Skip Navigation


Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on June 22, 2005
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2005 49(8):661-671; doi:10.1093/annhyg/mei024
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
49/8/661    most recent
mei024v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by KAUFFER, E.
Right arrow Articles by PROTOIS, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by KAUFFER, E.
Right arrow Articles by PROTOIS, J. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© 2005 British Occupational Hygiene Society Published by Oxford University Press


Original Article

Comparison of Direct (X-Ray Diffraction and Infrared Spectrophotometry) and Indirect (Infrared Spectrophotometry) Methods for the Analysis of {alpha}-Quartz in Airborne Dusts

E. KAUFFER*, A. MASSON, J. C. MOULUT, T. LECAQUE and J. C. PROTOIS

Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité (INRS), Avenue de Bourgogne, BP27, 54500 Vandoeuvre lès Nancy, France

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +33 (0)3 83502023; fax: +33 (0)3 83502060; e-mail: edmond.kauffer{at}inrs.fr

In this study, the {alpha}-quartz contents measured by different analytical techniques (X-ray diffraction, direct method; and infrared spectrophotometry, direct and indirect methods) were compared. The analyses were carried out on filters sampled in an industrial setting by means of a Dorr-Oliver cyclone. To verify the methodology used, filters loaded with pure {alpha}-quartz were also analysed. By and large, the agreement between the two direct methods was close on average, but on the basis of a comparison of the individual results, considerable differences exist. In absolute value, the mean relative deviation between the two techniques was <25% in only 47.8% of the cases. The results obtained by the indirect method (infrared) were on average 13% lower than the results obtained by the two direct methods with a more important difference (23%) for samples where calcite was identified by X-ray diffraction in comparison with those where it was not (8%). This underestimation, which was not owing to dust losses during preparation, is probably explained by the elimination of organic compounds during dust calcinations or by the transformation of mineral compounds. The indirect method introduces additional sample handling operations with more risk of material loss. When the quantity of calcined material was <0.4 mg, the weighing operations necessary to correct any losses of material resulted in considerable variability. In terms of overall uncertainty, it would be better in this case not to carry out correction and to employ an operating mode favouring the recovery of a maximum of material while accepting a bias of about 5–7%.

Keywords: direct and indirect methods • infrared • quartz • X-ray diffraction


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
P. Stacey, E. Kauffer, J.-C. Moulut, C. Dion, M. Beauparlant, P. Fernandez, R. Key-Schwartz, B. Friede, and D. Wake
An International Comparison of the Crystallinity of Calibration Materials for the Analysis of Respirable {alpha}-Quartz Using X-Ray Diffraction and a Comparison with Results from the Infrared KBr Disc Method
Ann. Hyg., August 1, 2009; 53(6): 639 - 649.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.