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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Analysis of asbestos size categories according to sectors of activity and the concentration levels found in the literature [10-18] highlight a number of sectors with higher prevalence of SAF, including in particular asbestos cement production, friction materials production, brake systems repair and mining.”
From Quantification of short and long asbestos fibers to assess asbestos exposure: A review of fiber size toxicity (2014) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“In these studies the non-regulated fibers, SAF, and LAF with a diameter < 0.2 μm, represented between 50 and 100% of the total fibers, with the majority of samples between 80 and 100% respectively.”
From Quantification of short and long asbestos fibers to assess asbestos exposure: A review of fiber size toxicity (2014) · cites this paper as [15]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Boulanger, G., Andujar, P., Pairon, J.-C., Billon-Galland, M.-A., Dion, C., Dumortier, P., Brochard, P., Sobaszek, A., Bartsch, P., Paris, C., et al. (2014) · Environmental Health · doi:10.1186/1476-069x-13-59 · Cited by 176
Metadata
- Venue
- The Annals of Occupational Hygiene
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
