Building Materials and Health

Building Materials and Health
Table of Contents
Building Materials and Health..........................................................................................................................1
ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................................................1
FOREWORD..........................................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................3
I. HEALTH HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING MATERIALS...................................................4
A. Introduction..................................................................................................................................4
B. Health and building materials: An overview.................................................................................4
C. Asbestos......................................................................................................................................6
D. Metals........................................................................................................................................13
E. Solvents.....................................................................................................................................15
F. Formaldehyde............................................................................................................................19
G. Insecticides and fungicides.......................................................................................................20
H. Timber.......................................................................................................................................23
I. Silica dust....................................................................................................................................23
J. Earthen and traditional materials................................................................................................24
K. Radon and its sources...............................................................................................................26
L. Wastes.......................................................................................................................................30
II. CONTROLLING HEALTH HAZARDS: PROBLEMS AND ISSUES..................................................34
III. A STRATEGY FOR THE CONTROL OF HEALTH HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING
MATERIALS........................................................................................................................................35
A. Principles...................................................................................................................................36
B. The role of the building industry.................................................................................................36
C. The role of research and professional organizations.................................................................38
D. The role of national governments..............................................................................................39
E. International action....................................................................................................................41
ANNEX.................................................................................................................................................41
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................43
i
ii
Building Materials and Health
UNITED NATIONS CENTRE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS (Habitat)
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication as well as the legal status
of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitations of its frontiers or
boundaries, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United
Nations. The views expressed and the technical information and data given in this publication do not
necessarily reflect those of the United Nations. Mention of firm names and commercial products does not
imply the endorsement of UNCHS (Habitat).
The manuscript of this publication was produced in 1995. It is printed in 1997.
HS/459/97E
ISBN−92−1−131−338−4
ABBREVIATIONS
General
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
DDT Dichloro−diphenyl−trichloroethane
EHC Environmental health criteria
ELF Extremely low frequency
HCH Hexachlorocyclohexane
LC50 Median lethal concentration
LD50 Median lethal dose
MMMF Man−made mineral fibre
OEL Occupational exposure limit
PCP Pentachlorophenol
POM Particulate organic matter
PVA Polyvinyl acetate
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
SVOC Semi−volatile organic chemical
STEL Short−term exposure limit
TBTO Tributyl tin oxide
TLV Threshold limit value
TWA Time weighted average
UPVC Unplasticised polyvinyl chloride
UV Ultraviolet
VOC Volatile organic chemical
VVOC Very volatile organic chemical
Countries/Organizations
ACGIH American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
1
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
IFBWW International Federation of Building and Wood Workers
ILO International Labour Organization
IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety
IRPTC International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals
ISO International Organization for Standardization
PAHO Pan American Health Organization
OECD Organization for Economic Co−operation and Development
UK United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
UNCHS United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat)
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
IE/PAC Industry and Environment Programme Activity Centre
UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
USA United States of America
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (The former)
WHO World Health Organization
Units
bq bequerel
kg, g, mg, ?g Kilogram, gram, milligram,
microgram
l litre
m, mm metre, millimetre
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
pCi pico curies
s second
sv, msv, ?sv sievert, millisievert, microsievert
FOREWORD
The United Nations Commission on Human Settlements, in its decision 14/16 of 5 May 1993, requested the
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) to explore the possibility of drafting an informative
document on: (a) such building materials in the housing sector that are harmful or potentially harmful to
people’s health and the environment, and (b) alternative building materials that could substitute for such
materials. In addressing adverse environmental effects produced by construction activities in general, and
building materials in particular, the Centre has conducted research study and published a document entitled:
“Development of National Technological Capacity for Environmentally−Sound Construction”, (HS/293/93E).
This publication identifies ways in which construction activities contribute to different areas of environmental
stress and proposes measures for reducing adverse environmental impacts through adoption and
enforcement of effective strategies and regulations, application of improved technologies and through design
and modified practices in construction.
In the past decade or so there has been increasing concern among scientists and professionals about the
suitability of certain building materials to environment and human health. The health hazards associated with
building materials has been subject of discussion in many fora and the time has come to look into the matter
closely. Given the importance of health as one of the most pressing areas of social concern, and in view of the
variety of health hazards which need to be addressed, a range of studies have already been conducted by
leading experts and agencies which discuss mainly the health hazards related to selected building materials.
2
This publication covers a comprehensive research study conducted by UNCHS (Habitat) which focuses
exclusively on ways in which a variety of building materials contribute to different aspects of health hazards,
and the means available for prevention or mitigation of their adverse impact on health. The study outlines also
an implementation strategy which could serve as a basis for controlling the health hazards associated with
building materials.
We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Mr. Robin Spence, of the Cambridge Architectural Research
Limited of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in preparing a draft background paper on
which the present publication is largely based. We also gratefully acknowledge numerous scientists and
national/international agencies who provided comments and very useful inputs to the first draft of this
document. Finally, our thanks go to Mr. Kalyan Ray and Mr. Keso Msita of UNCHS (Habitat) who initiated the
research design and to Mr. Baris Der−Petrossian also of UNCHS (Habitat) who finalised the document.
It is hoped that this publication win be of interest to its readers and that it will complement other studies
produced so far.
Darshan Johal
Assistant Secretary−General
Acting Executive Director
UNCHS (Habitat)
INTRODUCTION
Risks to health usually result from exposure to harmful environmental conditions in the extraction, production
and use of building materials, and the disposal of related wastes. The harmful conditions include exposure to
dust, fumes, gases and vapours and toxic metals. The interaction of these factors and human organisms
occurs either by absorption through the skin, by intake into the digestive track via the mouth, or by inhalation
into the lungs. The results of the interaction can be harmful to human health in a variety of ways, including:
respiratory diseases such as asthma, heart diseases, cancer, brain damage or poisoning. The effects of the
hazards may be slow, cumulative, irreversible, and complicated by non−occupational factors such as
smoking.
The quality of the built environment too affects its; inhabitants in many ways and is dependent not only on the
architectural form and specification, but also on the quality and nature of materials used, the care taken in
construction, the quality of building services, design and components, and the timely and effective
maintenance of the building fabric and support systems. The risks of diseases are also increased when the
dwelling’s barriers against insect and rodent vectors are inadequate or poorly maintained.
Some of the health hazards associated with building materials and the built−environment are well
documented and programmes to reduce them are in place. Others are and will be the subject of current and
future research, therefore remedial measures are not yet in place. Furthermore the indications, based on
present knowledge, that a certain material is harmless to human health does not preclude possible
discoveries of health hazards in future, bearing in mind the continuing advances in science and medicine.
The scope of this document is limited mainly to those hazards which are associated with the production and
use of building materials, and to some extent the disposal of wastes. The document is divided into three
sections: Section I, discusses the nature of health hazards associated with the production of building materials
and their use and the demolition and disposal effects of some of the harmful materials and wastes; Section II,
addresses the problems and constraints to the control of the harmful effects of building materials; and Section
III, outlines a strategy for the control of health hazards focusing on the possible actions by the principal actors
involved with the production and use of building materials. Prior to finalising the document, the first draft was
sent to more than thirty leading agencies, professionals and experts in the field for their comments which have
been incorporated into this document.
3
I. HEALTH HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING MATERIALS
A. Introduction
This section briefly reviews the major health hazards associated with building materials according to three
principal stages of the construction cycle, namely: the production of building materials, construction and
maintenance, and occupancy. Furthermore, the section appraises the health hazards associated with five
groups of potentially harmful and commonly Used materials, namely: asbestos, metals, solvents, insecticides
and fungicides and earthen materials. Radon emission and its effect on health has been discussed as many
of the building materials contain radium and so exhale radon which is a health hazard. An overview on the
health impacts of wastes resulting from building materials has also been made. Finally, Table 19 provides a
summary of building materials, their areas of application, related health hazards, substitute materials and
mitigation strategies.
B. Health and building materials: An overview
Production of building materials
The materials delivered or supplied to site derive from a range of enterprises, operating at different scales,
levels of technology and types of operation. Each type of material and production technology has its own
characteristic health hazards. Many building materials industries derive their raw materials from quarrying or
mining of minerals, in which workers are exposed to risks from blasting and rockfalls, and to dusts which can
give rise to a variety of lung and respiratory disorders.
The risks to asbestos workers were among the first identified hazards of building materials (Section I.C). Fine
dusts are also a problem in many other material−production industries, especially lime, cement and gypsum
manufacture (1). Dusts of organic origin can likewise create health hazards of tumours and various allergic
conditions for workers in sawmills and wood−based industries (1, 2).
Timber treatment often takes place off−site, using a variety of toxic chemicals, insecticides and fungicides, in
a concentrated form which can be exceptionally hazardous to the health of workers exposed to them, and to
the health of neighbouring populations if care is not taken in the disposal of wastes (2).
Handling of the solvents used in the manufacture of paints and varnishes creates health hazards for the
workers in those industries (Section F). Workers in building materials production plants are also exposed to a
range of industrial accidents from high temperature kiln processes (in cement, lime, brick production), rotating
machinery, chemical spills and toxic effluent releases, and smoke−laden atmospheres; and to hearing loss
from intense noise (1).
Two factors mitigate the hazards to workers in material production plants. First, such plants are generally
permanent registered factories, where health hazards to workers can be monitored and controlled by proper
management, and are subject to health and safety regulations, and are liable for inspection. Secondly,
although exposures are often concentrated, workers are exposed to the health hazards only during working
hours. However it should be cautioned that in many developing countries, the bulk of the small−scale
production of building materials takes place in the informal sector using rudimentally and inefficient technology
and ignoring legislation (3). Thus these mitigation measures do not have much relevance to the operation of
the informal sector producers.
Construction and maintenance
The principal materials−related health hazards associated with the construction phase are dust, fumes,
solvents and gases, and insecticides and fungicides. Many of the risks are most acute during this phase,
where workers are exposed to health hazards in a concentrated form, but often without the workplace controls
of materials production. Some of the health hazards to which construction workers are particularly prone are
lung diseases from inhalation of dusts (particularly mineral fibres); skin and eye irritation and allergies from
volatile organic chemicals released from paints and varnishes; and poisoning from the use of insecticides. The
workers most at risk are those involved in the application of finishes (e.g. painters, decorators, and flooring
contractors); and in maintenance and renovation works, where the exposures are concentrated and often in
4
confined indoor spaces. Maintenance work can also put building occupants at risk if the building continues to
be inhabited. A special hazard arises from the removal of asbestos−based materials during maintenance, as it
can introduce concentrations of fibres into the indoor atmosphere dangerous both to occupants and to
workers. Removal of toxic metals−based paints also puts the inhabitants at risk. In both construction and
maintenance, disposal of toxic or harmful wastes can create hazards to workers, occupants and to the general
public.
Occupancy
The causal agents of ill health found in the indoor environment which are associated with building materials
include dusts and particulate matter, inorganic and organic chemicals, microbes, and arthropods. Table 1
shows the range of such agents. The indoor environment typically contains numerous chemicals in the form of
dusts or gases, only some of which are attributable to building materials. Some building materials contribute
by emitted chemicals of which they are made, or by contributing to the dusts as materials disintegrate.
Materials can also act as a sink, storing chemicals from the surrounding atmosphere, and later releasing them
(4). Such releases can be absorbed by the human body through inhalation.
A further range of organic chemicals is rapidly entering the indoor environment as a result of new products for
the treatment of materials and furnishings. These include formaldehyde, a group of volatile organic
compounds used, for example, in plastics and other polymeric materials; and pesticides which are
semi−volatile and thus can remain in the environment for a long time, becoming adsorbed in dust or soft
furnishings and released later. All of these chemicals are also inhaled.
The inhalation of dust and gases can trigger a variety of responses. The possible health effects can be
classified as toxic, irritant or sensitising (5). Toxic effects may be acute, resulting in direct damage to organs,
or chronic, causing for instance cancer, genetic damage or birth defects. Irritant effects are those which affect
the skin, or through inhalation, can cause discomfort or damage to the mucous membranes, the nose, lungs
or eyes. Allergic effects include a variety of sensitivities, for example asthma, rhinitis or eczema.
Table 1. Causal agents of disease encountered in buildings.
Type Agents Subcategory Example

Chemical Inorganic Gaseous NO2, CO, SO2, O3, Chlorine
Particulate Dust (lead, copper, wood), mineral fibres
Organic Toxic Formaldehyde, solvents (toluene, styrene), pesticides (lindane,
Tributyl tin oxide)
Carcinogenic Nickel compounds, primers (lead), chromates, vinyl chloride,
pesticides (arsenic, creosote)
Biological Microbes Viruses Influenza, colds,
Bacteria Legionella pneumophila, Plague
Fungi, moulds Spores, toxins,
Mycotoxins
Plants Seed plants Pollen
Arthropods Mites Housedust mite faecal
Pellets
Vectors Protozoa Parasites: malaria,
Chagas’ disease
Other Insects Flies, bugs, Cockroaches
Others Rodents Pets Rats, mice Skin scale, fur, feathers
Droppings
Physical Sensible Temperature Hypothermia, heat, stress
Humidity Dry mucous membranes
Light Circadian
Sound Dissynchronisation, glare
Noise pollution
Insensible Electromagnetism Radon
ionising
5
Source: Crowther, D. (1994). Buildings and Health, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge,
UK.
Microbes tend to thrive in the indoor environment. Damp, porous building materials can contribute to the
conditions needed to enable these organisms to flourish. Arthropods inhabit buildings. In tropical regions
some of these are carriers of debilitating diseases such as malaria and dengue which are carried by
mosquitoes, and Chagas’ disease which is carried by triatomine bugs. When dead, their disintegrated remains
and excreta collect in house dust, where they can cause a variety of allergic sensitivities. In northern climates,
the most important arthropod is the house−dust mite whose faecal pellets are held responsible for a
significant rise in asthmatic conditions (4). Other arthropods tend to inhabit small cracks and crevices in
buildings; thus they are encouraged by the use of building materials which are liable to crack, such as
unstabilised earth, or thatched roofs.
Another aspect of building materials which can impact upon human health is their radioactivity, leading to the
production of radon gas. Although in most instances their contribution to indoor radioactivity is small
compared with soil radon gas, building materials produced from industrial waste products can have significant
emissions. Radioactivity has a variety of carcinogenic effects.
In controlling health hazards, in residential or office buildings WHO recommends:
• To ban excessively hazardous materials
• To substitute less hazardous alternative products when available
• To introduce sanitary clearance of new building materials and of consumer products as

