Document aD4kn5v2pBeEMrbEe7qXy1Yda

14256997033 2002-02-26 19:09:21 (GMT), page 33 32 Gibbs claimed the QAMA samples were taken to assess both industrial dust control effectiveness and individual exposures. However, in the same paper he also noted that die midget impinger is, "a relatively short term instrument, is difficult to use for personal monitoring and is not specific for fibers."(Gibbs 1994) Gibbs reported that QAMA knew which samples were recorded for control purposes and which were collected to be "representative" of actual exposures. However, no breakdown ofthe relative proportion of samples in each category is provided and there is no indication that any personal sampling was ever done.(Gibbs 1994) Interestingly, in the same paper, Gibbs criticized Dement's textile exposure estimates for failing * to provide "information on whether or not samples were personal samples" or information on "the distribution of locations at which side by side samples were taken." (Gibbs 1994) Each midget impinger sampling lasted between five and thirty minutes and thus could not possibly reflect average daily, let alone yearly, exposures. QAMA did not record counts below the "exposure limit" and the QAMA-McGil1 researchers never indicate what the "exposure limit or limits were during the relevant time period or how they dealt with these "unrecorded" measurements in their dose estimates. (Gibbs 1994) 32