Cited by 8

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A COMPARISON OF LIGHT MICROSCOPY AND TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY RESULTS IN THE EVALUATION OF THE OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO AIRBORNE CHRYSOTILE FIBRES

·1984·The Annals of Occupational Hygiene

Abstract

A comparison has been made between light microscope (LM) and transmission electron microscope (TEM) counts of airborne chrysotile fibres, collected on 30 membrane filters from different working processes. For TEM counts, fibres of length l >5 μm were classified according to diameter d , namely 0.3 μm 5 μm) fibres, for densities 40–500 fibres mm −2 . The median of the ratios between TEM and LM counts has been found to be 1.1 for microscopic fibres and 1.2 for total fibres. From TEM counts, submicroscopic fibres have been found to account for about 10% of total l >5 μm fibres. The mean ratio between short fibres and those with l >5 μm was in the range 0.8–3.6, depending on the working process. These results suggest the possibility of adopting factors, varying with the kind of working process, to be applied to LM counts in order to estimate the exposure to all the asbestos fibres considered important for a comprehensive evaluation of the risk.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/annhyg/28.3.321

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 8

Metadata

Venue
The Annals of Occupational Hygiene
Published
1984-08-01
ISSN
1475-3162
Cited by
8
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A COMPARISON OF LIGHT MICROSCOPY AND TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY RESULTS IN THE EVALUATION OF THE OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO AIRBORNE CHRYSOTILE FIBRES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/annhyg/28.3.321
The paper
A COMPARISON OF LIGHT MICROSCOPY AND TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY RESULTS IN THE EVALUATION OF THE OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO AIRBORNE CHRYSOTILE FIBRES. (1984). The Annals of Occupational Hygiene. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/28.3.321