Events

The investigation of asbestos in soil has evolved significantly over the past several decades, with practitioners now working across a wider range of site settings: legacy fill, demolition-impacted land, and Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) terrain—under increasing scrutiny from regulators and project stakeholders. While early programs often focused on confirming the presence or absence of asbestos-containing material fragments, current expectations increasingly demand defensible characterisation of fine and respirable particle fractions, and a clearer link between analytical outputs and exposure risk.

However, practice has not yet been harmonised internationally. Sampling approaches, laboratory preparation steps, and method selection still vary widely between jurisdictions, meaning that data comparability, decision thresholds, and project risk narratives can shift depending on where (and how) the work is performed.

Recent updates from standards development organisations are reshaping this landscape:

Method revisions and new guidance are clarifying how laboratories should prepare soils and report results across different asbestos forms and particle size ranges.

This marks a shift in focus: from simply detecting asbestos to selecting fit‑for‑purpose sampling and analytical pathways that are defensible for the site, the matrix, and the exposure scenario.

In this webinar, our speaker will explore:

• Seminal asbestos-in-soil investigations and how they shaped today’s expectations for site assessment and risk communication.
• The historical development of key analytical standard methods, and what recent standards updates mean for investigators and data users.
• Why international practice remains inconsistent, and where common points of divergence occur (definitions, preparation steps, reporting conventions, and decision use).
• Sample collection options for suspected asbestos-contaminated sites, including practical considerations that influence representativeness, bias, and laboratory suitability.
• Sample submittal pathways and the information laboratories need to support correct method selection, preparation, and reporting.
• Laboratory best practices, quality controls, and common sources of error or misinterpretation when working with soil matrices.
• A comparative overview of major international analytical methods used for asbestos in soil, including strengths, limitations, and fit-for-purpose applications.
• How to interpret results in the absence of a single international maximum contamination level, using selected case studies to illustrate decision frameworks and data evaluation approaches.
• Emerging technologies and innovative strategies for managing NOA risks on large infrastructure projects, and how these approaches integrate with investigation and monitoring programs.

Practical examples will illustrate how investigation strategy, sample handling, and analytical method selection influence reported outcomes, and how to translate laboratory data into clearer, more defensible site decisions, particularly where stakeholder expectations and regulatory benchmarks differ.

This webinar will be particularly valuable for practitioners, laboratory managers, regulators, consultants, and project teams seeking practical, risk-focused and standards-aware pathways for asbestos-in-soil assessment and NOA management. A live question‑and‑answer session will follow the presentation, and the webinar will be recorded.