribution pattern of asbestos, SVF, mineral

components of concrete, and mineral components of wallboard in air and settled

surface dust. This indicates that the materials are heterogeneously distributed.

There are many factors that may contribute to the heterogeneous distribution,

including whether the area was cleaned (indoo rs and outdoors), cleaning method,

date since last cleaning, and how much dust was initially in the area. It is not clear

which factors contributed to this pattern.

• Results from this investigation do not necessarily reflect conditions that would

be fo und in other buildings, at other times just following the collapse, or after the

sampling period. The measurements reflect conditions present at the time of the

sampling (November 4

– December 12, 2001) in the buildings and areas sampled.

The limited number of results obtained from the comparison areas above 59th Street

may or may not reflect the New York City

- specific background levels of asbestos,

SVF, mineral components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite), and mineral

components of building wall board (gypsum, mica, and halite).

## 8



# Recommendations

Based upon the conclusions of this investigation, the New York City Department of Health

and Mental Hygiene and the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry make

the following recommen

dations.

• Because more asbestos, synthetic vitreous fibers (e.g., fiberglass), mineral

components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite), and mineral components

of building wallboard (gypsum, mica, and halite) were found in settled surface dust

in lower Manhattan residential areas when compared to comparison residential

areas, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the U.S.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry are recommending that people

continue to conduct fre quent cleaning with HEPA vacuums and damp cloths/mops

to reduce the potential for exposure.

• To ensure that the recommended frequent cleaning is effective and to ensure that

the health of the people of New York City is protected, the New York City

Depar tment of Health and Mental Hygiene and the U.S. Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry are recommending additional monitoring of

residential areas in lower Manhattan. In addition, an investigation should be

conducted to better define background l evels specific to the city of New York for

asbestos, synthetic vitreous fibers, mineral components of concrete (quartz, calcite,

and portlandite), and mineral components of building wallboard (gypsum, mica,

and halite).

• Lower Manhattan residents concer ned about possible World Trade Center

related dust in their residential areas can request cleaning and/or testing from the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by logging on to the agency's World

Trade Center Web page at www.epa.gov/wtc or by calling the EPA hotline at 1

-

877

- 796

- 5471.

## 9 

# ABSTRACT

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the U.S. Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in collaboration with the U.S. Public Health

Service Commissioned Corps Readiness Force and the World Trade Center Environmental

Assessment Working Group conducted a limited investigation of residential areas near and

around the World Trade Center (WTC). The purpose of the investigation was to assess

potential exposures to airborne and settle d surface dust that entered residential areas

following the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Sampling of the residential areas occurred from November 4 through December 11, 2001,

and was conducted by U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned officers detailed to the

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene with assistance from the New

York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

The results of this investigation do not necessarily reflect levels that would be found in

other lower Manhattan

buildings or residential areas; the measurements reflect levels that

were present at the time of sampling in the specific residential areas sampled. The limited

number of results obtained from the comparison areas above 59th Street may or may not

reflect the New York City

- specific background levels of asbestos, synthetic vitreous fibers

(SVF), mineral components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite), and mineral

components of building wallboard (gypsum, mica, and halite).

Low levels of asbestos w ere found in some indoor and outdoor settled surface dust,

primarily below Chambers Street. Many of the lower Manhattan locations sampled had

been cleaned prior to this investigation. No asbestos was detected in the comparison

indoor dust samples taken nor th of 59th Street. Not enough visible settled dust was

available to collect outdoor samples in the comparison area. When compared with the

results obtained from the sampling locations above 59 Street, the lower Manhattan

residential area settled surface d ust sampling results tended to have higher percentages of

SVF, mineral components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite), and mineral

components of building wallboard (gypsum, mica, and halite) in settled surface dust.

Because asbestos, SVF, mine ral components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite),

and mineral components of building wallboard (gypsum, mica, and halite) were found at

higher levels in settled surface dust in lower Manhattan residential areas when compared

to comparison resi dential areas above 59th Street, the New York City Department of

Health and Mental Hygiene and the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry are recommending that people continue to conduct frequent cleaning with HEPA

vacuums and damp cloths/mo ps to reduce the potential for exposure and/or participate in

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cleaning/sampling program.

Total fiber counts of air samples taken in lower Manhattan were similar to the comparison

areas above 59th Street sampled dur ing this investigation. The six lower Manhattan areas

that had elevated total fiber counts were re

- examined by transmission electron microscopy

(TEM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The TEM and SEM results indicated that

## 10



# neither asbestos nor SVF co ntributed to the elevated fiber counts. Sometimes mineral

components of concrete (calcite and portlandite) and mineral components of building

wallboard (gypsum, mica, and halite) were detected in air samples at higher estimated

levels in lower Manhattan re sidential areas than in samples taken at comparison residential

areas. These detected mineral levels are orders of magnitude below occupational

standards. Although the occupational standards do not account for sensitive individuals or

extended periods of e xposure, they provide a comparison to an established health guidance

value. The levels of minerals seen in airborne dust do not pose potential health hazards

even for a continuous year of exposure at the highest levels detected.

INTRODUCTION

At 8:45 AM 

# e astern standard time on September 11, 2001, a commercial jetliner struck the

north tower of the World Trade Center (One World Trade Center). At 9:03 AM 

# , the south

tower (Two World Trade Center) was also struck by a commercial jetliner. The south

tower bega n to collapse at 10:05 AM 

# . At 10:30 AM 

# , the north tower began to collapse.

(1,2,3,4)

The collapse of these structures released massive amounts of dust and debris that covered

lower Manhattan. Residents were evacuated from many areas south of Canal Street . On

September 19, pedestrian and vehicular traffic restrictions for below Canal Street were

modified (5). As residents moved back into the areas, they requested information on the

safety of the dust and air in the area and the types of cleaning methods th at should be used.

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene provided guidance on

cleaning for area residents and requested federal assistance in assessing potential

exposures to airborne and settled surface dust that entered residential ar eas following the

collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings.

BACKGROUND

A. World Trade Center Towers

The World Trade Center was a complex of 7 buildings on 16 acres surrounding a 5

- acre

plaza in lower Manhattan. The complex was bounded by Vese y Street on the north, Church

Street on the east, Liberty Street on the south, and West Street on the west. The twin towers

were the center of the complex. Each tower had 110 floors; the north tower was 1,368 feet

tall and the south tower was l,362 feet ta ll. Each tower had approximately 43,200 square

feet on each floor. There were seven underground levels that contained services, shopping

areas, and a subway station. There were two plaza buildings (WTC 4 and WTC 5) on

Church Street that had nine stories. W TC 7 was a 47

- story office building. Design and

structure details of the towers are shown in Table 1 (1,2,3,4,6). Basic location and U.S.

Census population information about lower Manhattan is provided in Table 2 and Figures

1 through 4.

## 11



# B. Potential Contaminants

The dust cloud released at the collapse of the buildings was comprised of materials that

were used in the construction of the buildings (such as concrete and insulation materials).

In addition to the dust cloud from the building collapse, co ntaminants were released in

fires fed by jet fuel and the combustible materials in the buildings.

The dust contained the constituents of concrete, wallboard, and insulation. Concrete is a

mixture of cement, aggregate (sand and gravel), and water. Cement c ontains limestone,

clay, gypsum, and metals. Sometimes other minerals (such as fly ash or crystalline silica)

are added to concrete to change its properties. Concrete tends to have a high pH, and if

dust from the concrete was mixed with moisture, the resul ting solution would tend to have a

high pH. Asbestos was used as insulation in a portion of the towers. Fiberglass, a synthetic

vitreous fiber, was also used as insulation in the buildings and is likely to have been used

in building furnishings. Surface du st and debris containing asbestos have been found in

lower Manhattan. Asbestos was detected in the personal air samplers of rescue and

recovery workers. In addition, low levels of asbestos, fibrous glass, and the constituents of

concrete and wallboard have been detected in air samples collected at the WTC site

perimeter. These materials are common building components, and there are other sources

of these materials in any large urban areas.

C. Monitoring in Lower Manhattan After the Collapse of the World T rade Center

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal, state, local agencies,

and private firms have been conducting environmental monitoring in a variety of media

since September 11 (some of the ambient air sampling locations are d epicted on Figure 5).

In November 2001, EPA tasked the IT Corporation Quality Assurance Technical Support

Program contractor to evaluate the environmental monitoring data that had been collected.

Through April 24, 2002, there were approximately 263,000 sam ple results analyzed (7).

There were 605 analytics that were included in the database such as asbestos, fibers,

particulates, metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The grea test number of

analytical samples was collected for analysis of total fiber concentration, asbestos fiber

concentration, or the percentage of asbestos. The overall largest number of samples in the

monitoring was for particulate matter. The monitoring stat ions for particulate matter (roof

top locations) are a part of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

air quality

- monitoring program. Additional stations were added after the WTC towers

collapsed.

The analytical results of air sample s showed decreasing concentrations that appeared to

have reached pre

- existing background levels by the end of April 2002 (7). Bulk dust

samples were tested for asbestos, dioxins/furans, PCBs, PAHs, and metals. The levels for

some of the analytics (e.g., as bestos) were relatively high; however, only a few samples

obtained after mid

- October showed elevated levels (7).

## 12



# In general, air monitoring near the WTC has not detected any pollutants from the fire and

building collapses at levels that are of public heal th concern. Within the restricted zone

(within one block of the WTC), low levels of asbestos have been found in the airborne dust

from the building collapse (7). Bulk dust and air samples (mostly on or near the work site),

as well as surface runoff water, river sediment, and river water have been analyzed for

other contaminants, including metals, VOCs, PAHs, dioxins and PCBs. These contaminants

were found at low levels that did not indicate a need to conduct further sampling for them

at the time of the resi dential sampling (8).

D. Community Exposures

The most likely routes of community exposures to contaminants would be through breathing

in airborne dust and through direct contact with surface dust and debris. The sampling plan

was developed to determine the potential for exposure to building material

- related

contaminants in air and dust.

E. Human Health Effects of Concern

The primary health effects of immediate concern are respiratory effects and irritant effects

from inhalation of or direct contact wi th building

- related materials. Many of the materials

expected to be in airborne dust can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation. In addition, those

materials that can be inhaled or respired from airborne dust can cause respiratory irritation

and exacerbati on of pre

- existing problems such as asthma, emphysema, and

cardiopulmonary disease. Materials in the surface dust can cause skin irritation on contact.

There have been reports of burning throat and eyes from residents returning to the area.

OBJECTIVES

Th e overall objective of this sampling was to provide results upon which public health

agencies could further determine the potential for environmental exposures to WTC

collapse

- related materials and possible health implications of the exposures. Sampling

wa s intended to better characterize ambient and indoor airborne and potentially airborne

particles (surface dust) in residential areas of lower Manhattan from the collapse of WTC.

Specifically, the objective was to characterize the makeup and size distribut ion of airborne

breathing zone dust in residential areas

— both indoors and outside

— near the WTC. This

information was used to further determine whether materials were present in air at levels

of public health concern and whether settled surface dust contain ed materials that could

potentially be re

- entrained and result in continued exposures.

Note: The sampling approach was focused on contaminants that emanated from the

collapse of the WTC towers and that might cause health problems. However, this

investigat ion could not conclude if contaminants or materials found actually came

from the disaster. The contaminants that were selected for testing could be present in

some areas from other sources. Some typical examples of this include cooking on a

stove top, whic h can increase indoor airborne particulate matter; vehicle exhaust,

## 13



# which can increase outdoor airborne particulate matter; and recent home renovation

activities, which can result in an increase in levels of gypsum, fiberglass, and other

materials in air a nd surface dust.

METHODS

Details on the methods used in the residential sampling investigations are included in the

residential sampling plan that is on the New York City Department of Health and Mental

Hygiene’s Internet page ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/alerts/indoor1.pdf ). Printed

copies of the plan can be requested from the New York City Department of Health and

Mental Hygiene.

A. Sampling Approach

A series of three concentric circles was drawn around the WTC location. The circles were

then divided by direction or zone from the WTC (north, south, and west). Attempts were

made to obtain access to the same number of residential buildings per zone for sampling.

Four residential bui ldings above 59th Street were selected for testing to determine what

levels of fibers and minerals might be routinely found in the city.

Once a building was selected, air and settled surface dust sampling occurred in up to four

different locations: an are a outdoors near a main entryway to the building; an area inside of

the main entry (or other common area); and two residential units. Informed consent for

sampling was obtained and questions were asked about details that could aid in

interpreting the sampli ng results (such as whether the windows were open on the morning

of September 11, 2001).

Both air and settled surface dust samples were collected in high traffic or routinely used

areas of the space. For example, settled surface dust was collected from ar eas where

individuals frequently walked, not from behind furniture or underneath kitchen appliances.

Air sample inlets were at approximately 4 feet in height above the ground/floor surface to

provide results more reflective of what might be inhaled.

Attem pts were made during air sampling to obtain data that would reflect what might be in

the air during periods of high activity. If the selected area was not occupied at the time of

sampling, and if there was no central heating or air conditioning system that could result in

contaminant migration into another occupied area, aggressive air sampling was conducted.

If the area was occupied, the heating or air conditioning system fan was turned on during

the period of sampling. This would not represent a period of high activity, but would

present data that might be found during typical or normal activity.

B. Samples Taken

Sample collection was conducted from November 4, 2001, to December 11, 2001, for the

lower Manhattan area and from December 6

– 10, 2001, for th e comparison buildings above

59th Street. Because of the limited and time critical essence of this investigation, thirty

## 14



# buildings in lower Manhattan were sampled, and four comparison buildings were sampled

from the area north of 59th Street. In the 30 low er Manhattan buildings, the following

locations were sampled: 59 residential units, 29 common areas, and 29 outdoor areas.

There were 127 air samples taken from 117 different areas of the lower Manhattan

buildings. Ten of the areas had co

- located sampling equipment. In the 59 different

residential units, there were 64 air samples taken. Thirty air samples were taken from 29

different common areas.

Samples taken from the four comparison buildings above 59th Street included three outside

air samples, three of common areas with both indoor settled surface dust and air, and five

residential units with both indoor settled surface dust and air. No outside settled surface

dust samples were collected because there was no visible dust to collect.

Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the number of buildings and areas within the buildings that were

sampled for asbestos, SVF, and minerals in lower Manhattan and the comparison units

above 59th Street. The tables also show whether the samples were settled surface dust and

air sample s.

C. Field and Laboratory Changes From the Original Sampling Protocol

Once the sampling teams went to the various sampling locations, it was determined that

some changes needed to be made to the sampling protocol. The sections below indicate the

change s that were made to the original sampling protocol.

1. Field Changes

The sampling protocol indicated that a total of 60 residential units would be tested in

lower Manhattan. A total of 59 residential units were sampled.

Indoor settled surface dust was collected using EPA’s Environmental Response Team

Standard Operating Procedure (ERT SOP) for household dust, as stated in the sampling

protocol. However, due to cost and equipment availability constraints, Omega Ultivac

vacuums with high efficiency partic ulate air (HEPA) filters were used instead of Nilfisk TM



# vacuums. To avoid the need to decontaminate the vacuum hose between each sampling

event, a sample collection filter (Alsock, by Midwest Filtration) was inserted into the air

intake end of the vacuum h ose. The Alsock has a 97% capture of particles with diameters

of 1.1 microns and larger. The ERT SOP

- specified vacuum bag filter has a 4

- to 5

- micron

pore size.

Instead of one settled surface dust sample per unit, two co

- located indoor settled surface

sam ples were collected. This change was made as two different laboratory locations were

involved in the analysis. The EMSL Analytical laboratory in New York City analyzed

samples for fibers (using PCM, PLM, and TEM); the EMSL Analytical laboratory in

Westmont , New Jersey, analyzed samples for the remaining materials and conducted the

SEM analysis for fibers.

## 15



# Delays in obtaining equipment resulted in only 10 buildings being sampled for the PM2.5

air fraction.

There was no visible settled surface dust around t he comparison homes selected above

59th Street; therefore, no outdoor settled surface dust samples were collected from the

comparison areas above 59th Street.

2. Sample Analysis Changes

Airborne and settled surface dust samples were analyzed for crystal line silica using EMSL

Analytical’s Material Science Division Operating Procedure MSD 0700, January 2000.

XRD analysis was conducted for the nonsilica crystalline minerals in air and settled

surface dust samples by EMSL using Material Science Division Oper ating Procedure MSD

9300, January 2002. The samples were not ashed prior to XRD analysis for the following

reasons: ashing samples could have resulted in loss or breakdown of analytes of interest

including gypsum; and there was not enough organic material present to result in loss of

method sensitivity for crystalline minerals of interest.

SEM analysis was conducted on air samples for fibrous glass and other synthetic vitreous

fibers by EMSL using Material Science Division Operating Procedure MSD 0300. Thi s

analysis was conducted on all samples collected from the comparison areas above 59th

Street and on only those air samples from lower Manhattan with PCM fiber concentrations

higher than the comparison PCM fiber concentrations.

Settled surface dust sample s were analyzed for fibrous glass by EMSL using New York

State Department of Health Environmental Laboratory Approval Program Method 198.1

polarized

- light microscopy methods for identifying and quantifying asbestos in bulk

samples.

Settled surface dust sa mples were not weighed, so surface loading of materials could not

be calculated. Although settled surface dust samples were sieved, sieving was not

conducted as specified in the ERT SOP. Rather, sieving was conducted as specified in

MSD 0700 and 9300.

D. Data Management and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures

EPA provided the laboratory used for this investigation. The laboratory is part of EPA’s

“certified” Contract Laboratory Program. It used all of the EPA quality assurance/quality

control la boratory methodologies when analyzing the samples collected for this

investigation. EPA conducts audits of all the EPA

- certified laboratories to assure that

appropriate quality assurance/quality control laboratory methodologies are being used.

Chain

- of

- cu stody procedures were established and maintained throughout sample

collection, transportation, and analysis of samples. These procedures helped to assure that

analytical results could be matched to the sampling locations.

## 16



# Following the sampling effort, mo re than 5,400 analytical results were individually

returned from the laboratory. All results were entered into a Microsoft EXCEL spreadsheet

along with the other raw data describing where and how the sample was taken. Asbestos

in

- air laboratory results wer e submitted calculated in concentration and were used as

received. The laboratory typically submitted particulates

- in

- air results as the initial and

final filter weights (pre

- and post

- sampling weights). The total amount of material

deposited on the filter

and resulting concentrations for the sampling location were

estimated from the laboratory results. Results for asbestos, fiberglass, and mineral

components in settled surface dust were used as provided by the laboratory: percentage of

material analyzed.

All of the results were reviewed as a part of normal data quality analysis. The general

purpose of this quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review is not to pronounce the

data “accurate,” but to determine whether the results are obviously affected by sampling or

analytical errors. For this investigation, the reported analytical results were accepted,

rejected, or used conditionally. Decisions on how to treat a data set were made primarily

by comparing the measured results to information gathered from the blanks using graphs

and statistical analyses.

Most of the results were used as received from the laboratory. The laboratory reported the

asbestos in air results as a concentration of asbestos in the sampled location. The asbestos

and fibrous glass in airborne and settled surface dust were used as received.

Results for the airborne particulate matter were rejected due to issues found during the

quality assurance analysis. Variability of field blank sample weights was beyond the

acceptable limits. A mor e thorough discussion of why the airborne particulate matter

results were rejected is located in Appendix A of this report.

The XRD analysis was conducted on the air samples collected for particulate matter

(PM100, PM10, PM4, and PM2.5). The PM results we re rejected, but the XRD results

were accepted as semiquantitative. The XRD results are considered valid because the

analysis method does not depend on the filter

- weighing process used to determine PM

concentration. The XRD mineral concentrations are based on individual mineral weight

standard curves

— not the weight of the dust sample collected. These standard curves are

not impacted by pre

- and post

- sampling filter weight variability.

Minerals were not detected on the blank air samples. This indicates that sample

contamination or cross

- contamination did not occur during air sampling, shipping, or

sample analysis. The XRD information for the air samples provided semiquantitative

values (estimated values, indicated by “J”). The PM100 and PM10 results may be p otential

overestimates, as the crystalline mineral size used for the standard curve is close to PM4 in

size. This will result in the XRD overestimating the concentration of minerals present in

the larger fractions. Similarly, the PM2.5 results may be poten tial underestimates of

mineral concentrations.

## 17



# The XRD settled surface dust results are also considered semiquantitative (“J”) due to

particle sizes used for standard curve/calibration (as described for the air samples) and

due to the lack of standard ana lytical error (SAE) information from the laboratory.

E. Data Analysis

The data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet, and descriptive statistics were

developed for the sample results. Basic trend analysis on the analytical data was conducted

using the SAS statistical program (version 8.01). The SAS System is an integrated system

of software providing complete control over data access, management, analysis, and

presentations. Examples of some of the SAS procedures (“Proc”) used were the “Proc

Mean” and “ Proc t

- Test.”

F. Limitations and Uncertainties

The intent of the sampling was not to characterize the total extent of contamination in lower

Manhattan or determine the extent of exposures for all people in lower Manhattan that may

have resulted from th e collapse of the WTC towers. Rather, it was a preliminary

investigation to determine if building collapse

- related materials could be present at levels

of possible health concern in lower Manhattan. Results from this investigation do not

necessarily reflec t conditions that would be found in other buildings, at other times just

following the collapse, or after the sampling period. The measurements reflect conditions

present at the time of the sampling (November 4

– December 12, 2001) in the buildings and

areas sampled.

Some uncertainties tend to underestimate the risk of exposure while other uncertainties tend

to overestimate the risk of exposure.

• The locations selected for sampling within each building may not be representative of

the rest of the building ; the building

- specific results may either overestimate or

underestimate the levels of WTC

- related materials in other areas of the building.

• Sampling was conducted in November and December of 2001. Levels of particulate

matter and airborne irritants we re likely to have been higher in the days and weeks

immediately after the WTC collapse. Levels of settled surface dust were likely higher as

well. Outdoor dust contamination would have been reduced by wind, rain, and cleaning

(HEPA trucks to vacuum the str eets and sidewalks). Indoor settled surface dust may have

been reduced if appropriate cleaning had been conducted prior to this sampling event.

Therefore, these results serve as estimates, and are not necessarily reflective of conditions

at earlier time po ints or of current conditions.

• Likewise, if continued cleaning has occurred since the November

– December 2001

sampling event, levels of contaminants should be lower today. Therefore, the results of this

sampling effort would tend to overestimate the cur rent levels of WTC

- related materials in

the buildings.

## 18



# Uncertainty also exists in determining at what level and duration of exposure people might

experience irritation or other symptoms from exposure to fibers and crystalline minerals.

• The likelihood of experiencing irritation from individual contaminants or contaminant

mixtures is uncertain. A short exposure to a small amount of an irritant may be tolerated,

but exposures that continue for a longer period of time or are to a larger amount of an

irrita nt, may overwhelm the body’s ability to remove the irritant and increase the

likelihood of irritation. Individual differences also play a significant role in whether or not

irritation occurs. Using a risk estimate from an occupational situation may undere stimate

risks for more sensitive or susceptible individuals in the general population. Some of the

information needed to estimate the risk of irritant symptoms, is not available from this

study. When assumptions are made in the absence information (e.g. , the duration and

intensity of the total exposure) additional uncertainty is introduced.

