Assessment of dust and fibers resulting from the demolition of buildings following an earthquake

Assessment of dust and fibers resulting from the demolition of buildings following an earthquake | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Assessment of dust and fibers resulting from the demolition of buildings following an earthquake Ayse Baran, Ahmet Burak Avcu, Merve Sulu, Sena Nur Gundogdu, Gulseda Boz, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8682234/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Following the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş and Hatay earthquakes, demolition occurred in Malatya, Türkiye (27,979 structures). This study quantified post-earthquake outdoor airborne fibrous dust and gravimetric total/respirable dust concentrations and evaluated whether asbestos fibers were present. On 9–10 May 2024, we sampled four active demolition sites, one debris storage/dumping site, and one control site without demolition or storage activities (24 measurements: 12 phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) fiber samples over two days; 6 total-dust and 6 respirable-dust gravimetric samples on 9 May). Airborne fibrous dust was screened by PCM using HSG 248 + A1 criteria, and asbestos identification was assessed by SEM/EDXA. Total and respirable dust were measured gravimetrically (MDHS 14/3). PCM fiber concentrations showed a site-type gradient, highest at the storage/dumping site (0.012 ± 0.002 fiber/cm³), slightly above the HSG248 clearance indicator (0.01 fiber/cm³; shown for contextual comparison, not an ambient-air standard). Demolition sites ranged from 0.004 to 0.010 fiber/cm³, whereas the control site remained lowest (0.001 ± 0.0001 fiber/cm³). SEM/EDXA did not detect asbestos fibers in any sample. Gravimetric dust peaked at the storage/dumping site (total: 1.11 ± 0.23 mg/m³; respirable: 0.85 ± 0.18 mg/m³), followed by demolition sites (total: 0.65–0.82 mg/m³; respirable: 0.46–0.70 mg/m³) and the control site (total: 0.49 ± 0.10 mg/m³; respirable: 0.16 ± 0.03 mg/m³). Compared with the control site, demolition sites showed higher mean total and respirable dust, corresponding to ~ 1.50× and ~ 3.47× higher concentrations, respectively. Ambient air sampling showed elevated fibrous and particulate concentrations at demolition and debris storage/dumping sites; however, asbestos fibers were not detected. Exposure controls and monitoring are warranted during demolition and debris management. Asbestos demolition earthquakes fibrous dust respirable dust Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction Asbestos is the general description of a group of naturally occurring mineral silicate fibers of the serpentine and amphibole series. Asbestos has been widely used in many industrial applications because of its good strength properties (tensile, abrasion, friction), heat resistance and chemical properties. The health risks posed by asbestos as a result of its widespread use from past to present have been examined, and in 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified asbestos as a Group 1 carcinogen [ 1 ]. It has also been shown that asbestos exposure is closely associated with lung fibrosis, pleural plaque, pleural mesothelioma and lung cancer [ 2 , 3 ]. The dust and smoke resulting from the complete collapse of the twin towers as a result of the terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, caused high levels of air pollution. Dust and smoke have been shown to contain concrete particles, ceiling tiles, carpets, adhesives, asbestos, chromium, lead, titanium, volatile organic compounds, aerosols and many other elements and material particles [ 4 ]. People exposed to moderate and very high levels of dust from this destruction have been shown to have an increased risk of pulmonary fibrosis and long-term cardiovascular disease [ 5 , 6 ]. In Türkiye, the use of asbestos was banned in stages with the legislation of 2008, 2010 and 2013. However, while this exposure is still on the agenda of natural areas, ship dismantling activities, and the demolition of old buildings in urban transformation projects, it is anticipated that the current asbestos exposure will increase further with the earthquakes that occurred on February 6, 2023 [ 7 – 10 ]. The severity of asbestos exposure after an earthquake depends on several factors, including the magnitude and proximity of the earthquake, the type and condition of asbestos-containing materials in affected structures, and the extent of damage to buildings [ 11 ]. It was reported that 27,979 buildings collapsed in Malatya Province, where significant structural damage occurred during the February 6 Kahramanmaraş and Hatay earthquakes [ 12 ]. However, asbestos has been used as a building material in buildings for various purposes as a result of major earthquakes, and the concentration of asbestos in breathable air during and after the demolition process is not known. Considering that the use of asbestos in existing buildings was not prohibited before 2010 and was a preferred construction material, it is expected that this substance will increase in the air as a result of the demolition. In this context, the asbestos concentration in breathable air was determined in terms of public health through measurements. As a result of the demolitions carried out after the earthquake, a significant amount of dust was released into the air. Although it is recommended that wet work and that employees work with personal protective equipment, this practice is not implemented sufficiently. It has been shown that air pollution during the chronic period increases the morbidity and mortality of individuals with chronic lung disease and other chronic diseases. However, these measurements were made because of the limited data on air pollution, which is thought to have increased as a result of the existing destruction after the earthquake. This study was conducted to determine the asbestos and dust concentrations in the air after the earthquake in Malatya, which was strongly affected by the February 6, 2023 earthquake. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Study design and overview This field study quantified outdoor airborne fibrous dust, asbestos (by confirmatory identification), and gravimetric total and respirable dust concentrations at selected post-earthquake activity sites in Malatya Province, Türkiye. Sampling locations were classified into three site types: (i) active building demolition areas, (ii) a debris storage/dumping area, and (iii) a control area without demolition or storage activities. Airborne fibrous dust was first screened by phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) using standardized fiber-counting criteria. Because PCM cannot mineralogically discriminate asbestos from non-asbestos fibers, asbestos identification was subsequently evaluated using scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (SEM/EDXA) (Fig. 1 ) [ 13 ]. 2.2. Study area and site selection Malatya is an eastern city of Türkiye (population 812,580) that was severely impacted by the 6 February 2023 earthquakes. According to official reports Malatya ranked third after Hatay and Kahramanmaraş, in debris generated from collapsed buildings with 36,369 buildings classified as severely damaged and 5,651 buildings demolished, including 1,841 rapid demolitions due to safety concerns. Demolition of approximately three-quarters of damaged buildings and debris removal operations continued through January 2024 [ 12 ]. Outdoor air sampling was conducted at four active demolition locations (G, I, K, O), one debris storage/dumping location (C), and one control location without demolition or storage activity (B). Sampling in demolition and storage areas was performed at the closest permitted distance to ongoing operations (Fig. 2 ). 2.3. Sampling procedures and analytical methods 2.3.1. Airborne fibrous dust screening (PCM) Airborne fibrous dust sampling for PCM analysis was performed on two consecutive days (9–10 May 2024). Air was drawn through a membrane filter using a BUCK Libra Plus pump positioned at 120 cm above ground (approximating breathing-zone height). Sampling was conducted at a flow rate of 4.0 L/min for 120 minutes under field barometric pressure conditions (~ 90.8 kPa). Filters were analyzed by PCM in accordance with HSG 248 + A1. Fibers were counted when they met the PCM criteria: length > 5 µm, width < 3 µm, and aspect ratio (length) ≥ 3:1. 2.3.2. Asbestos identification (SEM/EDXA) To differentiate asbestos from non-asbestos fibers, samples were further evaluated using SEM/EDXA in accordance with VDI 3866 Part 5. Asbestos identification results were reported qualitatively as detected/not detected. 2.3.3. Gravimetric total and respirable dust Gravimetric sampling for total and respirable dust was conducted on 9 May 2024 using MDHS 14/3. Sampling trains were calibrated immediately before sampling using a TSI primary flow calibrator. Total dust was sampled at 2.2 L/min for 120 minutes using a filter cassette. Respirable dust was sampled at 1.7 L/min for 120 minutes using a respirable cyclone connected to a filter. All inlets were positioned at 120 cm above ground. 2.3.4. Quality assurance and laboratory services All measurements were performed through services provided by a laboratory authorized by the Occupational Health and Safety Research and Development Institute affiliated with the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, which performs airborne fibrous dust (including asbestos and human-made mineral fibers) and gravimetric total/respirable dust analyses. 2.4. Statistical Analysis Demolition-control contrasts were expressed as mean differences (Δ = mean demolition - control) with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals obtained by resampling demolition sites with replacement (control fixed). Measurement uncertainty (± U) was additionally propagated using a Monte Carlo simulation by sampling concentrations within ± U (Uniform[X-U, X + U], truncated at 0) and reporting the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the simulated Δ distribution (Table S2 ). Analyses were conducted in R (version 4.5.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). 3. Results 3.1. Overview of sampling and measurements A total of 12 outdoor airborne fibrous-dust samples were collected for phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) across two consecutive days (9–10 May 2024), and six gravimetric samples (total and respirable dust) were collected on 9 May 2024 (Table S1 ). PCM measurements were available for all demolition (G, I, K, O) and control (B) locations on both days, whereas the debris storage/dumping site (C) was measured on 9 May only (Table 1 ; Fig. 3 A). Meteorological conditions were comparable across sites (temperature 19.1–20.2°C; pressure 90.7–91.2 kPa; relative humidity 42.8–44.4%) (Table 1 ). Table 1 Outdoor airborne fibers (PCM) and asbestos screening (SEM/EDXA) alongside total/respirable dust metrics and meteorological parameters at study sites Region PCM SEM/EDXA Total dust (mg/m³) ± Measurement Uncertainty Respirable dust (mg/m³) ± Measurement Uncertainty Respirable fraction (%) Temp. (°C) P (kPa) RH (%) Fiber Concentration (fiber/cm³) ± Measurement Uncertainty 9 May 2024 10 May 2024 C 0.012 ± 0.0020 - Not detected 1.11 ± 0.23 0.85 ± 0.18 76.6 20.2 91.2 42.8 G 0.005 ± 0.0006 0.004 ± 0.0005 Not detected 0.78 ± 0.16 0.46 ± 0.10 59.0 19.5 90.8 43.4 I 0.008 ± 0.0009 0.010 ± 0.0010 Not detected 0.82 ± 0.17 0.70 ± 0.15 85.4 20.1 90.8 44.3 K 0.006 ± 0.0007 0.008 ± 0.0009 Not detected 0.69 ± 0.15 0.60 ± 0.13 87.0 19.5 90.8 44.4 O 0.004 ± 0.0005 0.005 ± 0.0006 Not detected 0.65 ± 0.14 0.46 ± 0.10 70.8 19.5 90.8 42.8 B 0.001 ± 0.0001 0.001 ± 0.0001 Not detected 0.49 ± 0.10 0.16 ± 0.03 32.7 19.1 90.7 43.6 Note. Values are reported as mean ± measurement uncertainty (U). PCM= phase-contrast microscopy (fiber counts reported as fiber/cm³). SEM/EDXA= scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (asbestos identification); Not detected indicates that asbestos fibers were not observed in the analyzed samples within the method’s detection capability. Total dust and respirable dust concentrations are expressed as mg/m³. Respirable fraction (%) was calculated as (respirable dust / total dust) × 100. Temp (°C)= ambient temperature; P (kPa)= barometric pressure; RH (%)= relative humidity. “-” indicates no measurement/sampling on that date. Region codes denote sampling locations (B = control; C = debris storage/dumping; G, I, K, O = demolition sites). 