Preparation and evaluation of a chrysotile asbestos-containing standard material for validating x-ray diffractometric quantitation

Our plain-English summary of Preparation and evaluation of a chrysotile asbestos-containing standard material for validating x-ray diffractometric quantitation, by T. Asahi, S. Kobayashi, K. Nakayama, et al (Analytical Sciences, 2011).

The study

• Authors: T. Asahi, S. Kobayashi, K. Nakayama, T. Konya, G. Fujinawa, T. Nakamura
• Journal: Analytical Sciences
• Published: 2011;27(12):1217-21
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

A standard material containing chrysotile asbestos for the validation of x-ray diffractometric quantitation was developed using an asbestos-containing building material i.e., perlite board. The board as the base material was crushed, pulverized, and homogenized. The homogeneity of the powder of perlite board was estimated by analysis of variance. The diffraction intensity values of the crystalline phases and the concentrations of elements determined by x-ray diffractometry and x-ray fluorescence analysis were used for analysis of variance. There is no significant difference between the within-bottle variance and the between-bottle variance, indicating that the powdered perlite board was sufficiently homogenous. The concentration of chrysotile in the material was determined using two methods: an internal standard/x-ray diffractometry method and the x-ray diffractometry/Rietveld refinement. The concentration of chrysotile in the material was determined by an internal standard/x-ray diffractometry method and the material had a chrysotile concentration of 24.1 ± 0.2 mass%.

2011 © The Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry

In plain English

This laboratory chemistry study set out to make a reference powder that laboratories could use to check how accurately x-ray diffraction measures chrysotile asbestos in building materials. It did not study people or health effects. The authors crushed, ground and mixed a 340 g chrysotile-containing perlite board and divided the powder into 68 bottles of 5 g. Ten minutes of grinding gave the most consistent readings. Besides chrysotile, the board contained brucite, calcite, quartz and tobermorite. Statistical tests on randomly chosen bottles found no significant difference between the variation from bottle to bottle and the variation within bottles. The authors took this to mean the powder was sufficiently uniform. Using an internal standard x-ray diffraction method, they measured the chrysotile content as 24.1 plus or minus 0.2 mass%. A second method, Rietveld refinement, gave 24.6 plus or minus 0.6 mass%, which they described as good agreement. The calibration curve used for the internal standard method had a lower limit of detection of 0.39 mass% chrysotile. The authors concluded that the material would make it easy to prepare validation standards at the 0.1 or 1 mass% level.

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 chemistry study: preparation and testing of a chrysotile-containing reference (validation) material for x-ray diffraction
• Who was studied: one chrysotile-containing perlite board (340 g), ground and divided into 68 bottles of 5 g each; groups of 20 bottles were chosen at random for testing
• Exposure: chrysotile asbestos in a perlite board building material (JIS A 5413 equivalent), stated as 25.15 mass% chrysotile as prepared
• Main results:
  • Besides chrysotile, the perlite board contained brucite, calcite, quartz and tobermorite
  • Variability of the chrysotile reading was lowest (1.8%) after 10 minutes of grinding and rose to 3.5% with longer grinding; 10 minutes was chosen as the optimum
  • In the homogeneity test (analysis of variance), between-bottle variation was not significantly different from within-bottle variation for any measurement
  • Chrysotile content of the powder by the internal standard x-ray diffraction method: 24.1 plus or minus 0.2 mass%
  • The calibration curve used for the internal standard x-ray diffraction method had a lower limit of detection of 0.39 mass% chrysotile; no detection limit is given for Rietveld refinement
  • Chrysotile content by Rietveld refinement: 24.6 plus or minus 0.6 mass%, described by the authors as in good agreement with the internal standard method
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the material was sufficiently homogeneous and that it would make it easy to prepare validation standards for analysis at the 0.1 or 1 mass% level

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Chrysotile, Crystalline.

Related studies

• Minimising health hazards associated with derogated products and in-situ materials containing chrysotile contaminated with amphibole asbestos fibres — R.M. Howie (1999)
• Identification and quantitation of microparticles in solid materials — D.R. Bowes (1974)
• Evaluation of the dose-response and fate in the lung and pleura of chrysotile-containing brake dust compared to chrysotile or crocidolite asbestos in a 28-day quantitative inhalation toxicology study — D.M. Bernstein, B. Toth, et al. (2018)
• Evaluation of the exposure, dose-response and fate in the lung and pleura of chrysotile-containing brake dust compared to TiO2, chrysotile, crocidolite or amosite asbestos in a 90-day quantitative inhalation toxicology study - Interim results Part 1: Experimental design, aerosol exposure, lung burdens and BAL — D.M. Bernstein, B. Toth, et al. (2020)
• 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)
• Evaluation of the dose-response and fate in the lung and pleura of chrysotile-containing brake dust compared to TiO2, chrysotile, crocidolite or amosite asbestos in a 90-day quantitative inhalation toxicology study - Interim results Part 2: Histopathological examination, Confocal microscopy and collagen quantification of the lung and pleural cavity — D.M. Bernstein, B. Toth, et al. (2020)

Browse return to medical research.