Loading…

Comparison of Methods for Pretreatment and Quantification of Bulk Asbestos Samples for Polarized Light Microscopy Analysis to Evaluate Asbestos-Containing Waste

This study aimed to compare sample pretreatment procedures for the identification and quantification of asbestos. The performance of visual estimation and point counting procedures for evaluating asbestos-containing waste was investigated, and the effect of analytical experience was studied. The eff...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Sustainability 2019-11, Vol.11 (22), p.6440
Main Authors: Ham, Seunghon, Hwang, Sungho, Yoon, Chungsik
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-331d806b5029d76c1d336db612aea43a2f0998926e5c1d5592dc3c4fbb2012673
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-331d806b5029d76c1d336db612aea43a2f0998926e5c1d5592dc3c4fbb2012673
container_end_page
container_issue 22
container_start_page 6440
container_title Sustainability
container_volume 11
creator Ham, Seunghon
Hwang, Sungho
Yoon, Chungsik
description This study aimed to compare sample pretreatment procedures for the identification and quantification of asbestos. The performance of visual estimation and point counting procedures for evaluating asbestos-containing waste was investigated, and the effect of analytical experience was studied. The efficacy of pretreatments for the identification and quantification of asbestos in various sample matrices was compared. To evaluate the effect of experience on analytical accuracy, three analysts with different analytical experiences were selected. There were significant differences in the quantitative analysis results obtained using different pretreatments. False negatives were reported when asbestos, especially amphiboles, were analyzed by a less-experienced analyst. Quantification via point counting and visual estimation resulted in differences in the asbestos content. The results of point counting were more accurate than those of visual estimation for all analysts, regardless of the asbestos type and concentration. Experience in asbestos analysis affected accuracy and precision. The findings show that pretreatment is an important factor in qualitative analysis. Appropriate pretreatments should be assigned based on the properties of the sample. For quantitative analysis, the accuracy of the results depends on the experience of the analyst. Until analysts are fully trained, all their analysis results should be checked by an experienced analyst. Point counting is an adequate quantitative method for analyzing samples with low concentrations.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/su11226440
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2533373411</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2533373411</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-331d806b5029d76c1d336db612aea43a2f0998926e5c1d5592dc3c4fbb2012673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNUV1LwzAUDaLgmL74CwK-CdV8tOnyOMv8gA0VFR_LbZNumW1Tk1SYv8afaseGel_uhXPu4RwOQmeUXHIuyZXvKWVMxDE5QCNGUhpRkpDDf_cxOvV-TYbhnEoqRug7s00HznjbYlvhhQ4rqzyurMOPTgenITS6DRhahZ96aIOpTAnB7OjXff2Op77QPliPn6Hpar1_tvWg-qUVnpvlKuCFKZ31pe02eNpCvfHG42Dx7BPqHoL-FYky2wYwrWmX-A180CfoqILa69P9HqPXm9lLdhfNH27vs-k8KplMQjTkURMiioQwqVJRUsW5UIWgDDTEHFhFpJxIJnQyYEkimSp5GVdFwQhlIuVjdL7T7Zz96Acv-dr2brDqc5ZwzlMeUzqwLnasbRrvdJV3zjTgNjkl-baE_K8E_gMnwnvC</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2533373411</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Methods for Pretreatment and Quantification of Bulk Asbestos Samples for Polarized Light Microscopy Analysis to Evaluate Asbestos-Containing Waste</title><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><creator>Ham, Seunghon ; Hwang, Sungho ; Yoon, Chungsik</creator><creatorcontrib>Ham, Seunghon ; Hwang, Sungho ; Yoon, Chungsik</creatorcontrib><description>This study aimed to compare sample pretreatment procedures for the identification and quantification of asbestos. The performance of visual estimation and point counting procedures for evaluating asbestos-containing waste was investigated, and the effect of analytical experience was studied. The efficacy of pretreatments for the identification and quantification of asbestos in various sample matrices was compared. To evaluate the effect of experience on analytical accuracy, three analysts with different analytical experiences were selected. There were significant differences in the quantitative analysis results obtained using different pretreatments. False negatives were reported when asbestos, especially amphiboles, were analyzed by a less-experienced analyst. Quantification via point counting and visual estimation resulted in differences in the asbestos content. The results of point counting were more accurate than those of visual estimation for all analysts, regardless of the asbestos type and concentration. Experience in asbestos analysis affected accuracy and precision. The findings show that pretreatment is an important factor in qualitative