3.2. Airborne fibrous dust (PCM) and asbestos identification (SEM/EDXA) PCM-screened airborne fiber concentrations exhibited a clear site-type gradient (Table 1 ; Fig. 3 A). The debris storage/dumping site showed the highest fiber concentration (C: 0.012 ± 0.0020 fiber/cm³ on 9 May). Across active demolition sites, fiber concentrations ranged from 0.004 ± 0.0005 to 0.010 ± 0.0010 fiber/cm³ over the two sampling days, with the highest demolition value observed at site I on 10 May (0.010 ± 0.0010 fiber/cm³) (Table 1 ; Fig. 3 A). The control site consistently exhibited the lowest concentrations on both days (B: 0.001 ± 0.0001 fiber/cm³ on 9 and 10 May) (Table 1 ; Fig. 3 A). Confirmatory asbestos identification by scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (SEM/EDXA) indicated that asbestos was not detected in any sample; all SEM/EDXA results are therefore reported as “not detected” across sites (Table 1 ). 3.3. Total and respirable dust concentrations Gravimetric measurements demonstrated that total dust concentrations were highest at the debris storage/dumping site (C: 1.11 ± 0.23 mg/m³), intermediate at demolition sites (0.65 ± 0.14 to 0.82 ± 0.17 mg/m³), and lowest at the control site (B: 0.49 ± 0.10 mg/m³) (Table 1 ; Fig. 3 B). Respirable dust followed the same ranking, with the highest concentration at the storage/dumping site (C: 0.85 ± 0.18 mg/m³), demolition sites ranging from 0.46 ± 0.10 to 0.70 ± 0.15 mg/m³, and the lowest concentration at the control site (B: 0.16 ± 0.03 mg/m³) (Table 1 ; Fig. 3 B). The respirable fraction varied widely by location, ranging from 32.7% at the control site to 87.0% at demolition site K (Table 1 ; Fig. 3 B), indicating substantial site-specific differences in particle size distribution. 3.4. Demolition-control contrasts accounting for sampling variability and measurement uncertainty Effect sizes comparing demolition sites with the control site are summarized using both bootstrap confidence intervals and uncertainty-propagated (Monte Carlo) intervals (Table S2 ). Mean total dust was higher at demolition sites than at the control (Δ = 0.245 mg/m³; bootstrap 95% CI: 0.180–0.310), although the uncertainty-propagated 95% interval marginally crossed zero (-0.003 to 0.494) (Table S2 ). In contrast, respirable dust was consistently elevated at demolition sites (Δ = 0.395 mg/m³; bootstrap 95% CI: 0.300–0.490; Monte Carlo 95% interval: 0.262–0.527) (Table S2 ). These differences corresponded to approximately 1.50× higher mean total dust (0.735 vs 0.49 mg/m³) and 3.47× higher mean respirable dust (0.555 vs 0.16 mg/m³) at demolition sites relative to the control (Table S2 ). 3.5. SEM-EDXA particle characterization of representative dust and fibers SEM-EDXA assessment of representative particles and fibers (Table S3; Fig. S1 ) indicated that the dust load was dominated by mineral and construction-related particulate matter. Calcium-silicate and calcareous signatures (Ca/Si/O and Ca/O) were most consistent with concrete, cement, and plaster-derived dust. Iron-oxide particles (Fe/O) were consistent with emissions from reinforcement cutting processes, and titanium-bearing fragments (C/Ti/S) were compatible with paint particles containing TiO₂ pigment. Occasional chromium-rich inorganic fibers (Cr/O) were observed, consistent with Cr₂O₃-related material, while organic fibers (C/Cl/K) were clearly distinguishable by elemental composition and low-contrast morphology (Table S3; Fig. S1 ). 4. Discussion In interpreting the public health implications of post-earthquake airborne fibers, it is important to distinguish empirical “background” concentrations from regulatory thresholds. WHO- and ATSDR-summarized data suggest that ambient outdoor asbestos concentrations are typically very low (approximately 10⁻⁸-10⁻⁴ f/cm³), with a reported mean around 5×10⁻⁵ PCM f/mL; these values are best viewed as background reference points rather than health-based public limits [ 14 ]. Consistent with this, the U.S. EPA has not established a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for asbestos and instead regulates asbestos primarily through source-control frameworks (e.g., NESHAP) [ 15 ]. A key uncertainty in our setting is methodological: PCM enumerates fibers meeting dimensional criteria (> 5 µm length; aspect ratio ≥ 3:1) but cannot distinguish asbestos from non-asbestos fibers, and it may also miss very thin fibers due to optical resolution limits [ 16 , 18 ]. Accordingly, comparisons of PCM fiber counts with asbestos-specific background references should be interpreted conservatively. In our study, PCM-screened fiber concentrations (0.001–0.012 f/cm³) exceeded typical background references by orders of magnitude; however, asbestos fibers were not detected by SEM/EDXA in any sample [ 17 ], supporting interpretation of elevated PCM values as increased airborne fibrous dust rather than confirmed asbestos-specific exposure. Because enforceable “public” limit values for asbestos in outdoor community air are not uniformly defined, we further contextualized our results using risk-based benchmarks. The U.S. EPA Superfund framework reports baseline residential air action levels corresponding to excess lifetime cancer risks of 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ (approximately 0.001, 0.0001, and 0.00001 f/cc, respectively) and cautions that these are most appropriately applied to exposure point concentrations derived from activity-based sampling rather than ambient monitoring alone under disturbance conditions [ 15 ]. For additional context, we also show the HSG248 “clearance indicator” (0.01 f/mL) as an operational, LOQ-linked benchmark for post-removal reoccupation decisions (not an ambient community standard) [ 19 ]. In our dataset, most PCM measurements were below 0.01 f/cm³, although the storage/dumping site reached 0.012 f/cm³. Finally, Türkiye’s occupational 8-hour TWA limit for asbestos (0.1 f/cm³) is reported for completeness as a workplace benchmark and is not intended to characterize community ambient-air risk [ 20 ]. Regardless of building demolition or renovation, the concentration of asbestos fibers in South Korea’s areas was 0.00062 fibers/cm 3 [ 21 ]. When seasonal and regional asbestos concentrations were examined in Tehran, the capital of Iran, the highest fibrous concentration, 0.0119 f/cm 3 , was found in autumn, and the lowest was 0.0021 f/cm 3 [ 22 ]. The concentration of asbestos fibers in Italy’s urban air was 0.00056 fibers/cm 3 [ 23 ]. The average concentration of asbestos fibers in Karaj, an industrial city in Iran, was 0.018 f/cm 3 [ 24 ]. In a study examining the amount of airborne fibers during the demolition of structures known to contain asbestos, the concentrations in the air monitoring measurements were 0.012–0.032 f/cm 3 , according to the PCM. However, asbestos fibers were not found in any of them [ 25 ]. In our study, although the fiber concentrations were above the threshold value, asbestos fibers were not detected in these measurements, according to SEM analysis (Table 1 ). After the 2020 earthquake in Izmir at Türkiye, asbestos contents of airborne fibrous dust and of solid matter in buildings where asbestos was removed in the urban transformation process were measured. Of the materials of 50 buildings whose construction dates ranged from 1955 to 1998, asbestos was detected in only 11 buildings [ 26 ]. The fiber concentrations in the outdoor air in the vicinity of these 11 buildings containing asbestos, which were surrounded by buildings for demolition, ranged from 0.0066 to 0.0242 PCM fiber/cm 3 [ 26 ]. In other studies where airborne fibrous dust measurements were made during the demolition of structures with known asbestos content, high concentrations of fibrous dust were detected. However, when the asbestos content of these fibers was examined, asbestos fibers were found to be at low levels and even absent in some measurements [ 27 – 29 ]. In our study and in others [ 27 – 29 ] although asbestos fibers were present in the materials of the inspected structures, they were either detected at low levels or not detected at all in respirable air based on air monitoring measurements. In Izmir, the amounts of fibrous dust to which workers were exposed in personal measurements taken during the removal of asbestos materials were 0.0192 fiber/cm 3 at the highest and 0.0053 fiber/cm 3 at the lowest [ 26 ]. In another study in Alaska, fibrous dust amounts ranged from 0.043 to 0.141 f/cm 3 in personal measurements [ 25 ]. In measurements taken during the removal and replacement of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) in Norway, very high rates (1.5–4.5 f/cm 3 ) and 90% amphibolite-10% chrysotile asbestos were detected in personal measurements [ 27 ]. The fact that fibers were detected at higher rates in personal measurements compared with environmental measurements suggests that the risks of exposure in the workplace environment are higher than in the community. Since the release of asbestos fibers into breathable air was shown to be higher in the interior environment and in the removal of asbestos materials compared with that found in massive demolition, asbestos fibers may not have been detected due to the massive demolition of the buildings. Additionally, various factors, such as the variety of building materials used, the demolition method, the fragility of the asbestos fibers in the content (friable-nonfriable), temperature, humidity and wind speed, contribute to the presence and amount of asbestos fibers in breathable air [ 21 ]. Therefore, the risk of exposure to asbestos from breathable air surrounding the buildings that collapsed due to the earthquakes can be interpreted as low from a social perspective. The Dust Combat Regulation published in 2013 in Türkiye regulates threshold values ​​for workplaces at 5 mg/m³ for respirable dust and 15 mg/m³ for total dust [ 20 ]. Although this study obtained low values compared to the limits ​​set for workplaces in this country, the measurements are considered important because they reveal exposure to substances that have been shown to be harmful to public health. Of the admissions after the 2011 earthquake in Japan, the top three reasons were due to pneumonia (59.0%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (16.5%), and asthma (8.4%). When these admissions were compared with those in the previous two years, hospital admissions due to pneumonia, COPD, and asthma were significantly higher after the earthquake. Although the frequency of pneumonia increased for many reasons, such as adverse weather conditions and malnutrition in the early period after the earthquake, the increased dust density and deterioration of air quality may be responsible for the exacerbation of COPD and asthma [ 30 ]. In a report published by the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) outdoor dust measurements were as follows: 0.213 mg/m 3 in excavation areas, 212 mg/m 3 in storage areas and 0.137 mg/m 3 in other support areas [ 31 ]. Respirable dust measurements made for workers in mining areas in India showed exposures of 0.51–1.28 mg/m 3 for dumper operators, 0.74–1.13 mg/m 3 for excavator operators, and 0.58–2.53 mg/m 3 for drill operators [ 32 ]. In a study conducted in Iran, respirable dust measurements in mines obtained the following results: 7.33 mg/m 3 in extraction areas, 11.23 mg/m 3 in crushing, 3.43 mg/m 3 in wet processing, 7.27 mg/m 3 in dry processing and 1.68 mg/m 3 in administration. Total dust amounts were 15.50 mg/m 3 in extraction areas, 18.80 mg/m 3 in crushing, 5.53 mg/m 3 in wet processing and 13.58 mg/m 3 in administration. Although the