European harmonization of asbestos exposure assessment: comparing PCM, SEM, and TEM to derive conversion factors.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Remy Franken, Peter Tromp, Torunn Kringlen Ervik, James Staff, Keld Alstrup Jensen, Céline Eypert-Blaison, Anders Brostrøm, Annapaola Cannizzaro, Maria Teresa Sanchez Cabo, Maria Rosaria Bruno, Ana Sofia Fonseca, Laurie Davies, Pål Graff, Suzanne Spaan
{"title":"European harmonization of asbestos exposure assessment: comparing PCM, SEM, and TEM to derive conversion factors.","authors":"Remy Franken, Peter Tromp, Torunn Kringlen Ervik, James Staff, Keld Alstrup Jensen, Céline Eypert-Blaison, Anders Brostrøm, Annapaola Cannizzaro, Maria Teresa Sanchez Cabo, Maria Rosaria Bruno, Ana Sofia Fonseca, Laurie Davies, Pål Graff, Suzanne Spaan","doi":"10.1093/annweh/wxaf023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>After the European ban on the use of asbestos, exposure assessment of asbestos became imperative for ensuring compliance with safety standards. However, each European country has their own legislation and requirements, including measurement strategies, analytical techniques such as the microscope used as well as occupational exposure limits (OELs). The recent EU directive (EU) 2023/2668 significantly lowered the OEL for asbestos from 100,000 fibres/m³ 8-h time-weighted average to either 2,000 fibres/m³ when counting fibres between 0.2 and 3 µm in diameter, or 10,000 fibres/m³ when counting fibres thinner than 0.2 µm and dictates a transition from optical to electron microscopy analysis by the end of 2029. This change impacts Member States that rely on phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) to quantify asbestos concentrations, prompting the need for a standardized comparison between different analytical methods. Therefore, our study investigated whether conversion factors could be developed, enabling comparison of results obtained with different analytical techniques. To achieve this, a phased approach was applied, involving a survey of measurement strategies implemented by different countries in Europe, a literature search, and analysis of in-house data to explore differences between analytical techniques. Standardized conversion factors were developed via (i) direct comparison of concentrations from analysis with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and/or PCM, (ii) a multiple linear regression model, and (iii) via log probability plots from raw data on fibre dimensions. Ten institutes from the 'Partnership for European Research in Occupational Safety and Health' (PEROSH) asbestos network participated in this study. The results showed that SEM and PCM were the most commonly used analytical techniques, with TEM also being used in 3 countries. OELs and measurement standards/protocols varied across countries, and most employed national derived standards for measurements. Conversion factors overall showed that measurements analysed by TEM resulted in higher fibre concentrations followed by PCM and SEM. Although conversion factors were developed, these were influenced by factors such as material type, applied energy, and local controls, preventing the derivation of a general conversion method.</p>","PeriodicalId":8362,"journal":{"name":"Annals Of Work Exposures and Health","volume":" ","pages":"575-591"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12262045/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals Of Work Exposures and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxaf023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

After the European ban on the use of asbestos, exposure assessment of asbestos became imperative for ensuring compliance with safety standards. However, each European country has their own legislation and requirements, including measurement strategies, analytical techniques such as the microscope used as well as occupational exposure limits (OELs). The recent EU directive (EU) 2023/2668 significantly lowered the OEL for asbestos from 100,000 fibres/m³ 8-h time-weighted average to either 2,000 fibres/m³ when counting fibres between 0.2 and 3 µm in diameter, or 10,000 fibres/m³ when counting fibres thinner than 0.2 µm and dictates a transition from optical to electron microscopy analysis by the end of 2029. This change impacts Member States that rely on phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) to quantify asbestos concentrations, prompting the need for a standardized comparison between different analytical methods. Therefore, our study investigated whether conversion factors could be developed, enabling comparison of results obtained with different analytical techniques. To achieve this, a phased approach was applied, involving a survey of measurement strategies implemented by different countries in Europe, a literature search, and analysis of in-house data to explore differences between analytical techniques. Standardized conversion factors were developed via (i) direct comparison of concentrations from analysis with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and/or PCM, (ii) a multiple linear regression model, and (iii) via log probability plots from raw data on fibre dimensions. Ten institutes from the 'Partnership for European Research in Occupational Safety and Health' (PEROSH) asbestos network participated in this study. The results showed that SEM and PCM were the most commonly used analytical techniques, with TEM also being used in 3 countries. OELs and measurement standards/protocols varied across countries, and most employed national derived standards for measurements. Conversion factors overall showed that measurements analysed by TEM resulted in higher fibre concentrations followed by PCM and SEM. Although conversion factors were developed, these were influenced by factors such as material type, applied energy, and local controls, preventing the derivation of a general conversion method.

