Development of a mathematical model for predicting concentrations of small asbestos fibers

Our plain-English summary of Development of a mathematical model for predicting concentrations of small asbestos fibers, by R.M. Buchan, D.C. Richardson, H.J. Beaulieu, et al (Environmental Research, 1984).

The study

• Authors: R.M. Buchan, D.C. Richardson, H.J. Beaulieu, T.J. Keefe
• Journal: Environmental Research
• Published: 1984;33(2):296-9
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

The standard method of asbestos sample analysis by phase-contrast microscopy excludes fibers which are below the resolution limits of the light microscope. Electron microscopic studies revealed that fibers in these small size ranges comprise the majority of fibers in asbestos dust. This research was conducted to determine if the development of a mathematical model for predicting concentrations of small fibers (less than 5 microns length) based on phase-contrast concentrations was feasible. The model presented in this paper was evaluated for its practical utility and was determined to be of minimal value; however, it was felt that the development of a reasonably accurate model can be arrived at through continued research.

In plain English

This was a pilot laboratory study. It tested whether a formula could estimate concentrations of small asbestos fibers from ordinary phase-contrast light microscope counts, because that method misses fibers below the light microscope's resolution limit. The authors blew bulk chrysotile asbestos into a 1-cubic-meter chamber and collected 30 filter samples. Each sample was examined by both phase-contrast and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Mean fiber concentration was 4250 fibers per cubic centimeter by phase contrast and 28700 by SEM. Fiber concentrations below the phase-contrast resolution limit were 6.8 times higher when counted by SEM. The authors derived a regression equation predicting SEM concentration from phase-contrast concentration, with a mean percentage error of 41.5%. In their example, a phase-contrast reading of 4910 fibers per cubic centimeter predicted an SEM concentration between 9410 and 85,000 at 95% confidence. The authors said this range was too wide to be of much practical value. They concluded the model was not a viable approach at this time but might be improved. They also stated that small fibers should not be ignored.

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: Pilot laboratory study comparing phase-contrast and scanning electron microscope (SEM) fiber counts on the same filters, used to build a regression model
• Who was studied: 30 filter samples collected from a 1-cubic-meter chamber filled with an airborne cloud of bulk chrysotile asbestos; each filter was examined by both phase-contrast and SEM
• Exposure: Bulk chrysotile asbestos dispersed with an aerosol generator and compressed air in a chamber (laboratory-generated dust, not a workplace). Phase-contrast counts included fibers down to 3.0 micrometers long.
• Main results:
  • Fiber size distributions from both methods were log normal, with correlation coefficients greater than 0.978 (P < 0.001)
  • Mean concentration on the same filters was 4250 fibers per cubic centimeter by phase contrast and 28700 fibers per cubic centimeter by SEM. Mean geometric mean fiber size was 5.43 micrometers by phase contrast and 2.05 micrometers by SEM (P < 0.0005, paired t test).
  • Fiber concentrations below the resolution limit of phase-contrast microscopy were 6.8 times higher when counted by SEM
  • The regression model predicting SEM concentration from phase-contrast concentration had a mean percentage error of 41.5%
  • Worked example: a phase-contrast concentration of 4910 fibers per cubic centimeter gave a predicted SEM concentration of 9410 to 85,000 fibers per cubic centimeter at 95% confidence. The authors judged this to be of limited practical value because the range was so wide.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that using this model to estimate SEM concentration from phase-contrast concentration is not a viable approach at this time. They suggested that generating lower, less variable chamber concentrations might give better correlation and narrower prediction intervals. They also stated that small fibers should not be ignored.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The study used only bulk chrysotile asbestos, because the ratio between optically visible and electron-microscope-visible fibers varies with mineralogy and degree of processing
  • The prediction interval was too wide for practical use
  • The model was not intended to substitute for electron microscopy, and the authors said it could never match its accuracy and precision

Related studies

• Asbestos body concentrations in human lung: predictions from asbestos body counts in tissue sections with a mathematical model — R.T. Vollmer, V.L. Roggli (1985)
• A predictive model for determining asbestos concentrations for fibers less than five micrometers in length — M.J. Kiefer, R.M. Buchan, et al. (1987)
• Pleural plaques and exposure to asbestos: a mathematical model — B. Järvholm (1992)
• Comparison of feasibility and estimates of central and peripheral nitric oxide parameters by different mathematical models — T. Karvonen, H. Kankaanranta, et al. (2017)
• A model to predict the breathing zone concentrations of particles emitted from surfaces — J. Thornburg, J. Kominsky, et al. (2010)
• Exposures from chrysotile-containing joint compound: evaluation of new model relating respirable dust to fiber concentrations — G.P. Brorby, P.J. Sheehan, et al. (2013)

Browse more research in Environmental Research, or return to medical research.