limit values set in Iran were 3.00 mg/m 3 for respirable dust and 10 mg/m 3 for total dust, these threshold values were exceeded in some areas. Additionally, lower levels of both types of dust were detected in wet working areas compared with dry areas [ 33 ]. In the present study, higher concentrations of both types of dust were observed in the active demolition and debris dump areas. The amount of dust detected in the air is significantly reduced because of sufficient wetting of the site during demolition activities. In this context, this point should not be neglected when demolishing a building. According to WHO, the disease burdens attributed to indoor and outdoor air pollution globally are similar to other health risks such as malnutrition, physical inactivity and tobacco use. Air pollution is also considered a significant risk factor for non-communicable diseases such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, COPD, asthma and cancer. Particulate matter (PM) is an important parameter in terms of reflecting air pollution [ 34 ]. The latest report from the WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines (AQG) recommends that the limit values ​​of 20 µg/m 3 for PM 10 and 10 µgr/m 3 for PM 2.5 should not be exceeded [ 35 ]. In Türkiye, according to the circular published in 2013, the expected threshold value for PM 10 was 50 µgr/m 3 as of 2019 [ 36 ]. PM 10 measurements by the Continuous Monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation were used to determine the risks posed by outdoor air pollution to public health. In this context, the median of PM 10 levels for the period of 1–30 November 2023, when the post-earthquake destruction processes were intense, was found to be 64 (39–138) in the measurement made in Malatya. Additionally, in 26 measurements, the limit value of 50 µg/m 3 for PM 10 was exceeded, and five values were ​​between 100 and 150 µgr/m 3 , posing a risk to sensitive groups. When evaluated together with the measurements in the same period in 2022 and 2021, the high values ​​in 2023 are observed again [ 37 ]. In this case, the researchers assumed that the structures damaged by the earthquake contributed to poor air quality during the demolition processes when no rain falls. To evaluate air quality in the wake of disasters such as earthquakes, mobile stations should be established in addition to fixed air measurement stations, and continuous data should be generated at different points. 4.1. Limitations This study's measurements were conducted only in May 2024 and at specific locations. Weather conditions, seasonal variations, and short measurement durations may have influenced asbestos and dust concentrations. As meteorological factors were not continuously monitored, air quality assessment remains limited. The restriction to six measurement sites constrains the generalizability of the findings. However, the use of complementary analytical approaches (PCM supported by SEM/EDX) strengthens the characterization of airborne fibrous particles beyond fiber counts alone. Although the study was conducted a long time after the earthquake, measurements were performed in areas where active demolition activities were ongoing. The absence of pre-earthquake baseline data and a contemporaneous control area limits causal attribution of observed concentrations to post-earthquake activities. Measurements reflect area-level concentrations and do not represent personal exposure; therefore, individual dose estimation and time-weighted occupational exposure metrics could not be derived. Additionally, the study does not assess long-term health effects, necessitating further research, particularly on respiratory diseases. 5. Conclusions In this study, asbestos and dust concentrations in breathable air were examined after the Kahramanmaraş and Hatay earthquakes. It was observed that the airborne fibrous dust levels in the measurement areas were above the threshold values. However, asbestos fibers were not detected in this fibrous dust. To reduce the amount of dust in breathable air during demolition, storage and transportation, appropriate procedures can be carried out in the form of wet work with sufficient water. Applications such as isolation of demolition areas, closure of entrances to and exits from these areas, and absorption systems should be implemented to reduce dust generated in the environment. Local governments have significant responsibility for the supervision and enforcement of these applications. Additionally, the use of masks may be recommended during long-term work or outdoor activities in areas close to demolition areas within the scope of individual protection for public health. Declarations Acknowledgements The authors thank the authorized laboratory of the Occupational Health and Safety Research and Development Institute (Ministry of Labour and Social Security) for conducting the PCM, SEM/EDXA, and gravimetric dust analyses. Funding This study was supported by Inonu University Scientific Research Projects (BAP) under project number TSA-2024-3352. Author contributions Ayşe Baran: Conceptualization, project administration, methodology, supervision, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing. Ahmet Burak Avcu: Investigation, data curation, formal analysis, visualization, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing. Merve Sülü: Conceptualization, methodology, ınvestigation, data curation, formal analysis, visualization, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing. Sena Nur Gündoğdu: Investigation, data curation, writing - review & editing. Gülseda Boz: Investigation, writing - review & editing. Ali Özer: Conceptualization, supervision, writing - review & editing. Metin Fikret Genç: Conceptualization, supervision Osman Kurt: Conceptualization, supervision, formal analysis, Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Data availability All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. References International Agency for Research on Cancer. Arsenic, metals, fibers and dusts. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Vol 100C. Lyon, France: IARC; 2012. Accessed December 21, 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304375/ Bouvard V, Baan R, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, et al. A review of human carcinogens-Part B: biological agents. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(4):321-322. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70096-8 Zhang YL, Byeon HS, Hong WH, Cha GW, Lee YH, et al. Risk assessment of asbestos-containing materials in a deteriorated dwelling area using four different methods. J Hazard Mater. 2021;410:124645. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124645 Manning WJ. Terrorist attacks: do we know how to assess the results? Sci World J. 2001;1:588-589. doi:10.1100/tsw.2001.319 Cohen HW, Zeig-Owens R, Joe C, Hall CB, Webber MP, et al. Long-term cardiovascular disease risk among firefighters after the World Trade Center disaster. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(9):e199775. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9775 Li J, Cone JE, Brackbill RM, Giesinger I, Yung J, et al. Pulmonary fibrosis among World Trade Center responders: results from the WTC Health Registry cohort. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(5):825. doi:10.3390/ijerph16050825 Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye. Bazı tehlikeli maddelerin, müstahzarların ve eşyaların üretimi, piyasaya arzı ve kullanımına ilişkin kısıtlamalar hakkında yönetmelik [in Turkish]. Published December 26, 2008. No. 27092. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2008/12/20081226M1-1.htm Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye. Bazı tehlikeli maddelerin, müstahzarların ve eşyaların üretimi, piyasaya arzı ve kullanımına ilişkin yönetmelikte değişiklik yapılmasına dair yönetmelik [in Turkish]. Published August 29, 2010. No. 27688. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2010/08/20100829-3.htm Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye. Asbestle çalışmalarda sağlık ve güvenlik önlemleri hakkında yönetmelik [in Turkish]. Published January 25, 2013. No. 28539. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2013/01/20130125-9.htm Yavuz CI. The additional burden of earthquakes: asbestos risks rising in Turkey. Thorac Res Pract. 2024;25(3):100-101. doi:10.5152/ThoracResPract.2024.23072 Currie GP, Watt SJ, Maskell N. An overview of how asbestos exposure affects the lung. BMJ. 2009;339:b3209. doi:10.1136/bmj.b3209 Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye, Directorate of Strategy and Budget. Kahramanmaraş ve Hatay depremleri yeniden imar ve gelişme raporu, Türkiye 2024 [in Turkish]. Published 2024. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/kahramanmaras-ve-hatay-depremleri-yeniden-imar-ve-gelisme-raporu/ World Health Organization. Determination of airborne fiber number concentrations: a recommended method, by phase-contrast optical microscopy (membrane filter method). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1997. Accessed December 21, 2025. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/41904 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Asbestos. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 2001. Chapter 6: Potential for Human Exposure. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Asbestos Toxicity: What Are U.S. Standards and Regulations for Asbestos Levels? Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM). Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2014. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Method 7400: Asbestos and other fibers by PCM. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM). 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1994. US Environmental Protection Agency. Framework for Investigating Asbestos-Contaminated Superfund Sites. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; 2008. OSWER Directive 9200.0-68. World Health Organization. Environmental Health Criteria 203: Chrysotile Asbestos. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety; 1998. Health and Safety Executive. Asbestos: The Analysts’ Guide (HSG248). 2nd ed. United Kingdom: Health and Safety Executive; 2021. Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye. Tozla Mücadele Yönetmeliği [in Turkish]. Published November 5, 2013. No. 28812. Accessed May 21, 2025. http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.18989&MevzuatIliski=0 Obmiński A. Asbestos in building and its destruction. Constr Build Mater. 2020;249:118685. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118685 Taghizadeh F, Jafari AJ, Gholami M, Kermani M, Arfaeinia H, Mohammadi S, et al. Monitoring of airborne asbestos fibers in an urban ambient air of Shahryar City, Iran: levels, spatial distribution, seasonal variations, and health-risk assessment. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2019;26:24008-24020. doi:10.1007/s11356-018-4029-0 Gualtieri AF, Mangano D, Gualtieri ML, Ricchi A, Foresti E, Lesci G, et al. Ambient monitoring of asbestos in selected Italian living areas. J Environ Manage. 2009;90(11):3540-3549. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.007 Kermani M, Jonidi Jafari A, Gholami M, Arfaeinia H, Yousefi M, Shahsavani A, et al. Spatio-seasonal variation, distribution, levels, and risk assessment of airborne asbestos concentration in the most industrial city of Iran: effect of meteorological factors. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021;28:40062-40073. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-11941-3 Perkins RA, Hargesheimer J, Fourie W. Asbestos release from whole-building demolition of buildings with asbestos-containing material. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2007;4(12):889-894. doi:10.1080/15459620701691023 Tetik YÖ, Zümrüt İB, Çamurcu AG, Kale ÖA, Baradan S. Measurement and removal of asbestos in residential dwellings to be demolished-urban transformation experience in Izmir, Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2024;31:9857-9866. doi:10.1007/s11356-023-31819-4 Ervik TK, Hammer SE, Skaugset NP, Graff P. Measurements of airborne asbestos fibers during refurbishing. Ann Work Expo Health. 