 Interpretation of Airborne Asbestos MeasurementsJean Chesson, Jerry D. Rench, Bradley D. Schultz and Karen L. Milne Risk Analysis, 1990, vol. 10, issue 3, 437-447 Abstract: Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) is the preferred method of measuring airborne asbestos in buildings, but TEM measurements cannot be used directly in the existing equations relating risk to exposure because the equations are based on measurements made with a different technique—phase contrast microscopy (PCM). Comparison between measurements made by different methods is not simple because the methods differ in the size of particles they can detect, and the relationship between exposure and disease is thought to depend on, among other things, asbestos fiber size. Previous suggestions for converting TEM measurements to PCM equivalents lack generality because they fail to take into account the size distribution of the asbestos particles and the expectation that fiber‐size distributions in current nonoccupational environments could differ from the workplaces of the past on which the risk equations are based. A mathematical model is presented for investigating the conversion of airborne asbestos measurements made by one method to an equivalent measurement made by another method. “Equivalent” means having the same potential to cause disease. The model clarifies the issues of concern and suggests approaches for obtaining meaningful conversion factors that will allow TEM measurements to be used in PCM‐based risk equations. Date: 1990 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:riskan:v:10:y:1990:i:3:p:437-447 Access Statistics for this article More articles in Risk Analysis from John Wiley & Sons |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.