石棉暴露评估的欧洲统一:比较PCM, SEM和TEM得出转换因子。
在欧洲禁止使用石棉之后,石棉暴露评估成为确保符合安全标准的必要条件。然而,每个欧洲国家都有自己的立法和要求,包括测量策略、使用的显微镜等分析技术以及职业暴露限值(OELs)。最近的欧盟指令(EU) 2023/2668显着降低了石棉的OEL,从10万纤维/m³-h时间加权平均值,当计算直径在0.2至3微米之间的纤维时,降低到2000纤维/m³,或者当计算直径小于0.2微米的纤维时,降低到1万纤维/m³,并规定到2029年底从光学分析过渡到电子显微镜分析。这一变化影响到依靠相对比显微镜(PCM)来量化石棉浓度的成员国,促使需要在不同的分析方法之间进行标准化比较。因此,我们的研究探讨了是否可以开发转换因子,以便比较不同分析技术获得的结果。为了实现这一目标,采用了分阶段的方法,包括对欧洲不同国家实施的测量策略的调查,文献检索和内部数据的分析,以探索分析技术之间的差异。标准化的转换因子是通过(i)直接比较扫描电子显微镜(SEM)、透射电子显微镜(TEM)和/或PCM分析得出的浓度,(ii)多元线性回归模型,以及(iii)通过纤维尺寸原始数据的对数概率图得出的。来自“欧洲职业安全与健康研究伙伴关系”(PEROSH)石棉网络的10个研究所参与了这项研究。结果表明,SEM和PCM是最常用的分析技术,TEM也在3个国家使用。OELs和测量标准/协议因国家而异,大多数采用国家衍生的测量标准。转换因子总体上表明,通过TEM分析的测量结果导致更高的纤维浓度,其次是PCM和SEM。虽然制定了转换因素,但这些因素受到材料类型、应用能源和当地控制等因素的影响,无法推导出通用的转换方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals Of Work Exposures and Health
Annals Of Work Exposures and Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
19.20%
发文量
79
期刊介绍: About the Journal Annals of Work Exposures and Health is dedicated to presenting advances in exposure science supporting the recognition, quantification, and control of exposures at work, and epidemiological studies on their effects on human health and well-being. A key question we apply to submission is, "Is this paper going to help readers better understand, quantify, and control conditions at work that adversely or positively affect health and well-being?" We are interested in high quality scientific research addressing: the quantification of work exposures, including chemical, biological, physical, biomechanical, and psychosocial, and the elements of work organization giving rise to such exposures; the relationship between these exposures and the acute and chronic health consequences for those exposed and their families and communities; populations at special risk of work-related exposures including women, under-represented minorities, immigrants, and other vulnerable groups such as temporary, contingent and informal sector workers; the effectiveness of interventions addressing exposure and risk including production technologies, work process engineering, and personal protective systems; policies and management approaches to reduce risk and improve health and well-being among workers, their families or communities; methodologies and mechanisms that underlie the quantification and/or control of exposure and risk. There is heavy pressure on space in the journal, and the above interests mean that we do not usually publish papers that simply report local conditions without generalizable results. We are also unlikely to publish reports on human health and well-being without information on the work exposure characteristics giving rise to the effects. We particularly welcome contributions from scientists based in, or addressing conditions in, developing economies that fall within the above scope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信