The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Two Direct-reading Instruments (FM-7400 and Fibrecheck FC-2) with Phase Contrast Optical Microscopy to Measure the Airborne Fibre Number Concentration
Abstract
The use of direct-reading instruments to measure the airborne fibre number concentration is on the increase. The response of two of these instruments (FM-7400 and Fibrecheck FC-2) was compared with the conventional method of sampling on filters and counting by phase contrast microscopy. Four types of fibres were studied at different concentrations and relative humidity levels. The FM-7400 can be calibrated by the manufacturer for two different levels of sensitivity (standard and high). For the tests where it was set to the sensitivity level with which it had been calibrated, the ratio of the concentration measured by the instrument to the concentration obtained by the conventional method varied in the range 0.5-1 for the different types of fibres studied (chrysotile, glass wool and ceramic fibres). The Fibrecheck FC-2 is a much less versatile instrument. On the basis of a calibration allowing correct detection of asbestos fibres, it greatly overestimated the concentration of man-made mineral fibres. In its normal calibration state a fine chrysotile aerosol was poorly detected. For man-made mineral fibres, the response was highly dependent on the nature of the fibres. These instruments require calibration with the type of fibres to be studied. Unfortunately, this operation is not always accessible to the user and may require the services of a specialized laboratory, as the manufacturer is not always in a position to carry this out.
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
“The fibre monitor has previously been compared with the conventional PCM method and found to have a good agreement for a chrysotile aerosol (Kauffer et al. 2003).”
From Measurements of airborne asbestos fibres during refurbishing (2023) · cites this paper as Kauffer et al. 2003
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Measurements of airborne asbestos fibres during refurbishing
Ervik, T. K., Hammer, S. E., Skaugset, N. P., & Graff, P. (2023) · Annals of Work Exposures and Health · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxad041 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Venue
- The Annals of Occupational Hygiene
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-07
- ISSN
- 1475-3162
- Cited by
- 1
- 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