Correct Identification Of Chrysotile Asbestos In Ores

During the 1980’s, laboratories opened throughout the United States to serve the analysis needs of a rapidly growing asbestos abatement industry. The samples analyzed were either collected during the abatement of known asbestos-containing materials or were suspect asbestos-containing construction materials. Many asbestos analysts received minimal training and used analytical protocols that were industry specific. False positives (reporting a sample as containing asbestos when none is present) went unnoticed or had minor repercussions. The mindset of the industry was to err on the conservative side – it would be better to identify a non-asbestos fiber as asbestos than visa versa. With growing public awareness of the health hazards of asbestos, other materials began to be tested for asbestos content. Rock and ores began to be tested for naturally occurring asbestos by these laboratories using the same protocols or an in-house protocol. Analysts were given no additional training and accreditation, in most cases, it was not required. With no consistency in sample collection, testing protocol or expertise in analysis, significant discrepancies in final results can be expected. If we further complicate this scenario with misidentification of naturally occurring look-a-likes for asbestos, expensive false positives are likely. To avoid the repercussions of misidentification of naturally occurring chrysotile asbestos from look-a-like fibers in rock and ores, correct sampling and analysis protocols with more stringent scientific diagnostic criteria are needed.