• Persons with pre

- existing respiratory (e.g., asthma, emphysema) or cardiopulmonary

problems are more likely than healthy individuals to experience adverse health symptoms

at lower levels of airborne particles and contaminants. Airborne dust and crystalline

mineral levels based on studies of healthy individuals are levels that underestimate the

risk for a susceptible individual.

• Individuals who were in the lower Manhattan area when the WTC collapse occurred

may have received a bolus inhalation dose of dust, fibers, crystalline minerals, and other

materials. Health effects of a bolus dose are not known. Additional exposures would add

to the potential for health ef fects. Therefore, the short and long

- term health effects, if any,

of such an exposure cannot be determined from the measurements made in this study.

RESULTS

This section of the report will provide an overview of what was determined by this

investigat ion. The overall analytical findings will be presented according to what

environmental media was sampled (air or settled surface dust, Figures 7

- 17).

A. Survey

The primary duty of the sampling team was to coordinate with the building management to

ident ify sampling locations that would yield results representative of the area sampled.

These duties included identifying unoccupied residences that could have aggressive air

sampling conducted. In addition the sampling teams photographed equipment setup and

o peration, sampling locations, distribution of surface dust, and general conditions around

the building.

## 19



# The sampling team completed building surveys, in part, to gather the information needed to

cite sample locations and to provide information to be used in interpreting the results.

These surveys were completed on the basis of their observations and on discussions with

building management when representatives were available. However, information was not

always available to completely answer each survey que stion. This was especially true

when evaluating specifics of the heating and air conditioning systems. The validity of the

information is dependent on the memory and experience of the building representatives

and, in the case of residential units, may not reflect the condition or treatment of the entire

building.

The survey form and photographs were reviewed along with the analytical results to put the

sampling results into the context of where and how the samples were obtained and to

determine the general conditions of the sampling locations. Given the purpose of this

investigation, the limited amount of locations sampled, and the uncertainty in some of the

survey results, no attempt was made to correlate survey information with measured

concentrations of any of the materials. The table in Appendix B provides a summary of

results from the survey form questions that were most consistently answered.

B. Settled Surface Dust

Settled surface dust samples were analyzed for materials consistent with debris from a

building collapse. Materials of interest include insulation material (asbestos, synthetic

vitreous fibers, components of concrete (portlandite, calcite, and crystalline silica) and

components of other building materials (gypsum, mica, and halite). A det ailed summary of

results is given in Appendix C. To protect the privacy of individuals who allowed

sampling in their residences and buildings, specific detailed locations are not shown.

Results of the settled surface dust analysis indicate the composition of settled surface dust

in lower Manhattan is different from that of the dust analyzed from the comparison areas

above 59th Street. Although the materials found are consistent with materials expected

from the World Trade Center collapse, these results cann ot determine the actual source of

the materials present because these materials are common building components and can

come from other sources in a busy urban area.

1. Fiber Analysis of Settled Surface Dust

All settled surface dust samples were

analyz ed by polarized light microscopy

(PLM) for fiber type and content. This

technique distinguishes between asbestos

fibers, textile fibers, and synthetic vitreous

fibers (SVF), which include glass wool and

mineral wool. The results are reported as a

percent. Because PLM is an optical method, the amount reported is a visual estimation of

the percent of area viewed. Therefore it is neither strictly a weight or a volume percent. Asbestos and SVF, although not

found in homes in the comparison

areas above 59th Street, were

present in the settled surface dust

in some areas of lower

Manhattan.

## 20



# These results do provide an indication of the presence of asbestos or SVF in the dus t, and

some idea of relative amount.

In lower Manhattan, asbestos was only detected in settled surface dust in one indoor and

two outdoor locations by PLM (Figure 8). If asbestos was not seen in the sample or

reported as <1% by PLM, a second test was done which is more sensitive, transmission

electron microscopy (TEM). An additional 4 outdoor and 15 indoor locations contained

asbestos when examined by TEM (Figure 9). Chrysotile asbestos was the only form of

asbestos identified, either by PLM or TEM, in all settled surface dust samples. In this study

TEM is primarily used as an indicator of the presence or absence of asbestos. For the PLM

analysis, values <1% are an indicator of the presence of asbestos because this is the

detection limit for PLM. For TEM a detection of asbestos is confirmation of its presence.

Therefore, values <1% and values greater indicate the presence of asbestos. Results shown

in Table 6 and discussed below refer to all samples positive for asbestos, by either the

PLM or TEM methods ( Figure 10).

Asbestos was found in indoor settled surface dust in 10 of 57 residences sampled in lower

Manhattan (18%) (Table 6). The settled surface dust in common areas contained asbestos

in 5 of 26 areas sampled (19%), and asbestos was found in outdoor dust in 6 of 14 areas

sampled (43%) (Table 6). Asbestos levels ranged from none detected up to 3.4% (the

highest level was found in an outside sample). However, without surface

- loading

information, the percentage of asbestos present does not allow for char acterization of

potential exposures. No asbestos was found in the comparison homes north of 59th Street.

Figure 10 depicts the results of analysis of the asbestos content of settled surface dust in

samples from residences in lower Manhattan.

The SVF resul ts, seen in Table 6, show a broad range of SVF content in the settled surface

dust from none detected up to 35% in indoor dust samples and as high as 72% outdoors.

The location and range of SVF found in settled surface dust is shown in Figure 11 for all

ar eas sampled in lower Manhattan. SVF was found in indoor dust in 26 of 57 residences

sampled as analyzed by PLM (46%). The settled surface dust in common areas contained

SVF in 14 of 26 areas sampled (54%), and SVF was found in outdoor dust 11 of 14 times

s ampled (79%). The majority of SVF detected was glass wool. Only four buildings

contained mineral wool in settled surface dust, ranging from 1%

– 7%. Because no surface

loading information is known, the exact percentage is less informative than its presence.

No SVF was found in the comparison homes north of 59th Street by PLM analysis.

Therefore the SVF content of settled surface dust in some areas of lower Manhattan is

higher than that of the selected comparison areas above 59th Street (Figure 11).

2. Miner al Analysis of Settled Surface Dust

Settled surface dust samples were analyzed for crystalline minerals potentially associated

with the material from the collapsed World Trade Centers. The results reported here are

expressed as a mass percent of the dust (weight of minerals per weight of dust).

Quantification of the minerals in dust is not exact due to variations in particle size and

## 21



# other methodological interference. Therefore, these data will only be considered

semiquantitatively and should be considered estimated values, noted by the “J” qualifier.

Quartz, calcite, portlandite, and gypsum were the most abundant minerals detected (see

Table 7). Mica was detected with less frequency than the other minerals, and generally

estimated at approximately 0.1%J o f the dust. Halite (salt) was also detected at trace

levels.

Quartz was detected in all 14 outdoor dust

samples, 21 of the 26 common area samples,

and only 30 of the 57 samples from

residences in lower Manhattan. Neither

cristobalite nor tridymite, other forms of

crystalline silica, were found in any of the

settled surface dust samples. For this

discussion quartz will refer to the alpha

quartz form of crystalline silica. Levels of

quartz were estimated as from 0.05%J to

31%J in residences, and from 0.03%J to

25%J in common areas. Estimated quartz

content in outdoor samples ranged from 1%J

to 27%J. Because quartz is a common material (i.e., silica sand), finding this mineral in the

city where there is a lot of concrete building material is not unusual. How ever, quartz in

dust from the comparison areas above 59th Street was estimated from nondetect to 1%J in

the common areas and from nondetect to 2%J in the residences. Figure 16 shows the

locations where the estimated maximum quartz content in settled surfac e dust was greater

than or similar to estimated quartz content in the dust samples from the comparison areas

above 59th Street. Fifteen residences, six common areas, and 12 outdoor areas had

estimated quartz levels higher than the associated comparison are as above 59th Street.

Therefore, quartz was elevated in some indoor areas of lower Manhattan relative to the

comparison areas above 59th Street. Outdoor dust samples were not taken from the

comparison areas, due to insufficient amounts of dust. Figures 1 3

- 16 compare the indoor

and outdoor locations in lower Manhattan to the indoor samples above 59th to show the

relative distribution of the minerals.

Calcite (calcium carbonate) and portlandite (calcium hydroxide) are also components of

concrete. They occu

rred with similar frequency in the dust samples and were often co

located with the quartz. Calcite ranged from an estimated 0.8%J to 19%J in outdoor areas,

and from 0.02%J to 21%J in indoor areas. Portlandite ranged from an estimated 0.07%J to

6%J in outdo or areas and from 0.04%J to 8%J in indoor areas. In contrast, the maximum

levels found in indoor comparison areas above 59th Street were 0.9%J calcite and 0.08%J

portlandite. Figures 13 and 15 show the locations where the estimated calcite and

portlandite content in settled surface dust was higher than to that estimated in dust samples

from the comparison areas above 59th Street. For calcite, 13 residence and 9 common area

samples had estimated levels higher than those found in the comparison areas above 59 th

Street. Similarly for portlandite, 17 residence and 9 common area samples were estimated Mineral co mponents of concrete

(quartz calcite, and portlandite) and

other building materials (gypsum,

mica, and halite) in the indoor settled

surface dust of some areas of lower

Manhattan were estimated at higher

percentages than for the comparison

areas above 59th Street.

## 22



# as higher than values in comparison areas above 59th Street. So although these materials

are found in urban areas, perhaps due to erosion of concrete, building cons truction and

maintenance, the estimated percentages of calcite and portlandite were larger in some

areas of lower Manhattan relative to the comparison areas above 59th Street (Figures 13

and 15.)

Gypsum (hydrated calcium sulfate) is a major component of d ry wall. Gypsum was found

in 11 of 14 outdoor settled dust samples at levels estimated as 0.03%J to 27%J. Indoor

levels of gypsum ranged from an estimated 0.07%J to 20%J in 23 of 26 common areas and

from 0.05%J to 30%J in 45 of 57 residences. These estimat ed percentages are higher than

the estimated maximum of 4%J seen in the comparison areas above 59th Street. Figure 14

shows the locations where the estimated gypsum content in settled surface dust was higher

than or similar to the levels in the dust sample s from the comparison areas above 59th

Street. Nine residence and six common area samples had estimated levels higher than

those found in the comparison areas above 59th Street. Gypsum was elevated in settled

indoor dust in some areas of lower Manhattan r elative to the comparison areas above

59th Street (Figure 14).

The data can also be evaluated in a nonquantitative manner by just inspecting the frequency

of detects of mineral in dust for lower Manhattan and the comparison areas. As shown in

Table 7, the pattern of prevalence for the minerals appears to be similar in both study

areas. In other words, the minerals were detected in both locations with about the same

frequency. The data imply that building materials were the source for both areas. This

sourc e was likely building materials; however, the magnitude of the impact was greater in

areas closer to the World Trade Center.

3. Alkalinity of Settled Surface Dust

Several of the minerals detected in the settled surface dust samples, such as portlandit e,

can make the dust more alkaline, or raise the pH. Originally, the pH of all of the settled

surface dust samples was to be determined. However, enough dust for this analysis was

only available at two locations. Both dust samples were alkaline (pH of 8.6 and 9.8). On

the pH scale of 0 (acidic) to 14 (alkaline or basic), these values are slightly alkaline.

Mineral analysis of these two settled surface dust samples estimate levels of calcite

(15%J, 19%J) and portlandite (6%J, 3%J) were present, respectively. These crystalline

minerals along with other components of concrete would have contributed to the measured

alkalinity.

C. Air

The settled surface dust results discussed previously indicate the materials present in each

area sampled. Fibers and small pa rticles within the dust may become airborne during daily

activity or during periods of high activity such as cleaning. Therefore, the settled surface

dust sample results are an indicator for areas with a potential for airborne contaminants.

## 23



# Air sampling wa s conducted to determine the actual levels of fibers, dust, and crystalline

minerals in the air at the time of settled surface dust sampling. Where feasible, these results

are correlated to the settled surface dust results.

1. Fibers in Air

Samples for airborne fibers were first analyzed by phase contrast microscopy (PCM) to

count all fibers present according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health (NIOSH) Method 7400 counting rules. Phase contrast microscopy identifies fibers

based on size and shape, but not the specific type of fiber. Therefore, the fibers seen by

PCM include asbestos fibers as well as other fibers, such as textiles, fiberglass, and

cellulose that might be present. Any sample with airborne fibers above the highest PCM

levels found in the comparison locations was re

- analyzed by transmission electron

microscopy (TEM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The TEM methodology can

distinguish what types of fibers are in a sample, particularly asbestos fibers. The SEM

m ethod identifies SVF. Some fibers present in the settled dust of the area may become

suspended in the air and be present in the air sample.

a. Indoor Air

Fiber levels in air are expressed as the number of fibers in each cubic centimeter (cc) of

air or f ibers per cc (f/cc). Low levels of fibers were found in the comparison areas above

59th Street homes, where fiber levels ranged from less than 0.001 f/cc (<0.001 f/cc) to

0.003 f/cc. Because no asbestos was detected in the settled surface dust of the compa rison

areas above 59th Street, these fibers are not likely to have been asbestos. SEM analysis

showed they were not SVF. Figure 7 shows all airborne fiber levels determined by PCM in

the lower Manhattan area with respect to the fiber levels found in the co mparison areas

above 59th Street. These data represent all fibers found according to the analytical method

used (NIOSH 7400) and are not specific to asbestos or SVF.

The majority of the lower Manhattan air samples from indoor areas without asbestos in the

dust were within the range of fibers found in the comparison areas above 59th Street

(<0.001 to 0.003 f/cc). Six of these air samples (from 3 common areas and 3 residences)

had higher levels of fibers in air than the comparison areas above 59th Street (Ta ble 8).

Four of these areas had measurable levels of SVF in the settled surface dust. All six

- air

samples were re

- analyzed by TEM to determine if the fibers present included asbestos

fibers. Asbestos fibers were not found in these six air samples (Table 8) . A third analysis

was done by SEM to determine if SVF fibers were present in those air samples from areas

with SVF in the settled surface dust. SVF fibers were found in three of these air samples at

concentrations from 0.000037 f/cc to 0.000255 f/cc. Alth ough SEM is a more sensitive

method, detecting thinner fibers than PCM, reported SVF levels were well below the PCM

method detection limit of 0.001f/cc. SVF fiber concentrations in the comparison areas

above 59th Street ranged from none detected to 0.00008 7 f/cc. Although air samples from

comparison areas above 59th Street were not re

- analyzed by TEM, no asbestos fibers were

noted on the subsequent SEM analysis for SVF. Therefore the six air samples that had total

## 24



# fiber counts greater than comparison areas above 59th Street were not elevated due to

either asbestos or SVF fibers.

There were 15 out of the 83 (18%) indoor areas in lower Manhattan with measurable

asbestos in the settled surface dust, 10 residences and 5 common areas (Table 9). Nine of

these res idences were sampled aggressively (the air exhaust of the vacuum used for settled

dust sampling was used to stir up all dust into the air before an air sample was taken). Four

of these aggressively sampled residences had measurable fiber levels in air rang ing from

0.001 f/cc to 0.003 f/cc. One residence was occupied and could not be aggressively

sampled. Air sampling at that location indicated <0.001 f/cc by PCM analysis. Because the

levels found were within the range measured in the comparison areas above 59th Street, no

TEM or SEM re

- analysis was performed on these air samples. Therefore the composition

of these fibers is unknown (i.e., asbestos, SVF, cellulose).

None of the common areas were aggressively sampled because all of these areas were

open to th e public. Of the five common areas with some asbestos in the dust, three had

measurable levels of fiber in the air ranging from 0.001 f/cc to 0.002 f/cc. One area in

building 5 where there was not enough settled surface dust to sample had an airborne fiber

count of 0.002 f/cc. No TEM or SEM re

- analysis was performed on these air samples, and

the composition of these fibers is unknown (i.e., asbestos, SVF, cellulose).

b. Outdoor Air

Six of the 14 lower Manhattan outdoor locations sampled had detectable le vels of asbestos

in the settled surface dust, indicating a potential in these locations for asbestos fibers to

become airborne. Air sampling indicates three of the locations did not have detectable

fibers in the air (Table 9). The air samples from building s 1, 2, and 5 did have fibers

detected at levels from 0.001 f/cc to 0.003 f/cc. Of the 15 locations where no settled

surface dust samples were taken, the majority of the results showed <0.001 f/cc in the air,

with only 4 samples reported at the detection l imit of 0.001 f/cc. Because the levels found

were within the range measured in the comparison areas above 59th Street, no TEM or

SEM re

- analysis was performed on these air samples, and the composition of these fibers

is unknown (i.e., asbestos, SVF, cellul ose).

2. Minerals in Air

Air samples of different particulate sizes, representing inhalable (PM100), thoracic

(PM10), and respirable (PM4 and PM2.5) fractions were collected in selected building

locations. Not all size fractions were collected at every location. The samples were

analyzed by XRD for the same crystalline minerals seen in the settled surface dust samples.

Each of the four size fractions was collected with a separate sampling device. The PM100

fraction collected particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 100 microns and lower. The

PM10 fraction collected particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns and lower

and so on. The results reported here are expressed as the mass of mineral per unit volume

of air or micrograms per cubic meter of air (μg/m

3 

# ). Quantification of the minerals is not

exact due to variations in particle size as compared to the particle size used in the standard

## 25



# curve and other methodological interference. Therefore, these data will only be considered

semiquantitative a nd should be treated as estimated values, noted by the “J” qualifier.

Due to changes in sample volume, the detection limit of minerals in each fraction varied,

allowing lower concentrations to be recorded in the PM10 and PM100 fractions compared

to the PM 4 fraction. Care must be taken when comparing results between fractions for this

reason. Additionally, although the PM4 fraction should be a subset of the PM10 and

PM100 fractions, PM4 results are sometimes higher than PM10 or PM100 from the same

location. Therefore, due to uncertainties in the quantification and general quality

assurance/quality control concerns, data will not be associated to a specific building

sampling location or correlated between size fractions at the same location.

The comparison a ir samples, taken in areas above 59th Street, contained no quartz,

cristobalite, tridymite, calcite, portlandite, mica, or halite above method detection limits

(Table 11). Gypsum was found at least once in all size fractions collected in the

comparison are as above 59th Street. Gypsum concentrations were estimated at 3 μg/m 3 

# J

(PM2.5), 5 μg/m 3 

# J (PM4), 3 μg/m 3 

# J (PM10), and 3 μg/m 3 

# J (PM100) (Table 11).

All of the minerals found in the settled surface dust were seen in at least one air sample

from lower Manhatt an (Table 11). Quartz, calcite, portlandite, and gypsum were detected

at similar frequencies in each of the larger size fractions, PM100, PM10, and PM 4. Table

11 shows the frequency of detection and the range of estimated values for each size fraction

sam pled. Quartz and gypsum were each detected once in the PM 2.5 fraction. The PM 2.5

size fraction was only collected toward the end of the project, and there are fewer samples

for this size fraction.

Approximate quartz levels in air ranged from

4 μg/m

3



# – 19 μg/m

3 

# J in the respirable fraction (PM4),

3 μg/m

3



# – 12 μg/m

3 

# J in the thoracic fraction (PM10)

and 3 μg/m

3



# – 13 μg/m

3 

# J in the inhalable fraction

(PM100). Detection frequencies were similar in

these fractions at 11%, 10%, and 14% respectively.

However, quartz was only seen in one of the PM2.5

samples (3%) at an estimated 3 μg/m 3 

# J. Cristobalite,

a different crystalline form of crystalline silica, was

found in one lower Manhattan air sample at

15 μg/m

3 

# J in the PM100 fraction. Cristobalite was not seen in any other sample, either air

or settled surface dust. Across the size fractions, quartz was detected in air samples taken

in lower Manhattan; it was not detected in the comparison areas above 59th Street.

Therefore, the estimated airborne levels of quartz appear to be higher in some air samples

from lower Manhattan than the chosen comparison areas above 59th Street.

Similar observations can be seen in the results for calcite and portlandite. Calcite and

portlandite occur at a similar frequency to quartz ( Table 11) and tend to be present in the

same air samples (Appendix C.) Both minerals are present in PM4, PM10, and PM100 size

fractions. Calcite was estimated at 3 μg/m 3 

# J

– 14 μg/m

3 

# J and portlandite at 14 μg/m 3 

# J

– 95 Estimated levels of minerals in

air, including quartz, calcite,

gypsum, and portlandite, appear

higher in some areas of lower

Manhattan than in the

comparison areas above 59th

Street.

## 26



# μg/m 3 

# J in inhalable dust. Mica and halite a re not seen with the same frequency, but are

detected in several air samples from lower Manhattan. Calcite, portlandite, mica, and

halite are all detected in air samples taken in lower Manhattan, but not in air samples from

the comparison areas above 59th Street (Table 11). Therefore, the airborne levels of

calcite, portlandite, mica and halite appear to be higher in some air samples from lower

Manhattan than in the samples from the comparison areas above 59th Street.

Gypsum was the most common mineral det ected in air samples from lower Manhattan for

all size fractions and was detected in 40 out of 114 respirable fraction (PM4) air samples

at levels ranging from approximately 4 μg/m 3 

# J

– 15 μg/m

3 

# J. Gypsum was estimated at

3 μg/m

3 

# J

– 14 μg/m

3 

# J and detected less f

requently in the PM10 (33 of 105) and PM100 (24

of 101) size fractions, even though the detection limits for these fractions were lower.

Gypsum was found in one of the PM2.5 samples, at approximately 3 μg/m 3 

# J. Across the

size fractions, gypsum was detected in air samples taken in lower Manhattan at higher

estimated levels than air samples taken from the comparison areas above 59th Street (up to

5 μg/m

3 

# J). Therefore, the airborne levels of gypsum seem to be higher in some air samples

from lower Manhattan tha n the chosen comparison areas above 59th Street.

DISCUSSION

This section of the report will provide a more in

- depth review of where the various

materials were detected. In addition, the public health concerns potentially associated with

these materials i s also presented.

A. Discussion of Results

Settled surface dust samples obtained from lower Manhattan as part of this investigation

contained materials consistent with debris from a building collapse. Both indoor and

outdoor settled surface dust samples contained some amount of insulation material

(asbestos, glass wool, and mineral wool), components of concrete (portlandite, calcite,

and quartz), and components of other building materials (gypsum, mica, and halite). These

materials were not present at th e same levels in the four buildings above 59th Street

sampled for comparison.

Asbestos levels in dust in the lower Manhattan area, ranging from <1% to 3.4%, were

consistent with samples taken of outdoor material by EPA after the WTC collapse. SVF

levels i n the settled surface dust in lower Manhattan were higher than in the comparison

areas above 59th Street, ranging from 1% to 72%. No data were available for SVF in

lower Manhattan prior to this investigation. Analysis of archived dust samples collected

aft er the WTC collapse by NIOSH, confirms the presence of SVF in bulk samples taken in

lower Manhattan.

The minerals found in settled surface dust from residential buildings in lower Manhattan

were consistent with minerals reported by the United States Geolo gical Survey (USGS) for

outdoor settled surface dust across lower Manhattan after the WTC collapse (9).

