Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:39:41.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scanning Electron Microscopy and Transmitted Electron Backscatter Diffraction Examination of Asbestos Standard Reference Materials, Amphibole Particles of Differing Morphology, and Particle Phase Discrimination from Talc Ores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2014

Bryan R. Bandli  and
Mickey E. Gunter
Bryan R. Bandli*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Minnesota, Duluth, 1114 Kirby Dr., 229 Heller Hall, Duluth, MN 55812, USA
Mickey E. Gunter
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, MS 3022, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
*
*Corresponding authors.bbandli@d.umn.edu
Get access

Abstract

Since 1972, when the US Occupational Health and Safety Administration established the first limits on occupational exposure to asbestos fibers, numerous analytical methods employing several microscopy techniques have been developed to identify a group of minerals defined by legislation as asbestos. While transmission electron microscopy (TEM) is implemented in standardized analytical methods, these methods specify the use of selected area electron diffraction. Because of this constraint, the diffraction data a TEM can provide are often underutilized due to challenges associated with collecting and interpreting individual diffraction patterns. It has been shown that transmission electron backscatter diffraction (tEBSD) produces diffraction patterns nearly identical to electron backscatter diffraction, but from smaller crystal domains. This paper explores the utility of tEBSD for characterization of asbestiform particles from reference asbestos materials, a suite of amphibole minerals of varying morphologies to determine if there is a correlation between mineral habit (i.e., crystal form), microscopic particle shape preferred orientation, and mineral specimens from an industrial talc deposit to provide a case study of the utility and limitations of the technique.

