Asbestos Still Kills

Episode 2 - TEM: Is it Asbestos or not? Asbestos in kids play sand! (Part 1 of 2)

• Jason Milner / Robert McAllister / Dr. Terri-Ann Berry • Season 2025 • Episode 2

Share episode

Asbestos has been identified in children's coloured play sand by an Australian Laboratory.

We interview Michael Shepherd from COHLABS - TEM in Brisbane, Australia who explains the differences in Asbestos Analysis methods and why TEM - Transmission Electron Microscopy is the future of Asbestos analysis around the world.

The ‘Asbestos Still Kills Podcast ® (A.S.K.)' Team provide another exciting Podcast which will not leave viewers disappointed. This interview will be released in 2 parts over 2 weeks.

Presenters:

Robert McAllister - FAMANZ Director

Dr. Terri-Ann Berry - Environmental Innovation Centre (EIC); Associate Professor, AUT, School of Future Environments

Jason Milner - Asbestos Management Consultants Ltd (AMC)

Website: www.asbestosstillkills.com

Email: asbestosstillkills@gmail.com

The Asbestos Still Kills Podcast ® is Sponsored by:

Asbestos Management Consultants Ltd - Expertise you can trust

https://asbestosmanagementconsultants...

The Environmental Innovation Centre

https://www.environmental-innovation.nz/

For information on asbestos-related diseases or to contact the Mesothelioma Support and Asbestos Awareness Trust please go to:

https://www.msaatrust.org.nz/

🎙️ Podcast Disclaimer — Asbestos Still Kills

The Asbestos Still Kills Podcast ® is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The views and opinions expressed by the hosts and guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of any individuals, organisations, employers, or affiliated bodies.

While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, the podcast may discuss topics involving health, safety, legal, or environmental matters. This content should not be taken as professional, legal, or medical advice. Always consult qualified professionals regarding asbestos-related issues, workplace safety, or health concerns.

The creators, hosts, and producers of Asbestos Still Kills accept no liability for any loss, injury, or damages arising from the use of, or reliance on, the information discussed or displayed. Listener discretion is advised, as some episodes may contain sensitive or distressing content related to asbestos exposure and its impact on individuals and communities.

The creators, hosts, and producers of the Asbestos Still Kills podcast ® accept no liability for any loss, injury, or damages arising from the use of, or reliance on, the information discussed or displayed. Listener discretion is advised, as some episodes may contain sensitive or distressing content.

Viewers' discretion is advised before listening to the Asbestos Still Kills Podcast ®. Viewers are encouraged to use their own judgment and caution when deciding whether to watch or listen to the Asbestos Still Kills Podcast ®.

Thank you for listening.

Don't forget to like and subscribe for future podcasts.

More Information is available at www.asbestostillkills.com

Contact us via email at: asbestosstillkills@gmail.com

Thank you for listening.

Don't forget to subscribe for future podcasts.

More Information is available at www.asbestostillkills.com

Contact us via email at: asbestosstillkills@gmail.com

SPEAKER_05:

Asbestos still kill.

SPEAKER_02:

Only last week I I had some samples come in and they're and they're colored sands. So the colored sands, these color sand samples came from China. And they're used in uh kindergartens and preschools. So they're you know they're the fluorescent, the red, the yellows, the the blues, the pinks, etc. And we actually identify them as tremolite asbestos. And incidentally, about a week later, we had some some more sands, another 20 come in, and all 20 of those came back positive for tremolite.

SPEAKER_03:

I mean, that that story is that they're around the covered sand. I mean, that's terrible. I mean, you you're you're dealing with the most vulnerable parts of our society, that's our children.

SPEAKER_00:

We don't actually know the risk. We don't know how likely it is that the fibre is going to be able to be liberated from that sand and become airborne and for it to be respirable where it's gonna do most of the damage.

SPEAKER_05:

For listening to the asbestos still kills podcast, please see the disclaimer on the website www.asbestostillkills.com. Thank you. Episode two TEM Transmission Electron Microscopy. Is it asbestos or not? And the analysis of asbestos found in children's coloured play sand. In two parts over two weeks, featuring Michael Shepherd from Colabs TEM. Hello and welcome to the asbestos still kills podcast. My name is Jason Milner. My name's Rob McAllister.

SPEAKER_00:

My name's Terry Amberry.

SPEAKER_05:

So is it asbestos or not? We filmed the TEM podcast just a few weeks ago with Michael Shepard from Colabs in Brisbane. In that podcast, we discussed asbestos contamination in children's placehand. Since filming that podcast in October, children's placehand in New Zealand has been tested and has been confirmed to contain asbestos. And this podcast will be aired on Wednesday, the 26th of November, 2025. But Rob, what else can you tell the listeners or viewers about the last few weeks since we filmed our podcast with Michael Shepherd?

SPEAKER_03:

Thank you, Jason. So following our podcast, um, and you'll see following this in the podcast, my reaction to hearing around the sand what our children are playing with containing asbestos was pretty shocked, really. So following our um conversation with Michael Shepherd, it sort of really waned on me around this level of risk and could this also be in New Zealand? So I took the first opportunity I could with our regular meetings through Famands and WorkSafe New Zealand to have a conversation with them and actually ask them if they were aware of this situation that was unfolded or potentially unfolding in Australia. So I had a conversation on the 5th of November actually at this time, where I raised it with the technical lead from WorkSafe, and uh she was quite quickly sort of really concerned and said, Oh, well, that seems really weird. Do you have any other information that you can share with me about it? So we did speak for a while around it, and uh she went away there and immediately arranged a meeting for the next morning on the 6th, um, first thing in the morning. Clearly, she hadn't slept overnight, she was really concerned about this, as was I, and uh we confirmed a few more facts around the sampling and what had been discussed really on the podcast to follow. At that particular point, um I provided some additional information and uh WorkSafe New Zealand went off to uh communicate with uh WorkSafe over in Australia to really see if they knew about this and what was happening and you know, really to get um some information. The following day we got contact, I got contacted again uh about coming into an emergency meeting with WorkSafe where they wanted to clarify some further parts. And we were told that they'd actually made contact with uh Australia, and unfortunately, Australia hadn't been made aware of the situation prior to contact with New Zealand and that they would be looking into it. So, as part of that, from my understanding at that point, they went off and had a conversation with the lab and said, Hey, we need to have this information released to us uh as quickly as we can to verify this. And from that particular point moving forwards, we saw quite a lot of things unfolding from that point in media circles, and you know, that's when we started to really see some sound products with with risks being published. So, alongside that, with other concerns that we had around other products that are readily available in New Zealand at that time, um in big box stores that parents can buy and so forth, as famans, we decided as a board that actually picking up the mantle early on and doing some uh initial testing to try and verify and give their regulators some more information around similar sand products in in the market would be a good thing to do. So we instructed a local lab uh based in uh New Zealand to uh purchase a lot of these products off the shelf and to do some testing for us. Um so we we went down that road because we were really concerned, and it was that we shared that information with our regulator and said, look, hey, we're getting this stuff done and we'll keep you informed. Well, move in and we we instructed a lab called Accurate over here, Accurate Consultancy. They went out and did that. They test under UK standards as well, which is great, HSG standards, because that enables them to identify uh tremolite as a particular um item uh in their accreditation, they're allowed to do that. So they went off and did that. Well, within the next day or so, we got the results which were pretty alarming, and they really identified to us that Tremolite was existing in the Kmart sand, all sand tested from Kmart had to return positive samples. So um, it was pretty alarming there. That was provided back to WorkSafe. WorkSafe then communicated that over to uh our colleagues over in Australia, and as you've seen, we've had a bit of a media storm from that point forwards. As that moved forwards and things started to happen, things were being said in the media. So I was contacted actually by ABC News Um Australia, and they wanted um some clarification around how this had occurred. So I explained that story, and that was published um only a few days ago in the news uh over there while we continue to work through more products that we're testing. So from that point, I'll say from a Fairman's uh hat on that everybody in Famman's is committed to trying to find this material and support uh our regulators to assess as quickly as we can. So that's how it unfolded, and that's where we are today.

SPEAKER_05:

Thank you, Rob. That's uh a good synopsis. So I know in the ABC media article it says that the uh ASK, a special circles podcast, was produced by Famans, which is not the case. We have someone from Faman's yourself, a director from the Bob, it's not produced by Famans, so we thought we'd clear that up. Terri Ann, what are your thoughts? And should parents be worried?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, look, I think they should be worried. If it were me, I would be worried. Um I think there's a few things that we need to make quite clear here in that the product is called magic sand. And people have been asking, well, where on earth did Tremolite come from? How did it get in there? Um it's not actually sand, it's a mind product. And when you're mining a mineral type product, there's always an there's always a chance that you could um include and incorporate a mineral like asbestos that could be dangerous. And so that kind of mind product really needs to be checked. Um, I don't I don't know the circumstances around that, but I do think that maybe this is a learning here that these sorts of products should be checked. Um I'm particularly concerned about the fact that we're talking about loose fibers here. Now, we don't actually know the risk, we don't know how likely it is that the fibre is gonna be able to be liberated from that sand and become airborne and for it to be respirable, where it's gonna do most of the damage. Um, and I think again, it's another learning point for us that we actually need to be able to ascertain the risks in these sorts of scenarios. And whilst I think that, you know, this hopefully isn't the sort of scenario we're gonna see very often, we also know that asbestos has been used in over 3,000 different products. So it's not like we don't already have quite a lot of asbestos already in our environment. So I think that what we really need to be doing as a nation in New Zealand is actually looking at well, how can we actually properly ascertain risks when we find asbestos in products like the magic sand, um, but also in in some of our building products. Um, and what can we do, not just to support people who are in an occupational field, but I think where the support has perhaps not been quite so strong has been our communities who have said to us, look, we're very confused. Some people have said it's really low risk, and then other people are wearing full full PPE suits, and we don't really know where to turn with this. And I think it would be great to have a group or a body that can give this advice and it can be clear and calm and consistent. And I feel at the moment that because this probably came about suddenly and people weren't, you know, weren't prepared for it, we didn't really have that that sort of group of advisors that could actually, you know, go out to communities and give that reassurance. And in terms of the actual scenario, you know, the actual product, the actual testing, how it all happened, most of us don't actually know that. So when it comes to trying to to actually clarify what the risks are, it it's a guess. We don't actually know. We know we're dealing with a very dangerous substance. We don't know how likely it is that anybody breathed in the fibers. Um, so I think again, this is a real learning point for us.

SPEAKER_05:

As of today, WorkSafe have released guidance on this or updated guidance in regards to sand that is in sealed tubs or it is around the classrooms. Uh they're still treating it as a class A because they don't know enough about it, so they go in the worst case scenario. So, but you can understand in the future, and Australia's saying they're going to do more testing on products. So you've got the sand. We've had the bit you've had the fire doors before that were confirmed to be asbestos contaminated. Then what about the face paints? What about the talc products? What about crayons? You understand that there is a lot of products coming into New Zealand that could potentially contain asbestos. So who takes the range to test them all then?

SPEAKER_03:

That's a really good question. And that's something that has been top of um media's questioning, to be honest with you, uh, over the last few days as well. Is that we have a great system when it comes to asbestos in in the workplace. We have a great system when it comes to building products with asbestos in it, as a whole industry built around managing those risks. But I I put it too, and something I raised in in the article, was who's actually at the ports? Are we testing it independently at the ports? We know materials are coming in from jurisdictions around the world which don't have the same regulations that we do in relation to asbestos. Asbestos in New Zealand is banned. This shouldn't be coming in. And if it is coming in, the question I have is are we checking it? And if we are, are we doing enough? Um, so there were some big questions and some questions were raised to me. And a point that you raised, Terrianne, in relation to how do you respond to that if it's not a workplace event, if it is a domestic dwelling event, thousands of people are communicating in, I've been told, that they're concerned about their children. You know, Health New Zealand have done a uh great piece of work and putting a phone line up and allowing people to contact them in that case. But the problem there lies in is what is the next step? Do we have a uh a process really in New Zealand to be able to respond to this collectively across government organisations? And that's something I feel that we're lacking at the moment, and we need to learn from this incident and go forwards with a better, um, a better way of dealing with it, as you say, uh Terrian, to stop this anxiety coming in from parents and others.