proposed in the European Union
• To decrease human exposure through extensive natural ventilation of buildings
• To use all possible ways of physical control of insects and rodents prior to the use of
pesticides
• To keep all residential and office buildings very clean
C. Asbestos
Sources and health implications
The term asbestos covers a number of naturally−occurring fibrous silicate materials in rock formations widely
distributed in the earth’s crust. However, only a few of the deposits are commercially exploitable. The principal
varieties of asbestos used commercially are chrysotile (hydrous magnesium silicate), a serpentine mineral,
and crocidolite (iron and sodium silicate) and amosite (iron and magnesium silicate), both of which are
amphiboles. Anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite asbestos are also amphiboles, but they are rare, and the
commercial exploitation of Anthophyllite asbestos has been discontinued (6).
While the properties of asbestos have been known for thousands of years, it is only in the last century, that
the manufacture of building materials incorporating asbestos has been carried out on an industrial scale (7).
The main use of asbestos fibres is in the manufacture of asbestos cement products. The products are based
on the addition of asbestos fibres (around 10−15 per cent by weight) to a non−combustible filler such as
Portland cement. Asbestos cement is a high−compression, high−density, hard−surfaced material which is
commonly employed for fire protection panels, corrugated panels for roofing and cladding, roof tiles, fire
surrounds, rain water goods, water tanks and water pipework etc. (8). The second largest use of asbestos
fibres in the United States of America is the asphalt and vinyl floor tile manufacturing industry. Increased use
of these types of tiles in many countries is due to their durability and impermeability to water (9).
Table 2. Principal varieties of asbestos, their theoretical formulae, world output (1984) and common uses in
building materials.
Mineral Theoretical formula Output tonnes Building materials
6
Chrysotile (White Mg3(Si2O5)(OH) 4,058,000 (96.6 per Lightweight insulation and lagging,
asbestos) cent) filler in plastics and roofing felts
Crocidolite (Blue Na2Fe(II)3Fe(III)2(Si8O22)(OH)
89,000
2 (2.1 per cent) Sprayed steel coatings, pipe seals,
asbestos) additive to cement and board
products
Amosite (Brown (Fe,Mg)7(Si8O22)(OH)2 30,000 (0.79 per Insulation board, ceiling tiles,
asbestos) cent) asbestos cements and laggings
Anthrophyllite (Mg,Fe(II))7(Si8O22)(OH)2 20,000 (0.48 per Lagging
cent)
Tremolite Ca2Mg5(Si8O22)(OH)2 High temperature applications
Actinolite Ca2(Mg,Fe(ll)5(Si8O22)(OH)2 With other types
Source: Spence, R. J. S., Cambridge Architectural Research Limited (UK), Building Materials
and Health (Unpublished draft report prepared for the United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements (Habitat), September 1994).
Note: The world production of asbestos has significantly changed since 1984. It was 4.3
million metric tons in 1988, 4.0 million tons in 1990, 3.5 million tons in 1991, and 3.1 million
tons in 1992 (United States Department of Interior, 1993: Asbestos in 1992. Mineral Industry
Surveys; United States Bureau of Mines, 1993). Out of the 3.1 million tons in 1992 more than
95 per cent was chrysotile. Amphibole production has declined sharply, with South African
production of crocidolite and amosite dropping from 280000 tons in the late 1970s to 55000
tons in 1992 (Industrial Minerals, 1992: Asbestos Production: The Chrysotile Crysis?). The
last amosite mine, which operated in South Africa, closed in 1992. The total United States
consumption of asbestos in 1991 was 34000 metric tons, and in 1992 only 33000 metric tons.
Only 500 metric tons of crocidolite was consumed in 1992 and no amosite (United States
Federal Register, vol.59, No. 153. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos; Final Rule, p.41027).
Epidemiological studies, mainly on occupational (mining and milling, manufacturing, or product application)
groups, have established that all types of asbestos fibres may be associated with asbestosis, bronchial
carcinoma, and mesothelioma (9). A brief account of these health problems is as follows (7, 10, 11):
• Asbestosis. This is a deposition of fibrous tissues in the lung parenchyma − the region
where oxygen exchange takes place. Initial coughing is followed by progressive difficulty in
breathing. The patient may eventually die of cardio−respiratory failure. Severity of the disease
is related to cumulative exposure to asbestos (a dose relationship), although it may be
arrested in the early stages if contact with asbestos ceases. Asbestosis has a long latent
period, rarely being seen less than 10 years after first exposure to asbestos. It seems that
there is a threshold level below which the condition does not occur;
• Bronchial carcinoma (lung cancer). As with, asbestosis, there is a dose relationship but it
is uncertain whether there is a threshold level below which there is no risk. There appears to
be a multiplicative effect on smokers: the risk to asbestos workers who smoke is ten times as
great as to non−smokers;
• Mesothelioma. A malignant tumour on the lining of the chest cavity (pleural mesothelioma)
or abdomen (peritoneal mesothelioma). The latent period for the disease is very long − an
average of more than 30 years from first exposure. Mesotheliomas have a very poor
prognosis, being unresponsive to most cancer therapies; and
• Non−malignant conditions such as diffuse thickening or effusion (fluid in the lungs). These
lung abnormalities may cause breathlessness but are often asymptotic.
Already in 1987, a WHO publication (37), the “Air quality guidelines for Europe”, described, inter alia, the
carcinogenic effect of asbestos. In addition, the European Community has issued several directives in which
the marketing and use of dangerous substances are regulated, e.g. Council Directive 76/769, and the fifth and
seventh amendments to this directive provide for restrictions on the marketing and use of asbestos. Germany
has incorporated the provisions of these directives in its national legislation. Except for some negligible
exemptions, asbestos is prohibited in Germany.
7
Health risks due to exposure to different asbestos types are dependent on the fibrous structure of the
material, thus asbestos types which are liable to form fibres less than 3 microns in diameter, principally the
amphiboles, are most hazardous (10). The fibre length is also important, with fibres longer than approximately
8 microns posing greatest risk. The principal risk is through inhalation of airborne fibres, since there is little
chance that fibres will penetrate the skin or be absorbed from the digestive tract.
Past exposure to asbestos in industry or in the general population has not been sufficiently well documented
to make an accurate assessment of the risks from future levels of exposure, which are likely to be low (6).
There are two possible approaches for assessment of risks, one based on a comparative and qualitative
evaluation of the literature (qualitative assessment), the other on an underlying mathematical model to link
fibre exposure to the incidence of cancer (quantitative assessment). Attempts to derive the mathematical
model have had limited success (6). However, on the basis of qualitative assessment, the following
conclusions have been drawn (9):
• Among occupational groups, exposure to asbestos poses a health hazard that may result in
asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. The incidence of these diseases is related to
fibre type, fibre dose, and industrial processing;
• In para−occupational (neighbourhood of an asbestos industrial plant, or home of an

asbestos worker) groups, the risk of mesothelioma and lung cancer is generally much lower
than for the occupational groups. Risk estimation is not possible because of the lack of
exposure data required for dose−response characterization. The risk of asbestosis is very
low;
• In the general population, the risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer attributable to
asbestos cannot be quantified reliably and are probably undetectable by epidemiological
method. The risk of asbestosis is virtually zero;
• On the basis of available data, it is not possible to assess the risks associated with exposure
to the majority of other natural mineral fibres in the occupational or general environment. The
only exception is erionite, for which a high incidence of mesothelioma in a local population
has been associated with exposure. Such exposure to erionite is exceptional, and
exposure−related mesothelioma were described in only one country, being probably the
consequence of outdoor exposures since birth (51).
The health hazards associated with use of asbestos in the construction industry have come to a sharper focus
in recent years: there has been a growing alarm about risks to dangers of breathing fine asbestos. On the
other hand, there are others who believe that not enough toxicological and medical data are available to justify
a ban on asbestos and asbestos products and that a lot more research is necessary before a judgment could
be arrived at, and that the existence of asbestos related diseases reflects neglect of working conditions in the
factories and ignorance regarding the science of occupational diseases associated with asbestos in the past
(12). However, due to the undisputed fact that asbestos is one of the identified carcinogens, in many countries
the manufacture and use of asbestos−based products have been strictly controlled in recent years. For
example:
• Use of crocidolite and amosite types of asbestos is increasingly being discontinued (they are
banned in the European Union countries and Japan);
• The number of uses and the total consumption of asbestos and its products in the
Netherlands have fallen sharply in recent years (13);
• The demand for asbestos was less than one−third in United States of America, in 1987
compared to its peak in 1973 (14). The demand was 672000 metric tons in 1977, and 34000
metric tons in 1991 (Pigg BJ: The uses of chrysotile. Ann Occup Hyg, 1994; 38: 453−458).
• Furthermore, ILO convention 162, requires governments to prohibit the use of crocidolite
and spraying of all forms of asbestos (15), and has issued a series of publications namely:
The ILO Code of Practice on Safety in the use of Asbestos, 1990; the ILO Occupational
Safety and Health Series No. 30 and No. 64; Asbestos: Health Risks and their Prevention,
1974; Safety in the Use of Mineral and Synthetic Fibres, 1990 and the ILO Convention
concerning Safety in the Use of Asbestos, 1986 (No. 162) and its accompanying
Recommendation, 1986 (No. 172).
8
Recently the São Paulo Declaration, an outcome of the Asbestos International Seminar: Controlled Use or
Ban, held in Sao Paulo Brazil in March 1994, demanded the prohibition of all uses of asbestos and the
promotion of substitutes which are less dangerous to the health and safety of workers (16).
The United States EPA in 1989 issued a Rule to prohibit the future manufacture, importation, processing, and
distribution of all types of asbestos in almost all products, however the rule was overturned by a United States
Court of Appeals in 1991. As a result, most asbestos products are not subject to the Ban and Phase out Rule
(Prof. F. Valic, IPCS Consultant and Chen, B. H., WHO).
In spite of the opposing views about asbestos, the controlled use of asbestos appears to be favoured by
agencies such as ISO, ILO, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, OECD, and the
Commission of European Union (EU) (12). However, substitution of asbestos should be considered when safe
control cannot be assured. While waiting for the time when it will be economically feasible to ban asbestos
use all around the world, WHO recommends: Workers in asbestos industries must wear protective respiratory
equipment and never smoke any tobacco; there is no risk from using water pipes in asbestos−cement; and
the risks from asbestos−cement roofs are kept properly lined and maintained in such a way as to prevent fibre
emissions.
Factors influencing exposure
Risk groups which may be exposed to high asbestos levels are: workers in asbestos manufacturing and
processing industries, and maintenance and demolition workers (13). Risks to construction and maintenance
workers and building occupants occur when the material containing asbestos is subjected to rough
mechanical treatment releasing respirable fibres into the air. Installed components, for example sheet
materials which may be sealed by a layer of paint, pose little risk unless degradation occurs by physical
abrasion. Chemical attack is a possibility in the case of asbestos cement products in contact with water
(especially if “aggressive” due to pH rating and ion content), for example roof sheets and downpipes (17).
The most serious risks to construction workers are likely to be associated with demolition, or programmes of
removal aimed at eliminating asbestos products from a building. There are often problems in identifying
components which contain asbestos, particularly since many are virtually indistinguishable from the substitute
materials which have been developed incorporating man−made mineral fibres. Sampling and analysis by
experts in the field may be necessary for correct identification.
Since stripping of asbestos−containing materials often raises exposure levels for building occupants as well
as the contractors for a considerable period of time, the risks involved in such actions must be carefully
balanced against predicted risks if the materials remain in place. In−situ repair work and sealing may be
preferable to full−scale removal, particularly if the asbestos is in a relatively inaccessible location. Heavy
physical exertion increases the respiration rate and thereby the exposure dose. Smokers too constitute a risk
group with an increased susceptibility to lung cancer.
Acceptable exposure levels
Most developed countries have regulated their asbestos industries, with specified limits to asbestos exposure.
In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) for example, control limits and action levels
are set out by the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 (amended 1993). At exposures above the
control limit, respirators fitted with the correct filter must be worn. In applying the exposure limit, “fibre” is
defined as a particle with length more than 5 microns, diameter less than 3 microns and ratio of length to
diameter greater than 3:1. For chrysotile alone, the control limit is 0.5 fibres per millilitre (f/ml) of air averaged
over 4 hours, or 1.5 f/ml averaged over any 10 minute period. For any other type of asbestos, whether or not
mixed with chrysotile, the corresponding limits are 0.2 and 0.6 f/ml. If workers’ exposure exceeds the action
level, the employer is obliged to arrange medical examinations at a maximum of 2 year intervals and to keep
accessible medical records for at least 40 years.
In the case of the United States of America, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in
1988 took new regulatory action on additional protections to state and local government employees covered
by the EPA asbestos abatement worker protection (6). EPA defines “fibre” as a particulate form of asbestos 5
micrometres or longer, with a length−to−diameter ratio of at least 3 to 1. The Permissible Exposure limit to
workers exposed to airborne asbestos being 0.2f/cc of air, averaged over an 8−hour day. The action level is
0.1f/cc averaged over 8 hours. The action level is the level at which employers must begin activities such as
air monitoring, employee training, and medical surveillance. WHO recommends that, inside buildings the
concentration of asbestos fibbers must stay below 500 fibbers per cubic meter. In the case of environmental
9
exposure, it has been estimated that fibre concentrations are unlikely to exceed one thousandth of the control
level (18). A typical situation might give a lifetime excess risk of death from mesothelioma of 1 or 2 in 10,000
(18). For lung cancer, the same source predicts an excess mortality of two per million. As noted above, there
appears to be a threshold effect for asbestosis which limits its impact to workers in the asbestos industry, with
little if any effect on those subject to non−occupational exposure. However, the United States OSHA has
recently issued a new Rule on Occupational Exposure to Asbestos (United States OSHA, Department of
Labour: Occupational Exposure to Asbestos. Federal Register 1994, Vol. 59, No. 153, 40964−41158) for
general industry, construction and shipyard industry specifying permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fibre/cm3 of
air as an 8−hour time−weighted average, and an excursion limit of 1.0 fibre/cm3 of air as averaged over a
sampling period of 30 minutes. Special attention is given to exposure of workers during repair and
maintenance of automotive brakes and clutches, and to exposure of custodian staff.
Mitigation strategies
Construction activities (including renovation, demolition and insulation) should be designed and planned to
eliminate or reduce the need for mineral−fibre − based materials which have a cancer producing potential.
Stringent handling regulations in the manufacture, use, transportation, demolition, storage and disposal of
asbestos must be established. These could potentially be extended to MMMFs if continued monitoring of their
effect shows that to be necessary. In view of the reported carcinogenic properties of asbestos after inhalation,
exposure via the respiratory route should be avoided as far as possible. To avoid eye and skin irritations,
protective clothing and spectacles should be used. Employers should develop a training programme for all
employees who are exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos at or above the action level. The training
programme must inform employees about the methods of recognizing asbestos and the health hazards of
asbestos exposure; the relationship between asbestos and smoking in producing lung cancer; operations
which could result in asbestos exposure; the importance of necessary protective controls to minimize
exposure including, as applicable: engineering controls, work practices, respirators, housekeeping
procedures, hygiene facilities, protective clothing, decontamination procedures, emergency procedures and
waste disposal procedures; the purpose, proper use, and limitations of respirators; and the medical
surveillance programme (6). Furthermore for construction workers who may be exposed to asbestos dust,
hazards will be mitigated further by following advice issued to workers in the asbestos industry:
• be aware of the materials likely to contain asbestos, and potential risks;
• follow recommended working procedures, for example using hand tools for cutting and
drilling asbestos products rather than mechanical tools;
• keep the working area clean; damp down dust before removal by vacuuming with
specially−designed equipment; do not blow away debris with an airline;
• ensure waste material is properly collected in marked dustproof containers for safe disposal;
• wear protective clothing and a respirator where appropriate;
• wash or shower at the end of the working day;
• do not take working clothes home; and
• avoid smoking.
Employers have a duty to protect the workforce by taking all possible steps to minimize health risks. They
should ensure that workers follow the guidelines above; they should provide suitable equipment and facilities
(e.g. for showering), monitor exposure and when necessary arrange medical checks. Measures of this type
have been adopted by the Indian government through the publication of 16 Indian Standards on Safety in the
Use of Asbestos. In addition, the Indian government has established a Development Panel and the Asbestos
Products Industry and an Expert Group to examine the feasibility of substituting alternative products (12).
Substitute materials
The substitution of asbestos should be considered where safe control cannot be achieved. Many materials
have been developed as substitutes for asbestos based products, a large proportion of which use
Man−made−mineral fibres (MMMFs). MMMFs, known as mineral wools or other types of fibres, (a term used
is the United States of America to refer to mixtures of rock and slag wools) are amorphous glassy fibres made
10
from molten slags, natural rocks such as basalt and borosilicate or calcium silicate glasses; chemically they
are all amorphous silicates. Their use has increased greatly since the 1960s, partly due to a growing
awareness of risks associated with asbestos. Applications of MMMFs are: reinforcement to glass reinforced
cement; glass reinforced plastic and rubber; textiles and electrical insulation; insulating quilts, bats and
boards; tiles, pipes and ductwork; acoustic insulation; high temperature thermal insulation e.g. lining refractory
kilns; joints and gaskets; and as high efficiency air filters.
Studies however indicate that all respirable size MMMFs are not biologically inert and health hazards posed
by them require thorough investigation. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has
indicated that (19):
• There is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of glasswool and of ceramic fibres in
experimental animals;
• There is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of rockwool in experimental animals;
• There is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of glass filaments and of slagwool in
experimental animals;
• There is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of glasswool and of glass filaments in
humans;
• There is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of rock−/slagwool in humans;
• No data were available on the carcinogenicity of ceramic fibres to humans.
Thus IARC (20), in accordance with its carcinogenic evaluation criteria (table 3), has concluded in an overall
evaluation of the effects of glasswool, rockwool, slagwool and ceramic fibres that they are possibly
carcinogenic to humans. On the other hand glass filaments are not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity. It
should be noted that for carcinogens, in WHO guidelines, the values are based on an accepted risk of one
additional cancer per year per hundred thousand exposed people. In countries where most deaths occurred
from infections diseases, WHO considers it appropriate to compute safety standards on the basis of an
accepted risk of one additional cancer per year per ten thousand exposed persons.
Table 3. IARC Carcinogenic evaluation criteria.
Group Description
1 The agent (mixture) is Used only when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.
carcinogenic to humans. Exceptionally, an agent (mixture) may be placed in this category when evidence
The exposure circumstance in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of
entails exposures that are carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed
carcinogenic to humans humans that the agent (mixture) acts through a relevant mechanism of
carcinogenicity.
2A The agent (mixture) is Used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient
probably carcinogenic to evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent
human. The exposure (mixture) may be classified in this category when there is inadequate evidence
circumstance entails of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
exposures that are probably experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis is mediated
carcinogenic to humans by a mechanism that also operates in humans. Exceptionally, an agent, mixture
or exposure circumstance may be classified in this category solely on the basis
of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.
2B The agent (mixture) is This category is used for agents, mixtures and exposure circumstances for
possibly carcinogenic to which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than
humans. The exposure sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be
circumstance entails used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there
exposures that are possibly is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some
carcinogenic to humans instances, an agent, mixture or exposure circumstance for which there is
inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but limited evidence of
carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from
other relevant data may be placed in this group.
11
3 The agent (mixture or This category is used most commonly for agents, mixtures and exposure
exposure circumstance) is circumstances for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in
not classifiable as to its humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals. Exceptionally,
carcinogenicity to humans. agents (mixtures) for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in
humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category
when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in
experimental animals does not operate in humans.
Agents, mixtures and exposure circumstances that do not fall into any other
group are also placed in this category.
4 The agent (mixture) is Used for agents for which there is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity
probably not carcinogenic to in humans together with evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in
humans. experimental animals. In some circumstances, agents for which there is
inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but evidence suggesting lack
of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, consistently and strongly supported
by a broad range of other relevant data, may be classified in this group.
Source: IARC (1994). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans.
Preamble, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France.
Other related health hazards include skin, eye and upper − respiratory−tract irritations such as bronchitis (21).
Occupational health hazards are due to improper exposure to MMMFs. According to IFBWW (21), most
countries in the world treat MMMFs as nuisance dust and in most cases follow a standard of 10 mg/m3 of total
dust or 5 mg/m3 for respirable dust. Examples of introduced more stringent fibre and gravimetric standards for
MMMFs are as follows (21, 22):
• In Denmark, stationary workplaces must meet a 2. Of/ml fibre standard, and in