Thirty

- three dust, two concrete, and two steel insulation samples were analyzed by USGS,

## 27



# including two from an indoor area. Quartz, calcite, and gypsum were reported for all of

these samples. Each of these was occasionally reported as a major constituent of the

material, i.e., estimated at 20% or higher. Twenty

- six of these samples contained mica,

usually estimated as trace or less than 5% of the material . Portlandite was only noted in

two samples at trace levels, including the one indoor sample analyzed.

1. Association of Asbestos and Synthetic Vitreous Fibers

Based upon the sampling results, it appears that SVF is likely to be found in settled surface

dust whenever asbestos is detected in the settled surface dust. All of the six outdoor and

five common areas that had asbestos in settled surface dust also had SVF in the settled

surface dust (Table 9). Of the ten residences that contained asbestos in set tled surface dust,

a little more than half also contained SVF. However, this does not hold true in areas

without asbestos, where the absence of asbestos does not indicate an absence of SVF. Of

the eight outdoor areas without asbestos in the settled surface dust, three contained SVF.

Similarly, SVF was found in approximately 25% of the common areas and in

approximately 36% of the residences without asbestos in the dust. Although the presence of

asbestos in the dust seems to correspond to SVF, the absence of asbestos does not predict

or correspond to a presence or absence of SVF in settled surface dust, in either indoor or

outdoor areas of lower Manhattan.

2. Association of Asbestos and Synthetic Vitreous Fiber Levels Outside of and Within

a Building

O utdoor settled surface dust was collected at 14 buildings in lower Manhattan. One

purpose for collecting outdoor dust was to determine if the contents of the outdoor dust at a

location would reflect the type of indoor dust. In the case of fibers, there is little

correlation in the indoor and outdoor dust composition. High levels of outdoor SVF are

associated with both high and low indoor levels. The presence or absence of asbestos in

settled surface dust shows a similar lack of correlation

. The outdoor sett led surface dust

samples do not correspond with indoor dust composition for either group of fibers. This

lack of association could, in part, be due to whether and how frequent interiors and

exteriors had been cleaned.

In contrast, indoor levels of fibers in settled surface dust did seem to correspond within a

building. Buildings with elevated SVF levels in the common area tended to have elevated

levels in the residences. A similar pattern was seen between the two residences sampled in

the same building. F or example, SVF was often found in both residences sampled within

the same building, or was absent in both residences. Within this limited data set, fiber

levels in one area of a building seem to weakly correspond with fiber levels in other areas

of the sa me building. However, none of these data represent total dust loading, only the

relative amount of fibers within the dust.

## 28



# 3. Occurrence of Crystalline Minerals

Indoor areas that have elevated levels of quartz in settled surface dust appear to also ha ve

elevated levels of calcite, portlandite, and gypsum (see Figure 10). Additionally, these four

minerals appear together in all outdoor samples with only minor exceptions. Although only

14 of the 30 buildings had samples taken of outdoor dust, there does seem to be a

correlation between elevated outdoor and indoor levels of quartz, gypsum, and the other

minerals. It is unknown if this would be seen in outdoor areas above 59th Street for

comparison, as not enough outdoor dust was available for analysis.

Mo st elevated quartz and gypsum levels indoors were found in the first ten buildings

sampled during the first 5 days of the project (with the exception of 14% quartz in the

common area of building 22). Although many of these buildings were closer to the WTC

site, location may not be the only factor contributing to higher mineral levels in the dust.

Other buildings sampled in these areas later (e.g., 13, 14, and 28) did not have elevated

levels of minerals. Many factors may contribute to this finding including whether the area

was cleaned (indoors, outdoors), the cleaning method used, the time since the last cleaning,

and the amount of dust that was initially in the area. It is not clear which factors contributed

to variation in mineral levels by building.

Wit hin a building, levels of quartz, calcite, and portlandite tended to be similar, and in

some cases showed a similar profile in areas with elevated quartz (see Figures 13, 15, and

16). In general, where quartz was greater than 5%, calcite and portlandite we re also

present, but as smaller proportions of the dust. Gypsum, although often present with the

other minerals, varied from being the most abundant to the least abundant in the dust.

4. Buildings Impacted by Asbestos, Synthetic Vitreous Fibers, and Cryst alline

Minerals

There was no clear pattern of which buildings were impacted by asbestos, SVF, and

crystalline minerals. Figure 17 shows the approximate locations of the buildings and the

level of contaminants in settled surface dust that were above or bel ow the levels found in

the comparison areas. The data are summarized and presented to indicate the indoor areas

within a building with higher levels of a material in settled surface dust than was found in

the comparison areas above 59th Street (Table 12). In this table, quartz was considered

representative of the two other minerals associated with concrete, portlandite and calcite.

In 6 of the 29 buildings (approximately 21%) sampled in lower Manhattan, concentrations

of these materials were not detected a t levels higher than the levels in the comparison

buildings above 59th Street. These six buildings tend to be among the buildings farthest

from the World Trade Center and not located along what appear to be major streets or

intersections. Map 17 shows the approximate locations of the buildings and the level of

contaminants in settled surface dust that were above or below the levels found in the

comparison areas.

## 29



# Twenty

- three buildings (approximately 79%) had levels of at least one of these materials

in the dust at levels higher than the maximum found in the comparison buildings. Four of

these buildings (buildings 4, 5, 6, and 9) contained all four materials above levels seen in

the comparison areas above 59th Street in at least one indoor sample (Table 7). Seven of

the 23 buildings were only impacted by SVF in indoor areas (buildings 13, 14, 17, 18, 25,

26, and 28). One building was only impacted by asbestos (building 11). The remaining 11

buildings were impacted by some combination of fibers and minerals. N o clear pattern

emerges in terms of which fibers or minerals occurred in the indoor dust of a building.

Three of these building had only the two fiber types present (buildings 15, 24, and 27). One

of these building had only the two minerals present (buildi ng 8).

The limited number of buildings sampled and the limited number of indoor locations that

were sampled make it difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship of geographical

location and the number of different materials found in the dust above the levels found in

the comparison locations. However, buildings close to the World Trade Center tend to

have a greater number of these materials found.

5. Significance of Minerals and Fibers in the Settled Surface Dust

The results previously discussed indicate minerals, asbestos, and SVF are all found at

higher percentages in the samples from lower Manhattan when compared to the sampled

areas above 59th Street. These findings are based on comparing the percent of each

mineral and fiber in the settled s urface dust. However, to determine the total mineral and

fiber content in a room, the amount of dust present would also need to be known. Because

surface loading is not known, we cannot demonstrate that the total amount of mineral and

fiber is increased in

any given area. However, these data indicate the components and

quality of the dust in lower Manhattan is different from that of the comparison areas above

59th Street.

The increased crystalline minerals and fibers in the settled surface dust indicate a potential

for contact with these materials. The magnitude of this contact will vary with dust loading

(which is unknown) and activity in the area. Residents may come into contact with the dust

directly (i.e., skin, eyes). Additionally, the dust may also be come re

- suspended in the air

through activities such as cleaning. In this way the settled surface dust may be a reservoir

for material in the air. Therefore settled surface dust results are important both to evaluate

direct contact, as well as to evaluate the potential for airborne/inhalation exposures.

6. Significance of Minerals and Fibers in Air

The settled surface dust samples suggest the potential for airborne particles and fibers. The

air samples taken indicate that some of these materials are pres ent in the air at measurable

levels. Because the air samples were taken over several hours, they provide an

understanding of average air levels over the course of the day. Some of these air samples

were taken during normal daily activity outdoors in common areas and in residences. They

represent the impact of vehicular traffic, walking, and normal activity in the area. As such

they are a good measure of average exposure at that time and place. No samples were taken

## 30



# to assess high levels of activity, such as cleaning, which might generate short

- term periods

of higher levels of materials in the air. However, about 40% of the residences were

aggressively sampled, which gives some indication of the impact of increased activity on

airborne levels.

Although semi quantitative, the minerals detected in air provide important information.

Quartz and mica, which have potential health effects on the lung, were found in the

respirable fraction of the dust (PM4). This indicates that some portion of the quartz and

mica fou nd in the settled surface dust is of respirable size. Minerals found in the larger size

air fractions, thoracic (PM10) and inhalable (PM100), indicate that larger particles may

also be present that could irritate the upper areas of the respiratory tract. I t should be noted

that these larger fractions also include thoracic and respirable material.

The fiber analysis by PCM provides an upper bound of airborne fibers. Although fiber type

is not identified in this analysis, there can be no more asbestos fibers than total fibers

detected. Re

- analysis of some of these samples shows that very few fibers of public health

interest (SVF or asbestos) were present. However, care must be taken when interpreting

these results because there were samples taken which showed fibers by PCM, which were

not re

- analyzed. Any of these air samples, especially those taken in areas with asbestos or

SVF in the dust, may have some of these fibers as part of the PCM fiber count. Generally,

the levels of dust and air did not indicate a c onsistent pattern at different locations. It was

not possible to conduct a more accurate correlation analysis between asbestos and SVF

material in settled surface dust and fibers in air because the majority of air samples were

not analyzed specifically for asbestos or SVF (i.e., TEM or SEM analysis). The limited

data gathered during this investigation does not support nor refute the assumption that all

the fibers in the air samples will be asbestos or SVF even when asbestos was found in

dust.

B. Public He alth Evaluation

The potential for health effects is possible after exposures to certain materials. An

exposure to a material occurs when it comes into contact with or is taken into our bodies.

The route of exposure is the method by which a material comes into contact with the body

(e.g., dermal contact, inhalation, or ingestion). The nature of the health effect will depend

on the material involved, how it comes into contact with the body, the amount of material

(exposure level), the duration of the exposur e, resultant dose, and the susceptibility of the

individual (e.g., pre

- existing health conditions may make an individual more sensitive to a

contaminant).

Initially, screening values were established and listed in the project

- sampling plan. These

screeni ng values were established to provide a guideline for evaluating the data as it was

collected for any indication of a hazard requiring immediate attention, and to ensure the

proper analytical detection limit to support a chronic health evaluation. These sc reening

values were not used in this report because this public health evaluation is specific to the

levels of materials found in the study area.

## 31



# Because levels of asbestos, SVF, and some crystalline minerals are elevated in the settled

surface dust of so me buildings in lower Manhattan, individuals may be exposed to those

materials in their homes, out of doors, or at work either by direct contact or by inhalation

when the dust is disturbed and suspended in the air. Depending on the environment, one or

all of these materials may be present in the dust of an area.

1. Sensitive Populations

Sensitive populations are individuals who may experience greater responses when

exposed to a material than normally predicted. This sensitivity may be due to life stage,

pre

- existing medical or exposure conditions, or genetic susceptibility.

Children are considered a sensitive population for several reasons. The first consideration

is the potential for greater exposure than adults. With a lower body weight, and higher

rel ative ventilation rate, children have higher doses than adults given exposure to the same

levels of materials in air, food, or drinking water. For biopersistent materials, such as

some of the minerals discussed previously, childhood exposures present a gre ater lifetime

risk due to longer residence time in the lung. This is demonstrated for asbestos where an

exposure with onset at 1

- year old presents a greater risk than an exposure at age 18 (10).

Finally, because they are shorter than adults, children breat he air that is closer to the

ground, and they may play in contaminated areas, creating situations where they are

impacted more by materials in soil or dust.

Children and adults with pre

- existing medical conditions may be more susceptible. Many

of the mate rials found in the areas sampled have irritant effects on skin, mucous

membranes, and the respiratory tract. Individuals with pre

- existing allergic and

cardiopulmonary diseases may be more sensitive to the effects of exposure to this dust.

One of the most clinically important and frequent responses of the airways to dust and

irritant exposures is bronchoconstriction. Therefore, individuals with pre

- existing asthma

are much more likely to develop bronchoconstriction in response to exposure to dust

particles, fibers, and irritants.

Obstructive lung disease and other respiratory and cardiopulmonary disorders are factors

for increased sensitivity. Any individuals in lower Manhattan who received a large dose of

dust during or immediately following the WTC collap se may also be more sensitive.

Anyone who has been experiencing respiratory symptoms since the collapse should consult

their physician for proper treatment.

Individuals who smoke are at greater risk. Smoking can reduce lung function and may cause

pulmonar y disease that would make individuals more sensitive. Additionally, smoking has

been shown to synergistically increase the risk of developing lung cancer from asbestos

exposures. Smoking also increases the risk of developing lung cancer in workers exposed

to crystalline silica (e.g., quartz).

## 32



# 2. Soluble Minerals: Gypsum, Portlandite, and Calcite

The potential health effects of gypsum (hydrated calcium sulfate),

portlandite (calcium hydroxide), and calcite (calcium carbonate)

are similar as these miner als are similar chemically and

physically. All three minerals are crystalline in form and soluble

(11,12). Because these minerals are soluble in

body fluid, they are easily cleared from the respiratory tract and

lungs when inhaled (13,14,15). Therefore, no long

- term respiratory effects have been

observed, even at the very high exposures that occur during the mining and processing of

these minerals (16,17).

Calcite, and portlandite increase the alkalinity of a fluid. Therefore, when these materials

come into contact with tissue, they can cause irritation of skin and mucous membranes due

to increased alkalinity. Any anhydrous gypsum in settled dust would be hygroscopic,

which would be drying and irritating to the skin and eyes. Similarly, inhaled material may

irritate or burn the respiratory tract (nose, throat, and lungs). The signs of an inflammatory

response include redness, swelling, heat, and pain. Reaction to a skin irritant usually

occurs at the point of contact between the skin and the substance. E ye irritants can cause

redness, tearing, and itching of the eyes. Respiratory irritants can affect the nose, throat,

and lungs. They may cause an itchy, watery nose, a scratchy or sore throat, coughing, chest

tightness, wheezing, or difficulty breathing. A ll of these irritant effects are generally

temporary and will begin to resolve once exposures cease.

Occupational exposure guidelines (NIOSH) and standards (OSHA) for these minerals

were developed to prevent these irritant symptoms in most workers for a 4 0

- hour

workweek exposure (13,14,15). Although no guidelines or standards are available for skin

contact or residential exposures, air exposure levels are established for both total and

respirable minerals in air (see the following table). The airborne mine ral levels measured

in lower Manhattan are orders of magnitude below these occupational values. Although the

occupational standards do not account for sensitive individuals or for extended periods of

exposure, they provide a point of comparison. The levels of minerals seen in airborne dust

of lower Manhattan are not at the levels known to be irritating to healthy adult workers.

However, it is possible that sensitive individuals may feel some irritation. Additionally,

direct contact with the dust

— or shorter periods of higher air concentrations caused by

disturbing the dust

— may result in more irritation than would be predicted by the reported

airborne mineral levels. Although possible skin, eye,

and respiratory tract irritants,

the soluble minerals gypsum,

portlandite, and calcite do not

pose any hazard for long

- term

health effects.

## 33



# Mineral NIOSH REL (μg/m 3 

# ) OSHA PEL (μg/m 3 

# ) Maximum Estimated Value

in Lower Manhattan

(μg/m

3 

# )

Gypsum 10,000 (total)

5,000 (resp) 15,000 (total)

5,000 (resp) 14J (PM100)

15J (PM4)

Portlandite 5,000 15,000 (total)

5,000 (resp) 95J (PM100)

84J (PM4)

Calcite 10,000 (total)

5,000 (resp) 15,000 (total)

5,000 (resp) 14J (PM100)

10J (PM 4)

N IOSH = National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention

REL = recommended exposure level/limit

OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PEL = permissible exposure limit.

μg/m 3 

# = micro gram of mineral per cubic meter of air

total = all airborne particles (could include particles >100 micrometers)

resp = respirable fraction (PM4)

3. Mica

Mica is a group of water

- insoluble silicate minerals (18). The mica detected in these dust

and air samples of lower Manhattan was muscovite. Mica has been shown to cause

pneumoconiosis in workers exposed to high levels during mining and processing

operations (19,20). Although workers may have also been exposed to quartz in some of

these studies, pneumo coniosis in workers with only mica exposures has been documented.

(21,22)

Respirable mica particles that deposit in the deep lung may be cleared slowly due to the

relative insolubility of the mineral. Over time, the presence of the mineral will irritate

t he lung tissue, generate immune response, and result in scarring or fibrosis (23,24). The

magnitude of this response is believed to be a function of both the dose and duration of

exposure. The current worker standard set at 3,000 μg/m 3 

# is a level at which mild

pneumoconiosis was seen in some workers only after extended exposure (18 years).

The airborne levels of mica seen in lower Manhattan

with an estimated maximum of 43 μg/m 3 

# J in

respirable dust are well below levels of mica that

are associated with th e development of

pneumoconiosis in workers (25). Although

disturbing settled surface dust might generate short

term exposures above the measured values, it is the

cumulative exposure that is believed to predict

health effects (23). Given the low airborne l evels of

mica seen in lower Manhattan and the low frequency

of detection in both air and settled surface dust

samples, no health effects are expected from mica

exposure alone. Mica and halite, although

elevated in lower Manhattan

relative to the comparison areas

above 59th Street, are not likely

to contribute to any adver se

health effects.

## 34



# 4. Halite

Halite is simply sodium chloride, or rock salt (18). This crystalli ne form of the salt will

readily dissolve in the body and is not expected to have any adverse health effects.

Although large changes in salinity can disrupt tissues, the trace amounts of halite and the

low frequency of detection do not indicate any potenti al health concern.

5. Crystalline Silica (Quartz and Cristobalite)

Silica is chemically inert for the most part, so it is the physical form of silica that imparts

its toxicity. Small crystals of silica may be deposited in lung tissue. Once deposited, th e

crystals remain and fibrogenic lesions may appear over time, damaging the lung tissue and

reducing lung capacity (26). Silica has been demonstrated to be a pulmonary toxin linked

both to silicosis (a fibrotic lung disease) and lung cancer (27,28,29,30). These findings are

supported by both human and animal studies. Chronic silica exposure may contribute to

lung cancer; emphysema; obstructive airway, etiology, immune, or connective tissue

disease; and lymph node fibrosis (27,30,31,32,33).

a. Silicosis

Gener ally silicosis is seen after years of high

- level occupational exposures, although it can

result from short

- term acute exposure (26,30). It is not known if chronic ambient

environmental exposure contributes to silicosis (26). Because the lung damage is

prop ortional to the total amount of silica deposited in the lung, current evaluations are

based on a measure of cumulative exposure of air concentration over work

- years of

exposure (28,34,35).

Exposures of less than 1 milligram per cubic meter 1 (mg/m 3 

# ) of a ir work

- year ∗ 

# of exposure

are believed to not result in significant incidence of silicosis in workers (28,34,35). The

peak respirable quartz level estimated in lower Manhattan of 19 μg/m 3 

# J would be

∗ Cumulative exposure is expressed as a constant air concentration over a specified period of time. If a worker is

exposed to a constant concentration of 1 mg/m 3 

## of quartz throughout the workd ay, for an entire year, that is equivalent

to 1 (mg/m

3 

## ) work

- year. (One milligram per cubic meter of air is 1 mg/m 3 

## ). 

# Short

- term exposures to quartz, even for a continuous year of exposure

at the highest estimated air concentration, is not expected to result in

any adverse health effects.

Assuming worst

- case theoretical assumptions, the estimated quar tz

levels measured cannot rule out adverse health effects from chronic

exposures (i.e., 30 years). For individuals who conduct frequent cleaning

of their residences, as recommended in this report, or participate in the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cleaning/sampling program, it is

unlikely that their exposure would resemble these worst

- case conditions.

## 35



# equivalent to 0.08 (mg/m 3 

# )

- work year. † 

# Therefore, at this m easurement even an entire year

of exposure 24 hours a day 7 days a week would not be expected to result in silicosis when

compared to work environments known to result in silicosis. ‡



# b. Lung Cancer

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that there is

sufficient evidence that crystalline silica in the form of quartz or cristobalite is

carcinogenic in humans (28). The IARC cites only limited evidence for the carcinogenic

potential of tridymite from animal studies and inadequa te evidence in either humans or

animals to classify amorphous silica. Respirable crystalline silica is listed as a known

human carcinogen in the National Toxicology Program’s ninth report to Congress (27).

Although the exact mechanism for silica

- induced l ung cancer is not known, it is believed

cancer incidence is linked to the development of other silica

- induced lung disease (34). It

is possible the mechanisms involved in the development of silicosis are linked to the

carcinogenic process through the produ ction of reactive oxygen species and tissue

responses to immune signals and fibrotic changes (36,37). Some researchers have

developed dose cancer risk estimates from epidemiologic studies by building off risk

estimates for silicosis (34,38,39). A risk asse ssment produced for both silicosis and lung

cancer on the basis of crystalline silica exposures reviews major studies and proposes that

lung cancer incidence may be expected to increase by 14% for each additional 1 (mg/m 3 

# )

work

- year exposure above the base line of 1 (mg/m 3 

# ) work

- year exposure (36). ∗



# The maximum estimated detection of quartz (crystalline silica) in air in lower Manhattan

was 19 μg/m

3 

# J. Using the above risk estimates, the cumulative exposure for 1

- year

continuous exposure 0.08 (mg/m 3 

# ) work

- ye ar poses negligible increased cancer risk.

Although there are uncertainties in this evaluation, current scientific opinion would

indicate short

- term exposures to the measured quartz levels do not pose a health hazard. †



# If the highest measured airborne lev els are representative of long

- term conditions, the

cumulative exposure for a continuous 30

- year residence would exceed the 1 (mg/m 3 

# ) work

year cumulative exposure which is believed to be the departure point for adverse effects

† In order to compare a continuous residential exposure to a workday exposure, the estimated air level was adjusted to

be comparable to a

shorter workday exposure across the entire year.

‡ It should be noted that children might be at slightly higher risk than adults in sensitive populations. However, the

estimated 0.08 (mg/m 3 

## ) work

- year exposure is significantly below the departure thresho ld of 1 mg/m 3 

## per work

- year

exposure, and therefore no adverse effects would be expected.

∗ This estimate was derived by looking at cancer incidence studies and by relating the incidence of lung cancer to

silicosis risk estimates. Both methods provided si milar risk estimates. However it should be noted other authors caution

about directly linking silicosis and lung cancer risk estimates (39).

† There are many uncertainties about whether this risk would be realized. The first is that even though the risk o f cancer

is not linear, the risk estimates treat it as linear (36). Therefore there may be an overestimate of risk at low exposures

compared with the studied populations. The air levels of silica we are examining here are well below those studied in

worker populations; therefore even this small increased risk may be overestimated. Conversely, the studied populations

were adult workers. So risk estimates based on these studies may underestimate risks to children and to adults with

respiratory disorders.

## 36



# for both silicosis and lung cancer. Therefore these data cannot rule out the potential for

long

- term risk. However, the highest airborne level measured during this study is not

necessarily representative of long

- term exposure. In addition, the XRD analysis for quartz

in air is semiqu antitative (i.e., an estimated value). This adds additional uncertainty to the

risk estimation. As presented in the discussion section of this report, it is expected that the

ongoing cleaning of lower Manhattan and natural dispersion should reduce these ma terials

over time, thus reducing long

- term risk. Therefore cleaning should be continued and levels

of respirable crystalline silica monitored, until the data demonstrate that long

- term risk of

adverse health effects is minimal.