Keywords

scanning electron microscopyenergy dispersive spectroscopytransmission electron backscatter diffractionparticulateasbestos
Type
Materials Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 20 , Issue 6 , December 2014 , pp. 1805 - 1816
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bandli, B.R. & Gunter, M.E. (2001). Identification and characterization of mineral and asbestos particles using the spindle stage and the scanning electron microscope: The Libby Montana, U.S.A. amphibole-asbestos as an example. The Microscope 49, 191–199.Google Scholar
Bandli, B.R. & Gunter, M.E. (2012). Electron backscatter diffraction from unpolished particulate specimens: Examples of particle identification and application to inhalable mineral particulate identification. Am Mineral 97, 1269–1273.Google Scholar
Bandli, B.R. & Gunter, M.E. (2013). Mineral identification using electron backscatter diffraction from unpolished specimens: Applications for rapid asbestos identification. The Microscope 61, 37–45.Google Scholar
Blanford, C.F. & Carter, C.B. (2003). Electron radiation damage of MCM-41 and related materials. Microsc Microanal 9, 245–263.Google Scholar
Brodusch, N., Demers, H., Trudeau, M. & Gauvin, R. (2013). Acquisition parameters optimization of a transmission electron forward scatter diffraction system in a cold-field emission scanning electron microscope for nanomaterials characterization. Scanning 35, 375–386.Google Scholar
Brown, B. M., & Gunter, M. E. (2003). Morphological and optical characterization of amphiboles from Libby, Montana USA by spindle stage assisted-polarized light microscopy. Microscope 51, 121–140.Google Scholar
Dingley, D.J. & Wright, S.I. (2009). Phase identification through symmetry determination in EBSD patterns. In Electron Backscatter Diffraction in Materials Science, Schwartz A.J., Kumar M., Adams B.L. & Field D.P. (Eds.), pp. 97–107. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Dorling, M. & Zussman, J. (1987). Characteristics of asbestiform and non-asbestiform calcic amphiboles. Lithos 20, 469–489.Google Scholar
El-Dasher, B. & Deal, A. (2009). Application of electron backscatter diffraction to phase identification. In Electron Backscatter Diffraction in Materials Science, Schwartz A.J., Kumar M., Adams B.L. & Field D.P. (Eds.), pp. 97–107. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, M.M. (2012). Pneumoconiosis and malignant mesothelioma in a family operated metal casting business that used industrial talc from New York state. Am J Ind Med 55, 863–868.Google Scholar
Gamble, J.F. & Gibbs, G.W. (2008). An evaluation of the risks of lung cancer and mesothelioma from exposure to amphibole cleavage fragments. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 52, S154–S186.Google Scholar
Gunter, M.E. (2010). Defining asbestos: Differences between the built and natural environments. Chimia 64, 747–752.Google Scholar
Gunter, M.E., Belluso, E. & Mottana, A. (2007). Amphiboles: Environmental and health concerns. In Amphiboles: Crystal Chemistry, Occurrences, and Health Concerns, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, vol. 67. Hawthorne, F.C., Oberti, R., Della Ventura, G. & Mottana, A. (Eds.), pp. 453–516. Chantilly, VA: Mineralogical Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, M., Lee, E.G., Doorn, S.S. & Hammond, O. (2008). Differentiating non-asbestiform amphibole and amphibole asbestos by size characteristics. J Occup Environ Hyg 5, 761–770.Google Scholar
Hull, M.J., Abraham, J.L. & Case, B.W. (2002). Mesothelioma among workers in asbestiform fiber-bearing talc mines in New York state. Ann Occup Hyg 46, 132–135.Google Scholar
Ilgren, E.B. (2004). The biology of cleavage fragments: A brief synthesis and analysis of current knowledge. Indoor Built Environ 13, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, A.M. (2008). Identification and enumeration of asbestos fibers in the mining environment: Mission and modification of the federal asbestos standard. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 52, S207–S217.Google Scholar
Langer, A.M., Nolan, R.P. & Addison, J. ( 1991). Distinguishing between amphibole asbestos fibers and elongate cleavage fragments of their non-asbestos analogues. In Mechanisms in Fibre Carcinogenesis, Brown, R.C., Hoskins, J.A. & Johnson, N.F. (Eds.), pp. 253–267. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
McNamee, B.D. & Gunter, M.E. (2013). Compositional analysis and morphological relationships of amphiboles, talc, and other minerals found in the talc deposits from the Gouverneur Mining District, New York (Part 1 of 2). The Microscope 61, 147–161.Google Scholar
McNamee, B.D. & Gunter, M.E. (2014). Compositional analysis and morphological relationships of amphiboles, talc, and other minerals found in the talc deposits from the Gouverneur Mining District, New York (Part 2 of 2). The Microscope 62, 3–13.Google Scholar
Millette, J.R. (2012). Asbestos analysis methods. In Asbestos: Risk Assessment, Epidemiology, and Health Effects, Hammar, S.P. & Dodson, R.F. (Eds.), pp. 23–48. CRC, Boca Raton/Florida: CRC/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Millette, J.R. & Bandli, B.R. (2005). Asbestos identification using available standard methods. The Microscope 53, 179–185.Google Scholar
Nolan, R.P., Gamble, J.F. & Gibbs, G.W. (2013). Letter to the Editor on Commentary: Malignant mesothelioma incidence among talc minerals and millers in New York state by MM Finkelstein. Am J Ind Med 56, 1116–1118.Google Scholar
Price, B. (2010). Industrial-grade talc exposure and the risk of mesothelioma. Crit Rev Toxicol 40, 513–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanchez, M.S., Lee, R.J. & Orden, D.V. (2008). Extinction characteristics of six tremolites with differing morphologies. The Microscope 56, 13–27.Google Scholar
Thompson, B.D., Gunter, M.E. & Wilson, M.A. (2011). Amphibole asbestos soil contamination in the USA: A matter of definition. Am Mineral 96, 690–693.Google Scholar
Trimby, P.W. (2012). Orientation mapping of nanostructured materials using transmission Kikuchi diffraction in the scanning electron microscope. Ultramicroscopy 120, 16–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Gosen, B.S., Lowers, H.A., Sutley, S.J. & Gent, C.A. (2004). Using the geologic setting of talc deposits as an indicator of amphibole asbestos content. Environ Geol (Heidelberg, Ger) 45, 920–939.Google Scholar
Van Orden, D.R., Allison, K.A. & Lee, R.J. (2008). Differentiating amphibole asbestos from non-asbestos in a complex mineral environment. Indoor Built Environ 17, 58–68.Google Scholar
Virta, R.L. (1985). The Phase Relationships of Talc and Amphiboles in a Fibrous Talc Sample vol. 8923, Report of Investigations Pittsburgh, PA: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines.Google Scholar
Williams, C., Dell, L., Adams, R., Rose, T. & Van Orden, D. (2012). State-of-the-science assessment of non-asbestos amphibole exposure: Is there a cancer risk? Environ Geochem Health 35, 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamate, G., Agarwal, S.C. & Gibbons, R.D. (1984). Methodology for the Measurement of Airborne Asbestos by Electron Microscopy. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar