MacKinnon P A, Lentz T J, Rice C H, Lockey J E, Lemasters G K, Gartside P S
Environmental Health Professionals Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 2001 Oct;16(10):944-51. doi: 10.1080/104732201300367191.
In epidemiological studies designed to identify potential health risks of exposures to synthetic vitreous fibers, the characterization of airborne fiber dimensions may be essential for assessing mechanisms of fiber toxicity. Toward this end, air sampling was conducted as part of an industry-wide study of workers potentially exposed to airborne fibrous dusts during the manufacture of refractory ceramic fibers (RCF) and RCF products. Analyses of a subset of samples obtained on the sample filter as well as on the conductive sampling cowl were performed using both scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to characterize dimensions of airborne fibers. Comparison was made of bivariate fiber size distributions (length and diameter) from air samples analyzed by SEM and by TEM techniques. Results of the analyses indicate that RCF size distributions include fibers small enough in diameter (< 0.25 microm) to be unresolved by SEM. However, longer fibers (> 60 microm) may go undetected by TEM, as evidenced by the proportion of fibers in this category for TEM and SEM analyses (1% and 5%, respectively). Limitations of the microscopic techniques and differences in fiber-sizing rules for each method are believed to have contributed to the variation among fiber-sizing results. It was concluded from these data that further attempts to characterize RCF exposure in manufacturing and related operations should include analysis by TEM and SEM, since the smallest diameter fibers are not resolved with SEM and the fibers of longer length are not sized by TEM.
在旨在确定接触合成玻璃纤维潜在健康风险的流行病学研究中,空气传播纤维尺寸的表征对于评估纤维毒性机制可能至关重要。为此,作为一项全行业研究的一部分进行了空气采样,该研究针对在耐火陶瓷纤维(RCF)及其产品制造过程中可能接触空气中纤维状粉尘的工人。使用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)和透射电子显微镜(TEM)对在样品过滤器以及导电采样罩上获得的一部分样品进行分析,以表征空气传播纤维的尺寸。对通过SEM和TEM技术分析的空气样品的双变量纤维尺寸分布(长度和直径)进行了比较。分析结果表明,RCF尺寸分布包括直径足够小(<0.25微米)以至于SEM无法分辨的纤维。然而,较长的纤维(>60微米)可能会被TEM漏检,这在TEM和SEM分析中该类别纤维的比例(分别为1%和5%)中得到了证明。据信,微观技术的局限性以及每种方法的纤维尺寸测量规则的差异导致了纤维尺寸测量结果的差异。从这些数据得出的结论是,在制造及相关操作中进一步表征RCF暴露的尝试应包括通过TEM和SEM进行分析,因为最小直径的纤维无法用SEM分辨,而较长长度的纤维无法用TEM测量尺寸。