non−stationary workplaces a 5 mg/m3 total dust standard is in effect;
• In Sweden, all work involving synthetic or inorganic fibres must meet a 1.0f/ml standard;
• In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a fibre standard of If/ml applies,
as well as a total inhalable dust limit of 5 mg/m3;
• In Australia all work with MMMFs must meet a 0.5f/ml standard as well as a 2 mg/m3
respirable dust standard;
• In Germany there is no more TLV because MMMFs with diameter less than 1 ?m are
justifiably suspected of having carcinogenic potential; and
• In Canada, Alberta has adopted a limit of 1.0f/ml for fibrous glass and mineral wool and
0.5f/ml limit for refractory ceramic fibres, and a total dust standard of 5 mg/m3 for work with
these materials also applies.
Other alternatives which do not contain mineral fibre such as metallic or ceramic products are often less
available or considerably more expensive. The possible hazards posed by fibrous materials may have to be
considered in relation to these other disadvantages in selecting components. For new buildings, non−fibrous
alternatives to asbestos should be considered first. Whenever MMMFs substitutes are considered, and as in
the case of asbestos, appropriate work practices, engineering, and administrative control measures should
aim at controlling the exposure of workers to airborne dust and fibres. Substitute materials and non−fibrous
alternatives are suggested in table 4.
Table 4. Examples of asbestos−based materials, MMMF−based substitutes and alternatives
Asbestos−based material MMMFs−based substitutes Alternatives

asbestos based thermal glass fibre or rock−wool quilt, cellulose quilt, expanded or extruded
insulation rock−wool bats polystyrene board polystyrene beads
asbestos pipe lagging mineral−wool lagging or preformed foamed rubber or polystyrene
sections sections
asbestos cement or asbestos mineral fibre filled double walled masonry chimney, preformed
12
filled double walled metallic metallic flues concrete block flue, double walled
flues metallic air filled flue
asbestos based acoustic mineral fibre reinforced sprayed foamed rubber or polystyrene,
insulation plaster textiles, textured plaster
fire−proof lining sheets glass−reinforced cement board, multi−layer plasterboard
calcium silicate based board
sprayed asbestos fire proofing intumescent coating
asbestos cement roofing sheets fibre reinforced calcium silicate vegetable−fibre cement sheets,
sheets, glass reinforced cement, glass profiled steel, sheet metal (zinc,
reinforced plastic aluminium etc.)
asbestos−based roofing felt glass fibre based felt polyester−based or pitch polymer
felts
asbestos cement slates glass reinforced cement natural slate, clay or concrete tiles,
PVA cement slates
asbestos cement water storage glass reinforced cement polythene, polypropylene, galvanised
tanks mild steel
asbestos cement rainwater glass reinforced plastic cast iron, aluminium, uPVC
goods
asbestos cement eaves, soft glass reinforced cement board, softwood, plywood, PVA cement
board calcium silicate board board
asbestos fibre/vinyl floor tile or mineral fibre/vinyl tile or sheet thermoplastic tiles, linoleum, clay tiles
sheet
D. Metals
A number of metals are used in the construction industry in their metallic form, making use of their structural
properties, their resistance to water penetration or their high thermal and electrical conductivity − or as
compounds, primarily in paint and other finishes. Most of them are harmless − in fact, dietary intake of many
metallic elements is essential to health. Risks may however result from excessive intake of certain metals.
The two principal building−related sources are: soluble metallic salts in water supply, from the use of metals in
pipework and joints, storage tanks and roof flashings, gutters and downpipes; and paint flakes, which may be
ingested. The metals of potential concern are cadmium, chromium and lead.
Cadmium is highly toxic: exposure may result in bone damage, kidney damage and lung cancer. Again, the
principal sources are dietary, but paints may also present risks. Cadmium may also be present as a
contaminant of foam rubber carpet backing.
Chromium is most toxic in the valence state chromium. It too is a component of some paints and metallic
finishes and may be a contaminant of cement. Mining waste may contaminate ground water. Health effects
observed in chromium−industry workers include: contact dermatitis on exposed skin; ulceration if the skin is
penetrated through cuts and abrasions; if inhaled, inflammation of the larynx and perforation of the nasal
septum; liver damage; lung cancer, and possible other types of malignant tumour.
Lead is perhaps the most important constructional metal with health implications. The workability of lead in its
metallic form has made it an important material for roofing and associated works such as flashings, valley
gutters and rainwater hoppers. It has also been used for water supply pipes. Other uses include glazing bars
for stained glass or small−paned windows, as an additive in linseed oil putty, and as an important component
of traditionally−formulated paints, in particular in primers for external use on wood and metal: red lead and
calcium plumbate primers contain over 20 per cent lead in their liquid state. Even paints for internal
application such as eggshell finishes may contain a considerable proportion of lead. The effects of lead
poisoning have been recognised for hundreds of years in lead miners and smelters. There are other health
13
risks associated with lead, but these are of concern primarily in lead − using industries such as battery and
lead shot manufacture, and in the mining and smelting of lead, and are not of significance to the construction
and building materials industries (23).
Concentration of soluble lead salts in water supplied through lead pipework is dependent on the
characteristics of the water. Soft, acidic waters show the greatest tendency to leach lead from plumbing, but
problems can also be encountered with some types of hard water. The water temperature and the length of
time that it has been in contact with lead plumbing are also important factors (17). Children are particularly
liable to be affected by potentially toxic metallic compounds in paintwork. Small children spend a large part of
their time at floor level, where they are susceptible to paint and solder flakes in household dust. Furthermore,
some children develop a condition known as pica, characterised by a craving to eat non−food substances.
Paint flakes can be a favourite “meal”.
In the case of chromium, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended upper limit in drinking water is
0.05 parts per million (50 ?g/1). For lead, an upper limit of 50 microgrammes per litre for mains water has
been accepted by the European Union (EU) (17). However, many households’ supply from the tap may well
exceed this, because of leaching from plumbing installations. For example, a survey carried out in Scotland in
the mid−70s showed that tap water in 21 per cent of households exceeded a level of 100 microgrammes of
lead per litre. An upper limit in blood level concentration of lead of 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres has
been set by the EU. The British government advises that environmental exposure to lead should be reduced if
an individual’s blood level concentration exceeds 25 microgrammes per 100 millilitres, particularly in the case
of a child. Supported by scientific data from the United States of America (24) a number of European
governments are considering lowering this level to 10−15 ?g/dl. WHO has made an international risk
evaluation on health effects from exposure to inorganic lead and the results will be published in Environmental
Health Criteria No. 165 on Inorganic Lead in 1995 by WHO. The most substantial evidence from
cross−sectional and prospective studies of populations with BPb levels generally below 25 ?g/dl relates to
decrements in intelligence quotient (IQ). It is important to note that such observational studies cannot provide
definitive evidence of a causal relationship with lead exposure. Existing epidemiological studies do not provide
definitive evidence of a threshold. Below the BPb range of 10−15 ?g/dl, the effects of confounding variables
and limits in the precision of analytical and psychometric measurements increase the uncertainty attached to
any estimate of effect. (WHO. 1995, Environmental Health Criteria No. 165, Inorganic Lead in press).
However, while the medical effects of acute poisoning − including stomach ache, constipation and vomiting −
are clear, there is less consensus about the effects of low level exposure. The threshold level is uncertain,
and there is considerable scientific debate about appropriate action levels (23).
If roofs have lead finishes or components such as valley gutters, the use of run−off water for cooking and
drinking should be avoided. Lead−based paints, and other toxic−metal based paints too should never be used
in situations accessible to children, particularly on nursery furniture or play equipment. To minimise the risks
of exposure to lead compounds, paintwork should be kept in good condition: recent, lead−free paint may
cover older layers of traditional paints and primers containing lead or other potentially toxic metallic
compounds. It has been estimated that 60 per cent of the domestic stock in United States of America contains
leaded paintwork, amounting to 3 million tons (24). Good maintenance of all paintwork may be preferable to
removal: renovation of older timber houses in United States of America has been shown to raise occupants
blood lead levels two times, thus a doubling of the average load (25). Where old paintwork − possibly
containing lead − needs to be stripped to give a good surface for re−decoration, it is advisable to use a
chemical stripper rather than mechanical methods (particularly those using exposed flame or hot air above
500°C). Good ventilation should be provided. Wet sanding is a possibility for large areas, provided that the
resulting dust is carefully collected. All debris from stripping old paintwork should be meticulously cleared
away for disposal. Any paints containing lead, chromium or cadmium should be clearly labelled with their
content of these metals as wet film and dried paint. Unsuitable uses should also be indicated − particularly in
locations accessible to children.
WHO recommends an immediate ban of leaded paints and progressive elimination of lead as water−pipe
material. Substitute materials are suggested in table 5.
14
Table 5. Constructional uses of potentially toxic metals, and alternatives
Use in building construction Alternative material

Lead sheet as roof finish Sheet aluminium, zinc or copper;
plastic coated/profiled steel;
elastomeric sheet; built−up felt roofing
Lead flashings and soakers Preformed PVC, glass reinforced
plastic, aluminium
Lead rainwater hoppers Cast iron, cast aluminium or PVC
Lead concealed or valley gutters Zinc, elastomeric sheet, preformed
PVC
Water supply pipes Copper, stainless steel, plastics
Lead−alloy fittings to water supply pipes Copper, brass, plastics
Lead solder to water supply pipes Tin, silver solder; plastic or brass
compression fittings; solvent joints (for
plastics)
Lead came to ‘leaded’ lights in glazing Copper, lead strips on internal face of
glass within double glazing
Leaded glazing putty Unleaded linseed oil putty, synthetic
rubber or polysulphide based glazing
compounds, timber or metal glazing
beads
Any paints containing lead, chromium or cadmium, such as calcium Vinyl−based paints, polyurethane
plumbate primer, red lead primer, metallic lead primer, red oxide varnishes and most water−based
primer, and zinc chromate metal primer stains.
E. Solvents
Organic solvents are very widely used in construction as key ingredients of adhesives, paints, flooring
materials and mastics. The most commonly used solvents include white spirit, toluene, xylene,
trichloroethane, styrene and carbon tetrachloride. Paints, glues and lacquers contain toluene, methyl n−butyl
ketone, n−hexane and xylene. Paint strippers and solvents contain white spirit and dichloromethane and
expanded plastics contain styrene.
If inhaled, solvents dissolve readily in the blood stream. Sufficiently low concentrations will be metabolised
quickly with no ill effects by the body, but if exposure is excessive a variety of health effects can occur,
including sedation effects ranging from slowed reaction time and decreased vigilance to anaesthesia, irritation
to the eyes, nose and throat, liver damage, and damage to the nervous system (26).
The International Federation of Building and Wood Workers has reported major health hazards for painters
which include (27):
• Occupational cancer − Painters run a high risk of getting cancer from the chemicals with
which they work: benzene can cause leukaemia; carbon tetrachloride can cause liver cancer;
all chlorinated solvents (those with “Chloro” or “Chloride” in their names) are suspected
carcinogens, for example, methylene chloride is a suspect carcinogen because it causes
cancer in animals. See also table 6. A complete list of known cancer agents evaluated by
IARC is given in the Annex. For the evaluation criteria refer to table 3.
• “Painters’ Syndrome” − is the name given to the effects on health which may arise from
long−term exposure to organic solvents. Organic solvents get into the body and brain through
15
the lungs or skin and slowly cause permanent changes in the brain and the central nervous
system. Solvents may also damage the peripheral nervous system which is the system of
nerves leading from the spinal cord to the arms and legs. The symptoms caused by this
damage are numbness and tingling in the hands and feet, weakness and paralysis.
• Occupation skin diseases − all solvents can dissolve the skin’s protective barrier of oils,
causing dermatitis. There are two types of contact dermatitis: irritant contact dermatitis, and
allergic contact dermatitis. Contact dermatitis is the most common occupational skin disease,
caused when the skin comes into contact with certain chemicals which can make the skin red,
sore, inflamed, irritated, cracked, dry and itchy, and sometimes rashes and blisters may
develop. Anyone working with paints and coatings runs a high risk of contracting irritant
contact dermatitis because many paints and coatings contain chemicals which irritate the
skin. This is a non−allergic skin reaction from exposure to irritating substances. Exposure to
irritants accounts for 80 per cent of the cases of occupational contact dermatitis.
• Allergic contact dermatitis is a type of dermatitis caused by becoming allergic or sensitised

to particular chemicals called allergens. Common allergens include epoxy adhesives,
chromium and nickel compounds. Once someone has developed an allergy to a chemical
(has become “sensitised”), the dermatitis will flare up again, usually within twelve hours after
contact with the chemical. Some workers develop allergic contact dermatitis after many years
of trouble free working with paints/coatings. Other workers never develop it at all even though
they work with the same paint ingredient that gives allergic contact dermatitis to other
painters. Allergic contact dermatitis is not easy to treat. Studies show that 25 per cent of
people with allergic contact dermatitis will not recover from their allergy and will have to leave
their work so as to avoid all contact with the allergens.
• Occupational lung diseases − occupational asthma; lung irritation from paint vapours and
mists, lung tumours in painters and chronic bronchitis/emphysema. Occupational asthma is
the result of becoming allergic to a chemical or substance. Once the lungs become allergic to
a lung allergen, the symptoms of asthma can come back with exposure to a tiny amount of
the substance. This means some workers are forced to leave their jobs because the asthma
is so serious. It can be very difficult to “lose” an allergy. Common symptoms are wheezing,
shortness of breath and coughing but there can also be other symptoms.
Table 6. A list of some of the known cancer agents related to painting as evaluated by IARC (27,28).
Cancer Agent IARC Group Likely Sources

Chromates 1 Primers, paints
Cadmium 1 Pigments
Benzene 1 Solvents, some thinners
Methylene Chloride 2B Paint strippers
Styrene 2B Organic solvent, e.g. in some polyesters, putties and fillers
Nickel Compounds 1 Pigments
3,3’ − Dichlorobenzidine 2B Pigments
Lead 2B Primers, dryers, some pigments
Antimony oxide 2B Some pigments,
2−Nitropropane 2A Organic solvent
Tetrachloroethylene 2B Organic solvent for degreasing
Source: IFBWW Series 3 (1992). Solvents and Paint Hazards, International Federation of
Building and Wood Workers, Geneva, and IARC (1995). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation
of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Lists of IARC Evaluations, Lyon, France.
An important characteristic of the hazardous substances in forms of gases and vapours which strongly
influences their significance as health hazards is their volatility. Highly volatile substances are those with low
boiling points, which will give off gases and vapours at a very rapid rate at normal temperatures. A study on
the solvent vapour hazards during painting with white − spirit − borne eggshell paints, indicated that when
16
painting was carried out at a lower temperature (12°C instead of 24°C) the rate of solvent vapour release,
and consequently the hazard, was reduced by about 25 per cent (29). The same study concluded that the use
of such paints in unventilated conditions can constitute significant health hazards: in the trials the short−term
exposure limit (STEL) for white−spirit vapour was exceeded approximately 10 minutes from the start of
painting, and concentrations approaching 700 ppm for a 10 − minute time weighted average (TWA) were
reached before completion of painting. The allowable long−term exposure limit for an eight hour time weighted
average (TWA) exposure is 100 parts per million (ppm), and the short−term exposure limit (STEL) for any
given 10−minute period is 125 ppm (29). Thus, unless ventilation is good, hazardous concentrations can
easily be reached shortly after use or installation; but the rate of emission will decline rapidly, and they are not
likely to be a long−term problem, except where, for some reason, emissions are delayed. Substances of low
volatility, or semi−volatile substances, conversely, are not emitted rapidly: but they can continue to be emitted
for a long period of time; they can be absorbed by dust and furnishing materials, and then later be re−emitted
to the environment; and they are metabolised only slowly in the human body, and can therefore tend to
accumulate.
Solvents are volatile and therefore can build up in the indoor environment during construction and
maintenance work. Moreover, their emission can continue even after occupancy, and thus add to the load of
other solvents and organic chemicals in the environment from dry cleaning, aerosol propellants, correction
fluid, cigarette smoke and so on.
The World Health Organization classifies organic chemicals as Very Volatile (VVOC), Volatile (VOC), and
Semi−Volatile (SVOC). The VVOCs are a fairly small group of which, among building materials, formaldehyde
which is a gas is the most important member. The VOCs are a much larger group, of growing size; they
include the binders in plastics and other polymeric materials and the large group of solvents used in the
manufacture of paints and varnishes. The semi−volatile materials, SVOCs, consist largely of pesticides which
are also very numerous. A fourth category of organic compound which has significant hazards is particulate
organic matter (POM) in the form of dust. Building materials are, however, not a significant cause of POM in
the indoor environment. The classes of substances, their characteristics and uses, based on the World Health
Organisation (WHO) data, are summarised in table 7 (5, 30).
Table 7. Classification of organic compounds in the indoor atmosphere and their sources.
Description Abbreviation Boiling point Main example Principal uses