2023;67(8):952-964. doi:10.1093/annweh/wxad041 Neitzel RL, Sayler SK, Demond AH, d’Arcy H, Garabrant DH, Franzblau A. Measurement of asbestos emissions associated with demolition of abandoned residential dwellings. Sci Total Environ. 2020;722:137891. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137891 Stevulova N, Estokova A, Holub M, Singovszka E, Csach K. Characterization of demolition construction waste containing asbestos, and the release of fibrous dust particles. Appl Sci. 2020;10(11):4048. doi:10.3390/app10114048 Yamanda S, Hanagama M, Kobayashi S, Satou H, Tokuda S, Niu K, et al. The impact of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake on hospitalisation for respiratory disease in a rapidly aging society: a retrospective descriptive and cross-sectional study at the disaster base hospital in Ishinomaki. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e000865. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000865 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. SC&A commentary on NIOSH’s approach to quantifying outdoor and indoor airborne dust loadings. CDC Document Repository. Published 2021. Accessed December 21, 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-airdustloadings-r0-508.pdf Prajapati SS, Mishra RA, Jhariya B, Dhatrak S. Respirable dust and crystalline silica exposure among different mining sectors in India. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2021;76(7):455-461. doi:10.1080/19338244.2021.1919857 Golbabaei F, Gholami A, Teimori-Boghsani G, Yaseri M, Kianmehr M. Evaluation of occupational exposure to silica dust in mining workers in Eastern Iran. Open Environ Res J. 2019;12:TOERJ-12-1. doi:10.2174/1874213001912010001 World Health Organization. Ambient (outdoor) air pollution. Accessed December 21, 2025. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health World Health Organization. WHO global air quality guidelines: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2021. Accessed December 21, 2025. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034228 Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change. General Directorate of Environmental Management. Hava kalitesi değerlendirme ve yönetimi genelgesi (Genelge No: 2013/37; 25 Aralık 2013) [in Turkish]. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/cygm/editordosya/GNG2013-37HavaKalitesiDegerl.pdf Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change. National air quality monitoring network. National Air Quality Monitoring Service. Accessed September 26, 2024. https://sim.csb.gov.tr/Services/AirQuality# Supplementary Files SupplementaryFigureS1.pdf Supplementarymaterial.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8682234","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":580739010,"identity":"a38cb1f2-71e1-4e72-b5e9-bac1a66b5eb2","order_by":0,"name":"Ayse Baran","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Inonu University School of Medicine: Inonu Universitesi Tip fakultesi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ayse","middleName":"","lastName":"Baran","suffix":""},{"id":580739011,"identity":"eb990dda-041a-440e-9dac-755d36fd14df","order_by":1,"name":"Ahmet Burak Avcu","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8240-3928","institution":"Inonu University School of Medicine: Inonu Universitesi Tip fakultesi","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ahmet","middleName":"Burak","lastName":"Avcu","suffix":""},{"id":580739012,"identity":"ffc2a35a-0093-4c4a-8e8d-5770f35a7fea","order_by":2,"name":"Merve Sulu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Inonu University School of Medicine: Inonu Universitesi Tip fakultesi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Merve","middleName":"","lastName":"Sulu","suffix":""},{"id":580739013,"identity":"9271f16d-61b1-4641-9423-53b794890677","order_by":3,"name":"Sena Nur Gundogdu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Inonu University School of Medicine: Inonu Universitesi Tip fakultesi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sena","middleName":"Nur","lastName":"Gundogdu","suffix":""},{"id":580739014,"identity":"d590b238-b032-42aa-ab19-0c1f87bdbd92","order_by":4,"name":"Gulseda Boz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Inonu University School of Medicine: Inonu Universitesi Tip fakultesi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gulseda","middleName":"","lastName":"Boz","suffix":""},{"id":580739015,"identity":"df982b2c-0bf4-4856-a9f2-965627a90ac9","order_by":5,"name":"Ali Ozer","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Inonu University School of Medicine: Inonu Universitesi Tip fakultesi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ali","middleName":"","lastName":"Ozer","suffix":""},{"id":580739016,"identity":"d25047d2-ece2-4b1e-afe2-ef606d17ae04","order_by":6,"name":"Metin Fikret Genc","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Inonu University School of Medicine: Inonu Universitesi Tip fakultesi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Metin","middleName":"Fikret","lastName":"Genc","suffix":""},{"id":580739017,"identity":"118e08d6-31d6-44ef-9ab1-09dbcf535739","order_by":7,"name":"Osman Kurt","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Inonu University School of Medicine: Inonu Universitesi Tip fakultesi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Osman","middleName":"","lastName":"Kurt","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-23 19:58:57","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8682234/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8682234/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101435742,"identity":"f0eab6c6-c28e-4c07-b405-0b4276ff447a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:16:49","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":36354,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStudy workflow schematic. Site selection (demolition, debris storage, and control), outdoor air sampling, laboratory analyses (PCM screening of airborne fibrous dust; SEM/EDXA for asbestos identification; gravimetric total and respirable dust determination), and study endpoints.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8682234/v1/6e075341ba406199f9d134cf.png"},{"id":101435741,"identity":"1229db75-68cf-4ccf-ac5d-33b6d9ea8582","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:16:49","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":489817,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGeographic location of Malatya Province and outdoor sampling sites categorized by site type (demolition, storage/dumping, control).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8682234/v1/86ad7fabb422cd34a99f5f8e.png"},{"id":101435740,"identity":"8c5dd2c2-eeff-4d8a-a212-252d2f479caf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:16:49","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":78440,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAirborne fiber and dust characteristics across sampling sites. (A) Fiber concentrations measured by PCM across two consecutive days. (B) Concentrations of total and respirable dust (bars) and the respirable fraction (red line/points). Data are presented as value ± uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8682234/v1/00cfafe1e8e50b6202d414fb.png"},{"id":102294825,"identity":"eba6a750-ad1e-4f68-9c6a-d3224103c108","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 09:59:39","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1490917,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8682234/v1/dd6cfd18-d197-4f70-8d08-14cc6c872053.pdf"},{"id":101435745,"identity":"2ed196e1-395a-4e22-97c4-181c7d3b8035","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:16:49","extension":"pdf","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":945660,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFigureS1.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8682234/v1/01abaf72cf98c0afe065e8c4.pdf"},{"id":101435743,"identity":"0929e0d1-0a50-4c02-955e-1d0e61bac39e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 16:16:49","extension":"docx","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":20161,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementarymaterial.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8682234/v1/e32c6c0928f75c276b61b559.docx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Assessment of dust and fibers resulting from the demolition of buildings following an earthquake","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAsbestos is the general description of a group of naturally occurring mineral silicate fibers of the serpentine and amphibole series. Asbestos has been widely used in many industrial applications because of its good strength properties (tensile, abrasion, friction), heat resistance and chemical properties. The health risks posed by asbestos as a result of its widespread use from past to present have been examined, and in 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified asbestos as a Group 1 carcinogen [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. It has also been shown that asbestos exposure is closely associated with lung fibrosis, pleural plaque, pleural mesothelioma and lung cancer [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. The dust and smoke resulting from the complete collapse of the twin towers as a result of the terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, caused high levels of air pollution. Dust and smoke have been shown to contain concrete particles, ceiling tiles, carpets, adhesives, asbestos, chromium, lead, titanium, volatile organic compounds, aerosols and many other elements and material particles [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. People exposed to moderate and very high levels of dust from this destruction have been shown to have an increased risk of pulmonary fibrosis and long-term cardiovascular disease [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn T\u0026uuml;rkiye, the use of asbestos was banned in stages with the legislation of 2008, 2010 and 2013. However, while this exposure is still on the agenda of natural areas, ship dismantling activities, and the demolition of old buildings in urban transformation projects, it is anticipated that the current asbestos exposure will increase further with the earthquakes that occurred on February 6, 2023 [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR8 CR9\" citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe severity of asbestos exposure after an earthquake depends on several factors, including the magnitude and proximity of the earthquake, the type and condition of asbestos-containing materials in affected structures, and the extent of damage to buildings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. It was reported that 27,979 buildings collapsed in Malatya Province, where significant structural damage occurred during the February 6 Kahramanmaraş and Hatay earthquakes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. However, asbestos has been used as a building material in buildings for various purposes as a result of major earthquakes, and the concentration of asbestos in breathable air during and after the demolition process is not known. Considering that the use of asbestos in existing buildings was not prohibited before 2010 and was a preferred construction material, it is expected that this substance will increase in the air as a result of the demolition. In this context, the asbestos concentration in breathable air was determined in terms of public health through measurements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a result of the demolitions carried out after the earthquake, a significant amount of dust was released into the air. Although it is recommended that wet work and that employees work with personal protective equipment, this practice is not implemented sufficiently. It has been shown that air pollution during the chronic period increases the morbidity and mortality of individuals with chronic lung disease and other chronic diseases. However, these measurements were made because of the limited data on air pollution, which is thought to have increased as a result of the existing destruction after the earthquake.