Assessment of Health Risk from Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder

This study's objective is to assess the risk of asbestos‐related disease being contracted by past users of cosmetic talcum powder.  To our knowledge, no risk assessment studies using exposure data from historical exposures or chamber simulations have been published. We conducted activity‐based sampling with cosmetic talcum powder samples from five opened and previously used containers that are believed to have been first manufactured and sold in the 1960s and 1970s.  These samples had been subject to conflicting claims of asbestos content; samples with the highest claimed asbestos content were tested.  The tests were conducted in simulated‐bathroom controlled chambers with volunteers who were talc users.  Air sampling filters were prepared by direct preparation techniques and analyzed by phase contrast microscopy (PCM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM) with energy‐dispersive x‐ray (EDX) spectra, and selective area diffraction (SAED).  TEM analysis for asbestos resulted in no confirmed asbestos fibers and only a single fiber classified as “ambiguous.”  Hypothetical treatment of this fiber as if it were asbestos yields a risk of 9.6 × 10^?7 (under one in one million) for a lifetime user of this cosmetic talcum powder.  The exposure levels associated with these results range from zero to levels far below those identified in the epidemiology literature as posing a risk for asbestos‐related disease, and substantially below published historical environmental background levels.  The approaches used for this study have potential application to exposure evaluations of other talc or asbestos‐containing materials and consumer products.     

Exposures from Chrysotile‐Containing Joint Compound: Evaluation of New Model Relating Respirable Dust to Fiber Concentrations

The potential for fiber exposure during historical use of chrysotile‐containing joint compounds (JCC) has been documented, but the published data are of limited use for reconstructing exposures and assessing worker risk. Consequently, fiber concentration distributions for workers sanding JCC were independently derived by applying a recently developed model based on published dust measurements from sanding modern‐day (asbestos‐free) joint compound and compared to fiber concentration distributions based on limited historical measurements. This new procedure relies on factors that account for (i) differences in emission rates between modern‐day and JCC and (ii) the number of fibers (quantified by phase contrast microscopy [PCM]) per mass of dust generated by sanding JCC, as determined in a bench‐scale chamber study using a recreated JCC, that convert respirable dust concentrations to fiber concentrations. Airborne respirable PCM‐fiber concentration medians (and 95% confidence intervals) derived for output variables using the new procedure were 0.26 (0.039, 1.7) f/cm³ and 0.078 (0.013, 0.47) f/cm³, and corresponding total fiber concentrations were 1.2 (0.17, 9.2) f/cm³ and 0.37 (0.056, 2.5) f/cm³, in enclosed and nonenclosed environments, respectively. Corresponding estimates of respirable and total PCM fiber concentrations measured historically during sanding of asbestos‐containing joint compound—adjusted for differences between peak and time‐weighted average (TWA) concentrations and documented analytical preparation and sampling artifacts—were 0.15 (0.019, 0.95) f/cm³ and 0.86 (0.11, 5.4) f/cm³, respectively. The PCM‐fiber concentration distributions estimated using the new procedure bound the distribution estimated from adjusted TWA historical fiber measurements, suggesting reasonable consistency of these estimates taking into account uncertainties addressed in this study.     

Mesothelioma: Risk Apportionment Among Asbestos Exposure Sources

The mesothelioma epidemic in the United States, which peaked during the 2000–2004 period, can be traced to high‐level asbestos exposures experienced by males in occupational settings prior to the full recognition of the disease‐causing potential of asbestos and the establishment of enforceable asbestos exposure limits by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1971. Many individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma where asbestos has been identified as a contributing cause of the disease have filed claims seeking compensation from asbestos settlement trusts or through the court system. An individual with mesothelioma typically has been exposed to asbestos in more than one setting and from more than one asbestos product. Apportioning risk for mesothelioma among contributing factors is an ongoing problem faced by occupational disease compensation boards, juries, parties responsible for paying damages, and currently by the U.S. Senate in its efforts to formulate a bill establishing an asbestos settlement trust. In this article we address the following question: If an individual with mesothelioma where asbestos has been identified as a contributing cause were to be compensated for his or her disease, how should that compensation be apportioned among those responsible for the asbestos exposures? For the purposes of apportionment, we assume that asbestos is the only cause of mesothelioma and that every asbestos exposure contributes, albeit differentially, to the risk. We use an extension of the mesothelioma risk model initially proposed in the early 1980s to quantify the contribution to risk of each exposure as a percentage of the total risk. The percentage for each specific discrete asbestos exposure depends on the start and end dates, the intensity, and the asbestos fiber type for the exposure. We provide justification for the use of the mesothelioma risk model for apportioning risk and discuss how to assess uncertainty associated with its application.     

