Document nNDMn40kjj0mvkV2x1k3y9YgR

m&i IV'i !vW| 'v 4al - ' . :* - ? >. 'i '* ,v nssv; ;l *s f& <5 ** . ....... 5 ': mV5H f? \- S '- ' few serfs of samples taken so far, these sttnpli 'f cases the -' Dsjxssek, W. Bayou, H. best*. tixtM Bloomfield, J 69 per cent of the sets the 10+ ft fiber count was -higher in the unelutristed sampls,.. These results suggest that the major portion of those fibe - bythe JonSHhesourg Fnetlmhcbnloala Conference.** ?-. . :'?!*.' of Industrie m Csalu-.y, L.1 J L...a..i.nh...a..k...t.. SfeVduslry Ir^th jTrYU*etldn'- -t S>. Oownment yj+msthods, W. Subcommittee T>*> ` .Shd thirty pain*of pimples taken by two widely-ussd- In air ansl> Hlth. Assn. aatnpling and counting methods were compared. These methods were coutfv ' Hygiene * In* of total dust In Impinger samples, and counting fibers only on a mem- sTsbestos ui -*>**>* Wter. -"' '`Wit' Fitzo*au>, J At the present time, based on samples collected in four asbestos textlli plants, the over-all ratio appears , to be one mppcf by impinger (10x ob jective) to 10 fibers per ml,, 6 fibers per ml. longer than 6 /a, or 3 fibers .: tpieerr mtnll.. JIsonnegeerr tthhaann 11A0 f,t, awlhieeti)i tthbe* rmnemmVbriarinne, filter 'samples are-'cnovuiniitteidd 1 ' with phase contrast'Illumination on the transparentited Alter using t 4 mm. (43x.) objective. Individual operations may have ratios differing from these values by s factor of two. Site selective sampling using hori zontal elutriatora ahead of the sampling device indicated that the major trstion thro it. Likkcken, C. fees collect. 10s 7. FaAseat. 1). A. airborne pa and electro) ii; Hamilton, R. ablr Dusts, held in Oxfi Okenstein, A portion of the fibera counted would reach the lung if Inspired. held at the Little Brow, Acknowledgments Data in thia paper were the result of sampling and impinger counting by C..M. Brown, H. L. Byrd, G. H. Edwards, R. G. Edwards, G. W. Fisher, J. C. Lumsden, S. B. McKee and J. R. Stanton. Membrane filter asmplei were counted by T. E. Beaver and K. M. Kelly. Electron micrographic sit ing was dune by G. U. Edwards. T..- *. A" i i '>> '5 * * k? i References 1. Lama, A. J., W. J. McConnell * J. W. Fennel. 1936. Effects of the In halation of asbestos dust on the lungs of asbestos workers. Public Hesltb Rep. 60> 1-12, Reprint No. 1666. 2. Donnelly, J. 1936. Pulmonary asbestosis: Incidence and prognosis- J. Is- dust. Hyg. 181 222-226. 3. McPiiectgks, S. U. 193R. A survey of a group nf employees exposed to ss bestos dust. J, Indual. Hyg. 1H: 229-239. 4. Shull. J. R. 1936. Asbestosis: A roentgenologic review of 71 cases. Radiology 271 279-292. C. Fulton, W. R., A. Dooley, J. 1. Matthews 1 It. U ftoirra. 1936. Asi**-' tneia Fart II. The imiurc anil amount of dust encountered in ashwwai fabrication plants. I'urt III. The effects of exposure to dust encounter*) in asbestos fubriratiug plnnls on the hralth of a group of worker*. I's. Dept, of Ijibor & InH. Null. 42. r/ .* ftOOO l- siU... PRODUCED BY FORD