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted to determine the asbestos and dust concentrations in the air after the earthquake in Malatya, which was strongly affected by the February 6, 2023 earthquake.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Study design and overview\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis field study quantified outdoor airborne fibrous dust, asbestos (by confirmatory identification), and gravimetric total and respirable dust concentrations at selected post-earthquake activity sites in Malatya Province, T\u0026uuml;rkiye. Sampling locations were classified into three site types: (i) active building demolition areas, (ii) a debris storage/dumping area, and (iii) a control area without demolition or storage activities. Airborne fibrous dust was first screened by phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) using standardized fiber-counting criteria. Because PCM cannot mineralogically discriminate asbestos from non-asbestos fibers, asbestos identification was subsequently evaluated using scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (SEM/EDXA) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Study area and site selection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMalatya is an eastern city of T\u0026uuml;rkiye (population 812,580) that was severely impacted by the 6 February 2023 earthquakes. According to official reports Malatya ranked third after Hatay and Kahramanmaraş, in debris generated from collapsed buildings with 36,369 buildings classified as severely damaged and 5,651 buildings demolished, including 1,841 rapid demolitions due to safety concerns. Demolition of approximately three-quarters of damaged buildings and debris removal operations continued through January 2024 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutdoor air sampling was conducted at four active demolition locations (G, I, K, O), one debris storage/dumping location (C), and one control location without demolition or storage activity (B). Sampling in demolition and storage areas was performed at the closest permitted distance to ongoing operations (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Sampling procedures and analytical methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1. Airborne fibrous dust screening (PCM)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAirborne fibrous dust sampling for PCM analysis was performed on two consecutive days (9\u0026ndash;10 May 2024). Air was drawn through a membrane filter using a BUCK Libra Plus pump positioned at 120 cm above ground (approximating breathing-zone height). Sampling was conducted at a flow rate of 4.0 L/min for 120 minutes under field barometric pressure conditions (~\u0026thinsp;90.8 kPa). Filters were analyzed by PCM in accordance with HSG 248\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A1. Fibers were counted when they met the PCM criteria: length\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;5 \u0026micro;m, width\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;3 \u0026micro;m, and aspect ratio (length)\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;3:1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.2. Asbestos identification (SEM/EDXA)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo differentiate asbestos from non-asbestos fibers, samples were further evaluated using SEM/EDXA in accordance with VDI 3866 Part 5. Asbestos identification results were reported qualitatively as detected/not detected.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.3. Gravimetric total and respirable dust\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGravimetric sampling for total and respirable dust was conducted on 9 May 2024 using MDHS 14/3. Sampling trains were calibrated immediately before sampling using a TSI primary flow calibrator. Total dust was sampled at 2.2 L/min for 120 minutes using a filter cassette. Respirable dust was sampled at 1.7 L/min for 120 minutes using a respirable cyclone connected to a filter. All inlets were positioned at 120 cm above ground.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.4. Quality assurance and laboratory services\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll measurements were performed through services provided by a laboratory authorized by the Occupational Health and Safety Research and Development Institute affiliated with the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, which performs airborne fibrous dust (including asbestos and human-made mineral fibers) and gravimetric total/respirable dust analyses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Statistical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemolition-control contrasts were expressed as mean differences (Δ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;mean demolition - control) with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals obtained by resampling demolition sites with replacement (control fixed). Measurement uncertainty (\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;U) was additionally propagated using a Monte Carlo simulation by sampling concentrations within \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;U (Uniform[X-U, X\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;U], truncated at 0) and reporting the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the simulated Δ distribution (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS2\u003c/span\u003e). Analyses were conducted in R (version 4.5.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Overview of sampling and measurements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 12 outdoor airborne fibrous-dust samples were collected for phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) across two consecutive days (9\u0026ndash;10 May 2024), and six gravimetric samples (total and respirable dust) were collected on 9 May 2024 (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e). PCM measurements were available for all demolition (G, I, K, O) and control (B) locations on both days, whereas the debris storage/dumping site (C) was measured on 9 May only (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA). Meteorological conditions were comparable across sites (temperature 19.1\u0026ndash;20.2\u0026deg;C; pressure 90.7\u0026ndash;91.2 kPa; relative humidity 42.8\u0026ndash;44.4%) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutdoor airborne fibers (PCM) and asbestos screening (SEM/EDXA) alongside total/respirable dust metrics and meteorological parameters at study sites\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePCM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSEM/EDXA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal dust (mg/m\u0026sup3;) \u0026plusmn; Measurement Uncertainty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespirable dust (mg/m\u0026sup3;) \u0026plusmn; Measurement Uncertainty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespirable fraction (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTemp. (\u0026deg;C)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP (kPa)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRH (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFiber Concentration (fiber/cm\u0026sup3;) \u0026plusmn; Measurement Uncertainty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 May 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10 May 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.012\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot detected\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.11\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.85\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot detected\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.78\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.46\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e59.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.008\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.010\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot detected\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.82\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eK\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.006\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.008\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot detected\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.69\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.60\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eO\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot detected\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.65\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.46\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot detected\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.49\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.16\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"10\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote.\u003c/b\u003e Values are reported as mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;measurement uncertainty (U). PCM= phase-contrast microscopy (fiber counts reported as fiber/cm\u0026sup3;). SEM/EDXA= scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (asbestos identification); Not detected indicates that asbestos fibers were not observed in the analyzed samples within the method\u0026rsquo;s detection capability. Total dust and respirable dust concentrations are expressed as mg/m\u0026sup3;. Respirable fraction (%) was calculated as (respirable dust / total dust) \u0026times; 100. Temp (\u0026deg;C)= ambient temperature; P (kPa)= barometric pressure; RH (%)= relative humidity. \u0026ldquo;-\u0026rdquo; indicates no measurement/sampling on that date. Region codes denote sampling locations (B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;control; C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;debris storage/dumping; G, I, K, O\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;demolition sites).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Airborne fibrous dust (PCM) and asbestos identification (SEM/EDXA)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePCM-screened airborne fiber concentrations exhibited a clear site-type gradient (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA). The debris storage/dumping site showed the highest fiber concentration (C: 0.012\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0020 fiber/cm\u0026sup3; on 9 May). Across active demolition sites, fiber concentrations ranged from 0.004\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0005 to 0.010\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0010 fiber/cm\u0026sup3; over the two sampling days, with the highest demolition value observed at site I on 10 May (0.010\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0010 fiber/cm\u0026sup3;) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA). The control site consistently exhibited the lowest concentrations on both days (B: 0.001\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0001 fiber/cm\u0026sup3; on 9 and 10 May) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConfirmatory asbestos identification by scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (SEM/EDXA) indicated that asbestos was not detected in any sample; all SEM/EDXA results are therefore reported as \u0026ldquo;not detected\u0026rdquo; across sites (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Total and respirable dust concentrations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGravimetric measurements demonstrated that total dust concentrations were highest at the debris storage/dumping site (C: 1.11\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.23 mg/m\u0026sup3;), intermediate at demolition sites (0.65\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.14 to 0.82\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.17 mg/m\u0026sup3;), and lowest at the control site (B: 0.49\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10 mg/m\u0026sup3;) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eB). Respirable dust followed the same ranking, with the highest concentration at the storage/dumping site (C: 0.85\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.18 mg/m\u0026sup3;), demolition sites ranging from 0.46\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10 to 0.70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15 mg/m\u0026sup3;, and the lowest concentration at the control site (B: 0.16\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03 mg/m\u0026sup3;) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eB).