range (OC)
Very volatile organic VVOC <100 Formaldehyde Pressed board products
compounds (gas) Urea formaldehyde foam carpets
Volatile organic VOC 50−260 Solvents Paints, varnishes, plastics,
compounds mastics
Semi−volatile organic SVOC 240−400 Pesticides Timber treatments, paints,
compounds wallpaper paste, carpets
Participate organic POM >380 Dust Carpets, ventilation ductwork
matter
Source: Crowther, D. (1994). Buildings and Health, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge,
UK, and WHO (1990). Indoor Environment: Health Aspects of Air Quality, Thermal
Environment, Light and Noise, UNCHS/UNEP/WHO
WHO and national authorities, such as American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
have set limits for industrial exposure. The Threshold Limit Values (TLV) set by ACGIH for some of the more
important solvents are shown in table 8. Guidelines recommended by WHO regarding ambient and indoor air
would be appropriate for domestic exposure, because of the increased time of exposure, and the greater
susceptibility of some occupants such as small children and the elderly. Table 8 also shows some domestic
air levels taken from a variety of studies (31,32). It will be seen that all are far below the Threshold Limit
Values prescribed.
Table 8. Threshold Limit Values (ACGIH) and recorded domestic air levels for some solvents used in
construction.
17
Solvent Threshold limit value (ACGIH) (mg/m3) Typical domestic air level (mg/m3)
Aromatic hydrocarbons:
Styrene 213 0.0027
Toluene 188 0.01 − 0.6
Xylene 434 0.01 − 0.14
Aliphatic hydrocarbons:
n−hexane 176
Methyl n−butyl ketone 20
Chlorinated
hydrocarbons:
Dichloromethane 174 5
Carbon tetrachloride 31 0.014
Source: Ray, D.E, (1992). Hazards from Solvents, Pesticides and PCBs in Leslie, C.B. and
Lunau, F.W., Indoor Air Pollution: Problems and Priorities, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, and ACGIH (1994). 1994−1995 Threshold Limit Values for Chemical
Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices.
During occupancy, the key consideration is not the exposure or limit value of any one organic chemical but the
exposure to all volatile chemicals. While exposure to individual organic chemicals in the indoor atmosphere
may be acceptably low, the combination of numerous gases and vapours at low concentrations can have
irritant effects. Measurements by Molhave (26) of the emissions of solvent gases and vapours from 42
building materials showed that about 80 per cent of the compounds identified in the air around the materials
were known or suspected mucous membrane irritants. When combined with other gases in an indoor
environment, and combined with other environmental factors such as sound, temperature, humidity, these
organic chemicals are regarded as being largely responsible for the condition known as sick building
syndrome. Molhave (26), based on experiments on people exposed to different levels of exposure, suggests
that concentrations of total volatile organic compounds less than 0.16 mg/m3 may be expected to cause no
mucous membrane irritation, while concentrations above 5 mg/m3 are found to cause irritation. In the
intermediate range, irritation may occur if promoted by other environmental exposures. Molhave (24) has
subsequently proposed an approximate dose−response table for airborne VOCs (Table 9).
Table 9. Draft dose response table for airborne VOCs.
Total VOCs (mg/m3) Possible reactions Exposure class

<0.2 No irritation or discomfort Comfort range
0.2−3.0 Irritation and discomfort Multifactorial exposure range
3.0−25.0 Headache and other weak neurotoxic effects Discomfort range
>25.0 Additional neurotoxic effects Toxic range
Source: Molhave, L. (1990). Volatile Organic Compounds − Indoor Air Quality and Health,
Indoor Air ‘90, Vol. 5, pp. 447−452
At present there are no national or international indoor air criteria for new buildings but in some areas, they
are beginning to be developed. In the state of Washington, United States of America, for example, emission
rates for office furniture workstations must be such that the resulting air concentrations in the building are less
than those shown in table 10 (34).
Table 10. Emission limits for office furniture workstations set by the State of Washington, United States of
America.
Substance Air concentration limit

Formaldehyde 0.05 ppm (0.06 mg/m3)
Total VOCs 0.50 mg/m3
Total particulates 0.050 mg/m3
18
Source: Tucker, W. (1990). Building with Law−emitting Materials and Products: Where Do We
Stand?”, Indoor Air ‘90, Vol. 3, pp. 251−256.
While the solvents are in use, during construction activity, levels will clearly reach much higher values over a
short period of time. Where solvent − borne paints, have been specified, measures must be taken to ensure
ventilation or solvent extraction sufficient to reduce solvent − vapour levels below the occupational exposure
limits. Where this is not practicable the operators must be provided with suitable respiratory protection.
Protective clothing should also be provided to workers. Workers too need to be provided with health and
safety information about the hazards of the solvents including the minimum requirements for safe use and
exposure control to protect their health, the chemical ingredients, the short and long−term health effects,
first−aid information, and storage and transport requirements.
There are limited options at present for the substitution of volatile organic chemicals in paints and other
finishes. Alternative water−based paints are available which reduce the quantity of organic chemical solvents,
but although advertised as environmentally friendly, they do contain significant quantities of organic solvents
and a range of other hazardous chemicals. Solvents based purely on natural products do exist (35) but are
not manufactured yet in large quantities and paints based on them are not commercially available.
F. Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde is a major chemical building block in polymer chemistry, with numerous applications in the
manufacture of construction products. It is used as a component of urea−formaldehyde foam insulation and is
also present in many timber products as a component of glues and resins used in the manufacture of
chipboard, plywood and furniture. Formaldehyde is used is now world−wide. For example, production in the
United States of America alone exceeds 4 million tones per year (36) about half of which is used for the
production of urea−formaldehyde and phenol−formaldehyde resins and in foam insulation.
With a boiling point of −19°C, formaldehyde is highly volatile at room temperatures, leading to the possibility
of high concentrations in the indoor environment. It has a strong pungent odour, which acts as a warning
against prolonged exposure to high concentrations. Moderate levels of exposure have irritant effects to the
nose, throat, lung and eyes; at higher levels of concentration for prolonged periods (such as those associated
with workers exposed to formaldehyde in the workplace) pathological changes to nasal mucosa have been
reported (36). Allergenic skin reactions have also been reported in men chronically exposed to
formaldehyde−containing materials. Finally, in high concentrations, the inhalation of formaldehyde is a
potential carcinogen on the nasal mucosa: according to IARC (20), formaldehyde is probably carcinogenic to
humans.
Data on acute toxicity are mainly from epidemiological studies of occupationally exposed populations and
residents of buildings constructed of materials containing formaldehyde, and from controlled human exposure
studies (37). Occupational exposure contributes to total exposure, for example, a high occupational exposure
(e.g. in formaldehyde or resin production) of 1 mg/m3 for a 25 per cent time−weighted period would give a
daily intake of about 5 mg per day (37).
The possible routes of exposure to formaldehyde are ingestion, inhalation, dermal absorption. Inhalation via
ambient air, indoor air, or from smoking is the major route of exposure. Of the three, inhalation of the indoor
air is the major route of entry with releases from chipboard and other building and furnishing materials
constituting the bulk of the exposure (37) Furthermore occupants of prefabricated buildings incorporating
chipboard are likely to inhale 2−3 times as much formaldehyde as occupants of conventional buildings (37).
19
Regulations of different countries now limit workplace exposures to between 0.5 mg/m3 and 2.0 mg/m3; while
Sweden has specified domestic maxima to 0.1 mg/m3 for new homes and 0.7 mg/m3 for old homes; indoor
concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 0.8 mg/m3 in houses and mobile homes with urea formaldehyde foam
insulation are commonly found (36). It has been found that 0.5 mg/m3 is sufficient to produce nasal irritation;
that the no−effect level is 2 mg/m3; and that at dosages of 5.6 mg/m3, rats developed nasal tumours. There is
thus only a small margin between the upper permitted exposure levels and the levels at which carcinogenicity
has been demonstrated.
The highly volatile nature of formaldehyde means that while early concentration in the indoor environment
may be high, the level of concentration will fall rapidly. For example, the level of concentration within a week
following the application of a floor finish using formaldehyde can fall to less than one−sixth of its level shortly
after application (38). Thus, while workers need protection during application, occupants can effectively be
protected by delaying occupancy long enough for the emission to have reached an acceptable level.
Adequate ventilation both during construction and occupation can ensure that unacceptable concentrations do
not arise. Respiratory protective equipment should be used whenever necessary. Building codes and
production and processing regulations should take into account the numerous sources that may contribute to
indoor formaldehyde, levels which include: insulating materials, chipboard and plywood, and fabrics. Other
sources are cigarette smoke, heating and cooking.
G. Insecticides and fungicides
Pesticides are natural or chemical agents such as insecticides, used to destroy troublesome insects,
herbicides for weed control, fungicides to control plant disease, rodenticides and germicides (39). A range of
organic chemicals are in use as insecticides and fungicides for timber treatment. They include dieldrin, lindane
and benzene hexachloride commonly used as insecticides, and Pentachlorophenol commonly used as a
fungicide (17). There are many others in use (31), and some, such as DDT, which have been widely banned.
Table 11 shows some of the most widespread chemicals used.
Table 11. Insecticides and fungicides commonly used for timber treatment and their health hazards.
Chemical Use Health hazards Carcinogenic Occupational

Classification (IARC) exposure limit
(UK, 1994)
Arsenic Insecticide Skin damage 1 0.1 mg/m3*
Fungicide Skin/other cancers in humans
(class 1 IARC)
Damage to nervous system
Creosote Fungicide Skin and eye irritation 2A None
Insecticide Eye damage
Bronchitis
Skin/lung cancer
Dieldrin Insecticide Damage to nervous system 3 0.25 mg/m3
(Carcinogen) (class 3 IARC)
Poisons through skin
Lindane Insecticide Irritant, allergen 0.5 mg/m3
(gamma−HCH) Damage to brain/nervous
system
Causes epilepsy
Possibly Carcinogenic in
humans (2B IARC)
Pentachlorophenol Fungicide Irritant 2B 0.5 mg/m3
(PCP) Damages nervous system
Damages heart, liver, kidney
Contains carcinogenic
20
impurities
Tributyl tin oxide Fungicide Irritant 0.1 mg/m3
(TBTO) Damages nervous system
* The TLV of arsenic is 0.01 mg/m3 in ACGIH, 1994 (32)

Source: LHC (1989). Toxic Treatments: Wood Preservative Hazards at Work and in the
Home, London Hazards Centre, UK
All of these chemicals are necessarily toxic to the organisms they are intended to combat. If inhaled or
ingested in sufficient quantities, they can also be hazardous to the health of those involved in applying them,
particularly when used in the form of sprays. Many of them attack the nervous system, or can cause damage
to internal organs such as liver and kidney. Some can cause skin reactions. One of them has been shown to
be carcinogenic to humans and others are suspected carcinogens (2, 40). It has recently been estimated that
as many as 3 million people annually are poisoned by pesticides, of whom perhaps 20,000 die (41). Although
most of these casualties arise from agricultural use and only a small proportion derives from the use of
pesticides in buildings, the hazard from pesticides’ use in buildings is significant as many of the most toxic
pesticides are used for timber treatment, and exposure levels may also be particularly high in the indoor
environment. Examples of some toxicity levels for some chemicals used in wood formulations are given in
Table 12 (42). LC50 − is the statistically derived exposure concentration of a chemical that can be expected to
cause death in SO per cent of a given population of organisms under a defined set of experimental conditions
(e.g. a 96 hour fish LC50), and LD50 − is the dose of a toxicant that will kill 50 per cent of a given population
of organisms within a designated period of time (42).
Table 12. Toxicity levels for some chemicals used in wood preservation formulations.
Chemical Lethal Dose Lethal Concentration LC50 Occupational Carcinogenic

LD50 mg/kg of exposure to organism for exposure limits classification
the body weight 96 hours (air) (mg/m3)* (IARC)
Arsenic Rat Oral 15−293 Fish 96 Hours 64 mg/l 0.2 (Canada) carcinogenic to
humans (1)
Chromium Rat Oral 149−177 Cr(+6) − Rainbow trout 96 Cr(+6) 0.05 (United carcinogenic to
(potassium Hours 69 mg/l (United States States of America) humans (1)
dichromate) of America)
Copper (dust) No data available Cu(+2) − Rainbow trout 96 1 (Belgium) no data available
Hours 0.02 − 0.89 mg/l
(depends on hardness)
(United States of America)
Creosote Rat Oral 725 No data available 0.2 (United States Probable human
of America)** carcinogen (2A)
Pentachlorophenol Rat Oral 27 Fish 96 Hours 60−600 ?g/l 0.5 (Switzerland) Possible human
(PCP) carcinogen (2B)
* The figures are based on time wrighted averages (TWA)

** As coal tar pitch volatiles
Source: UNEP (1994). Environmental Aspects of Industrial Wood Preservation: Technical
Report Series No. 20. UNEP IE/PAC/IPCS/FAO, Paris.
As with solvents, the principal risk from insecticides and fungicides is to construction workers. A particular risk
is to those involved in the remedial treatment of timber in existing degraded buildings which has to take place
quite often in poorly ventilated roof spaces, and using sprays (2). Those involved in the pesticide treatment of
buildings to eliminate disease vectors can also be seriously at risk (43).
After application, the rate of emission into the indoor environment is relatively slow, since a characteristic of all
pesticides is that they have low volatility. However, if used in conditions of very poor ventilation, the level of
exposure to occupants after application can be significant. There is little experimental evidence available on
domestic exposures, but it has been estimated that in conditions of poor ventilation exposures approaching
occupational exposure limits are possible (17).
21
Pesticides of various types are also used in timber pre−treatment, posing a potential threat to workers in those
enterprises, which in some countries commonly operate under a poor state of control. Because of their
persistence in the environment and damage to all forms of life, pesticides must be treated as hazardous waste
and disposed of with great care. Many of the most serious and widespread cases of pesticide poisoning occur
as a result of spills and casually dumping wastes on uncontrolled sites (41).
Specific occupational exposure limits for most of the important pesticides have been proposed by national
authorities. Table 11 shows those set for UK by the Health and Safety Executive (44), which are similar to the
Threshold Limit Values proposed for the United States of America by ACIGH (see also table 12). But it has
been suggested that domestic exposure levels should be set at a level only 1 per cent of the Occupational
Exposure Limit to protect vulnerable occupants.
The number of chemicals in use as pesticides and timber preservatives is huge and growing annually, and
many of their effects are as yet not clearly identified (45). Because of their known toxicity, an international
coalition of groups and individuals who oppose unnecessary use and misuse of pesticides, the Pesticides
Action Network, has identified the following thirteen pesticides, some of which are used as wood preservatives
requiring strict control (45): Aldicarb, Campheclor (Toxaphene), Chlordane and Heptachlor, Chlordimeform,
DBCP, DDT, the “drins” − Aldrin, Endrin and Dieldrin, EDB, HCH and Lindane, Paraquat, Parathion and
Methyl Parathion, Pentachlorophenol, and 2, 4, 5−T. All of them are highly poisonous to the nervous system.
Since no pesticides are free of potential health hazards if used without proper control, less poisonous wood
preservative treatments, those based on synthetic pyrethroids (e.g. permethrin) and inorganic boron
compounds, should be used. Protective clothing should be worn when treating or handling treated timber. If
treated timber is machined or sanded an efficient dust extraction system should be used and wastes disposed
of safely: if dust extraction is not available, dust masks should be used. In remedial treatment of timber,
particularly in poorly ventilated enclosures, operators should be provided with respirators (46). Furthermore
during treatment the following additional requirements are needed;
• mix or dilute products before use in a well−ventilated area, away from the general public,
and label clearly all containers;
• if preservative is to be applied by spray, use a coarse low−pressure jet to avoid creating a