Potential Airborne Asbestos Exposure and Risk Associated with the Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder Products

Over time, concerns have been raised regarding the potential for human exposure and risk from asbestos in cosmetic‐talc–containing consumer products. In 1985, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted a risk assessment evaluating the potential inhalation asbestos exposure associated with the cosmetic talc consumer use scenario of powdering an infant during diapering, and found that risks were below levels associated with background asbestos exposures and risk. However, given the scope and age of the FDA's assessment, it was unknown whether the agency's conclusions remained relevant to current risk assessment practices, talc application scenarios, and exposure data. This analysis updates the previous FDA assessment by incorporating the current published exposure literature associated with consumer use of talcum powder and using the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) nonoccupational asbestos risk assessment approach to estimate potential cumulative asbestos exposure and risk for four use scenarios: (1) infant exposure during diapering; (2) adult exposure from infant diapering; (3) adult exposure from face powdering; and (4) adult exposure from body powdering. The estimated range of cumulative asbestos exposure potential for all scenarios (assuming an asbestos content of 0.1%) ranged from 0.0000021 to 0.0096 f/cc‐yr and resulted in risk estimates that were within or below EPA's acceptable target risk levels. Consistent with the original FDA findings, exposure and corresponding health risk in this range were orders of magnitude below upper‐bound estimates of cumulative asbestos exposure and risk at ambient levels, which have not been associated with increased incidence of asbestos‐related disease.     

Projections of Cancer Risks Attributable to Future Exposure to Asbestos

To assess the maximum possible impact of further government regulation of asbestos exposure, projections were made of the use of asbestos in nine product categories for the years 1985-2000. A life table risk assessment model was then developed to estimate the excess cases of cancer and lost person-years of life likely to occur among those occupationally and nonoccupationally exposed to the nine asbestos product categories manufactured in 1985-2000. These estimates were made under the assumption that government regulation remains at its 1985 level. Use of asbestos in the nine product categories was predicted to decline in all cases except for friction products. The risk assessment results show that, although the cancer risks from future exposure to asbestos are significantly less than those from past exposures, in the absence of more stringent regulations, a health risk remains.     

Apples to Apples: The Origin and Magnitude of Differences in Asbestos Cancer Risk Estimates Derived Using Varying Protocols

Given that new protocols for assessing asbestos‐related cancer risk have recently been published, questions arise concerning how they compare to the “IRIS” protocol currently used by regulators. The newest protocols incorporate findings from 20 additional years of literature. Thus, differences between the IRIS and newer Berman and Crump protocols are examined to evaluate whether these protocols can be reconciled. Risks estimated by applying these protocols to real exposure data from both laboratory and field studies are also compared to assess the relative health protectiveness of each protocol. The reliability of risks estimated using the two protocols are compared by evaluating the degree with which each potentially reproduces the known epidemiology study risks. Results indicate that the IRIS and Berman and Crump protocols can be reconciled; while environment‐specific variation within fiber type is apparently due primarily to size effects (not addressed by IRIS), the 10‐fold (average) difference between amphibole asbestos risks estimated using each protocol is attributable to an arbitrary selection of the lowest of available mesothelioma potency factors in the IRIS protocol. Thus, the IRIS protocol may substantially underestimate risk when exposure is primarily to amphibole asbestos. Moreover, while the Berman and Crump protocol is more reliable than the IRIS protocol overall (especially for predicting amphibole risk), evidence is presented suggesting a new fiber‐size‐related adjustment to the Berman and Crump protocol may ultimately succeed in reconciling the entire epidemiology database. However, additional data need to be developed before the performance of the adjusted protocol can be fully validated.     

