Kauffer E, Masson A, Moulut J C, Lecaque T, Protois J C
Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité (INRS), Avenue de Bourgogne, BP27, 54500 Vandoeuvre lès Nancy, France.
Ann Occup Hyg. 2005 Nov;49(8):661-71. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mei024. Epub 2005 Jun 22.
In this study, the alpha-quartz contents measured by different analytical techniques (X-ray diffraction, direct method; and infrared spectrophotometry, direct and indirect methods) were compared. The analyses were carried out on filters sampled in an industrial setting by means of a Dorr-Oliver cyclone. To verify the methodology used, filters loaded with pure alpha-quartz were also analysed. By and large, the agreement between the two direct methods was close on average, but on the basis of a comparison of the individual results, considerable differences exist. In absolute value, the mean relative deviation between the two techniques was <25% in only 47.8% of the cases. The results obtained by the indirect method (infrared) were on average 13% lower than the results obtained by the two direct methods with a more important difference (23%) for samples where calcite was identified by X-ray diffraction in comparison with those where it was not (8%). This underestimation, which was not owing to dust losses during preparation, is probably explained by the elimination of organic compounds during dust calcinations or by the transformation of mineral compounds. The indirect method introduces additional sample handling operations with more risk of material loss. When the quantity of calcined material was <0.4 mg, the weighing operations necessary to correct any losses of material resulted in considerable variability. In terms of overall uncertainty, it would be better in this case not to carry out correction and to employ an operating mode favouring the recovery of a maximum of material while accepting a bias of about 5-7%.
在本研究中,对通过不同分析技术(X射线衍射直接法;红外分光光度法直接法和间接法)测得的α-石英含量进行了比较。分析是在工业环境中通过多尔-奥利弗旋风分离器采集的滤膜上进行的。为验证所使用的方法,还对加载了纯α-石英的滤膜进行了分析。总体而言,两种直接方法之间的一致性平均较为接近,但基于单个结果的比较,存在相当大的差异。绝对值方面,两种技术之间的平均相对偏差仅在47.8%的情况下<25%。间接法(红外法)获得的结果平均比两种直接法获得的结果低13%,对于通过X射线衍射鉴定出方解石的样品,与未鉴定出方解石的样品相比,差异更为显著(23%对8%)。这种低估并非由于制备过程中的粉尘损失,可能是由于粉尘煅烧过程中有机化合物的去除或矿物化合物的转化所致。间接法引入了额外的样品处理操作,材料损失风险更大。当煅烧材料的量<0.4毫克时,为校正任何材料损失而进行的称重操作导致了相当大的变异性。就总体不确定度而言,在这种情况下最好不进行校正,并采用有利于最大限度回收材料的操作模式,同时接受约5-7%的偏差。