ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2025
European harmonization of asbestos exposure assessment: comparing PCM, SEM, and TEM to derive conversion factors.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
After the European ban on the use of asbestos, exposure assessment of asbestos became imperative for ensuring compliance with safety standards. However, each European country has their own legislation and requirements, including measurement strategies, analytical techniques such as the microscope used as well as occupational exposure limits (OELs). The recent EU directive (EU) 2023/2668 significantly lowered the OEL for asbestos from 100,000 fibres/m³ 8-h time-weighted average to either 2,000 fibres/m³ when counting fibres between 0.2 and 3 µm in diameter, or 10,000 fibres/m³ when counting fibres thinner than 0.2 µm and dictates a transition from optical to electron microscopy analysis by the end of 2029. This change impacts Member States that rely on phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) to quantify asbestos concentrations, prompting the need for a standardized comparison between different analytical methods. Therefore, our study investigated whether conversion factors could be developed, enabling comparison of results obtained with different analytical techniques. To achieve this, a phased approach was applied, involving a survey of measurement strategies implemented by different countries in Europe, a literature search, and analysis of in-house data to explore differences between analytical techniques. Standardized conversion factors were developed via (i) direct comparison of concentrations from analysis with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and/or PCM, (ii) a multiple linear regression model, and (iii) via log probability plots from raw data on fibre dimensions. Ten institutes from the 'Partnership for European Research in Occupational Safety and Health' (PEROSH) asbestos network participated in this study. The results showed that SEM and PCM were the most commonly used analytical techniques, with TEM also being used in 3 countries. OELs and measurement standards/protocols varied across countries, and most employed national derived standards for measurements. Conversion factors overall showed that measurements analysed by TEM resulted in higher fibre concentrations followed by PCM and SEM. Although conversion factors were developed, these were influenced by factors such as material type, applied energy, and local controls, preventing the derivation of a general conversion method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.