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.
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.