SPEAKER_05:

I mean, should it be tested by the suppliers before it comes in? And then should have a certificate saying it is asbestos free, but can that be relied upon? What do you reckon, Terriane?

SPEAKER_00:

Well, I mean, if you think about it, if you've got a chemical coming into the country, you'd have a material safety data sheet and it would declare what was in the particular chemical. Um, I so I suppose, and this this really only works for asbestos, but if you've got the sort of product that has been mined, um, and it and it's not a building product, but it has been mined from a sort of natural environment, then I think that we should be able to demand that the suppliers have tested this and that they've done their due diligence before they send it out to a country that banned asbestos in 2016.

SPEAKER_03:

But I I would probably add to that as well and say, you know, uh something I've always lived by uh in in this space as an assessor is um the saying trust but verify. So if we applied it in that way to border force, we'd say, look, you know, they should be providing evidence that they have been doing some testing. But because of the severity of this type of material and the risks associated with it, as has come to light here, the verification part really needs to be focused on, in my view, because in that taking random products and testing would at least give some semblance of oversight so people sending it in can have their essentially uh stuff marked there and also give some more confidence for our um for our people in New Zealand as well and parents that actually we are doing everything we can reasonably do to keep on top of this stuff.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah. I'd like to really hope that when our doors open and we're allowed in more building products to come from overseas, that that is checked. And those products that come to into our markets are checked for asbestos content because the rules that we have and the ban that we have isn't the same all over the world. I think it's something like between 67 and 69 countries have banned asbestos. Um, and that's certainly not all the countries in the world, and we're still producing it in Russia and other countries.

SPEAKER_05:

Well, going forward, we need to know more about the sand itself. I know asbestos has been detected through PLM, polarized light microscopy, uh, also TEM, when the results have come back negative with PLM. But it'd be nice to know get some more information from the laboratories. Uh, do the fibers stick to the sand? Are they loose within the sand? What about disturbance? Does it release the fibers? So, do you think this should be done going forward, Talia?

SPEAKER_00:

Um, yeah, absolutely. I think I think TEM is just so, so important. Um, we've already seen incidences where um fibers have been detected at quite high concentration, there's been a bit of a panic, um, then it's gone for TEM and it wasn't asbestos in the first place. And in that instance, it actually led to a lot of money being spent on decontamination that wasn't necessary. So TEM is such an important sort of gold standard of the industry that I do think that it's important that we use that for clarification.

SPEAKER_05:

What do you think, Rob?

SPEAKER_03:

Yeah, I mean, situationally, I mean, TEM, as you'll hear in the podcast to come, is a valuable tool in the arsenal to be able to identify risk really when it comes to those set materials. Uh, absolutely. And I think it's it's something that we should be moving forward with uh as an industry personally, because the detection levels there, even on other products, is much higher and it enables us to um really clearly identify where asbestos is, and it is, you know, for want of a better word, the gold standard for detection. And several jurisdictions around the world use that as a detection method. Um, so I would like to see adoption in that space, really, uh, because then you really know whether it is asbestos and if it is, volumes of asbestos, and it gives you a lot more information so that labs can inform us on the risk, and then we can then obviously impart that information out to the right people.

SPEAKER_05:

I think the challenges with TEM, as we know, there's there's no TEM or commercial TEM lab in New Zealand. There are two in Australia and uh America and also Europe as well. So I'm sure there will be a backup of samples being sent over to Australia and America at the moment, which are awaiting the results. So that will be one of the challenges going forward, especially with the areas that are shut off, uh, as a presumption that they are contaminated with the asbestos and absolutely.

SPEAKER_03:

Absolutely. I mean, we could even take it a step further for importers. Um, we talk about testing and what would stop us asking importers to use TEM as a method of testing their equipment to give us verification and validation that it doesn't contain asbestos. I think you know, we could we need to really think laterally as an industry and come up with better ways of doing things. You know, we've we've seen with this and what's happened that this has slipped through the net. And, you know, um, as I say later in the podcast, our children, our Tamariki, uh, these are the most vulnerable parts of our society, and we really can't be in a position where, you know, giving them uh and parents are generally giving them kids uh kids toys and wanting them to play with them, you know, and to find out that that's contaminated with a carcinogen, you know, soul destroying. And it shouldn't be, uh you know, it shouldn't be. We have the technology, so let's start adapting our systems to use it.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, I and I'd also like to say that I agree with that and remember as well that the way children play and handle things are quite different to the way adults handle things. Um, you know, they throw stuff around, they pick stuff up, they put it in their mouth, they do all sorts of things. So I think you know, we really do need to make sure that we are protecting that vulnerable part of the population that will use products like this in a bit of a different way to the way an adult might handle it. Um so I think that's really important that we consider here who's actually being impacted.

SPEAKER_05:

Absolutely. And hopefully going forward, more tests will be done on the sand uh to detect uh its fliability and see whether it does release fibres easily, and it'll give us a bit of an indication of exposure. Uh, maybe that could be covered on a on a future asbestos still kills podcast.

unknown:

Yep.

SPEAKER_05:

So thank you very much, and uh I hope everybody enjoys the podcast. Alright, see you soon. Cheers. Cheers.

SPEAKER_04:

AMC expertise you can trust. There is a new dawn in New Zealand. Property owners and organizations face increasing asbestos responsibilities. Asbestos management can be a complicated maze to navigate. But with the right guidance, you can manage your asbestos safely, confidently, and compliantly. That's where Asbestos Management Consultants AMC comes in. Independent, impartial asbestos experts, helping you develop and implement effective asbestos management strategies. From document reviews and management plans to policies and asbestos training. AMC provides asbestos compliance solutions you can trust. Based in Auckland, trusted nationwide. AMSD is one of New Zealand's most experienced asbestos consultances. AMC, asbestos management consultants expertise you can trust. Visit our website to start your asbestos management journey today. Visit our website at www.asbestosmanagementconsultants.co dot nz.