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe respirable fraction varied widely by location, ranging from 32.7% at the control site to 87.0% at demolition site K (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eB), indicating substantial site-specific differences in particle size distribution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Demolition-control contrasts accounting for sampling variability and measurement uncertainty\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffect sizes comparing demolition sites with the control site are summarized using both bootstrap confidence intervals and uncertainty-propagated (Monte Carlo) intervals (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS2\u003c/span\u003e). Mean total dust was higher at demolition sites than at the control (Δ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.245 mg/m\u0026sup3;; bootstrap 95% CI: 0.180\u0026ndash;0.310), although the uncertainty-propagated 95% interval marginally crossed zero (-0.003 to 0.494) (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS2\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, respirable dust was consistently elevated at demolition sites (Δ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.395 mg/m\u0026sup3;; bootstrap 95% CI: 0.300\u0026ndash;0.490; Monte Carlo 95% interval: 0.262\u0026ndash;0.527) (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS2\u003c/span\u003e). These differences corresponded to approximately 1.50\u0026times; higher mean total dust (0.735 vs 0.49 mg/m\u0026sup3;) and 3.47\u0026times; higher mean respirable dust (0.555 vs 0.16 mg/m\u0026sup3;) at demolition sites relative to the control (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5. SEM-EDXA particle characterization of representative dust and fibers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSEM-EDXA assessment of representative particles and fibers (Table S3; Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e) indicated that the dust load was dominated by mineral and construction-related particulate matter. Calcium-silicate and calcareous signatures (Ca/Si/O and Ca/O) were most consistent with concrete, cement, and plaster-derived dust. Iron-oxide particles (Fe/O) were consistent with emissions from reinforcement cutting processes, and titanium-bearing fragments (C/Ti/S) were compatible with paint particles containing TiO₂ pigment. Occasional chromium-rich inorganic fibers (Cr/O) were observed, consistent with Cr₂O₃-related material, while organic fibers (C/Cl/K) were clearly distinguishable by elemental composition and low-contrast morphology (Table S3; Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn interpreting the public health implications of post-earthquake airborne fibers, it is important to distinguish empirical \u0026ldquo;background\u0026rdquo; concentrations from regulatory thresholds. WHO- and ATSDR-summarized data suggest that ambient outdoor asbestos concentrations are typically very low (approximately 10⁻⁸-10⁻⁴ f/cm\u0026sup3;), with a reported mean around 5\u0026times;10⁻⁵ PCM f/mL; these values are best viewed as background reference points rather than health-based public limits [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Consistent with this, the U.S. EPA has not established a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for asbestos and instead regulates asbestos primarily through source-control frameworks (e.g., NESHAP) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA key uncertainty in our setting is methodological: PCM enumerates fibers meeting dimensional criteria (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;5 \u0026micro;m length; aspect ratio\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;3:1) but cannot distinguish asbestos from non-asbestos fibers, and it may also miss very thin fibers due to optical resolution limits [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Accordingly, comparisons of PCM fiber counts with asbestos-specific background references should be interpreted conservatively. In our study, PCM-screened fiber concentrations (0.001\u0026ndash;0.012 f/cm\u0026sup3;) exceeded typical background references by orders of magnitude; however, asbestos fibers were not detected by SEM/EDXA in any sample [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], supporting interpretation of elevated PCM values as increased airborne fibrous dust rather than confirmed asbestos-specific exposure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBecause enforceable \u0026ldquo;public\u0026rdquo; limit values for asbestos in outdoor community air are not uniformly defined, we further contextualized our results using risk-based benchmarks. The U.S. EPA Superfund framework reports baseline residential air action levels corresponding to excess lifetime cancer risks of 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ (approximately 0.001, 0.0001, and 0.00001 f/cc, respectively) and cautions that these are most appropriately applied to exposure point concentrations derived from activity-based sampling rather than ambient monitoring alone under disturbance conditions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. For additional context, we also show the HSG248 \u0026ldquo;clearance indicator\u0026rdquo; (0.01 f/mL) as an operational, LOQ-linked benchmark for post-removal reoccupation decisions (not an ambient community standard) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. In our dataset, most PCM measurements were below 0.01 f/cm\u0026sup3;, although the storage/dumping site reached 0.012 f/cm\u0026sup3;. Finally, T\u0026uuml;rkiye\u0026rsquo;s occupational 8-hour TWA limit for asbestos (0.1 f/cm\u0026sup3;) is reported for completeness as a workplace benchmark and is not intended to characterize community ambient-air risk [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegardless of building demolition or renovation, the concentration of asbestos fibers in South Korea\u0026rsquo;s areas was 0.00062 fibers/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. When seasonal and regional asbestos concentrations were examined in Tehran, the capital of Iran, the highest fibrous concentration, 0.0119 f/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e, was found in autumn, and the lowest was 0.0021 f/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. The concentration of asbestos fibers in Italy\u0026rsquo;s urban air was 0.00056 fibers/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. The average concentration of asbestos fibers in Karaj, an industrial city in Iran, was 0.018 f/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn a study examining the amount of airborne fibers during the demolition of structures known to contain asbestos, the concentrations in the air monitoring measurements were 0.012\u0026ndash;0.032 f/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e, according to the PCM. However, asbestos fibers were not found in any of them [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. In our study, although the fiber concentrations were above the threshold value, asbestos fibers were not detected in these measurements, according to SEM analysis (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). After the 2020 earthquake in Izmir at T\u0026uuml;rkiye, asbestos contents of airborne fibrous dust and of solid matter in buildings where asbestos was removed in the urban transformation process were measured. Of the materials of 50 buildings whose construction dates ranged from 1955 to 1998, asbestos was detected in only 11 buildings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. The fiber concentrations in the outdoor air in the vicinity of these 11 buildings containing asbestos, which were surrounded by buildings for demolition, ranged from 0.0066 to 0.0242 PCM fiber/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn other studies where airborne fibrous dust measurements were made during the demolition of structures with known asbestos content, high concentrations of fibrous dust were detected. However, when the asbestos content of these fibers was examined, asbestos fibers were found to be at low levels and even absent in some measurements [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR28\" citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. In our study and in others [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR28\" citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] although asbestos fibers were present in the materials of the inspected structures, they were either detected at low levels or not detected at all in respirable air based on air monitoring measurements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Izmir, the amounts of fibrous dust to which workers were exposed in personal measurements taken during the removal of asbestos materials were 0.0192 fiber/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e at the highest and 0.0053 fiber/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e at the lowest [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. In another study in Alaska, fibrous dust amounts ranged from 0.043 to 0.141 f/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in personal measurements [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. In measurements taken during the removal and replacement of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) in Norway, very high rates (1.5\u0026ndash;4.5 f/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e) and 90% amphibolite-10% chrysotile asbestos were detected in personal measurements [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. The fact that fibers were detected at higher rates in personal measurements compared with environmental measurements suggests that the risks of exposure in the workplace environment are higher than in the community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSince the release of asbestos fibers into breathable air was shown to be higher in the interior environment and in the removal of asbestos materials compared with that found in massive demolition, asbestos fibers may not have been detected due to the massive demolition of the buildings. Additionally, various factors, such as the variety of building materials used, the demolition method, the fragility of the asbestos fibers in the content (friable-nonfriable), temperature, humidity and wind speed, contribute to the presence and amount of asbestos fibers in breathable air [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, the risk of exposure to asbestos from breathable air surrounding the buildings that collapsed due to the earthquakes can be interpreted as low from a social perspective.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Dust Combat Regulation published in 2013 in T\u0026uuml;rkiye regulates threshold values ​​for workplaces at 5 mg/m\u0026sup3; for respirable dust and 15 mg/m\u0026sup3; for total dust [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Although this study obtained low values compared to the limits ​​set for workplaces in this country, the measurements are considered important because they reveal exposure to substances that have been shown to be harmful to public health.