6. Synthetic Vitreous Fibe rs

The term synthetic vitreous fibers (SVF) refers to several types of manufactured vitreous

fibers: glass wool, mineral wool, and refractory ceramic fibers (RCF) (41,42). Because

RCF was not found during this investigation, its health effects are not dis cussed. The types

of SVF found in settled surface dust, glass wool and mineral wool, are primarily skin and

upper respiratory tract irritants. Although some data do indicate a potential for pulmonary

effects, no adverse effects on the lung are expected fro m the levels measured in this

investigation.

a. Irritant Effects

The primary short

- term and acute health effects

of SVF are skin, upper respiratory tract, and eye

irritation (42). It is the physical shape and size of

the SVF fibers that cause irrita tion, generally

fibers more than 5 microns in diameter cause

skin irritation (41,43,44). The affected area may

itch and a rash may form. These symptoms

subside as exposure is ended, as the fibers

slowly work themselves out of the affected tissue.

Uppe r respiratory tract irritation due to inhaled

fibers has been reported when fiber concentrations

were greater than 1 f/cc in air (41,42,45).

Generally this type of irritation has been observed in individuals who are manufacturing

and installing SVF insu

lation materials. Although the settled surface dust results indicate

SVF is present in many areas of lower Manhattan, total dust loading is not known. Because

these irritant health effects would be due to the total amount of SVF contact exposure, dust

load ing as well as activity levels would influence whether a particular environment was

irritating. Extremely low levels were detected in the air samples analyzed via SEM. In the

PCM analysis, even if all of the fibers counted are assumed to be SVF, the dete cted

maximum value of 0.003 f/cc is well below the documented level of irritation. These data

indicate that SVF is present at elevated levels in settled surface dust and may be an irritant

under certain conditions, or to sensitive individuals. No long

- term health effects are No long

- term health effects are

expected from the skin and eye

irritation that may have occurred

because of exposure to synthetic

vitreous fibers.

N o adverse pulmonary health effects

are expected from the levels of

airborne synthetic vitreous fibers

measured in this investigation.

## 37



# expected from the skin, eye, or upper respiratory tract irritation related to the SVF

exposure.

b. Pulmonary Effects

SVF less than 3 microns in diameter are respirable and available to enter and deposit in

the pulmonary regions of th e lung (41). Clearance of these fibers from the lung will be

determined by fiber solubility and length (41,42). Fibers cleared from the lung have less

potential to create long

- term health effects. ∗ 

# Although some animal studies have

demonstrated both fibrot

ic and carcinogenic potential for fibrous glass and mineral wools

(41,42,46), more recent studies do not fully support this finding. † 

# Epidemiologic studies on

workers exposed to fibrous glass do not provide consistent evidence of pulmonary effects,

althoug h some effects were noted (42,47). Similarly, when assessing deaths due to lung

cancer in workers exposed to glass wool, studies do not provide strong evidence for

increased risk of cancer deaths attributable to glass wool fiber exposures.

The carcinogeni c potential of fiberglass has been reviewed by several agencies. The IARC

originally classified both glass and mineral wool fibers as Group 2B carcinogens, possibly

carcinogenic to humans, based on animal studies (50). Similarly these materials were

classi fied as carcinogens by the National Toxicology program and the American

Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (41,49). However a review of the

carcinogenic potential of these fibers by IARC in 2001, which takes into account updated

human studies , animal inhalation studies, and mechanistic studies, recommends a change in

this classification. The IARC has announced that the recent monograph designates both

glass and mineral wool as Group 3, unclassifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans, because

of inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and the relatively low biopersistence

of the materials (50).

Although both glass wool and mineral wool have been found at elevated levels in the

settled surface dust in lower Manhattan, airborne levels are extremely low, and well

below a level associated with the worker exposures reviewed in this report. No adverse

pulmonary health effects are expected from the airborne SVF levels measured in this

investigation.

∗ L ess soluble materials have a longer residence time in the lung and therefore have a greater potential to contribute to

tissue damage or malignant disease. Within SVF types, glass fibers and slag wool are considered the most soluble, and

therefore least tox

ic. Mineral wool is less soluble than glass wool. Fibers longer than approximately 15 microns, the

diameter of a macrophage, are also cleared less efficiently, leading to a greater potential for adverse effects (26).

† Early studies often relied upon inje ction and implantation studies, which may not accurately predict a pulmonary

response from inhalation exposures. A review of inhalation studies indicates that glass wool did not cause pulmonary

fibrosis or lung cancer in these animal studies (47). A recent study by Hesterberg indicates no increase in pulmonary

fibrosis or lung cancer even at doses of 222 f/cc, although cancer incidence in control animals was considered high (51).

## 38



# 7. Asbestos

Asbestos refers to a group of natural fibrous silicate minerals of various structures (18).

Used primarily for its fire resistant properties and as an insulation material during the

1900s, asbestos is now known to cause pulmonary damage, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.

Asbestos fibe rs less than 2 microns in diameter and less than 5 microns in length with a 3:1

aspect ratio may enter and deposit in the alveolar and pleural regions of the lung (10).

Material that is not cleared by the normal processes of the lung will remain, resulting in

possible damaged tissue, fibrotic lesions, and cancer (10,52

– 54). Fibers may also migrate

from the lung to the pleural lining, causing mesothelioma. This discussion will focus on the

most studied health effects, asbestosis and cancer. It should be note d that the chrysotile

asbestos found in settled surface dust during this investigation is believed to be cleared

from lungs to a greater degree than other forms of asbestos (10). Therefore the following

review, which considers all forms of asbestos, would be conservative for chrysotile

asbestos exposures.

a. Asbestosis

Asbestosis is similar to other mineral pneumoconiosis of the lung. Fibers are deposited in

the lung and remain due to their insoluble nature and the inability of lung macrophages to

engulf and remove longer fibers (>5 microns in length) (10,54). These fibers can create

localized tissue damage, stimulate the immune system, and create a scarring of the lung.

Asbestosis has been observed in workers exposed over several years to levels much

hi gher than seen environmentally. It is believed the cumulative exposure to asbestos

correlates to the development of asbestosis, and some cases of asbestosis have been

reported with only a brief high exposure documented (55). Because cumulative asbestos

exp osure is believed to be the appropriate metric for assessing asbestos health effects, it is

possible long

- term, continuous low

- level exposures could contribute to asbestosis. Recent

studies of a population exposed to tremolite asbestos in Libby, Montana, d o indicate

increased pleural anomalies, consistent with asbestosis, for individuals who were not

exposed occupationally. Individuals who lived with plant workers or those who had

contact with vermiculite piles containing tremolite had increased odds ratios for these

anomalies (56).

Although asbestos is present in some settled surface dust in lower Manhattan, aggressive

sampling produced a maximum level of 0.003 f/cc (PCM). This level is not high enough to

result in asbestosis after short exposures. Althou gh it is theoretically possible that lower

level environmental exposures could contribute to disease over extended exposures, the

data from this pilot study are too limited to support that finding.

## 39



# b. Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma

Asbe stos exposure is known to increase lung cancer incidence, particularly for high

- level

occupational exposures over an extended period of time (e.g., decades) (10,48,52).

Additionally, some studies have indicated increased lung cancer and mesothelioma due to

high naturally occurring levels of asbestos or low dose environmental exposures (57

– 60).

Longer asbestos fibers can penetrate into the deeper portions of the lung. Because asbestos

is relatively insoluble, longer fibers cannot be physically removed by the body’s immune

systems and may remain in the lung and cause damage. Although the exact mechanism for

lung cancer is not known, it is believed the localized immune response to the asbestos may

contribute to cancer. Fibers may also migrate out of the lung an d cause mesothelioma, a

cancer specific to the lining around the lungs. In general, shorter fibers (less than 5

microns) are more efficiently cleared from the lung and therefore are less potent (10).

Additionally, there is some indication that chrysotile a sbestos is less potent than other

forms of asbestos due to better clearance from the lungs.

EPA has established a cancer slope factor for asbestos to estimate risk in the general

population due to chronic environmental exposures to asbestos (48). ∗ 

# Factors that influence

excess cancer estimates are age at time of exposure, sex, and cigarette smoking (52). †



# EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is used to develop risk estimates for

comparison, with the understanding that smokers will be at higher risk.

Air samples from several indoor areas with asbestos fibers detected in the settled surface

dust did contain fibers as described by PCM analysis (0.001 f/cc to 0.003 f/cc). ‡ 

# Because

∗ This slope factor is based on epidemiologic studies and assumes a linear do se response for cancer, even at very low

environmental doses (0.23 excess cancers per million people exposed for each f/cc of asbestos.) This type of cancer

risk estimate may over predict risk and does not take into account any lower threshold for effect, which may exist.

Additionally, the EPA slope factor was designed to apply equally to all types of asbestos, and all fibers greater than 5

microns in length (IRIS).

† Variability in these factors is not accounted for in the EPA slope factor because it does not include synergistic effects

with the effects of smoking (48).

‡ However, because asbestos as a percentage of settled surface dust was elevated, an area with significant dust may be

capable of generating higher airborne levels of asbestos, especially during high activity. 

# Short

- term exposures to asbestos, even for a continuous year of

exposure at the highest estimated air concentration, are not expected to

result in any adverse health effects.

Assuming worst

- case theoretical assumptions, the highest fiber levels

measured cannot rule out adverse health effects from chronic exposures

(i.e., 30 years), but it is unlikely levels will remain elev ated for that long.

For individuals who conduct frequent cleaning of their residences, as

recommended in this report, or participate in the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency cleaning/sampling program, it is unlikely that their

exposure would resemble th ese worst

- case conditions.

## 40



# none of these air samples were analyzed by TEM, it is not known if they were asbestos

fibers. For this analysis of a worst

- case exposure, it will be assumed they are asbestos.

Four of these samples were taken in common areas during normal daily activity. All other

air samples, including the highest, 0.003 f/cc, were take n in residences that were

aggressively sampled. Using the IRIS slope factor, no appreciable increase in cancer risk

is seen when considering a 1

- year continuous exposure at the highest fiber level cited

(1×10

- 5 

# excess cancer risk).

If the highest measured

PCM levels are assumed to be all asbestos fibers (a worst

- case

assumption) and were representative of long

- term conditions (another worst

- case

assumption), the cumulative exposure for a continuous 30

- year residence would result in a

greater risk estimate for lung cancer and mesothelioma. Therefore these data cannot rule

out the potential for long

- term risk. However, the highest airborne level measured during

this study is not necessarily representative of long

- term exposure nor is the highest level

necessa rily all asbestos fibers. As presented in the discussion section of this report, it is

expected that the ongoing cleaning of lower Manhattan should reduce levels of these

materials over time, thus reducing long

- term risk. Therefore cleaning should be conti nued

and levels of asbestos monitored, until the data demonstrate long

- term risk of lung cancer

and mesothelioma are minimal.

8. Multiple Material Exposures

Each of the materials discussed previously may exist singly or in combination with other

materia ls found in lower Manhattan. The combinations of materials found in this

investigation are described in the discussion of results. When exposures to multiple

materials occur together, there is some potential that the agents may interact with respect to

the ir adverse effects. Agents may be additive if they impact an organ system similarly.

Synergistic and antagonistic effects may also be seen if the agents either potentiate or

disrupt the effects of other agents.

a. Irritant Effects

The effects of the alk

aline minerals are most likely additive, although it should be noted

that not all of the materials are equally caustic. Therefore, cumulative effects on pH would

be the best measure of irritant effects based on the caustic nature of the dust. There may

als o be potentially additive or synergistic effects with the irritant effects of the SVF. The

ability of either caustic action or the mechanical action of the fibers or minerals to degrade

the protective properties of skin and mucus membranes may make tissue more susceptible

to irritant effects. Additionally, because both types of actions may trigger localized immune

responses, these irritants may potentiate each other.

b. Noncancer Pulmonary Effects

Several of the minerals detected contribute to fibrotic l ung damage and may result in

several diseases that reduce lung function including silicosis, asbestosis, other mineral

fibroses, emphysema, and other respiratory disorders. The mechanisms and pathology of

## 41



# these conditions are similar, and the effects of th ese agents may be considered at least

additive. However, each material has a different toxicity based on the mineral properties

of that material. Less biopersistent materials, such as SVF, have the least long

- term

toxicity, and more biopersistent material, such as asbestos, have greater long

- term toxicity.

In general, the order of toxicity may be SVF < mica < silica < asbestos, based on solubility

and availability for clearance. No factors currently exist to combine risk estimates for

these different materi als.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the analytical results of samples taken between November 4 through

December 11, 2001, and information collected during the sampling effort, the New York

City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry make the following conclusions (not in order of importance).

• Total fiber counts of air samples taken in lower Manhattan were similar to the

comparison areas above 59th Street sampled during this investigation. The six

lower Manhattan areas that had elevated total fiber counts were re

- examined by

transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and scanning electron microscopy

(SEM). The TEM and SEM results indicated that neither asbestos nor SVF

contributed to the elevated f iber counts.

• Low levels of asbestos were found in some settled surface dust, primarily below

Chambers Street. Many of the lower Manhattan locations sampled had been

previously cleaned prior to this investigation. No asbestos was detected in the

compari son indoor dust samples taken north of 59th Street. The City of New York

has conducted follow

- up activities at the locations where asbestos was detected in

settled surface dust. Only two follow

- up locations, outdoor areas, required

professional asbestos ab atement. Following

- up activity at the other locations did

not find any asbestos containing materials.

• When compared with the results obtained from the comparison sampling

locations, the lower Manhattan residential areas sampled by this investigation

t ended to have a greater percentage of SVF (primarily fiberglass), mineral

components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite), and mineral components

of building wallboard (gypsum, mica, and halite) in settled surface dust. However,

the frequency of detections and prevalence patterns of these minerals are similar in

both residential areas.

• Exposure to significant amounts of synthetic vitreous fibers (SVF), mineral

components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite), and mineral components

of building wallboard (gypsum) may cause skin rashes, eye irritation, and upper

respiratory irritation, all of which have been voiced as concerns by citizens and

first responders. If the reported irritant effects are associated with World Trade

Center relate d materials, these effects will subside once exposure to SVF, mineral

components of concrete, and mineral components of building wallboard end. Some

## 42 

# people with pre

- existing heart or lung disease (e.g., asthma) or a previous history

of very high levels of exposures (occupational) to SVF, mineral components of

concrete, and mineral components may be more sensitive to the irritant effects of

SVF, mineral components of concrete, and mineral components of building

wallboard.

• Sometimes mineral components of concrete (calcite and portlandite) and mineral

components of building wallboard (gypsum, mica, and halite) were detected in air

samples at higher estimated levels in lower Manhattan residential areas than in

samples taken at comparison residential areas ab ove 59th Street. These detected

mineral levels are orders of magnitude below occupational standards. Although the

occupational standards do not account for sensitive individuals or extended periods

of exposure, they provide a comparison to an established h ealth guidance value.

The levels of minerals seen in airborne dust do not pose potential health hazards

even for a continuous year of exposure at the highest levels detected.

• Some settled surface dust could become airborne if disturbed. Therefore, peop le

could potentially inhale the asbestos, SVF, mineral components of concrete (quartz,

calcite, and portlandite), and mineral components of building wallboard (gypsum,

mica, and halite) found in settled surface dust of some lower Manhattan residences.

Beca use we did not determine the weight of dust present in the areas sampled, it is

not possible to determine whether any particular residence had an elevated dust

loading. Appropriate continued frequent cleaning should minimize exposures.

• Several worst

- ca se assumptions were made in order to assess the potential long

term public health risks of airborne asbestos and quartz. Some of the assumptions

were that no cleaning of indoor spaces has occurred or will occur, all fibers found

in air were asbestos fibers , and the highest levels detected last fall in air represent

long

- term air levels. Using these worst

- case assumptions, prolonged exposure

(decades) to airborne asbestos and quartz may increase the long

- term, theoretical

risk of people developing lung cance r and other adverse lung health effects (more

than 1 additional case in 10,000 people exposed). For individuals who conduct

frequent cleaning of their residences, as recommended in this report, or participate

in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cle aning/sampling program, it is

unlikely that their exposure would resemble these worst

- case conditions.

• A review of the building sampling results from this investigation indicates that

there is not a consistent spatial distribution pattern of asbestos, SVF, mineral

components of concrete, and mineral components of wallboard in air and settled

surface dust. This indicates that the materials are heterogeneously distributed.

There are many factors that may contribute to the heterogeneous distribution,

incl uding whether the area was cleaned (indoors and outdoors), cleaning method,

date since last cleaning, and how much dust was initially in the area. It is not clear

which factors contributed to this trend.

## 43 

# • Results from this investigation do not necessar ily reflect conditions that would

be found in other buildings, at other times just following the collapse, or after the

sampling period. The measurements reflect conditions present at the time of the

sampling (November 4

– December 12, 2001) in the buildings and areas sampled.

The limited number of results obtained from the comparison areas above 59th

Street may or may not reflect the New York City

- specific background levels of

asbestos, SVF, mineral components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite),

and mineral components of building wallboard (gypsum, mica, and halite).

RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the conclusions of this investigation, the New York City Department of

Health and Mental Hygiene and the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry make the following recommendations.

• Because more asbestos, synthetic vitreous fibers (e.g., fiberglass), mineral

components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite), and mineral components

of building wallboard (gypsum, mica, and halite ) were found in settled surface dust

in lower Manhattan residential areas when compared to comparison residential

areas above 59th Street, the New York City Department of Health and Mental

Hygiene and the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Regist ry are

recommending that people continue to conduct frequent cleaning with HEPA

vacuums and damp cloths/mops to reduce the potential for exposure.

• To ensure that the recommended frequent cleaning is effective and to ensure that

the health of people of New York City is protected, the New York City Department

of Health and Mental Hygiene and the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry are recommending additional monitoring of residential areas in

lower Manhattan. In addition, an investigatio n should be conducted to better define

background levels specific to the city of New York for asbestos, synthetic vitreous

fibers, mineral components of concrete (quartz, calcite, and portlandite), and

mineral components of building wallboard (gypsum, mica , and halite).

• Lower Manhattan residents concerned about possible World Trade Center

related dust in their residential areas can request cleaning and/or testing from the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by logging on to the agency's World

Tra de Center Web page at www.epa.gov/wtc or by calling the EPA hotline at 1

-

877

- 796

- 5471.

## 44 

# PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

The Public Health Action Plan (PHAP) for the World Trade Center response contains a

description of actions to be taken by the New York City Department of Health and Mental

Hygiene (NYC DOHMH), the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

(ATSDR), and/or other government agencies. The purpose of the PHAP is to ensure that

this investigation not only identifies potential public health hazards, but also provides a

plan of action designed to mitigate and prevent possible adverse human health effects

resulting from exposure to hazardous substances in the environment.

A. Public Health Actions Taken

Shortly after t

he collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NYC DOHMH staff, along

with other governmental and private organizations, provided respirators and fit checking

for people participating in the recovery operations.

Beginning September 13, 2001, NYC DOHMH staf f coordinated daily conference calls

with the various governmental and private organizations that were conducting

environmental sampling at and around the World Trade Center. These coordination calls

ended in January 2002.

On September 15, 2001, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Labor formed the World

Trade Center Environmental Assessment Working Group. The purpose of the group is to

coordinate public health and occupation al sampling and data review among the three

federal agencies in support of the New York City Department of Health and Mental

Hygiene and the New York State Department of Health. Other governmental (e.g., New

York State Department of Health, New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the New

York City Department of Environmental Protection) and private organizations (unions,

research institutions, companies) participated on the Working Group.

Shortly after September 11, 2001, and through June of 2002, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Departmen t of

Health, and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection conducted

frequent ambient environmental and occupational monitoring of many different types

specifically for the World Trade Center response.

From September 18 through October 4, 2 001, the National Institute for Occupational Safety

and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, conducted occupational sampling

and evaluation of the conditions at the World Trade Center.

From November 4 through December 11, 2001, NYC DOHMH an d ATSDR, with

assistance from the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, conducted limited

sampling of residential areas in lower Manhattan.

## 45



# On February 4, 2002, NYC DOHMH and ATSDR provided the public with the preliminary

findings (asbestos air a nd dust and synthetic vitreous fibers dust sampling results) of the

limited residential sampling investigation conducted in November and December of 2001.

Various public meetings were conducted to provide the public with the most relevant

information.

On February 13, 2002, EPA formed the Indoor Air Task Force to help address the

remaining indoor air quality issues in lower Manhattan.

On March 8, 2002, New York City created the lower Manhattan Air Quality Task Force.

On May 8, 2002, EPA and its federal, state, and city partners announced a comprehensive

plan to ensure that residences impacted by the collapse of the World Trade Center have

been properly cleaned.

On June 1, 2002, lower Manhattan residents concerned about possible World Trade

Center

- related dust in their residential areas could begin to request cleaning and/or testing

from EPA by logging on to the agency's World Trade Center Web page at

www.epa.gov/wtc or by calling the EPA hotline at 1

- 877

- 796

- 5471.

B. Public Health A ctions Planned

During the summer of 2002, EPA and its federal, state, and city partners will conduct

additional sampling of settled surface dust and air of residential areas not impacted by the

collapse of the World Trade Center towers. The purpose of thi s investigation is to better

define the New York City

- specific background levels of asbestos, synthetic vitreous fibers,

and quartz. Mineral components of concrete (calcite and portlandite) and mineral

components of building wallboard (gypsum, mica, and ha lite) will also be investigated.

During the summer of 2002, EPA and its federal, state, and city partners will conduct an

investigation to determine the effectiveness of various cleaning methods to remove World

Trade Center

- related material.

In late summ er/early fall 2002, EPA will begin to conduct cleaning and/or testing of

residential areas requested by lower Manhattan residents.

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the U.S. Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry will establish a unified World Trade Center

Exposure Registry of people who may have been exposed to harmful substances resulting

from the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the U.S. Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry will continue to work with other federal, state, and

local agencies to provide information on the sampling results to the citizens of New York

and to help interpret the possible health effects of contaminants foun d.

## 46 

# REFERENCES

1. Matthews, Kevin. A World Trade Center@

H ttp://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

2. Eagar, Thomas W. and Christopher Musso. Why Did the World Trade Center

Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation.@ JOM, 53(12)(2001): pp. 8

- 11.

3. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney. World Trade Center

-

New York

- Some Engineering Aspects @ Http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm

4. The World Trade Center@ Http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm

5. Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, City of New York. Vehicular and

Pedestrian Restrictions in Manhattan Due to the World Trade Center Terrorist

Attack 2001.

6. Johnson D. World Trade Center History.@ Infoplease.com. 8 2002 Learning

Netw ork. 14 March 2002. Http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html.

7. Quality Assurance Technical Support Laboratory, IT Corporation. “Special

Investigative Audit #14: Environmental Data Trend Report: World Trade Center

Disaster: Final Update for Data Colle cted 9/11/2001 to 4/24/2002 from Lower

Manhattan.@ Contract Number: 68

- W

- 01

- 010. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002.