SPEAKER_05:

Welcome to today's Asbestos Still Kills podcast. My name is Jason Milner. And welcome. Today's podcast is Is it asbestos or not? So you've sent your bulk sample for your asbestos survey for analysis in an ions or NATA or other accredited laboratory under PLN with polarized light microscopy, and it results in a NAD result, no asbestos detected.

SPEAKER_03:

However, you send that same bulk sample for TEM, transmission electron microscopy, and you get a positive asbestos detected result. What's going on? Why the disparity and what's the difference between results?

SPEAKER_05:

Well, here is Michael Shepherd from Colabs TEM in Brisbane, Australia, to explain. Welcome, Mike.

SPEAKER_02:

Alright, thank you, Jason and Robert. So uh yeah, looking forward to the discussion. So you've got a result, you send it off to a uh PLM lab, you get a negative result, and then you send it off for a TM analysis, and uh you find that there is asbestos. So this isn't a uh uncommon occurrence in in our industry. And in fact, there was a case in the in the 90s in the in the US where a uh a hygienist took a sample. He was doing an audit of a uh of a building, took a sample of some vinyl floor tiles, and uh sent it off to a uh an accredited laboratory in in the US, and the analysis came back as as negative. Uh ten years on, they're undertaking a refurbishment of that particular building, and the building owner did the right thing and uh engaged for a uh a demolition survey. Another hygienist came along, sent the sample off for uh TM analysis, a vinyl tile sample, and it came back 15% crisot. Now, there was a successful lawsuit in this, and the uh building owner actually sued the actual hygienist, not the laboratory, not the PLN laboratory, but the actual hygienist for the sum of around about 90,000 US for unplanned removal and maintenance. And the argument was on the basis that the hygienists should have actually known the limitations associated with the different analytical techniques. And he failed to actually point that out to the actual owner. And uh, as I said, this this case was successful in the US in the 90s. So that's not to say that we've seen any cases here in Australia, but that's not to say that it won't happen in the in the actual future. And I think people need to be really aware of the limitations of the various different analytical techniques. So if we look at, let's say, polarized light microscopy, for example, um, and and that's what we typically use for uh for bulk sample analysis. Now that isn't an indirect method of actually determining whether something's asbestos. So with electron microscopy, we're actually confirming the chemistry of the actual fibers, we're actually determining the crystal status or the crystal structure directly. But you see, with PLM, it's indirect because what we actually do is we look at optical properties and compare them against reference standards. Now we know with asbestos that they have a wide variation of optical properties, and some minerals exhibit very, very similar optical properties to that of asbestos. So this is a big issue in our particular industry. Now, the main difference between, let's say, polarized light microscopy and electron microscopy is the resolution. So with polarized light microscopy, we use light as our source, but with electron microscopy, as the as the name suggests, we actually use electrons. Now, those electrons allow us to actually view samples or view fibers at a lot lower or a lot higher. Well, we can see the very, very small fibers. Okay. So typically for PLM, we or we can get down to about 0.2 of a micron. For SEM, low resolution, probably about 10 nanometers for 30 nanometers. For high resolution SEMs, around about 0.2 nanometers. And for TEM, we can get down to very, very small. You know, we can get down to 0.01 nanometers. So that's the big difference. Now the problem we have with samples and non-fibrous samples like vinyl tiles and mastics, okay, is we have the matrix. And that matrix tends to obscure the fibers. And unfortunately, we have a lot of laboratories that don't undertake sample matrix reduction techniques because they're measured on the number of samples that they must do per day, and time is money. So they don't ash, they don't use solvents, they don't use a range of, let's say, matrix reduction methods. But even if you use those matrix reduction methods, there's still a high probability with tiles and other samples where we have very fine fibers in there, that you won't see them using light microscopy. Now, for a successful unequivocal identification by PLM, you can only basically the the dimension or width of the fibre that we can get successful dispersion staining to cause something an asbestos fibre against its theoretical colours is one micron. Now, in vinyl tiles, what we're seeing is fibers less than 0.2 microns. So it's not uncommon to actually see PLM analysis on samples like mass and tiles where we've got the matrix and we have these very, very fine fibers returning a negative result, and then we find it by electron microscopy. Does that make sense?

SPEAKER_05:

Yeah, it does. And there's a lot of laboratories within New Zealand that do not do the matrix reducing technique.

SPEAKER_02:

The difference between, and and one of the questions that I typically get asked is, you know, what's the difference between SEM and uh and TN? Now it really comes down to resolution. So with scanning electron microscopy, the electrons scan off the surface, okay? And we measured the back-scattered rays. With transmission electron microscopy, the actual electrons transmit through the actual sample. So that allows us to get to that very, very small sample or fiber dimension. We can actually see it. Now, because the actual electron beams can actually go through the actual sample, we can actually look at the crystal structure of that. So SEM has two criteria for unequivocal identification. One is the morphology, so it must meet the asbestiform morphology. And you know, the Australian standards have that AS53700 and uh 49 uh 64 have that, you know, but typically 20 to 1 length to width aspect ratio, uh, fibers in dimensions less than 0.5, they show you know fibers in bundles, splade ends, curvatures, etc. etc. So you can see that quite easily with both TM and CM. They also basically determine the chemical composition, the chemistry. So we can actually determine what the chemical composition of that fiber is. Where TM has the advantage is that can actually have a look at the crystal structures because we do get some minerals that basically have very similar uh chemistry uh to asbestos. All right. So things like let's say amphophylite and telc have a very, very similar, very similar chemistry.

SPEAKER_06:

Okay.