analysis. Appropriate pretreatments should be assigned based on the properties of the sample. For quantitative analysis, the accuracy of the results depends on the experience of the analyst. Until analysts are fully trained, all their analysis results should be checked by an experienced analyst. Point counting is an adequate quantitative method for analyzing samples with low concentrations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2071-1050</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2071-1050</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/su11226440</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Acids ; Amphiboles ; Asbestos ; Laboratories ; Light microscopy ; Low concentrations ; Methods ; Microscopy ; Occupational safety ; Optical microscopy ; Optical properties ; Polarized light ; Pretreatment ; Qualitative analysis ; Quantitative analysis ; Renovation &amp; restoration ; Sustainability</subject><ispartof>Sustainability, 2019-11, Vol.11 (22), p.6440</ispartof><rights>2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-331d806b5029d76c1d336db612aea43a2f0998926e5c1d5592dc3c4fbb2012673</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-331d806b5029d76c1d336db612aea43a2f0998926e5c1d5592dc3c4fbb2012673</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5167-9661 ; 0000-0001-7822-0079</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2533373411/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2533373411?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,25753,27924,27925,37012,44590,74998</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ham, Seunghon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hwang, Sungho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoon, Chungsik</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Methods for Pretreatment and Quantification of Bulk Asbestos Samples for Polarized Light Microscopy Analysis to Evaluate Asbestos-Containing Waste</title><title>Sustainability</title><description>This study aimed to compare sample pretreatment procedures for the identification and quantification of asbestos. The performance of visual estimation and point counting procedures for evaluating asbestos-containing waste was investigated, and the effect of analytical experience was studied. The efficacy of pretreatments for the identification and quantification of asbestos in various sample matrices was compared. To evaluate the effect of experience on analytical accuracy, three analysts with different analytical experiences were selected. There were significant differences in the quantitative analysis results obtained using different pretreatments. False negatives were reported when asbestos, especially amphiboles, were analyzed by a less-experienced analyst. Quantification via point counting and visual estimation resulted in differences in the asbestos content. The results of point counting were more accurate than those of visual estimation for all analysts, regardless of the asbestos type and concentration. Experience in asbestos analysis affected accuracy and precision. The findings show that pretreatment is an important factor in qualitative analysis. Appropriate pretreatments should be assigned based on the properties of the sample. For quantitative analysis, the accuracy of the results depends on the experience of the analyst. Until analysts are fully trained, all their analysis results should be checked by an experienced analyst. Point counting is an adequate quantitative method for analyzing samples with low concentrations.</description><subject>Acids</subject><subject>Amphiboles</subject><subject>Asbestos</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Light microscopy</subject><subject>Low concentrations</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Microscopy</subject><subject>Occupational safety</subject><subject>Optical microscopy</subject><subject>Optical properties</subject><subject>Polarized light</subject><subject>Pretreatment</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Quantitative analysis</subject><subject>Renovation &amp; restoration</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><issn>2071-1050</issn><issn>2071-1050</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNpNUV1LwzAUDaLgmL74CwK-CdV8tOnyOMv8gA0VFR_LbZNumW1Tk1SYv8afaseGel_uhXPu4RwOQmeUXHIuyZXvKWVMxDE5QCNGUhpRkpDDf_cxOvV-TYbhnEoqRug7s00HznjbYlvhhQ4rqzyurMOPTgenITS6DRhahZ96aIOpTAnB7OjXff2Op77QPliPn6Hpar1_tvWg-qUVnpvlKuCFKZ31pe02eNpCvfHG42Dx7BPqHoL-FYky2wYwrWmX-A180CfoqILa69P9HqPXm9lLdhfNH27vs-k8KplMQjTkURMiioQwqVJRUsW5UIWgDDTEHFhFpJxIJnQyYEkimSp5GVdFwQhlIuVjdL7T7Zz96Acv-dr2brDqc5ZwzlMeUzqwLnasbRrvdJV3zjTgNjkl-baE_K8E_gMnwnvC</recordid><startdate>20191101</startdate><enddate>20191101</enddate><creator>Ham, Seunghon</creator><creator>Hwang, Sungho</creator><creator>Yoon, Chungsik</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5167-9661</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7822-0079</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191101</creationdate><title>Comparison