Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 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 BECKETT, S. T.
Right arrow Articles by ATTFIELD, M. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by BECKETT, S. T.
Right arrow Articles by ATTFIELD, M. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 85-96, 1974
© 1974 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press

research-article

INTER-LABORATORY COMPARISONS OF THE COUNTING OF ASBESTOS FIBRES SAMPLED ON MEMBRANE FILTERS

S. T. BECKETT and M. D. ATTFIELD

Institute of Occupational Medicine Edinburgh

Two series of exchanges of slide-mounted asbestos samples have been conducted between British laboratories, to determine the degree of agreement between different laboratories counting the same slides, the effectiveness of written compared with personal instruction, and the reasons for disagreements. It was found that disagreements between laboratories that were isolated or new to fibre counting were large, but were reduced by direct personal consultation. The main causes of these differences were uncertainties in the counting of irregular fibres and fibre masses, misalignment of the microscope phase rings, and failure to scan the full depth of focus in which fibres were present. Results of an exchange between several experienced laboratories showed that counting over the whole field of view of the microscope consistently returned substantially lower count densities than when only the central graticule area was evaluated. All disagreements were more serious for UICC asbestos samples than for samples collected from factory air. It is concluded that there is a need for closer definition and standardisation of counting procedures.


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
D. M. Murbach, A. K. Madl, K. M. Unice, J. S. Knutsen, P. S. Chapman, J. L. Brown, and D. J. Paustenbach
Airborne Concentrations of Asbestos Onboard Maritime Shipping Vessels (1978-1992)
Ann. Hyg., June 1, 2008; 52(4): 267 - 279.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
J. W. Cherrie, M. Van Tongeren, and S. Semple
Exposure to Occupational Carcinogens in Great Britain
Ann. Hyg., November 1, 2007; 51(8): 653 - 664.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
T. OGDEN
Annals of Occupational Hygiene at Volume 50: Many Achievements, a Few Mistakes, and an Interesting Future
Ann. Hyg., November 1, 2006; 50(8): 751 - 764.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
A. D. JONES, M. C. ARROYO, R. GROSJEAN, B. TYLEE, B. G. MILLER, and P. BROWN
A Comparison of Fibre Counting Across Three European National Proficiency Testing Schemes
Ann. Hyg., June 1, 2005; 49(4): 309 - 324.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
T. L. OGDEN
Commentary: The 1968 BOHS Chrysotile Asbestos Standard
Ann. Hyg., January 1, 2003; 47(1): 3 - 6.
[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.