SPEAKER_02:

Okay, and their morphology is very similar. So how you can differentiate that is with something what we call SAED, selective area electron diffraction, where we can actually look at the diffraction patterns of those particular two minerals. And what we find is that they're completely different. So for talc, it has a hexagonal sort of uh diffraction pattern, whereby in amphophylite they're more on straight lines. So this is why we we use TM uh more in in legal cases for unequivocal uh identification because it has that third criteria. Where scanning electron microscopy has the advantage over TM is because uh TM we can only see two-dimensional structures. With SEM, you can actually see three-dimensional structures. Now, this can be quite helpful when we have those sort of determination of let's say naturally occurring asbestos to determine whether something is a speciform or not. Yeah, because that three-dimensional structure will actually assist us in determining whether something's a speciform or non-espy form. So with any analytical technique, there is pros and cons, okay? And sometimes you need to use all the different devices you have out there to come to a conclusion. Now for PLM analysis, um, for 90% of our samples, it's okay. All right. So for fibrous samples, let's say like fiber cement sheet samples, where there's large abundance of fibers, you would not spend the time and money and do TM or SEM analysis. Those sort of samples, PLM analysis is perfectly fine and you will get your unequivocal result. But it's for these samples where we have matrix interferences or we have very, very fine fibers, that's when you need to use these different techniques. And it's up to people to understand the limitations associated with those particular techniques so that they can actually inform their client about the uncertainty or certainty of their particular results.

SPEAKER_05:

So that comes down to education, then, because quite a lot of the PCBUs out there aren't aware of the uh capabilities of TEM or SEM.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, and and I would probably push back a little bit on that, Jason. And I think they are aware, but it comes down to cost.

SPEAKER_06:

Okay.

SPEAKER_02:

So I mean, it with with the the modern internet and and and information and seminars and and and what you guys are doing, and there's you know, there's there's been lots of conferences, and you know, we all have access to information, right? But what is a driving force behind uh uh people's motives is is to win jobs, it comes out to price.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

And there's a and there's a price disparity between TM analysis and obviously PLM. You know, PLM analysis might cost you, you know, anywhere between let's say 40 and$100, depending on which lab you you go to. Yeah. Where a TM analysis is several hundred dollars.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

People aren't going to put up front in their particular proposals that we're going to send five samples, ten samples off for TM because they want to win that actual job. So I think that's a uh a bit of a barrier in our particular industry. But as we saw with that first case, that I uh uh that legal case, that it could cost you a lot more in the uh in the long run. But it's about your client knowing the limitations associated with that. And and my advice to your listeners is simple, all right? Allow for PLM analysis, and if a result comes back negative and it's a vinyl tile, and you think to yourself, well, hey, this is a 1970s, 80s building here. Really don't know much about the history of this particular building, but the tiles come back negative by PLM. Let's go to the client and seek a variation for some TM. Now I'm not saying we put hundreds and hundreds of samples through, but it's knowing those limitations associated with the different types of samples.

SPEAKER_03:

Yeah, I was gonna say I think that comes back to what you've already said, right? In relation to matrix interference and understanding from a layperson's position uh what that is. So if you were to explain that a little bit more in detail and you could focus on the uh tiles because of the way in which they're constructed and how that interferes with the results of conventional testing, that'll be that'd be great because I think that's an unknown thing, really. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

So with vinyl tiles, so so don't forget that the asbestos is dispersed through these particular vinyl tiles. Now, you will get the odd vinyl tile where we we do the snap and break method, where we actually snap them and we see a big clump or a bundle of crustile fibers. And that's great, okay, because we can pick out those those fibers, put them in a refractive index oil, and go through our uh optical tests to confirm it. But more often than not, we we don't see that. And and as a PLM analyst as well, you snap, break, snap, break, snap, break, and you actually can't find these these particular asbestos fibers. The the other limitation is well that you need relatively large samples uh to do PLM analysis. And uh there is a a reluctance, and and I understand it, for a an assessor or hygienist to go into a particular property and take a you know a three by three centimetre tile from the middle of someone's floor, or even from a corner. So there's a reluctance to do that. So you typically get these very, very small samples, you know, about one centimeter by one centimeter. Um, and the fibers are evenly dispersed through there. So, how do you reduce that that vinyl matrix? And even after you ash it, and I've I've done plenty of ashing, you can't actually see these particular fibers. Now, with TM analysis, what we actually do is we do a chloroform extraction. So we actually get rid of that whole matrix, um, and we actually put it into solution, and then we put that onto a TM grid. So once we've got into, and don't forget the resolution we can get down to very, very small fibers here. We can actually see those particular fibers. And I think last time then when you guys were over in Oz and you came to our lab, I actually showed some vinyl soles, and there was there were millions and millions of these very, very fine fibers. Now, the limitation with with PLM is you just can't physically see them unless we have large bundles of of asbestos fibers in there, then you're not going to be able to see it using the traditional methods, and and and that's the issue. So the sample preparation helps us, and also the resolution getting down to those very, very small uh thin fibers, which we can see under a TM. But again, for your listeners, it's about knowing the limitations of those methods. Now, I've been involved in a number of cases whereby, and and it works in the benefit of removalists as well, whereby a consultant will go out and do a demolition audit, okay? They'll submit it to a uh to a client, the client will then hand this over to a demolition contractor, and the demolition will contractor, and what demolition contractors do is they're very smart, okay? They're very smart on actually getting variations. And you'll actually see it any any of their sort of pricing structures is that their variation costs are significantly higher than what their normal costs to actually remove asbestos or demolish a structure. But what they tend to do is they see these order reports with NAD, and I've worked on three recently where we've had it in vermiculite samples where the PLM analysis came back negative, and they've submitted the vermiculite samples to us, and they've actually come back with a high presence of asbestos of very fine fibers. Now, this has actually basically cost the client millions of dollars in variations. Had the client known and the hygienists known about the limitations associated with this, they might have been able to negotiate a far more competitive price for the removal of that. So it works on both sides. And I always say to people, and and and I say to removalists and and uh you know that if you get a if you get a report and and and rem and and removalists and demolition contractors are there to make money, that's their primary intent. Yes, they're demolishing a structure, yes, they're removing asbestos, but their primary intent is to make money. So the smart ones now are sending me samples and hitting variations, and they're getting large variations. Now, you need to, as a hygienist and assessor, be aware of this and what's actually happening in the industry to actually save your client in in the long run. But it's a it's a it's an emerging trend. As we have these technologies and greater technologies out there in industry, then people are going to utilise them to their advantage.