mist of particles;
• do not allow drinking or smoking during treatments or until after the operator has washed
and changed clothing, the operator should bath or shower at the end of each day’s work.
After treatment the operator must: ensure that the treatment site is well labelled; issue
adequate instructions to exclude occupants for at least 48 hours or until treated surfaces are
dry; remove all unused preservative from site and store it safely; safely dispose of any
contaminated materials, such as empty preservative containers; the local waste disposal
authority can advise (47).
There is also a growing school of thought that pesticides are not an efficient long term approach to the
preservative treatment of timber, because they penetrate the timber only to a limited extent, and are gradually
lost to the atmosphere. Because of this limited life, the contribution claimed by pesticide manufacturers to
stemming deforestation by reducing future demand for timber has been challenged (2). Thus elimination of the
need for pesticides by design is the recommended alternative. The alternative mitigation strategy is to
eliminate by design the condition which pesticides are used to treat. Rotting of timbers can only take place
under conditions of high humidity; it can be reduced or eliminated by:
• seasoning timber before use to reduce moisture content below 20 per cent;
• ensuring all timber in building is kept at low levels of moisture, through providing ventilation
of underfloor and roof spaces;
• making use of timber species which are less susceptible to rot; and
• reducing the use of the more vulnerable sapwood;
22
Likewise, where pesticides are commonly used for protection against termites, they should be replaced where
possible by the use of physical barriers to entry, or by making use of naturally termite−resistant species (48).
H. Timber
Generally timber present no health hazards in itself. On the other hand, inhalable particulate size may
possess toxic, immunological and carcinogenic properties (11). Respirable dust of any kind can irritate the
respiratory system or interfere with mucociliary action; a number of woods are irritants of the skin (e.g. iroko,
keruig, afromosia), the respiratory track (e.g., beech, iroko, maple) or the eyes (e.g. yew, tak, satinwood).
Some such western red cedar, iroko and mahogany, cause allergic asthma. Other woods are poisonous (e.g.
yew and oleander) such that can cause nausea and malaise and affect the heart (49). According to IARC,
wood dust is carcinogenic to humans (28). Woods directly implicated are beech, oak, and redwood (49).
Furthermore, large quantities of airborne wood dust in an enclosed spare can cause an explosion, and some
wood dust will spontaneously combust on contact with certain oils or chemicals.
People most at risk are those exposed to high levels of dust during the sanding and machining processes
during production. Though construction workers are less exposed to wood dust hazards compared to
carpenters, joiners and factory workers, on site fitting with equipment that lacks the dust retention features
available in factories may present a hazard. On site sanding processes also offers opportunities for heavy
dust exposure (11).
In UK, all hard wood dusts have a Maximum Exposure Limit (MEL) of 5 mg/m3, however this is considered to
be totally inadequate as the mucociliary escalator, the throats’ natural defence is severely impaired at 2
mg/m3. Dust levels must therefore be kept as low as possible (49).
Protection of employees in the workplace is of a high priority mitigation measure. The work system must
control dust from wood to ensure dust levels are below the MEL. Housekeeping methods must keep
workshops free from dust, and dust must be disposed of safely. In a factory or joinery shop, permanent
mechanical ventilation should be installed. On a construction site or temporary workplace, cutting in the open
air will reduce dust problems but not solve them. Portable dust extractors could be of much assistance.
Respiratory protective equipment should also be used.
Substitute Materials
All types of wood which have been proved carcinogenic should be substituted with safe species.
I. Silica dust
Silica refers to naturally occurring materials composed of silicon dioxide (Si O2) (50). Silicate minerals, are the
largest group of natural minerals with a varying composition but all contain silicon−oxygen tetrahedra as
structural components. They are ubiquitous in the earth’s crust in both crystalline and amorphous forms.
Amphibole, pyroxene, serpentine, feldspar, mica, garnet and zeolite are generic terms for some common
rock−forming silicates. The presence of silica in the environment results from natural processes and from
human activity. Some of the uses of silicate minerals associated with construction include: manufacture of
both glass and ceramics; incorporation into abrasives, such as sandpaper, and sandblasting materials; in
filtering equipment in water and sewage−treatment systems; furnace linings and beds (silica bricks and tiles);
filler in paints, plastics, asphalt and cements (finely ground sand); construction purposes (such as roads, earth
dams, concrete works).
23
Occupational exposure to silicate materials leads to a form of scarring of the lungs called silicosis, which
interferes with breathing and obstructs the circulation through the lungs (11). According to IARC evaluation
(28), crystalline silica is probably carcinogenic. Crystalline silica is a generic term for several crystalline
minerals composed of silica, such as quartz, cristobalite, tridymite, coesite and stishovite (50).
Occupational exposures to silica dust occur in many different industries and under a wide range of
circumstances which include mining and quarrying operations; production of glass, cement and ceramics;
granite and stone industries; and construction activities generally (e.g. earth based construction activities,
production of concrete and bricks).
Occupational exposure limits in selected countries are listed in table 13.
Table 13. Occupational exposure limits for respirable quartz, cristobalite and tridymite (mg/m3)
Country (year) Quartz Cristobalite Tridymite

Australia (1978) 0.25 0.25 0.25
Belgium (1978) 0.10 0.05 0.05
Bulgaria (1978) 0.07 0.07 0.07
Denmark (1984) 0.10 0.05 0.05
Finland (1981) 0.20 0.10 0.10
France (1986) 0.10 0.05 0.05
Germany, Federal Republic of (1986) 0.15 0.15 0.15
Italy (1978) 0.10 0.05 0.05
The Netherlands (1982) 0.15 0.075 0.075
Norway (1981) 0.20 0.10 0.10
Sweden (1984) 0.10 0.05 0.05
Switzerland (1978) 0.15 0.15 0.15
UK (1985) 0.10 0.05 0.05
United States of America (ACGIH 1985) 0.10 0.05 0.05
Source: IARC (1987). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of
Chemical to Humans, Silica and some silicates, Volume 42, Lyon, France.
In recent years, the seriousness of the problems of dust−induced diseases has become increasingly
apparent. In Egypt it has been reported that the numbers of silicotic cases in 1988 reached 492 as compared
to 852 total occupational cases in mining, tunnelling and quarrying operations (51). In Finland, a study (52) on
the possibility of a direct association between silica dust exposure and lung cancer, which involved a
follow−up of the mortality and morbidity among 1026 granite workers for the period 1940−1989, indicated
excess lung cancer mortality during several follow−up periods. The rate ratios were 1.6−3.8 for different
latency periods. Lung cancer risk increased with the length of exposure and latency.
The prevention of silica dust−induced diseases is important considering its harmful effect to human health. It
is important: to prevent the formation of dust as far as possible; suppressing at its source whatever dust is
inevitably formed, and by providing protective equipment to workers to prevent inhalation of dust.
J. Earthen and traditional materials
24
House design and the choice of building materials have a strong influence on the spread of a wide range of
infectious human diseases. Although it is the vectors which they can harbour rather than the materials
themselves which are responsible for the diseases, in many cases selection and treatment of the materials
are central to the programme of control (53).
The environment in and around dwellings provides an attractive habitat for a wide range of arthropods in that
they provide shelter from climatic extremes, shade, stability, and an abundant source of food. A number of
these arthropods are vectors of human diseases’ pathogens. They include houseflies and cockroaches,
triatomine bugs, and domestic ticks, bedbugs and house dust mites. Some colonise humans and animals
directly, while others breed outside the house but enter it to feed (54).
The most important disease carried by vectors is perhaps the American form of Trypanosomiasis, or Chagas’
disease, which is transmitted by the bites of the triatomine bug. There are around 13 to 15 million people in
Latin America infected by this debilitating disease with about 100 million at risk (30). The disease is caused by
a parasite Trypanosoma Cruzi, that can be carried in the bugs’ faeces. The faeces are deposited where the
bug feeds, and the parasite can then get into the victim’s blood stream through the bite injury. The parasite
lives and reproduces inside the human body, particularly the heart. People inflicted with the Chagas’ disease
are often unable to work because of the damage to their cardiovascular system. Health effects of other
arthropods include: plague and typhus (fleas); shigellosis, salmonellosis, and viruses − hepatitis A and
poliomyelitis (cockroaches); relapsing fever (soft ticks); viral hepatitis B (bed bugs); and house dust allergy
(dust mites) (54). IARC has evaluated hepatitis B virus (chronic infection with) as carcinogenic to humans,
group 1 (28).
Research has indicated that the type of building materials used has an important influence on the spread of
diseases. In a rural housing study carried out in Venezuela, for example, 200 traditional houses of mud and
wattle were compared with the same number of newer houses made of concrete blocks. It was found that
while 55 per cent of the traditional houses revealed the presence of triatomine bugs, they were present in only
9 per cent of the newer houses (55). Generally, where the dwelling is made from low−strength masonry in the
form of unstabilised earth blocks, rammed earth or stone in earth mortar, or of mud and wattle, the walls are
very prone to cracking as the earth dries, providing suitable dark spaces for disease vectors to hide. Plastered
walls are less prone, as long as the plaster is maintained uncracked. Soil floors can also be a source of
suitable cracks. Roofs made from palm thatch are also a problem as thatch provides plentiful hiding spaces.
In Venezuela it has also been found that the eggs of the Chagas’ disease vector are often stuck to the palm
fronds used for thatching. Traditional flat roofs of poles piled with brushwood and covered in a thick layer of
mud are used in upland areas of Argentina and Bolivia where nights are cool. These also have been found to
provide an ideal habitat for triatomine bugs (54). Furthermore, the diseases associated with these arthropods
are particularly prevalent in tropical areas, since higher temperatures enable the disease vectors to breed
more rapidly.
Methods available to eliminate infestation include spraying the walls and roofs with insecticides (however it
should be noted that use of insecticides to eliminate infestation gives problems associated with insecticides);
plastering walls with smooth materials; and replacing wall and roof materials with smooth crack free materials.
Spraying campaigns have had some success, but where the surface of the wall is absorbent, as is often the
case with unstabilised mud walls, the absorbency can reduce the surface amount of the active ingredient to
which the insects are exposed to the point at which it is ineffective (56). Spraying also needs to be repeated
frequently to be effective. This option may not be feasible to the poor population of the developing countries
since the prices of insecticides are beyond their reach. An alternative and effective method of eliminating
infestation is through the application of a smooth, durable plaster layer. One study from Brazil reports
complete elimination of triatomine bugs largely due to the use of kaolin clay to produce strong smooth walls
resistant to cracking (57). But the choice of materials for plastering which are compatible with earthen base
materials is difficult. Cement−based plasters rarely adhere to mud walls because of the differential moisture
movement.
Replacement of traditional earth and thatch materials with denser, more stable materials is often advocated as
the best means to eliminate pest infestation. The least cost alternatives to earth or stone based walls most
widely available are either fired brick or concrete block laid in cement mortar. Thatch roofs can be replaced by
25
corrugated galvanised iron sheets. These materials are being very widely adopted in any case, particularly in
urban areas. But using them is by itself no guarantee of protection against pest infestation, unless the building
is well−built. And selection of these materials has considerable implications beyond disease control: it is much
more difficult to maintain comfortable living conditions without using ceilings (which may, if used, negate all
the benefits by providing new pest habitats); the cost of these materials is often prohibitive, leading to smaller
built space and consequently overcrowding; and cement and fired clay manufacture are heavy users of
commercial energy contributing to urban and atmospheric pollution (58).
Alternative lower cost and lower−energy materials are becoming available which could provide a solution −
stabilised soil for floors and walling materials, and fibre concrete tiles for roofing, making use of local
vegetable fibres. Extensive trials of these materials have been conducted in different countries in recent
years, and low−cost equipment is now available to enable them to be produced at low cost in small scale
operations and with minimal use of commercial energy or factory−made additives (59, 60, 61). Caution
should, however, be made that substitute materials could have their own health risks. For example the
substitution of traditional roofing and walling materials to cement based and clay fired products still exposes
those involved in their production to harmful effects of dusts and gases. In Tanzania, for example, all the 15
dust samples which were collected in three factories (a ceramic factory, a cement factory, and a kaolin quarry)
indicated that the quartz content exceeded the acceptable threshold limit value of 0.1 mg/m3 thus suggesting
that the exposed workers had a high risk of developing silicosis (62).
K. Radon and its sources
Radon is a radioactive gas and is ubiquitous throughout the geosphere, biosphere and atmosphere (19) and
occurs in several isotopic forms, however only two of these are found in significant concentrations in human
environment: radon−222, which is a member of the radioactive decay chain of uranium − 238, and radon −
220 (thoron), which is formed in the decay chain of thorium − 232. Radon − 222 and its decay products
provides the major contribution to the exposure of workers and of the general population. It is colourless,
odourless, and inert (boiling − point, − 61.8°C), denser than air (density, 9.73 g/1 at 0°C and 760 mmHg) and
fairly soluble in water (51.0 cm3 radon/100 cm3 water at 0°C; 22.4 cm/100 cm3 at 25°C; 13.0 cm3 at 50°C)
(19). Radon substances are present in all surface soils and rocks, but in concentrations which vary regionally
as a function of the relative abundance of the parent uranium. Among the range of radioactive substances,
radon is unique in existing in a gaseous state under normal conditions. It is therefore capable of diffusing
through soils, and to a lesser extent building materials, and thus entering the internal envelope of a building.
The diffusion length is conditioned by its half−life of 382 days. Although radon is a gas, its decay products are
not, and they occur either as unattached ions or atoms, or attached to particles (19). It is the decay of these
less stable daughter products (P°−218, Pb−214, Bi−214 and P°−214, all with half−lives of less than 30
minutes) which is the probable cause of carcinogenic radiation associated with the gas. Risks are increased
when there are high levels of particulates in indoor air, for example tobacco smoke. Smoking itself is
synergistic with radon exposure in increasing lung cancer.
In the majority of cases, the most important source of radon in indoor air is infiltration from the ground beneath
the building. Radon may also enter in the water supply, particularly if this is drawn from wells drilled in rocks
such as granite. However, certain building materials may also constitute a significant source. These include
natural stones, principally those of igneous or volcanic origin, and concretes which contain aggregates of
similar origin. Some examples of unusually high emission rates have been found in mill tailings used as
aggregates (Grand Junction, Colorado, United States of America), aerocrete based on alum shale (Sweden),
certain granites (Aberdeen area, UK), phosphate slag (Alabama, United States of America) and
phosphogypsum produced as a by−product of phosphoric acid generation (10, 11). Gamma radiation is also
generated by radioactive decay and in many cases may contribute more than radon to the radiation dose
received by occupants.
Phosphogypsum, an aqueous slurry of gypsum (calcium sulphate), is produced as a by−product of the

manufacture of phosphate−based fertilisers. Global production of this material exceeds the demand for
gypsum (by 105 to 92 million tonnes per year in 1981, (63)), and thus in principle could act as a source of this
material without depleting natural reserves. However, the use of phosphogypsum is restricted by three factors
(63): additional costs involved in drying and purification of the slurry; contamination by heavy metals such as
cadmium and lead; and the presence of radioactive isotopes particularly radium 226, which because of its
chemical affinity with calcium tends to become concentrated in the by−product slurry. Phosphogypsum thus
26
has a higher radioactive content per unit mass than the original phosphate ore. However, ores from magmatic
sources have a substantially lower content of radioactive isotopes than maritime ores (the principal source of
phosphates), and the derived phosphogypsum is correspondingly less problematic. Other chemical processes
which give gypsum as a by−product − such as fertiliser production using nitric rather than sulphuric acid, and
the desulphurisation of flue gases − also give gypsum with a lower radioactive content (see table 14).
Table 14. Radioactive content of gypsum, in terms of radium equivalence
Type of Gypsum bq/kg

Natural gypsum 37
Phosphogypsum (maritime phosphate) 851
Phosphogypsum (magmatic phosphate) 185
Nitrogypsum 111
Flue gas desulphurisation gypsum 7
Traditional materials of construction (average) 185
Source: Weterings, K. (1982). The utilisation of Phosphogypsum, Proceedings of the Fertiliser