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. World Trade Center Environmental

Ambient Monitoring Data. Http://www.epa.gov/wtc/

9. U.S. Geological Survey. Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center Area

After the September 11, 2001 Attack. Open File Report OFR

- 01

- 0429. U.S.

Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado: 2001

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Final Methodology for

Conducting Risk Assessments at Asbestos Superfund Sites Part 2: Technical

Background Document, Interim Version, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, San Francisco, CA, 1999.

11. Merck Chemical Index. Merck Research Laboratories, Rahway, N.J., 1998

12. National Institute of Safety and Health. Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., 2001

13. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). TLV

Doc umentation: Calcium Sulfate, 2001.

## 47



# 14. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). TLV

Documentation: Calcium Hydroxide, 2001.

15. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). TLV

Documentation: Calcium Carbonate, 20 01.

16. Hunter D. The Disease of Occupations, 5 th 

# Ed. The English Universities Press,

Ltd., London, 1975.

17. Beal AJ, Griffin OG, Nagelschmidt G. Safety in Mines Research Establishment

(SMRT) Research Report No. 72, 1956.

18. Gary M, McAfee R, and Walb C, editor s. Glossary of Geology. American

Geological Institute, Washington, D.C., 1977.

19. Dreesen WC, Dallavalle JM, Edwards TI, et. al. Pneumoconiosis Among Mica and

Pegmite Workers. Public Health Bull. No. 250, USPHS, Washington, D.C., 1940.

20. Heimann H, Moskowi tz S, Harihara Iyer CR, et.al. Note on Mica Dust Inhalation.

Arch Ind Hyg Occup Med. 1953;8:531

- 532 .

21. Vestal TF, Winstead JA, Joliet PV. Pneumoconiosis among Mica and Pegamite

Workers. Ind Med. 1943;12:11

- 14.

22. Skulberg KR, Glyseth B, Skaug V, Hanoa R. M ica Pneumoconiosis

–A Literature

Review. Scand J Work Env Health. 1985;11:65

- 74.

23. Fulimura N. Pathophysiology of Pneumoconiosis. Current Opinion in Medicine.

2000;6:140

- 144.

24. Berkow R, Ed. The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, 16 th 

# ed. Merck

Resear ch Laboratories, Rahway, N.J. 1992:606

- 611.

25. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). TLV

Documentation: Mica, 2001.

26. Amdur MO, Doull J, Klaassen CD, Editors. Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology: The

Basic Science of Poisons, 4 th 

# ed. McGraw

- Hill Inc, New York, NY, 1993:307

and 402

- 403.

27. National Toxicology Program. Silica, Crystalline (respirable size) in Report on

Carcinogens, 9 th 

# Edition. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National

Toxicology Program, Research Triangl e Park, NC, 2001.

## 48



# 28. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Monograph on Crystalline Silica, in

IARC Monographs of the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans,

International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon,

France, 19 97;68:47.

29. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). TLV

Documentation: Silica, Crystalline

- Quartz, 2001.

30. Hessel PA, Gambel JF, Gee BL, Mossman BT, et.al. Silica, Silicosis and Lung

Cancer: A Response to a Recent Working group R eport. J of Occup and Env Med.

2000;42(7):704

- 720.

31. Parks CG, Conrad K, and Cooper GS. Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica

and Autoimmune Disease. Environmental Health Perspectives, 1999;107 (suppl.

5):793

- 802.

32. Masson C, AudranM, Pascaretti C, Chevailler A, Subra JF, Tuchais E, and Kahn

MF. Silica Associated systemic erythematosus lupus or mineral dust lupus. Lupus.

1997; 6:1

- 3.

33. Koeger AC, Lang T, Alcaix D, Milleron B, et. al. Silica Associated Connective

Tissue Disease: A study of 24 Cas es. Medicine. 1995;74(5):221

- 237.

34. Finkelstein MM. Silica, Silicosis and Lung cancer: A Risk Assessment. Am J of

Ind Med. 2000;38:8

- 18.

35. Gift JS and Faust RA. Noncancer Inhalation Toxicology of Crystalline Silica:

Exposure

- Response Assessment. J Exp A nalysis and Env Epi. 1997;7:3.

36. Saffiotti U, Lambert ND, Mao Y, Shi X, Williams AO, and Kaighn ME.

Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis by Crystalline Silica in Relation to Oxygen

Radicals. Env Health Perspectives. 1994;102(suppl. 10):159

- 164 .

37. Shi X, Castranov a V, Halliwell B, and Vallyathan V. Reactive Oxygen Species

and Silica

- Induced Carcinogenesis. J of Toxicology and Env Health, part B,

1998;1:181

- 197.

38. Weill H and McDonald JC. Occupational Lung Disease: 1

–Exposure to

Crystalline Silica and risk of lu ng cancer: the epidemiological evidence. Thorax.

1996;51(1):97

- 102.

39. Goldsmith D. Evidence for Silica’s neoplastic risk among workers and derivation

of cancer risk assessment. J of Exp Analysis and Env Epi. 1997;7(3):291

- 301.

40. Checkoway H and Franzblau A. Is Silicosis Required for Silica

- associated Lung

cancer? Am J of Ind Med. 2000;37:252

- 259.

## 49



# 41. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). TLV

Documentation: Manmade Vitreous Fibers (MMVF), 2001.

42. Agency for Toxic Substances and Dise ase Registry. Technical Briefing Paper:

Health Effects from Exposure to Fibrous Glass, Rock Wool or Slag Wool. Agency

for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Atlanta, GA, 2002.

43. Heisel EB and Hunt FE. Furth er Studies in Cutaneous Reactions to Glass Fibers.

Arch Env Health. 1968;17:705

- 711.

44. Stam

- Westerveld EB, Coenraads PJ, Van Der Valk, et.al. Rubbing test response of

the skin to man

- made vitreous fibers of different diameters. Contact Dermatitis

1994;31( 1):1

- 4.

45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Man

- made vitreous fibers and health, In:

Proceedings of the National Workshop on Substitutes for Asbestos. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA No. 560/3

- 80

- 001, 329

- 342.

46. International Agency for Resea rch on Cancer. Monograph on Man

- made Mineral

Fibers, in IARC Monographs of the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans,

International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon,

France, 1988;43:39.

47. Bunn WB, Bender JR, et. al. Recen t Studies of Man

- made Vitreous Fibers:

Chronic Animal Inhalation Studies. J Occup Med. 1993;35(2):101

- 113.

48. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Monograph Asbestos (Actinolite,

amosite, anthophyllite, chrysotile, crocidolite, tremolite), in IARC Mo nographs of

the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, International Agency for Research

on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France, 1987;Supp 7:106.

49. National Toxicology Program. Glasswool in Report on Carcinogens, 9 th 

# Edition.

U.S. Departm

ent of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program,

Research Triangle Park, NC, 2001.

50. International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Monographs Program re

evaluates carcinogenic risks from Airborne man

- made vitreous fibers, International

Age ncy for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France,

http://www.iarc.fr/pageroot/PRELEASES/pr137a.html

.

51. Hesterberg TW, Miller WC, McConnell EE, et. al. Chronic inhaltion tox icity of

size

- separated glass fibers in Fischer 344 rats. Fund Appl Toxicol 1993;20:464

-

76.

## 50



# 52. EPA, Airborne Asbestos Health Assessment Update, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, EPA No. 600/8

- 84/003F, 1986.

53. Osinubi OYO, Cochfeld M, and Kipen HM. Healt h Effect of Asbestos and

Nonasbestos Fibers. Env Health Perspectives. 2000;108(suppl. 4):665

- 674.

54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Asbestos, From: Integrated Risk

Information Systems (IRIS) Database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

http//www. epa.gov/iris/subst/0371.htm. (Last revised 1993).

55. Wright RS, Abraham JL, Harber P, Burnett BR, Morris P, and West P. Fatal

asbestosis 50 years after brief high intensity exposure in a vermiculite expansion

plant. Am. J. Respir. Crit Care Med. 2002;1165: 1145

- 1149.

56. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Report on Libby Montana.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Atlanta, GA, 2001.

57. Schneider J, Straif K, and Woitowitz HJ. Plural mes othelioma and household

asbestos exposure. Rev on Env Health. 1996;11(1

- 2):65

- 70.

58. Magnani C, Dalmasso P, Biggeri A, Ivaldi C, Mirabelli D, and Terracini B.

Increased risk of malignant mesothelioma of the pleura after residential or domestic

exposure to a sbestos: A case

- control study in Casale Monferrato, Italy. Env Health

Perspectives. 2001;109(9):915

- 919.

59. Hillerdal G. Mesothelioma: cases associated with non

- occupational and low dose

exposure. Occupational and Env Med. 1999;56(8):505

- 513 .

60. Rom WN, Ham

mat SP, Rusch V, Dodson R, and Hoffman S. Malignant

mesothelioma from neighborhood exposure to anthophyllite asbestos. Am J of Ind

Med, 2001;40:211

- 214.

## 51 

# AUTHORS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Jessica Leighton, PhD

Nancy Loder Jeffery, RN, MPH

Christopher D’Andrea, MS

Kenneth Carlino, MS

Jim Miller, MD

CAPT Thomas Matte, MD, MPH

Vincent Coluccio, Dr.PH

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

DHAC World Trade C enter Response Team:

RADM Robert C. Williams, PE, DEE

CAPT Sven Rodenbeck, ScD, PE, DEE

CAPT Virginia Lee, MD, MPH, MA

Lynn Wilder, MS, CIH

CDR Danielle DeVoney, PhD, PE

LCDR Sue Neurath, PhD

Loretta Bush

Technical Support Team:

Janet L. Heitgerd, PhD

Louisa M. Rosenberg, MA

B. Kathy Skipper, MA, APR

Pam S. Uveges

Technical Consultation Team:

John Wheeler, PhD

Susan Moore, MS

Karl Markewitz, PhD

CDR Peter Kowalski, MPH, CIH, CSP

LCDR Clement J. Welsh, PhD, MPH

David Mel lard, PhD

Debra Gable, MS

Greg Zarus, MS

On

- Site Technical Team:

CAPT Robert Johnson, MD

LCDR Tim Walker, MPH, RS, CIH

CAPT Ralph C. O’Connor, Jr., PhD

CDR Stephen Blackwell, RS, MPH

CDR Joe Maloney, REHS, MPH

CDR Richard Sullivan, REHS

CDR Mark D. Miller, RS, MPH

## 52 

# LCDR Ketna Mistry, MD

Barbara M. Cooper, MSPH

John R. Crellin, PhD

LCDR Clement J. Welsh, PhD, MPH

Christine Roshheim, DDS, MPH

Diane M. Drew, RN, MPA

Dona L. Orti, MS, MPH

LT Steve Dearwent, MPH

CDR Stev en Inserra, MPH, RS

David R. Fowler, PhD

Azania A. Heyward

- James, MEd

LCDR Robert B. Knowles, MS, REHS

Annmarie DePasquale, MPH

Dianyi Yu, MD

LT Tarah Somers

Grant Baldwin, MPH, CHES

Debra Gable, MS

U.S. Public Health Service Co mmissioned Corps Readiness Force (Sampling Teams)

CAPT Cliff Moseley, MS, CIH

CDR Richard E. Turner, REHS, MPH

LCDR Alan Parham, MPH, REHS

CDR Leo Blade, CIH

LCDR Richard A. Orlando, MSEH

CDR Daniel Almagure, MS, RS

LCDR Jeffery A. Church, REHS, MPH

CDR Tim Radtke, CIH

LT Hayden R. Hardie, CIH

LCDR Robert B. Knowles, MS, REHS

LCDR Nathan C. Tatum, PE

New York State Department of Health

Robert Chinery

Randi J. Walker

## 53



# World Trade Center Environmental Assessment Working Group

Formed on September 15, 2001, the World Trade Center Environmental

Assessment Working Group is made up of representatives from the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, and the U.S. Department of Labor. Other gov ernmental (e.g., New York

State Department of Health, New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and New

York City Department of Environmental Protection) and private organizations

(unions , research institutions, companies) participated on the Working Group. The

purpose of the group is to coordinate public health and occupational sampling and

data review among the three federal agencies in support of the New York City

Department of Health a nd Mental Hygiene and the New York State Department of

Health.

## 54 

# TABLES

## 55 

# Table 1

General Information on the World Trade Center Towers

Height Tower One: 1,368 feet Tower Two: 1,362 feet

Weight 1.5 million tons

Statistics 110 floors

6 basements (with 2 subway stations and PATH train station)

1 underground mall

43,600 windows

97 passenger elevators and 6 freight elevators

300 computer mainframes

Air conditioning had 60,000 tons of cooling capacity

Rentable Space 43,200 square feet per floor 10,000,000 total square feet

Owners an

d Operators Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Groundbreaking August 5, 1966

Opening Ceremony April 4, 1973 (Parts were opened between 1970

– 1973)

Steel: 200,000 tons

Concrete: 425,000 cubic yards

Glass: 600,00 0 square feet Construction Materials

Electric cables: 12,000 miles

Table 2

2000 Census Block Level Population

Distance From WTC Total Population Housing Units

One

- Quarter Mile 6,965 4,617

One

- Half Mile 17,596 10,768

Three

- Quarter Mile 29,667 16,482

The 16

- acre site of the World Trade Center was buffered, and an aerial proportion technique

was used to estimate the number of persons living in the area.

## 56 

# Table 3

Number of Buildings and Areas Within Buildings Sampled for Settled Surface Dust:

Analyzed for

Asbestos by PLM a 

# and TEM b 

# , SVF c 

# by PLM, and Minerals by XRD d



## Due to available sample size and analytical objectives, some samples were not analyzed by each method.

Lower Manhattan Above 59th Street

Buildings 29 4

Residential Units 57 5

Common Areas 2 6 3

Outdoors 14 0



# Table 4

Number of Buildings and Areas Within Buildings Sampled for Fibers in Air:

Analyzed for Total Fibers by PCM e 

# , Asbestos by TEM, and SVF by SEM f



## Lower Manhattan Above 59th Street

Total Fibers

(PCM) Asbestos

(TEM) SVF (SEM) Tot al Fibers

(PCM) Asbestos

(TEM) SVF (SEM)

Buildings 30 5 4 4 0 4

Residential Units 59 3 3 5 0 5

Common Areas 29 3 2 3 0 1

Outdoors 29 0 0 3 0 3



# Table 5

Number of Locations Sampled for Minerals in Airborne Dust,

Analyzed by XRD for Minerals

Lower Man

hattan Above 59th Street

PM100 PM10 PM4 PM2.5 PM100 PM10 PM4 PM2.5

Buildings 26 28 30 10 3 4 4 3

Residential

Units 47 52 57 18 3 5 5 2

Common

Areas 26 27 29 8 2 2 3 2

Outdoors 26 26 29 8 2 3 3 2

Notes:

a. PLM = polarized light microscopy

b. TEM = transmis sion electron microscopy

c. SVF = synthetic vitreous fibers

d. XRD = x

- ray diffraction

e. PCM = phase contrast microscopy

f. SEM = scanning electron microscopy

Settled surface dust and air samples could not always be obtained together from the same sampling location

.

## 57 Table 6

Summary of Locations With Asbestos or Synthetic Vitreous Fibers (SVF) in Settled Surface Dust

Sampling locations that had either asbestos in the dust by PLM or TEM analysis or SVF in the settled surface d ust by

PLM analysis. Ranges of asbestos and SVF values for each type of location are included.



## Sampling

Locations:

Lower

Manhattan Total Number of

Locations Sampled a 

## Number of

Locations with

Asbestos in

Settled Surface

Dust

(% of locations

detected) b 

## R ange of

Asbestos Found c 

## Number of

Locations with

SVF in Settled

Surface Dust

(% of

locations

detected) d 

## Range of

SVF Found e



## Outdoor Asbestos (PLM) = 14

Asbestos (TEM) = 12

SVF (PLM) = 14 6

(43%) <1%

– 3.4 % 11

(79%) 1%

– 72%



## Common Asbestos ( PLM) = 26

Asbestos (TEM) = 25

SVF (PLM) = 26 5

(19%) <1%

– 1.5% 14

(54%) 5%

– 27%



## Residential Asbestos (PLM) = 57

Asbestos (TEM) = 52

SVF (PLM) = 57 10

(18%) <1%

– 1.5% 26

(46%) 2%

– 35% f



## Whole

Building Asbestos (PLM) = 29

Asbes tos (TEM) = 29

SVF (PLM) = 29 12

(41%) <1%

– 3.4% 21

(72%) 2%

– 72%



## Sampling

Locations:

Comparison

Buildings Total Number of

Locations Sampled a 

## Number of

Locations With

Asbestos in

Settled Surface

Dust

(% of locations

detected) b 

## Range of

Asb estos Found c 

## Number of

Locations

With SVF in

Settled

Surface Dust

(% of

locations

detected) d 

## Range of

SVF Found e



## Common Asbestos (PLM) = 3

Asbestos (TEM) = 3

SVF (PLM) = 3 0

(0%) None Detected

by PLM or TEM 0

(0%) None Detected

by PLM



## R esidential Asbestos (PLM) = 5

Asbestos (TEM) = 4

SVF (PLM) = 5 0

(0%) None Detected

by PLM or TEM 0

(0%) None Detected

by PLM

Notes:

a. All dust samples were initially analyzed by polarized light microscopy (PLM). Transmission electron microsco py (TEM)

analysis was performed to confirm the absence of asbestos if not detected by PLM analysis.

b. The number of locations containing asbestos in dust reflects locations with asbestos detected by either PLM or TEM

(reported as <1% or more). The percentage of locations with asbestos detected is calculated from the total number of dust

samples.

c. The range represents the highest value detected at a location (PLM or TEM).

d. The percentage of locations with synthetic vitreous fibers (SVF) detected is calculated fr om the number of SVF PLM

samples.

e. Some locations had an additional co

- located sample obtained, the range shown considers the highest measured value for

each sampling location.



## f. One residential unit had an extra settled surface dust sample (taken from a wind ow sill), which contained 40% SVF by PLM.

## 58 Table 7

Summary of Mineral Components of Settled Surface Dust by Sampling Location

Outdoor Settled Surface Dust of Lower Manhattan

Number of

Occurrences,

14 samples

total a 

## Minimum

Detected

(% by weight) Maximum

Detected

(% by weight) Average of

Detections

(% by weight) Number

Above

Comparison

b



## Quartz 14 (100%) 1 J d 

## 27 J 12 J NA c



## Calcite 1 3 (93%) 0.8 J 19 J 6 J NA



## Portlandite 12 (86%) 0.07 J 6 J 2 J NA



## Gypsum 11 (79%) 0.03 J 27 J 6 J NA



## Mica 9 (64%) 0.05 J 0.3 J 0.1 J NA



## Halite 7 (50%) <0.03 J 0.1 J 0.05 J NA Outdoor samples were not taken from comparison areas above

59th Street beca use no settled surface dust was visible.

Common Area Settled Surface Dust of Lower Manhattan Common Areas of Com parison Areas Above 59th Street

Number of

Occurrences,

26 samples

total a 

## Minimum

Detected

(% by weight) Maximum

Detected

(% by weight) Average of

Detections

(% by weight) Number

Above

Comparison

b 

## Number of

Occurrences,

3 samples total

a 

## Minimum

Detecte d

(% by weight) Maximum

Detected

(% by weight) Average of

Detected Values

(% by weight)



## Quartz 21 (81%) 0.03 J 25 J 5 J 6 (23%) 2 (67%) 1 J 1 J NA



## Calcite 15 (58%) 0.02 J 10 J 3 J 9 (35%) 2 (67%) 0.03 J 0.4 J NA



## Portlandite 13 (50%) 0.04 J 4 J 2 J 9 (35 %) 1 (33%) 0.05 J 0.05 J NA



## Gypsum 23 (88%) 0.07 J 20 J 5 J 6 (23%) 2 (67%) 2 J 3 J NA



## Mica 5 (19%) 0.06 J 0.6 J 0.2 J 5 (19%) 0 (0%) ND ND NA



## Halite 4 (15%) 0.04 J 0.06 J 0.05 J 1 (4%) 1 (33%) 0.04 J 0.04 J NA

Residential Units Settled Surface Dust o f Lower Manhattan Residential Units of Comparison Areas Above 59th Street

Number of

Occurrences,

57 samples

total a 

## Minimum

Detected

(% by weight) Maximum

Detected

(% by weight) Average of

Detections

(% by weight) Number

Above

Comparison

b 

## Number of

Occurr ences,

5 samples

total a 

## Minimum

Detected

(% by weight) Maximum

Detected

(% by weight) Average of

Detected Values

(% by weight)



## Quartz 30 (53%) 0.05 J 31 J 9 J 15 (26%) 2 (40%) 1 J 2 J NA



## Calcite 20 (35%) 0.02 J 21 J 8 J 13 (23%) 1 (20%) 0.9 J 0.9 J NA



## Portlandite 21 (37%) 0.05 J 8 J 2 J 17 (30%) 2 (40%) 0.08 J 0.08 J NA



## Gypsum 45 (79%) 0.05 J 30 J 4 J 9 (16%) 4 (80%) 2 J 4 J 3 J



## Mica 5 (9%) 0.03 J 0.3 J 0.1 J 1 (2%) 1 (20%) 0.08 J 0.08 J NA



## Halite 6 (11%) 0.03 J 0.1 J 0.06 J 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 0.4 J 0.4 J NA

a. Shows the number of samples where the mineral was detected and the percentage based on the number of samples obtained from this area.

b. Shows the number of results, and the percentage of samples obtained from this area, that had estimated values great er than the maximum levels found at locations above 59th Street.

c. NA = not applicable.



## d. J = estimated.

## 59 

# Table 8

Summary of Results for Locations With Airborne Fiber Levels

Higher Than Levels in Comparison Areas Above 59th Street.

Air samples were collect

ed and analyzed by phase contrast microscopy for total fibers

(NIOSH 7400). All samples with fiber counts higher than the comparison areas above 59th Street were

re

- analyzed to determine if those fibers were asbestos, synthetic vitreous fibers (SVF), or ot her material.

Building

(Area) Aggressive

Sampling a 

## Fibers in Air by

PCM

(f/cc) b 

## Asbestos in

Dust by PLM

or TEM c 

## Asbestos in Air

by TEM

(f/cc) b 

## SVF in Dust

by PLM SVF in Air by

SEM

(f/cc) b



## 1

(Residence) No 0.006 ND g 

## <0.001 d 

## 20% 0.000162

2

(Com mon) No 0.005 ND g 

## <0.001 d 

## 27% 0.000255

19

(Common) No Overloaded e 

## ND g 

## <0.006 f 

## ND Not analyzed

24

(Residence) No 0.005 ND g 

## <0.001 d 

## 10% 0.000037

26

(Common) No 0.004 ND g 

## <0.001 d 

## 5% <0.00004

26

(Residence) No 0.012 ND g 

## <0.001 d 

## ND <0.00004

a. Aggressive sampling refers to a technique used in some residential units where the vacuum exhaust (used for

settled dust sample collection) was used to stir up the settled surface dust before the air sampling began.

b. f/cc = fibers in each cub ic centimeter (cc) of air as determined using phase contrast microscopy (PCM),

transmission electron microscopy (TEM), or scanning electron microscopy (SEM) methods. This is calculated

from the number of fibers seen on the air filter and the volume of air pulled through the filter measured in cubic

centimeters of air.

c. Value shown represents the highest of polarized light microscopy (PLM) or TEM results for this area.

d. The TEM method employed here, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 7402, counts

fibers of the same size as those detected by PCM analysis. Fibers reported here are greater than or equal to 5

microns in length and 0.25 microns in width.