SPEAKER_01:

The Asbestos Still Kills podcast could not be possible without another one of our sponsors, the Environmental Innovation Centre, EIC, are frontrunners in uniting innovation, research, and environmental solutions. EIC is an impartial, independent and science-based consultancy who will provide robust, reliable and independent evidence of your commitment to sustainability, practical, science-based solutions for ongoing environmental problems to support your longer-term journey, a single consistent voice to communicate complex scientific and technical issues to staff and customers. If you have publicly stated that you have sustainability goals, we are the team to help you achieve and validate them. For more information, go to www.environmental hyphen innovation.

SPEAKER_02:

And we see this in the medical world, and you know, many years we we went for x-rays, and now we see MRIs. Now, what you can see in an X-ray is completely different to an MRI. Okay. But you just can't stop with an X-ray and say, listen, you know, doctor can't say to you, well, listen, you know, uh, well, uh Jason, we didn't we didn't see that tumour because we only use X-rays. And then you go and see Rob and he's used an MRI, and he said, Yes, we've actually seen that tumour. I mean, that unfortunately, Jason, that doesn't wash, and unfortunately, you'll be on the other side of the law if someone wants to take action against you. So it's, you know, medical practitioners know the limitations of their particular methodology and their and and and their and their analytical equipment. We as hygienists need to know that as well.

SPEAKER_05:

The clients would actually save money then if they had the the TEM sampling done prior to tendering the work, the especially removal work.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, and listen, we we've had this issue with with fidols, and and and obviously, you know, I think New Zealand was the first one to find this this issue with the contaminated fiddles.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

And and I've had phone calls from from you know your colleagues in New Zealand said, Mike, you know, the clients want to go down TM and um uh they they want they want to actually understand, you know, you know, whether it's asbestos there or not. And you know, we've got 600 samples. Can you TM? And I said, that's ridiculous, guys. Why we why we TM? You guys have proven that it's actually there through your PLM analysis. It's ridiculous. I can't do 600 samples, by the way. I mean, you know, we're limited to you know about you know 10, 15 samples a day. Yeah, but I said, it's costing your client too much to do that. So how about let's do a percentage of samples, you know, five to ten percent of samples that are that are positive, right? Let's let's do some of those to confirm it's crossing. Now, the reason that the lawyers want that, and it's and I understand is that as I said up front, PLM is an indirect method. We're not actually determining the actual uh the chemistry of those particular fibers. And in those fibol samples, we had a we had an interferent mineral known as cepalite. Sepalite has a very similar chemical composition to chrycotole. And and what we actually found is that the the actual manufacturers and the importers basically got hold of this and said, well, we actually understand that cepalite can be an interferent to christotol, and some of the labs might have actually got it wrong in terms of their analysis because it does give very similar optical properties to christotol. So I can actually understand why they've actually wanted to go to that uh next technique for determining whether it was actually christotol or not. So this is another benefit because we of electron microscopy is because we're actually determining not only the crystal structure, but the actual chemistry directly rather than indirectly. So it's it it it's an important factor for people to actually consider when we have interferent minerals.

SPEAKER_05:

Yeah, but what other interferent minerals have you got?

SPEAKER_02:

Well, lizardite's another one. So, you know, again, you know, and and don't forget when in our industry, there is a lot of and and and listen, you need to. I mean, if anyone reads any of the MDHS documents, etc., they list a lot of interferent materials. And even as basic, even by PLM analysis to an inexperienced analyst, you know, spiderweb gives you wonderful optical property. Leather does as well. So, you know, to an inexperienced analyst that hasn't been trained, they might get confused with some of this.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

So sometimes working out the actual chemistry is uh is is quite useful. Now, a really, really important inclusion in in the new Australian standard 5370 uh compared to the original AS4964 standard, is that if a PLN laboratory didn't know whether something was asbestos or not, they actually called it unknown mineral fiber. Now, I quite find that a little bit unusual to actually call something an unknown mineral fiber. And what they used to write on the bottom of their certificates is that they used to state unknown mineral fiber, uh, please treat as asbestos until proven otherwise. Now you could be in a world of hurt at actually doing that because if it's not asbestos and you're managing that, there's a cost associated with that. If you're removing it, there's a cost associated with that. In the new Australian standard, 5370, what we've actually said is it doesn't make sense. So the standard is there to identify asbestos. There's only really two outcomes, or there's actually three outcomes. Yes, it is asbestos, no, it isn't asbestos, or we don't know. Correct? They're the only three outcomes, right? It could be, or it might not be. They're the three outcomes. So what we've actually said is, and it's more scientific to say on a test report, well, yes, no, I don't know, is we've actually got this new criteria saying inconclusive.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

And we've actually put that in the standard uh intentionally, so then your client can actually have a make the decision themselves whether they want to get it tested or they don't want to get it tested. So it's a really important inclusion into a standard now that we go yes, no, or we actually don't know. And this is where electron microscopy can help out and and help those end units determine whether something is asbestos or not.

SPEAKER_05:

I think it's great that electron microscopy has been added to the new standard. I really do. It gives people gives people options. So magnification, so PLM times 400, what's uh what's TEM?

SPEAKER_02:

T M. I mean we can we listen I I've had our TM up to 300,000 magnification in in some instances, but you know, we we won't you typically we typically operate at about 10 to 15,000 magnification. Okay. And sometimes we've got to go to 150 because we get very, very small food rules, etc. So, you know, we we've done some work with various universities to to look at the the denaturing of asbestos, because again, in in a society where we're looking at um sustainability and those sort of things, there are people looking at how can we reuse asbestos? Because it's not really that smart to actually take asbestos out. Uh it's a naturally occurring mineral, it actually occurs in the ground and then take it up at huge cost and then go and bury it. The only people that benefit is the removalists, the demolition contractors, and us hygienists, because we're making money. And if you if you look at it, it just seems pointless, doesn't it? Really? It comes in the ground, we put it in buildings, and then we sp spend millions and millions of dollars to put it back in the ground.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

Um, so they're looking at techniques to actually make it inert. So there are some, and and and we're looking at uh what we call thermal combustion of these and what temperatures we actually need to change the crystal structure of those.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