of Methods for Pretreatment and Quantification of Bulk Asbestos Samples for Polarized Light Microscopy Analysis to Evaluate Asbestos-Containing Waste</title><author>Ham, Seunghon ; Hwang, Sungho ; Yoon, Chungsik</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-331d806b5029d76c1d336db612aea43a2f0998926e5c1d5592dc3c4fbb2012673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Acids</topic><topic>Amphiboles</topic><topic>Asbestos</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Light microscopy</topic><topic>Low concentrations</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Microscopy</topic><topic>Occupational safety</topic><topic>Optical microscopy</topic><topic>Optical properties</topic><topic>Polarized light</topic><topic>Pretreatment</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Quantitative analysis</topic><topic>Renovation &amp; restoration</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ham, Seunghon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hwang, Sungho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoon, Chungsik</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Sustainability</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ham, Seunghon</au><au>Hwang, Sungho</au><au>Yoon, Chungsik</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Methods for Pretreatment and Quantification of Bulk Asbestos Samples for Polarized Light Microscopy Analysis to Evaluate Asbestos-Containing Waste</atitle><jtitle>Sustainability</jtitle><date>2019-11-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>22</issue><spage>6440</spage><pages>6440-</pages><issn>2071-1050</issn><eissn>2071-1050</eissn><abstract>This study aimed to compare sample pretreatment procedures for the identification and quantification of asbestos. The performance of visual estimation and point counting procedures for evaluating asbestos-containing waste was investigated, and the effect of analytical experience was studied. The efficacy of pretreatments for the identification and quantification of asbestos in various sample matrices was compared. To evaluate the effect of experience on analytical accuracy, three analysts with different analytical experiences were selected. There were significant differences in the quantitative analysis results obtained using different pretreatments. False negatives were reported when asbestos, especially amphiboles, were analyzed by a less-experienced analyst. Quantification via point counting and visual estimation resulted in differences in the asbestos content. The results of point counting were more accurate than those of visual estimation for all analysts, regardless of the asbestos type and concentration. Experience in asbestos analysis affected accuracy and precision. The findings show that pretreatment is an important factor in qualitative analysis. Appropriate pretreatments should be assigned based on the properties of the sample. For quantitative analysis, the accuracy of the results depends on the experience of the analyst. Until analysts are fully trained, all their analysis results should be checked by an experienced analyst. Point counting is an adequate quantitative method for analyzing samples with low concentrations.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><doi>10.3390/su11226440</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5167-9661</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7822-0079</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2071-1050
ispartof Sustainability, 2019-11, Vol.11 (22), p.6440
issn 2071-1050
2071-1050
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2533373411
source Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)
subjects Acids
Amphiboles
Asbestos
Laboratories
Light microscopy
Low concentrations
Methods
Microscopy
Occupational safety
Optical microscopy
Optical properties
Polarized light
Pretreatment
Qualitative analysis
Quantitative analysis
Renovation & restoration
Sustainability
title Comparison of Methods for Pretreatment and Quantification of Bulk Asbestos Samples for Polarized Light Microscopy Analysis to Evaluate Asbestos-Containing Waste
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T19%3A48%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Methods%20for%20Pretreatment%20and%20Quantification%20of%20Bulk%20Asbestos%20Samples%20for%20Polarized%20Light%20Microscopy%20Analysis%20to%20Evaluate%20Asbestos-Containing%20Waste&rft.jtitle=Sustainability&rft.au=Ham,%20Seunghon&rft.date=2019-11-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=22&rft.spage=6440&rft.pages=6440-&rft.issn=2071-1050&rft.eissn=2071-1050&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/su11226440&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2533373411%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c295t-331d806b5029d76c1d336db612aea43a2f0998926e5c1d5592dc3c4fbb2012673%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2533373411&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true