Comparison of methods of assessing asbestos fiber concentrations

Use of direct versus indirect preparation data for assessing risk associated with airborne exposures at asbestos-contaminated sites

At asbestos-contaminated sites, exposure assessment requires measurement of airborne asbestos concentrations; however, the choice of preparation steps employed in the analysis has been debated vigorously among members of the asbestos exposure and risk assessment communities for many years. This study finds that the choice of preparation technique used in estimating airborne amphibole asbestos exposures for risk assessment is generally not a significant source of uncertainty. Conventionally, the indirect preparation method has been less preferred by some because it is purported to result in false elevations in airborne asbestos concentrations, when compared to direct analysis of air filters. However, airborne asbestos sampling in non-occupational settings is challenging because non-asbestos particles can interfere with the asbestos measurements, sometimes necessitating analysis via indirect preparation. To evaluate whether exposure concentrations derived from direct versus indirect preparation techniques differed significantly, paired measurements of airborne Libby-type amphibole, prepared using both techniques, were compared. For the evaluation, 31 paired direct and indirect preparations originating from the same air filters were analyzed for Libby-type amphibole using transmission electron microscopy. On average, the total Libby-type amphibole airborne exposure concentration was 3.3 times higher for indirect preparation analysis than for its paired direct preparation analysis (standard deviation = 4.1), a difference which is not statistically significant (p = 0.12, two-tailed, Wilcoxon signed rank test). The results suggest that the magnitude of the difference may be larger for shorter particles. Overall, neither preparation technique (direct or indirect) preferentially generates more precise and unbiased data for airborne Libby-type amphibole concentration estimates. The indirect preparation method is reasonable for estimating Libby-type amphibole exposure and may be necessary given the challenges of sampling in environmental settings. Relative to the larger context of uncertainties inherent in the risk assessment process, uncertainties associated with the use of airborne Libby-type amphibole exposure measurements derived from indirect preparation analysis are low. Use of exposure measurements generated by either direct or indirect preparation analyses is reasonable to estimate Libby-type Amphibole exposures in a risk assessment.

Comparison of direct and indirect methods of measuring airborne chrysotile fibre concentration

Transmission electron microscopy observations most frequently form a basis for estimating asbestos fibre concentration in the environment and in buildings with asbestos-containing materials. Sampled fibres can be transferred to microscope grids by applying either a direct [ISO (1995) Draft International ISO/DIS 10312. Ambient air. Determination of asbestos fibres. Direct transfer transmission electron microscopy procedure. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standardization Organization] or an indirect [AFNOR (1996) Détermination de la concentration en fibres d'amiante par microscopie électronique à transmission-Méthode indirecte. Cedex, France: AFNOR, p. 42; ISO (1997) Draft International ISO/DIS 13794. Ambient air. Determination of asbestos fibres. Indirect-transfer transmission electron microscopy procedure. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standardization Organization] method. In the latter case, ISO Standard 13794 recommends filtering calcination residues either on a polycarbonate (PC) filter (PC indirect method) or on a cellulose ester (CE) membrane (CE indirect method). The PC indirect method requires that fibres deposited on a PC filter be covered by a carbon layer, whereas in the CE indirect method, the CE membrane has to be directly processed using a method described in ISO Standard 10312. The purpose of this study was to compare results obtained using, on the one hand, direct preparation methods and, on the other hand, PC indirect or CE indirect methods, for counting asbestos fibres deposited on filters as a result of liquid filtration or air sampling. In direct method-based preparation, we observed that an etching time of 6-14 min does not affect the measured densities, except for fibres <1 microm deposited by liquid filtration. Moreover, in all cases, the direct method gives higher densities than the PC indirect method because of possible fibre disappearance when using the carbon evaporator implemented in the PC indirect method. The CE membrane used for sample preparation in the CE indirect method is collapsed prior to passing it through the carbon evaporator, so the fibres are less likely to disappear at this stage. We then note that the resulting fibre densities for chrysotile-loaded filters prepared using the direct method are close to those obtained with filters prepared using the CE indirect method. Our study therefore shows that, under the implemented experimental conditions, the PC and CE indirect preparation methods described in ISO Standard 13794 are not equivalent.

Occupational exposure to carbon/coke fibers in plants that produce green or calcined petroleum coke and potential health effects: 1. Fiber characteristics

Carbon/coke fibers are found in bulk samples of calcined petroleum coke. Carbon/coke and other fibers, including calcium silicate, cellulose, gypsum, and iron silicate, have been found in exposure monitoring of workers who make or handle green or calcined petroleum coke. Carbon/coke fibers are not classified or regulated as carcinogens by any agency, and the available literature (summarized in this article) has not reported significant adverse health effects associated with exposure to these fibers or dusts containing these fibers. However, available epidemiological and toxicological studies have limitations that prevent a definitive assessment of carbon/coke fiber toxicity. Therefore, it is prudent to monitor and control workplace concentrations. Analyses by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) indicate that the carbon/coke fibers are amorphous, irregularly shaped, and generally rather short (94% less than 20 microm long). Nearly all carbon/ coke fibers satisfying NIOSH 7400 B counting criteria are detectable by phase-contrast optical microscopy (PCOM), which permits the use of a highly efficient sequential sampling strategy for analysis. Data are presented on the distribution of carbon/coke structure and fiber lengths and diameters. Bootstrap resampling results are presented to determine confidence intervals for structure/fiber length and diameter. Data on time-weighted average concentrations are given in a companion article, but nearly all time-weighted average carbon/coke fiber concentrations were beneath 0.1 fibers per milliliter.