Identification and Quantification of Asbestos Fibres in Human Tissues

Our plain-English summary of Identification and Quantification of Asbestos Fibres in Human Tissues, by A. Gaudichet, P. Sebastien, N.J. Clark, et al (1980).

The study

• Authors: A. Gaudichet, P. Sebastien, N.J. Clark, F.D. Pooley
• Published: BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MINERAL FIBRES (J.C. WAGNER, EDITOR), LYON: IARC SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS, VOLUME 30., PP 61-68 (1980)
• Type of article: Conference paper
• Our copy: from Johns-Manville's own medical library. The article is still under copyright, so we describe it here rather than post it.

In plain English

This study compared how two laboratories, one in Paris and one in Cardiff, identified and counted asbestos fibres in human lung tissue. Dust was extracted from three lung tissue samples, labelled A, B and C, and matching electron microscope preparations were examined by each laboratory. Both used transmission electron microscopes with energy dispersive X-ray analysis. Each laboratory identified the fibre types, estimated fibres per gram of dried tissue, and measured fibre lengths and diameters. The article does not describe the people the tissue came from. The authors reported that results compared closely for all three specimens: similar amounts of chrysotile and total amphibole were found. However, the relative amounts of the individual amphibole minerals varied, and the main problem was telling amosite from crocidolite in specimen C. The proportion of fibres labelled mullite also varied. Size results were mostly comparable for the major fibre types, and differences in fibre concentration were described as relatively small. The authors concluded that comparable results can be produced, but that further work is needed on interpreting X-ray data and on counting procedures.

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: Interlaboratory comparison of analytical transmission electron microscopy methods for fibres in lung tissue
• Who was studied: Dust extracted from three samples of lung tissue (specimens A, B and C), examined by a laboratory in Paris and a laboratory in Cardiff; the article does not describe the people the tissue came from
• Exposure: Not applicable: the study compared laboratory methods and did not describe the exposures of the people whose lung tissue was examined
• Main results:
  • The Paris laboratory scanned 5, 115 and 58 fields and counted 404, 402 and 114 fibres on grids A, B and C respectively, giving a stated precision of 10% for specimens A and B and 20% for specimen C
  • For all three specimens, the two laboratories found similar amounts of chrysotile and total amphibole
  • The relative amounts of the different amphibole minerals varied between the laboratories
  • The main problem was distinguishing amosite from crocidolite in specimen C
  • The proportion of fibres labelled 'mullite' varied between the laboratories
  • Fibre size results were mostly comparable between the laboratories for the major fibre types
  • Differences between the laboratories in fibre concentration were described as relatively small
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the two independent laboratories showed comparable results can be produced, but that further interlaboratory collaboration is needed, especially on interpreting energy-dispersive X-ray data and on counting procedures
• Limitations the authors state:
  • Differences in recording minor constituents were probably due to differences in the numbers of fibres each laboratory analysed
  • The laboratories worked at different magnifications, which influences the size distributions
  • Some fibre concentration figures were inflated by the classification of certain particles as fibres

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Chrysotile, Amphibole Group, Amosite, Crocidolite.

Browse return to medical research.