Society, No. 208, London.
The main uses of gypsum are in the building industry, with products such as plaster and plasterboard
accounting for 57 per cent of production and a further 23 per cent being used as retarder in cement (63).
There seems to be little prospect of an economically feasible method of reducing the radioactive content of
phosphogypsum (64). The suggestion has been made that the radioactive isotope content of gypsum
products could be kept within reasonable limits (perhaps 370 bq/kg) by blending gypsum from natural and
chemical sources (63). Suitable non−construction uses for surplus phosphogypsum could include use as
fillers in paper and plastics, and in roadworks.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (19) has established that radon and its decay products are
carcinogenic to humans. Raised lung cancer rates have been reported from a number of cohort and
case−control studies of underground miners exposed to radon and its decay products. The effects of radon
are largely attributable to the inhalation of its decay products.
Radioactivity of various materials
A large number of materials have been tested − particularly in Europe, United States and former USSR − and
results reported in the literature (64). Table 15 gives mean values from a large number of samples for
radioactive content of various Finnish building materials, in terms of radium equivalence. This attributes the
following weighting to different radioactive isotopes (63).
Radium equivalence = 1× Radium226 + 0.08 × Potassium40 + 1.43 × Thorium232
In addition to radiation activity levels, radon emanation rates have also been tested. The relationship is not
necessarily linear, since some materials have physical characteristics such as holes that increase their
surface area and thus their emission rates. In general, concrete seems to be a more efficient emitter than
other materials (65). Further attempts have been made to model the relationship between radon emission
rates of various materials and consequent likely radon concentration, under normal conditions, inside
buildings constructed of these materials. Table 16 gives results of a simple model applied to masonry
materials in use in the UK (66).
Fly−ash (pulverised fuel ash) and blast furnace slag, as industrial waste materials, have in the past been
identified as building materials with a potential for radiation emission. Evidence from the literature indicates,
however, that neither is normally associated with any significant increase in radiation hazard. Table 15, based
on Finnish research with a small number of samples, shows blast furnace slag to have a radioactivity
concentration about 50 per cent higher than normal rock derived concrete aggregates (65), other research
show variable results (64) but none sufficient to give cause for concern. The available data for fly−ash is
similar (64). Table 16, based on UK work, shows that, in these tests, the estimated additional radon
concentration, in a room, from using fly−ash blocks was only 15 per cent higher than for normal concrete
blocks: this is still less than 10 per cent of a normal indoor radon concentration. A recently published paper,
based on research in Hong Kong, confirms this finding (67): it concludes that the radon emanation rate from
the surface of concrete blocks with 15 per cent fly−ash replacement of normal Ordinary Portland Cement is a
27
bit higher than from normal concrete blocks, but the difference is not significant.
Table 15. Radioactive content of Finnish building materials in terms of radium equivalence.
Material bq/kg
Concrete ballast material 167
Concrete 174
Clay brick 247
White brick 103
Timber 2
Expanded concrete 129
Cement 88
Blast−furnace slag 243
By−product gypsum 339
Natural gypsum 11
Insulation wool 39
Source: Mustonen, R. (1984). Natural Radioactivity and Radon Exhalation from Finnish
Building Materials, Health Physics 46, 1195−1203.
Table 16. Radon concentrations in a standard room calculated from radioactivity of building material
Material type Radon emanation per m2 Radon concentration Annual effective dose
wall (?bq/m2/s) supported in room (bq/m3) equivalent (?Sv)
Clay brick 90 0.2 6
Silica brick 590 1.0 30
Crushed granite 1870 3.1 100
brick and block
Expanded clay block 140 0.2 6
Oil shale brick 2070 3.5 110
Concrete block 660 1.1 35
Pulverised fuel ash 770 1.3 40
block
These figures assume that there are no wall coverings to impede radon emanation: actual rates are likely to
be lower. Since a typical radon concentration in indoor air is likely to be around 15 bq/m3 (data for temperate
regions of the world) (68), this suggests that building materials can contribute up to 20 per cent of indoor
radon levels. In general, however, the proportion will be much lower − particularly in houses and ground−floor
flats where radon infiltration from the soil beneath the building will tend to be the predominant source.
Dose−response relationship for radioactivity
The final column of table 16 gives an estimate of the annual radiation dose to an occupant of the building
attributable to the materials under consideration. This model considers only the radiation dose due to the
decay of radon daughters: gamma radiation may add from 170−260 ?Sv to total annual effective dose
equivalent (66). The relationship between radon concentration and the amount of radiation absorbed in tissue
has been investigated by several international bodies: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of
Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has derived the reference conversion factor of 0.061 ?Sv/year per bq/m3 (68).
It is assumed that annual radiation dose is linearly related to the risk of developing cancer. This relationship
has been developed from studies of lung cancer in uranium miners: a risk of 0.02 fatal cancers per person Sv
is suggested.
28
Radon emission from building materials is generally constant over time. However, it is dependent on the
moisture content of the material: emission is lowest when the material is very wet or very dry (10). The
position of radon emitting materials within a construction influences the rate at which radon is released into
the indoor air. The greatest risk is from an exposed surface of a radon−emitting material. A second factor
influencing the build−up of radon in the indoor environment is the rate of ventilation. Recent emphasis on
energy efficiency, together with modern construction practice and flue−less heating systems, has tended to
reduce ventilation rates. A Swedish study, for example, has shown that average concentrations of radon
daughters in indoor air has risen fivefold in the past thirty years (10). Nevertheless, monitoring programs so
far have failed to show unambiguously that radon levels and air−change rate are related by an inverse
function (69). Neither do radon levels correlate closely with the radioactive content of the soil on which a
building is situated. The general conclusion drawn from a number of monitoring studies is that, while radon
concentrations in energy−efficient buildings are higher than those in the building stock as a whole, this
difference is of less than one order of magnitude and is highly variable from area to area.
Radon concentrations in the open air are around 5−20 bq/m3. Indoor radioactivity levels have been monitored
over a very wide range, from 3.7 to 3700 bq/m3 (69). The breadth of this range causes problems for the
accuracy of monitoring, and is thus a cause of uncertainty in the discussion of radiation levels. Wide variations
can be found within a single structure. Table 17 shows some permitted maximum levels. WHO recommended
level for remedial action in buildings is 100 bq/m3 EER animal average.
The risk of cancer attributable to indoor radiation in general has been estimated at 10−100 cases annually per
million population: no more than 5 per cent of the risk of fatal illness resulting from the use of tobacco (derived
from figures given in (54)). This rate of incidence could perhaps be quadrupled by restriction of ventilation,
giving a substantial increase in risk only in areas where indoor radiation levels are already high.
Table 17. Permitted maximum levels of indoor radon concentration
Location bq/m3
air
Canada, new houses 40
Sweden, new houses 70
EU, new houses 200
United States of America, new houses 150
States of New York, California and Florida, to sell a house 100
Canada, existing houses 150
Sweden, existing houses needing remedial measures 200
EU, existing houses: first action level 200
Alarm level 400
Source: Leslie, G. B. and Lunau, F. W. (1992). Indoor Air Pollution: Problems and Priorities
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and Mustonen, R. (1984). Natural Radioactivity
and Radon Exhalation from Finnish Building Materials, Health Physics 46, 1195−1203
Radon concentrate mostly in the basements of air−tight buildings. Control measures are the extensive
ventilation. Some of the techniques used to mitigate indoor radon levels due to infiltration from the ground can
be useful in the case of radon−emitting building materials. For example, natural ventilation or cross−ventilation
can be encouraged. Mechanical ventilation systems can be adapted to give a slightly positive indoor pressure,
or at least to keep negative pressure differentials to the minimum required for efficient operation of the
ventilation system (70). It is important to ensure that there are no stagnant zones where effective air mixing
does not occur. It is also possible to use filtration systems to remove a proportion of radon daughters from the
air by filtering out the particles to which they are attached (10). The effectiveness of this strategy in reducing
total radioactive dose is however uncertain. For existing buildings, however, the most effective mitigation
strategy is to isolate radon−emitting materials from the indoor environment. This could be achieved with a
dense layer of internal render − provided the integrity of the layers is maintained. Moisture barriers and
especially air−tight barriers such as polythene sheet can be incorporated in the wall construction. Special
29
surface coatings have also been developed to inhibit radon emission (71). For example, one organic product
(similar to an acrylic−based paint) is claimed to be nearly 100 per cent effective as a radon barrier, and has an
inorganic equivalent which is 78 per cent effective. It should however be borne in mind that these coatings do
not impede the emission of gamma radiation from the materials.
Substitute materials (63, 66)
Major radon emitters should be banned in construction work. Some of the substitutes are as follows below:
Natural stones: Stone with relatively high levels of radon emission tend to be of volcanic or
igneous origin. Sedimentary stones such as sandstone or limestone, which are likely to have
much lower levels of radon emission, are possible substitutes if they are available in the
region. Alternative walling constructions could use brick, adobe, timber framing or concrete
block.
Aggregates: high levels of radon emission from concrete are due to the use of aggregate
materials from pyroclastic or igneous sources. Again, crushed sedimentary rocks or sand are
likely to produce a lower level of radon emission. The use of recycled aggregates could also
be considered, however, they should be tested to check their radioactivity.
Pozzolanic cements: if high levels of radon are found in Pozzolanic cements, portland
cement can be used as a substitute. Alternatives include sand−lime or mud−based mortars.
Phosphogypsum: can be substituted by gypsum from alternative sources with lower levels
of radon emission. Substitute materials for plastering could include cement−sand render or
mud−based renders.
L. Wastes
As a result of rapid industrialisation, there has been a marked increase in the generation of wastes. On the
other hand measures for the utilisation or disposal of such wastes lag behind compared to the amount of
wastes being produced. Some of the industrial wastes produced are hazardous both to the environment and
human health. Specific health hazards which arise during the production and use of building materials, in the
demolition and disposal of building wastes are due to: gases and vapours, dusts, toxic metals−based
products, and pests and disease vectors which may have inhabited the demolished buildings. In addition there
is a range of health hazards to workers and to the community at large, arising from waste disposal sites.
These include: the leaking of toxic chemicals (pesticides and heavy metals especially) into the ground water,
from which they can contaminate drinking water, enter the food chain, or inhibit plant growth; the risk of skin
contact or inhalation of toxic chemicals or mineral fibres; the spontaneous combustion of landfill containing
combustible material or generating landfill gases (72) and radioactivity arising from the disposal of radioactive
minerals.
Environmental and other factors influencing exposure
Factors influencing exposure to risks related to wastes include:
• improper discharge of hazardous materials resulting into being discharged into surface
waters;
• improper storage and handling techniques, accidents during transportation, and

indiscriminant disposal results into contaminated land and groundwater;
• removal of friable asbestos−containing waste from buildings during demolition or renovation;
• open dumping, i.e. land disposal creates fly, rodent, and odour problems, dumps also at
times cause fire; and
30
• polyethylene, as well as plastics, are extremely hard to dispose off, in a land fill, the waste
material can remain intact for many years.
Waste management
Considering the health hazards which can result from wastes, the collection and proper disposal of
construction wastes is essential for the prevention of diseases and injuries. Generally hazardous wastes
should not be abandoned. They should be disposed of safely, and wherever possible, at the expense of the
generator. Options available for dealing with wastes include:
• Incineration treatment − which involves the destruction and detoxification, as well as

neutralisation of wastes into less harmful substances;
• Secure land disposal − a process whereby deposits of waste are placed in land using
volume reduction, encapsulation, leachate containment, monitoring, and control of air on
surface, as well as subsurface; and
• Waste minimisation through source reduction and recycling. Source reduction involves the
reduction of the amount of waste at the source through changes in the industrial processes
e.g. application of low−waste technologies which entail maximum extraction of value
components, with a minimum (or no) rejection of waste materials in solid, liquid or gas form.
The building materials industry has also been contributing to the re−use and recycling of
certain wastes as inputs to the construction industry. Reuse and recycling of wastes in the
construction industry has the advantage of reducing the impact of quarrying, mining, and
logging, thus reduces the undesirable health and environmental impacts. Examples of use of
industrial wastes for construction purposes are given in table 18 (63).
However attention requires to be paid to possible health effects of these wastes too.
Table 18. Areas of application of some important industrial wastes in India.
Waste Source Examples of Application Areas

Fly−ash Coal−based thermal power plants Making bricks, hollow blocks, cement (Portland and
pozzolana), tiles, aggregates, and as fill material
Phosphogypsum Phosphoric acid plant, Making cement, gypsum boards, partition panels,
ammonium phosphate ceiling tiles, artificial marble, and fibre boards
Red mud Mining and extraction of alumina Making corrugated sheets, building blocks and bricks,
from bauxite tiles, as a binder, and as aggregates
Blast furnace Conversion of pig iron to steel Making cement, refractors, binding material, aggregates
slags and manufacture of iron in concrete, and backfilling material
Source: BMTPC (1992). Building Materials News. Newsletter of the Building Materials and
Technology Promotion Council (BMTPC), Vol. 1 No. 4, New Delhi, India.
Mitigation measures
Many governments, especially in industrialized countries, have measures under the regulatory framework for
the mitigation of health effects arising from hazardous wastes. Examples of such measures are contained in
the Control Pollution Act 1974 of UK, Site Licensing, whose aims include (74):
• to ensure that waste treatment and disposal is carried out with no unacceptable risk to
environment and to public health, safety and amenity;
• to put at a suitable local level the responsibility for deciding what conditions should be
imposed at a given site so that full account can be taken of local circumstances;
• to ensure changing patterns of waste disposal do not prejudice safe operations, and equally
that those responsible for waste: treatment and disposal take proper advantage of technical
progress;
• to give waste disposers a clear idea of what operating standards are required of them;
31
• to secure the provision of sufficient facilities for the treatment and disposal of wastes;
• to ensure in the interest of proper allocation of national resources that sites are managed on
the basis of recommended “best practice” and that unnecessary requirements are not
demanded; and
• to ensure that sufficient information is available to the responsible authorities to enable them
to fulfil their statutory duties to ensure that licence conditions are complied with and continue
to be appropriate.
Table 19. A Summary of Building Materials, their areas of Application and related Health Hazards, Mitigation
Strategies, and Substitute Materials
Material Application Health Hazards Mitigation Substitute Materials

Strategies
1. Asbestos Roofing sheets, Asbestosis, lung Establish and Non−fibrous materials
ceiling tiles, light cancer, and enforce strict like non−toxic metals,
weight insulation malignant tumour regulations for soft wood and clay
and lagging, filler in on the lining of the engineering control products, vegetable fibre
plastics and roofing chest cavity or measures, and materials, and
felts for sprayed abdomen safe work practices man−made−mineral
steel coatings, pipe (mesothelioma) in the manufacture, fibres. (The health effects
seals, additive to and allergic use, and handling of all substitute
cement and board responses of asbestos mineral−fibre based
products, and for materials should be
high temperature Employers develop investigated thoroughly
applications training before use).
programmes for
employees
exposed or likely to
be exposed to
fibres
Provide for
substitution of
asbestos where
safe controls can
not be assured
All mineral
fibre−based
substitutes,
particularly
MMMFs, should be
investigated for
their effect on
health
Seal all installed

components
containing
asbestos or
MMMFs
2. Toxic metals In compounds of Inflammation of Label lead, Vinyl−based paints,
(cadmium chromium, paints and metallic larynx, perforation chromium or water−based paints,
and lead) finishes; other uses of nasal septum, cadmium based polyurethane varnishes;
of lead include: lead poisoning paints indicating non toxic metal products
water pipes, glazing related cerebral unsuitable uses and plastic products
bars for windows, edema, anaemia,
and roofing etc. Avoid toxic−metal
associated works related paints in
32
situations
accessible to
children.
Keep related
paintwork in good
condition (to avoid
flaking)
Cover old paint

with alternative
water−based
vinyl−based paints
3. Solvents (e.g. Used as key Sedation effects To avoid Limited options are
toluene, xylene, ingredients of (slowed reaction occupational available at present;
dichloromethane, adhesives, flooring time, decreased hazards, use water−based paints
etc.) materials and vigilance and protective reduce quantity of
mastics anaesthesia), liver equipment and organic chemical
damage, damage ensure good solvents
of the nervous ventilation
system, irritation
and allergic
responses
4. Insecticides & Timber treatment Allergic Use timber species At present there are no
fungicides (e.g. responses, affects which are less viable substitutes to
arsenic, dieldrin, nervous system, susceptible to rot, insecticides and
lindane, skin/other cancers and reduce the use fungicides
Pentachlorophenol, of more vulnerable
etc.) sapwood. Season
timber before use,
keep timber
species at low
levels of moisture,
provide ventilation
of under floor and
roof spaces
5. Radon (exhaled Naturally present in Lung cancer Isolate Use materials with low
from building soils, rocks and in radon−emitting levels of radon emission
materials containing some of the building materials from the like sedimentary rocks
radium) materials like natural indoor environment (sandstone and
stones of igneous or through use of: limestone). For walling
volcanic origin, and dense layers of use bricks, adobe, timber
industrial wastes internal render, framing or concrete
such as moisture barriers blocks with sedimentary
phosphogypsum such as polythene rock aggregates. For
and blast−furnace sheets, and special plastering − use
slag surface coatings, cement−sand render in
careful design of replacing
ventilation regime phosphogypsum based
mortar
6. Earthen and Flooring, walling and Posed by disease Plaster walls and Use durable, smooth,
traditional materials roofing vectors (examples: roofs with smooth crack−free materials
Chagas’ disease, durable materials, such as fired−clay
plague, typhus, and spray walls products, concrete
relapsing fever, and roofs with products, aluminium and
etc.) insecticides iron based materials for
roofing
33
II. CONTROLLING HEALTH HAZARDS: PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
Since environment and health rank among the most important areas of social concern today, and given the
variety of hazards which need to be addressed, and the different groups exposed to those hazards, a range of
strategies needs to be considered. Before such strategies are elaborated, however, there is the need first to
consider the key constraints to promoting practical strategies for control of hazards associated with building
materials.
Insufficient information
There is insufficient knowledge regarding the nature and the severity of health hazards of some of the
materials mainly due to:
• The rapid rate of technological change which continuously introduces new products;
• Time lag between the exposure of humans to health hazards and the appearance or
diagnosis of chronic diseases which could be two decades or more; and
The difficulty of assessing the effects of chronic low−level exposure of materials through toxicology and
epidemiology. Toxicological research provides early indication of the possible health effects of new materials,
e.g. by means of experimental work on laboratory animals and/or tissue samples, but the relationship of such
work to health effects in man and true environmental conditions is difficult to interpret. On the other hand,
epidemiological research (the analysis of morbidity and their correlation with possible health hazards), of
necessity lags behind material developments (75).
Inadequate information greatly inhibits the ability of the construction industry and other stake−holders in
effectively responding to the challenges of controlling the health hazards associated with building materials.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to design programmes at industry, national and international levels to raise
the understanding of the health implications of building materials on a continuing basis.
Inadequate Public Awareness
Public awareness of the health hazards of building materials and the built−environment is low. Additionally,
many decision−makers are not fully informed or aware of the health implications of the building materials.
Governments, professional bodies and research organizations need to take an active role in providing
information and in promoting awareness among the public.
Differences in perception of risks
There are differences in the perception of what is just or fair in public policy and what are the appropriate
threshold limits in the public eye (76). For example due to insufficient information about the hazards of a
certain material, the question arises whether to prohibit the use of the material until it is proven safe, or to
allow its use, until it is proven harmful. There are also differences in the degree and selectivity of the risks
posed. Chemicals that degenerate in the general environment or are used in diluted form may present low
risks to the general population and confer important benefits. Similarly, materials such as asbestos may save
lives as fire retardants or brake linings. In such cases, the general risk may be low and almost randomly
distributed, and there is thus a certain equity in the use of these substances. But if selected groups of
chemical or asbestos workers, for example, are exposed to severe health risks, there is a strong argument
that such situations are not equitable, even if more lives are saved than lost by their continued use (76). This
partly explains the continued use of certain harmful pesticides for timber treatment purposes in the building
industry while they have been banned in all other situations (77). The continued use of asbestos while bodies
like the International Federation of Building and Wood Workers (78) are advocating its total ban further
supports this view. This calls for the co−operation in the harmonization and application of international
standards and legislation.
Conflict of interest
There are difficulties in balancing the immediate costs of health improvements against long term benefits.
Short−term and known considerations usually win out. For example, in a work environment action is mostly
directed to limit injuries which are dramatic and whose costs are reflected in immediately perceived pain and
in workmen’s compensation premiums, but initiatives to safeguard the longer − term health of the workers are
often limited. No doubt the management is responsible for providing a “safe” workplace, however, in extreme
34
cases the management could maintain that costly health and safety demands would render the business
unprofitable, thus depriving workers of their jobs (76). Further, several of the most serious health hazards and
their related effects take a long time to manifest. The uncertainty of future benefits would make it less likely
that adequate action would be taken (76).
Challenges for designers of buildings
Designers often have a number of conflicting criteria to resolve. For example: the designers need to balance
the risks to health against the cost of providing protection; it may not be financially or practically feasible to
guard against some of the ill−defined health risks: they also need to balance the risks of disease from pest
infestation or timber decay against the risks from the chemicals used to protect against them, or need for
adequate ventilation for a healthy indoor environment against the need to reduce the energy consumed in
heating or cooling incoming air. In the absence of any clear definitions of acceptable risk, designers often
implicitly make such judgments with little general guidance.
Problem with alternatives
One of the control strategies involves the use of alternatives. Alternatives, however, are not available in all
situations. For example, there are limited options at present for the substitution of volatile organic chemicals in
paints. In such situations, the substitution option will not be feasible. It has been found also that alternatives
which were at one time recommended have their own separate hazards. This is particularly a problem when
the substitution option is new and untested. Consequently, avoidance of one type of risk may simply introduce
a different and perhaps less well understood one. Research and professional institutions must be increasingly
vigilant to ensure that adequate information on new and alternative materials is provided to the public.
Inadequate regulatory mechanisms
Currently, there are no regulatory mechanisms to control some of the hazards, partly because of the lack of
information or due to economic considerations. For example, regulations by way of prohibition of a certain
product could have severe economic and employment consequences which legislatures may be reluctant to
bring about. Where regulations exist, administrative costs and the bureaucracy involved in the implementation
acts as a severe disincentive to their application. Also, materials and technologies banned in some countries
are being exported to countries with lax legislation. For example, one asbestos products company relocated
its manufacturing operations from its country of origin, to a developing country where a 30−fold increase in
asbestos contamination was permitted within the factory (78). And in many countries, regulations are still far
behind current practice. Since sustainable development requires a change in consumption patterns towards
more environment friendly products and a change in investment patterns to encompass long−term needs,
governments will have to formulate effective legislation and ensure adequate expenditure on research,
dissemination of information and enforcement.
Inadequate collaboration
There is inadequate collaboration among the broad−range of stakeholders and actors, particularly among
research institutions, the construction industry and regulatory bodies.
Additional considerations for developing countries
Additional considerations for developing countries include: an overriding development priority, the lack of
manpower and local training opportunities; poor information base and inadequate dissemination of available
information; lack of appropriate policies; and institutions; existing laws do not cover all aspects of health and
workers welfare and are biased towards curative rather than preventive health care (62, 79).
III. A STRATEGY FOR THE CONTROL OF HEALTH HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH

BUILDING MATERIALS
35
A. Principles
Health hazards associated with building materials are risks to good health as they adversely affect the “state
of complete physical and mental, well−being” of an individual. Control of such hazards is a risk management
exercise which involves: risk identification, which requires awareness of the existence of the hazard; risk
analysis, which involves analysis of the hazard − the chances of it occurring, and the range of consequences
which can result if the hazard should occur; and risk handling, which concerns what to do about the risk, and
includes avoidance, prevention, protection, transfer (insurance), or just acceptance of the risk. Both hazard
identification and risk analysis are mainly exercised through toxicological research and epidemiological
research and are basically outside the domain of the key actors in the building industry. Manufacturers of
building materials, architects, engineers, builders and contractors, and building users are recipients of
information about health hazards − they are not the originators of such information per se. Their main area of
influence is at the risk handling stage. It is not intended to propose, in this document, a specific approach for
the control of each of the building materials−related health hazards discussed. The significance of the hazard
in relation to other environmental and health hazards, the cost and availability of substitutes, the likely impact
of the various means of control available, and the desirability of the proposed change will all vary from country
to country, and these factors will influence the appropriate strategy to be adopted. However, the following
general health risk handling approach is recommended:
• Avoidance: Hazardous materials and processes should be phased out in favour of safer
alternatives;
• Prevention: In cases where phasing out is not possible and there are no safer options, then
hazardous exposure levels should be contained through engineering measures;
• Protection: Those at risk should be protected by the use of protective equipment,

application of safe work practices, provision of medical services and training programmes;
• Transfer: In certain circumstances, health insurance policies can be arranged to cover

those at risk; and
• Acceptance: Where mitigation of risk is not feasible, the risk may have to be accepted and
monitored.
The success of these measures require the coordinated action of the industry, governments, and international
agencies to ensure that the problems of human health related to building materials and the built−environment
are linked to the Global Strategy for Shelter within the framework of Sustainable Development. Possible lines
of actions for different actors are hereinafter outlined.
B. The role of the building industry
Although the structure of the building industry varies greatly from country to country and according to the type
of building activity, it is convenient in considering roles and responsibilities to identify four separate groups
involved, namely building owners, building designers, builders or building contractors, and the producers of
building materials. Each of these groups has a part to play in the mitigation of the health hazards discussed.
Action by building materials’ manufacturers
Materials’ manufacturers have a duty of care both to the workers who are employed in the manufacturing
process itself and to those who subsequently use the materials which they produce. The principal
responsibilities of building materials manufacturers with regard to the use of the materials which they produce
and supply are:
• to investigate the health risks associated with all ingredients or components of the materials
which they supply;
• to provide workers with information about the substances in the workplace and dangers
posed by them, and provide adequate instructions and training;
36
• to supply to designers product information which clearly identifies the health hazards and
enables specifications to be written in full knowledge of possible health hazards;
• to supply to construction workers clear product information which includes identification of

hazardous ingredients and safe working practices which should include monitoring and health
surveillance;
• to support toxicological and epidemiological research on the health hazards posed by

building materials produced by them;
• to support research on the development of new materials and products which will mitigate
known health risks; and
• to support and participate in national or international product labelling schemes.
Action by designers
Although they are not normally held responsible by law for the health of the buildings they design, the
designers nevertheless have a key role to play. By specifying the materials and the surface treatments to be
used, they have the opportunity to make sure that construction workers and occupants are not avoidably
subjected to exposure to toxic chemicals or other hazardous materials. By the design of the indoor
environment they also can make sure that concentrations of hazardous substances do not accumulate, and
that adequate provision for ventilation is made.
The responsibilities of designers include:
• to acquire, and update, an awareness of the environmental and health impacts of the
materials which they specify;
• to obtain, from manufacturers and to provide to clients with specific information about the
composition and hazardous ingredients of any materials specified;
• to avoid the use of hazardous materials where alternative, less hazardous substances might
be appropriate;
• to advise builders through design specifications, about any hazards likely to be encountered,
and of standards and codes of practice which should be observed in carrying out the work;
• to design buildings with adequate control of health risks to reduce, accumulations in one
space of numerous organic chemicals;
• to provide information for the owners to include: a list of all materials employed, and
associated hazards, required minimum ventilation rates and recommended maintenance
periods and procedures.
Action by building owners
The building owner is responsible for planning the overall project, and providing the briefing for the design
team, for commissioning the building, and for overseeing; its subsequent use, including periodic maintenance,
refurbishment and possibly eventual demolition. It is in these activities that some of the most critical decisions
affecting the health of workers and occupants are taken.
The responsibilities of building owners include:
• to develop the brief, and specify overall standards of health protection which the design
team should aim for;
• to require the design team to provide fully detailed information about the building’s
composition and potential hazards as described above;
• to ensure that the specified minimum ventilation rates are maintained throughout the
building’s occupancy;
37
• to carry out periodic maintenance as required, and keep records;
• to ensure safe handling and disposal of hazardous materials arising of maintenance,

refurbishment and demolition activities.
Action by builders and building contractors
Many of the most serious building material−related hazards are those to which the construction workers are
exposed to during construction, maintenance, refurbishment and demolition activities. Responsible builders
will in most cases be aware of these hazards, and take steps to protect themselves and their workforce. Legal
requirements for the control of hazardous substances will increasingly require them to do so.
The responsibilities of builders include:
• to be aware of all hazardous substances which are to be used in the work, and of the
recommended safe practice;
• to avoid exposure of workers to hazardous substances and to provide protective equipment;
• to ensure safe handling and disposal of hazardous substances;
• to provide adequate information and training to workers and supervisors on working with
hazardous substances;
• to protect building occupants or the general public from exposure to hazardous substances;
and
• to monitor the exposure of workers to hazardous substances, and provide for medical
surveillance of the workers exposed to greater than acceptable occupational exposure levels.
C. The role of research and professional organizations
The interaction of health and building materials through design and technology choice is an area of rapidly
growing public concern and research activity. New materials are being developed and utilized in building
rapidly. The need to find new materials with low energy and low environmental impact to reduce the
environmental impacts associated with buildings will no doubt accelerate the trend towards new manufactured
and synthetic materials in building world−wide. Individual designers and individual building firms cannot be
expected to maintain and update their understanding of the implications of the materials they use unless they
are supported by good research, information, and professional guidelines. National research institutes and
professional bodies have a central role in providing such support.
Action by research organizations
The role of research organizations include:
• to identify the range of possible health hazards associated with all the materials being used
in building, and the component materials which they contain;
• to propose occupational exposure limits for construction and maintenance workers;
• to propose indoor air quality criteria for new buildings;
• to develop labelling schemes for building materials which identify the nature and level of
hazard involved.
Action by professional organizations
Professional organizations exist to represent the interests of the professions which they represent, whether
architects, structural or services engineers, construction managers or building surveyors or economists. They
are in a good position to propose and promote developments in practice within their professions, and to
38
disseminate new knowledge. They can also influence the curricula of courses leading to professional
qualifications.
The role of professional groups should include:
• to establish design guidelines for minimizing hazards and communicating these within their
professional groups, including a duty of advising clients on health−related matters;
• to promote understanding and awareness of health hazards within the profession and the
public in general through information dissemination, education and training;
• to pressure governments to make regulatory changes to promote healthier buildings, for

instance through building regulations;
• to pressure manufacturers for higher health and environmental quality materials;
• to require health−related matters to be included in the curricula of all courses leading to

professional design qualifications.
D. The role of national governments
National and local governments have a crucial role to play in the control of hazards associated with building
materials by providing, economic incentives and taking regulatory and non−regulatory actions appropriate to
specific country contexts. Economic incentives should be directed to popularize the alternatives available for
the substitution of materials harmful to health and the possibility of introducing product charges should be
considered to discourage the use of harmful materials. Local governments should ensure that building
regulations are made more restrictive to the use of harmful materials in buildings. Non−regulatory actions may
include government sponsorship of research, the promotion of standards and specifications and the
organization of demonstrations projects. Specific actions by governments are presented below.
Regulatory and Legislative Framework
In spite of the growing awareness over the last 20 years of the potential hazards associated with building
materials, legal prohibition of materials known to be potentially hazardous has been slow to follow. As earlier
on indicated, where such regulations are enacted, the administrative costs and bureaucracy involved in
implementing them are very considerable, and are likely to act as a severe disincentive to their use.
In Europe, the Construction Products Directive has been adopted, with the intention of introducing uniform
standards of health and safety across the growing European Union. To be placed on the market, all
construction products will have to conform to, or enable the resulting construction works to conform to, certain
essential requirements, including a requirement for hygiene, health and the protection of the environment.
Compliance will enable the product to be labelled with a characteristic European Community (EC) mark.
European standards are currently being developed for the individual materials and product which will
incorporate the specified essential requirements. One of these requirements is that “the construction works
must provide healthy indoor air for occupants and building users”, which specify the various sources of
pollutants which need to be taken account of. Under the Directive, the burden of proof will shift to the
manufacturer to demonstrate the fitness of the product for its intended use: the definition of fitness has been
expanded to include issues of health, safety, and the environment (80).
The approach will gradually replace the essentially voluntary systems of standards currently used in individual
countries. The new standards will clearly be of global significance.
Areas of legislation which need to be considered by governments include:
• control of hazardous materials: laying a duty on employers to protect all whom they employ
from avoidable exposure; identifying safe occupational limits of exposure; requiring training of
all employees involved;
• requiring all manufacturers, importers and traders of building products to ensure that these
are labelled, that any hazardous substances they contain are identified; and that safe working
39
practices are explained;
• shift the burden of proof to the manufacturer to demonstrate the fitness of the product for its
intended use;
• banning of exceptionally hazardous materials and conforming to international protocols in

this respect;
• legislation to lay an obligation on designers to pass on to building owners full documentation

of the materials used in construction and any associated hazards; and
• detailed requirements for providing for the minimization of hazards to building occupants
through adequate ventilation standards, design for control of pest infestation, design for
minimization of emissions of volatile organic chemicals etc.
Economic incentives
Economic incentives can play a crucial role in changing the production and consumption patterns in relation to
harmful building materials. Such incentives can include: product charges to discourage the production and
use of materials and products which are hazardous to human health, and financial incentives to promote the
recycling and reuse of wastes.
Non−regulatory measures
In addition to the indicated regulatory measures, governments can promote the control of health hazards
through the following non−regulatory measures:
• Research and information: As funding bodies for research, governments have a

responsibility to promote and ensure that adequate funds are made available for the
development of safe building materials and production processes;
• Stimulating voluntary action: The success of the control strategy requires it to be

people−centred. People must be stimulated to bear responsibility in shaping the environment
and bring about conditions that make it possible, and easier, to live a healthy life.
Consequently governments must promote community participation on health development
generally and in relation to the control of the harmful effects of building materials and the
built−environment in particular. NGOs should be encouraged to play the role of health
advocacy;
• Education and training: Stimulating voluntary action and proactive action of key
stake−holders requires a well informed public. Therefore the public awareness should be
created on how specific building materials and their built−environment can affect their health.
In this context, it is important to educate children and young people. As funding and
controlling bodies for education, governments have a responsibility to ensure that the
curricula of schools and professional educational institutions include appropriate levels of
information on environmental aspects of health;
• Standards and specifications: Governments should fund and promote the formulation of
appropriate standards and specifications to complement the regulatory and control measures;
• Demonstration projects: Demonstration projects can have a significant influence on

peoples’ understanding of safe building materials and the required health adequacy of their
built−environment. Government sponsored projects, amongst others, should be used to
provide such an influence;
• Intersectoral collaboration: The importance of intersectoral collaboration requires

emphasis. Governments must initiate coordinating mechanisms at all levels to sustain and
strengthen intersectoral collaboration. Such collaboration must ensure that public attention is
mobilized, political commitment is obtained, and adequate resources are allocated in
addressing the environmental and health concerns of the population. The fragmentation of
the professions in the construction can be overcome through the establishment of
multidisciplinary co−ordination bodies.
40
E. International action
The cost and specialized nature of the work involved in identifying, understanding and controlling health
hazards related to building materials is such that international sharing of know−how is essential. The
organizations and agencies of the United Nations System, with global mandates for health and development,
play an important advocacy role by calling the attention of Member States to priority issues where joint action
is urgently needed, through meetings of experts, publishing scientific and policy documents, holding global
conferences and framing recommendations for action (81). Examples of such recent international initiatives
include:
• The International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) and WHO, as of 1994, have jointly published over 170 of Environmental Health
Criteria (EHC) documents based on research by the International Programme on Chemical
Safety. A good number of these documents deal with chemicals which are associated with
building materials;
• Besides the EHC, ILO, UNEP and WHO, through IRPTC are jointly publishing the Chemical
Safety Sheets and the Pesticides Data Sheets and also a “Healthy and Safety Series”.
• In 1988, the ILO adopted the Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167)
and its accompanying Recommendation No. 175. These instruments establish principles for
the implementation of a national policy and attribute duties to competent authorities, as well
as responsibilities of employers (covering principle contractors, contractors and
sub−contractors), those concerned with the design and planing of a construction projects, and
rights and duties of workers.
• UNEP/IE/PAC is operating the Cleaner Production Programme, which promotes the

application of an integrated preventive strategy for pollution control and efficient use of raw
materials in industrial processes, products and services. UNEP/IE’s APELL (Awareness and
Preparedness for Emergencies at Local Level) Programme also provides measures to identify
and evaluate industrial hazards and to verify the techniques for doing so. In addition, a
technical report, Company Environmental Reporting, has been published to promote
industry’s communication with the public and to provide information on toxic discharges and
control strategies.
• UNCHS(Habitat) is currently implementing a project with the Danish International

Development Agency (DANIDA) assistance which investigates the effect of building materials,
among others, on health. The findings of this study should be available by the end of 1995;
• WHO has also, in conjunction with UNEP, commissioned a report on the Indoor
Environment (25) which sets out an action plan for improving indoor environmental conditions
in dwellings world−wide.
Future international action should focus on: facilitating the formulation of housing policies sensitive to health
needs; stimulating and supporting, international, regional and national co−operation and action, e.g. in the
harmonization of international standards and legislation with regard to the manufacture and use of building
materials, in the application of relevant protocols and newly developed standards; and in stimulating and
supporting national research, education and training initiatives, through the exchange of information by
organizing regional and international meetings and the dissemination of information through published
material.
ANNEX
A list of cancer agents evaluated by IARC which are associated with building materials
Cancer Agent IARC Likely Sources

