Determination of low levels of free fibres of chrysotile in contaminated soils by X-ray diffraction and FTIR spectroscopy

Our plain-English summary of Determination of low levels of free fibres of chrysotile in contaminated soils by X-ray diffraction and FTIR spectroscopy, by E. Foresti, M. Gazzano, A.F. Gualtieri, et al (Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2003).

The study

• Authors: E. Foresti, M. Gazzano, A.F. Gualtieri, I.G. Lesci, B. Lunelli, G. Pecchini, E. Renna, N. Roveri
• Journal: Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
• Published: 2003;376(5):653-8
• Cited by: 10 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

A new analytical method for the determination of low levels (0.01-1 wt%) of free fibres of chrysotile in contaminated clayey, sandy and sandy-organic soils is described. The detection limit of 0.01 wt% is reached with an enrichment of free fibres of chrysotile in the sample using a standard laboratory elutriator for sedimentation analysis. The chrysotile quantitative determination is performed both by X-ray powder diffraction, using the internal standard and reference intensity ratio methods, and by Fourier-transform infrared absorption spectroscopy. The procedure can be successfully applied to different soils after removal, by a thermal treatment, of the matrix components which can interfere. This straightforward method fulfils the request of public institutions and private companies for an appropriate quantitative determination of chrysotile-free fibres in contaminated soils.

In plain English

This laboratory study described a method for measuring small amounts of loose (free) chrysotile asbestos fibres in soil. The authors added unground chrysotile (0.01 to 1 percent by weight) to clayey, sandy and sandy-organic Italian soils. They heated the soils to remove organic material, concentrated the fibres in a sedimentation tube (elutriator), and measured them by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). This raised fibre content 10 to 40 times, less at higher chrysotile amounts, probably from fibre clumping, the authors suggested. Their conclusions gave detection limits in sandy soil of 0.05 percent by weight (XRD) and 0.01 percent (FTIR), and in clayey soil 0.01 percent with either method. The results section gave one XRD limit, 0.05 percent, naming no soil. Six repeat samples gave coefficients of variation (scatter) of 16.4% (sandy) and 39.4% (clayey) for XRD at 0.5 g chrysotile per kg, and 19.7% (sandy) and 9.2% (clayey) for FTIR at 0.14 g per kg. The authors concluded the procedure can be applied to several kinds of soil without special techniques. It tested a measuring method, not health effects.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Laboratory analytical method development study using soils to which known amounts of chrysotile were added
• Who was studied: Three soil samples (clayey, sandy and sandy-organic) collected from the surface layer (0 to 30 cm deep) in the Appennine region of Italy
• Exposure: Chrysotile from the Balangero mine (Turin, Italy), used without milling, added to the soils at 0.01 to 1 wt%
• Main results:
  • The elutriator step concentrated chrysotile in the samples by 10 to 40 times
  • XRD (results section, no soil type named): detection limit 0.05 wt%. The coefficient of variation was 16.4% (sandy soil) and 39.4% (clayey soil) in 6 replicate samples with 0.5 g of chrysotile per kg of soil
  • FTIR: detection limit 0.01 wt%. The coefficient of variation was 19.7% (sandy soil) and 9.2% (clayey soil) in 6 replicate samples with 0.14 g of chrysotile per kg of soil
  • In the conclusions, the detection limit in sandy soil was 0.05 wt% with XRD and 0.01 wt% with FTIR
  • In the conclusions, the detection limit in clayey soil was 0.01 wt% with either XRD or FTIR
  • FTIR absorbance was proportional to the chrysotile amount in the soil over the range 0.01 to 0.26 wt%
  • Comparison of the fibres before and after enrichment showed no change in their shape or structure
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the procedure can be applied to several kinds of soil and needs no special technique
• Limitations the authors state:
  • Enrichment was greater at lower chrysotile amounts, probably because fibres clump together as their amount increases
  • The internal-standard calibration curve cannot reveal certain systematic errors (micro-absorption and preferred orientation), so the reference intensity ratio method was also used

Mines named here

Asbestos mines this study is about. Each mine's page says who ran it, when it worked, and what it produced.

• Balangero mine, Balangero, about 20 km north of Turin, Piedmont

All asbestos mines

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Chrysotile.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Chrysotile, X-Ray Diffraction (XRD).

Related studies

• Heavy metal sorption and desorption capacity of soils containing endogenous contaminants — E.F. Covelo, F.A. Vega, et al. (2007)
• Serpentine soils affect heavy metal tolerance but not genetic diversity in a common Mediterranean ant — F. Frizzi, A. Masoni, et al. (2017)
• Framework for assessment and phytoremediation of asbestos-contaminated sites — C. Gonneau, K. Miller, et al. (2017)
• Evaluation of the impact of asbestos wastes on soils in Emene-Enugu, Southeastern Nigeria — O. Igwe, O.V. Omonona, et al. (2014)
• Understanding exposure risk using soil testing and GIS around an abandoned asbestos mine — A.V. Jadhav, N. Gawde, et al. (2025)
• Serpentine endophytic bacterium Pseudomonas azotoformans ASS1 accelerates phytoremediation of soil metals under drought stress — Y. Ma, M. Rajkumar, et al. (2017)

Browse more research in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, or return to medical research.