Asbestos lung cancer risks: comparison of animal and human extrapolations

Using the most comprehensive inhalation study available, (Wagner, et al., 1974), the dose-response effects of the four major types of asbestos fibers (amosite, anthophyllite, crocidolite, and chrysotile: Canadian, Rhodesian) for lung cancer have been determined. From linear regression analysis of the animal data and five human epidemiology studies giving a wide range of risk estimates, slopes of the curves have been determined and lifetime risk estimates made. Projected risks for rats are presented with and without surface area (s.a.) conversion factors. On the basis of cumulative exposure, the geometric mean of the point estimates for the human studies (0.0146) is quite close to the geometric mean of the animal data (0.0179 without s.a.; 0.0122 with s.a. calculations). These values also match quite well if one of the studies (McDonald, et al.) is eliminated (geometric mean = 0.031) due to qualitatively different exposure considerations (mining and milling vs. industrial environments). Animal risks based on a concentration per day basis (assuming an average 70-year lifespan for humans) are below the lowest human estimate but within 5-6 fold (less) of the projected risk from nonsmoking asbestos workers (2.2 X 10(-3) using the Hammond et al. study.     

Mesothelioma Among Brake Mechanics: An Expanded Analysis of a Case-Control Study

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has begun discussions to consider its assessment of asbestos toxicity related to mineral form and fiber size. Brake workers are typically exposed to short chrysotile fibers. To explore the mesothelioma risk among brake workers, considering other occupational exposures to asbestos, data from a study that was published previously were obtained and the analysis was extended. The National Cancer Institute provided data from a case-control study of mesothelioma. Because many participants with a history of brake work also had employment in other asbestos-related occupations, mesothelioma cases and controls were compared for a history of brake work, controlling for employment in eight occupations with potential asbestos exposure. A stratified analysis was also performed excluding those with any of the eight occupations. Possible interactions between brake work and other occupational exposures related to risk of mesothelioma were also examined. The odds ratio (OR) for employment in brake installation or repair was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.30-1.60) when controlled for insulation or shipbuilding. When a history of employment in any of the eight occupations with potential asbestos exposure was controlled, the OR was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.36-1.80). ORs did not increase with increasing duration of brake work. Exclusion of those with any of the eight exposures resulted in an OR of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.01-4.71) for occupational brake work. There was no evidence of an interaction between brake work and other occupational exposures. These latter analyses were based on small numbers of exposed cases. The results are consistent with the existing literature indicating that brake work does not increase the risk of mesothelioma and adds to the evidence that fiber type and size are important determinants of mesothelioma risk.     

Characterizing and Communicating Risk with Exposure Reconstruction and Bayesian Analysis: Historical Locomotive Maintenance/Repair Associated with Asbestos Woven Tape Pipe Lagging

Our reconstructed historical work scenarios incorporating a vintage 1950s locomotive can assist in better understanding the historical asbestos exposures associated with past maintenance and repairs and fill a literature data gap. Air sampling data collected during the exposure scenarios and analyzed by NIOSH 7400 (PCM) and 7402 (PCME) methodologies show personal breathing zone asbestiform fiber exposures were below the current OSHA exposure limits for the eight‐hour TWA permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.1 f/cc (range <0.007–0.064 PCME f/cc) and the 30‐minute short‐term excursion limit (EL) of 1.0 f/cc (range <0.045–0.32 PCME f/cc) and orders of magnitude below historic OSHA PEL and ACGIH TLVs. Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) results demonstrate that the 95th percentile point estimate falls into an AIHA exposure category 3 or 4 as compared to the current PEL and category 1 when compared to the historic PEL. BDA results demonstrate that bystander exposures would be classified as category 0. Our findings were also significantly below the published calcium magnesium insulations exposure range of 2.5 to 7.5 f/cc reported for historic work activities of pipefitters, mechanics, and boilermakers. Diesel‐electric locomotive pipe systems were typically insulated with a woven tape lagging that may have been chrysotile asbestos and handled, removed, and reinstalled during repair and maintenance activities. We reconstructed historical work scenarios containing asbestos woven tape pipe lagging that have not been characterized in the published literature. The historical work scenarios were conducted by a retired railroad pipefitter with 37 years of experience working with materials and locomotives.     