So in that sort of instance, so and and what we do is see, chrocatole, for example, the most abundant sort of uh mineral in uh in commercial uh products, uh is a magnesium silicate. And what they actually do is as you actually heat it up, we get a map depletion of magnesium. And if we get a depletion of magnesium, it no longer meets the chemistry of christotol. And and and we look at the morphology as well, it actually loses its tubular structure because again, if you look under a TM, a uh a cross-off fiber is is quite tubular. And then we have a look at the crystal lattice to make sure that it's actually amorphous. So in those sort of circumstances, we've used really, really high magnification to actually look at the morphology of those particular structures. But typically, to answer your question, it's it's around about 10 to 15,000 times magnification. All right.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

Now, for air samples, we we typically use that magnification as well, but we can go a lot lower because the fibers are a lot visible. Now, where TM and SEM really uh are useful is the identification of uh of fibers when we do our uh typical monitoring in accordance with the membrane filter method.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

Now, what what I find quite interesting in all this, and and and and people know this, and the British Occupational Hygiene Society only a few weeks ago published this on a LinkedIn post that they said that the average diameter of an asbestos fiber is between 0.02 and 0.03 microns in diameter. Now, if you stop and actually think about that, okay, we can't see under light microscopy less than 0.2 of a micron. Yet we're saying that the average diameter is 0.02 and 0.03, and we've got people going out there setting up clearance air moneters in these areas, and we're not even measuring the average diameter of a asbestos fiber. And yet we're saying it's clear and it's safe for reoccupation. And that's why in places like the states, for example, they actually do for clearances in schools, they mandate TM analysis. And they they actually state they actually state in there that you need to take five indoor samples, five outdoor samples, and they take volumes, you know, greater than a thousand liters, and you take three three three blanks, but you must actually undertake TM analysis. Now their counting criteria is somewhat different to ours. So again, our counting criteria is you know, greater than five microns in length, less than three microns in width, and a length-to-width aspirate ratio of three to one. So they have what would they call the asbestos hazard emergency response at a hero. So this is where this initiates this TM monitoring. But their criteria is that no minimum width, fibers greater than 0.5 microns in length, so a lot lower than ours, and a length-to-width aspect ratio five to one. Now, I would argue that they're affording a lot more protection to children in schools than what we are here in the southern hemisphere.

SPEAKER_05:

Have they got the capacity to uh test and analyze all those samples then for the schools?

SPEAKER_02:

Well they do, and and again, this has been one of, you know, this has been one of the you know the the let's say the constructive criticisms of TM and people say, well, listen, it costs too much money, uh, we don't have the capacity. But capacity grows. When there is a need there, the capacity will grow. And and they had the same argument in the US many, many, many years ago. And they had the capacity, they have the capacity in Europe now. So, yes, that argument initially, but as the need for this sort of analysis grows, then people see the opportunity to invest in this sort of technology. And we see in Australia now. I mean, we have electromicroscopy here in uh in Queensland, we have it in New South Wales, we're getting it in in Victoria, okay? We have it in Western Australia, and this is this is on the back of the last two or three years. And there'll be more players entering the actual market, and and costs will basically come down as well.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

Because people look at efficiencies in their organizations. Now, I can't run efficiency models in Colabs now because I don't have the workload. But as I do get the workload, efficiency models, I can extend my hours, I can I can run shifts, I can addition put additional resources. I mean, we can we can operate. So one of our industry partners, ITGA, run 24-7. Because again, you know, electron microscopes are are expensive pieces of equipment. So you want to maximize them. It's not the you know, the taxis on the roads, you know. I mean, the taxi license used to cost$400,000. You didn't operate that from eight to five, you operate it 24-7. So these are a specific these these these pieces of equipment cost millions of dollars. Uh, you know, depending on what sort of TM you get or SEM. The low resolution, you know, uh SEMs you can buy for for a hundred thousand dollars, the high resolution are up, you know, around you know, the million dollars, like the TMs. Yeah, but industry will respond to the need. Yeah. So this whole argument that, oh, it's expensive, uh, there's not the capacity, capacity will grow as the need. But we, as hygienists and professionals in our particular space, need to be aware of the limitations of what we do because you will get caught one day. Yeah. And you'll have someone like myself or one of you two fine gentlemen, basically representing someone in a court of law and saying, Well, you said it was safe, but it wasn't safe, and you should have known, as an expert in your industry, the limitations associated with that methodology. We need to, I mean, we we we go out there and we sell ourselves as professionals, but we need to know what we're doing and the limitations of what we're actually doing.

SPEAKER_05:

Yeah, the consultants with the labs that are analyzing the PLM will have to put caveats within the reports.

SPEAKER_02:

Well, we do now. I mean, on all our PLM reports, we actually put a disclaimer on there stating that you know, any negative result for samples like Mastics, BM, um, you know, vinyl tiles, a whole array that we recommend further analysis to be undertaken. So that that basically tries to reduce my liability.

SPEAKER_05:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

And it's up to the client to then basically decide whether they want to proceed with that another analysis. And a lot of lab reports in honest, I actually see that on their PLM reports.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

Now, in all honesty, 90% of your clients aren't educated. Yeah. Okay. And they won't see that little one-liner in fine print. And you know, if you use various laboratories, they usually have about 20 pages of limitations at the back, and it's sort of hidden at the back there. And we've all seen those reports. Yeah. Um, but you need to be aware. And if you're a hygienist not associated with a laboratory, I think you've got an added responsibility to actually point that out in your actual report rather than actually relying on those limitations that are on page 350 in fine print of an analytical report. I think it's your yeah, it's your responsibility to actually point that out in your actual reports to your clients.

SPEAKER_03:

Yeah. I mean, coming from a uh a surveyor perspective, you know, there's a big thing that we've also found when it comes to this type of sampling is people's level of competency. So there's a big piece of work going on at the moment, and and through FamANs, where uh we're looking at development of additional courses for surveyors in this area. And the big one being really uh around the collection of settled dust and the TEM testing of that. But not only that, Mike, it's the interpretation of the results that we receive from the labs. You know, if you go out there, especially across um New Zealand for sure, um, we're finding that uh where collections are taken, they're not aware of ASTM standards or the collection methodology. And you know, can you speak a little bit about where samples are taken badly, uh, you know, from a lab perspective, what you do with that information and and and how um you would like that to be adapted to get better results?

