Comparison of Methods for Pretreatment and Quantification of Bulk Asbestos Samples for Polarized Light Microscopy Analysis to Evaluate Asbestos-Containing Waste

Seunghon Ham, Sungho Hwang and Chungsik Yoon
Additional contact information
Seunghon Ham: Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon 21565, Korea
Sungho Hwang: National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang-si Gyeonggi-do 10408, Korea
Chungsik Yoon: Institute of Health and Environment, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea

Sustainability, 2019, vol. 11, issue 22, 1-13

Abstract: This study aimed to compare sample pretreatment procedures for the identification and quantification of asbestos. The performance of visual estimation and point counting procedures for evaluating asbestos-containing waste was investigated, and the effect of analytical experience was studied. The efficacy of pretreatments for the identification and quantification of asbestos in various sample matrices was compared. To evaluate the effect of experience on analytical accuracy, three analysts with different analytical experiences were selected. There were significant differences in the quantitative analysis results obtained using different pretreatments. False negatives were reported when asbestos, especially amphiboles, were analyzed by a less-experienced analyst. Quantification via point counting and visual estimation resulted in differences in the asbestos content. The results of point counting were more accurate than those of visual estimation for all analysts, regardless of the asbestos type and concentration. Experience in asbestos analysis affected accuracy and precision. The findings show that pretreatment is an important factor in qualitative analysis. Appropriate pretreatments should be assigned based on the properties of the sample. For quantitative analysis, the accuracy of the results depends on the experience of the analyst. Until analysts are fully trained, all their analysis results should be checked by an experienced analyst. Point counting is an adequate quantitative method for analyzing samples with low concentrations.

Keywords: asbestos; analysis; polarized light microscope; visual estimation; point counting; laboratory; asbestos-containing waste; pretreatment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6440/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6440/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6440-:d:287579

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().