Group
41
Aldicarb 3 Insecticides
Aldrin 3 Insecticides
Antimony Oxide 2B Some pigments, fire protection coatings
Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds 1 Insecticides
Asbestos 1 Manufactured asbestos based products, machining or
degradation of asbestos based products
Benzene 1 Solvents, thinners, glues, adhesives
Cadmium & Cadmium Compounds 1 Pigments
Carbon Tetra chloride 2B Contaminant in some chlorinated rubber coatings
Ceramic Fibres 2B Asbestos
Chlordane 2B Insecticides
Chlordimeform 3 Insecticides
Coal−tar Pitches 1 Coal tar epoxiew
Chromium (VI) Compounds 1 Primers, paints
Creosote 2A Insecticides
DDT 2B Insecticide
3, 3’−Dichlorobenzidine 2B Pigments
Dichloromethane Methylene 2B Paint strippers
Chloride
1,2 Dibromo−3−Chloropropane 2B Soil fumigant
Dieldrin 3 Insecticides
Endrin 3 Insecticides
Epichlorohydrin 2A Contaminant in some epoxy resin
Ethylene dibromide 2A Soil fumigant
Formaldehyde 2A Phenol − formaldehyde resins, urea − formaldehyde resins,
Glass Filament 2B Asbestos
Glass Wool 2B Asbestos
Heptachlor 2B Insecticide
Hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCH) 2B Insecticide
?−HCH (Lindane) 2B Insecticide
Lead 2B Primers, dryers, some pigments
Methyl parathion 3 Insecticide
Nickel compounds 1 Pigments
2−Nitropropane 2A Organic solvent
Parathion 3 Insecticide
Pentachlorophenal 2B Fungicide
Polyurethane 3
Polyurethane Foams 3
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 3
Radon and its decay products 1 Soil, building materials
Rock Wool 2B
Silica (Crystalline) 2A mining and quarrying activities
Slag Wool 2B
Styrene 2B Organic solvent, e.g. in some polyesters, putties and fillers
2, 4, 5−T 3 Herbicide
Tetrachloroethylene 2A Organic solvent for degreasing
Toluene 3 Paints, thinners, adhesives
Toxaphene (polychlorinated 2B Insecticides
camphenes)
Tuluene Diisocyanate 2B Some polyurethanes
42
Trichloroethane 3
Vinyl Chloride 1 PVC polymerisation facilities
Wood Dust 1 Furniture making, wood construction activities
Xylene 3
Trichloroethylene 2A Adhesives, spot removers, paint production
Source: WHO (1987). Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. WHO Regional Publications,
European Series No. 23. World Health Organisation, Regional Office for Europe,
Copenhagen, and IARC (1995). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks
to Humans. List of IARC Evaluations, Lyon, France.
REFERENCES
1. ILO, Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety, Third Edition, International Labour Office, Geneva,
1983.
2. LHC, Toxic Treatments: Wood Preservative Hazards at Work and in the Home, London Hazards Centre,
UNITED KINGDOM, 1989.
3. UNCHS (Habitat), Report of the Executive Director, Building Materials and Health (HS/C/14/7), Nairobi,
1992.
4. Crowther, D., Health Considerations in House Design, Martin Centre for Architectural and Urban Studies,
Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM., 1991.
5. Crowther, D., Buildings and Health, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM., 1994.
6. IRPTC Bulletin Journal of the International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals (IRPTC) devoted to
information on hazardous chemicals, volume 9 No. 1 June 1988.
7. Mattison, M. L., Asbestos and Asbestos Related Diseases (revised edition), Medical Advisory Group of the
Asbestos Information Centre, Widness, UNITED KINGDOM, 1987.
8. Delaine, John, Asbestos Removal, Management and Control. Gower Publishing Company Ltd, UNITED
KINGDOM, 1988.
9. WHO, Environmental Health Criteria 53 for Asbestos and other Natural Mineral Fibres. Geneva, 1986.
10. Leslie, G. B. and Lunau, F. W. Indoor Air Pollution: Problems and Priorities, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM., 1992.
11. Curwell, S. R., March, C. G. and Venables, R., Buildings and Health: the Rosehaugh guide to the design,
construction and management of buildings, RIBA Publications, London, 1990.
12. Bhandari, R. K. and Dhariyal, K. D. Asbestos and Associated Health Hazards, Central Building Research
Institute, Roorkee: Report no. 247 667. OUP/IBH, New Delhi, 1990.
13. IRPTC Bulletin. Journal of the International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals (IRPTC) devoted to
information on hazardous chemicals, volume 10, number 1, March 1990.
14. Ouellette, R. P., Dilks, C. F., Thompson Jr, W. C., Cheremisinoff, P. N. Asbestos Hazard Management: A
guidebook to Abatement. Technomic Publishing Company Inc., Pennsylvania, UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, 1987.
15. IFBWW Series 2. Make Construction safe. International Federation of Building and Wood Workers,
Geneva.
16. IFBWW, Bulletin of the International Federation of Building and Wood Workers, 2/1994, Geneva. 1994.
43
17. Curwell, S.R., and March, C. G. Hazardous Building Materials: a guide to the selection of alternatives, E.
& F. N. Spon, London.
18. Browne, K. “Fibres in the lungs”, Architects’ Journal, 19 February 1992, pp. 45−48, London. 1992.
19. IARC, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Man−made Mineral Fibres
and Radon, Volume 43. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France, 1988.
20. IARC, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Preamble, International
Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, 1994.
21. IFBWW, Health and Safety: Manufactured Mineral Fibres in Construction. International Federation of
Building and Wood Workers (IFBWW), Geneva, 1994.
22. DFG, MAK and BAT − Values 1992. Commission for the Investigation of Chemical Hazards of Chemical
Components in the Work Area, Report No. 28, 1992.
23. Spurgeon, A., Effects of Lead on Children, Indoor Environment 1992;1:300−307, 1992.
24. Newsweek, 17.2., Newsweek Inc, New York. 1992
25. Roberts, J.W., Camann, D.E. and Spittler, T.M. Monitoring and Controlling Lead in House Dust in Older
Homes, Proceedings of Indoor Air 1990, pp. 435−444, 1990.
26. Molhave, L., Volatile Organic Compounds as Indoor Air Pollutants, in Gammage R. and Kaye, S. (eds),
Indoor Air and Human Health, p 403−415, 1985.
27. IFBWW Series 3, Solvents and Paint Hazards. International Federation of Building and Wood Workers,
Geneva, 1992.
28. IARC (1995)
29. Dearling, T. B., Miller, E. R., and Osborn, G., Solvent vapour hazards during painting with white − spirit −
borne eggshell paints, Building Research Establishment, UNITED KINGDOM, 1992.
30. WHO, Indoor Environment: Health Aspects of Air Quality, Thermal Environment, Light and Noise,
UNCHS/UNEP/WHO, 1990.
31. Ray, D.E, Hazards from Solvents, Pesticides and PCBs in Leslie, G.B. and Lunau, F.W., Indoor Air
Pollution: Problems and Priorities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM., 1992.
32. ACGIH, 1994−1995 Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical and Biological
Exposure Indices, 1994.
33. Molhave, L., Volatile Organic Compounds − Indoor Air Quality and Health, Indoor Air ‘90, Vol. 5, pp.
447−452, 1990.
34. Tucker, W., Building with Low−emitting Materials and Products: Where Do We Stand?”, Indoor Air ‘90,
Vol. 3, pp. 251−256, 1990.
35. Ashworth, J. My Paints, Architects’ Journal, 27 October, 1993, p. 62, 1993.
36. Betton, G.R., “Formaldehyde” Chapter 8 in Leslie, G.B. and Lunau, F.W., Indoor Air Pollution: Problems
and Priorities, Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM, 1992.
37. WHO, Air quality guidelines for Europe. WHO Regional Publications, European Series No. 23,
Copenhagen, 1987.
38. Sehriever and Marutzky (1990)...
39. UNCHS (Habitat). Multilingual Glossary of Human Settlements Terms, Nairobi, 1992.
44
40. Robertson, A., Gases, Vapour and Mists, in Building and Health: the Rosehaugh guide to the design,
construction and management of buildings, RIBA Publications, London, 1990.
41. Dinham, B., The Pesticide Hazard: A Global Health and Environmental Audit, Zed Books, London and
New Jersey, 1993.
42. UNEP, Environmental Aspects of Industrial Wood Preservation: Technical Report Series No. 20, UNEP
IE/PAC/IPCS/FAO, Paris, 1994.
43. Mendoza de Linares, Country Report: Venezuela, PP135 in Dinham B.ed., The Pesticide Hazard, Zed
Books, London, 1991.
44. Health and Safety Executive. In situ Timber Treatment Using Timber Preservatives, Guidance Note GS46,
HMSO, London, 1986b.
45. Lang, T., and Clutterbuck, C., P is for Pesticides, The Ebury Press, London, 1991.
46. Orsler, R. J., Preservation of timber for tropical building: Overseas Building Note, Building Research
Establishment, UNITED KINGDOM., 1994.
47. BRE Digest. Remedial Wood Preservatives: Use them safely, Digest 371, Building Research
Establishment, UNITED KINGDOM, 1992.
48. KBP Architects, Rammed Earth Structures: a Code of Practice (draft document), 1994.
49. The Daily Hazard No.46, March, Newsletter of the London Hazard Centre, 1995.
50. IARC, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemical to Humans, Silica and
some Silicates, Volume 42, Lyon, France, 1987.
51. Seliem, S.R., Dust in Egypt − New Trends, African Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety 1994; 4:
46−47, 1994.
52. Holopainen, M., Laurent H., Klockars, M., Koskala, R−S,. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and
Health, Volume 20, Number 6, December 1994.
53. Cairncross, S. and Feachem, R., Environmental Health Engineering in the Tropics, John Wiley and Sons,
1993.
54. Schofield, C.J.H., Briceno−Leon, R., Kolstrup, N., Webb, D.J.T, and White, G.B. “The Role of House
Design in Limiting Vector−borne Disease” in Hardoy, J.E, Cairncross, S. and Satterthwaite, D., The Poor Die
Young: Housing and Health in Third World Cities, Earthscan, London, 1990.
55. Tonn, R.J., Cedillos, R.A., Camejo, T. and Cardozo, J.V., Estudio Socio−Economic en Varias
Comunidades de los Estados Cojedes y Portuguesa, Boletin de la Direccion de Malariologia y Saneamiento
Ambiental, 21(1), 59−68, (English summary by C. J. Schofield), 1981.
56. Nocerino, F., Afloriamento de Cristales de Insecticides con el Humedecimiento en las Superficies
Rociadas, Boletin de la Direccion de Malariologia y Saneamiento Ambiental 21(1), 54−58, (English summary
by CJ. Schofield), 1981.
57. Dias, J.C.P. and Dias, R.B., Housing and the Control of Human Chagas’ Disease in the State of Minas
Gerais, Brazil, Bull Pan Am. Health Organisation, vol. 16, pp. 117−129, 1982.
58. UNCHS, Use of Energy by Households and in Construction and Production of Building Materials, UNCHS
(Habitat), Nairobi, 1991.
59. Spence, R. J. S. and Cook, D. J., Building Materials in Developing Countries, John Willey & Sons, 1983.
60. Stulz R. and Mukerji, K., Appropriate Building Materials, SKAT, Switzerland, 1988.
45
61. UNCHS, A Compendium of Information on Selected Low−Cost Building Materials, UNCHS (Habitat),
Nairobi, 1988.
62. East African Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety Supplement 1/1990: Proceedings of the East
African Regional Symposium on Regulations and Control in Occupational Health and Safety, Zanzibar,
Tanzania, 4−7 December 1989.
63. Weterings, K., The utilisation of Phosphogypsum, Proceedings of the Fertiliser Society, No. 208, London,
1982.
64. Nuclear Energy Agency, Exposure to Radiation from the Natural Radioactivity in Building Materials.
OECD, Paris, 1979.
65. Mustonen, R., Natural Radioactivity and Radon Exhalation from Finnish Building Materials, Health Physics
46, 1195−1203, 1984.
66. Cliff, K. D., Green, B. M. R. and Miles, J. C. H., The Levels of Radioactive Materials in Some Common UK
Building Materials, the Science of the Total Environment, 45, 181−186. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1985.
67. Yu, K. N., Radon Emanation from Concrete with Pulverised Fuel Ash, Building and Environment Vol. 29,
4, PP545−547, 1994.
68. Lindvall, T., Leslie and Lunau, Indoor Air Pollution: Problems and Priorities, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM, 1992.
69. Nero, A.V., Radon in Energy−efficient Earth−sheltered Structures, Proceedings First International
Conference on Earth Sheltered Buildings, 1−1−6 August 1983 Sydney, Australia, 1983.
70. Kokotti, H., Keskikuru, T. and Kalliokoski, P., Radon Mitigation with Pressure Controlled Mechanical
Ventilation, Building and Environment, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 387−392, 1994.
71. Aumento, F., Coprox Radon Barrier. Experimental Evaluation of its Radon Blocking Properties Report for
3R, Radon Research Laboratory, Arese, Italy, 1991.
72. Viney, I. and Rees, J., Contaminated Land − risks to Health and Building Integrity in Curwell et al. (eds).
Building and Health: the Rosehaugh guide to the design, construction and management of buildings, RIBA
Publications, London, 1990.
73. BMTPC, Building Materials News. Newsletter of the Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council
(BMTPC), Vol. 1 No. 4, New Delhi, India, 1992.
74. UNEP. Industry and Environment. Special Issue No. 4, 1993: Industrial Hazards Waste Management,
1993.
75. Appleby, P., Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation in Curwell, S., March S. and Venables R. (eds) Buildings
and Health: the Rosehaugh Guide to the design, construction, use and management of buildings, RIBA
Publications, London, 1990.
76. Ashford, N.A., Crisis in the Workplace. Occupational Disease and Injury. The MIT Press, 1976.
77. Fox, A., Green Design, Architectural Design and Technology Press, 1990.
78. IFBWW, Bulletin of the International Federation of Building and Wood Workers, 1/1994, Geneva, 1994.
79. WHO, Technical Report Series 718: Environmental Pollution Control in Relation to Development, 1985.
80. Lorch, R., Construction Materials and the Environment. Preparing for Stricter Building Product Standards.
Special Report No. 2039. The Economist Intelligence Unit, London, 1990.
81. WHO, Health Promotion and Community Action for Health in Developing Countries, 1994.
46
82. Spence, R. J. S., Cambridge Architectural Research Limited (UNITED KINGDOM), Building Materials and
Health. Unpublished draft report prepared for the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat),
September 1994.
UNITED NATIONS CENTRE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS (Habitat)

PO Box 30030 Nairobi, KENYA. Telephone 621234
Cable UNHABITAT; FAX (254)−2−624266/624267; Telex: 22996 UNHAB KE
47
48

Building Materials and Health

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Materials and Health

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Materials and Health

UNITED NATIONS CENTRE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS (Habitat)

The manuscript of this publication was produced in 1995. It is printed in 1997.

ACGIH American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists

B. Health and building materials: An overview

Production of building materials

Construction and maintenance

Table 1. Causal agents of disease encountered in buildings.

Type Agents Subcategory Example

In controlling health hazards, in residential or office buildings WHO recommends:

• To ban excessively hazardous materials

• To substitute less hazardous alternative products when available

• To introduce sanitary clearance of new building materials and of consumer products as

• To decrease human exposure through extensive natural ventilation of buildings

• To keep all residential and office buildings very clean

Sources and health implications

Mineral Theoretical formula Output tonnes Building materials

• In para−occupational (neighbourhood of an asbestos industrial plant, or home of an

Factors influencing exposure

Acceptable exposure levels

• be aware of the materials likely to contain asbestos, and potential risks;

• wear protective clothing and a respirator where appropriate;

• wash or shower at the end of the working day;

• do not take working clothes home; and

• There is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of rockwool in experimental animals;

• There is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of rock−/slagwool in humans;

• No data were available on the carcinogenicity of ceramic fibres to humans.

Table 3. IARC Carcinogenic evaluation criteria.

• In Denmark, stationary workplaces must meet a 2. Of/ml fibre standard, and in

Table 4. Examples of asbestos−based materials, MMMF−based substitutes and alternatives

Asbestos−based material MMMFs−based substitutes Alternatives

Sources and health implications

Factors influencing exposure

Acceptable exposure levels

Use in building construction Alternative material

Sources and health implications

• Allergic contact dermatitis is a type of dermatitis caused by becoming allergic or sensitised

Cancer Agent IARC Group Likely Sources

Factors influencing exposure

Description Abbreviation Boiling point Main example Principal uses

Acceptable exposure levels

Table 9. Draft dose response table for airborne VOCs.

Total VOCs (mg/m3) Possible reactions Exposure class

Substance Air concentration limit

Sources and health implications

Factors influencing exposure

Acceptable exposure levels

G. Insecticides and fungicides

Sources and health implications

Chemical Use Health hazards Carcinogenic Occupational

* The TLV of arsenic is 0.01 mg/m3 in ACGIH, 1994 (32)

Chemical Lethal Dose Lethal Concentration LC50 Occupational Carcinogenic

* The figures are based on time wrighted averages (TWA)

Factors influencing exposure

Acceptable exposure levels

• if preservative is to be applied by spray, use a coarse low−pressure jet to avoid creating a

• reducing the use of the more vulnerable sapwood;

Sources and health implications

Factors influencing exposure

Acceptable exposure levels

Sources and health implications

Factors influencing exposure

Acceptable exposure levels