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, so the new Australian standard, 5370, we're we're really specific on sample sizes.

SPEAKER_06:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

And and we actually specify what the sample sizes should be. In reality, that doesn't happen. Okay, and and and running a commercial lab here, we do see samples that don't meet that particular requirement. Again, I would put it back on the surveyor, knowing their particular field of expertise. And if you're engaged as an expert as a surveyor, you should know what the minimum sample size is for an unequivocal determination. Now, laboratories have to be commercial as well, but they also need to limit their liability. So, for our from our perspective, if we if a sample is too small for us to make a determination, then we'll go back and say insufficient sample. If people ask us to do analysis of certain samples, so for example, we received some talc samples from China, and the client actually asked us to do uh PLM analysis. I refuse to do PLM analysis on a talc sample because I know how small the fibers are. Don't find another PLM laboratory to actually go and do that, but we will go and do TM analysis. So it's up to the laboratories to also push back. Swab sampling is a really interesting one because predominantly people and consultants love to take swab samples, and they used to use these sticky tape samples, and um, and we know the limitations associated with that, and they cut it off and it get twisted around their bloody fingers, and you know, they try to you know swab a particular surface, etc., or they use adhesive pads, etc. And then they find a result that comes back with a hand-picked result. So handpicked means that the asbestos wasn't evenly distributed amongst that particular swab sample, and they find you know a few little millimeters of uh of asbestos and they'd recommend to their client and they'd come and say to you, Rob, listen, we found asbestos, uh, let's basically decontaminate that room, throw out the carpets, throw out the computers, pull down the projectors, okay? The only person that's benefiting there is the removalist and the hygienist, because they're making millions millions of dollars. There's no decision-making process about the risk associated with that. And the argument that I've always had is that we don't apply that same logic to air samples. If we find three fibers on an air sample, we don't say, hey guys, throw out all this furniture, throw out all the computers, and I would argue that three airborne fibers is far more hazardous than a few millimeter fibers sitting in some dust in a corner of a room, because it's actually airborne. So I think swab sampling was actually driven by consultants and removers to actually generate more work because there's no formal risk assessment associated with that. Now, the ASTM method 6480 has a has a procedure there, and again, I'm very reluctant to actually promote swab sampling because as we know it's not representative, and um you need to take a sample 10 by 10 centimeter squared, but you take a sample in the middle of a particular desk to the left of that, you might get a completely different result. Okay. Now it is a useful tool to actually inform a decision-making process to probably inform whether we need to do some more investigations. So the ASTM method uses a wipe sample, and it must be a clean room wiper, not ghost wipes. And the reason we use clean room wipers is because they're non-fibrous, non-woven, because we don't want any obstruction when we actually uh analyze these samples. And what effectively happens is that people wipe a surface, um, they then actually put it back into a, they fold it up, put it into a into a sample bag, they submit it to us, we take it out, we then cut it into strips, put it into a beaker of known volume of water, uh, we then put it into an ultrasonic bath for a period of time, and the theory is. That the fibers dislodge into that particular solution. We take aliquets of that, put it on a TM grid, and actually count it. And there's certain documents out there in the US. Millet and Hayes has one, you know, that that actually does some sort of risk assessment associated with that. And it's really helped, it's there to help guide people on the decision-making process. It's not the be-all and end all in terms of what you need to do in terms of cleanup. It's a tool for your decision-making process. And that's the important aspect of this. So, for example, you know, if you get something like a you know, a million fibres which I've seen per centimeter squared, well, you know you've got a potential contamination problem, and you might need to go back to site and actually do some further investigation. But if you've got levels, let's say, of a of a thousand structures per centimeter squared, you know, again you might say, well, that looks quite, you know, and again, in in in in Millet and Hayes, they say, well, that's considered a background level. The problem is that you cannot, and it's a very, very difficult to correlate the levels in a dust sample to what's in an airborne environment. And we know as experts in our particular field, that's what drives a risk assessment. How much of this particular material is actually getting into the airborne environment? So taking a dust sample doesn't mean that there's a high risk. What it is, it's a tool for decision-making process. And that's what I try to convey to people when they take this, these sort of samples. Now, again, if there's a large accumulation of dust, you're far better just scraping that dust with a paint scraper or something similar into a bag and sending it off to a lab for analysis, you know, rather than using a wipe sample. And they can treat that like a cell sample or any other non-homogeneous sample, as opposed to a wipe sample. But when you have, let's say, low levels of dust on a surface and you want to make an informed decision, then yes, you can actually do that. But let's not go out there and take millions and millions and millions of swab samples without knowing what your primary objective is of that particular sampling. And I always say that to people before you take any samples, what are you going to do with the results if you actually get an unfavorable result? And think about that before you actually submit it to the laboratories. And unfortunately, we have a lot of people in our particular industry that actually don't do that. They take a re they take a sample, it might be a swamp sample, and they get a result and they go, Oh, crikey. What do we do with that now? And they come to people like me, and I say, Well, I don't know anything about the context of that particular site. I can't make that decision making for you. This was a tool, and you should have considered that before you actually took the sample. And the same with air samples as well. Think about the context of the situation and what are you going to do if you get an unfavourable result.

SPEAKER_05:

Episode two. A duology. 26th of November 2025 and 3rd of December 2025. The Asbestos Still Kills Podcast. All right, reserved. Thank you for listening to the Asbestos Still Kills Podcast. Presented by Robert McAllister, Farmman's Director, Dr Terry Ann Berry, the Environmental Innovation Centre, EIC, Jason Loner, Asbestos Management Consultants Limited, AMT. For more information on the Asbestos Stillkills podcast, go to www.asbestosstillkills.com For more information also to read and accept the podcast disclaimer before viewing or listening to this podcast go to www.asbestillkills.com or contact us by email at asbestillkills at gmail.com. Thank you.