A Bayesian Model and Stochastic Exposure (Dose) Estimation for Relative Exposure Risk Comparison Involving Asbestos‐Containing Dropped Ceiling Panel Installation and Maintenance Tasks

Assessing exposures to hazards in order to characterize risk is at the core of occupational hygiene. Our study examined dropped ceiling systems commonly used in schools and commercial buildings and lay‐in ceiling panels that may have contained asbestos prior to the mid to late 1970s. However, most ceiling panels and tiles do not contain asbestos. Since asbestos risk relates to dose, we estimated the distribution of eight‐hour TWA concentrations and one‐year exposures (a one‐year dose equivalent) to asbestos fibers (asbestos f/cc‐years) for five groups of workers who may encounter dropped ceilings: specialists, generalists, maintenance workers, nonprofessional do‐it‐yourself (DIY) persons, and other tradespersons who are bystanders to ceiling work. Concentration data (asbestos f/cc) were obtained through two exposure assessment studies in the field and one chamber study. Bayesian and stochastic models were applied to estimate distributions of eight‐hour TWAs and annual exposures (dose). The eight‐hour TWAs for all work categories were below current and historic occupational exposure limits (OELs). Exposures to asbestos fibers from dropped ceiling work would be categorized as “highly controlled” for maintenance workers and “well controlled” for remaining work categories, according to the American Industrial Hygiene Association exposure control rating system. Annual exposures (dose) were found to be greatest for specialists, followed by maintenance workers, generalists, bystanders, and DIY. On a comparative basis, modeled dose and thus risk from dropped ceilings for all work categories were orders of magnitude lower than published exposures for other sources of banned friable asbestos‐containing building material commonly encountered in construction trades.     

Human Health Risks Associated with Asbestos Abatement

Upperbound lifetime excess cancer risks were calculated for activities associated with asbestos abatement using a risk assessment framework developed for EPA's Superfund program. It was found that removals were associated with cancer risks to workers which were often greater than the commonly accepted cancer risk of 1 x 10(-6), although lower than occupational exposure limits associated with risks of 1 x 10(-3). Removals had little effect in reducing risk to school populations. Risks to teachers and students in school buildings containing asbestos were approximately the same as risks associated with exposure to ambient asbestos by the general public and were below the levels typically of concern to regulatory agencies. During abatement, however, there were increased risks to both workers and nearby individuals. Careless, everyday building maintenance generated the greatest risk to workers followed by removals and encapsulation. If asbestos abatement was judged by the risk criteria applied to EPA's Superfund program, the no-action alternative would likely be selected in preference to removal in a majority of cases. These conclusions should only be interpreted within the context of an overall asbestos risk management program, which includes consideration of specific fiber types and sizes, sampling and analytical limitations, physical condition of asbestos-containing material, episodic peak exposures, and the number of people potentially exposed.     

Quantitative Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty with Known Measurement Error: Methodology and Case Study

The appearance of measurement error in exposure and risk factor data potentially affects any inferences regarding variability and uncertainty because the distribution representing the observed data set deviates from the distribution that represents an error-free data set. A methodology for improving the characterization of variability and uncertainty with known measurement errors in data is demonstrated in this article based on an observed data set, known measurement error, and a measurement-error model. A practical method for constructing an error-free data set is presented and a numerical method based upon bootstrap pairs, incorporating two-dimensional Monte Carlo simulation, is introduced to address uncertainty arising from measurement error in selected statistics. When measurement error is a large source of uncertainty, substantial differences between the distribution representing variability of the observed data set and the distribution representing variability of the error-free data set will occur. Furthermore, the shape and range of the probability bands for uncertainty differ between the observed and error-free data set. Failure to separately characterize contributions from random sampling error and measurement error will lead to bias in the variability and uncertainty estimates. However, a key finding is that total uncertainty in mean can be properly quantified even if measurement and random sampling errors cannot be separated. An empirical case study is used to illustrate the application of the methodology.     

Risk assessment methodologies for passive smoking-induced lung cancer

Risk assessment methodologies have been successfully applied to control societal risk from outdoor air pollutants. They are now being applied to indoor air pollutants such as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and radon. Nonsmokers' exposures to ETS have been assessed based on dosimetry of nicotine, its metabolite, continine, and on exposure to the particulate phase of ETS. Lung cancer responses have been based on both the epidemiology of active and of passive smoking. Nine risk assessments of nonsmokers' lung cancer risk from exposure to ETS have been performed. Some have estimated risks for lifelong nonsmokers only; others have included ex-smokers; still others have estimated total deaths from all causes. To facilitate interstudy comparison, in some cases lung cancers had to be interpolated from a total, or the authors' original estimate had to be adjusted to include ex-smokers. Further, all estimates were adjusted to 1988. Excluding one study whose estimate differs from the mean of the others by two orders of magnitude, the remaining risk assessments are in remarkable agreement. The mean estimate is approximately 5000 +/- 2400 nonsmokers' lung cancer deaths (LCDSs) per year. This is a 25% greater risk to nonsmokers than is indoor radon, and is about 57 times greater than the combined estimated cancer risk from all the hazardous outdoor air pollutants currently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency: airborne radionuclides, asbestos, arsenic, benzene, coke oven emissions, and vinyl chloride.     