## e. A building renovation project was occurring near the area of this sampling equipment. C onstruction dust and

building insulation material may have influenced this sample.



## f. Sample processing of the overloaded filter involved transferring the material to a new filter; this process provides

less analytical sensitivity, resulting in a higher detec tion limit.



## g. ND = not detected.

## 60 Table 9

Summary of Airborne Fibers at Locations Where Asbestos Was Detected in Settled Surface Dust

Outdoor Areas in Lower Manhattan

Building Area Asbestos in Dust

(PLM or TEM) a 

## SVF in Dust (PLM) b 

## Aggressive

Sa mpling

c 

## Fibers in Air

(PCM) d



## 1 Outdoor <1% 22% No 0.001 f/cc

2 e 

## Outdoor 1.3% 28% No 0.003 f/cc

5 Outdoor 3.4% 25% No 0.002 f/cc

7 Outdoor 1.7% 35% No <0.001 f/cc

15 Outdoor 1.9% 72% No <0.001 f/cc

27 Outdoor <1% 15% No <0.001 f/cc

Common Areas in L ower Manhattan

Building Area Asbestos in Dust

(PLM or TEM) a 

## SVF in Dust (PLM) b 

## Aggressive

Sampling c 

## Fibers in Air

(PCM) d



## 4 Common <1% 15% No 0.001 f/cc

6 Common <1% 10% No <0.001 f/cc

10 Common 1.5% 20% No 0.002 f/cc

24 Common <1% 5% No 0.001 f/cc

27 Common <1% 10% No <0.001 f/cc

Residential Units in Lower Manhattan

Building Area Asbestos in Dust

(PLM or TEM) a 

## SVF in Dust (PLM) b 

## Aggressive

Sampling c 

## Fibers in Air

(PCM) d



## 4 Residence 1 <1% 2% Yes <0.001 f/cc

4 Residence 2 <1% 5% Yes 0.001 f/cc

5 Residence 1 <1% 10% Yes 0.002 f/cc

5 Residence 2 <1% 20% Yes <0.001 f/cc

9 Residence 1 <1% 2% Yes 0.001 f/cc

9 Residence 2 <1% 5% Yes 0.003 f/cc

11 Residence 1 <1% ND Yes <0.001 f/cc

11 Residence 2 1.5% ND Yes <0.001 f/cc

15 Residence 1 <1% ND Yes <0 .001 f/cc

27 Residence 1 <1% 10% No <0.001 f/cc

a. Value shown is highest of the reported polarized light microscopy (PLM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)

results for this area.

b. SVF = synthetic vitreous fibers. Measured by PLM analysis.

c. Aggressiv e sampling refers to a technique used in some residential units where the vacuum exhaust (used for settled dust

sample collection) was used to stir up the settled surface dust before the air sampling began.

d. f/cc = the fibers in each cubic centimeter (cc) o f air. This is calculated from the number of fibers seen on the air filter and the

volume of air pulled through the filter measured in cubic centimeters.



## e. Building 2 also had a co

- located dust sample; values represent the highest measured result.

## 61 Table 10

Summary of Airborne Fibers at Locations Where Only Synthetic Vitreous Fibers (SVF) Were Detected in

Settled Surface Dust

Outdoor Areas in Lower Manhattan

Building Area Asbestos in Dust

(PLM or TEM) a 

## SVF in Dust (PLM) b 

## Aggressive

Sampling c 

## Fibers in Air

(PCM) d



## 18 Outdoor ND f 

## 30% No <0.001 f/cc

24 Outdoor ND f 

## 55% No 0.002 f/cc

28 Outdoor ND f 

## 15% No <0.001 f/cc

Common Areas in Lower Manhattan

Building Area Asbestos in Dust

(PLM or TEM) a 

## SVF in Dust (PLM) b 

## Aggressive

Sampling c 

## Fibers in Air

(PCM) d



## 2 C ommon ND f 

## 27% No 0.005 f/cc e



## 7 Common ND f 

## 5% No 0.001 f/cc

14 Common ND f 

## 5% No 0.003 f/cc

25 Common ND f 

## 5% No <0.001 f/cc

26 Common ND f 

## 5% No 0.004 f/cc e



## 28 Common ND f 

## 10% No 0.001 f/cc

Residential Units in Lower Manhattan

Building Area Asbestos in Dust

(PLM or TEM) a 

## SVF in Dust (PLM) b 

## Aggressive

Sampling c 

## Fibers in Air

(PCM) d



## 1 Residence 1 ND f 

## 20% No 0.006 f/cc e



## 1 Residence 2 ND f 

## 20% Yes <0.001 f/cc

2 Residence 1 ND f 

## 25% No <0.001 f/cc

2 Residence 2 ND f 

## 20% Yes 0.002 f/cc

6 Residence 1 ND f 

## 1 5% Yes <0.001 f/cc

6 Residence 2 ND f 

## 15% Yes <0.001 f/cc

7 Residence 2 ND f 

## 5% No <0.001 f/cc

10 Residence 1 ND f 

## 15% Yes 0.001 f/cc

10 Residence 2 ND f 

## 10% Yes 0.001 f/cc

12 Residence 1 ND f 

## 5% No 0.001 f/cc

12 Residence 2 ND f 

## 5% Yes <0.001 f/cc

13 Res idence 1 ND f 

## 10% Yes 0.003 f/cc

15 Residence 2 ND f 

## 5% Yes <0.001 f/cc

18 Residence 1 ND f 

## 30% No 0.002 f/cc

18 Residence 2 ND f 

## 35% No 0.002 f/cc

24 Residence 2 ND f 

## 10% No 0.005 f/cc e



## 25 Residence 1 ND f 

## 5% No <0.001 f/cc

27 Residence 2 ND f 

## 10% No <0.00 1 f/cc

a. Value shown is highest of the reported polarized light microscopy (PLM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)

results for this area.

b. SVF = synthetic vitreous fibers. Measured by PLM analysis.

c. Aggressive sampling refers to a technique used in s ome residential units where the vacuum exhaust (used for settled dust

sample collection) was used to stir up the settled surface dust before the air sampling began.

d. f/cc = the fibers in each cubic centimeter (cc) of air. This is calculated from the number of fibers seen on the air filter and the

volume of air pulled through the filter measured in cubic centimeters.



## e. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and TEM results for these air samples are available and shown on Table 8.



## f. ND = not detected.

## 62 

# Table 11

Summa ry of Minerals in Indoor and Outdoor Air From Lower Manhattan and Comparison Buildings Above 59th Street a , b, c



## Air Samples from Lower Manhattan Air Samples From Comparison Buildings

Number

of

Samples Quartz Calcite Portlandite Gypsum Mica Halite Numb er

of

Samples Quartz Calcite Portlandite Gypsum Mica Halite



## PM 100

Number

(Frequency

detected %)

Air Concentration

( μ g/m 3 

### ) 101 14 (14%) d



### 3

– 13 J e 

### 9 (9%)

3

– 14 J 8 (8%)

16

– 95 J 24 (24%)

3

– 14 J 2 (2%)

9

– 13 J 4 (4%)

4

– 14 J 7 ND f 

### ND N D 1 (14%)

3 J ND ND



## PM 10

Number

(Frequency

detected %)

Air Concentration

( μ g/m 3 

### ) 105 11 (10%)

3

– 12 J e 

### 10 (10%)

3

– 5 J 10(10%)

14

– 25 J 33 (31%)

3

– 14 J 1 (1%)

8 J 5 (5%)

4

– 5 J 10 ND ND ND 3 (30%)

3 J ND ND



## PM 4

Number

(Frequency

detected %)

Air Concentration

( μ g/m 3 

### ) 114 13 (11%)

4

– 19 J 13 (11%)

4

– 10 J 12 (11%)

21

– 84 J 40 (35%)

4

– 15 J 4 (4%)

14

– 43 J 3 (3%)

7

– 19 J 11 ND ND ND 3 (27%)

5 J ND ND



## PM 2.5

Number

(Frequency

detected %)

Air Conce ntration

( μ g/m 3 

### ) 34 1 (3%)

3 J ND ND 1 (3%)

3 J ND ND

6 ND ND ND 1 (17%)

3 J ND ND

Range of Detection Limits ( μ g/m 3 

### )

PM 100

PM 10

PM 4

PM 2.5 2

– 5 J

2

– 5 J

4

– 6 J

2

– 4 J 2

– 5 J

2

– 5 J

4

– 6 J

2

– 4 J 12

– 26 J

12

– 26 J

20

– 30 J

13

– 20 J 2

– 5 J

2

– 5 J

4

– 6 J

2

– 4 J 7

– 15 J

7

– 15 J

11

– 17 J

7

– 11 J 4

– 8 J

4

– 8 J

6

– 9 J

4

– 6 J 2

– 5 J

2

– 5 J

4

– 6 J

2

– 4 J 2

– 5 J

2

– 5 J

4

– 6 J

2

– 4 J 12

– 26 J

12

– 26 J

20

– 30 J

13

– 20 J 2

– 5 J

2

– 5 J

4

– 6 J

2

– 4 J 7

– 15 J

7

– 15 J

11

– 17 J

7

– 11 J 4

– 8 J

4

– 8 J

6

– 9 J

4

– 6 J

a. Where two samples were co

- lo cated

— the greatest value of the two was included in this summary. Each location is only represented once in this table.

b. Concentrations shown are estimated values, indicated by “J.”

c. Air samples from all locations, indoor and outdoor, are pooled in this tabl e due to uncertainties in the data.

d. Cristobalite, a different crystalline form of silica, was found in one Lower Manhattan air sample at 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air ( μ g/m 3 

### ) J in the PM 100 fraction.

e. J = estimated.

f. ND = not detected.

## 63 

# Table 12

Hig hest Amount of Materials Measured in the Indoor Settled Dust of Each Building

Building Number Quartz

(%) a, d, e 

## Gypsum

(%) a, d, e 

## Asbestos

(%) b, f 

## SVF

(%) c, f



## Comparison

Locations 31

- 34 2 J 4 J Non

- Detect Non

- Detect

1 31 J 30 J Non

- Detect 20

2 23 J 14 J Non

- Detect 27

3 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

4 14 J 9 J <1 15

5 11 J 9 J <1 20

6 27 J 20 J <1 15

7 21 J 15 J Non

- Detect 5

8 28 J 17 J Non

- Detect Non

- Detect

9 25 J 16 J <1 7

10 3 J 0.8J 1.5 20

11 2 J 2 J 1.5 Non

- Detect

12 4 J 1 J Non

- Detect 5

13 0.05 J 1 J Non

- Detect 10

14 0.03 J 2 J Non

- Detect 5

15 0.4 J 1 J <1 5

16 Non

- Detect 0.9 J Non

- Detect Non

- Detect

17 2 J 2 J Non

- Detect 2

18 0.9 J 1 J Non

- Detect 35

19 1 J 2 J Non

- Detect Non

- Detect

20 0.9 J 1 J Non

- Detect Non

- Detect

21 0.9 J 2 J Non

- Detect Non

- Detect

22 14 J 2 J Non

- Detect 3

23 2 J 1 J Non

- Detect Non

- Detect

24 0.03 J Non

- Detect <1 10

25 Non

- Detect 2 J Non

- Detect 5

26 0.7 J 2 J Non

- Detect 5

27 0.04 J 1 J <1 10

28 Non

- Detect 1 J Non

- Detect 10

29 1 J 2 J Non

- Detect Non

- Detect

30 1 J 4 J Non

- Detect Non

- Detect

a. Minerals were measured by XRD. Quartz is considered representative of the relative presence of portlandite

and calcite (all are associated with concrete).

b. Asbestos value represents the highest o f the PLM and TEM result for each location.

c. SVF is synthetic vitreous fiber and was measured by PLM.

d. Results shown are estimated values, indicated by “J.”

e. % = weight of mineral per weight of dust.

f. % = roughly area of fibers per area of dust.

## 64 

# FIGURES

## 65

## 66

## 67

## 68

## 69

## 70

## 71

## 72

## 73

## 74

## 75

## 76

## 77

## 78

## 79

## 80

## 81

## 82 

# SAMPLING EVENT PHOTOGRAPHS

## 83



# Photo 1. Residential Vacuum Sample

Photo 2. Residential Air Sampling

## 84



# Photo 3. Residential Air Sampling

Photo 4. Residential Air Sampling

## 85



# Photo 5. Residential Air Sampling

Photo 6. Resid

ential Air Sampling

## 86



# Photo 7. Outside Bulk Sampling

Photo 8. Sampling Head

## 87 

# APPENDICES

## 88 

# Appendix A. Particulate Matter Quality Assur ance/Quality Control Discussion

## 89



# General Notes on Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures

Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures are used to ensure the precision, accuracy,

completeness, representativeness, comparability, and method de tection limit of the results. The co

located samples and blanks are a primary means of assessing each of the data quality indicators.

Comparing the results of two co

- located samples provides information on the precision of the

results as a whole. Comparing sample results to their associated blanks can help identify some

potential errors in accuracy. Comparing the results received to those expected and necessary to

draw conclusions about the data can help in understanding the completeness and reliability of the

results. Comparability can be assessed by looking at the results taken from different sampling

locations of the same building

— or from different buildings for the same type of location. The

reviews are generally qualitative and provide a qualitative ass essment of how well the data

actually represents the sampled location.

The method detection limit is a more quantitative review. It is accomplished by calculating the

lowest result the analytical method can accurately identify. It is based on an analysis of the blank

samples and is specific for the sampling/analysis method. Reliable information can only be

obtained from sample results with method detection limits significantly lower than the average

value of the results and significantly lower than any com parison values to which the sample results

will be compared.

The analytical results of the concentration of airborne particulate matter were provided by the

laboratory as the initial weight of the filter prior to the sampling event and the final weight of the

filter after the sampling event. The concentration of the particulate matter was calculated by

dividing the weight of the material collected on the filter by the volume of air drawn through the

filter by the pump using the following formulas.

Weight Gain of Filter = Final Weight

–Initial Weight

Sample Volume = Average Pump Flow Rate × Sample Collection Time

Average Air Sampling Pump Flow Rate=(Presampling Flow Rate + Postsampling Flow Rate) ÷ 2

Concentration = Weight Change ÷ Sample Volume

Airbor ne Particulate Matter Sample Results

Each area that was sampled for airborne asbestos was also sampled for airborne particulate matter

(PM). The sample results from the PM measurements did not meet the data QA/QC objectives. A

variety of statistical and g raphical analyses were performed on, and with, the measured results in

an attempt to identify the cause and extent of inconsistencies of the measured results. A subset of

the measured results that are not potentially affected by these inconsistencies were not identified.

Therefore, the entire data set describing airborne particulate matter concentrations was rejected. In

addition, the specific cause of the inconsistencies was not identified. The following information

explains why the airborne particulate ma tter results were rejected.

## 90



# Ideally, the particulate matter data would have provided information about the airborne

concentration with an aerodynamic diameter of 100 microns and less (PM100), of 10 microns and

less (PM10), of 4 microns and less (PM4), and of 2.5 microns and less (PM2.5). These different

size fractions (PM100, PM10, PM4, and PM2.5) are collected using slightly different equipment,

but following the same basic procedures. A pump draws air into a sampling head, and size

specific particulate m

atter is deposited onto a filter. The difference in filter weight, before and

after the sampling, represents the mass of the particulate matter that was captured by the filter.

Knowing the presampling and postsampling air flow rates of the pump and the tim e duration for

sample collection allows us to calculate the average volume of air that was drawn through the

filter. The concentration of the size fraction in the sampled air is then calculated by dividing the

PM mass by the air volume sampled.

In additio n to the filters that were used to measure the concentration of airborne particulate matter,

the laboratory also sent filters to be used as field blanks. Two blanks were sent for each PM

fraction for each of the two sampling teams for each building. The bl anks traveled with the sample

filters, went to the sampled building or area, and were treated just like the sample filters

— except

that they were not used. Ideally, there should be very little difference in the weight of the blanks

before the sampling and a fter the sampling because they were not used. A weight gain in field

blanks may indicate improper sample handling in the field or problems in filter weighing in the

lab. For the latter a decrease in post field blank filter weight is also an indication of lab weighing

error.

The graph shown with this discussion shows the frequency distribution of the air sample filter

weight change in all but seven of the blanks used. Seven blanks were not included because their

weight change (from a negative

- 90 milligra ms (mg) to 5.99 mg) was greater than the limits shown

in this graph (

- 0.2 mg to 0.5 mg). The vertical axis represents the number of blanks that had a

weight change within 0.01 mg of the weight change shown on the horizontal axis.

## 91 Frequency Distribution of Weight Change in Selected Blanks

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Weight Change [mg]Frequency PM100

PM10

PM4

PM2.5

Lower LOD

Upper LOD



# The dashed vertical lines show the upper and lower limits of detection expected for this method

(+/

–0.03 mg). The distance between limits of detection represents the maximum weight gain

expected for the blanks if the entire sampling procedure was fol lowed as required by standard

sampling methodologies. All of the size fractions had at least two blanks outside the limit of

detection boundaries. (The two out of range blanks for PM100 are not shown on the graph because

they are also beyond the boundaries of the graph). Approximately 6% of the PM100, 70% of the

PM10, 57% of the PM4, and 8% of the PM2.5 blanks had weight changes greater than the limit of

detection.

In general, blanks are used (1) to assess the ability of the sampling and laboratory analysi s

methodology to accurately estimate the concentration of particulate matter in the air at the sampled

location and (2) to validate that there is no filter contamination problem from the time the blanks

are initially weighed in the laboratory until the tim e the blanks are weighed in the laboratory after

sampling. Errors could occur at any step in the process.

The large weight change of the blanks indicates errors in either the laboratory weighing process or

the air sampling process. The graph illustrates t hat the results of the airborne particulate matter

sampling cannot be used to reliably estimate the actual concentration of any of the particulate

matter size fractions; therefore, the entire data set was rejected from further consideration.

## 92 

# Appendix B. Survey Result

## 93 Summary of Residential Sampling Survey Form Results and Review of Photographs

(Abbreviations and terms used in the table are defined on the last page in this table.)

Event

Number Location Number of

Broken

Windows Dust Visible

Initially Dust Visible

Currently Residence

Occupied Cleaning

Method Aggressive

Sampling Level of Dust

in Photo Photo Comments



## 1 Outside 28 None Visible



## 1 Common 0 SI N C None Visible Prepared for asbestos abatement



## 1 Residence 1 2 LI Y U None N Large Amount L arge amount of WTC dust; more than other locations sampled



## 1 Residence 2 0 NI N U None Y None Visible



## 2 Outside 1 Y None Visible



## 2 Common 0 NI N C Slight Amount



## 2 Residence 1 0 SI N Y C N None Visible Residence window faces WTC site



## 2 Residen ce 2 0 SI N U C Y None Visible



## 3 Outside 0 N None Visible Sampled from courtyard several floors up



## 3 Common 0 LI N AA None Visible



## 3 Residence 1 0 LI N Y AA N None Visible



## 3 Residence 2 0 MI N Y C N None Visible



## 4 Outside 0 N Slight Amou nt



## 4 Common 0 NI Y O None Visible



## 4 Residence 1 0 SI Y N None Y None Visible



## 4 Residence 2 0 SI Y N None Y None Visible



## 5 Outside 50 Y Large Amount



## 5 Common 0 SI N AA None Visible



## 5 Residence 1 6 LI LI Y AA Y None Visible



## 5 Residence 2 6 LI LI Y AA Y None Visible Room looks clean but lots of WTC dust outside one window sill



## 6 Outside 200 N None Visible



## 6 Common 0 SI N C Couldn't identify photos for common area



## 6 Residence 1 0 LI N U C Y None Visible



## 6 Residence 2 0 SI N U C Y None Visible



## 7 Outside 2 N None Visible



## 7 Common 0 MI N C None Visible



## 7 Residence 1 0 MI N Y C N None Visible Many window sills (not sure where) have significant amount of WTC

dust on outside ledge, not noticeable on inside of window.



## 7 Residence 2 0 MI N Y C N None Visible Resident has window view of WTC site

## 94 Summary of Residential Sampling Survey Form Results and Review of Photographs

(Abbreviations and terms used in the table are defined on the last page in this table.)

Event

Number Location Number of

Broken

Windows Dust Visible

Initially Dust Visible

Currently Residence

Occupied Cleaning

Method Aggressive

Sampling Level of Dust

in Photo Photo Comments



## 8 Outside 0 N None Visible



## 8 Common 0 MI N C None Visible



## 8 Residence 1 1 SI N Y O N None Visible



## 8 Residence 2 1 MI N Y C N None Visible Resident has window vi ew of WTC site



## 9 Outside 2 N None Visible

in Picture



## 9 Common 0 LI N C None Visible Utility/road construction occurring near building and across the

street from the front door.



## 9 Residence 1 0 MI Y Y C Y None Visible



## 9 Residence 2 0 MI Y Y C Y Slight Amount



## 10 Outside 0 Y Slight Amount



## 10 Common 0 SI N AA None Visible



## 10 Residence 1 0 NI N Y AA Y None Visible View of Statue of Liberty



## 10 Residence 2 1 SI N Y AA Y None Visible



## 11 Outside 0 LI N None Visible Looks like many dried , fallen leaves on sidewalk



## 11 Common 0 SI N MS None Visible



## 11 Residence 1 0 SI N V None Y None Visible



## 11 Residence 2 0 UNK N V UNK Y None Visible Wall AC unit was removed, it was just a hole to the outside



## 12 Outside 0 N None Visible Looks like many dried, fallen leaves on sidewalk



## 12 Common 0 SI N MS None Visible



## 12 Residence 1 0 MI Y V None N Large Amount Very messy, doesn't look like “WTC dust” (has “'post

- move

- out”'

look)



## 12 Residence 2 0 SI N V None Y None Visible



## 13 Outside 0 N Slight Amount A little messy, but does not look like WTC dust



## 13 Common 0 MI N MS None Visible



## 13 Residence 1 0 MI N V C Y None Visible



## 13 Residence 2 0 MI Y V C Y Large Amount Very messy, but not with WTC dust (post

- move

- out look)



## 14 Outsid e 0 N None Visible



## 14 Common 0 SI N C None Visible Air sample from garden area; no bulk sample taken; WTC dust

visible on neighboring building.



## 14 Residence 1 0 MI Y U None Y Large Amount Light dust on floors; one pile of “material,” could be fro m remodeling

activity

## 95 Summary of Residential Sampling Survey Form Results and Review of Photographs

(Abbreviations and terms used in the table are defined on the last page in this table.)