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf the admissions after the 2011 earthquake in Japan, the top three reasons were due to pneumonia (59.0%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (16.5%), and asthma (8.4%). When these admissions were compared with those in the previous two years, hospital admissions due to pneumonia, COPD, and asthma were significantly higher after the earthquake. Although the frequency of pneumonia increased for many reasons, such as adverse weather conditions and malnutrition in the early period after the earthquake, the increased dust density and deterioration of air quality may be responsible for the exacerbation of COPD and asthma [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. In a report published by the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) outdoor dust measurements were as follows: 0.213 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in excavation areas, 212 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in storage areas and 0.137 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in other support areas [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Respirable dust measurements made for workers in mining areas in India showed exposures of 0.51\u0026ndash;1.28 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e for dumper operators, 0.74\u0026ndash;1.13 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e for excavator operators, and 0.58\u0026ndash;2.53 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e for drill operators [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. In a study conducted in Iran, respirable dust measurements in mines obtained the following results: 7.33 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in extraction areas, 11.23 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in crushing, 3.43 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in wet processing, 7.27 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in dry processing and 1.68 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in administration. Total dust amounts were 15.50 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in extraction areas, 18.80 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in crushing, 5.53 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in wet processing and 13.58 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e in administration. Although the limit values set in Iran were 3.00 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e for respirable dust and 10 mg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e for total dust, these threshold values were exceeded in some areas. Additionally, lower levels of both types of dust were detected in wet working areas compared with dry areas [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. In the present study, higher concentrations of both types of dust were observed in the active demolition and debris dump areas. The amount of dust detected in the air is significantly reduced because of sufficient wetting of the site during demolition activities. In this context, this point should not be neglected when demolishing a building.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to WHO, the disease burdens attributed to indoor and outdoor air pollution globally are similar to other health risks such as malnutrition, physical inactivity and tobacco use. Air pollution is also considered a significant risk factor for non-communicable diseases such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, COPD, asthma and cancer. Particulate matter (PM) is an important parameter in terms of reflecting air pollution [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. The latest report from the WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines (AQG) recommends that the limit values ​​of 20 \u0026micro;g/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e for PM\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e and 10 \u0026micro;gr/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e for PM\u003csub\u003e2.5\u003c/sub\u003e should not be exceeded [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. In T\u0026uuml;rkiye, according to the circular published in 2013, the expected threshold value for PM\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e was 50 \u0026micro;gr/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e as of 2019 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. PM\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e measurements by the Continuous Monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation were used to determine the risks posed by outdoor air pollution to public health. In this context, the median of PM\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e levels for the period of 1\u0026ndash;30 November 2023, when the post-earthquake destruction processes were intense, was found to be 64 (39\u0026ndash;138) in the measurement made in Malatya. Additionally, in 26 measurements, the limit value of 50 \u0026micro;g/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e for PM\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e was exceeded, and five values were ​​between 100 and 150 \u0026micro;gr/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e, posing a risk to sensitive groups. When evaluated together with the measurements in the same period in 2022 and 2021, the high values ​​in 2023 are observed again [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. In this case, the researchers assumed that the structures damaged by the earthquake contributed to poor air quality during the demolition processes when no rain falls. To evaluate air quality in the wake of disasters such as earthquakes, mobile stations should be established in addition to fixed air measurement stations, and continuous data should be generated at different points.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study's measurements were conducted only in May 2024 and at specific locations. Weather conditions, seasonal variations, and short measurement durations may have influenced asbestos and dust concentrations. As meteorological factors were not continuously monitored, air quality assessment remains limited. The restriction to six measurement sites constrains the generalizability of the findings. However, the use of complementary analytical approaches (PCM supported by SEM/EDX) strengthens the characterization of airborne fibrous particles beyond fiber counts alone. Although the study was conducted a long time after the earthquake, measurements were performed in areas where active demolition activities were ongoing. The absence of pre-earthquake baseline data and a contemporaneous control area limits causal attribution of observed concentrations to post-earthquake activities. Measurements reflect area-level concentrations and do not represent personal exposure; therefore, individual dose estimation and time-weighted occupational exposure metrics could not be derived. Additionally, the study does not assess long-term health effects, necessitating further research, particularly on respiratory diseases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, asbestos and dust concentrations in breathable air were examined after the Kahramanmaraş and Hatay earthquakes. It was observed that the airborne fibrous dust levels in the measurement areas were above the threshold values. However, asbestos fibers were not detected in this fibrous dust. To reduce the amount of dust in breathable air during demolition, storage and transportation, appropriate procedures can be carried out in the form of wet work with sufficient water. Applications such as isolation of demolition areas, closure of entrances to and exits from these areas, and absorption systems should be implemented to reduce dust generated in the environment. Local governments have significant responsibility for the supervision and enforcement of these applications. Additionally, the use of masks may be recommended during long-term work or outdoor activities in areas close to demolition areas within the scope of individual protection for public health.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors thank the authorized laboratory of the Occupational Health and Safety Research and Development Institute (Ministry of Labour and Social Security) for conducting the PCM, SEM/EDXA, and gravimetric dust analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by Inonu University Scientific Research Projects (BAP) under project number TSA-2024-3352.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAyşe Baran: Conceptualization, project administration, methodology, supervision, writing - original draft, writing - review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAhmet Burak Avcu: Investigation, data curation, formal analysis, visualization, writing - original draft, writing - review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMerve S\u0026uuml;l\u0026uuml;: Conceptualization, methodology, ınvestigation, data curation, formal analysis, visualization, writing - original draft, writing - review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSena Nur G\u0026uuml;ndoğdu: Investigation, data curation, writing - review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eG\u0026uuml;lseda Boz: Investigation, writing - review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAli \u0026Ouml;zer: Conceptualization, supervision, writing - review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMetin Fikret Gen\u0026ccedil;: Conceptualization, supervision\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOsman Kurt: Conceptualization, supervision, formal analysis,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInternational Agency for Research on Cancer. Arsenic, metals, fibers and dusts. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Vol 100C. Lyon, France: IARC; 2012. Accessed December 21, 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304375/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBouvard V, Baan R, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, et al. A review of human carcinogens-Part B: biological agents. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(4):321-322. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70096-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang YL, Byeon HS, Hong WH, Cha GW, Lee YH, et al. Risk assessment of asbestos-containing materials in a deteriorated dwelling area using four different methods. J Hazard Mater. 2021;410:124645. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124645\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eManning WJ. Terrorist attacks: do we know how to assess the results? Sci World J. 2001;1:588-589. doi:10.1100/tsw.2001.319\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCohen HW, Zeig-Owens R, Joe C, Hall CB, Webber MP, et al. Long-term cardiovascular disease risk among firefighters after the World Trade Center disaster. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(9):e199775. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9775\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi J, Cone JE, Brackbill RM, Giesinger I, Yung J, et al. Pulmonary fibrosis among World Trade Center responders: results from the WTC Health Registry cohort. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(5):825. doi:10.3390/ijerph16050825\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOfficial Gazette of the Republic of T\u0026uuml;rkiye. Bazı tehlikeli maddelerin, m\u0026uuml;stahzarların ve eşyaların \u0026uuml;retimi, piyasaya arzı ve kullanımına ilişkin kısıtlamalar hakkında y\u0026ouml;netmelik [in Turkish]. Published December 26, 2008. No. 27092. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2008/12/20081226M1-1.htm\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOfficial Gazette of the Republic of T\u0026uuml;rkiye. Bazı tehlikeli maddelerin, m\u0026uuml;stahzarların ve eşyaların \u0026uuml;retimi, piyasaya arzı ve kullanımına ilişkin y\u0026ouml;netmelikte değişiklik yapılmasına dair y\u0026ouml;netmelik [in Turkish]. Published August 29, 2010. No. 27688. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2010/08/20100829-3.htm\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOfficial Gazette of the Republic of T\u0026uuml;rkiye. Asbestle \u0026ccedil;alışmalarda sağlık ve g\u0026uuml;venlik \u0026ouml;nlemleri hakkında y\u0026ouml;netmelik [in Turkish]. Published January 25, 2013. No. 28539. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2013/01/20130125-9.htm\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYavuz CI. The additional burden of earthquakes: asbestos risks rising in Turkey. Thorac Res Pract. 2024;25(3):100-101. doi:10.5152/ThoracResPract.2024.23072\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCurrie GP, Watt SJ, Maskell N. An overview of how asbestos exposure affects the lung. BMJ. 2009;339:b3209. doi:10.1136/bmj.b3209\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePresidency of the Republic of T\u0026uuml;rkiye, Directorate of Strategy and Budget. Kahramanmaraş ve Hatay depremleri yeniden imar ve gelişme raporu, T\u0026uuml;rkiye 2024 [in Turkish]. Published 2024. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/kahramanmaras-ve-hatay-depremleri-yeniden-imar-ve-gelisme-raporu/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. Determination of airborne fiber number concentrations: a recommended method, by phase-contrast optical microscopy (membrane filter method). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1997. Accessed December 21, 2025. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/41904\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Asbestos. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 2001. Chapter 6: Potential for Human Exposure.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Asbestos Toxicity: What Are U.S. Standards and Regulations for Asbestos Levels? Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM). Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2014.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Method 7400: Asbestos and other fibers by PCM. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM). 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1994.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUS Environmental Protection Agency. Framework for Investigating Asbestos-Contaminated Superfund Sites. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; 2008. OSWER Directive 9200.0-68.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. Environmental Health Criteria 203: Chrysotile Asbestos. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety; 1998.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHealth and Safety Executive. Asbestos: The Analysts\u0026rsquo; Guide (HSG248). 2nd ed. United Kingdom: Health and Safety Executive; 2021.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOfficial Gazette of the Republic of T\u0026uuml;rkiye. Tozla M\u0026uuml;cadele Y\u0026ouml;netmeliği [in Turkish]. Published November 5, 2013. No. 28812. Accessed May 21, 2025. http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.18989\u0026amp;MevzuatIliski=0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eObmiński A. Asbestos in building and its destruction. Constr Build Mater. 2020;249:118685. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118685\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTaghizadeh F, Jafari AJ, Gholami M, Kermani M, Arfaeinia H, Mohammadi S, et al. Monitoring of airborne asbestos fibers in an urban ambient air of Shahryar City, Iran: levels, spatial distribution, seasonal variations, and health-risk assessment. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2019;26:24008-24020. doi:10.1007/s11356-018-4029-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGualtieri AF, Mangano D, Gualtieri ML, Ricchi A, Foresti E, Lesci G, et al. Ambient monitoring of asbestos in selected Italian living areas. J Environ Manage. 2009;90(11):3540-3549. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.007\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKermani M, Jonidi Jafari A, Gholami M, Arfaeinia H, Yousefi M, Shahsavani A, et al. Spatio-seasonal variation, distribution, levels, and risk assessment of airborne asbestos concentration in the most industrial city of Iran: effect of meteorological factors. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021;28:40062-40073. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-11941-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePerkins RA, Hargesheimer J, Fourie W. Asbestos release from whole-building demolition of buildings with asbestos-containing material. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2007;4(12):889-894. doi:10.1080/15459620701691023\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTetik Y\u0026Ouml;, Z\u0026uuml;mr\u0026uuml;t İB, \u0026Ccedil;amurcu AG, Kale \u0026Ouml;A, Baradan S. Measurement and removal of asbestos in residential dwellings to be demolished-urban transformation experience in Izmir, Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2024;31:9857-9866. doi:10.1007/s11356-023-31819-4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eErvik TK, Hammer SE, Skaugset NP, Graff P. Measurements of airborne asbestos fibers during refurbishing. Ann Work Expo Health. 2023;67(8):952-964. doi:10.1093/annweh/wxad041\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNeitzel RL, Sayler SK, Demond AH, d\u0026rsquo;Arcy H, Garabrant DH, Franzblau A. Measurement of asbestos emissions associated with demolition of abandoned residential dwellings. Sci Total Environ. 2020;722:137891. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137891\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStevulova N, Estokova A, Holub M, Singovszka E, Csach K. Characterization of demolition construction waste containing asbestos, and the release of fibrous dust particles. Appl Sci. 2020;10(11):4048. doi:10.3390/app10114048\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYamanda S, Hanagama M, Kobayashi S, Satou H, Tokuda S, Niu K, et al. The impact of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake on hospitalisation for respiratory disease in a rapidly aging society: a retrospective descriptive and cross-sectional study at the disaster base hospital in Ishinomaki. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e000865. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000865\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCenters for Disease Control and Prevention. SC\u0026amp;A commentary on NIOSH\u0026rsquo;s approach to quantifying outdoor and indoor airborne dust loadings. CDC Document Repository. Published 2021. Accessed December 21, 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-airdustloadings-r0-508.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePrajapati SS, Mishra RA, Jhariya B, Dhatrak S. Respirable dust and crystalline silica exposure among different mining sectors in India. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2021;76(7):455-461. doi:10.1080/19338244.2021.1919857\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGolbabaei F, Gholami A, Teimori-Boghsani G, Yaseri M, Kianmehr M. Evaluation of occupational exposure to silica dust in mining workers in Eastern Iran. Open Environ Res J. 2019;12:TOERJ-12-1. doi:10.2174/1874213001912010001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. Ambient (outdoor) air pollution. Accessed December 21, 2025. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. WHO global air quality guidelines: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2021. Accessed December 21, 2025. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034228\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRepublic of T\u0026uuml;rkiye, Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change. General Directorate of Environmental Management. Hava kalitesi değerlendirme ve y\u0026ouml;netimi genelgesi (Genelge No: 2013/37; 25 Aralık 2013) [in Turkish]. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/cygm/editordosya/GNG2013-37HavaKalitesiDegerl.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRepublic of T\u0026uuml;rkiye, Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change. National air quality monitoring network. National Air Quality Monitoring Service. Accessed September 26, 2024. https://sim.csb.gov.tr/Services/AirQuality#\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Asbestos, demolition, earthquakes, fibrous dust, respirable dust","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8682234/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8682234/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eFollowing the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş and Hatay earthquakes, demolition occurred in Malatya, T\u0026uuml;rkiye (27,979 structures). This study quantified post-earthquake outdoor airborne fibrous dust and gravimetric total/respirable dust concentrations and evaluated whether asbestos fibers were present. On 9\u0026ndash;10 May 2024, we sampled four active demolition sites, one debris storage/dumping site, and one control site without demolition or storage activities (24 measurements: 12 phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) fiber samples over two days; 6 total-dust and 6 respirable-dust gravimetric samples on 9 May). Airborne fibrous dust was screened by PCM using HSG 248\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;A1 criteria, and asbestos identification was assessed by SEM/EDXA. Total and respirable dust were measured gravimetrically (MDHS 14/3). PCM fiber concentrations showed a site-type gradient, highest at the storage/dumping site (0.012\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.002 fiber/cm\u0026sup3;), slightly above the HSG248 clearance indicator (0.01 fiber/cm\u0026sup3;; shown for contextual comparison, not an ambient-air standard). Demolition sites ranged from 0.004 to 0.010 fiber/cm\u0026sup3;, whereas the control site remained lowest (0.001\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0001 fiber/cm\u0026sup3;). SEM/EDXA did not detect asbestos fibers in any sample. Gravimetric dust peaked at the storage/dumping site (total: 1.11\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.23 mg/m\u0026sup3;; respirable: 0.85\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.18 mg/m\u0026sup3;), followed by demolition sites (total: 0.65\u0026ndash;0.82 mg/m\u0026sup3;; respirable: 0.46\u0026ndash;0.70 mg/m\u0026sup3;) and the control site (total: 0.49\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10 mg/m\u0026sup3;; respirable: 0.16\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03 mg/m\u0026sup3;). Compared with the control site, demolition sites showed higher mean total and respirable dust, corresponding to ~\u0026thinsp;1.50\u0026times; and ~\u0026thinsp;3.47\u0026times; higher concentrations, respectively. Ambient air sampling showed elevated fibrous and particulate concentrations at demolition and debris storage/dumping sites; however, asbestos fibers were not detected. Exposure controls and monitoring are warranted during demolition and debris management.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Assessment of dust and fibers resulting from the demolition of buildings following an earthquake","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-29 16:16:40","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8682234/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6dd3ecf0-4a35-4b7f-b521-cc7f871084d5","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 29th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-05T02:12:33+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-29 16:16:40","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8682234","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8682234","identity":"rs-8682234","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}