Ambient Asbestos Fiber Concentrations and Long‐Term Trends in Pleural Mesothelioma Incidence between Urban and Rural Areas in the United States (1973–2012)

Over the past 40 years, measured ambient asbestos concentrations in the United States have been higher in urban versus rural areas. The purpose of this study was to determine whether variations in ambient asbestos concentrations have influenced pleural mesothelioma risk in females (who generally lacked historic occupational asbestos exposure relative to males). Male pleural mesothelioma incidence trends were analyzed to provide perspective for female trends. Annual age‐adjusted incidence rates from 1973 to 2012 were obtained from the SEER 9, 13, and 18 databases for urban and rural locations, and standardized rate ratios were calculated. Female rural rates exceeded urban rates in almost half of the years analyzed, although the increases were not statistically significant, which is in line with expectations if there was no observable increased risk for urban locations. In contrast, male urban rates were elevated over rural rates for nearly all years examined and were statistically significantly elevated for 22 of the 40 years. Trend analyses demonstrated that trends for females remained relatively constant over time, whereas male urban and rural incidence increased into the 1980s and 1990s, followed by a decrease/leveling off. Annual female urban and rural incidence rates remained approximately five‐ to six‐fold lower than male urban and rural incidence rates on average, consistent with the comparatively increased historical occupational asbestos exposure for males. The results suggest that differences in ambient asbestos concentrations, which have been reported to be 10‐fold or greater across regions in the United States, have not influenced the risk of pleural mesothelioma.     

A Method for Estimating Lifetime Cancer Risks from Limited Epidemiologic Data

Partly because of the poor quality of exposure information on humans, most lifetime carcinogenic risk assessments have been based on animal data. There are, however, surrogate measures for exposure that have not been fully utilized. One of these is duration of exposure where data on mean exposure levels are available. A method is presented for the use of such data, and the method is illustrated by developing a risk assessment from the available epidemiologic literature on gasoline and kidney cancer. This risk assessment is fairly consistent across studies and close to a risk assessment based upon an experiment with rats. While there needs to be much improvement in the quality of environmental data available to epidemiologists, it is possible that a number of risk assessments can be made from existing epidemiologic data and efforts directed away from extrapolation from animal data.     

Varying Risk Comparison Elements: Effects on Public Reactions

Expanding a limited empirical base on effects of risk comparisons, a pilot experiment explored how varying elements of such comparisons might influence public response. The scenario used was a hypothetical trial of an asbestos-installing firm for putting students and staff at a junior high school at "unreasonable risk," first used by Slovic et al. (1990). Study participants played the role of jurors in the trial, asked to rate the risk, the firm's guilt, whether it should be made liable for future health effects, whether the school should be occupied in its current condition, and whether the asbestos should be removed at a cost of 3 million dollars. Opportunity samples of New Jersey residents (n= 309) received information intended to vary four comparison attributes: number of dimensions of comparison; single versus multiple ways of expressing mortality; a narrative to explain and justify the risk comparison; and the hypothetical role of the participant (juror vs. parent). The dependent variable was a hazard scale constructed from four of the five postcomparison judgments. ANOVA found format variations swamped in their effect by concern about asbestos, with the absence of a narrative and the parental role being the only attributes that increased negative risk reactions. Multiple regression analyses found that multidimensionality, narrative, role, and the presence of any risk comparison at all had significant effects when these (plus death formats) were the only independent variables. However, only multidimensionality (which increased negative reactions) retained significance when asbestos concern, risk beliefs (no safe level of exposure to a carcinogen; any exposure leads to cancer), and demographic variables were added to the analysis. Concern and risk beliefs alone explained 33% of variance in hazard scores; adding demographics and risk comparison variables only raised explained variance to 36% (having children at home and being exposed to multidimensional risk comparisons raised scores; age and income lowered them). The results underline the potentially small effect of risk comparison information on risk views (at least between subjects), but offer some insight into aspects of message design left unexplored in empirical literature to date.     

