Document dYkKdwz3Y51n5Od4qKdjX7DJ0

oa\t:ns-illinois glass compa QCNERAL Ol-TICES* TOLKOO 1, OiUO April 5, 1952 Lir. Thouas s'. Durban The Garar.ac Laboratory Saranac Laxc, Ji4Vf *crk Dear Ten: Attached is our check Ko. 295hh covering the analysis of nine duct sonnies fres our Sayreville, JSew Jersey plant. Thank you for your letter or '/arch 11 and the report giving the results of your laboratory work. Certainly the values cf 2? anc 2;.* ior tr.e quarts content of asbestos dust at the fibericcr and of bulk -~csite rree closely with the detcr.tirations you reported on 1'cy 2} 2 *fou will recall these recent determinations were mace as a check or. he earlier analyses. . .. . This high quarts content of anosite was "quite bewildering co tne technical recple in cur Kaylo Division. T::ey were sc interested that tney ran chemical, petrographic and 1-ray cetaruiracions cm me tortmer. ci sample J.o. 1 tnat you returned tc us. Our General r.esearuc wi visit;.-, describes tr.eir results as follows: Tne action ol acids on asbestos is severe, tauin^ to-rsult in a silica structure cr skeleton being left benlnd. >or trds reason, chemical oetnous icr estimating Iree silica in asbestos are open to question. iVe employed an indirect chesical method. Tie determined the percentages of FeO, Fe^Oi, MgO, and SiO* Then the ar.ount cf silica that, could be combined with the iron and rea^nesia in the ratio of (FeO ligO) to SxOz of 7:8 was cocputcd. (This ratio is the theoretical for Ancsite.) The excess of silica present over that which was acco\=ited for by the 7:8 ratio was considered to be quarts. This value was found'to be ?*3. Independently, our petrographer and our X-ray technician re ported the quarts content to be "senewhat under 10J5.H By contrast, the "free silica" content by the Iiydrofluosilicic Acid Method showed the dust sample (Amosite) to contain 2c. and a saaiple of Anosite from this laboratory 31.1. ;Te believe . these values to be high for the reasens given eari x OWENS-ILLINOIS CLASS COMi'ANY Lr. Thoc-s I** Durban 2 April &, i?S2 The X-ray u.fetuou was by X-ray Aifiractien, w4tir. tne quartz lines recorded and insured on photographic JiLa. Recently the industrial hygiene unit of the Indiana State ZzarC cl Health, under the direction of Louis *V. Spolyar, was making soue oust counts in our Indiana plants and I visited their new laboratory in Indiana oils. They have an impressive layout with scr.e very fioe equip sent. They offered to run on their X-ray spectrophotometer (using a Geiger counter) * any samples that we right have. I too': then up immediately and sent then a portion of the same sample Ko. 1 that your laboratory worked on. Er. Sp laboratory said they found 5.6, free silica. Howard Bums ted, who did the work, secs.es to c.c quite proficient in the use of the instrument and fair ly v.tn experienced. La you have any idea wry there should be this discrepancy in the re- S..-115? \.'u are still as much at sea as we were when we talked with you last fall. Our Kaylo people, too, are interested, because cne would think a 23j quarts content in anosite would throw off their catch ccarositicn. Cur research laboratory also analysed sample No. 5 and fours it to certain 12asbestos. This fails within the range ci amosite and c/.ryro tile content that you found. _ 7*e asbestos content c; tuis sa-yle, which represents canwitaar.s curs tf.e leasing oi bon cars v.utn haylo roci tile, is important because sne cus concer.-.rations are areur.u bi) to >0 million particles p?r cubic tost. Any couuents you may nave on the above would be very tsuuh appreciated personal regards. '. Sincerely yours, iV.G.HasardtU INDUSTRIAL KLIIaTIGJiS DIVISION