Event

Number Location Number of

Broken

Windows Dust Visible

Initially Dust Visible

Currently Residence

Occupied Cleaning

Method Aggressive

Sampling Level of Dust

in Photo Photo Comments



## 14 Residence 2 0 MI Y U None Y None Visible Pile of trash swept into center of room; no WTC dust



## 15 Outside 0 N None Visible Bulk sample from roof top courtyard,



## 15 Common 0 SI Y MS None Visible Dust visible in (and sampled from) cracks between tiles.



## 15 Residence 1 0 SI Y U O Y None Visible



## 15 Residence 2 0 SI N U O Y None Visible



## 16 Outside 0 N None Visible



## 16 Common 0 MI N C None Visible



## 16 Residence 1 0 MS None Visible



## 16 Residence 2 0 LI N Y O N No picture



## 17 Outside 0 N Slight Amount Dirty/messy, but doesn't look like WTC dust



## 17 Common 0 SI Y C None Visible



## 17 Residence 1 0 SI N Y C N None Visible



## 17 Residence 2 0 MI Y U C Y Slight Amount



## 18 Outside 0 N M Sample looks granular a nd sandy, not gray like WTC dust



## 18 Common 0 LI N MS None Visible Leaf track

- in visible



## 18 Residence 1 0 MI N Y C N None Visible Window view of WTC site



## 18 Residence 2 0 LI N Y C N None Visible



## 19 Outside 0 N Moderate



## 19 Common 0 SI N C None Visible Visible in, and sampled f rom, sidewalk joint with building; sidewalk

looked cleaner.



## 19 Residence 1 0 LI N Y O N None Visible



## 19 Residence 2 0 NI N Y O N No picture



## 20 Outside 0 N Unk Too distant to see surface dust



## 20 Common 0 SI N MS None Visible



## 20 Residence 1 0 NI N Y O N None Visible



## 20 Residence 2 0 SI N Y O N No picture



## 21 Outside 0 N None Visible



## 21 Common 0 SI N C None Visible



## 21 Residence 1 0 SI N Y C N None Visible



## 21 Residence 2 0 NI N Y C N None Visibl e

## 96 Summary of Residential Sampling Survey Form Results and Review of Photographs

(Abbreviations and terms used in the table are defined on the last page in this table.)

Event

Number Location Number of

Broken

Windows Dust Visible

Initially Dust Visible

Currently Residence

Occupied Cleaning

Method Aggressive

Sampling Level of Dust

in Photo Photo Comments



## 22 Outside 8 Y None Visible



## 22 Common 1 LI N C None Visible Sidewalk/entrance to building and roof courtyard look clean, but

there is a pile of material to sample on roof; location is unknown.



## 22 Residence 1 0 MI Y Y MS N None Visible



## 22 Res idence 2 0 LI N Y C N None Visible



## 23 Outside 0 N None Visible



## 23 Common 0 SI N C None Visible



## 23 Residence 1 0 MI Y Y O N None Visible



## 23 Residence 2 0 MI N Y O N None Visible



## 24 Outside 0 N None Visible



## 24 Common 0 LI N MS None Visible



## 24 Residence 1 0 SI N Y O N None Visible



## 24 Residence 2 0 SI N Y C N None Visible



## 25 Outside 0 N None Visible



## 25 Common 0 NI N MS None Visible



## 25 Residence 1 0 NI N Y O N None Visible



## 25 Residence 2 0 SI N Y C N None Visible



## 2 6 Outside 0 N None Visible



## 26 Common 0 NI N MS None Visible Floor area sampled contained some broken tiles.



## 26 Residence 1 0 NI N Y O N None Visible



## 26 Residence 2 0 SI N Y O N None Visible



## 27 Outside 0 N None Visible



## 27 Common 0 MI N M S None Visible



## 27 Residence 1 0 LI N Y C N None Visible



## 27 Residence 2 0 SI N Y C N None Visible



## 28 Outside 0 None Visible



## 28 Common 0 LI Y C None Visible Bulk sample from 4

- inch wide strip between two different tiled areas;

thick with granular/dusty/other material, not sure if any is WTC.



## 28 Residence 1 3 LI N U C N None Visible



## 28 Residence 2 0 MI N U C N None Visible



## 29 Outside 0 N None Visible Bulk sample from small pile at an inside corner of the building wall

## 97 Summary of Residential Sampling Survey Form Results and Review of Photographs

(Abbreviations and terms used in the table are defined on the last page in this table.)

Event

Number Location Number of

Broken

Windows Dust Visible

Initially Dust Visible

Currently Residence

Occupied Cleaning

Method Aggressive

Sampling Level of Dust

in Photo Photo Comments



## 29 Common 0 NI N C None Visible



## 29 Residence 1 0 SI N Y O N None Visible



## 29 Residence 2 0 SI Y Y O N None Visible



## 30 Outside 0 No picture



## 30 Common 0 No picture



## 30 Residence 1 0 SI N Y O N None Visible



## 30 Residence 2 0 MI N Y C N None Visible



## 31 Outside 0 None Visible



## 31 Common 0 NI N MS None Visible



## 31 Residence 1 0 NI N N MS Y None Visible



## 31 Residence 2 0 NI UNK Y O N None Visible



## 32 Outside 0 None Visible Trash visible on sidewalk



## 32 Common 0 NI N MS None Visible



## 32 Re sidence 1 0 NI N Y O N None Visible



## 32 Residence 2 0



## 33 Outside 0 None Visible



## 33 Common 0



## 33 Residence 1 0



## 33 Residence 2 0 NI Y Y O N None Visible



## 34 Outside 0 N None Visible



## 34 Common 0 NI N MS None Visible



## 3 4 Residence 1 0



## 34 Residence 2 0 UNK N Y O N None Visible

## 98 Summary of Residential Sampling Survey Form Results and Review of Photographs

(Abbreviations and terms used in the table are defined on the last page in this table.)

Event

Number Location Number of

Broken

Windows Dust Visible

Initially Dust Visible

Currently Residence

Occupied Cleaning

Method Aggressive

Sampling Level of Dust

in Photo Photo Comments

AA = asbestos abatement professionals

C = contractor

LI = large increase

M = moderate increase

MS = building management staff

N = no

NI = no Increase

O = owner/tenant

SI = slight increase over normal

UNK = unknown

Y = yes

## 99 

# Appendix C. Detailed Analytic Results

## 100 

# Results of Fiber Analyses

Results of fiber analyses in air and dust samples from 30 residential buildings (1

– 30) in lower

Manhattan and 4 comparison buildin gs (31

– 34) above 59th Street. The range of values measured

in the comparison buildings is shown in the summary of comparison areas above 59th Street.

Results From Air Samples Results From Dust Samples

Building

Number Sample Location Fibers in Air

PCM ( f/cc) Asbestos in

Air TEM (f/cc) SVF in Air

SEM (f/cc) Asbestos in

Dust PLM (%) Asbestos in Dust

TEM (%) SVF in Dust

PLM (%)

Summary of Comparison Areas Above 59th Street

Outside <.001

– 0.001 NA ND

– <.000043 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sample d

Common <.001

– 0.002 NA ND

– 0.000043 ND ND ND

Residences <.001

– 0.003 NA ND

– 0.000087 ND ND ND

Results for Individual Buildings Sampled in Lower Manhattan (Buildings 1

– 30)

1 Outside 0.001 ND <1 22

1 Common <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled N ot Sampled

1 Residence 1 0.006 <.001 0.000162 ND NA 20

1 Residence 2 <.001 ND NA 20

2 Outside 0.003 <1 1.2 28

2 Outside co

- located Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled 1.3 NA 25

2 Common 0.005 <.001 0.000255 ND NA 27

2 Residence 1 <.001 ND NA 25

2 Residence 2 0.002 ND NA 20

2 Window sill Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled <1 <1 30

3 Outside <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

3 Res 2 co

- located <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

3 Common <.001 Not Samp led Not Sampled Not Sampled

3 Residence 1 <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

3 Residence 2 <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

4 Outside 0.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

4 Outside co

- located <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

4 Common 0.001 ND <1 15

4 Common co

- located 0.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

4 Residence 1 <.001 ND <1 2

4 Residence 2 0.001 ND <1 5

5 Outside 0.002 3.4 NA 25

## 101 Results From Air Samples Results From Dust Samples

Building

Number Sample Location Fibers in Air

PCM ( f/cc) Asbestos in

Air TEM (f/cc) SVF in Air

SEM (f/cc) Asbestos in

Dust PLM (%) Asbestos in Dust

TEM (%) SVF in Dust

PLM (%)

5 Outside co

- located 0.003 Not Sampled No t Sampled Not Sampled

5 Common 0.002 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

5 Residence 1 0.002 <1 <1 10

5 Residence 2 <.001 ND <1 20

6 Outside <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

6 Common <.001 ND <1 10

6 Res 2 co

- located 0.002 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

6 Residence 1 <.001 ND ND 15

6 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND 15

7 Outside <.001 ND 1.7 35

7 Common 0.001 ND ND 5

7 Residence 1 0.001 ND ND ND

7 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND 5

7 Window sill (R2) Not Sa mpled Not Sampled Not Sampled ND ND 40

8 Outside 0.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

8 Common 0.002 ND ND ND

8 Residence 1 0.003 ND ND ND

8 Residence 2 0.002 ND ND ND

9 Outside <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sample d

9 Common 0.001 ND ND 7

9 Common co

- located 0.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

9 Residence 1 0.001 ND <1 2

9 Residence 2 0.003 ND <1 5

10 Outside 0.001 ND ND ND

10 Common 0.002 ND 1.5 20

10 Common, TEM re

- analysis <1

10 Residence 1 0.001 ND ND 15

10 Residence 2 0.001 ND ND 10

11 Outside <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

11 Common <.001 ND ND ND

11 Common co

- located <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

11 Residence 1 <.001 ND <1 ND

11 Residence 2 <.001 ND 1.5 ND

12 Outside <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

## 102 Results From Air Samples Results From Dust Samples

Building

Number Sample Location Fibers in Air

PCM ( f/cc) Asbestos in

Air TEM (f/cc) SVF in Air

SEM (f/cc) Asbestos in

Dust PLM (%) Asbestos in Dust

TEM (%) SVF in Dust

PLM (%)

12 Common <.001 ND ND ND

12 Residence 1 0.001 ND ND 5

12 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND 5

13 Outside 0.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Samp led

13 Common 0.001 ND ND ND

13 Residence 1 0.003 ND ND 10

13 Residence 2 0.002 ND ND ND

14 Outside <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

14 Common 0.0013 ND ND 5

14 Residence 1 0.001 ND ND ND

14 Res 1 co

- located <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

14 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND ND

15 Outside <.001 ND 1.9 72

15 Common 0.001 ND ND ND

15 Residence 1 <.001 ND <1 ND

15 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND 5

16 Outside <.001 ND ND 1

16 Common <.001 ND ND ND

16 Residence 1 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

16 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND ND

16 Res 2 co

- located Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled ND NA ND

16 Res 2 filter piece Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled ND NA ND

17 Outside <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

17 Common <.001 ND ND 2

17 Residence 1 <.001 ND ND ND

17 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND ND

18 Outside <.001 ND ND 30

18 Common <.001 ND ND ND

18 Residence 1 0.002 ND ND 30

18 Residence 2 0.002 ND ND 35

## 103 Results From Air Samples Results From Dust Samples

Building

Number Sample Location Fibers in Air

PCM ( f/cc) Asbestos in

Air TEM (f/cc) SVF in Air

SEM (f/cc) Asbestos in

Dust PLM (%) Asbestos in Dust

TEM (%) SVF in Dust

PLM (%)

19 Outside <.001 ND NA ND

19 Common overloaded <.006 ND ND ND

19 Residence 1 <.001 ND ND ND

19 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND ND

20 Outside <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

20 Outsi de co

- located <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

20 Common <.001 ND ND ND

20 Residence 1 <.001 ND ND ND

20 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND ND

21 Outside <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

21 Common <.001 ND ND ND

21 Residen ce 1 <.001 ND ND ND

21 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND ND

22 Outside <.001 ND ND 7

22 Common 0.001 ND ND 3

22 Residence 1 <.001 ND ND 2

22 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND ND

22 Res 2 co

- located <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

23 Outside <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

23 Common <.001 ND ND ND

23 Residence 1 <.001 ND ND ND

23 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND ND

24 Outside 0.002 ND ND 55

24 Common 0.001 ND <1 5

24 Residence 1 0.001 ND ND ND

24 Re sidence 2 0.005 <.001 0.000037 ND ND 10

24 Res 2 co

- located 0.005 <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

25 Outside <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

25 Common <.001 ND ND 5

25 Residence 1 <.001 ND ND 5

25 Residence 2 0.001 ND ND ND

26 Outside 0.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

26 Common 0.004 <.001 <0.00004 ND ND 5

26 Residence 1 0.012 <.001 <0.00004 ND ND ND

## 104 Results From Air Samples Results From Dust Samples

Building

Number Sample Location Fibers in Air

PCM ( f/cc) Asbestos in

Air TEM (f/cc) SVF in Air

SEM (f/cc) Asbestos in

Dust PLM (%) Asbestos in Dust

TEM (%) SVF in Dust

PLM (%)

26 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND ND

27 Outside <.001 ND <1 15

27 Common <.001 ND < 1 10

27 Residence 1 <.001 ND <1 10

27 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND 10

28 Outside <.001 ND ND 15

28 Common 0.001 ND ND 10

28 Residence 1 <.001 ND Insufficient Material ND

28 Residence 2 0.002 ND ND ND

29 Outside <.001 ND ND ND

29 Common <.001 ND ND ND

29 Residence 1 <.001 ND ND ND

29 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND ND

30 Outside Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

30 Common Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sa mpled Not Sampled

30 Residence 1 <.001 ND ND ND

30 Residence 2 <.001 ND ND ND

Results for Comparison Buildings Sampled Above 59th Street (Buildings 31

– 34)

31 Outside <.001 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

31 Outside co

- located 0.001 0.000039 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

31 Common <.001 ND ND ND

31 Residence 1 <.001 <0.000039 ND ND ND

31 Residence 2 <.001 <0.000038 ND ND ND

32 Outside <.001 <0.000039 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

32 Common 0.002 <0.00 004 ND ND ND

32 Residence 1 <.001 ND ND ND

32 Res 1 co

- located 0.001 0.000087 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

32 Residence 2 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

33 Outside Not Sampled Not Sampled No t Sampled Not Sampled

33 Common Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

33 Residence 1 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

33 Residence 2 <.001 <0.000041 ND ND ND

34 Outside <.001 <0.000043 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

## 105 Results From Air Samples Results From Dust Samples

Building

Number Sample Location Fibers in Air

PCM ( f/cc) Asbestos in

Air TEM (f/cc) SVF in Air

SEM (f/cc) Asbestos in

Dust PLM (%) Asbestos in Dust

TEM (%) SVF in Dust

PLM (%)

34 Common <.001 0.000043 ND ND ND

34 Residence 1 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled

34 Residence 2 0.002 ND Insuf. Material ND

34 Res 2 co

- located 0.003 <0.000047 Not Sampled Not Sampled Not Sampled



## f /cc: fibers per cubic centimeter of air

NA: not analyzed

ND: not detected

PCM: phase contrast microscopy

PLM: polarized light microscopy

SEM: scanning electron microscopy

SVF: synthetic vitreous fibers

TEM: transmission electron microscopy

%: percent

## 106 

# Re sults of Mineral Analyses in Dust and Air

The following table shows the results of analyses of the minerals in settled dust and air samples for 30

residential buildings in lower Manhattan (1

– 30) and 4 comparison buildings (31

− 34) above 59th Street. For

ea ch building, the table shows the highest estimated air concentration of mineral for each size fraction. In

addition, estimated levels of each mineral in the settled surface dust are shown for each sampled location

within a building.

Building

Number Sample Type Method or

Location Quartz Cristobalite Tridymite Calcite Portlandite Gypsum Mica Halite

Summary of Comparison Areas Above 59th Street

Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND ND

– 3 J ND ND

Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND

– 3 J ND ND

Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND

– 5 J ND ND

Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 ND ND ASN ND ND ND

– 3 J ND ND

Settled surface dust

(%) Common Area ND

– 1 J ND ND ND

– 0.4 J ND

– 0.05 J ND

– 3 J ND ND

Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Settled surfac e dust

(%) Residence 1&2 ND

– 2 J ND ND ND

– 0.9 J ND

– 0.08 J 2

– 4 J ND

– 0.08 J ND

– 0.4 J

Results for Individual Buildings Sampled in Lower Manhattan (Buildings 1

– 30)

1 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND 6 J ND ND

1 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND 14 J ND ND

1 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN 6 J 84 J 12 J ND ND

1 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

1 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

1 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 27 J ND ND 15 J 6 J 14 J ND ND

1 Settled surfac e dust

(%) Residence 1 19 J ND ND 18 J 2 J 30 J 0.3 J ND

1 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 31 J ND ND 21 J 6 J 4 J 0.05 J ND

2 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

2 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

2 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND 7J ND ND

2 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

2 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 1 J ND ND ND 2 J 14 J ND ND

2 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 21 J ND ND 19 J 3 J 27 J ND <0.03 J

2 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 3 J ND ND 2 J 0.9 J 6 J ND ND

2 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 23 J ND ND 15 J 4 J 9 J ND ND

3 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 6 J 15 J ASN 5 J 24 J 5 J 13 J ND

3 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 5 J ND ASN 5 J 25 J 6 J ND ND

3 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 6 J ND ASN 6 J 26 J 7 J ND ND

3 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

## 107 Building

Number Sample Type Method or

Location Quartz Cristobalite Tridymite Calcite Portlandite Gypsum Mica Halite

3 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

3 Settled surface dust

(%) Common NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

3 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

3 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

4 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 4 J ND ASN 4 J 16 J 3 J 9 J 5 J

4 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 4 J ND ASN 3 J 16 J 3 J ND 4 J

4 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 6 J ND ASN 6 J 28 J 5 J 14 J 8 J

4 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

4 Set tled surface dust

(%) Common area ND ND ND 1 J 0.4 J 8 J ND ND

4 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

4 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 0.2 J ND ND 0.06 J 0.7 J 1 J ND ND

4 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 14 J ND ND 5 J 2 J 9 J ND 0.1 J

5 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN 14 J 95 J 14 J ND 14 J

5 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND 14 J ND ND

5 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND 15 J ND ND

5 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

5 Settled surface dust

(%) Common are a NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

5 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 23 J ND ND 8 J ND ND ND ND

5 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 2 J ND ND ND ND 9 J ND ND

5 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 11 J ND ND 4 J 0.5 J 2 J ND ND

6 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM1 00 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

6 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

6 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

6 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

6 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 17 J ND ND 10 J 3 J 20 J 0.6 J ND

6 Settled surface d ust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

6 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 27 J ND ND 17 J 8 J 13 J ND ND

6 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 24 J ND ND 15 J 4 J 4 J 0.03 J ND

7 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN 8 J 54 J 10 J ND ND

7 Air ( μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND 11 J ND ND

7 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND 11 J ND ND

7 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

7 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 11 J ND ND 8 J 3 J 15 J 0.09 J 0.04 J

7 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 14 J ND ND 7 J 1 J 12 J ND 0.1 J

7 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 14 J ND ND 13 J 2 J 2 J ND ND

## 108 Building

Number Sample Type Method or

Location Quartz Cristobalite Tridymite Calcite Portlandite Gypsum Mica Halite

7 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 21 J ND ND 16 J 3 J 4 J ND 0.09 J

7 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2

- co 18 J ND ND 9 J 1 J 2 J ND ND

8 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN 7 J ND 10 J ND ND

8 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND 9 J ND ND

8 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN 6 J ND 12 J 43 J 19 J

8 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

8 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 19 J ND ND 9 J 2 J 15 J ND ND

8 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

8 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 15 J ND ND 10 J 3 J 17 J ND ND

8 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 28 J ND ND 21 J 4 J 6 J ND ND

9 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND N D

9 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN 4 J ND 6 J ND ND

9 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

9 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

9 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 25 J ND ND 9 J 4 J 16 J 0.09 J 0.06 J

9 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS N S NS NS NS NS NS NS

9 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 10 J ND ND 2 J 0.9 J 5 J ND ND

9 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 4 J ND ND ND ND 2 J ND ND

10 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

10 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

10 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN 8 J ND ND ND ND

10 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

10 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 2 J ND ND 3 J ND 1 J ND ND

10 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area

- co NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

10 Settled surface du st

(%) Outdoor 21 J ND ND 14 J 3 J 5 J 0.09 J 0.05 J

10 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 3 J ND ND ND 0.06 J ND ND ND

10 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 2 J ND ND ND ND 0.8 J ND 0.04 J

11 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

1 1 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

11 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

11 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

11 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 2 J ND ND ND ND 1 J ND ND

11 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

11 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 0.2 J ND ND 0.02 J ND 2 J ND ND

11 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 0.07 J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

## 109 Building

Number Sample Type Method or

Location Quartz Cristobalite Tridymite Calcite Portlandite Gypsum Mica Halite

12 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

12 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 3 J ND ASN 5 J 18 J 4 J 8 J 5 J

12 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 5 J ND ASN 7 J 28 J 6 J 15 J 7 J

12 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

12 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 4 J ND ND 2 J 3 J 1 J ND ND

12 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

12 Settled surface dus t

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND 0.3 J ND ND

12 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 0.4 J ND ND 0.09 J 0.06 J 0.8 J ND ND

13 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 5 J ND ASN 5 J 16 J 3 J ND ND

13 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 4 J ND ASN 5 J 16 J 3 J ND ND

13 Air (μg/m 3 ) P M4 7 J ND ASN 10 J 26 J 5 J ND ND

13 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

13 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 0.05 J ND ND 0.3 J 0.04 J 1 J ND ND

13 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

13 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND 1 J ND ND

13 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.8 J ND ND

14 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

14 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

14 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

14 Air (μ g/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

14 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 0.03 J ND ND ND ND 2 J ND 0.04 J

14 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

14 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

14 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.08 J ND ND

15 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 8 J ND ASN 3 J 18 J ND ND ND

15 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND ND

15 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND 5 J ND ND

15 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

15 S ettled surface dust

(%) Common area 0.4 J ND ND 0.02 J ND 1 J ND ND

15 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 1 J ND ND ND 0.3 J 2 J ND ND

15 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND 1 J ND ND

15 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

16 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 4 J ND ASN 3 J 17 J 3 J ND ND

16 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND 4 J ND ND

16 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 18 J ND ASN 5 J 27 J 7 J ND ND

## 110 Building

Number Sample Type Method or

Location Quartz Cristobalite Tridymite Calcite Portlandite Gypsum Mica Halite

16 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

16 Settled surface dust

(%) Common are a ND ND ND ND ND 0.09 J ND ND

16 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 3 J ND ND 1 J 0.6 J 0.04 J 0.06 J 0.04 J

16 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

16 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.9 J ND ND

16 Settled sur

face dust

(%) R2 filter piece 2 J ND ND 0.3 J 0.4 J 1 J ND ND

17 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

17 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 12 J ND ASN 4 J 17 J 6 J ND 5 J

17 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 5 J ND ASN 5 J 27 J 6 J 15 J ND

17 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

17 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 2 J ND ND ND ND 1 J 0.06 J ND

17 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

17 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 0.9 J ND ND ND 0.05 J 2 J 0.05 J 0.03 J

17 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 1 J ND ND 0.8 J ND 1 J ND ND

