Inhalation toxicology · 2023
Lung asbestos fiber burden analysis: effects of the counting rules for legal medicine evaluations.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Somigliana Anna Benedetta, Barbieri Pietro Gino, Cavallo Alessandro, Colombo Roberto, Consonni Dario, Mirabelli Dario
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The work shows the effect of counting rules, such as analysis magnification and asbestos fiber dimension to be count (with length ≥5 µm or also asbestos fibers with length <5 µm) in the lung asbestos fiber burden analysis for legal medicine evaluations.
METHODS: On the same lung tissue samples, two different analyses were carried out to count any asbestos fibers with length ≥1 µm and with length ≥5 µm. Results of the amphibole burden of the two analyses were compared by linear regression analysis on log10-transformed values.
RESULTS: The analysis should be carried out at an appropriate magnification and on samples prepared in such a way as they allow the counting of very fine fibers. If the analysis is limited to the asbestos fibers with length ≥5 µm, there is a high risk of not detecting possible residual chrysotile fiber burden and thinner crocidolite asbestos fibers.
CONCLUSIONS: On average we estimated that 1 amphibole fiber with length ≥5 µm corresponds to ∼8 amphibole fibers with length ≥1 µm in the lung. The values of the Helsinki criteria should be updated taking this into account.
METHODS: On the same lung tissue samples, two different analyses were carried out to count any asbestos fibers with length ≥1 µm and with length ≥5 µm. Results of the amphibole burden of the two analyses were compared by linear regression analysis on log10-transformed values.
RESULTS: The analysis should be carried out at an appropriate magnification and on samples prepared in such a way as they allow the counting of very fine fibers. If the analysis is limited to the asbestos fibers with length ≥5 µm, there is a high risk of not detecting possible residual chrysotile fiber burden and thinner crocidolite asbestos fibers.
CONCLUSIONS: On average we estimated that 1 amphibole fiber with length ≥5 µm corresponds to ∼8 amphibole fibers with length ≥1 µm in the lung. The values of the Helsinki criteria should be updated taking this into account.