OSHA''s Permissible Exposure Limits: Regulatory Compliance Versus Health Risk

Workplace exposures to airborne chemicals are regulated in the U.S. by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) via the promulgation of permissible exposure limits (PELs). These limits, usually defined as eight-hour time-weighted average values, are enforced as concentrations never to be exceeded. In the case of chronic or delayed toxicants, the PEL is determined from epidemiological evidence and/or quantitative risk assessments based on long-term mean exposures or, equivalently, cumulative lifetime exposures. A statistical model was used to investigate the relation between the compliance strategy, the PEL as a limit never to be exceeded, and the health risk as measured by the probability that an individual's long-term mean exposure concentration is above the PEL. The model incorporates within-worker and between-worker variability in exposure, and assumes the relevant distributions to be log-normal. When data are inadequate to estimate the parameters of the full model, as it is in compliance inspections, it is argued that the probability of a random measurement being above the PEL must be regarded as a lower bound on the probability that a randomly selected worker's long-term mean exposure concentration will exceed the PEL. It is concluded that OSHA's compliance strategy is a reasonable, as well as a practical, means of limiting health risk for chronic or delayed toxicants.     

Updating Uncertainty in an Integrated Risk Assessment: Conceptual Framework and Methods

Bayesian methods are presented for updating the uncertainty in the predictions of an integrated Environmental Health Risk Assessment (EHRA) model. The methods allow the estimation of posterior uncertainty distributions based on the observation of different model outputs along the chain of the linked assessment framework. Analytical equations are derived for the case of the multiplicative lognormal risk model where the sequential log outputs (log ambient concentration, log applied dose, log delivered dose, and log risk) are each normally distributed. Given observations of a log output made with a normally distributed measurement error, the posterior distributions of the log outputs remain normal, but with modified means and variances, and induced correlations between successive log outputs and log inputs. The analytical equations for forward and backward propagation of the updates are generally applicable to sums of normally distributed variables. The Bayesian Monte-Carlo (BMC) procedure is presented to provide an approximate, but more broadly applicable method for numerically updating uncertainty with concurrent backward and forward propagation. Illustrative examples, presented for the multiplicative lognormal model, demonstrate agreement between the analytical and BMC methods, and show how uncertainty updates can propagate through a linked EHRA. The Bayesian updating methods facilitate the pooling of knowledge encoded in predictive models with that transmitted by research outcomes (e.g., field measurements), and thereby support the practice of iterative risk assessment and value of information appraisals.     

Evaluation of Take‐Home Exposure and Risk Associated with the Handling of Clothing Contaminated with Chrysotile Asbestos

The potential for para‐occupational (or take‐home) exposures from contaminated clothing has been recognized for the past 60 years. To better characterize the take‐home asbestos exposure pathway, a study was performed to measure the relationship between airborne chrysotile concentrations in the workplace, the contamination of work clothing, and take‐home exposures and risks. The study included air sampling during two activities: (1) contamination of work clothing by airborne chrysotile (i.e., loading the clothing), and (2) handling and shaking out of the clothes. The clothes were contaminated at three different target airborne chrysotile concentrations (0–0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter [f/cc], 1–2 f/cc, and 2–4 f/cc; two events each for 31–43 minutes; six events total). Arithmetic mean concentrations for the three target loading levels were 0.01 f/cc, 1.65 f/cc, and 2.84 f/cc (National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety [NIOSH] 7402). Following the loading events, six matched 30‐minute clothes‐handling and shake‐out events were conducted, each including 15 minutes of active handling (15‐minute means; 0.014–0.097 f/cc) and 15 additional minutes of no handling (30‐minute means; 0.006–0.063 f/cc). Percentages of personal clothes‐handling TWAs relative to clothes‐loading TWAs were calculated for event pairs to characterize exposure potential during daily versus weekly clothes‐handling activity. Airborne concentrations for the clothes handler were 0.2–1.4% (eight‐hour TWA or daily ratio) and 0.03–0.27% (40‐hour TWA or weekly ratio) of loading TWAs. Cumulative chrysotile doses for clothes handling at airborne concentrations tested were estimated to be consistent with lifetime cumulative chrysotile doses associated with ambient air exposure (range for take‐home or ambient doses: 0.00044–0.105 f/cc year).