18 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 3 J ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

18 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND ND

18 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 5 J ND ASN ND ND 5 J ND ND

18 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

18 Settled su rface dust

(%) Common area 0.9 J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

18 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 7 J ND ND 1 J ND ND 0.2 J ND

18 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND 0.3 J ND ND

18 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND 1 J ND ND

19 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

19 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

19 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

19 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

19 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 1 J ND ND 0.08 J 0.05 J 1 J ND ND

19 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 5 J ND ND 1 J 0.6 J 1 J 0.09 J 0.04 J

19 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND 1 J ND ND

19 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND 2 J ND ND

20 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 3 J ND ASN 3 J 16 J 3 J ND ND

20 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 3 J ND ASN 3 J 16 J 4 J ND ND

20 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 5 J ND ASN 5 J 29 J 6 J ND ND

20 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

20 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area ND ND ND ND ND 0.07 J ND 0.04 J

## 111 Building

Number Sample Type Method or

Location Quartz Cristobalite Tridymite Calcite Portlandite Gypsum Mica Halite

20 Sett led surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

20 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 0.05 J ND ND ND ND 1 J ND ND

20 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 0.9 J ND ND 0.6 J 0.09 J 1 J ND 0.05 J

21 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

21 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 R R R R R R R R

21 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND 5 J ND ND

21 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

21 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 0.9 J ND ND ND ND 2 J ND ND

21 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

21 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

21 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND 1 J ND ND

22 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 13 J ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

22 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 3 J ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

22 Air

(μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

22 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

22 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 14 J ND ND 1 J 0.4 J ND ND ND

22 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 26 J ND ND 2 J 0.8 J 0.03 J 0.07 J ND

22 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 2 J ND ND 0.07 J 0.08 J 1 J ND ND

22 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 0.6 J ND ND ND ND 2 J ND ND

23 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

23 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

23 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

23 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

23 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 2 J ND ND 0.04 J 0.05 J 0.9 J ND ND

23 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

23 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

23 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND 1 J ND ND

24 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

24 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

24 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

24 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 3 J ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

24 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 0.03 J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

24 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 2 J ND ND 0.8 J 0.07 J ND 0.05 J 0.04 J

24 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

24 Settled surface dust

(%) R esidence 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

## 112 Building

Number Sample Type Method or

Location Quartz Cristobalite Tridymite Calcite Portlandite Gypsum Mica Halite

25 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND ND

25 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 R R R R R R R R

25 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND 4 J ND ND

25 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 ND ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND ND

25 Settled surface dust

(%) C ommon area ND ND ND ND ND 2 J ND ND

25 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

25 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

25 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND 2 J ND ND

26 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 8 J ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

26 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

26 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

26 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

26 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 0.7 J ND ND 2 J 0.6 J 2 J 0.07 J ND

26 Settl ed surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

26 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

26 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.05 J ND ND

27 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 3 J ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

27 Air (μ g/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

27 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

27 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

27 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 0.04 J ND ND 0.02 J ND 0.1 J ND ND

27 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 4 J ND ND 1 J 0 .8 J 0.04 J 0.07 J ND

27 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND 0.6 J ND ND

27 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND 1 J ND ND

28 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 3 J ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND 4 J

28 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND ND

28 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND 5 J ND ND

28 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

28 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area ND ND ND ND ND 1 J ND ND

28 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 8 J ND ND 3 J 2 J 0.3 J 0.09 J ND

28 Settled surfa ce dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

28 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND 1 J ND ND

29 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 4 J ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

29 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND ND

29 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 19 J ND ASN ND ND 5 J ND ND

## 113 Building

Number Sample Type Method or

Location Quartz Cristobalite Tridymite Calcite Portlandite Gypsum Mica Halite

29 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

29 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 1 J ND ND 0.09 J 0.06 J 2 J ND ND

29 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor 8 J ND ND 3 J 2 J 2 J 0.3 J 0.07 J

29 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 0.2 J ND ND ND ND 1 J ND ND

29 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

30 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

30 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 3 J ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND ND

30 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND 5 J ND ND

30 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2 .5 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

30 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

30 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

30 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 1 J ND ND ND 0.9 J 4 J 0.06 J 0.05 J

30 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 0.6 J ND ND 0.4 J 0.4 J 4 J ND ND



### Results for Individual Comparison Buildings Sampled Above 59th Street (Buildings 31

– 34)

31 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

31 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND ND

31 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND 5 J ND ND

31 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

31 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 1 J ND ND 0.03 J 0.05 J 2 J ND 0.04 J

31 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

31 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 ND ND ND ND ND 2 J ND ND

31 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

32 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND ND

32 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND ND

32 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND 5 J ND ND

32 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 ND ND ASN ND ND 3 J ND ND

32 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area 1 J ND ND 0.4 J ND 3J ND ND

32 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

32 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 2 J ND ND 0.9 J 0.08 J 4 J 0.08 J 0.4 J

32 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

33 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

33 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

33 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

33 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

33 Se ttled surface dust

(%) Common area NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

## 114 Building

Number Sample Type Method or

Location Quartz Cristobalite Tridymite Calcite Portlandite Gypsum Mica Halite

33 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

33 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

33 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 1 J ND ND ND 0.08 J 2 J ND ND

34 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM100 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

34 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM10 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

34 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM4 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

34 Air (μg/m 3 ) PM2.5 ND ND ASN ND ND ND ND ND

34 Settled surface dust

(%) Common area ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

34 Settled surface dust

(%) Outdoor NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

34 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

34 Settled surface dust

(%) Residence 2 ND ND ND ND ND 3 J ND ND



# ASN: Analytical sensitivity not available. Mineral was not detected at any measured location using the

associated method, analytical sensitivity is not known.

Detect: Mineral was detected above the analytical sensitivity in at least one of the measured locations

of the building using the associated method.

J: Estimated value. Due to inconsistencies during sample collection/analysis, the result is only an estimate of

the actual value. The actual value could be higher or lower than the value shown.

ND: Not detected. Mineral was not detected at any measured loc ation using the associated method.

NS: Not sampled. The associated method was not used at any of the measured locations in the building.

R: Result was rejected. Due to inconsistencies during sample collection/analysis, the result values for the

sample we re rejected.

μ g/m 3 

# : microgram per cubic meter of air.

## 115 

# Mineral Analyses in Air

Estimated levels of minerals in air for samples from 30 residential buildings (1

– 30) in lower

Manhattan and 4 comparison residential buildings (31

– 34) above 59th Street are sh own in the

following table. The estimated air concentration of each mineral by size fraction is shown for each

area sampled. Typically, samples were obtained from an outdoor area, an indoor common area,

and two residences. In addition, co

- located samples w ere obtained from some locations.

However, due to inconsistencies during sample collection or analysis, the specific sampling

location within the building is not noted.

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

Summary of Comparison Areas Above 59th Street

PM100

-- -- -- -- -- ND

– 3 J

-- --

PM10

-- -- -- -- -- ND

– 3 J

-- --

PM4

-- -- -- -- -- ND

– 5 J

-- --

PM2.5

-- -- -- -- -- ND

– 3 J

-- --

Results for Individual Buildings Sampled in Lower Manhattan (Buildings 1

– 30)

1 PM100 882

-- -- -- -- -- 6 J

-- --

1 PM100 830

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 PM100 818

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 PM100 892

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 PM10 861

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 PM10 835

-- -- -- -- -- 7 J

-- --

1 PM10 838

-- -- -- -- -- 14 J

-- --

1 PM10 899

-- -- -- -- -- 8 J

-- --

1 PM4 809

-- -- -- -- 84 J 10 J

-- --

1 PM4 813

-- -- -- -- -- 12 J

-- --

1 PM4 820

-- -- -- 6 J 68 J 10 J

-- --

1 PM4 837

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 PM100 1229

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 PM100 1162

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 PM100 766

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 PM100 1240

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 PM10 1194

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 PM10 1168

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 PM10 1390

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 PM10 1216

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 PM4 757

-- -- -- -- -- 7J

-- --

2 PM4 717

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 PM4 849

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

## 116

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

2 PM4 762

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

3 PM100 868

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

3 PM100 821 6 J 15 J

-- 5 J 24 J 5 J 13 J

--

3 PM100 756

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

3 PM100 761

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

3 PM10 858

-- -- -- -- -- 6 J

-- --

3 PM10 815 5 J

-- -- 5J 25 J 5 J

-- --

3 PM10 765

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

3 PM10 783

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

3 PM4 814 5 J

-- -- -- -- 6 J

-- --

3 PM4 824 6 J

-- -- 6 J 26 J 7 J

-- --

3 PM4 841

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

3 PM4 823

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

4 PM10 0 1230

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

4 PM100 1289 4 J

-- -- 4 J 16 J 3 J 9 J 5J

4 PM100 1278

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

4 PM100 1221

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- 5J

4 PM10 1218

-- -- -- -- 16 J 3 J

-- --

4 PM10 1415 4 J

-- -- 3 J 16 J 3 J

-- 4J

4 PM10 1294

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

4 PM10 1201

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

4 PM4 751

-- -- -- -- 27J 5J

-- --

4 PM4 793 6 J

-- -- 6J 28J 5J 14 J 8 J

4 PM4 804

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

4 PM4 757

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

5 PM100 783

-- -- -- 14 J 95 J 14 J

-- 14 J

5 PM100 786

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

5 PM100 804

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

5 PM100 800

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

5 PM10 780

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

5 PM10 797

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

5 PM10 846

-- -- -- -- -- 14 J

-- --

5 PM10 789

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

5 PM4 817

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

5 PM4 664

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

5 PM4 813

-- -- -- -- -- 9 J

-- --

5 PM4 813

-- -- -- -- -- 15 J

-- --

6 PM100 1241

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

## 117

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

6 PM100 1212

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

6 PM100 1238

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

6 PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

6 PM10 1226

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

6 PM10 1197

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

6 PM10 1252

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

6 PM10 1254

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

6 PM4 775

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

6 PM4 762

-- -- -- - - -- -- -- --

6 PM4 775

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

6 PM4 772

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

7 PM100 1277

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

7 PM100 1260

-- -- -- 8 J 54 J 10 J

-- --

7 PM100 1243

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

7 PM100 1213

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

7 PM10 1227

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

7 PM10 1225

-- -- -- -- -- 11 J

-- --

7 PM10 1240

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

7 PM10 1231

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

7 PM4 787

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

7 PM4 784

-- -- -- -- -- 10 J

-- --

7 PM4 765

-- -- -- -- -- 11 J

-- --

7 PM4 748

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

8 PM100 1213

-- -- -- 7 J

-- 10 J

-- --

8 PM100 1254

-- -- -- -- -- 6 J

-- --

8 PM100 1223

-- -- -- -- -- 7 J

-- --

8 PM100 1206

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

8 PM100 1175

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

8 PM100 1259

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

8 PM10 1188

-- -- -- -- -- 9 J

-- --

8 PM10 1223

-- -- -- -- -- 6 J

-- --

8 PM10 1172

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

8 PM10 1256

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

8 PM4 757

-- -- -- -- -- 12 J

-- --

8 PM4 784

-- -- -- 6 J

-- 10 J

-- --

8 PM4 738

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

8 PM4 777

-- -- -- -- -- 10J 43J 19 J

9 PM100 1210

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

9 PM100 1218

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

## 118

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

9 PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

9 PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

9 PM10 1203

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

9 PM10 1217

-- -- -- 4 J

-- 6 J

-- --

9 PM10 1231

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

9 PM10 1131

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

9 PM4 776

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

9 PM4 782

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

9 PM4 763

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

9 PM4 781

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10 PM100 1201

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10 PM100 1225

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10 PM100 1220

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10 PM100 1226

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10 PM10 1181

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10 PM10 1202

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10 PM 10 1227

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10 PM10 1224

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10 PM4 757

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10 PM4 766

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10 PM4 762

-- -- -- 8 J

-- -- -- --

10 PM4 767

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

11 PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS N S NS NS

11 PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

11 PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

11 PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

11 PM10 1305

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

11 PM10 1301

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

11 PM10 1337

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

11 PM10 1237

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

11 PM4 832

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

11 PM4 806

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

11 PM4 834

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

11 PM4 779

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

12 PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

12 PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

12 PM100 N S NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

12 PM100 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

12 PM10 1412 3 J

-- -- 3 J 14 J 3 J

-- --

## 119

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

12 PM10 1315 3 J

-- -- 5 J 18 J 4 J 8 J 5 J

12 PM10 1337 3 J

-- -- 3 J 17 J 3 J

-- 5 J

12 PM10 1553 R R R R R R R R

12 PM10 1479 R R R R R R R R

12 PM4 925 4 J

-- -- 4 J 22 J 4 J

-- --

12 PM4 828 5 J

-- -- 7 J 28 J 6 J 15 J 7 J

12 PM4 948 R R R R R R R R

12 PM4 932 R R R R R R R R

13 PM100 1281

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

13 PM100 1300

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

13 PM100 1298

-- -- -- - - -- -- -- --

13 PM100 1284 5 J

-- -- 5 J 16 J 3 J

-- --

13 PM100 1211

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

13 PM100 1203

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

13 PM100 1184

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

13 PM10 1263

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

13 PM10 1325 4 J

-- -- 5 J 16 J 3 J

-- --

13 PM10 1223

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

13 PM10 1205

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

13 PM4 802

-- -- -- 5 J

-- 5 J

-- --

13 PM4 818 7 J

-- -- 10 J 26 J 5 J

-- --

13 PM4 762

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

13 PM4 761

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM100 1151

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM100 1169

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM100 1166

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM100 1142

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM100 1171

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM100 1149

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM10 1134

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM10 1138

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM10 1155

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM10 1179

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM10 1161

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM4 719

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM4 731

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14 PM4 732

-- -- -- -- -- -- - - --

14 PM4 730

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

15 PM100 1219

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

## 120

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

15 PM100 1199 8 J

-- -- 3 J 18 J

-- -- --

15 PM100 1211

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

15 PM100 1156

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

15 PM10 1218

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

15 PM10 1115 R R R R R R R R

15 PM10 1212

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

15 PM10 1225

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

15 PM10 1171

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

15 PM4 783

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

15 PM4 778

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

15 PM4 766

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

15 PM4 751

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

16 PM100 1254

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

16 PM100 1225 4 J

-- -- 3 J 17 J 3 J

-- --

16 PM100 1217

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

16 PM10 1269

-- -- -- -- -- 4 J

-- --

16 PM10 1228

-- -- -- -- -- 4 J

-- --

16 PM10 1210

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

16 PM4 808

-- -- -- -- -- 7 J

-- --

16 PM4 774

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

16 PM4 769 18 J

-- -- 5 J 27 J 7 J

-- --

16 PM4 769

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

17 PM10 1306

-- -- -- -- -- 4 J

-- --

17 PM10 1469 3 J

-- -- 3 J 1 6 J 3 J

-- 4 J

17 PM10 1250

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

17 PM10 1259

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

17 PM10 1293 12 J

-- -- 4 J 17 J 6 J

-- 5 J

17 PM4 844

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

17 PM4 816 5 J

-- -- 5 J 27 J 6 J 15 J

--

17 PM4 786

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

17 PM4 786

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

17 PM4 803

-- -- -- -- 26 J 6 J

-- --

18 PM100 1277

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

18 PM100 1247 3 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

18 PM100 1241

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

18 PM100 1265

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

18 PM100 1177

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

18 PM10 1234

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

18 PM10 1269

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

## 121

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

18 PM10 1258

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

18 PM10 1268

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

18 PM10 1196

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

18 PM4 791

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

18 PM4 780

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

18 PM4 785 5 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

18 PM4 778

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

18 PM4 735

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

19 PM100 1275

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

19 PM100 1288

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

19 PM100 1291

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

19 PM100 1215

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

19 PM10 1270

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

19 PM10 1296

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

19 PM10 1286

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

19 PM10 1218 R R R R R R R R

19 PM4 796

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

19 PM4 819

-- -- -- - - -- -- -- --

19 PM4 822

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

19 PM4 761 R R R R R R R R

20 PM100 1278

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

20 PM100 1226

-- -- -- 3 J 16 J 3 J

-- --

20 PM100 1412

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

20 PM100 1417

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

20 PM100 1366 3 J

-- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

20 PM10 1282

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

20 PM10 1226

-- -- -- 3 J 16 J

-- -- --

20 PM10 1407

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

20 PM10 1357 3 J

-- -- 3 J

-- 4 J

-- --

20 PM4 792

-- -- -- -- -- 6 J

-- --

20 PM4 753 5 J

-- -- 5 J 29 J 5 J

-- --

20 PM4 891

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

20 PM4 842 5 J

-- -- 5 J

-- 5 J

-- --

21 PM100 1227

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

21 PM100 1238

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

21 PM100 1203

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

21 PM100 1218

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

21 PM10 1248 R R R R R R R R

21 PM10 1256 R R R R R R R R

## 122

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

21 PM10 1212 R R R R R R R R

21 PM10 1241 R R R R R R R R

21 PM4 776

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

21 PM4 780

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

21 PM4 780

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

21 PM4 750

-- -- -- - - -- -- -- --

21 PM4 771

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

21 PM2.5 1236

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

21 PM2.5 1249

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

21 PM2.5 1211

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

21 PM2.5 1238

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM100 1336 5 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM100 1385 13 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM100 1365 7 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM100 1364

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM100 1261

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM10 1346 3 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM10 1389

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM10 1361

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM10 1383

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM10 1271

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM4 870

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM4 872

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM4 863

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM4 787

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM2.5 1343

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM2.5 1334

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM2.5 1354

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

22 PM2.5 1252

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM100 1546

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM100 1626

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM100 1554

-- -- -- - - -- -- -- --

23 PM100 1550

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM10 1578

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM10 1596

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM10 1568

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM10 1592

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM10 1612

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM4 991

- - -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM4 1012

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

## 123

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

23 PM4 978

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM4 1014

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM2.5 1548

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM2.5 1009

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM2.5 1544

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

23 PM

2.5 1584

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM100 1467

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM100 1471

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM100 1424

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM100 1490

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM100 1485

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM10 1475

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM10 1427

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM10 1482

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM10 1481

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM4 920

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM4 891

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM4 880

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM4 929

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM4 920

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM4 935

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM2.5 1467

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM2.5 1411 3 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM2.5 1486

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 PM2.5 1479

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

25 PM100 1454

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

25 PM100 1437

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

25 PM100 1457

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

25 PM100 1451

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

25 PM10 1456 R R R R R R R R

25 PM10 1451 R R R R R R R R

25 PM10 1453 R R R R R R R R

25 PM10 1458 R R R R R R R R

25 PM10 1447 R R R R R R R R

25 PM10 1454 R R R R R R R R

25 PM4 913

-- -- -- -- -- 4 J

25 PM4 909

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

25 PM4 917

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

25 PM4 967

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

25 PM2.5 1431

-- -- -- - - -- 3 J

-- --

## 124

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

25 PM2.5 1414

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

25 PM2.5 1433

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

25 PM2.5 1444

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM100 1447

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM100 1445 7 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM100 1424

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM100 1432

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM10 1453

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM10 1462 R R R R R R R R

26 PM10 1469

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM10 1445

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM10 1429 R R R R R R R R

26 PM10 1424 R R R R R R R R

26 PM4 894

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM4 909

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM4 889

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM4 886

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM2.5 1449

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM2.5 1444

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

26 PM2.5 1436

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 6 PM2.5 1429

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM100 1473

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM100 1450 3 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM100 1469

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM100 1454

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM10 1467

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM10 145 7

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM10 1434

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM10 1435

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM4 923

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM4 902

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM4 917

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM4 906

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM4 90 2

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM2.5 1462

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM2.5 1457

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM2.5 1458

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27 PM2.5 1451

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

28 PM100 1427

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

## 125

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

28 PM100 1458

-- -- - - -- -- -- -- --

28 PM100 1468 3 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- 4 J

28 PM100 1380

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

28 PM100 1346

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

28 PM100 1337

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

28 PM10 1400

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

28 PM10 1450

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

28 PM10 1366

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

28 PM10 1343

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

28 PM4 898

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

28 PM4 891

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

28 PM4 859

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

28 PM4 810

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

28 PM2.5 1396

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -

28 PM2.5 1371

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

28 PM2.5 1319

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

28 PM2.5 1451

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

29 PM100 1519

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

29 PM100 1468 4 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

29 PM100 1447

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

29 PM1 0 1527

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

29 PM10 1481

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

29 PM10 1447

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

29 PM10 1212

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

29 PM4 927 12 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

29 PM4 897 19 J

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

29 PM4 887

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

29 PM4 746

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

29 PM2.5 1451

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

30 PM10 1307 3 J

-- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

30 PM10 1297

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

30 PM4 822

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

30 PM4 781

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

30 PM2.5 1307

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Results for Individual Comparison Buildings Sampled Above 59th Street (Buildings 31

– 34)

31 PM10 1346

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

31 PM10 1328

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

31 PM10 1347

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

31 PM10 132 4

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

## 126

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

31 PM10 1371

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

31 PM10 1401

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

31 PM4 828

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

31 PM4 819

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

31 PM4 852

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

31 PM4 867

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

32 PM100 1318

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

32 PM100 1336

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

32 PM100 1351

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

32 PM100 1316

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

32 PM10 1312

-- -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

32 PM10 1337

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

32 PM10 1317

-- - - -- -- -- -- -- --

32 PM10 1312

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

32 PM4 808

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

32 PM4 805

-- -- -- -- -- 5 J

-- --

32 PM4 776

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

32 PM4 828

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

32 PM4 826

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

32 PM2.5 1311

- - -- -- -- -- 3 J

-- --

32 PM2.5 1418

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

32 PM2.5 1315

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

33 PM100 1338

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

33 PM10 1338

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

33 PM4 831

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

33 PM4 838

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

33 PM2.5 1338

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM100 1307

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM100 1315

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM100 1309

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM100 1232

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM10 1318 R R R R R R R R

34 PM10 132 7

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM10 1238

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM4 816

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM4 848

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM4 830

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM4 782

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM4 770

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

## 127

Building

Number Particle Size

Fraction Sample

Volume

(L) Quartz

(μg/m 3 ) Cristobalite

( μg/m 3 ) Tridymite

(μg/m 3 ) Calcite

μg/m 3 ) Portlandite

(μg/m 3 ) Gypsum

(μg/m 3 ) Mica

μg/m 3 ) Halite

(μg/m 3 ))

34 PM2.5 13 08

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM2.5 1348

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 PM2.5 1223

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --



# -- : Not detected. Mineral was not detected above the analytical sensitivity in the associated sample.

Detect: Mineral was detected above the analyt ical sensitivity for the associated sample.

J: Result presented is an estimate. Due to inconsistencies during sample collection/analysis, the result is only

an estimate of the actual value. The actual value could be higher or lower than the value shown.

N D: Not detected. Mineral was not detected above the analytical sensitivity in the associated sample.

NS: Not sampled. The associated method was not used at any of the measured locations in the building.

R: Result was rejected. Due to inconsistencies duri ng sample collection/analysis, the result values for the

sample were rejected.

μ g/m 3 

# : microgram per cubic meter of air.